Iranian War Monitor

Originally posted by rangeroftheeast
Your first mistake here is in reference to the Channel 4 article you linked to earlier. That was a story about a mysterious laptop with potential nuclear related files on it. That is a totallly different matter. This, on the other hand, is about a 1 1/2 document given to the IAEA by Iran last week.

- So there are 2 stories out there now; again how convenient.

So tell me, after reading that above quote, do you believe that the IAEA is lying, and the Iranian government did NOT hand them this document?

- No I don't think they are lying.

But excuse me while I will await what the IAEA have to say about it too, if you don't mind.

Sorry but a news report is hardly substitute for an informed assessment of what it really is, how they came to have it and why they voluntarily handed it over.

Either way, its quite sad.

- Try and keep your little personal digs for somewhere and someone who gives one, huh?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sminkey, we can do this all day long

- No we can't; or rather won't.
As so often happens we are at the point where neither is getting anywhere with the other.

But a couple of last points.....

in light of recent action I suspect the UN Security Council also sees that.

- This is plain wrong.
The UN SC has had nothing to do with any of this to date. In fact it is widely expected that the Eu-3, Russia and China will defer making any such referral to the UN SC until march.

Matey you would have some evidence to support that claim, correct? I don't know what you’re on about claiming that Iran's views on Israel are a “cause for a new ME war”, they are not. Iran’s Nuclear Program is.

- Westy if you are serious then you really need to go and educate yourself about the realities of Saudi Arabia.
There's no shortage of info out there, honestly.

The Iranian Presidents comments about Israel are just being used to add to the flavour (that he is a madman, who despite there being no actual nuclear weapons needs to be stopped from having them etc etc).

.....and Iran's nuclear power program is not a valid excuse for a new horrible ME war, actually.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic, I will say though that a peoples actions don't always reflect their governments position, however a Presidents policies do.

- Sidestep all you like but the point is that you are quite happy to make claims and give serious 'weight' to the long-standing anti-Israeli stance of one people and not another.

Given that the majority of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi I'd say the 'government position' thing might be a little over-blown, wouldn't you?

......and again you seem incapable of accepting that in Iran their President is not the same kind of President as your one.
There it is possible for him to hold views on what policy should be which are not the same as the actual policies of the state.

Their current President was only elected recently

- Over 6 mths ago.

as such they have not done anything contradictive to his statements. You surely don't believe that an Iranian president would be allowed to continue if he was in direct conflict with Ali Khamenei, do you?

- That would depend on what the contradiction was about.
Iran has zero love for the USA or Israel so I would expect what happened.

He got slapped down a little for causing international embarrassment and difficulty for Iran.

Well, they have engaged in indirect action against Israel for years and years.

- .....and from their point of view Israel is the regional proxy for the USA acting against them and their interests for years.

The fact is that - just as the US has been quite happy to arm and supply those who will act against countries the US doesn't like - Iran supports the Palestinian people.
That is a separate matter....a separate matter though that holds the key to a peaceful ME.

Also, when I read this statement I cracked a slight smile. This type of thinking baffles me, how can you not a consider recent statements from Iran's President as a “slight indication:?

- Because his comments do not represent the Iranian state.

There are ways in which a populous can be protected from chemical or biological weapons, however Nuclear weapons are far harder, if not impossible to protect against.
Can Iran ensure that Israel will be destroyed by chemical weapons before its soil is crystallized. Also, considering the size of Israel I would think two dozen Nuclear Weapons depending on their yield would be sufficient for whatever Iran has in mind.

- Westy you can dive into pointless detail all you like but the principle is clear.
The dozen or two nuclear bombs on those relatively few population centres you want the world to fear would be matched in devastation by one or two hundred chemical and biologically armed missiles Iran could have lobbed at Israel any time in the last 10yrs+.

Like I said it is a long-standing reality that proves all the talk of a deathwish administartion on the verge of suiciding their nation is a ridiculous crock.

Sminkey, can you define to me what to you would consider imminent danger? I only ask because to me if Iran is indeed attempting to acquire Nuclear Weapons then they would be in violation of the NTP and should be stopped. I don't think considering Iran actions with Nuclear Weapons should matter, simply the fact that they are attempting to acquire them should be enough reason to act.

- The world has acted.
The world continues to monitor and inspect and hold dialogue with Iran.

You certainly don't think the IAEA would be fooled by a document such as that, do you? Also, it may be convenient timing, depending on your point of view, but I see it as reaffirming my initial point that Iran's true intentions will slowly become known, and that its lies will start to catch up with it.

- So, they freely hand over a document and yet you want to claim they are hiding things?
The first and most obvious question is surely then why hand it over?
Especially in a country as relatively 'closed' as Iran.....how would the IAEA have found out?

Frankly if you don't mind I'll hold on and await the IAEA's report about this before inventing a whole series of claims and opinion.

You are in serious delusion if you think Iran has complied with everything the IAEA has asked it to.

- Well sorry but that is just avoiding the point.

Things like the inspection regime agreed was beyond the term of the treaty actually.

The IAEA will release an assessment on Iran on February 2nd, you will see by that report just how much Iran has cooperated with IAEA. I will post it on here as soon as they release their findings.

- I look forward to it.

I also look forward to a report that confirms that Iran has met it's treaty obligations in full (as stated by the IAEA previously) and which says Iran has gone further than treaty requirement.

I also expect the few molehills of any instances of failure or disagreement to made mountains by those who intend that all along and all the rest to be ignored by them.

I only ask that you look up the Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Power Plant (IR-40), it is capable of developing enough weapons grade plutonium each year for one to two bombs. It is scheduled for limited production capability in 07 and full producing shortly after that. The IAEA has asked Iran to stop construction of this reactor, but what has Iran done? Refused, of course.

- You are simply ignoring what I raised to move on to the next complaint.

The IAEA has not ordered Iran to stop work on it's heavy water plant (please prove otherwise if you can because I can find no such reference, there is plenty of talk about it in the reputable sources but not one of them talks about an IAEA order to make Iran stop).

Iran is entitled under it's NPT treaty obligations to progress with this work (as I think you are aware) and stretching a request to stop and attempting to use it as if it were an actual breech of treaty obligations is well, somewhat dishonest, wouldn't you say?

Of course its speculative guesswork, it was a hypothetical example that I used to illustrate my point about why your standards for credible proof are unrealistic.

- Westy the unrealistic thought here is the one that claims, despite decades of experience - backed by many billions - to the contrary, that deterrence doesn't work any longer.

Now this is “plain speculative guesswork”

- No it isn't.
Iraq shows otherwise.
Iran is moving out of $US pricing for oil and into the Euro on march 2006, there is nothing speculative or guess work about that at all.

As I recall all five permanent members of the Security Council are working together on this issue, and it has been the so called EU3 that for some time now have taken the lead in this matter.

- Yeah with loud and clear threats and intimidation coming from the real back seat driver in this, right?

.....and wake up Westy, the reality is that the UN SC has not been involved in any of this yet.
The whole thing now revolves around whether or not there will be a referral (which if it happens is no excuse for war either, there will probably be a sanctions regime imposed).

Then that is truly sad, to let past actions influence a different situation that is a very real danger will only do a disservice to Europe.

- Oh right, so you really thing we should just go along with a disastrous war without any real evidence and a ton of speculative guesswork?!

Our governments must be so terrible; imagine taking notice of the will of the people.
Democracy sucks now does it.......or is it just when the US doesn't get the answers it wants?

By the way, military support from Europe would help but you and I know it will not be a deciding factor in US military policy.

- That may be true, sad but true.
But that in itself will have consequences which will be damaging to the real interests of all the American people.

The US does not want to invade Iran, we only want to stop Iran form acquiring Nuclear Weapons, and if we do that then we will have done this largely ungrateful world a service.

- Whatever.
The propaganda just closes out any room for reality or evidence and as Rove said has 'created our own reality'.

Actually, you are quite wrong on that, North Korea has proved that even a handful of nuclear weapons will force Nuclear Powers to rethink their strategy.

- Er, and do what?
Leave them alone?
Wow, what a terrible 'threat' we all live under through that huh?

Not because those Nuclear Powers fear for their existence, but because they might not think a city or two of theirs is worth the trouble. And that my friend is known as Nuclear Blackmail.

- No.
That my friend is what is called the paranoid moaning of a political system that can't - yet - make everything their own way coming through one it's citizens loud and clear.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]