War in Iran?

[hibsbollah]

Seamus Milne in The Guardian...( I know its the Guardian khibs, but play the man not the ball-what do you think of the content?:greengrin)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-blair-missile-shield-iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-blair-missile-shield-iran)
Fergus's mate Daniel Pipes gets a mention later on.

We were ­supposed to have learned the lessons of the Iraq war. That's what Britain's ­Chilcot inquiry is meant to be all about. But the signs from the Middle East are that it could be happening all over again. The US is ­escalating the military build-up in the Gulf (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf), officials revealed this week, boosting its naval presence and supplying tens of billions of dollars' worth of new weapons systems to allied Arab states.

The target is of course Iran. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are all taking deliveries of Patriot missile batteries. In Saudi Arabia, Washington is sponsoring a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and ports. The UAE alone has bought 80 F16 fighters, and General Petraeus, the US commander, claims it could now "take out the entire Iranian airforce".

The US insists the growing militarisation is defensive, aimed at deterring Iran, calming Israel and reassuring its allies. But the shift of policy is clear enough. Last week Barack Obama warned that Iran would face "growing consequences" for failing to halt its nuclear programme, while linking it with North Korea – as George Bush did, in his "axis of evil" speech in 2002.
When Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week renewed Iran's earlier agreement to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad to be reprocessed, the US was dismissive. Obama's "outstretched hand", always combined with the threat of sanctions or worse, appears to have been all but withdrawn.

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, underlined that by insisting Iran's leaders were "sowing the seeds of their own destruction". And in Israel, which has vowed to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, threats of war against its allies, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, are growing. "We must recruit the whole world to fight Ahmadinejad," Israeli president Shimon Peres declared on Tuesday.

The echoes of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq are unmistakable. Just as in 2002-3, we are told that a dictatorial Middle Eastern state is secretly ­developing weapons of mass destruction, defying UN resolutions, obstructing inspections, threatening its neighbours and supporting terrorism.

As in the case of Iraq, no evidence has been produced to back up the WMD claims, though bogus leaks about secret programmes are regularly reproduced in the mainstream press. Most recently, a former CIA official reported that US intelligence believed documents, published in the Times, purporting to show Iran planning to experiment on a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, had been forged (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49833). Shades of Iraq's non-existent attempts to buy uranium in Niger.

In case anyone missed the parallels, Tony Blair hammered them home at the Iraq inquiry last Friday. Far from showing remorse about the bloodshed he helped unleash on the Iraqi people, the former prime minister was allowed to turn what was supposed to be a grilling into a platform for war against Iran.

In a timely demonstration that ­neoconservatism is alive and well and living in London, Blair attempted to use the fact that Iraq had no ­WMD as part of a case for ­taking the same approach against Iran. Perceived intention and potential ­capability were enough to justify war, it turned out. Mentioning Iran 58 times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/30/tony-blair-iran-spin-chilcot), he explained that the need to "deal" with Iran raised "very similar issues to the ones we are discussing".

You might think that the views of a man that 37% of British people now believe should be put on trial for war crimes (http://www.comres.co.uk/page1901435538.aspx) would be treated with contempt. But Blair remains the Middle East envoy of the Quartet – the US, UN, EU and Russia – even as he pockets £1m a year from a UAE investment fund (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6973974.ece) currently negotiating a slice of the profits from the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.

Nor is he alone in pressing the case for war on Iran. Another neocon outrider from the Bush era, Daniel Pipes, wrote this week that the only way for Obama to save his presidency was to "bomb Iran" and destroy the country's "nuclear-weapon capacity", entailing few politically troublesome US "boots on the ground" or casualties.

The reality is that such an attack would be potentially even more devastating than the aggression against Iraq. Iran has the ability to deliver armed retaliation, both directly and through its allies, which would not only engulf the region but block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the straits of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.

Iran is a divided authoritarian state, now cracking down harshly on the opposition. But it is not a dictatorship in the Saddam Hussein mould. Unlike Iraq, Israel, the US and Britain, Iran has not invaded and occupied anybody's territory, but has the troops of two hostile, nuclear-armed powers on its borders. And for all Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric, it is the nuclear-armed US and Israel that maintain the option of an attack on Iran, not the other way round.


Nor has the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, found any evidence that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, while the US's own national intelligence estimate found that suspected work on a weapons programme had stopped in 2003, though that may now be adjusted in the new climate. Iran's leadership has long insisted it does not want nuclear weapons, even while many suspect it may be trying to become a threshold nuclear power, able to produce weapons if threatened. Given the recent history of the region, that would hardly be surprising.

For the US government, as during the Bush administration, the real problem is Iran's independent power in the most sensitive region in the world – heightened by the Iraq war. The signals coming out of Washington are mixed. The head of US National Intelligence implied on Tuesday there was nothing the US could do to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it chose to do so. Perhaps the military build-up in the Gulf is just sabre rattling. The preference is clearly for regime change rather than war.
But Israel is most unlikely to roll over if that option fails, and the risks of the US and its allies, including Britain, being drawn into the fallout from any attack would be high. As was discovered in the case of Iraq, the views of outriders like Blair and Pipes can quickly become mainstream. If we are to avoid a replay of that catastrophe, pressure to prevent war with Iran will have to start now.

[Tinyclothes]

It's pretty scary reading that, cheers for posting it. How about we side with Iran to mix it up a little bit.

[Chuckie]

Does this mean I am allowed to assault Omid Djallili ?

[hibsbollah]

Does this mean I am allowed to assault Omid Djallili ?

That goes without saying, someone that annoying deserves no less:greengrin

[The Green Goblin]

I have friends in Iran - a 12 year old boy I used to teach,his little sister and their parents, who are just the sweetest, loveliest people you could ever hope to meet. They moved back to Tehran a year or two ago, after living near St. Andrews for several years.

Whenever I read about Iran being bombed, I wonder if perhaps their destiny is to become statistics in the next, great justified" we don`t do body counts (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)" slaughter of innocents, and I feel sick, helpless and angry.

GG

[Leicester Fan]

It took Barrack Obama 3 months to decide whether to increase troops to Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think he's going to launch an unprovoked war against Iran?
If there are troops on the border then it's probably to stop peace loving Iran from smuggling in arms and terrorists into Iraq.

Take a chill pill. It's not going to happen.

[Betty Boop]

It took Barrack Obama 3 months to decide whether to increase troops to Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think he's going to launch an unprovoked war against Iran?
If there are troops on the border then it's probably to stop peace loving Iran from smuggling in arms and terrorists into Iraq.

Take a chill pill. It's not going to happen.

Yes I do. The rhetoric being used is almost the same as in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. It remains to be seen if Britain will still stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans, I would doubt that he public would be conned a second time, but you never know. Weapons of mass destruction :blah::blah: Interesting to note that Iran is one of the original signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel who already have nuclear weapons have never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and ignores resolutions from the UN calling on it to sign the treaty.

[IndieHibby]

Am I right in saying that, simplisctically speaking, Iran is a largely conservative country, run by religous clerics (who fix their elections), with the younger, urban areas being more liberal and frustrated with the lack of social change, while the conservative, older, rural regions are happy with the status quo?

This is the impression I have, which makes me feel that Iran, in time, will modernise and become increasingly democratic and secular.

If the Revolutionary Guard and the Ayotollahs can be contained in the meantime, there is a good chance that Iran will cease to be a threat to it's neighbours.

But, as long as it remains a theocracy, it will be a problem?

[Betty Boop]

Am I right in saying that, simplisctically speaking, Iran is a largely conservative country, run by religous clerics (who fix their elections), with the younger, urban areas being more liberal and frustrated with the lack of social change, while the conservative, older, rural regions are happy with the status quo?

This is the impression I have, which makes me feel that Iran, in time, will modernise and become increasingly democratic and secular.

If the Revolutionary Guard and the Ayotollahs can be contained in the meantime, there is a good chance that Iran will cease to be a threat to it's neighbours.

But, as long as it remains a theocracy, it will be a problem?

The countries the West doesn't control always have rigged elections. :rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

Am I right in saying that, simplisctically speaking, Iran is a largely conservative country, run by religous clerics (who fix their elections), with the younger, urban areas being more liberal and frustrated with the lack of social change, while the conservative, older, rural regions are happy with the status quo?

This is the impression I have, which makes me feel that Iran, in time, will modernise and become increasingly democratic and secular.

If the Revolutionary Guard and the Ayotollahs can be contained in the meantime, there is a good chance that Iran will cease to be a threat to it's neighbours.

But, as long as it remains a theocracy, it will be a problem?

Did the Iranians not have a perfectly adequate, democratically-elected government that was overthrown in a coup organised by the Americans and British? IIRC the popularly-elected Iranian government had the notion that if there was oil in Iran it should be owned by Iran, rather than the profits being taken away by foreign companies.

In 1953 I believe, which is living memory for some people and certainly in the parents' lifetime of many.

I think there's a tendency to degrade the democracy and liberalism that does exist in Iran due to a misunderstanding or a misperception of the culture, which to my mind is a consequence of viewing it from a far too 'Western' perspective. While the system of government in Iran does not fit with the models of democracy we would claim to have in the West, there are arguably broad similarities between liberalism and Shi'ism at a philosophical level.

[Woody1985]

The countries the West doesn't control always have rigged elections. :rolleyes:

Why must you always immediately point the finger at the west when someone raises a number of questions?

They're obviously trying to understand a bit more about the situation and you pick up on one small point in the post and imply 'the west do it so what's the big deal'.

My impression is that you do a lot of reading on this type (or particular) subject so why no share your views and knowledge (biased as they might be) to give people a better idea. Just a though. :greengrin

[Part/Time Supporter]

Seamus Milne in The Guardian...( I know its the Guardian khibs, but play the man not the ball-what do you think of the content?:greengrin)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-blair-missile-shield-iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-blair-missile-shield-iran)
Fergus's mate Daniel Pipes gets a mention later on.

We were *supposed to have learned the lessons of the Iraq war. That's what Britain's *Chilcot inquiry is meant to be all about. But the signs from the Middle East are that it could be happening all over again. The US is *escalating the military build-up in the Gulf (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf), officials revealed this week, boosting its naval presence and supplying tens of billions of dollars' worth of new weapons systems to allied Arab states.

The target is of course Iran. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are all taking deliveries of Patriot missile batteries. In Saudi Arabia, Washington is sponsoring a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and ports. The UAE alone has bought 80 F16 fighters, and General Petraeus, the US commander, claims it could now "take out the entire Iranian airforce".

The US insists the growing militarisation is defensive, aimed at deterring Iran, calming Israel and reassuring its allies. But the shift of policy is clear enough. Last week Barack Obama warned that Iran would face "growing consequences" for failing to halt its nuclear programme, while linking it with North Korea – as George Bush did, in his "axis of evil" speech in 2002.
When Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week renewed Iran's earlier agreement to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad to be reprocessed, the US was dismissive. Obama's "outstretched hand", always combined with the threat of sanctions or worse, appears to have been all but withdrawn.

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, underlined that by insisting Iran's leaders were "sowing the seeds of their own destruction". And in Israel, which has vowed to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, threats of war against its allies, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, are growing. "We must recruit the whole world to fight Ahmadinejad," Israeli president Shimon Peres declared on Tuesday.

The echoes of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq are unmistakable. Just as in 2002-3, we are told that a dictatorial Middle Eastern state is secretly *developing weapons of mass destruction, defying UN resolutions, obstructing inspections, threatening its neighbours and supporting terrorism.

As in the case of Iraq, no evidence has been produced to back up the WMD claims, though bogus leaks about secret programmes are regularly reproduced in the mainstream press. Most recently, a former CIA official reported that US intelligence believed documents, published in the Times, purporting to show Iran planning to experiment on a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, had been forged (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49833). Shades of Iraq's non-existent attempts to buy uranium in Niger.

In case anyone missed the parallels, Tony Blair hammered them home at the Iraq inquiry last Friday. Far from showing remorse about the bloodshed he helped unleash on the Iraqi people, the former prime minister was allowed to turn what was supposed to be a grilling into a platform for war against Iran.

In a timely demonstration that *neoconservatism is alive and well and living in London, Blair attempted to use the fact that Iraq had no *WMD as part of a case for *taking the same approach against Iran. Perceived intention and potential *capability were enough to justify war, it turned out. Mentioning Iran 58 times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/30/tony-blair-iran-spin-chilcot), he explained that the need to "deal" with Iran raised "very similar issues to the ones we are discussing".

You might think that the views of a man that 37% of British people now believe should be put on trial for war crimes (http://www.comres.co.uk/page1901435538.aspx) would be treated with contempt. But Blair remains the Middle East envoy of the Quartet – the US, UN, EU and Russia – even as he pockets £1m a year from a UAE investment fund (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6973974.ece) currently negotiating a slice of the profits from the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.

Nor is he alone in pressing the case for war on Iran. Another neocon outrider from the Bush era, Daniel Pipes, wrote this week that the only way for Obama to save his presidency was to "bomb Iran" and destroy the country's "nuclear-weapon capacity", entailing few politically troublesome US "boots on the ground" or casualties.

The reality is that such an attack would be potentially even more devastating than the aggression against Iraq. Iran has the ability to deliver armed retaliation, both directly and through its allies, which would not only engulf the region but block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the straits of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.

Iran is a divided authoritarian state, now cracking down harshly on the opposition. But it is not a dictatorship in the Saddam Hussein mould. Unlike Iraq, Israel, the US and Britain, Iran has not invaded and occupied anybody's territory, but has the troops of two hostile, nuclear-armed powers on its borders. And for all Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric, it is the nuclear-armed US and Israel that maintain the option of an attack on Iran, not the other way round.


Nor has the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, found any evidence that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, while the US's own national intelligence estimate found that suspected work on a weapons programme had stopped in 2003, though that may now be adjusted in the new climate. Iran's leadership has long insisted it does not want nuclear weapons, even while many suspect it may be trying to become a threshold nuclear power, able to produce weapons if threatened. Given the recent history of the region, that would hardly be surprising.

For the US government, as during the Bush administration, the real problem is Iran's independent power in the most sensitive region in the world – heightened by the Iraq war. The signals coming out of Washington are mixed. The head of US National Intelligence implied on Tuesday there was nothing the US could do to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it chose to do so. Perhaps the military build-up in the Gulf is just sabre rattling. The preference is clearly for regime change rather than war.
But Israel is most unlikely to roll over if that option fails, and the risks of the US and its allies, including Britain, being drawn into the fallout from any attack would be high. As was discovered in the case of Iraq, the views of outriders like Blair and Pipes can quickly become mainstream. If we are to avoid a replay of that catastrophe, pressure to prevent war with Iran will have to start now.

One wonders how much he would receive for exploiting Iranian reserves.

:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

One wonders how much he would receive for exploiting Iranian reserves.

:rolleyes:

Good question, probably more, as Iran has even more than Iraq...

# 1 Saudi Arabia (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/ene-energy):262,700,000,000 barrels
# 2 Canada (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada/ene-energy):178,900,000,000 barrels
# 3 Iran (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ir-iran/ene-energy):133,300,000,000 barrels
# 4 Iraq (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/iz-iraq/ene-energy):112,500,000,000 barrels
# 5 United Arab Emirates (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/tc-united-arab-emirates/ene-energy):97,800,000,000 barrels

[(((Fergus)))]

Good question, probably more, as Iran has even more than Iraq...

# 1 Saudi Arabia (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/ene-energy):262,700,000,000 barrels
# 2 Canada (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada/ene-energy):178,900,000,000 barrels
# 3 Iran (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ir-iran/ene-energy):133,300,000,000 barrels
# 4 Iraq (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/iz-iraq/ene-energy):112,500,000,000 barrels
# 5 United Arab Emirates (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/tc-united-arab-emirates/ene-energy):97,800,000,000 barrels

Dan tells me Canada's jacket is on a shoogly peg :wink:

[hibsbollah]

Dan tells me Canada's jacket is on a shoogly peg :wink:

Your mate's article here:greengrinI think he wants to bomb Ajmadinejad because he has a worse beard than him...

http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency (http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency)

I hear Canada does a lot of unseen work. Very like Brian Kerr in that respect.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Your mate's article here:greengrinI think he wants to bomb Ajmadinejad because he has a worse beard than him...

[/URL][url]http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency (http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency)

I hear Canada does a lot of unseen work. Very like Brian Kerr in that respect.

Why does he insist on using a publicity shot that makes him look like a third-rate stage magician?

The man's nuts.

[hibsbollah]

Why does he insist on using a publicity shot that makes him look like a third-rate stage magician?

The man's nuts.

I thought the same. Robert Halpern from the 1980s anyone?:greengrin

He may be 'nuts', LH, but he's all over the place on US TV as a 'respected expert on anti-terrorism'. His views are now quite close to the mainstream. Crazy but true.

[--------]

The countries the West doesn't control always have rigged elections. :rolleyes:



Unlike the transparently-unrigged elections held in Afghanistan? :cool2:


From the Dictionary of Yanqui-Speak (Volume 3 - "The Third World"):

Rigged election: any election which delivers a result not desired by the State Department and the CIA.

Regime change: what we don't ever ever do after the conclusion of a rigged election (see above).

[--------]

Why does he insist on using a publicity shot that makes him look like a third-rate stage magician?

The man's nuts.


I thought the same. Robert Halpern from the 1980s anyone?:greengrin

He may be 'nuts', LH, but he's all over the place on US TV as a 'respected expert on anti-terrorism'. His views are now quite close to the mainstream. Crazy but true.



"He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations...."

A dramatic gesture like killing a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians, I presume. I can see how that could give Obama a real boost in the polls, right enough.

"Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they could launch an electro-magnetic attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American's friends and enemies."

I'm personally more worried by the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Washington, myself. They already have the bomb and appear to be more than ready to use it.

It's a good thing that Chimpy and Bliar acted when they did - the Middle East's so much less volatile and dangerous now than it was before we started bombing Baghdad. We wouldn't want some buncha apocalyptic-minded nutcases unleashing massive death and destruction in the region, would we?

That would be a Bad Thing.

This is the philosophy of the playground bully - anyone they don't like, they beat up. Anyone who doesn't want beaten up better make it clear that they're the bully's friends.

Or else.

[khib70]

Unlike the transparently-unrigged elections held in Afghanistan? :cool2:


From the Dictionary of Yanqui-Speak (Volume 3 - "The Third World"):

Rigged election: any election which delivers a result not desired by the State Department and the CIA.

Regime change: what we don't ever ever do after the conclusion of a rigged election (see above).
Fair comment. but the fact that the elections in Aghanistan were rigged doesn't make the Iranian ones unrigged. Two wrongs, and all that.

Regime change is in the wind in Iran, I think, but in the hands of the Iranian people. Military intervention by the West would be counterproductive, not to mention disastrous. The regime is apparently losing control of the armed forces, and any attack on Iran would send them marching back into the fold.

Have posted this link on another thread, but hey, it's a good read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece

[--------]

Fair comment. but the fact that the elections in Aghanistan were rigged doesn't make the Iranian ones unrigged. Two wrongs, and all that.

Regime change is in the wind in Iran, I think, but in the hands of the Iranian people. Military intervention by the West would be counterproductive, not to mention disastrous. The regime is apparently losing control of the armed forces, and any attack on Iran would send them marching back into the fold.

Have posted this link on another thread, but hey, it's a good read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018440.ece)



Sorry - it was more a response to Dr Armageddon and his ravings than a response to yourself.

If there is a regime change from within in Iran, a lot depends on who comes in and what exactly they represent. The West could get a lot farther befriending them than making enemies of them.

But maybe the Israelis wouldn't like that. We mustn't do anything to upset THEM. :rolleyes:

And I suppose that there's a limit to the number of wars even the US can prosecute at the one time.

[Woody1985]

Does anyone know what Iran need to enrich the uranium to 20% when it's reported that it only needs to be enriched to 3%, according to press reports, to provide energy for civilian use?

Out of interest, what do we enrich it to for civilian use in the UK?

[--------]

Does anyone know what Iran need to enrich the uranium to 20% when it's reported that it only needs to be enriched to 3%, according to press reports, to provide energy for civilian use?

Out of interest, what do we enrich it to for civilian use in the UK?



No idea, but since both the US and the UK deployed depleted uranium shells and armour in Iraq during both Gulf Wars, and since the result of that has been increased levels of radioactivity wherever those weapons were deployed, with similarly increased cancer levels and above-average numbers of defective births and miscarriages, maybe it's understandable that the Iranians see the US and the Coalition (are we all still 'the Coalition'?) as the terrorists? :cool2:

[khib70]

No idea, but since both the US and the UK deployed depleted uranium shells and armour in Iraq during both Gulf Wars, and since the result of that has been increased levels of radioactivity wherever those weapons were deployed, with similarly increased cancer levels and above-average numbers of defective births and miscarriages, maybe it's understandable that the Iranians see the US and the Coalition (are we all still 'the Coalition'?) as the terrorists? :cool2:
The World Health Organisation begs to differ:-

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

I suspect a case of "if you repeat something untrue or exaggerated often enough it becomes true" syndrome.

[allmodcons]

That goes without saying, someone that annoying deserves no less:greengrin

Infighting amongst the Iranian factions already:confused:

I though Bollah was on the same side as Omid Djalili :greengrin

[--------]

The World Health Organisation begs to differ:-

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/)

I suspect a case of "if you repeat something untrue or exaggerated often enough it becomes true" syndrome.


And if you read your own citation, you'd see that the ONLY theatres of war referred to in that download is Bosnia and Kosovo. Those areas received a fraction of the bombardment certain areas of Iraq received.

But I may be wrong - perhaps the I'm attributing the effects of chemical weaponry to DP weapons. We were using chemical weapons as well - lots of them.

Just so's we're clear - do the neocons want the US to hit Iran because of WMDs, or to effect regime change, or to take the oil, or any two of those, or all three?

Or just to keep the Israelis sweet? :cool2:

[khib70]

And if you read your own citation, you'd see that the ONLY theatres of war referred to in that download is Bosnia and Kosovo. Those areas received a fraction of the bombardment certain areas of Iraq received.

But I may be wrong - perhaps the I'm attributing the effects of chemical weaponry to DP weapons. We were using chemical weapons as well - lots of them.

Just so's we're clear - do the neocons want the US to hit Iran because of WMDs, or to effect regime change, or to take the oil, or any two of those, or all three?

Or just to keep the Israelis sweet? :cool2:
Dunno mate. I don't want the US to hit Iran at all and none of the above reasons would justify it for me. I would like regime change to happen the way it happened in Eastern Europe - by a peaceful popular uprising so massive that the regime will either have to shoot everyone or pack up and go.

I dearly hope it's the latter.

And precisely which chemical weapons did we use in Iraq, and when?

[hibsbollah]

Infighting amongst the Iranian factions already:confused:

I though Bollah was on the same side as Omid Djalili :greengrin

Which side is that? the side of crap comedians?:greengrin

[Woody1985]

No idea, but since both the US and the UK deployed depleted uranium shells and armour in Iraq during both Gulf Wars, and since the result of that has been increased levels of radioactivity wherever those weapons were deployed, with similarly increased cancer levels and above-average numbers of defective births and miscarriages, maybe it's understandable that the Iranians see the US and the Coalition (are we all still 'the Coalition'?) as the terrorists? :cool2:

I'll have to take your word on this as I don't have knowledge on that. However, I still think my question is valid.

If he only needs to enrich to 3% for fuel then why is he pursuing it to 20% and maybe more? Surely someone here can answer as there's usually answers for everything to west does in the region.

Whilst I agree that they probably view the west as the terrorist does not detract from the fact that the more nuclear weapons that exist in the region, the more likely the are to be used. Que 'but what about Israel' arguement.

[IndieHibby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html)

Anyone shed any light on what this 'punch' may entail? :confused:

[hibsbollah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html)

Anyone shed any light on what this 'punch' may entail? :confused:

Its the hardline clerics ratcheting up the anti-western rhetoric ahead of the anniversary. Probably intended for a domestic rather than an international audience. Theres likely to be millions of Iranians on both sides on the streets tomorrow...

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7193935/Iran-warns-it-will-punch-the-West-on-Islamic-revolution-anniversary.html)

Anyone shed any light on what this 'punch' may entail? :confused:

lol... to be fair, I don't think any MI6 or CIA operatives would be publishing their "to do" list on Hibs.net. :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

lol... to be fair, I don't think any MI6 or CIA operatives would be publishing their "to do" list on Hibs.net. :greengrin

Damn! Another plot ruined :grr:

[Bad Martini]

Sooo, what's being said here is:

* The yank bams fancy another big pager in the name of "keeping the peace" (they don't "do" irony)
* The stupid puppets doon in London will follow like sheep
* Err, and there's oil to be chorried into the bargain

...aye, you can bet yer erse there will be bloodshed, wasted cash and all the pish that goes with "war" if one can call it that.

Hmm, just a question of when.:agree:

[Woody1985]

Sooo, what's being said here is:

* The yank bams fancy another big pager in the name of "keeping the peace" (they don't "do" irony)
* The stupid puppets doon in London will follow like sheep
* Err, and there's oil to be chorried into the bargain

...aye, you can bet yer erse there will be bloodshed, wasted cash and all the pish that goes with "war" if one can call it that.

Hmm, just a question of when.:agree:

Or

* This fight in it's own right may be fair.
* Could potentially prevent a nuclear war in the middle east.
* Our politicians may have learned from previous wars and are 100% confident in doing the right thing (although I have little faith in them).

The majority of people think the Iraq war was wrong and we were mislead, and rightly so IMO. However, this situation needs to be looked at independantly from Iraq.

This guy has clearly stated that they have uranium and are looking to enrich it beyond their requirements for peaceful nuclear energy. Still, none of the anti-US/anti-UK posters have even speculated as to why that might be. IMO it is purely to provoke a reaction from America knowing that their armed forces capability is already stretched.

Iran are already in breach of UN resolutions as I understand, again, I don't think that was the same with Iraq.

I suspect that Iran are being used as a pawn by the Russians and Chinese to measure the US reaction. I believe that the US use the Israelies in the same way. I personally think this is bigger than Iran and more about the Russians and Chinese.

[hibsbollah]

This guy has clearly stated that they have uranium and are looking to enrich it beyond their requirements for peaceful nuclear energy. Still, none of the anti-US/anti-UK posters have even speculated as to why that might be.

Have you got a link for this claim about over 3% uranium enrichment? I dont even know what this means on a practical level, or whether it 'proves' that Iran are looking at non-peaceful uses for their nuclear programme.

[Betty Boop]

Have you got a link for this claim about over 3% uranium enrichment? I dont even know what this means on a practical level, or whether it 'proves' that Iran are looking at non-peaceful uses for their nuclear programme.

As this is Revolution Day in Iran, Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenie will be flexing their muscles, and their speeches are designed to appeal to the masses. (as you stated earlier on in the thread) I think Ahmadinejad has said in his speech that they have enriched uranium to a higher grade, and that the West is trying to thwart Iran's advancement as a country, by claiming they are seeking nuclear weapons. Doesn't uranium need to be enriched to 90% to build a bomb?

[Woody1985]

Have you got a link for this claim about over 3% uranium enrichment? I dont even know what this means on a practical level, or whether it 'proves' that Iran are looking at non-peaceful uses for their nuclear programme.

Here's the latest one to state that they've produced to 20%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8509765.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8509765.stm)

From other news reports I've read it states that only 3% enrichment is required to generate civilian power.

I have no idea of the implications of going to 20% or why they would need to increase production at that level. Perhaps it would allow them to stockpile enriched uranium at a % near to the required 80-90% to make the bomb, therefore making the turnaround time quicker to put them together.

From what I've read, there was an offer put to them that would still see them enrich to 20% and it would be facilitated by Russia (IIRC) and would be returned to them within a year. They rejected this proposal and said that they want it enriched within 2-3 months and returned effectively putting an end to that discussion.

[Woody1985]

As this is Revolution Day in Iran, Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenie will be flexing their muscles, and their speeches are designed to appeal to the masses. (as you stated earlier on in the thread) I think Ahmadinejad has said in his speech that they have enriched uranium to a higher grade, and that the West is trying to thwart Iran's advancement as a country, by claiming they are seeking nuclear weapons. Doesn't uranium need to be enriched to 90% to build a bomb?

From what I've read, yes.

So why are they enriching it beyond their requirements? To simply flex their muscles? What happens when they decide they want to go to 50/60/70% just to flex their muscles?

What happens if they do enrich it enough to build a bomb? I know where I wouldn't want to stay if they do.

[Betty Boop]

From what I've read, yes.

So why are they enriching it beyond their requirements? To simply flex their muscles? What happens when they decide they want to go to 50/60/70% just to flex their muscles?

What happens if they do enrich it enough to build a bomb? I know where I wouldn't want to stay if they do.

I don't know if they are enriching uranium beyond their requirements, but you seem to have already made your mind up.
From what I have read there was no specific figure mentioned.

[hibsbollah]

Here's the latest one to state that they've produced to 20%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8509765.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8509765.stm)

From other news reports I've read it states that only 3% enrichment is required to generate civilian power.

I have no idea of the implications of going to 20% or why they would need to increase production at that level. Perhaps it would allow them to stockpile enriched uranium at a % near to the required 80-90% to make the bomb, therefore making the turnaround time quicker to put them together.

From what I've read, there was an offer put to them that would still see them enrich to 20% and it would be facilitated by Russia (IIRC) and would be returned to them within a year. They rejected this proposal and said that they want it enriched within 2-3 months and returned effectively putting an end to that discussion.

Ahmadinajad said in his speech today he's enriched his uranium to 20% (of what? im still unclear what this means, when something is 100% enriched what practical difference does it make?) and at the same time he's saying its for energy producing, not weapons use. So it must follow that a 20% enrichment would be useful for domestic use as well? Maybe he just gets 'better' power generation with 20% than with 3%?

Or, of course, he could be lying about the domestic power generation argument to spin the 'international community' along. But personally I think its more likely that its all about domestic power politics and he has very little interest in what the West is thinking.

[Woody1985]

I don't know if they are enriching uranium beyond their requirements, but you seem to have already made your mind up.
From what I have read there was no specific figure mentioned.

Made my mind up on what exactly? All I've done is posed questions, both about our requirements for energy and theirs and why they would need to go beyond the reported requirements. I'll look into what is required for civilian use when I get home from work.

You have said that they are trying to flex their muscles by moving to 20% enrichment. If that is what is required to produced energy (it's not from what I've read) then how could that be seen as flexing their muscles?

[Woody1985]

Ahmadinajad said in his speech today he's enriched his uranium to 20% (of what? im still unclear what this means, when something is 100% enriched what practical difference does it make?) and at the same time he's saying its for energy producing, not weapons use. So it must follow that a 20% enrichment would be useful for domestic use as well? Maybe he just gets 'better' power generation with 20% than with 3%?

The uranium needs to go through an enrichment process a number of times to increase it's %. As I understand, it's a bit like putting something through a sieve multiple times to get what you want.

To generate power from the uranium it needs to be enriched to 3% (again, from what I've read so far) and it needs to go through the process until it reaches 80-90% before it can be used in a bomb.

Perhaps you are correct, larger % of enrichment may produce better power. That's why I've posed the question numerous times on this thread to see if anyone else knew. I appreciate we're not a bunch of nuclear physicists!



Or, of course, he could be lying about the domestic power generation argument to spin the 'international community' along. But personally I think its more likely that its all about domestic power politics and he has very little interest in what the West is thinking.

Perhaps you are correct. I don't know, I came on this thread to learn a bit more about the situation and to see if anyone knew more about it as people generally seem to know everything about middle eastern affairs on here.

[hibsbollah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8503751.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8503751.stm)

This seems to be authoritative;

3.5%, Iran's current level, is used in nuclear power stations
20% is used in research reactors
90% and above is used in nuclear weapons

Specifically, it has said it will take some of the uranium it has enriched to the 3.5% level needed for nuclear power station fuel and will further enrich it to 20%, but not to the 90% needed for a useable nuclear bomb. One assumes it can do this, though the IAEA will have to verify it.

his plan, it says, would give it fuel to power a small nuclear reactor producing medical isotopes. The reactor has been operating in Tehran since 1968 (it was installed for the Shah by the Americans), but is running short of fuel. The current fuel for the reactor comes from Argentina.
Last year Iran suggested getting more fuel from abroad but was instead offered a deal under which its low-enriched uranium was taken to Russia and France for conversion into the necessary fuel rods and returned. The idea was to get the bulk of the uranium out of Iran (it is currently simply stored) and allow time for negotiations.

Despite some occasionally promising noises, this deal remains undone and would be redundant if Iran went ahead with its latest plan. Iran still says it would not need to do the extra enriching if it got fuel from elsewhere.

Arguments
In Iran's favour, it can be stated that it does have a problem with the Tehran reactor and that it has repeatedly said that it will not build a bomb.
The 20% enrichment, it also says, will be done at the Natanz plant, which is under IAEA monitoring.
Against that, it is still defying the United Nations Security Council on total enrichment suspension and refuses to enter into talks about a long-term way of ensuring that its intentions are peaceful.
There is an added loose-end this time.
It is not clear how Iran could convert - and therefore why it is doing so - the 20% enriched uranium into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor as only France and Argentina can do that at the moment.
Sanctions debate
All this leaves the countries negotiating with Iran - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - split as to how to react.
The US, Britain, France and Germany want to increase sanctions, and aim them specifically at those involved in the nuclear work, but China has said no for the moment and Russia is uncertain.
The hope is that a policy can be agreed by the time of a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in May.
Israel seems willing at the moment to wait to see how the diplomacy works out and the US does not appear keen on military action.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has recently stressed not only the instability that would result from Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but the instability that would result from an attack on Iran.
[email protected] ([email protected])


Plus; nuclear processing for beginners:greengrin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/mining.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/mining.stm)

[Betty Boop]

Made my mind up on what exactly? All I've done is posed questions, both about our requirements for energy and theirs and why they would need to go beyond the reported requirements. I'll look into what is required for civilian use when I get home from work.

You have said that they are trying to flex their muscles by moving to 20% enrichment. If that is what is required to produced energy (it's not from what I've read) then how could that be seen as flexing their muscles?

I never mentioned 20%, or any other figure.
He is making a speech to a domestic audience, he will be showing them how powerful the leadership is.

[Woody1985]

I never mentioned 20%, or any other figure.
He is making a speech to a domestic audience, he will be showing them how powerful the leadership is.

Yes, but to display how powerful they are they are using the contentious issue of enriching uranium to 20%. Flexing their muscles by defying the international community indicates that enriching to 20% maybe isn't the correct thing to do, although from hibsbollah's comment it looks like it is required in some capacity.

You didn't state what I've made my mind up on.

[Betty Boop]

So why are they enriching it beyond their requirements? To simply flex their muscles? What happens when they decide they want to go to 50/60/70% just to flex their muscles?

What happens if they do enrich it enough to build a bomb? I know where I wouldn't want to stay if they do.

By the tone of your post, I kind of thought you had already made up your mind they intended to build a bomb. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

By the tone of your post, I kind of thought you had already made up your mind they intended to build a bomb. :greengrin

Not at all.

I posed the question why they needed to go above the normal 3.5% (from the above) which has now been answered.

Looking at the situation now, it would appear that they do require uranium 20% enriched and they've just stuck up two fingers and said we're doing it ourselves.

Iran's leaded has been quoted today stating that if they want to become a nuclear state then they will regardless of what anyone thinks. Another political **** you!

[Betty Boop]

Ex-UN inspector: Iran truth overcomes US mendacity
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:38:56 GMT

Scott Ritter says there won't be any military strike against Iran at this present time.
Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter says the truth about Iran's nuclear program is prevailing over the hype the western media is creating against the country.

The former UN official took aim at the existing western media hype against the Iranian nuclear program and some personalities who are very good at marring the image of Iran, including David Albright, whose “commentary and analysis is more colored by the opinions of his US and Israeli contacts and connections than it is by his first hand experience.”

“I see the truth about Iran's nuclear program prevailing over the fictions David Albright and others are putting out there,” Ritter told Press TV.

Ritter made the remarks after Albright, who is the head of a nuclear think-tank close to the White House, claimed that Iran is on course to produce enough highly-enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Ritter ruled out any likely military offensive against Iran, as he said Iran had law and facts on his side.

Albright was described by Ritter as a person who "can not be seen as an unbiased personality” regarding Iran's nuclear program and a person who relies on other people's information.

“He is specialized in exploiting the preconceived notions that exist in the West, in the United States and elsewhere about the evil intent of Iran. It is not a fact based analysis. This is faith-based analysis,” the ex-UN official added.

“When it comes to Iran, the truth does not matter. What matters is that the public has been conditioned by the media and the media uses personalities like David Albright to create hype, to create a mythology of wrong-doing that does not focus on the facts of the situation,” he maintained.

“Albright, definitely has an agenda and he is somebody who is not willing to put the facts on the table and let the facts drive you towards conclusion. He is obviously a person who has a bias against Iran. It's a built-in bias that presumes guilt on the part of Iran; therefore he interprets every piece of data that is coming out of Iran as being evidence of wrong doing on the part of Iran."

He accused Albright of taking advantage of Iran's nuclear dispute to get his name and his organization's name in the spot light on a frequent basis through the “fantastic quotes” he provides for reporters to use in their articles.

“It's all about image as opposed to substance. That's unfortunately where we are today when it comes to mainstream western media analysis of Iran and Iran's nuclear program. It's not about the substance. It's not about the reality, it's about the image,” he opined.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He became a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator as a result of his stance.

AO/JG/DT

[hibsbollah]

From the Guardian today, quoting 'more than 80% enrichment is required'

"China is the only permanent member of the UN security council currently threatening to veto a fourth round of sanctions after Iran's announcement that it would produce 20% enriched uranium.


That level of enrichment ‑ measured by the concentration of the fissile isotope U-235 – is over five times greater than Iran's current stockpile.


Tehran says it needs the new fuel for a medical research reactor, but western governments point out that the step brings it significantly closer to having weapons-grade uranium, which is more than 80% enriched."

[(((Fergus)))]

I guess a higher level of enrichment would give you a dirtier dirty bomb (should you feel inclined to make one)

:dunno:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Or

* This fight in it's own right may be fair.
* Could potentially prevent a nuclear war in the middle east.
* Our politicians may have learned from previous wars and are 100% confident in doing the right thing (although I have little faith in them).

The majority of people think the Iraq war was wrong and we were mislead, and rightly so IMO. However, this situation needs to be looked at independantly from Iraq.

This guy has clearly stated that they have uranium and are looking to enrich it beyond their requirements for peaceful nuclear energy. Still, none of the anti-US/anti-UK posters have even speculated as to why that might be. IMO it is purely to provoke a reaction from America knowing that their armed forces capability is already stretched.

Iran are already in breach of UN resolutions as I understand, again, I don't think that was the same with Iraq.

I suspect that Iran are being used as a pawn by the Russians and Chinese to measure the US reaction. I believe that the US use the Israelies in the same way. I personally think this is bigger than Iran and more about the Russians and Chinese.


Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that Iran are trying to develop nuclear weapons - why wouldnt they?

To be taken seriously in the world you have to have them, and two of their great rivals have them, and from their point of view both of those rivals are likely to use them and show lots of aggression towards Iran.

Does this justify invading? absolutely not in my opinion, they wouldnt use them even if they had them, they will just see it as insurance against exactly the scenario that we are discussing - lets face it, they have an enemy superpower operating on two of their borders, after having invaded their neighbour with little justification - if you were them, you would be feeling pretty insecure about now

[Beefster]

Ahmadinajad said in his speech today he's enriched his uranium to 20% (of what? im still unclear what this means, when something is 100% enriched what practical difference does it make?) and at the same time he's saying its for energy producing, not weapons use. So it must follow that a 20% enrichment would be useful for domestic use as well? Maybe he just gets 'better' power generation with 20% than with 3%?

Or, of course, he could be lying about the domestic power generation argument to spin the 'international community' along. But personally I think its more likely that its all about domestic power politics and he has very little interest in what the West is thinking.

I could be completely wrong but when they talk about uranium enrichment, I think they're talking about isotopes as isotope 235 is more 'productive' at giving up neutrons than isotope 238. Naturally, isotope 235 occurs in < 1% of uranium so they need to enrich it to a higher %age to get it to stay in a self-sustaining critical mass (or something).

I'm reading a book on the history of the development of the atomic bomb in the 30/40's so this is all from what I remember about that, and as such, may be riddled with errors.