Iran & Nuclear BOMB
President Ahmadinejad's trap
by Daniel F., Feb. 8, 2006
libertyforum.org
I believe that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is goading the U.S. and Israel into attacking him. He knows he does not have sufficient military assets to attack Israel let alone America, but he knows he can win a defensive war and bring down the American empire. When America can no longer subsidize Israel, Zionism will be put to rest. I would like to make a few points about the insanity of attacking Iran.
1) Iran has Russian-made Sunburn missiles which can sink an aircraft carrier and shoot down an F-16. Are you prepared to lose all U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf? Do you realize what that loss would do to America?
2) Iran has the ability to shut down all shipping in the Gulf. Are you prepared to pay $300 to $400 for a barrel of oil?
3) Iran stopped recruiting suicide bombers when they had 40,000 volunteers. That many dedicated and educated young people could easily cut U.S. supply lines into Iraq, kill many thousands of our troops and destroy what is left of our military morale. Are you prepared to destroy the only army that is willing to defend you?
4) The air campaign against Iran would include targets 150 feet under Tehran protected by double concrete walls with lead lining. There would be enormous civilian casualties. How many suicide bombers would it take to blow up the oil refineries in your area? How many Americans would die if all the refineries in the greater Houston area were blown up? What would the price of gasoline be if oil were $300 a barrel and several dozen refineries were destroyed? What would happen to your country if gasoline were $9.00 a gallon? What percentage of Americans would not be able to afford to drive to work?
5) America does have a strategic petroleum reserve which could sustain us for a few months though we would have to build refineries to process it. China and Japan have almost 2 trillion dollars of absolutely worthless paper currency that they cannot spend. If they spent all the money they earn selling to us, the dollar would collapse from the sudden increase in circulating dollars. You must realize that raising the price of oil to $300 a barrel would destroy the dollar and the world economy. Look at a world map and ask yourself which of these countries both import oil and cannot afford to pay $300 a barrel? All of those countries will be destroyed economically and politically. And you will have no army to protect American citizens and property.
6) You must realize that your purchasing power is being propped up by China, Japan and a handful of other nations that are willing to accept absolutely worthless pieces of paper for cars, computers, and everything at Wal-Mart. Attacking Iran will bring all of those subsidies to a crashing halt. When that happens, everyone will protect themselves by dumping trillions of dollars into commodity and currency markets. I calculate that prices will go up 1,000%. That means a relatively well off pensioner with a 2005 income of $3,000 a month will have to live on $300 a month. That will not pay rent, buy food, pay for utilities and incidentals. Millions of elderly will have no choice but to commit suicide. I would expect an unemployment rate of 25% and real after tax wage cuts of 50% to 70%. Do you realize what would happen to your community if half the people could not afford to eat? Would you be willing to shoot people who had not eaten food for 3 days? a week? Would you be willing to shoot their children? Would you be willing to live in a country that did precisely that?
I repeat. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has thought this out. He knows what he is doing. He is so unwilling to live under the New World Order that he has decided to risk his life and the lives a few million Iranians. It is true that you can drop a few nukes on Iran and destroy it. But you must realize that your country will cease to exist as you knew it. Do you really want to destroy America?
Daniel F.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 17 points
ATTACKING IRAN IS A BAD IDEA
======================
All ideas ULTIMATELy need to be TESTED ....
Without testing how do you know whether it is a good idea
or bad idea.
Now there are many simulation tests program....to find of
different outcomes.
Simulation test 1.
IRAN and Nuclear BOMB is bad idea because the INTENTION of this IRAN LEADER is to wipe all countries
which do not have an ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION
( islamic revolution) from the face of the earth eventually...
WHERE is the MODERATE IRAN LEADER??????
Also there are some PEOPLE in the world who only
UNDERSTAND certain LANGUAGE "violent force language"
As they say "ONE WACK and everything will be alright"
Wacking process
1.All depends how hard or soft the wack is
2.all depends who wack whom and with what....
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 1 point
The March To War ... With Iran?
http://oldamericancentury.org/rowan_043.htm
Rowan Wolf
If you haven't gotten nervous yet about the next neoconservative Bush administration target, then you might want to perk your ears. I know that common sense says that the US is over-committed as it stands; that the push is to downsize the U.S. force in Iraq. Certainly no one could seriously propose another "regime change" at this point. Well, the rhetoric is rising and the target is clearly Iran. Not only is the rhetoric risng, the world could be looking at a Spring 2006 offensive - perhaps as early as March. Yes, next month.
Oil prices, and gold, are rising under the escalating between Challenges between Iran and the U.S./U.N. On February 4, 2006 the IAEA forwarded a draft statement on the failure of inspections to the UN Board of Governors. This is the first step in possible ratcheting up of sanctions against Iran.
In both the State of the Union address, and in succeeding speeches, Bush has "spoken" to the people of Iran:
From the Bush's Nashville speech
Last night I spoke to the people of Iran -- spoke first to the government of Iran and said, the world will continue to come together in unity to say you can't have nuclear weapons. But I also spoke to the people, because I believe that everybody desires to be free, and I just wanted to assure them that someday that they will be able to have a choice in their government, and the United States looks forward to a friendship with a free and democratic Iran.
Liberty is universal. But it's important also to understand that freedom and liberty yield the peace we all want. One reason to be active in the world is to spread peace. If the United States were to withdraw, we'd miss an opportunity to make this world a more peaceful place for generations to come.
The amazing conundrum - John McCain - is aiding the rhetoric to war by spouting "military action must remain on the table" when it comes to Iran (Cockburn, 2/05/06) Increasingly, it seems that no matter where you turn, the message is "Confrontation is in the Cards" for Iran. China and Russia are trying to drag their feet without seeming out of synch with the US.
David Sanger of the NY Times frames the escalation as a "race against time". However, Sange argues the race is to stop Iran from entering the nuclear club, as the scope of the A. Q. Khan nuclear market was vaster than expected. While I am sure that Iran's feared nuclear ambitions play a role, I believe the real concern is quite different.
Why would both oil and gold prices be inflated by the possibility of a US armed conflict with Iran? Could it purely be concerns about weaponized uranium in Iran's hands? Possibly, but there are much more proximate issues. Those reasons are Iran's oil and gas production , and Iran's decision to set up a competing oil stock exchange based on the euro.
This alternate energy exchange poses a larger threat than who gets Iran's oil and gas. The plan is set to be instituted in March 2006 - a very good reason for the US flurry of activity and rhetoric. Iran is playing the game with the "nuclear" rhetoric, but the real hope is that there is enough vested interest in euro-petro to hold off percipitous action by either the UN or the US. While those interests might hold back the bulk of the UN Security Council, it definitely threatens to accelerate US action.
Currently the world operates on the petro-dollar. Since the U.S. prints that currency, then the value of the dollar is intertwined in this critical resource. It keeps the world invested in the US dollar because the dollar collapse would dramatically effect oil and energy markets. However, if a petro-euro flies, it both strengthens the euro and offers a somewhat more attractive currency base. Iran's threat of setting up an alternate exchange based on the euro is even a bigger threat than Hussein selling Iraq's oil for euros (what is likely the final straw that lead to the US invasion of Iraq).
Of course, Iran is no small contributor to the world's oil and gas supply (oil production is 15% of the OPEC total and roughly 3,979,000 bbl/day ). Tom Doggett argues that the "World can't afford to lose Iran's oil." Indeed, in a time where supply is barely keeping pace with demand, removing 3,979,000 barrels a day from the mix is a huge deal. It is particularly a big deal for China who has become Iran's largest oil and gas customer.
So Iran's euro-based oil exchange is set to launch in March. The rush is on for the US to stop that from happening - not just delay it. Sanctions might delay the exchange's launch, but would not stop it. On the other hand, the exchange might be the cost of loosening sanctions on Iran's nuclear development. However, the US wants it all - the removal of a competing exchange, and control over Iran's nuclear power.
The rhetoric is hot and heavy, but rhetoric will not generate public support for US military action against Iran. That raises the spectre of a fabricated reason that will sell. That might be a Iran sponsored "terrorist" attack against US facilities, or what seems more likely to me - an attack against US troops in Iraq which is pinned on Iran directly. That would certainly be construed as an "act of war." The US (and world) public is too jaded to go with the fabricated reasons for invading Iraq, to be suckered again so soon. Therefore, the match will likely be an unequivocal attack. Of course, I don't think that Iran will be that accommodating. They seem to be betting on the vested interests of China, Russia, France, India, and Japan to serve as a protection from the US.
The consequences of US aggression against Iraq could be catastrophic in so many ways. Given the alliances and interests that are in place, the rising influence of China and its energy alliances (including with South American nations), and an already aroused Muslim population, we could be looking at a world war. This war would certainly be a resource war for energy, and the stakes for the US and the world are high indeed.
So the thing to watch in the coming days is not the rhetoric about Iran's nuclear aspirations, or the threat the current "regime" poses, but the status and success of implementing a competing exchange system.
Rowan Wolf is a columnist for Project for the Old American Century, and the editor of Radical Noesis and Uncommon Thought Journal .
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 14 points
Iran and the jaws of a trap
By Paul Levian
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html
Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw.
If the Iranian leaders think they can deter an attack because the US is bogged down in Iraq they are already between the jaws of a well-set trap. Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia.
The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States. In particular, the widely but wrongly discounted nuclear belligerence of President Jacques Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so.
The Iranian leadership's obvious confidence in its ability to deter the US, Britain and Israel seems to rest on mainly four assumptions. Iran is militarily much stronger than Iraq, much larger, its terrain more difficult, its society more cohesive - thus more difficult to defeat, to occupy and to pacify. In addition, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to take particular comfort from the widely anticipated wave of popular outrage and anti-Western attacks in the wider Middle East if Iran should be attacked.
Moreover, the economic costs of a war against Iran in terms of the price of oil and the interruption of the Iranian supply would propel the world economy into a tailspin. And finally, Iranian leaders seem to accept at face value the US moans over its overstretched military forces and the demoralization of US forces in Iraq.
Certainly, Iranian misconceptions are helped mightily by the defeatism of the Western debate about such a war. "No good options" has become something like the consensus view: an airborne and special forces "surgical strike" (as well as a massive attack) against the Iranian nuclear industry and military targets could at best delay its nuclear program and will be followed by retaliation in Iraq, Lebanon etc; a ground attack is out of the question because most of deployable US ground forces are desperately busy in Iraq.
If such things could be planned, one might be persuaded to consider this debate as an aspect of strategic deception. In fact, the US and British forces in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf as well as the forces in Afghanistan are quite able to redeploy on short notice, for example during the days of an initial air campaign against Iran for large-scale operations against the remaining Iranian forces and can be reinforced during the war. The US military infrastructure at the borders of Iran has a very substantial capability to deal with surge requirements.
The somewhat standard scenario for this war - as indicated by Chinese and Russian war games - has the following features:
An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.
Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.
The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.
Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -3 points
It is a WAR OF WILLs...
Will for Islamic Constituation Laws or for FREEDOM
constituation laws....
Let's see what History has to say....
1.Us put end of the Second world war with Japan
by using the ATOM BOMB...
2.Us lost the war in vietnam because they did
NOT USE the ATOM bomb
Peace should be given a chance......evil should not be given a chance....
WHAT is the difference Between US and the rest of the world ....
Us is a country of strength and inspirations because from
this ....human development and inventions takes place....
why is Us different from AFRICA....
because.....US has a Strong MILITARY,Economy and
research,Justice laws system,and MOST important
the WILL to FIGHT for what is RIGHT....
today there is a NEW threat that is trying to submit
and reduce freedom and identity and also
respect for humans ....
today one can't be like AFRICA fighting amongst
each other....
today one can't be like Africa offering free bies
otherwise there will a hole in the pocket....capitalism
is needed to some extent also with equal basic wages...
Latin America Criticizes US policy...yet Latin America
Socialistic policies result is MORE POVERTY and
people going to the US for jobs....
TODAY US plays an important ROLE in the world
....new tech has made MAN more comfortable
it is Western tech that terrorist copy cat for harmful purposes ....
....Us offers Security......
We have two choices...fight or submit.....
the WILL to FIGHT for what is RIGHT....
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 6 points
Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A01
Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft, according to officials who have examined classified documents in the hands of U.S. intelligence for more than 20 months.
Complete with remote-controlled sensors to measure pressure and heat, the plans for the 400-meter tunnel appear designed for an underground atomic test that might one day announce Tehran's arrival as a nuclear power, the officials said.
By the estimates of U.S. and allied intelligence analysts, that day remains as much as a decade away -- assuming that Iran applies the full measure of its scientific and industrial resources to the project and encounters no major technical hurdles. But whether Iran's leaders have reached that decision and what concrete progress the effort has made remain divisive questions among government analysts and U.N. inspectors.
In the three years since Iran was forced to acknowledge having a secret uranium-enrichment program, Western governments and the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have amassed substantial evidence to test the Tehran government's assertion that it plans to build nothing more than peaceful nuclear power plants. Often circumstantial, usually ambiguous and always incomplete, the evidence has confounded efforts by policymakers, intelligence officials and U.S. allies to reach a confident judgment about Iran's intentions and a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
Drawings of the unbuilt test site, not disclosed publicly before, appear to U.S. officials to signal at least the ambition to test a nuclear explosive. But U.S. and U.N. experts who have studied them said the undated drawings do not clearly fit into a larger picture. Nowhere, for example, does the word "nuclear" appear on them. The authorship is unknown, and there is no evidence of an associated program to acquire, assemble and construct the components of such a site.
"The diagram is consistent with a nuclear test-site schematic," one senior U.S. source said, noting that the drawings envision a test control team parked a safe 10 kilometers -- more than six miles -- from the shaft. As far as U.S. intelligence knows, the idea has not left the drawing board.
Other suggestive evidence is cloaked in similar uncertainty. Contained in a laptop computer stolen by an Iranian citizen in 2004 are designs by a firm called Kimeya Madon for a small-scale facility to produce uranium gas, the construction of which would give Iran a secret stock that could be enriched for fuel or for bombs. Also on the laptop -- obtained by U.S. intelligence -- were drawings on modifying Iran's ballistic missiles in ways that might accommodate a nuclear warhead. Beyond the computer files, an imprisoned Pakistani arms dealer recently offered uncorroborated statements that Iran received several advanced centrifuges, equipment that would vastly improve its nuclear knowledge.
U.S. intelligence considers the laptop documents authentic but cannot prove it. Analysts cannot completely rule out the possibility that internal opponents of the Iranian leadership could have forged them to implicate the government, or that the documents were planted by Tehran itself to convince the West that its program remains at an immature stage.
CIA analysts, some of whom had been involved only a year earlier on the flawed assessments of Iraq's weapons programs, initially speculated that a third country, such as Israel, may have fabricated the evidence. But they eventually discounted that theory.
British intelligence, asked for a second opinion, concurred last year that the documents appear authentic. German and French officials consider the information troubling, sources said, but Russian experts have dismissed it as inconclusive. IAEA inspectors, who were highly skeptical of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, have begun to pursue aspects of the laptop information that appear to bolster previous leads.
"There is always a chance this could be the biggest scam perpetrated on U.S. intelligence," one U.S. source acknowledged. "But it's such a large body of documents and such strong indications of nuclear weapons intent, and nothing seems so inconsistent."
Bush administration officials, convinced that Iran has a weapons program, believe that the body of documentation is the nearest anyone can expect to "smoking gun" evidence. But even in the U.S. government, the predominant interpretation is more complex. And any step toward uranium enrichment, experts said, is consistent with three competing explanations -- that Iran's program is peaceful, that it aims for a weapon, or that the Tehran government is still keeping its options open.
A presidential commission found in 2004 that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Tehran's capabilities. And at a congressional hearing last Thursday, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described Iran as a "hard target" to penetrate.
While it is unknown whether Iran would ultimately decide to build a nuclear bomb, it is clear from evidence gathered by U.S. and foreign intelligence and through U.N. inspections that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, said that after three years of investigation, he still cannot judge Iran's program "exclusively peaceful." At the same time, Iran is "not an imminent threat," he said in a recent interview. "To develop a nuclear weapon, you need a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and no one has seen that in Iran."
U.S. intelligence experts who helped craft an assessment of Iran's program last year have based their judgments on just that. Until Iran is able to operate an industrial-scale centrifuge cascade for the production of bomb-grade uranium, the country will remain as much as 10 years away from a weapon.
Those experts have said that none of the drawings -- for the test shaft, the conversion facility or Iran's missile program -- alters those projections. Negroponte made that carefully hedged assessment public last Thursday when he said: "Iran, if it continues on its current path . . . will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade."
That assessment, by an intelligence community determined not to repeat the embarrassments of Iraq, is more conservative than views expressed by some policymakers. Some in the Bush administration have begun pushing back, suggesting that the CIA is demanding an unrealistically high standard of evidence before reaching conclusions that the White House believes are obvious.
"Taking into account the assessments made by the intelligence community, and others, I just don't have a lot of confidence in the assessments," said a senior administration official who was heavily involved in guiding the White House's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.
This examination explores the intelligence and evidence that helped form such judgments, and the gaps in understanding that obscure a full portrait of the program. It draws on interviews with senior Bush administration officials, as well as with government and intelligence sources grappling with the accumulating data and their counterparts from U.N. agencies and governments in Europe and the Middle East. Most of those interviewed would discuss the confidential information on Iran's program only on the condition of anonymity.
Green Salt
In the spring of 2001, a small design firm opened shop on the outskirts of Tehran to begin work for what appears to have been its only client -- the Iranian Republican Guard. Over the next two years, the staff at Kimeya Madon completed a set of technical drawings for a small uranium-conversion facility, according to four officials who reviewed the documents.
Iran has one such conversion plant and opened it to IAEA inspectors, but Tehran has not disclosed or produced the blueprints of a second one.
Over coffee in December in ElBaradei's Vienna office, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator was asked about the drawings, sources said. Ali Larijani called them "baseless allegations."
When IAEA inspectors went to Iraq last month, the CIA agreed to let them confront Iran with some of the evidence. Iranian officials dismissed the material but said they would follow up with clarifications at a later date, according to an IAEA report issued yesterday.
Several sources with firsthand knowledge of the original documents said the facility, if constructed, would give Iran additional capabilities to produce a substance known as UF4, or "green salt," an intermediate product in the conversion of uranium to a gas. Further refined in a large-scale enrichment plant, such as the one Iran says it intends to build for its energy program, the material could become usable for the core of a bomb.
Some of those who described the documents said senior Bush administration officials believe that they offer proof of a covert Iranian effort, under the direction of the military, to acquire nuclear weapons. The documents were found with design modifications for Iran's ballistic missile program, suggesting a link between potential weapons material and delivery systems. "We see this as pretty compelling evidence that they were trying to get a clandestine uranium-conversion facility," said one U.S. official. "At the very least, the Iranians should have reported the work" to IAEA inspectors, the official said.
Other sources with equal access to the same information, which went through nearly a year of forensic analysis by the CIA, were more cautious.
A second facility for uranium gas could have been envisioned as a replacement in the event the United States or Israel bombed the existing one in the city of Isfahan. "It was either their fallback in case we take out Isfahan," one U.S. analyst said. "Or maybe they considered an alternative indigenous plan but they realized it wasn't as good as what they already have, and so they shelved it."
As with the test-shaft drawings, those for the conversion facility were on the laptop allegedly stolen from an Iranian whom German intelligence tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit as an informant. It was whisked out of the country by another Iranian who offered it up to foreign intelligence officials in Turkey as evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Nowhere on any of the laptop documents, however, does the word "nuclear" appear.
"It's a complex-looking thing. You see the drawings but nothing beyond them, and you wonder, 'Can we be sure?' " a foreign official said.
Nowhere are there construction orders, payment invoices, or more than a handful of names and locations possibly connected to the projects. It remains unclear on whose authority the conversion work was done. Fueling suspicion, however, is the fact that the offices mentioned on the laptop documents are connected to an Iranian military officer, Mohsen Fakrizadeh.
Fakrizadeh is believed by U.S. intelligence to be the director of Project 111, a nuclear research effort that includes work on missile development. For years, U.S. intelligence knew of an Iranian endeavor that the Iranians code-named Project 110, believed to be the military arm of the country's nuclear program. U.S. officials believe its sequential successor may be the link between the country's nuclear energy program and its military, but they cannot be certain without more information from Fakrizadeh. "We want him produced for U.N. inspectors," said one U.S. source.
According to information on the laptop, Kimeya Madon appears to have ceased operation in the early spring of 2003, leading U.S. and allied intelligence services to suspect that it was a front company for the Iranian military. The last set of known drawings for the conversion facility are dated February 2003, as U.N. inspectors were making their first trip to Iran and U.S. troops were poised to invade neighboring Iraq.
Shooting Star
When the CIA began poring over thousands of pages of drawings contained in the laptop, the ones that garnered immediate attention were the schematics for Iran's most famous missile, the Shahab -- Persian for "shooting star."
Experts at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico ran the schematics through computer simulations. They determined two things: The drawings were an effort to expand the nose cone of the Shahab-3 to carry a nuclear warhead, and the modification plans, if executed, would not work.
Negroponte appeared to hint as much in his public briefing when he said Iran had not yet acquired the ability to integrate a nuclear weapon into its ballistic missiles.
The missile modifications, at first thought to have been based on a North Korean design, are now believed to be the handiwork of Iranian engineers. "This clearly wasn't done by the A-team of Iran's program," said one nuclear expert who has analyzed the documents. "It might have been given to an outside team or subcontracted out as an assignment or project for the military, though."
The laptop also includes 18 different attempts to perfect the size, weight and diameter of the nose cone in ways that could accommodate an implosion device. There are accompanying scientific notes describing experiments in the detonation of conventional explosives, suggesting to Western analysts that the author was working through the steps required to compress uranium into a critical mass for an atomic explosion.
"It's not hard evidence, but if you want to bring a building down, you don't need this kind of detonation," said one investigator. "So it's either for missiles or for a nuclear detonation."
In a recent meeting with IAEA inspectors, Iranian officials -- who learned 14 months ago that the United States had the documents on the laptop -- dismissed accusations that they reflect planning for a weapons program.
The Khan Network
In a brightly lighted office at police headquarters in the Malaysian capital, Bukhary Syed Tahir sat down recently for his second round of talks with CIA officers since his arrest 20 months ago on the streets of Kuala Lumpur.
Tahir is held in a high-security prison, without charges, for his alleged role as a manufacturer, salesman and partner in Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's nuclear network, which supplied materials to Libya, Iran and North Korea. After more than a year of denials about shipments to Iran in the 1990s, Tahir has changed his story and now claims to have recalled a previously forgotten sale, according to U.S. sources.
In addition to supplies Iran purchased from the network in the late 1980s to begin its nuclear program, Tahir said, Iran was sent in the mid-1990s three advanced, Pakistani-made centrifuges that could be used as models for manufacturing more. Thousands of properly constructed and assembled P-2 generation centrifuges could improve Iran's ability to make bomb-grade uranium. If the P-2s exist in Iran, as Tahir asserted, intelligence officials said the centrifuges could shorten the time needed for Iran to build a weapon.
Iran has told inspectors that it received only drawings of the P-2s, not the centrifuges themselves, and that it did not build any. A recent IAEA report determined that Iran has not been forthcoming on the P-2s or its dealings with Tahir and Khan, who led Pakistan to nuclear success.
Two sources with direct knowledge of Tahir's recent claims said they did not know what led him to offer a new account. They had no information on whether his new claims were made under duress or came after promises of release.
"Some of the individuals involved" in supplying Iran's program, "like Tahir, provide different accounts at different times, which only adds to the confusion," said a Bush administration official.
A 1987 meeting in a dusty Dubai office kick-started Tehran's nuclear efforts and a side business for Khan that made him rich and ultimately infamous. Iran, at war with Iraq then, bought from Khan centrifuge designs and a starter kit for uranium enrichment. The package included instructions for shaping uranium metal into "hemispherical forms," a process that has no other known use except to shield the core of a nuclear bomb.
"I haven't heard -- even from defenders of Iran -- an explanation for a peaceful purpose, that's not a weapons-related purpose," for the uranium metal, a U.S. official said. Iran contends that the uranium metal instructions were thrown in as a freebie and never used.
Khan, who is under house arrest in Islamabad, Pakistan, has provided few details to U.S. intelligence through his Pakistani handlers.
With Khan's help, Iran spent much of the 1990s secretly constructing a facility, partially underground, to house 50,000 centrifuges that it planned to build. That facility in Natanz is the only such known plant, and U.S. intelligence considers it unlikely that Iran has a hidden duplicate. Natanz was exposed in August 2002, at a time when the Bush administration was building support for war with Iraq. The revelations launched an investigation that took IAEA inspectors through Natanz for the first time three years ago this month.
Since then, they have uncovered matters of concern large and small. Some, such as traces of highly enriched uranium once feared to have been produced by Iran, are now known to have come from Pakistani equipment. Others areas of interest include suspicions of military involvement in uranium mining and plutonium tests.
But the history of Iran's P-2s, the laptop documents and the metal casting stand out as the most troubling for IAEA inspectors, the U.S. government and its allies.
For two years, the White House has sought to convince allies of Iran's guilt. "They say, 'Yes, we agree Iran's activities violate treaties, and, yes, it does seem like they are interested in nuclear weapons,' " a senior administration official said. The differences still to be worked out, between Washington and the world, are over "the proper course of action," the official said.
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -5 points
The Right Wing Press
How Conservatives Went Crazy
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
February 9, 2006
What happened to a formerly conservative press to reduce it to political partisanship and warmongering? Specifically, I have in mind National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
When I was associated with National Review, the magazine understood that the US Constitution and civil liberty had to be protected from government. It was not considered unpatriotic to take the side of the Constitution and civil liberty against a sitting government, even if the government were Republican. Some things were still more important than party loyalty.
No more. Consider, for example, Byron York writing in the February 13 issue. York doesn't understand why former US Representative Bob Barr lent his Republican conservative credentials to former Vice President Al Gore's speech against President Bush's transgressions against law and civil liberty, or why Barr is associating with liberals opposing the "Patriot" Act.
Barr is the former Republican member of the House of Representatives who led the impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Barr did so not out of political partisanship. As a former prosecutor, Barr regards lying under oath to be a serious offense. A president who commits that offense must be held accountable. Otherwise, presidents will go on to lie about greater things--such as war.
In opposing Bush's transgressions, Barr is simply being consistent. For Barr, party loyalty takes a backseat to defense of the Constitution, the rule of law, and civil liberty. If the US had more leaders of Barr's caliber, Bush and Cheney would already have been impeached.
York cannot understand this, because he thinks party loyalty and defense against terrorists are the controlling virtues. York scolds Barr for letting himself be used by partisan liberal organizations, but York takes his own partisanship for granted. It is only the other side that is partisan.
When I was on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the editorials were analytical and reformist. Sometimes we broke news stories. The page's attention to the Soviet Union was based on the rulers' aggressive posture and suppression of civil liberties. Today the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished.
Consider the Review & Outlook of February 3, which declares Iran to be "an intolerable threat." Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country's new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel.
But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn't occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the US as intolerable threats.
Unlike Iran, Israel does have nuclear weapons. In view of this overpowering fact, it is difficult to see why Bush and Wall Street Journal editorialists think the US needs to protect Israel from Iran.
But what if Iran were to succeed in fooling the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear inspectors and develop a bomb. Might not crazed mullahs drop it on Israel or give it to an al Qaeda terrorist, who might use it to blow up Washington DC or New York?
What would Iran gain aside from its own immediate destruction? If mutual assured destruction worked for decades against a powerfully armed communist state every bit as hostile to American "bourgeois capitalism" as Iran is to the "Great Satan," why would it fail against a state that is puny compared to Soviet standards?
Iran does not require nuclear weapons in order to do all the things the editorialists marshall in their case against Iran. Indeed, a US or Israeli attack on Iran is likely to precipitate the dire deeds that the editorialists fear: a Shia uprising in Iraq, disruption of oil supplies, closing of the Straits of Hormuz, and terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East.
It is difficult to see the sanity in taking such risks merely on the basis of the assumption that Iran intends to make a weapon. Before attacking yet another Muslim country on the basis of mere assertion and creating further anger and instability that may unseat our puppets in the Middle East, including nuclear armed Pakistan, the US would do far better to drop its threatening rhetoric, re-establish cooperation with Iran, continue the IAEA inspections and wait until there is real evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
The US rushed to war in Iraq based on lies. On PBS (Feb. 3) Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that the Iraq speech his boss was forced to give to the UN was "a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council."
The consequences have been disastrous. The US invasion force is tied down by a few thousand insurgents drawn from a Sunni population of merely 5 million people, and Iraq has become, according to the CIA, a recruiting and training ground for terrorists. The invasion has ruined America's reputation and expanded the popularity of al Qaeda, which has assumed the stand-up role against the hegemonic Great Satan.
It is the untutored belligerence of the neoconservative Jacobins that is likely to send the Middle East up in smoke. The instability that Bush is creating serves al Qaeda's interest, not our own.
The US and Iran have common enemies in al Qaeda and Middle East instability. Iran is Shia. Al Qaeda is a movement drawn from Sunnis. The age-old Shia/Sunni conflict may yet lead to civil war in Iraq.
When the Wall Street Journal editorialists describe Iran's current leaders as "possessed of an apocalyptic vision" they could just as well be describing Bush's evangelical supporters and the neocon Jacobins that are driving America to impose the neocon will on the Middle East. This is the program of lunatics. No conservative could possibly support it.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -14 points
there is a NEW development How to deal with
MUSLIM BACK CLASH
1.Suppose Muslim countries get together and form
a TRADE block.... ....like OPEC
2.Suppose they BOYCOTT all GOODS and SERVICES
of those countries who attack them and not submit.
Won't it affect the "west BUSINESS elite Interests"
this is a measure that is most hurting!!!!!
3.Suppose they remove all the "elite West people
holding top posts managing their wealth"
4.Suppose they DEBARR all those "elite western co's
from access to their natural resources etc/////
5.Suppose more people become Suicide bombers......
6.suppose all muslim countries are Self sufficient
-natural resources oil and gas
-human resources.
-money resources...
Conclustion: as long as Muslim countries don't form
a BLOCK it will be easier to deal with them ONE BY ONE
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 7 points
Diplomatic nEGOciations are reaching A new hard nut cracking level ......
BOTH SIDES NEED to KNOW ALL the WAR RISK FACTORS
================================
Looking back at history at other hards nuts
Egyptian Pharoah ...what hit this nut hard MOST
"loss of his son"
Time TO Assess the Strength and Weakness of both sides
1.some countries have the ABILITY to Wipe other countries and still survive.
2.some countries have Highly advanced weapons
in ALL fields imaginable....
Now after all chances and all negotiations exhausted
.......NEXT LET THE WAR BEGIN.........
and the mindset "SHOW NO MERCY".....
Usually war plans include heavy non stop bombing
but i think there is one very funny weapon.....
its called the HUMAN Abnormality weapon
what does this weapon do....it affects the ABILITY
of MOTHERS to give birth to healthy children....
Meaning this weapon is made of certain chemicals
and gases which will affect the phsical and mental
state of all human being and will
result in DEFORM babies for the NEXT 20 generation..
So the problem of suicide bombers is solved....
All it takes is an AIRPLANE Plus loading and dropping
non stop for 20 days......
Meaning this is a weapon which is affect not just
THIS generation but all those generations still of come....
Human beings are the most IMPORTANT resource
of any country....
This is just one weapon...there are many innovation weapons which PEOPLE can experiment ONCE
war begins......
NOW do some country have the ability to make this?
THINK this is not funny ...as a matter of fact there
are some weapons that can change the mind set of people to make them funny people....some gases and chemicals mixture....
====================================
LASTLY ASSESS your strength and weakness.....
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -8 points
Q&A: Iran Nuclear Crisis
By Sally Buzbee
Associated Press
Thursday, February 2, 2006; 10:02 AM
CAIRO -- At a decisive moment in the struggle over Iran's nuclear program, Tehran's true intentions -- and the West's real options -- remain murky. Even such basic questions as "Who calls the shots?" are open to debate. One thing is known: Iran has vast amounts of oil and plenty of ways to retaliate, whatever the world decides to do. A look at some questions surrounding the crisis:
Q: How close is Iran to making a nuclear bomb?
A: Iran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
The United States disputes that, saying it believes Iran aims for atomic weapons. And Iran's Jan. 10 decision to restart small-scale uranium enrichment -- and its president's call for Israel to be wiped off the map -- have clearly jolted the world.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says a three-year investigation produced no evidence Iran is trying to build atomic arms, but didn't rule that out either. And, U.S. intelligence made public last year suggested Tehran's scientists do have engineering drafts of a nuclear warhead.
If Iran kicked into high gear on uranium enrichment -- something it threatens to do if it is taken before the U.N. Security Council -- it could produce nuclear weapons from three to 10 years later, experts estimate.
Q: What will happen Thursday and Friday?
A: The board of the IAEA is expected to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, essentially asking it to take on international oversight of Tehran's nuclear program. Russia and China agreed last week on the need for that -- a victory for the United States.
Q: What happens after that?
A: Reporting Iran to the Security Council would be just the start of a long process that could end in sanctions against Tehran. But nothing is likely to happen fast.
For starters, the most powerful members of the U.N. have agreed that the Security Council should wait until March to take up Iran's case. The delay could give Iran time to moderate its position, or agree to let Russia perform nuclear enrichment work on its behalf. Or, it could just mean continued stalemate.
Q: If Iran doesn't back down, will Security Council sanctions be the end result?
A: It seems unlikely. China and Russia generally oppose using the council to impose sanctions, and both are trading partners with Iran. They would probably try to block such a move.
U.S. officials have also said they want to take a gradual approach -- possibly starting with a council statement of concern or reprimand, and only seeking a legally binding resolution that could include sanctions as a last resort.
If sanctions are imposed, they could be tough to enforce, could cripple Iran's economy and damage its standard of living -- and almost certainly would force up world oil prices.
Q: If the West is so worried, why not just use airstrikes to disable Iran's program?
A: That could be much harder, militarily, than it seems. Any strikes -- to be effective -- would have to take out several sites, some underground. Other sites may be unknown. And with the United States occupied with Iraq, any larger effort, such as an invasion, seems unlikely. The Bush administration says such a military operation is not an option now.
In addition, even a limited strike would be highly unpopular with U.S. allies, and could rally Iranians -- known for their strong nationalism.
Iran has plenty of ways to retaliate, from stirring up trouble in southern Iraq to using an oil boycott as an economic weapon against Europe, China or India. Oil supplies are tight worldwide and prices are already high.
Q: This crisis seems to have blown up so fast: Weren't Iran and Europe negotiating just a few months ago?
A: Yes. And the Bush administration had tacitly agreed that negotiations were the way to proceed.
But after the election of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program, and European negotiators say it became less cooperative.
Its decision to restart small-scale uranium enrichment -- and its swipes at Israel -- apparently rattled China and Russia enough that they agreed to push its case to the Security Council.
Q: Why is Iran's president taking such a confrontational stance? What does he really want, and is he really in control?
A: The United States and much of the West have struggled for years -- decades even -- to discern whether Iran's hard-line clerics or the president are really calling the shots.
It's clear that many hard-liner aims are unpopular among young Iranians, who previously had voted for reformers until those reformers failed. But the goal of Iran being a world nuclear technology leader is widely popular -- almost a national point of pride.
It may be that Ahmadinejad, trying to solidify his political support, has found an issue that plays well among the public. Or, perhaps the clerics are trying to rally people, thus finding a way to revive support for their Islamic Republic.
Criticism of the United States also still plays well in a country that has always blamed America for first overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government in the 1950s, and then supporting a hated shah.
Ahmadinejad's weak spot is Iran's dire economy. Like any leader anywhere, he may just be trying to distract attention from what he can't fix.
© 2006 The Associated Press
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -12 points
ATTACKING IRAN IS A BAD IDEA
By Michael J. Mazarr, The New Republic
(Michael J. Mazarr is a professor at the U.S. National War College. The views
expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the Defense
Department.)
The recent election of arch-conservative Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as
president of Iran, many observers expected a renewed crisis over Iran's
nuclear program. And, sure enough, one has arrived with Iran's announcement
that it intends to restart its uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan,
despite an earlier agreement with European negotiators to keep its nuclear
program frozen. The three EU countries negotiating with Iran have
accelerated plans to deliver a new grand bargain on nuclear issues, offering
trade, aid, and a nonaggression pact in exchange for denuclearization. But
Iran has hinted that it knows the substance of the offer and isn't
impressed. "It is we who should impose conditions on them, and not they on
us," Ahmadinejad has said.
At any moment, Iran could withdraw from the talks, move beyond the Isfahan
declaration to restart its enrichment program, or take some other action
that would generate a global crisis. The European Union and the United
States would take the matter to the Security Council and impose sanctions;
Iran would dig in and fulminate about Yankee imperialism. And the Bush
administration would then confront the most profound national security
decision of its tenure--whether to launch limited air strikes on Iran's
nuclear facilities. On this question, the conventional wisdom is clear: If
need be, the United States could strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure
without ruinous consequences. The Iranians are pragmatists and realists, the
argument goes; they know when to take their medicine. Air strikes would
represent a low-risk, intermediate response--after economic sanctions and
before regime change--to continued Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Many observers of the Iranian nuclear issue seem to hold these views. As
Franklin Foer catalogued in these pages ("Identity Crisis," December 20,
2004), conservative writers like Charles Krauthammer, Gary Schmitt, and
Reuel Marc Gerecht have referred to a preemptive strike as, in Gerecht's
phrasing, the "only option that offers a good chance of delaying Iran's
production of nuclear weapons." In a recent Atlantic magazine-hosted war
game on Iran, the consensus was that the United States could get away with
limited attacks. For their part, President Bush and Vice President Cheney
have separately insisted that diplomacy is the right way to handle the
nuclear issue--but warned that, if diplomacy does not work, "all options are
on the table."
When skeptics of strikes do talk about Iranian retaliation, it's of a
limited sort: moves to deepen the instability in Iraq, further repression of
reformists at home. The idea that Tehran would inaugurate a final showdown
with the Great Satan seems too remote to contemplate. But contemplate it we
must, because the conventional wisdom is wrong. Iranian leaders would have
very real reasons to respond to "surgical" strikes with an all-out assault
on U.S. interests designed to provoke the sort of decisive clash that
everyone assumes Iran wants to avoid. And the resulting conflict would have
far worse consequences for the United States than Iran's ability to create
weapons-grade nuclear material.
One reason to believe that Tehran might respond violently, it turns out, is
that they have said as much--again and again, in fairly unambiguous terms.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently promised to "wear battle
fatigues and be ready to sacrifice myself at the head of the nation."
Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammad Zolqadr has threatened destruction
of Gulf oil production in response to U.S. strikes; Defense Minister Ali
Shamkhani said, in August of 2004, that Iran would "consider any strike
against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we
will retaliate with all our strength." Ahmadinejad has fumed about Iranian
nuclear concessions and boasted that "a popular and fundamentalist
government will quickly change that," confident that "no country, no matter
how powerful they are, can attack Iran."
Such bluster is usually dismissed as saber rattling. But this assumes that
the only sensible Iranian response to U.S. attacks is restraint--when, in
fact, a strong argument can be made that its best strategy would be to lash
out. To understand why, we need to see the strategic situation as it might
look from Tehran, and especially to the hard-liners who now dominate its
government.
Begin with two assumptions that an Iranian strategist might well make.
First, Iran's nuclear program must continue--slowly, perhaps covertly, but
continue nonetheless. Second, the United States (in league with Israel) is
determined both to end that nuclear program and to dominate the greater
Middle East. Typical were the comments of Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi,
who, in 2002, said that the United States was planning to invade Iraq to
impose its "hegemony on the whole region and its resources." The Stanley
Foundation recently concluded that, after five years of interviews with
Iranian officials and scholars, many in Iran today fear that the United
States "has never accepted the idea of an Islamic Republic and never will."
Given such views--and also given the intense pride, regional ambitions, and
sense of cultural superiority characteristic of the Iranian
mindset--hard-liners in Tehran continue to see their two leading
responsibilities as defending the Islamic Republic and thwarting U.S.
ambitions. A sense of fatalism broods deep within both Iranian culture and
radical Islam--the fear that world forces, led by evil cabals, are
conspiring to destroy Iranians and Muslims. For hard-line Iranian
strategists, then, the question is not whether to choose a war with the
United States. A conflict is all but inevitable. The question, instead, is
whether Iran picks the battles or allows the Americans to do so. And
choosing the battle on Iran's terms could mean choosing it now: It makes far
more sense to fight an overextended, exhausted, nearly bankrupt,
internationally unpopular United States today than a possibly rested,
rejuvenated, more militarily flexible enemy in the future. If Iranian
leaders are indeed thinking along these lines, a limited U.S. air strike
would simply invite them to manufacture a decisive engagement. The longer
Iran waits, on the other hand, the worse its position might become.
We need to keep in mind, too, what we mean when we talk about "Iranian
reactions." Iran's government has been a crazy quilt of competing factions
and power centers, with hard-line groups like the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps and conservatives in the parliament owning most elements of
state power. To imagine an intemperate response to U.S. strikes, we don't
need to presume that all Iranian leaders would endorse it--only that the
most radical ones would. On their own, they have the ability to stage a
sweeping retaliation, regardless of what pragmatic conservatives or
reformers might want.
The election of Ahmadinejad has now delivered the last major state organ to
the conservatives--and, even among hard-liners, Ahmadinejad stands out. One
of the original student revolutionaries in 1979 and later a senior
Revolutionary Guards officer, he has promised to oppose Western "decadence."
His supporters have a specific agenda. As one of them told The Washington
Post, "I picked Ahmadinejad to slap America in the face."
Informed by such thinking, Iran's leaders could decide to respond to U.S.
air strikes with an elaborate, ferocious, global provocation designed to
draw the United States into a protracted conflict. Iran could expand
financial and other support to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups and
encourage new attacks on Israel designed to wreck the fragile momentum
toward peace with the Palestinians. It could activate agents and cells it
has been developing inside Iraq to destabilize the country, tie down U.S.
forces, and disrupt the supply lines necessary to enter Iran from the west
in the event of a ground war. "If Iran wanted," Iraq's Deputy Foreign
Minister Hamid Al Bayati said in February, "it could make Iraq a hell for
the United States."
Meanwhile, with its limited air and naval assets, Iran could strike at U.S.
military forces throughout the region. Tehran's regular military has aging
equipment--but, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies'
military expert Anthony Cordesman pointed out in a December 2004 analysis,
the Revolutionary Guards represent a more skilled
military-within-a-military, with ground forces, naval units, missiles, and
other forces under its command; a leadership composed of die-hard
conservatives; and a mission to protect the Islamic Revolution at all costs.
The Guards could flood thousands of troops in small units across the porous
border with Iraq with orders to link up with Iranian cells or insurgent
groups and assault U.S. bases and forces. Meanwhile, Iran could launch as
many of its missiles as possible at Iraqi cities, U.S. air bases, and U.S.
allies on the Arabian peninsula.
Iran could also strike boldly at world oil supplies, disrupting traffic in
the Strait of Hormuz--through which 15 million barrels of oil flow
daily--with air and naval attacks. According to Cordesman, for example, Iran
is believed to have more than 2,000 naval mines, some of them very modern,
and the potential to deploy them from either large mine-laying ships or
hundreds of smaller craft. Iran could hit Saudi Arabia, and its oil
production, directly--including the huge export terminals at Ras Tanura and
Ras Juaymah. Combined with an end to Iran's own oil exports (of three to
four million barrels a day), these attacks would send the world economy into
a tailspin.
Iran could then trigger the special international units of the Revolutionary
Guards--the so-called "Quds" forces. They reportedly have a large secret
budget, officers working out of many Iranian embassies, and strong links
with organizations in areas ranging from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to
Turkey, Europe, and North America. This organization could generate a wave
of terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies, military bases, companies, and
allies all over the globe.
Faced with the indefinite disruption of the international system and
widespread attacks on its forces and interests--and perhaps its homeland as
well--the United States might be forced to intervene with ground forces,
with the goal of regime change. Gathering the concentrated forces necessary
for a large-scale move into Iran would take months--time during which oil
prices would continue to surge, world economic growth would continue to
stall, and Iranian-sponsored terrorists would continue to hit U.S. targets.
Washington would have to draw every available Army and Marine unit not
already in Iraq, as well as many naval and air assets, into the region for
an Iranian campaign; the global U.S. military presence would be essentially
on hold until the conflict ended.
Once the invasion did begin, the Iranians could rely on their rugged terrain
to hold up U.S. forces in the mountain ranges that run along the western
corridor of the country. Tehran could also disperse its military into small
units, marshal the efforts of millions of members of its civilian militias,
and undertake an arduous guerrilla campaign. A military analyst based in
Tehran told a Western reporter in early 2005 that Iran had spent the past
year developing "their tactics of 'asymmetrical' war, which would aim not at
resisting a penetration of foreign forces," but instead at waging a
guerrilla campaign once the Americans had arrived. Tehran could generate a
rebellion many times more destructive, and more legitimate in the eyes of
its people, than the one in Iraq.
To be sure, lashing out carries major risks for Iran: It would place the
physical security of the country and regime in danger. But many Iranian
leaders may believe that their power is already at risk and might see U.S.
air strikes as confirmation that a final reckoning is at hand.
If, on the other hand, Iran sits back and absorbs an attack, tough-minded
thinkers in Tehran are likely to argue, Washington will believe that it can
assault Iran at will. Many Iranians (not just hard-liners) would see a
passive response as weak, cowardly, and unbefitting a proud people. Persian
culture has a strong tradition of glorious defeat in service of a sacred
cause. If we offer the hard-liners a chance to martyr themselves in the name
of cultural heroism, they might just take us up on it.
Comparing the Iranian and North Korean cases is instructive. The reason the
military option seems nonsensical in Korea is not because it wouldn't work
(though that might be true). It's because of the North's presumed reaction,
which would be to destroy Seoul. In the Iranian case, the opposite
assumption seems to be in play--that Iran has no similarly catastrophic
responses available to it. But that assumption is based as much on hope and
wishful thinking as on any form of analysis.
A war against Tehran and its allies in the Islamic world would pose an even
greater threat to U.S. national interests than a continued Iranian nuclear
program--at least one under International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea)
inspections, and one in which the Iranians publicly reject the idea of
building bombs. The proposed EU deal aims to halt Iran's uranium-enrichment
program but not all of its civilian nuclear activities--Iran would be
allowed to operate its reactors and conduct other research under
international supervision. Even if a small part of Iran's enrichment program
continued, it could be limited to civilian purposes by inspections,
including short-notice challenge visits under the iaea's so-called
"additional protocol." There is some evidence that Iran is amenable to such
terms--that the sticking point is not inspections as much as preserving the
sovereign right to a civilian nuclear fuel cycle.
Such a fuel cycle need not present a military threat, assuming strict
inspections. To get from there to a bomb, Tehran would either have to build
a parallel, secret enrichment program or rashly toss out the iaea regime.
The first route would be slow and risky; the second would clearly
demonstrate that Iran sought nuclear weapons and trigger an international
crisis that would leave Tehran confronting not just the United States, but
also the combined weight of world opinion. Either way, the risk isn't
immediate: According to a report this week in The Washington Post, the
latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate puts an Iranian bomb at least a
decade away.
An Iran under iaea watch would possess a nuclear program but no significant
bomb-making capability. Tehran's hard-liners could claim a victory and begin
hinting about a "virtual" nuclear deterrent but would know that, if they
deployed an open arsenal--or, worse, gave fissile material to
terrorists--they would likely face every ounce of "shock and awe" that
Washington could muster.
Reducing Tehran's nuclear program to a latent, ambiguous capability would
achieve basic U.S. interests: no public, tested, clearly weaponized Iranian
arsenal; too little fissile material in Iranian hands to allow Tehran to
give much away (and enormous dangers to its regime if it did so); and a
reaffirmation of the basic iaea system of inspections. Meanwhile, this
process could lay the groundwork for the only long-term solution to the
problem of Iranian nuclear aspirations: integration into the world economy
and a gradual return to reform.
Ahmadinejad is hardly a reformer and reportedly favors socialist-style
government planning to deal with his country's manifold economic problems.
But most Iranians still want reform. Ahmadinejad's support seems to have
come from conservative voter turnout drives and his populist appeal to
widespread anger at economic stagnation, lack of opportunity, and corruption
in Tehran. When his state-run, autarkic economic program fails, the same
demands that ushered him into power will prove his undoing--if the West
doesn't gift-wrap a nationalist rallying cry for him in the meantime.
Engaging an autocratic regime in order to buy a tentative cap on its nuclear
ambitions and hoping that political reforms will outpace bomb-making are
hardly neat and tidy solutions or ones likely to warm the hearts of those
who crave bold statements of U.S. global supremacy. But we Americans are
always seeing the world as a series of problems to be solved rather than
challenges to be managed. Impatience with Iran is likely to become
self-defeating; patience, meanwhile, offers no guarantee of success. It
remains, however, the best option we have.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 5 points
I still think this situation is Due to IRAN's fault...
Reason
Why is Iran making a fuss to accept
Israel right to exist as a JEWISH state ......
WHY the jews need to have a jewish state
1.just as muslims all over the world go to Mecca and Medina ...jews all over the world want a SPACE of their own......to go to ....
2.Jewish state is such a Small space compared to all
other Arab states.....
3.today if there is any HIJACK...the jews are the first
passport holders to be killed.By having a jewish
state.....one is able to have one own JEW Airline....
4.the world has failed to protect JEWS ,these people
are always targed and killed in history.....
by having a jewish state one has OWN security ,army
etc
5.Jewish state means jews in majority and control....
reason ...being whenever jews are in MINORITY
their RIGHTS get diluted and followed by dilution of
their SECURITY....and Semetism etc
today if even ONE JEWS dies,to some other communities
is means nothing But to the jews who are few
even ONE jew dying MEANS a lot ....
6.People are saying Israel should give up its weapons
the moment that happen ALL the ARAB MUSLIM countries
like Vultures will eat and kill all the jews....Such
a SMALL tiny culture need protection and deterrant
is an region where there are suicide bombers,where
there is hostility etc.....
How many years has passed since Israel has
Nuclear Bomb,but Israel is democratic country
and want to live in peace if others accept it as
PART OF THE SOLUTION....
Conclusion : All iam saying why is the ARAB -MUSLIM
world so selfish in not giving SPACE for a small JEWISH
state and ending this CRISES and concentrate
of ECONOMIC development and peace
Moreover Jews are intelligent ....making many discoveries
etc....Once Peace is there everyone will be help
each other.....
WHEN CAN'T IRAN ACCEPT this POINT and PREVENT
a WAR......
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 7 points
Again URGE the IRANIAN LEADER to accept
ISRAEL right to exist and follow international
laws.......peacefully.....
Where is the earlier MODERATE IRANIAN LEADER ////
War will bePAINFUL both sides
-destruction
-poverty
-loss of life and property.....
This NEW IRANIAN LEADER is a HARD NUT.....
and HE is putting HIS people in great danger!!!
Change and try to solve this matter there is Still little time
left.....
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- 18 points
Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis
The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.
by William O Beeman and Thomas Stauffer
February 2, 2006
Pacific News Service
Globalization.ca
President Bush declared on June 25 that "we will not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran. His words are empty. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.
Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ("heavy water") facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.
The Bushehr plant is only part of the argument that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program, but it is the part that can readily be analyzed. State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (an alternative to fissile plutonium for bombs) or covert facilities for extracting plutonium. Neither of these claims are especially credible, since the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.
The testable part of the claim -- that the Bushehr reactor is a proliferation threat -- is demonstrably false. There are several reasons, some technical, some institutional.
--The Iranian reactor yields the wrong kind of plutonium for making bombs.
--The spent fuel pins in the Iranian reactor would, in any case, be too dangerous to handle for weapons manufacture.
--Any attempt to divert fuel from the Iranian plant will be detectable.
--The Russian partners in the Bushehr project have stipulated that the fuel pins must be returned to Russia, as has been their practice worldwide for other export reactors.
Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation.
There are two different kinds of reactors, heavy-water or graphite-moderated reactors; and pressurized, or "light water" reactors (PWRs). The Dimona nuclear power plant in Israel is an example of the former. The Bushehr plant is the latter.
The Israeli plant is ideal for yielding the desirable isotope of Plutonium (Pu 239) necessary for making bombs. The Iranian plant will produce plutonium, but the wrong kind. It will produce the heavier isotopes, Pu240, Pu241 and Pu242 -- almost impossible to use in making bombs.
Crucial to extracting weapons-grade plutonium is the type of reactor and the mode in which it is operated. The Israeli-type plant can be refueled "on line," without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously. In the Iranian plant, the entire reactor will have to be shut down -- a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources -- in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin.
In the Israeli reactor, the fuel is recycled every few weeks, or at most every couple of months. This maximizes the yield of the highest-quality, weapons-grade plutonium. In the Iranian-type reactor, the core is exchanged only every 30-40 months -- the longer the fuel cycle, the better for the production of power.
For the Iranian reactor at Bushehr, any effort to divert fuel will be transparent because a shutdown will be immediately noticeable. No case of production of bomb-grade material from fuel from an Iranian-type plant has ever been reported.
No one can read the collective mind of a government. But even if Iran proves in the future to have ambitions for developing nuclear weapons, any actual production is years, perhaps decades away. Furthermore, Iran has fully acquiesced to the international inspections process. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). On June 22, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam-Reza Aghazadeh, reiterated that all of Iran's nuclear facilities are open for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in compliance with treaty guarantees.
Stauffer is a former nuclear engineer and specialist in Middle Eastern energy economics. Beeman ( William_beeman@brown.edu ) is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. Each has conducted research in Iran for more than 30 years.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -20 points
Plans for Iran
Mike Whitney
February 1, 2006
In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators; ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court sometime late on Tuesday. Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) "There’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program." The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation.
"We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy," Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.
The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton can make his appearance before the Security Council with allegations of "noncompliance" that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.
The administration has no expectation of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. The trip to the Security Council is simply a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite "touched up" satellite photos and spurious allegations of unreliable dissidents.
We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war is inevitable.
Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.
Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed "euro-based" bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are "Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar" by William R. Clark, and "The Proposed Oil Bourse" by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.
The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.
Battle Plans
The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.
Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.
This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. This is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.
Invading Khuzestan
In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, "Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?", Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the ""first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."
This strategy has been called the "Khuzestan Gambit", and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.
Tonkin Bay Redux
On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would "hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week" that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.
Coincidence?
Probably not.
Step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world’s most valued resource. They won’t let that opportunity pass them by.
We’re in for another war.
Courtesy and Copyright © Mike Whitney
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20167&hd=0&size=1&l=e
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -2 points
Absolutely .......
did you observe there seems to be some link between
HAMAS and IRAN .....they both
1.Don't accept the RIGHT OF ISRAEL to EXIST
2.Iran especially ....intends to wipe ....
this is very a BAD situation world has to deal with.....
I can't understand why HAMAS and IRAN are
making a FUSS and such a big case on this point
"RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST and retain its identity
as jew state"
first
1. Israel occupies a SMALL SPACE in the middleeast
compared to all other countries in the middleeast.
there are few hiding places than in Iran ....
2.Nearly 90% of the problem is solved .Only the 10%
has to adjust....These 10% people ...are
creating "a climate of war clouds and depriving billions of
people around the world of their livilihood and eco
development "
meaning one Iranian/Hamas supporter ( 10% ) said they want to go back to the Same home in Jew state that
their grandfathers had.....
In every negotiation it is a give and take....
Now 90 % is solved....consider 10% as BAD DEBTS....
However these 10% people are depriving the whole
world from progress....because of one man house,
billions of people will not have livlihood and means
to have houses if there is a war ....
Moreover is it really worth It having a WAR on this
POINT ..war causes suffering ,pain and poverty.......
that reminds me
One Mother said 'she and her children will fight to the end" Warrior type....
Wisdom is always greater than Might....
So since some people like or want "something to fight"
i have a suggestion..
there is a hungry Lion in African who is also LOOKING for
People to fight with...so what one can do
we take the hungry lion and this mother and her children
and put them in ring and enjoy "fighting as much as
you like' don't forget to scratch the lion and beat lion
as much as you like and then FACE your MATCH....
see how the lion will react....
what would i do.....i don't like to fight....i like to
make peace.....so i will sit and watch the
FIGHTER COCKs fight and destroy themselves
so that only the MEEK and PEACEFUL people finally
will get to live and multiply in the world.......
Lastly
every time i have to say HAMAS....it sounds like
HAM..........
and you know what ham is made up of.....
I really suggest HAMAS changes itself ...alleast
start with the first three letters
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
- -12 points
Jan 27, 2006
Asia Times
Covert ops and disinformation aimed at Iran
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Recent reports in the Turkish and German media of the US asking the Turkish government to support a possible attack on Iran and alerting allied countries of preparations for such an attack appear to be part of a strategy to pressure the Iranian regime rather than the result of a new policy to strike the country.
The stories appeared in Turkish and German newspapers after a December 12 meeting between US Central Intelligence Agency director Porter Goss and his Turkish counterpart. The Turkish center-left newspaper Cumhuryet reported that Goss had warned
the Turkish government to be ready for possible US use of air power against both Iran and Syria. On December 23, the German news agency DDP quoted "Western security sources" as saying that Goss had asked the Turkish prime minister to support a possible strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. And the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegal cited North Atlantic Treaty Organization intelligence sources as saying the US had informed NATO allies that it was studying the military option against Iran.
The reports, which have not been widely picked up by US news media, seemed to suggest that the administration of President George W Bush was now closer to war against Iran. But the circumstantial evidence points to strategic disinformation planted by the administration - perhaps with help from friendly officials in NATO - to ratchet up the pressure on Iran over its position on nuclear-fuel enrichment.
The reports are unlikely to be effective in getting Iran to be more forthcoming, however. None of the stories suggested that the military option was anything more than a possibility. That would not represent anything new, because the administration's public posture since August had been that the "military option" was on the table.
The media reports do refer to possible air attacks on Iran, but since autumn 2004, Bush administration planning for possible military action against Iranian nuclear facilities appears to have focused on commando operations to sabotage them rather than on air attacks.
Jushua Kurlantzick of The New Republic wrote in Gentleman's Quarterly in May that top officials had adopted a new strategy of "deterrence and disruption" toward Iran in the autumn of 2004 that was aimed ultimately at covert operations by special forces to damage nuclear sites, according to a government official.
Kurlantzick's source confirmed, in effect, an earlier report by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker that the administration had approved conducting covert probes by reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify potential nuclear sites as targets for later military strikes. But it suggested any such strikes would be by commando teams rather than from the air.
"You'll start seeing reports of an 'accidental gas leak' at Natanz," an Iranian nuclear facility, the official was quoted as saying.
The choice of covert operations instead of air strikes in administration planning reflected the serious downside associated with an overt attack on Iran. Administration policymakers were concerned about the likelihood of Iranian retaliation - in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the Middle East - for an open military air attack against Iranian targets.
Nor did they regard Israeli air strikes as any more likely to avoid Iranian retaliation against the US, since they would require US support. In a book recently published by the National Defense University's Institute of Strategic Studies, Thomas Donnelly, a stalwart defender of administration policy at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that if Israeli planes stuck Iranian nuclear targets, "The Iranians would surely hold us responsible and target US interests in retaliation."
Administration policymakers apparently hoped that the US and Israel could deny responsibility for a covert operation, thus reducing the likelihood or intensity of Iranian responses to the strikes, as well as opposition from allies around the world.
Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is close to both Bush administration and Israeli policymakers, suggested in an interview with Hersh in late 2004 that if military action was to be carried out against Iran, it would be "much more in Israel's interest - and Washington's - to take covert action".
The US military option remained in the background as the second Bush administration began a year ago. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a London news conference in early February that an attack on Iran over its nuclear program was "not on the agenda at this point".
But after Iran indicated its intention to go ahead with uranium enrichment in August, the administration reversed that declaratory policy. On August 11, Bush declared in a news conference that "all options are on the table".
From then the "military option" was an integral part of the US strategy of diplomatic pressure on Iran. But that policy decision sharpened a conflict between the Bush administration and its European allies - especially the British, French and Germans - over the issue of the use of military force against Iran.
It took German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder only a few hours to respond to Bush's move to put the military option ostentatiously on the table by declaring that the alliance should "take the military option off the table".
In September, however, Schroeder's Social Democrats were defeated by the opposition Christian Democrats, as the administration had hoped, and by early October, Angela Merkel was on her way to forming a new government. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns was then dispatched to meet with representatives of Britain, France and Germany to "begin discussing ways to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran", according to a report by the Wall Street Journal's Carla Anne Robbins on October 6.
Burns' top priority was certainly to get the European allies to integrate the idea that the military option is "on the table" into its negotiating stance on Iran's nuclear policy. Subsequently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair began to echo Bush's position on the military option, presumably at US insistence, but Merkel and French President Jacques Chirac avoided any endorsement of that posture.
Having failed to get agreement by the EU-3 to exploit the military option in the diplomatic maneuvering with Iran, the Bush administration apparently felt that it needed to take other steps to increase the pressure on Tehran, including arranging for sensational newspaper articles to appear in the Turkish and German press.
It would not have been the first time a US administration had used such leaks about a possible military action as part of a campaign to put pressure on foes to make diplomatic concessions.
President Dwight Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles feinted toward a military intervention in Indochina at the time of the 1954 Dienbienphu crisis and the start of the Geneva Conference on a settlement of the war.
Privately, however, both men opposed US intervention in Indochina and hinted that the suggestions of intervention were a bluff to influence Soviet and Chinese diplomacy at Geneva.
The ruse worked in 1954, inducing the Soviets and Chinese
Introduction
Every person in the world agree that
Iran and Nuclear Bomb tech......will affect
WORLD PEACE in a region prone to conflicts
except Iranian people ......
=================================
Iranian people think ...nuclear bomb tech is their
national pride ........BUT what about having
International pride....
Why does Iran want to create a bad and Rogue
image of itself in international community.
One of the reason Iran should not have Nuclear Bomb
tech is that.....
1.Iran will black mail and will be TEMPTED to use
it......history shows.....and remarks show.
2.Iran uses VIOLENT means to acheive its cause...pure
Islam ...eg hisbulla
Pure Islam means this word can have only Islam...
but using terrorising ways is not good...
HUMANITY.....you see unless one learns to
have some human values....meaning if
one cannot treat other human being properly,
what guarantee is there that you will treat your own
MUSLIM people properly ....as one can
see muslims fighting other muslims ,still further
what guarantee is there one will treat your own family
properly....
today world there are all kinds of creatures..
just because Islam forbids eating P.G ,does not
mean one has to KILL all the P.G in the world.
GOD has created the animal P.G .....for a role to play in
the ECO SYSTEM...
Similarly there are different kinds of human beings in
the world and one has to LIVE in peace and get
things in Nice diplomatic way and NOT
like barbarians ....we are living in a cilivised Society
the 21 century human beings ....
3.Iran has a Hatred for jews.....this is also
not nice....Because Jews are also human beings
and needed in the Eco system...to keep the balance
Moreover.....everyone has PEACE in their mind
and such actions will disturb the peace process
going on.In other words.....don't try to light a
spark and provoke Israel to anger......
====================================
Iran want Nuclear fuel for Electricity.
there are other WAYS to nuclear fuel electricity
without know the nuclear bomb tech.....
More over....the cost of sanction on Iran economy
the cost of image of IRANIAN PEOPLE ..
IRAN is a country,But every country lives in a GLOBAL
WORLD....
Are iranians MAD????
There is NO justification to go down the PATH of
NUCLEAR bomb pursuits.......it will lead
to nuclear bomb tech race.....moreover.....
PEACE will suffer.......and war ......
As you can see nobody likes to start,provoke and
have WAR created .....
Many Iranians will lose their sons in the war
People will become poorer,money will have
to be diverted to making war equipment instead
of development.
In war ...many buildings will be destroyed.
People will lose their hands and legs.
Living conditions will deteriorate.....
SUCH Actions by IRANIAN LEADER is THUS
against the interest of IRAN and its PEOPLE....
One have to find a WAY to live in peace with other
people in the world.
=====================================
WHEN does this NUCLEAR ISSUE reach lime light..
there is something strange going on
----Is the Nuclear issue used by Iranian leader
to remain in power ....election time
-----is the nuclear issue used by Iranian leader
when oil and gas prices fall ,to create uncertainty and
again MAKE prices go up.
-----is the nuclear issue used...every time to distract
the people from the mistakes eg poor economy development or disease or accidents ,pollution
so that the ANGER of people is diverted from leader
to the west....
WHat is the motive behind IRAN DEFYING international
Unity of nations for PEACE...