Iran Refuses to Change Nuclear Position!

reply to post by Shrukin89


I don't know for sure whether what you say is true, or to what degree it is true for specific countries or blocs. What I do know is that the stakes are piled sky-high. Where some would react by saying 'Well we'd better make sure we win then,' I regard the possibility of military intervention as a lose-lose option in terms of casualties and long-term fallout -albeit hopefully just of the political variety. 'Just' doesn't seem the right word in any case: the political consequences would involve intense global polarization. The US could itself potentially lose the support of current allies. Some argue the invasion of Iraq has already lit that particular candle...

If there are real-life warmongers within the governments putting pressure on Iran, let's hope they are heavily outnumbered by rational human beings.

Just read this, apparently Iran will use "Blitzkrieg" tactics if under attack, why would they say all this so publicly?

The chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards militia, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, also quoted by Fars, warned that his forces would use "blitzkrieg tactics" in the Gulf if his country came under attack.

"The Guards are equipped with the most advanced missiles that can strike the enemies' vessels and naval equipment with fatal blows," Fars quoted the Guards chief as saying.

Source.

I dont know if there will be a another war, but ones things for sure, if it all does kick off, its gonna get a whole lot worse.

I dont see how things will just carry on as normal if Iran gets attacked, the world will be a very different place if all hell breaks loose.

reply to post by Denied


Nice find. An interesting and bang-up-to-date article.

The following section pinpointed one of the stakes I mentioned previously:

All the countries should know that if Iran's interests in the region are ignored, it is natural we will not allow others to use it (the Hormuz Strait)," said army chief General Hassan Firouzabadi, quoted by Fars news agency.

However, Iran's armed forces joint chief of staff stressed his country's priority was that the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

The strait between Iran and Oman is a vital conduit for energy supplies, with as much as 40 percent of the world's crude passing through the strategic waterway.

Source: www.afp.com...

When you bring it down to earth it leaves you pretty speechless doesn't it?

The other element that caught my particular attention was:

Speculation has been rife that Israel could be planning a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites, using force to halt Tehran's controversial atomic activities.

Source: www.afp.com...

All I can say is that the UK media has more to say about trivia such as world hot-dog eating championships and the final episode in the current series of Dr. Who than the tinder box that is Iran.

So what will it be: ketchup or mustard?

reply to post by pause4thought


Good thoughts.

I think Michael Rivero over at www.whatreallyhappened.com has summed up the Iran vs. the West staredown quite succinctly:

"Memo to those knuckleheads in congress who actually believe nuking Iran would be such a swell idea:

1. The nuclear fuel rods are already in place at the Russian-built power plant.

The reactor is almost completely assembled. If this facility is nuked, there will be a huge radioactive cloud which could affect our troops in Iraq (depending on the prevailing winds).

2. The Gulf of Hormuz would be completely shut by the Iranians, probably collapsing the world economy.

3. Our troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks for Iranian-backed insurgents and then Iranian troops in Iraq.

4.Critical air, sea, and land corridors into and out of, Iraq will be closed, with no way to get troops or supplies to the area.

5. This little "exercise" may well start World War III.

And if I were a member of congress, there's one question on which I would have to ask, and this is the 6-ton elephant in the living room in this issue, sitting on the Steinway piano: just what is Russia prepared to do to protect her geopolitical and trade interests in Iran?"


Great thoughts from Mr. Rivero!!

Former Russian President, Vlad Putin, is an avid chess player, judo expert and former head of the KBG. [I believe he still pulls the strings behind the scenes in the Kremlin.] In the other corner . . . we have a pretzel-choking, mildly retarded frat boy. But I digress.

I'd bet money that Russia is using Ahmadinejad as a proxy to bait an arrogant U.S./Israel into attacking Iran (as well as Syria). I believe this would be payback for our baiting the USSR into invading Afghanistan via the Mujahadeen "freedom fighters"-- thereby giving the Russkies their own "Vietnam".

Russia and its allies will let the U.S./Israel overextend themselves as they unleash a big roundhouse kick to Iran's head. Meanwhile, the "evil empire" feints and counterattacks with swarming techniques (using many small attack units) and Russia's state-of-the-art asymmetrical weaponry to put the west down on the mat and wondering what happened. It will be a huge propaganda win for Russia and its allies.

Now if the west goes nuke on Iran -- all bets are off. Look for a city or three in the heartland to go away. [Better catch up on your "Jericho" re-runs.]

Oh . . . and that overused quote about "wiping Israel off the map" is pure urban legend promulgated by the corporate (and the pro-MiddleEasternCountryWhichCannotBeNamed) media echo chamber. The real translation from Farsi was something like (paraphrasing here):
"The regime which occupies Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." Doesn't sound like a mini-Hitler, does he now?

Funny thing, they aren't even Ahmadinejad's words--he was quoting a speech from Khomeini that's about thirty years old. Shuuuuhh!!

But let's not let facts get in the way of those who choose to be the "useful idiots" for the neo-cons, shall we? Got war??

reply to post by Denied


Speaking of blitzkrieg tactics, this NYTimes article discusses a recent US wargame . . . .

Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game

By THOM SHANKER, Published: January 12, 2008

[snippet]
WASHINGTON — There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

“The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.”

In the simulation, General Van Riper sent wave after wave of relatively inexpensive speedboats to charge at the costlier, more advanced fleet approaching the Persian Gulf. His force of small boats attacked with machine guns and rockets, reinforced with missiles launched from land and air. Some of the small boats were loaded with explosives to detonate alongside American warships in suicide attacks. That core tactic of swarming played out in real life last weekend, though on a much more limited scale and without any shots fired.

In the war game, scores of adversary speedboats and larger naval vessels had been shadowing and hectoring the Blue Team fleet for days. The Blue Team defenses also faced cruise missiles fired simultaneously from land and from warplanes, as well as the swarm of speedboats firing heavy machine guns and rockets — and pulling alongside to detonate explosives on board.

When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy’s firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

[end snippet]

I've posted this info before, but it bears repeating.

www.nytimes.com...

If Iran is going to be attacked anyway, why should they let it be on someone else's schedule. Why make it convenient for the attacker.When and if an attack occurs they should know they will not be shown any quarter. The US can destroy Iran, but the act itself will destroy the US economy. Foreign investors will dump the dollar and US govt. bonds. Israel loses too. With the economic demise of their #1 benefactor, they will hare no one to turn to.
The west will have to accept Iran's nuclear ambitions, or risk being plunged into total economic chaos.

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Curio


You do realize they lied about their nuclear work for nearly 20 years - in direct violation of the NPT? They have been asked time and time again to suspend their enrichment work so that their facilities can be fully inspected (on the IAEA's terms, not theirs...) and trust can be re-established. They have no excuse.

Ok then where does that leave Israel who denies they have nukes to this day and are not even on the NPT. Talk about double standards.

So, what - we're supposed to just let everybody do what they want then It's almost impossible to fully uphold international law (whatever law, not just the NPT) but you can try and do the best you can - or just not bother and let any Tom, Dick or Harry do what they want. Would you want Mugabe getting nukes? Or how about if Saddam had nukes when he invaded Kuwait? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I think Israel should be forced to come clean about their nukes as well. But it doesn't change the fact that Iran broke international law and they can't be allowed to get away with it. Or what sort of message does that send out?

And don't forget, it's not just the US and Israel that are unhappy with Iran - even Russia is concerned about their behavior!

You know, you accuse people of being "sheep" or whatever....but it cuts both ways my friend. I could say the same of people who try and blame the evil US for everything and are happy to let countries like Iran make a mockery of international law.

Regardles of what anyone thinks about Irans political system..... they have a right to nuclear energy, you can not argue this point, what makes us so much better than them that we will deny them the right to power there homes?And I seriously hope no one is going to argue that they might build nukes! we have them...so should they! If they had them and we didnt, how long do you think it would take us to build em?
So what if there a muslim country! Loads of muslim countrys already have nuclear capability!
Do you see them knocking on our door threating us?????no you dont!

reply to post by Pro-genetic


Post to controversial. Erased by author.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by son of PC]

Originally posted by Curio


So, what - we're supposed to just let everybody do what they want then

It's almost impossible to fully uphold international law (whatever law, not just the NPT) but you can try and do the best you can - or just not bother and let any Tom, Dick or Harry do what they want. Would you want Mugabe getting nukes? Or how about if Saddam had nukes when he invaded Kuwait? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Ok so your in the camp the US needs to be the worlds police. Ok then that is one area we disagree because I dont. Second off show me one international law that Iran has broken in regards to their nuclear energy.

The fact is they are part of the NPT and they allow un announced inspections whenever by the IAEA. They ARE following the law. Did they hide their program for a number of years yes they did. Did they pass any of that information illegally to other countries nope that has been North Korea and Pakistan who Pakistan is an ally somehow and N Korea we just gave them everything they asked for all carrots no stick and like I pointed out above Israel has nukes and they are not even in the NPT that is against international law last I checked.

I think you should do a little more research its not that Im America hating Im American government hating and Im trying to point out the roll of our government is not to empire build, police, and feed the world. Sorry.

Okay, then let me ask you this: If not the USA, then who? Doesnt seem like any other country is capable,willing or able to try and uphold some sort of standard on this planet. What you are saying is that every country should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want? That way of thinking sounds very immature and naive. Lets let every country have their own nukes and invade its neighbors when they see fit and lets not have anyone step in and lets just make it every man for himself. Yeah that sounds like a great world to live in. Oh so MUCH better than what we have right now.

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Curio


Ok so your in the camp the US needs to be the worlds police. Ok then that is one area we disagree because I dont. Second off show me one international law that Iran has broken in regards to their nuclear energy.

The fact is they are part of the NPT and they allow un announced inspections whenever by the IAEA. They ARE following the law. Did they hide their program for a number of years yes they did. Did they pass any of that information illegally to other countries nope that has been North Korea and Pakistan who Pakistan is an ally somehow and N Korea we just gave them everything they asked for all carrots no stick and like I pointed out above Israel has nukes and they are not even in the NPT that is against international law last I checked.

I think you should do a little more research its not that Im America hating Im American government hating and Im trying to point out the roll of our government is not to empire build, police, and feed the world. Sorry.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by princeofpeace]

It is amazing to see the propaganda machines work so effectively.

So everyone now happily supports Iran's "right" to have nuclear programs and weapons?

The argument "If we have them, Israel has them then Iran can have them too" is solid then?

Right!

Why not have equal opposition to ALL nukes no matter who has them?

Iran is not the passive peaceful nation you may think they are. The Ayatollahs would be very pleased to see nuclear attacks in both the U.S. and particularly in Israel, in fact they will likely see that happen soon.

reply to post by princeofpeace

If a new war is started, what's my end. That's what I thought. That's what I got out of it last time. The short end. Really, why should someone support another war. Because a politician stands in front of a flag before a canned audience and makes a speech. Why not just skip the audience and use an applause track.
This is ridiculous, absurd. Last time at least the people thought they would get cheap oil. Boy what a surprise. Put some of that sparkle in my pocket. Come on, what's in it for me. If people are going to get kilt, tortured, imprisoned, sodomized, I need a few bucks in my pocket to help me with my guilt.

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Curio


So, what - we're supposed to just let everybody do what they want then

It's almost impossible to fully uphold international law (whatever law, not just the NPT) but you can try and do the best you can - or just not bother and let any Tom, Dick or Harry do what they want. Would you want Mugabe getting nukes? Or how about if Saddam had nukes when he invaded Kuwait? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Ok so your in the camp the US needs to be the worlds police. Ok then that is one area we disagree because I dont. Second off show me one international law that Iran has broken in regards to their nuclear energy.

The fact is they are part of the NPT and they allow un announced inspections whenever by the IAEA. They ARE following the law. Did they hide their program for a number of years yes they did. Did they pass any of that information illegally to other countries nope that has been North Korea and Pakistan who Pakistan is an ally somehow and N Korea we just gave them everything they asked for all carrots no stick and like I pointed out above Israel has nukes and they are not even in the NPT that is against international law last I checked.

I think you should do a little more research its not that Im America hating Im American government hating and Im trying to point out the roll of our government is not to empire build, police, and feed the world. Sorry.

Firstly, I don't think the US should be the world police. That should be the UN - but they're completely and utterly useless. Short of invading another country, you can give them the run around for years while they endlessly debate. The Security Council is also a joke - the 5 veto wielding powers are totally opposed and have conflicting interests in key areas of the world. The US and Britain will always blindly side with Israel, Russia and China with Iran. Same with North Korea. How are they ever supposed to agree on a course of action? If the US is acting like the World Police maybe it's because the system is flawed and they have the means to get things done. Not saying it makes it right, but there you go.

Secondly, Iran broke international law in a fairly major way by covering up it's nuclear work for 18 years. The IAEA also found blueprints for an Atomic bomb that came from Pakistan - Iran claim this just came as part of a bundle of stuff. And don't kid yourself about the IAEA inspectors - Iran often restricts what they can and can't do and banned surprise inspections in 2006 because they were reported to the UN.

reply to post by pause4thought


Why should Iran change it's nuclear position?

1) Iran is a sovereign Nation and thus can pursue whatever plans it sees fit.

2) You are assuming that Iran's Nuclear program is strictly military. I can assure you it is mainly civilian. In spite of have immense reserves of crude Iran, due to international sanctions, economic isolation and US stupidity, has a great lack of energy. In fact Iranian economic development has been greatly impeded by the lack of energy, not to mention the constant cues for gasoline, the constant power cuts and so on.
Nuclear energy is the best, most reliable an economic way to get huge quantities of energy for industry and home usage. Instead of isolating Iran the west could contribute to a successful, and safe, civilian Nuclear program.

3) Iran is surrounded by minor nuclear powers that are its adversaries, if not enemies, in the geopolitical fight for the control of the region. So, why should Iran be the only one not to have nukes?

4) The blindness of US foreign policy as turned Iran into another Cuba. Is the USA had an open policy of talks and trade with Iran the radical Islamic government would be long gone and Iran, in its historical, tradition would now have a stable civil society, like the student rebellion of 2201 attempted. In keeping Iran isolated the west is creating a "bunker mentality" that is only contributing to the consolidation of the Religious Fanatics.

Now, do the 150+ Israeli nukes enter into this NPT treaty, or does the "International Community" just ignore them, like it does with everything concerning Israel.

Iran may be the punching bag for the self-appointed "International Community" but it hasn't violated half of the UN Resolutions that Israel is violating every day.

reply to post by Dermo


Iran has stated that they want to destroy Isreal. This is a fact. How can you say that they will not attack Isreal?

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND


Thanks for bringing a different perspective to the table. It was well written. I have to admit that when I saw 'CND' in your screen name I was expecting an argument in favour of disarmourment!

1) I have argued in favour of respecting Iran's general right to self-determination both in the OP and throughout the discussion.

2)

Instead of isolating Iran the west could contribute to a successful, and safe, civilian Nuclear program.

This is the deal Mr Ahmadinejad has just rejected:

On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

And note, this is not East v. West. The offer is backed by China, the EU, France, Russia, the UK and US.

Moreover, according to a previous contributor, devareous:

The actual deal was that the EU would supply them with the uranium for power plants,which isnt refined to weapons grade. The same offer was made to them by russia.The idea was if they had a source of non weapon grade fuel there would be no need to have enriching facilities. The enrichment facility can produce weapons grade material, hence the plan was to give them a supply line for power plant only material. But their rejection of this has many skeptical of their motives, considering they had a peaceful option and turned it down to keep their facility that could produce weapons grade material.

3) Why should Iran be kept from developing a nuclear arsenal? A fair question. I believe there is a fair answer, though: the current regime has spoken of its desire to see another state in its neighbourhood destroyed. The President personally believes a cataclysmic conflict would usher in an era of blessing foretold in his religious texts. (I posted a video presenting this evidence in a post on the first page.)

4) It appears to me that your first paragraph in this section has the ring of truth about it. Good point.

In answer to your second point I will state what I believe to be the case without necessarily agreeing with it. The international community has turned a blind eye to the Israeli nuclear arsenal as it believes it has been developed purely as a deterrent. As I say, I sit on the fence on this one - it does leave the international community open to the accusation of double standards.

Just for the record, I actually believe Israel has enjoyed blatant favouritism from the international community over several decades. At the same time I recognize that it exists in the midst of other nations hostile towards its very existence, which has helped it gain ardent support in many situations.

Perhaps if those hostile towards it backed off with the hostility it would result in Israel receiving more even-handed treatment - i.e. more pressure might be brought to bear on it with respect to its international obligations.

reply to post by pause4thought


Thanks for the feedback, just a few clarifications:

CND = an argument in favor of disarmament, Why??

The "deal" your are talking about had too many stings attached to be acceptable to the Iranians. We must not forget that the Aryan/Persian/Iranian people have a superpower mentality and thus will never accept what they perceive to be, and rightly so IMO, a foreign limitation on their sovereignty. They see themselves, due to historic reasons and mentalities, as equals to the USA, Russia, France the UK and so on...

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is seen by many as a neo-colonial treaty signed by puppet regimes. Many countries that sign it choose to ignore it, like Pakistan for example. In the new world countries like Iran, with no real allies and a lot of enemies, ask themselves, and the international community, what gives some countries the right to have nukes and denies others the same right?
Like you rightly stated the "Treaty" is backed by all the countries that have nuclear weapons and, apparently, want to keep their monopoly so that they are able to threaten any country that dares oppose them...

What is the EU? I don't know that country...
These bunch of idiots, in Brussels of all places, couldn't agree on the color of the chairs they are siting on, let alone serve as a credible force of stability in the world.

As for Iranian tough stance against Israel I wouldn't read to much into that, it's just posturing IMO. USA would destroy USSR; USSR would destroy the USA; PRC will destroy Taiwan; India will destroy Pakistan, or the other way around...
It's all, and was all, just posturing. Besides Iran knows that any attempt to destroy Israel would be their doom (the USA would make sure of that).

"The international community has turned a blind eye to the Israeli nuclear arsenal as it believes it has been developed purely as a deterrent."

Not contesting that, but why do they need so many nukes? And why do they need a nuclear deterrent (the USA could be their nuclear deterrent and would never allow the State of Israel to be destroyed). 150+ is just a calculation, based on a number of leaks, most from the French like always!!! But, even their own people don't really know the number of nukes, and the discussion of said matter in their parliament is totally forbidden, the ultimate taboo (that's a democratic society for you).

Iran as proved not to be an aggressive nation, not even under this fanatic religious cult regime. And I don't even think they really want a nuclear bomb. I think its just the sign of a week regime trying to stay afloat with a bit of patriotic fervor for the masses (that are otherwise sick and tired of it).

Again, thanks for the feedback and for the great post

P.S. I am not Iranian, Middle Eastern or in any way associated with the Great Abomination (aka Islam).

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND


'CND' is the acronym for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament!

I agree with your basic premise that the rest of the world ought to try to understand Iran's perspective.

I'll just take issue with one point. With regard to the deal currently on offer you stated:

...the "Treaty" is backed by all the countries that have nuclear weapons and, apparently, want to keep their monopoly so that they are able to threaten any country that dares oppose them...

Historically I don't believe the nuclear arsenals in question have actually been used in such a manner (i.e. to enforce their political agenda on other nations). By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Why should Iran give up their Nukes??? So when we go to invade them they're defenseless? Iran doesn't have a happy trigger finger like we do in the US, they've never provoked us in any way. So whats the big deal???