It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Council on Foreign Relations Policy Pertaining to Iran

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:03 AM
As an avid reader, I find great value in the multitude of information
that is freely available to all of us today. With focus, one can infer the trends and policies
of our fellow leaders that will shape the near future of mankind.
These decisions are of a human nature and are pertinent to our sector of Human History.
Due to the delicacies of Existence and the Random Acts of our "Enviroment",
there has been a humble yet effective influence to the considerations of the "Statis Quo".

One healthy improvement is calculating "Exit Strategies".
This can be interpreted in various ways, and so it is.
At any rate, to remain within the boundaries of my thread title,
I will include a link to not only the CFR website, but a particular news article
found therein.
If I could, I would advise some free thinking concerning paragraph 6 in particular("regardless of who wins the November Elections").

as well as the final paragraph concerning ("Hidden in Plain Sight").

Believe what you will concerning CFR, but I can vouch for them on the paper. For Real.

Freedom of Speech is yours.

I believe that we should argue for "Freedom of Thought" as well.


Link to Article:

Best Regards to all of you good people here on ATS

edit on 19-10-2012 by Wildmanimal because: Add In Content/Specify

edit on 19-10-2012 by Wildmanimal because: Typo

edit on 19-10-2012 by Wildmanimal because: Add Content

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:09 AM
You know I havent really been following the whole "nuclear Iran" business, so my question is: What evidence does the United States have that shows that these nuclear sites in Iran are nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power plants?

I sure hope that the US or Israel dont adopt a "preemptive nuclear strike" policy like in ABC's new show "Last Resort". I personally dont think that nuking a nuke will solve any problems.

Also shouldnt the Iranians have the right to there own nukes? It seems the United states still has them as a "nuclear deterrence". So wouldn't it be necessary to acquire nuclear weapons to become a first world country?

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:14 AM
It is good to see the CFR taking a more rounded and realistic approach to Foreign Relations. It does look like the ongoing mess in Syria has defined a change in the global approach to Middle Eastern affairs and no longer so one sided.

In terms of paragraph 6, negotiations is where it is at. Once the talking stops the killing starts. As for the sanctions against Iran I do view it as detrimental, when people have nothing to live for they have more to fight for. The main priority with the Iran nuclear issue is getting the chemical signatures, every batch is different. If the fuel is made in secret then no one knows where it came from and any use of these weapons will have the perpetrators remaining in doubt.

With the signatures of weapons known it takes away any backdoor attacks and exposes Iran to global judgment if it chooses to use its option. An option of last resort that that has preserved sovereignty in difficult circumstances. With such a difficult and complex issue, hiding in plane sight works for me. With the reality of global diplomacy, deception is part of the game and trust is in short supply. With oversight from the UN security Council, the more impartial the CFR can be to more respect to it.

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by Renegade2283

I am not aware of any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but considering the strategic advantage and defensive capabilities I would be surprised if they where not. I also agree that a first strike is not the answer and excessive force. With Romney's support for Israel and attitude towards Russia I consider the risk of such action higher than compared to Obama.

North Korea has nukes, but is not a first world country. It does maintain its sovereignty in a difficult situation and in defiance against larger nations. In terms of reunification of Korea it does create problems, but there are many issues here and another topic.

Having nukes is a massive responsibility, so in some ways it is good Israel has been giving Iran a hard time and provided many set backs as Iran has been improving its security standards. Having a stockpile that some rogue group can hack, steal or subvert creates a lot of head aches all round with a strong possibility for massive blow back. Being a holder of nuclear weapons is not something that should be given lightly, but if a nation can demonstrate enough responsibility, strength, security and stability then I am open to consideration. Wither nor not Iran has all the attributes required to manage these weapons successfully is a topic of contention.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by Renegade2283

To answer your questions as you have presented them would be a subjective reply
on my behalf. What I was attempting to present with this post, was a focus on Policy.
I do have some opinions on this matter,yet I believe that they might detract from
the principle of the topic. The focus was on the idea that Policy never changes.
It takes a great deal of leverage and intent to change Policy.
Solid intelligence and up to the nanosecond imformation is required and proof thereof.
Thanks for your attention.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by kwakakev

That was a very healthy and interesting observation on your behalf.
Thanks for the "Food for Thought", and your reply.

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by kwakakev

Sometimes having, is most definately not the same as wanting.
As you have mentioned, the weight of such ownership can be the backbreaker.

Best Regards

new topics

top topics


log in