Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The thread title is misleading since no where in the article does it mention a preemptive strike.

First paragraph

LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes

Israel may be contemplating a military strike against nuclear facilities,

“Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”

Guess I read a different article

No, we read the same article, but you're reading comprehension is selective.

From the content YOU quoted.

As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes

Look up the words reported and could, then find out what they mean. While you're doing that, look at the maybes and and semi official references and other propaganda this article is riddled with. This article contains nothing of substance if you bother to actually read it.

Iran has already been taking "pre-emptive action against perceived foes" such as cutting England and France from oil supplies. Just because this article portrays it as a threat of violence it doesn't mean this is what they meant.

“Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”

In the real world, most people know this could mean anything, including economic warfare, such as only selling oil to non hostile countries such as India, Japan, China...etc. It's not a definite threat of "attack" even though Iran has been under attack for quite a while now.

As I said in the previous post that you quoted, Iran has been suffering acts of aggression on it's existence by various nations, particularly Israel and the U.S.

The spin in this article does not appear to be valid, especially considering recent events. I'm sorry to see you've been fooled it's trigger words.

Guess I read a different article

Read it again

Originally posted by TimesUp

Originally posted by bknapple32
Honestly, the answer is simple here. Total worldwide nuclear disarmament.

There is only one way that would ever, ever happen.
Aliens show up and after a little 'round the world "shock and awe" and demand all nukes to be handed over.
This could also be pulled off by us using hologram technology.
Once the nukes are off the table, then the rest of the weapons are turned in.
Once we all look like England, then the bankers should have no problem sealing the deal. Any country that doesn't want to "buy into it" can be eliminated by the aliens for hording weapons.

Sounds good, but I don't see anybody giving any weapons up. Without a global conflict that is sure to be nuclear, the 4th Iman or Jesus won't be returning to save the day (depending on your religion). I'm a Christian and the war described in the Bible sounds to be nuclear.

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
reply to post by bknapple32

 

before the nuke we had 2 world wars within 30 years. only a nuke can put an end to that kind of warring, do you disagree with this?
yeah we've had many wars since but nothing at the scale of what we've had in pre-nuke earth.
the only countries that get invaded these days are countries without nukes, but i wouldn't recomend letting them al have nukes but you must understand why they would want them, its not simply to blow their enemies to tiny peices, its to secure thier countries from invasion.

ps..none of your examples are nuclear countries so that doesnt disprove anything.

edit on 21/2/2012 by listerofsmeg because: (no reason given)

Yeah, it's been a while since a world war. The stakes are higher and this has put it off but it is in humanity's nature to war over something. This time it will be a scorched earth (put intended) war. People like their divisions and particularly like enforcing their truths on others. My religion is right! My politics are right! My very minor difference of opinion is right!!! You name it."Only my truths can exist" is the mentality of people.

Imagine if ATS members had nukes. How many times would the people on ATS have launched because somebody didn't agree that they were right?

On a more boring note it is a common intellect problem. I mean, you wouldn't verbally assault a bunch of monkeys because they didn't agree with you. What would be the point. Nor would you waste much time trying to convince an alien that all the other ATS members are tarded and you are the only bright star in night sky. If however you are like me and my ex you'd argue all the time and waste hours trying to get them to adopt your perspective. We were too much alike and it was a good thing we didn't have nukes...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Sooooo.. Since you dispute Irans intent, even though its clearly stated in the article, what do you think its means? That Iran is going to send Israel a big ole bouquet of ooopsy daisy's?

Iran is just awesome lol... So Iran says they will launch a preemptive action if they feel threatened. I guess that means Israel then is entitled to do the same. Even more so with Irans continued aggressive attitude towards Israel.

I think it is safe to say the world knows Israel is capable of preemptive action. Hell, they have a reputation of it. Truth of the matter is that whomever throws the first punch has got an advantage. Israel wasn't much interested in the threats thrown their way just prior to the 6 day war. They acted preemptively and the history books tell how that ended. If you are on the playground and a bully is about to beat your ass then it's probably a good idea to take a swing first. You have tons to gain and nothing to loose. If you wait for him to hit you then you will definitely get your ass beat.

i want the opposite. all nations should have icbm's and enough nuclear weapons to destroy any nation on earth.

no two nations with nuclear weapons have gone to war with each other since it's invention.

it is the ultimate deterrent. that is why the few nuclear powers are desperately trying not allow nations to join that exclusive club of untouchables.

i want the opposite. all nations should have icbm's and enough nuclear weapons to destroy any nation on earth.

no two nations with nuclear weapons have gone to war with each other since it's invention.

it is the ultimate deterrent. that is why the few nuclear powers are desperately trying not allow nations to join that exclusive club of untouchables.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened.

Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said on Tuesday: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Reuters reported

Sooooo.. Since you dispute Irans intent, even though its clearly stated in the article, what do you think its means? That Iran is going to send Israel a big ole bouquet of ooopsy daisy's?

Iran is just awesome lol... So Iran says they will launch a preemptive action if they feel threatened. I guess that means Israel then is entitled to do the same. Even more so with Irans continued aggressive attitude towards Israel.

Definition of PREEMPTIVE



1

a: of or relating to preemption b: having power to preempt


2

of a bid in bridge: higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents


3

: giving a stockholder first option to purchase new stock in an amount proportionate to his existing holdings


4

: marked by the seizing of the initiative : initiated by oneself

— pre·emp·tive·lyadverb

Iran warns of pre-emptive strike
Iran Threatens Pre-Emptive Strikes As UN Team Begins Talks Over Nuclear Programme

No matter how much you try to spin it, Iran is referring to military action. We know this because they have already taken actions against EU countries with regards to Oil. Iran is not going to cut oil and then state a few days later they reserve the right to take preemptive actions if they feel threatened.

Wife of Assassinated Scientist: Annihilation of Israel "Mostafa's Ultimate Goal

"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.

Yup.. nothing but peaceful intentions towards Israel...

Commander: Iran to Respond to Enemy Aggressions by All Possible Means

Speaking to FNA on Tuesday, Deputy Head of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces for Logistic and Industrial Research General Mohammad Hejazi pointed to Iran's latest strategy to embark on posing threats in response to enemy threats, and explained that the strategy means "we will no more wait to see enemy action against us".

"Given this strategy, we will make use of all our means to protect our national interests and hit a retaliatory blow at them whenever we feel that enemies want to endanger our national interests," Hejazi noted.

As regards Israeli officials' war rhetoric against Iran, Hejazi said, "We enjoy the ability to show them all types of confrontation in case of a foolish act by the Zionist regime (of Israel)."

Yup.. Surely Iran MUST be talking about letters of protest... They couldn't possibly mean preemptive military actions against other nations..

/end sarcasm

Are you coming up with the spin all on your own, or do you have support from the same Iranians who are incapable of translating their own language correctly? No wait.. let me guess, this article from Farsnews mistranslated / misquoted the official right?

reply to post by Apollumi


We are in agreement for the most part. I just find it humorous that Iran is claiming the "feel threatened and reserve the right to preemptively attack" while constantly calling for attacks on / death of / destruction of Israel. There has never been any question on Iran's right to nuclear energy and the US and west have made that clear time and time again.

The main issue is the enrichment. 20% is over the needed level for research reactors, and is way over the level for light water power generation. It is however the base minimum needed in order to achieve a nuclear explosion and since the 20% or higher is beyond the needs of Iran, since they claim their program is peaceful, why the need for the higher enrichment?

I still think Iran is doing nothing but stalling for time and nothing more. The only thing enjoyable out of this is watching people offering up excuse after excuse to justify the Iranians position by arguing the same misinformation the Iranian government uses.

I stopped at NYTimes.
If its coming from ANY American source of so-called media,its propagada.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

The main issue is the enrichment. 20% is over the needed level for research reactors, and is way over the level for light water power generation.
The only thing enjoyable out of this is watching people offering up excuse after excuse to justify the Iranians position by arguing the same misinformation the Iranian government uses.

No, as usual you try to deflect from the truth,
The thread is about if Iran feels cornered enough to feel the need to strike first, READ the OP.

Its nice you can enjoyment out of the possibility of innocents dying, you sick sack........................

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Yup and I stated if Iran feels they can do that then Israel has every right to launch a preemptive attack on Iran. More so because Iran likes to constantly run their mouth about Israel and calling for its destruction.

The enrichment is the key issue with the west and Israel, because its the baseline for being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Im sorry you are so close minded and blinded by hatred and ignorance that you just cant see that. The people being hurt are the Iranian people, and its the fault of their own government. Lying by stating I want to see innocent people killed is just sad on your part. Are you that incapable of engaging in a conversation / debate without having to derail it because of your own ignorance on the topic?

Try to pay attention and stay on topic please.. This is a serious issue and shouldn't be sidelined simply because you don't like / are uneducated on the topics.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by theBigToe

 

Well that's too bad, you'd find no such comments from myself. I debate using information, not personal attack tactics and emotionally charged arguments.

But then again, everybody I ask to debate the Iran issue says they could do it, but don't want to. Kind of ironic if you ask me.

Until somebody can provide information that states to the contrary, I will continue to state that Iran's nuclear program is energy based, not weapons based.

There are no facts to state otherwise.

~Tenth

Hey "to the tenth"... I'm kinda following along in this thread as this situation is of great interest... adn I do hope you're correct in your assessment of Iran as I would rather not see another war or military action anywhere on the globe.

However, to be honest I respectfully disagree with your opinon of Iran as a peaceful non agressive nation.

Although I have not searched for source material at this moment, being my minor in college was world history I do feel confident in stating that throughout written history, from ancient until current day Iran has not been represented as a non agressor and peaceful folks who just want to live and let live.

I present for your inspection, just two of the dozens of attacks by Persia on surrounding countries, e.g. the famous Battle of Marathon in which the Greeks ultimately defeated the invading Persians and then the second Persian invasion which was, the Battle of Thermopylae, which was ultimately won due to a turn coat greek leading the Persians thru the mountains to the rear of the Spartan lines, otherwise it is likely the Persians would have again lost, especially given that the Persian navy was destroyed by Themistocles and the Greek navy.

Employing primary source materials and what now is seen by most in the world as history, Iran has finacially supported Hezbollah and Hamas. As many countries including the US always strives for plausible denial and we all know every country in the world uses propoganda and BS, including Iran and the US, the fact remains, there is as much proof of Irans finacial ties to terrorist organizations as there is proof against it.

But to my question, WHY, if all Iran seeks is a peaceful co-existence with their neighbors and the right to use nuclear generated electricty to improve the countries instrastructure and the quality of life for their peoples, do they then turn down offers by other countries to sell them the peaceful material needed to make their electric generating reactors?

History IMHO does not support a peaceful Iran and an old saying says a 'leopard seldom changes it spots'.

reply to post by Xcathdra


It's nice to see you bought the spin too...

This was just on CNN, and their spin was even worse, you should check it out.

IF Iran were to strike, it would not be preemptive due to the acts of war they have been subjected to by their aggressors. Of course, you are too preoccupied with your jingoistic delusions that you cannot even properly read a propaganda piece

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Of course, you are too preoccupied with your jingoistic delusions that you cannot even properly read a propaganda piece

Oh I dont know about that since I read your posts.

As far as your CNN comment you really need to read peoples posts in their entirety since my argument was based on Iran's comments about preemptive strikes. You are the one who likes to play the "can you tell me what the definition of is is" game.

Your argument reminds me of the arguments out forth in the thread where Hamas purposely targeted and fired a missile at an Israeli school bus. The entire counter argument was on the term laser guided instead of where it belonged, which was discussing Hamas actions. Instead of the debate / discussion the same people over and over and over kept bringing up the most trivial and nonsensical points in order to derail the conversation and bury the facts - just as you have been doing.

Also, if you are going to continue to try and argue preemptive doesn't mean military, then people really should quit claiming the West committed and act of war by refusing to do business with Iran and persuading other nations to follow suit.

Its a military action they are referring to and no amount of spin is going to change that.

I love how Iran said they were ready to talk and two days later they told the U.N. but we wont let you in to see our nuclear sites and talking about them is off the table. I am glad the U.N. did not let them drag that issue out and then called them out on their lies.

It is Iran who wants to start a war, not Israel or the U.S.

Iran has had eight years to come clean and make a deal for peace or prove to the U.N. inspectors that it is not building a bomb.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
No, as usual you try to deflect from the truth,

The thread is about if Iran feels cornered enough to feel the need to strike first, READ the OP.

Its nice you can enjoyment out of the possibility of innocents dying, you sick sack........................

So, if Iran simply feels cornered, it's OK by you for them to just kick off the whole game and start laying waste, huh??

It's nice you can get enjoyment out of the possibility of innocents dying, you sick sack.........

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge


The basic point is the reactors that Iran got from NPT treaty have to be transparent to the world regarding uranium enrichment and other issues. However, the reactors that Iran built themselves, they have every right to keep secret from outside inspections. Iran does not want war and especially with the West.

However, it would not be very difficult for a Squadron of F-22s and F-35s to penetrate Iranian airspace and bomb and repeat bomb 5-10 chosen nuke sites. Infact it would not be difficult at all and whole mission of bombing should take only 2-3 minutes (not including the travel from and return to base). The West is afraid of what Iran will do in retaliation. They might unload all their missiles on Israel and attack the US ships in the region and attack the US allies like UAE, Quatar and Saudi. Then this will turn into war of attrition and given the Israel factor, other powers like Egypt, Iraq, Turkey might join the Iran side and turn it all into a mini world war. Forgot to mention Syria and Lebanan which will join in within 5 minutes of the first bomb going over Tehran.

What this might do to the global economy is another fear factor coupled with prolonged global recession, which already has another sword of European economic mess looming.

www.debka.com...

Furthermore, Debka reports that Isreal presumes only 6 more weeks needed for Iran to be able to make a bomb.
Something messy is just around the corner.

If Israel and the US do go a head and bomb these nuclear power plants, they will breach IAEAs resolution number 533. And set millions of peoples lives in danger. This will make the Japanese incident seam like peanuts.

It is illegal to attack Iran's nuclear installations.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The main issue is the enrichment. 20% is over the needed level for research reactors, and is way over the level for light water power generation. It is however the base minimum needed in order to achieve a nuclear explosion and since the 20% or higher is beyond the needs of Iran, since they claim their program is peaceful, why the need for the higher enrichment?

If you have been following this since the beginning, you would know that they are claiming that they are using their enrichment facilities for power generation and for medical research.

Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.

Link

Molybdenum-99 is produced commercially by intense neutron-bombardment of a highly purified uranium-235 target, followed rapidly by extraction. It is used as a parent radioisotope in technetium-99m generators to produce the even shorter-lived daughter isotope technetium-99m, which is used in many medical procedures.

Link
Nuclear medicine
Nuclear medicine needs HEU. HEU is by it's definition, over 20%.
I don't know that they are not planning on developing nuclear weapons in the future, but, why can't we take it at face value? Remember Iraq's (cue scary music) WMD's?

reply to post by superman2012


Your missing the point about the enrichment concern.

* - concentration of 0.9% to 2% - Heavy Water reactors us this enrichment level.
* - Light water reactors require - 3% - 5% enrichment
* - Research reactors require 12% and can run as high as 19.75% on the far end, which is below the enrichment levels of 20%, which is the level Iran enriches to.

The reason that concerns people - Its classified as highly enriched. 20% enrichment is enough for a nuclear weapon. There is no legitimate reason for Iran to be enriching to the 20% level.

Enriched Uranium levels

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable);[2][3] some argue that even less is sufficient[citation needed], but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U.[4] For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[5]