US issued ultimatum to Iran via Russia, page 1

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:36 AM

link

US issued ultimatum to Iran via Russia

www.ynetnews.com

The US has asked Moscow to warn Iran that it has one last chance to resolve the nuclear crisis peacefully or face an attack in the coming months, Russian diplomatic sources told the Kommersant daily.

The Russian newspaper quoted one diplomat as saying that the threat was voiced by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a meeting with her Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in New York on Monday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

CALGARIAN

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:36 AM

link

I recall lots of interviews over the last few weeks, with senior current and ex American military personnel stating that a very stern message with need to come from a 3rd party such as Russia or China to be taken seriously by the Iranian gov't.

(As if U.S ACC's in the Gulf wasn't a clear enough signal)

Although, it's coming from Hillary this may be her most stern warning.

www.ynetnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Chewingonmushrooms

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:40 AM

link

They have been hell bent on attacking Iran at all costs. Obama is trying to appear like he has exhusted all options (for his base's sake) but lets not fool ourselves as both you and I know that he has gotten his directive on that matter.

sheepslayer247

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:43 AM

link

Nuclear crisis?

I didn't know there was a nuclear crisis!

It's funny how it wasn't but 50 some years ago we had the Cuban missile crisis with Russia and now we are asking Russia to help with the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Fear....fear....fear....everything is a crisis. But I still am not buying it.

Xcathdra

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:45 AM

link

reply to post by CALGARIAN

Its definitely interesting... It touches on a few areas that were normally independent until now. Knowing Russia is against military action on Syria, any conversation with them by the US must have been frank and open so there were no misunderstandings on the message to be delivered.

It suggests that the US may have given a time frame to Russia on the topic. I am curious how much of Russia's cooperation has come from the recent initiatives by the West to re-engage Iran in talks to resolve the situation. Iran appears to be stalling for time, which is supported by their willingness to talk about topics to talk about.

I think the engagement approach by the West this go around has an ulterior motive for it. Iran kept stating they wanted to talk and negotiate, and the West gave them that. Iran must now either put up or shut up - lose lose for them in either case.

Obama is also working with Russia on the ABM system again, including adding in Russia radars to the system as well as possibly giving them velocity burn out rates for the interceptor missiles.

I think Iran is running out of time, and with their recent actions I think Russia is coming to the end of the line as well standing up for them. At some point they - Russians - have to ask themselves at what point do the unhitch the wagon.

Everything else aside, we are certainly trying to use all options before the military option. Enlisting the aid of Russia might help resolve the issue if they can get Iran to listen to reason.

edit on 14-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

SloAnPainful

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:47 AM

link

Don't take this the wrong way but Iran is stubburn. You really think they are going to give up their "peaceful" nuclear bases? I sure as hell don't. Iran has no reason to, and there has been ZERO proof that they are making nuclear weapons. The West need UNTANGIBLE proof of a nuclear weapon before a strike, otherwise it'll be Iraq all over again.

-SAP-

edit on 14-3-2012 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)

Xcathdra

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:50 AM

link

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
Don' take this the wrong way but Iran is stubburn. You really think they are going to give up their "peaceful" nuclear bases? I sure as hell don't. Iran has no reason to, and there has been ZERO proof that they are making nuclear weapons. The West need UNTANGIBLE proof of a nuclear weapon before a strike, otherwise it'll be Iraq all over again.

-SAP-

For the umpteenth billionth time, the West has stated time and again Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons. What the West HAS been saying revolves around Iran's enrichment program and their ability to produce them on short notice.

It has always been about verification of the programs Iran has in place.

To the other poster - I just dont get it..

You guy's complain the US uses military force to often. Obama has done anything but use the military option, and now thats classified as an excuse to rush to war?

edit on 14-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

bitfreak

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:57 AM

link

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
Don' take this the wrong way but Iran is stubburn. You really think they are going to give up their "peaceful" nuclear bases? I sure as hell don't. Iran has no reason to, and there has been ZERO proof that they are making nuclear weapons. The West need UNTANGIBLE proof of a nuclear weapon before a strike, otherwise it'll be Iraq all over again.

-SAP-

For the umpteenth billionth time, the West has stated time and again Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons. What the West HAS been saying revolves around Iran's enrichment program and their ability to produce them on short notice.

Doesn't a nuclear power plant require an enrichment program? "The West" is basically trying to tell them not only can they not have nuclear weapons, they aren't even allowed to have nuclear power. That to me is absurd. When they have proof of their nuclear bomb program give me a buzz. Until then this whole commotion is absolutely unfounded.

edit on 14-3-2012 by bitfreak because: (no reason given)

Chewingonmushrooms

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:58 AM

link

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
Don' take this the wrong way but Iran is stubburn. You really think they are going to give up their "peaceful" nuclear bases? I sure as hell don't. Iran has no reason to, and there has been ZERO proof that they are making nuclear weapons. The West need UNTANGIBLE proof of a nuclear weapon before a strike, otherwise it'll be Iraq all over again.

-SAP-

For the umpteenth billionth time, the West has stated time and again Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons. What the West HAS been saying revolves around Iran's enrichment program and their ability[,i] to produce them on short notice.

It has always been about verification of the programs Iran has in place.

To the other poster - I just dont get it..

You guy's complain the US uses military force to often. Obama has done anything but use the military option, and now thats classified as an excuse to rush to war?

So this isn't about a direct nuclear threat (or direct threat of having nuclear weapons), but rather the possibility of having the stand by capability of being able to hastely build nuclear weapons?

spy66

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link

This is going to be a disaster. I feel sorry for the thousands of US service men and women who have to sacrifice and die just because of this political madness from both sides.

Is a war with Iran the will of the American people or the will of a few elected?

Xcathdra

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link

reply to post by bitfreak

It does... Currently Iran is enriching at 3-%.

Power generating reactors require 1%-5% +/-
Medical research reactors require 12%-19% +/-

Iran does not have the infrastructure that requires medical enrichment to the max point.

Also, 20% enrichment is the baseline for the Highly enriched uranium portion. 85% is the standard used for nuclear weapons however 20% is enough to create a nuclear detonation.

I will try and find the article and post it. In it Ahmadinejad stated he duid not understand the concern over enrichment, stating they had the ability to reach 85%.

Its about verification and ability.

reply to post by spy66

Where do you get those casualty numbers from air strikes? I see people making this comment all the time.. Its been about air strikes, not invasion.

ETA - Ahmadinejad says Tehran ready to enrich uranium to 80% purity

REUTERS - Iran is now able to enrich uranium to more than 80 percent purity, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday, coming close to levels experts say would be needed for a nuclear bomb.

He told a huge flag-waving crowd on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iran does not want to produce a nuclear bomb but if it ever did, it would do so publicly, a response to Western concerns that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability in secret.

Check link for remainder of article.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

bigyin

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link

Originally posted by spy66
This is going to be a disaster. I feel sorry for the thousands of US service men and women who have to sacrifice and die just because of this political madness from both sides.

Is a war with Iran the will of the American people or the will of a few elected?

Neither IMO, it's the will of Israel.

2nd

spy66

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link

reply to post by Xcathdra

It will start out with air and missile strikes but it will go further than that. Iran will retaliate against US bases and other locations in the region. This is not going to be a one way missile exchange.

spy66

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by spy66
This is going to be a disaster. I feel sorry for the thousands of US service men and women who have to sacrifice and die just because of this political madness from both sides.

Is a war with Iran the will of the American people or the will of a few elected?

Neither IMO, it's the will of Israel.

2nd

And the will of the elected US officials. At least according to the message the OP presented. Obama and Hillary are Americans.

Xcathdra

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Xcathdra

It will start out with air and missile strikes but it will go further than that. Iran will retaliate against US bases and other locations in the region. This is not going to be a one way missile exchange.

So what you are saying is diplomacy will fail? You have not even given the recent diplomatic overtures a chance to work yet, yet you are for peace? Respectfully your position doesn't make sense to me unless im misunderstanding you.

zeusorion

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link

Since the US in in debt we should back Russia and China and they should take Iran out. On the other hand it is all propaganda by the Obama administration, I voted for him because he was against the war. Who are we to say that other countries should go to war. Let them become a nuclear power. We could always end the war in the middle east with one bomb on MECA.

MDDoxs

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link

This is how global politics remains balanced and I applaud the US for choosing the correct path by attempting to go through Russia to press upon Iran the global communities concerns about its nuclear enrichment program.

Our current geopolitical environment ensures that a consensus must be reached to address global issues, to prevent any nation, regardless of size or global influence, from carrying on with whatever it wants……to extent anyways with the US.

Rocky Black

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link

reply to post by CALGARIAN

From what I hear units are on hold for deployment. Very scary indeed. I think it is about to get ugly if they do not step back quickly and take a reality check.

Rocky Black

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link

reply to post by MDDoxs

True indeed as we are bringing it right to their doors step and saying are you really ready for what is about to unfold in the middle east. This bodes very bad for Russia as the US is placing the ball back in there court saying well we gave it our all you try. Dont blame us..

Well the gig is up.

Spring is springing into action I hope all are ready. Obama knows he is going to lose this election.

pteridine

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link

Originally posted by zeusorion
Let them become a nuclear power. We could always end the war in the middle east with one bomb on MECA.

There is no reason to waste Mecca. It is the seat of a religion with fanatic followers and would do nothing but set in motion a worldwide enemy out for vengeance, one of the major strengths of Islam.
The problem that the world faces is that Iran's stated goal is to destroy Israel and foster the coming of the 12th Imam. While the 12th Imam may be Islamic dogma, the destroying Israel part affects the world. Should the holy wingnuts running Iran drop a nuke on Israel, the middle east will burn in nuclear fire. Israel will not go without a fight and the world will be at risk. Economies would collapse without middle east oil for fuels and chemicals. Expensive diesel for tractors and combines would drive up the price of food, worldwide, if it could be had at all. Fallout would stretch around the globe and thousands more would die. All of Israel's traditional enemies would be hit and their surviving populations would be starving refugees in a radioactive wasteland. Camel meat would eventually run out. One missile too many and others may join in, inciting a free-for-all. If you think life is tough now, imagine what it could be like starving in a bunker, somewhere.
Every effort should be made to prevent Iran from getting the bomb because their leadership has no concept of reality. They may be tempted to trust in Allah and we would all pay for their stupidity. If efforts fail and Iran does get the bomb, it has to be made to understand that any use will bring the world's nukes down on its head; Russia, China, US, France, and Britain will sign on and convince the bearded wonders that Iran can't host the 12 Imam, as planned, if there is no recognizable Iran left and if the planned Caliphate is too radioactive to support life for centuries.