Iran Update...

suedonimn

Well-Known Member
I have got to chime in here...

1) Israel does not want to invade any muslim country... it is the exact opposite. We know this to be fact, otherwise there would be no mosque in Israel.

2) Israel has signed peace for property in the past with muslims, giving up the Gaza Strip, only to be shot at with missiles a few years later.

3) Israel is roughly the size Santa Barbara County, with no oil, no natural resources to speak of except fertile soil, which the Israelites have offered to share the technology for muslim nations to create fertile soil for themselves.

4) If Iran does develop their nuclear weapons, they will point them straight at Israel. Israel will wipe Iran off the face of the earth at that threat and they have every right to do so... in nuclear warfare your only DEFENSE is PREEMPTIVE.

This is FACT.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
They sure do want to see a holocaust especially since the last one didn't even happen :lol:... it is their prophecy...it is in their constitution.

In the end it all boils down to idiotic religion on BOTH sides. Both sides have a "end of days" prophecy. Both sides think that Israel is the key to both prophecies.

I have always believed that both the Christians and the Muslims do NOT want peace in Israel because then the prophecies cannot be fulfilled. To top it off, ask any Christian if they think the end of days is almost upon us and you will get a resounding YES. This is a recipe for making our nightmares come true.

As long as the Iranian leaders follow the Hidden Imam prophecies..... the nukes they now possess will NOT be stored away as leverage.

We need to disarm the religions if you ask me.


out. :blsmoke:

Sounds like you are reading a lot of old books Jax.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Oh I'm a voracious reader all right :mrgreen:

You seem to be the same...at least you bring your ideas forth in a cognitive manner :lol: whether or not I agree with them, I respect you.


out. :blsmoke:
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
I have got to chime in here...

1) Israel does not want to invade any muslim country... it is the exact opposite. We know this to be fact, otherwise there would be no mosque in Israel.

2) Israel has signed peace for property in the past with muslims, giving up the Gaza Strip, only to be shot at with missiles a few years later.

3) Israel is roughly the size Santa Barbara County, with no oil, no natural resources to speak of except fertile soil, which the Israelites have offered to share the technology for muslim nations to create fertile soil for themselves.

4) If Iran does develop their nuclear weapons, they will point them straight at Israel. Israel will wipe Iran off the face of the earth at that threat and they have every right to do so... in nuclear warfare your only DEFENSE is PREEMPTIVE.

This is FACT.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1370228x2861658x120495987&id=30871
Return of the War Party
by Patrick J. Buchanan

02/27/2009


"Real men go to Tehran!" brayed the neoconservatives, after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.
Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:
On being chosen by Israel's President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud's "Bibi" Netanyahu declared, "Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence."
Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. "Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say," said CNN. "Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb," said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.

Asked about Iran's nukes in his confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta blurted, "From all the information I've seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."
Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a front spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the Iranian portfolio. AIPAC's top agenda item? A U.S. collision with Iran.
In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies."
The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.
But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.
First, last week's acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.
To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).
There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz. And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz.
And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why?
Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.
For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.
Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.
Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for "Action This Day!"? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.
None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.
But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.
Can we Americans say the same?
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Good article brutal
War with Iran is irrational, just as irrational as Hillary's desire to interfere with China's domestic policy. The only way for the United States to lead is from the front, something that the globalists on the Hill and in the White House do not understand. Of course, they also don't understand why so many countries are rejecting the kind of policies that they are trying to push upon them.

Like choosing Nuclear Power, which is the cleanest, most economical source of energy out there. Of course the globalists and other elitists that want to see the rest of humanity reduced to the status of peasants and slaves have a problem with Nuclear Energy because it is economical, and thus increases the amount of energy available for everyone with out consuming resources at a fast pace.

For Iran it's even more important, because they rely upon Oil Exports to drive their economy. Denying them access to Nuclear Power is stupid, short-sighted, and idiotic.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
War with Iran is irrational, just as irrational as Hillary's desire to interfere with China's domestic policy. The only way for the United States to lead is from the front, something that the globalists on the Hill and in the White House do not understand. Of course, they also don't understand why so many countries are rejecting the kind of policies that they are trying to push upon them.

Like choosing Nuclear Power, which is the cleanest, most economical source of energy out there. Of course the globalists and other elitists that want to see the rest of humanity reduced to the status of peasants and slaves have a problem with Nuclear Energy because it is economical, and thus increases the amount of energy available for everyone with out consuming resources at a fast pace.

For Iran it's even more important, because they rely upon Oil Exports to drive their economy. Denying them access to Nuclear Power is stupid, short-sighted, and idiotic.
I agree, Iran desires energy independence in an increasingly hostile region.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
They also haven't invaded any other sovereign nations to my knowledge, and while words may be mean, actions have always been the standard by which people are judged, which is why it's codified in our common law that until an action occurs there is no crime committed. Talking about wishing some one dead is not the same as actually doing it.

As far as Iran being a threat. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons (they'll probably test them first) then they aren't a threat.

Actually, by existing Iran probably serves as a stabilizing influence on the entire region, because if they were truly as irrational, and fanatical as portrayed by the neo-conservatives then they would have jumped into Iraq against us with both feet (instead of just fighting a proxy war with their big toe.)
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Strange, I don't see anything with in 2 - 3 generations of what we have. Hardly a threat. Worse cast scenario? They machine gun down an Armed Predator Drone...

Besides, I fail to see what a War with Iran would do, besides prove that both the Democrats and Republicans are committed to pursuing the same kind of policies that lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Though that is another interesting case against going to war with Iran. The fact that Iran was part of the Persian Empire, the same Empire that gave the Roman Empire so many problems towards its end.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Too many Tom Clancy novels
I don't read fiction novels :lol:

I agree, Iran desires energy independence in an increasingly hostile region.
They are awash in oil....energy independent from what? themselves? :lol:

They also haven't invaded any other sovereign nations to my knowledge, and while words may be mean, actions have always been the standard by which people are judged, which is why it's codified in our common law that until an action occurs there is no crime committed. Talking about wishing some one dead is not the same as actually doing it.

As far as Iran being a threat. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons (they'll probably test them first) then they aren't a threat.

Actually, by existing Iran probably serves as a stabilizing influence on the entire region, because if they were truly as irrational, and fanatical as portrayed by the neo-conservatives then they would have jumped into Iraq against us with both feet (instead of just fighting a proxy war with their big toe.)
If they are not a threat then why pray tell the enrichment? It has no use in an energy facility what so ever. Why develop missiles? They have no place in energy development.

I agree that Iran does not wish to go to war with the US...that would be insane. They do however wish to destroy our system of influence. It can be achieved with a SINGLE detonation without retribution. They DO wish to bring about the 12th Imam (their own words, not mine).

They are working towards an EMP bomb and they WILL set it off. just when and where are the only unanswered questions.


out. :blsmoke:
 

max420thc

Well-Known Member
I agree, Iran desires energy independence in an increasingly hostile region.
iran has been offered deal and deal after deal again to have another country run and protect their new nuke facilitys.the country im talking about is russia.this was a deal that was trying to be set up through the UN.
and guess what.iran does not want that deal because they want a nuclear bomb.fuck iran.the sooner israel nukes them the better.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
I don't read fiction novels :lol:



They are awash in oil....energy independent from what? themselves? :lol:



If they are not a threat then why pray tell the enrichment? It has no use in an energy facility what so ever. Why develop missiles? They have no place in energy development.

I agree that Iran does not wish to go to war with the US...that would be insane. They do however wish to destroy our system of influence. It can be achieved with a SINGLE detonation without retribution. They DO wish to bring about the 12th Imam (their own words, not mine).

They are working towards an EMP bomb and they WILL set it off. just when and where are the only unanswered questions.


out. :blsmoke:
When they set it off, then we should take action. Until they actually commit the action they are not guilty of the action. What we should be doing is ensuring that we have a BMD system capable of destroying any such weapon.

Actions that the left has not allowed us to pursue, because they think it'll waste too much money. We could have easily accomplished the building of a high quality BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) System if just 12.5% (1/8th) of the $800 Billion that the Obama Administration just wasted.

We could have easily accomplished the same with the Billions wasted on AIG.

Once we had such a system, deploying it to also protect Israel and Europe would have been no big deal. While I personally think subsidizing Europe's defense is stupid, we should at least make sure that we are doing it correctly.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB28Ak02.html
From 'axis of evil' to 'clenched fist'
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Good bye "axis of evil", hello "clenched fists". So much for President Barack Obama making a clean break from the George W [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Bush [COLOR=green ! important]administration's[/color][/color][/color] addiction with negative, and dangerous, metaphors. Only one month into his presidency, and already the sirens of a brand new martial metaphor of "clenched fists" squarely attached to Iran can be heard.

Initially, when invoking the term in his inaugural speech as an offer to extend a hand to adversaries willing to "unclench their fists", Obama appeared to be making a veiled gesture of conciliation as part of a new era in US foreign policy. Then came the new president's first interview, with the Saudi television network al-Arabyia, in which Obama repeated it in direct reference to Iran,

<script language=javascript> <!-- randNum = ((new Date()).getTime() % 2147483648) + Math.random(); document.write( "<a href='http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=27__zoneid=36__cb=3e85d491d0__maxdest=http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=" + randNum + "' target=_blank target='_blank'>" + "<img src='http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.ad?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=" + randNum + "'" + " width=300 height=250 border=0 alt='Click Here'></a>"); // --></script> <noscript> <a href="http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=27__zoneid=36__cb=3e85d491d0__maxdest=http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=1761328928" target=_blank target="_blank"> <img src="http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.ad?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=1761328928" width=300 height=250 border=0 alt="Click Here"></a> </noscript>



again offering reciprocity if the Iranians "unclenched their fists".

In this he nailed the rhetorical status of this new metaphor - as a "kissing cousin" of the axis of evil, to borrow a term from Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher known for his deconstructive analyses that unveiled the hidden structures embedded in discourses.

According to Derrida, in political discourses there is often a hierarchy and "one term becomes dominant, the others repressed". That was certainly the case with Bush's "axis of evil" that fixed the image of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as hostile others, often in connection with other terms such as "Islamofascism", that gave Bush's "war on terror" a clear crusade tenor.

Hence, it was rather gratifying to hear Vice President Joseph Biden tell a security meeting in Munich last month that the US no longer subscribed to a "clashing civilizations" thesis nor to ideological dogma. This was meant to ingratiate the new US administration to a Muslim world that is already impressed by Obama's explicit gestures, particularly his message that the US is not against Muslims and that he has Muslims in his family circle.

But, unfortunately, such positive steps aimed at polishing the US's bruised global image have been held back by the currency of the "clenched fist" metaphor. This, instead of a Foucauldian "normalizing and de-pathologizing" of Iran's image - an important prerequisite for a fruitful US-Iran dialogue - maintains the trace of the "axis of evil" by projecting onto Iran a negative and hostile image.

This is a martial metaphor that conveys the overt images of anger, hostility, violence, and even war, as well as covert images of an emotional, stubborn and even irrational adversary that, to paraphrase Derrida, "contains the hidden trace of the other", that is, its predecessor metaphor of the "axis of evil".

Various media [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]pundits[/color][/color] in the US have been quick to seize on this new metaphor to bash Iran. For example, a recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune, titled "Iran's clenched fists", posed the question of whether Iran's recent overtures toward the US are genuine or merely a facade meant to buy time for Iran to pursue its nuclear ambition. [1]

This editorial freely distorts the content of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) report on Iran and falsely claims that "[COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]United [COLOR=green ! important]Nations[/color][/color][/color] officials" have "concluded" that Iran's recent understating of its volume of enriched uranium has been deliberate and that Iran now has enough material to make a bomb. This is false. (See IAEA douses furor over Iran report
Asia Times Online, February 24, 2009.)

The "clenched fist" metaphor has also been elevated to such a degree of importance that it has prompted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to openly dismiss the suggestion that its purview includes Syria. "This is an Iranian issue. We never clenched our fists," Assad told a press conference this week.

Even though he emphasized the need for US-Iran dialogue, Assad should have perhaps added that Iran, too, has not clenched its fists against the US, as reflected in President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's conciliatory congratulatory letter to Obama on his elections victory, followed by Ahmadinejad's explicit embrace of direct dialogue "based on mutual respect".

Yet, no matter what Iran does or says, the persistent efforts in the US to attach to Iran certain martial metaphors that underscore the political image of the country as fundamentally hostile to America, continue. Clearly, the Obama administration bears direct responsibility for taking this false first step toward Iran by invoking this metaphor.

The label simultaneously breeds a quasi-Manichean perception of a "good" Uncle Sam with benign intentions versus "bad" Iranians with sinister intentions. Yet it is Iran's neighbors which have been invaded by the US superpower and, as per reports in the US media two months ago, it is the US government which has authorized "covert operations" inside Iran, something inherited by the Obama administration.

The sub-text of the "clenched fist" term is the history of US-Iran relations, one in which the US overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953 and replaced it with a dictatorship for a quarter of century, The US then backed Iran's invasion by Iraq in 1980, and the US since September 11, 2001, has tightened the nose of its security belt around Iran.

Since everything Iran is directly connected to its "nuclear weapons ambitions", adopted as an article of faith by many without the slightest ambiguity, the "clenched fist" rhetoric ranks as pre-war rhetoric. It cultivates the enemy image of Iran, warranting a pre-emptive strike to nip in the bud the nuclear threat. There is, in other words, a direct and organic connection between this metaphor and Washington's subtle war-making discourse. This has already been justified by, among others, Dennis Ross, the newly-appointed advisor on "the Gulf," a euphemism for Iran, according to US Department of State officials.

The hawkish Ross, who is closely entwined with Jewish lobby groups and think-tanks, penned about the pathway to war with Iran, predicting an 18-month trajectory in July 2007. (See The search for a US envoy for Iran Asia Times Online, December 11, 2008.) An adamant supporter of the "[COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]military[/color][/color] option" over Iran's nuclear program, Ross' role has gone under certain transformations in the Obama administration. It has designated an ill-defined "[COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Southwest [COLOR=green ! important]Asia[/color][/color][/color]" as also a part of the geographical area to be covered by Ross in his new position.

This position lacks the higher status of "special presidential envoy" granted to Ross' colleague in the anti-Iran outfit, United Against Nuclear Iran, Richard Holbrooke, who is now covering both Pakistan and Afghanistan. This outfit's blatant demonization of Iran and its lack of any acknowledgement of any constructive role played by Iran in the region, leaves no doubt that the war-making discourse against Iran in the US is now actively operating overtime.

This drive is much aided by the "clenched fist" metaphor that is saturated with negative stereotypes and anchored in a hegemonic policy that is wedded to the idea of a new Middle East cold war pitching the moderate, US-backed states against rogue states led by Iran.

Like the previous Cold War, semantics play a key role in perpetuating the enemy image of the hostile other, irrespective of the many small olive branches that the other side, in this case Iran, has publicly extended toward Washington, as far back as early 2003.

With the differences between "axis of evil" and "clenched fists" being rather marginal, the image of Iran as a permanent enemy has already been hatched by the Obama administration, and that certainly does not bode well for the future of US policy in the Middle East or for the cause of regional and world peace.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB24Ak03.html
IAEA douses furor over Iran report
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is increasingly appearing like a dysfunctional fire station - it's become an agency designed to put out fires triggered by the heat of nuclear proliferation, and yet can't help but ignite a few flare-ups along the way.

The recent handling of Iran's nuclear issue has been such a brushfire for the [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]United [COLOR=green ! important]Nations[/color][/color][/color]' watchdog. The latest report by director general Mohammad ElBaradei has instigated a media furor over the disclosure that the IAEA had previously underestimated the volume of enriched uranium at Iran's nuclear facilities by some 30%.

From the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and London's Mirror, the Guardian and the Financial Times, among other

<script language=javascript> <!-- randNum = ((new Date()).getTime() % 2147483648) + Math.random(); document.write( "<a href='http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=27__zoneid=36__cb=41acee8484__maxdest=http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=" + randNum + "' target=_blank target='_blank'>" + "<img src='http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.ad?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=" + randNum + "'" + " width=300 height=250 border=0 alt='Click Here'></a>"); // --></script> <noscript> <a href="http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=27__zoneid=36__cb=41acee8484__maxdest=http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=1761328928" target=_blank target="_blank"> <img src="http://a.tribalfusion.com/i.ad?site=AsiaTimes&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=1761328928" width=300 height=250 border=0 alt="Click Here"></a> </noscript>



leading international newspapers, the reaction has been a steady stream of alarmist commentaries. Many reports regard this an Iranian "milestone" in reaching "nuclear break-out capability".

At a crucial time when the Barack Obama administration is pursuing carefully quilted diplomacy to reach out to [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Tehran[/color][/color]
, such new alarms are bound to impact the tempo and speed of the White House's approach. Israel has already criticized Washington's tactics as "too slow".

Small wonder then that last Friday the news about Iran's "nuclear milestone" coincided with news from Israel that prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has prioritized Iran's nuclear program as "the greatest existential threat to Israel".

Netanyahu and his hawkish colleagues in the emerging new Israeli government have much to thank from the IAEA for maintaining a cloud of question marks over Iran and its true nuclear "ambitions". Such uncertainties are turned all the more potent by the alarmist spins in the pages of the New York Times and other leading dailies.

And spin they did ever so expertly. A Los Angeles Times report was headlined "Iran has enriched enough to make a bomb, report says" while the New York Times went out of its way to convey the impression that Iran had deliberately "understated" the magnitude of its enriched uranium. The New York Times added serious fuel to this raw information by citing an "anonymous" IAEA official who claimed that "theoretically" Iran is capable of making a nuclear bomb. However, the unnamed source was careful to include important qualifiers, such as "if" Iran kicks out the IAEA or switches off the IAEA surveillance cameras.

More important, such reports give the IAEA a sour reputation. After all, it is fully outside the norms and standards of the UN atomic agency to have one of its senior officials brief reporters and yet refuse to go on the record officially in the name of "diplomatic sensitivities". The anonymous official seems completely oblivious to the double standard of engaging in such "theoretical" posturing that militates against the IAEA's own norms and principles.

"Theoretically, if you count how many uranium 235 atoms there are in 1,000 kilograms of LEU, you will have enough uranium 235 atoms for a significant quantity of [highly enriched uranium]. So in theory, this is possible, but if they use [Natanz], they are not there yet," the senior IAEA official was quoted as saying.

Have any of these high-brow gentlemen at the IAEA ever openly entertained such guess work about other countries, such as Japan, which has enough enriched uranium to manufacture a couple of dozen bombs within months? Why focus only on Iran? Hasn't the time come for the IAEA to level the playing field now that the era of the George W [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Bush [COLOR=green ! important]administration's[/color][/color][/color] frenzy of Iran disinformation has formally, if not actually, come to a close?

A glance at the Obama administration's reaction to the IAEA report raises issues about the latter question. The [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]US [COLOR=green ! important]government[/color][/color][/color] spokesperson, Gordon Duguid, was quick to denounce Iran and parrot the line that Iran must suspend all its "uranium-enrichment related reprocessing". This despite the fact that all the IAEA reports - including this most recent one - state categorically that "there are no indications of ongoing reprocessing activities" at Iran's nuclear facilities.

Wouldn't it be nice if the US officials first bothered to read - or read carefully - the reports that they rely on to sledgehammer Iran? It would be equally important for Washington, and the wealth of Iran-bashers in the Western media, to ponder the IAEA clarification on the issue of Iran's under-reporting the volume of its enriched uranium that has been communicated to this author by the agency's spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming.

IAEA's clarification
Fleming's letter to this author, dated February 22, 2009, states: "There have been a number of reports in the media commenting that Iran has under-reported the production of low enriched uranium at Natanz. In this regard, it is important to note that:
As clearly indicated, 'estimates' of production quoted in IAEA reports to the Board of Governors have been just that, ie best estimates made by the operator (this is also the case for the estimate of production - 171 kg between 18 November 2008 and 31 January 2009 - given in the latest report);
Such estimates are based on the operator's predictions of how the plant will perform - they are not formal declarations by the country;
In contrast, the figures given in the IAEA's latest report for the amount of low enriched uranium actually produced as of 17 November 2008 (839 kg of UF6) were based on actual measurement made by the operator that have been carefully verified by the Agency.

It is also important to note that:
No nuclear material could have been removed from the facility without the Agency's knowledge since the facility is subject to video [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]surveillance[/color][/color] and the nuclear material has been kept under seal;
The Agency has no reason at all to believe that the estimates of the low enriched uranium produced in the facility were an intentional error by Iran - they are inherent in the early commissioning phases of such a facility when it is not known in advance how it will perform in practice;
Iran has provided good cooperation on this matter and will be working to improve its future estimates."

Despite the IAEA's candid reaction to the erroneous media spin on its latest report, the question of fair play and the need for the agency to stop playing politics with the Iran file continue to loom large. The same applies to respected nuclear scientists, such as David Albright who has expressed serious "surprise" at the IAEA's finding about the magnitude of enriched uranium in Iran (which is not half as surprising and certainly not uncommon, according to Fleming's letter).

Albright's exaggerated response, as well as the distorted spins seen in the New York Times, raise serious questions about the ability of the Obama administration to pull off anything meaningful from its diplomatic track with Iran, especially considering the constant bombarded of such Iran-phobic feedback.

As long as the US media, experts and key players in the "administration of knowledge" about nuclear Iran continue to churn out alarmist reports it is doubtful that any meaningful change in the US's approach toward Iran will be forthcoming. Still, the IAEA's timely clarification gives some small hope that the brushfire of Iran's nuclear stand-off may be fading out - rather than spinning out of control.

After all, the same IAEA report repeatedly confirms that there is no evidence of [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]military[/color][/color] diversion and that the environmental samplings at the enrichment facilities confirm Iran's declaration.

As for the thorny issue of Iran's heavy-water reactor under construction in Arak - where Iran has unilaterally rewritten the scripts for IAEA inspections in reaction to the UN sanctions deemed "unjustified" - it is fairly certain that as part of a quid pro quo to normalize Iran's file, Tehran is willing to re-adopt those provisions of the subsidiary agreement with the IAEA that permit the latter's verification of design information.

Iran is in the mood for compromise. This stance is reflected in the IAEA report that Iran has de-accelerated its enrichment-related activities as a gesture to the Obama administration. This important information should have had the upper spot in the Western media's stories on the IAEA report. Yet only the Washington Post saw fit to highlight this angle in the headline of one of its news articles on Iran.

Hopefully, after learning of the IAEA's important clarification - which in essence exonerates Iran of any nuclear foul play - the rest of the Western media will follow suit.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Foreign [COLOR=green ! important]Policy[/color][/color][/color] (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.
 

max420thc

Well-Known Member
They also haven't invaded any other sovereign nations to my knowledge, and while words may be mean, actions have always been the standard by which people are judged, which is why it's codified in our common law that until an action occurs there is no crime committed. Talking about wishing some one dead is not the same as actually doing it.

As far as Iran being a threat. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons (they'll probably test them first) then they aren't a threat.

Actually, by existing Iran probably serves as a stabilizing influence on the entire region, because if they were truly as irrational, and fanatical as portrayed by the neo-conservatives then they would have jumped into Iraq against us with both feet (instead of just fighting a proxy war with their big toe.)
have you forgotten about hezbollah's attacks into israel.and hams.both of these groups are backed by iran.and iranian agents have killed alot of our men in iraq and lebbanon .these ass holes have been sponsering terrorist attacks against the US and other nations for decades now.on top of that the country is run by complete idiots.they still stone people in that country.on to of that ademendenajad .damn what kind of name is that?oh well.
he is constantly threatening israel with complete destruction.iran is a huge danger to the world.
 
Top