Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[crusader1492]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN WILL CHANGE IF DEMOCRAT ELECTED PRESIDENT

If a Democrat elected the president of the United States, the policy toward Iran will undergo changes, said Richard Holbrooke, an adviser to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. “We wish to establish direct ties with Tehran, may be with assistance of France. The Bush administration was guided by an absurd idea to fight in Iraq and challenge Iran simultaneously. This is an erroneous idea engendered mostly by variance between Republicans and Democrats. The talks with Iran should focus not only on the nuclear program but also on Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “The data provided by the U.S. intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities has cardinally changed the situation. This was a real outbreak of the secret services which openly refused the role of puppets as it was in case with Iraq. That was a real revanche! The reports shocked everyone and the president, first of all. Under the circumstances, the Bush administration will never dare to attack Iran,” Mr Holbrooke said in an interview with Le Monde.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN WILL CHANGE IF DEMOCRAT ELECTED PRESIDENT

If a Democrat elected the president of the United States, the policy toward Iran will undergo changes, said Richard Holbrooke, an adviser to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. “We wish to establish direct ties with Tehran, may be with assistance of France. The Bush administration was guided by an absurd idea to fight in Iraq and challenge Iran simultaneously. This is an erroneous idea engendered mostly by variance between Republicans and Democrats. The talks with Iran should focus not only on the nuclear program but also on Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “The data provided by the U.S. intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities has cardinally changed the situation. This was a real outbreak of the secret services which openly refused the role of puppets as it was in case with Iraq. That was a real revanche! The reports shocked everyone and the president, first of all. Under the circumstances, the Bush administration will never dare to attack Iran,” Mr Holbrooke said in an interview with Le Monde.

Crusader, nothing will change in America regardless of who is elected. Republican, Democrat - they are simply two branches of one party. Not much different from the Soviet system. The only difference between the Soviets and the US is that Americans had a higher standard of living and a superbly well maintained national myth. Nevertheless, public officials in America are merely spokespersons and representatives of special interest and the corporate elite. Politics in America today is a well oiled, well operated close circuit machine. There is no such thing as "democracy" or "elections," its all a dazzling circus, a form of public display. Once in a while, we get see real American patriots like Ron Paul running for the presidency. However, the chances for men like Ron Paul getting elected as American president is as high as your chances for getting elected.

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Internet Report

Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.

Full story ... I wonder what Iran's stance is on this bullsh!t.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I wonder what Iran's stance is on this bullsh!t.

How is this story relevant in this thread? If anything, this story says a lot about how successful (or how disingenuous) the US has been in bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to third world savages. Nevertheless, there is probably more to this story than is being reported.

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10608425

Has Iran won?

WHO would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war.

It doesn't take a fevered brain to assume that if Iran's ayatollahs get their hands on the bomb, the world could be in for some nasty surprises. Iran's claim that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful is widely disbelieved. That is why Russia and China joined America, Britain, France and Germany at the UN Security Council to try to stop Iran enriching uranium. Until two months ago they seemed ready to support a third and tougher sanctions resolution against Iran. But then America's spies spoke out, and since then five painstaking years of diplomacy have abruptly unravelled (see article).

The intelligence debacle over Iraq has made spies anxious about how their findings are used. That may be why they and the White House felt it right to admit, in a National Intelligence Estimate in December, that they now think Iran halted clandestine work on nuclear warheads five years ago. As it happens, this belief is not yet shared by Israel or some of America's European allies, who see the same data. But no matter: the headline was enough to pull the rug from under the diplomacy. In Berlin last month, the Russians and Chinese made it clear that if there is a third resolution, it will be a mild slap on the wrist, not another turn of the economic screw.

At the same time, Iran is finding an ally in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Its director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, is a Nobel peace-prize winner who is crusading to confound those he calls “the crazies” in Washington by helping Iran to set its nuclear house in order, receive a clean bill of health and so avert the possibility of another disastrous war.

Honest spies, a peace-loving nuclear watchdog. What can be wrong with that? Nothing: unless the honesty of the spies is deliberately misconstrued and the watchdog fails to do its actual job of sniffing out the details of Iran's nuclear activities.
Thanks for letting us off

Beaming like cats at the cream, a posse of Iranians went to January's World Economic Forum in Davos claiming a double vindication. Had not America itself now said that Iran had no weapons programme? Was not Iran about to give the IAEA the answers it needed to “close” its file? In circumstances like these, purred Iran's foreign minister, there was no case for new sanctions, not even the light slap Russia and China prefer.

Yet Iran's argument is a travesty. Although the National Intelligence Estimate does say that Iran probably stopped work on a nuclear warhead in 2003, it also says that Iran was indeed doing such work until then, and nobody knows how far it got. The UN sanctions are anyway aimed not at any warhead Iran may or may not be building in secret, but at what it is doing in full daylight, in defiance of UN resolutions, to enrich uranium and produce plutonium. We need this for electricity, says Iran. But it could fuel a bomb. And once a country can produce such fuel, putting it in a warhead is relatively easy.

Some countries, it is true, are allowed to enrich uranium without any fuss. The reason for depriving Iran of what it calls this “right” is a history of deception that led the IAEA to declare it out of compliance with its nuclear safeguards. So it is essential that Mr ElBaradei's desire to end this confrontation does not now tempt him to gloss over the many unanswered questions. With a lame duck in the White House and sanctions unravelling, Iran really would be home free then.

Would it be so tragic if a tricky Iran were to slip the net of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? North Korea quit the treaty and carried out a bomb test in 2006. Israel never joined, saying coyly only that it won't be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons into the region—but won't be the second either. India and Pakistan, two other outsiders, have already strutted their stuff. Why should one more gate-crasher spoil the party?

One obvious danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran, or one suspected of being able to weaponise at will, could set off a chain reaction that turns Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, even Turkey rapidly nuclear too. America and the Soviet Union, with mostly only their own cold war to worry about, had plenty of brushes with catastrophe. Multiplying Middle Eastern nuclear rivalries would drive up exponentially the risk that someone could miscalculate—with dreadful consequences.
Time for Plan B

For some this threat alone justifies hitting Iran's nuclear sites before it can build the bomb they fear it is after. But if Iran is bent on having a bomb, deterrence is better. Mr Bush has already said that America will keep Israel from harm. By extending its security umbrella to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, America might stifle further rivalry before the region goes critical.

Much better, however, to avoid a nuclear Iran altogether. Mr Bush says diplomacy can still do this. It is hard to see how. But he does have one card up his sleeve: the offer of a grand bargain to address the gamut of differences between America and Iran, from the future of Iraq to the Middle East peace process. So far Iran's leaders have brushed aside America's offer of talks “anytime, anywhere” and about “anything” by pointing to the condition attached: that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment. Strangely enough, the best way to put pressure on Iran's rulers now is for America to drop that rider.

There would need to be a time limit or Iran could simply enrich on regardless, with what looked like the world's blessing. Similarly Russia and China would need to agree to much tougher sanctions to help concentrate minds. Iran's leaders may still say no. But the ayatollahs would have to explain to ordinary Iranians why they should pay such a high price in prosperity forgone for making a fetish out of not talking, and out of technologies that aren't even needed to keep the lights on. If Iran's leaders cannot be persuaded any other way, perhaps they can be embarrassed out of their bomb plans.

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

How is this story relevant in this thread? If anything, this story says a lot about how successful (or how disingenuous) the US has been in bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to third world savages. Nevertheless, there is probably more to this story than is being reported.

I think it is quite relevant considering Iran's stance on such things. Are you saying the ruling to sentence the student to death is a result of "US democracy" or maybe it is fundamental Islam? I will ask you again ... what do YOU, Armenian, think is Iran's stance on this issue?

And please don't try to confuse things by how horrible US and Israel are ... the issue at hand is MUCH more fundamental than dirty politics.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I think it is quite relevant considering Iran's stance on such things. Are you saying the ruling to sentence the student to death is a result of "US democracy" or maybe it is fundamental Islam? I will ask you again ... what do YOU, Armenian, think is Iran's stance on this issue?

Who cares what they think about it? What bearing does it have on geopolitics, anyway? How does this change any of what's been going on in the region? Are you foolish enough to believe that if Iran stopped killings foo-foos and criminals and had their women start walking around in miniskirts somehow Washington and Tel Aviv will cancel their plans of attacking Iran? Let Islamic nations live whichever way they know how to live. Anti-Iranian forces are simply using whatever pretext they can find to go ahead with their aggression. With Islamic nations, the pretext is easy to find, most often its sociological issues. In other nations, such as Serbia, they make up bogus BS about genocide of Albanians. Which begs the question, why isn't Washington getting bent out of shape over the killings that go on in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? What about the so-called genocides that are said to be going on in Africa? Is this how simple your mind works?

Long live the Islamic Revolution of Iran!

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran claims launch into 'space' of rocket capable of taking satellites

Iran signalled its ambition to join the elite group of nations in space yesterday by claiming to have reached orbit with a rocket capable of carrying satellites. In a move that drew criticism from the Bush administration, Iranian television beamed footage of the rocket, called Explorer-1, being fired after Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gave the launch order. Officials in the control room were heard chanting "God is great" as it lifted off. State TV said the rocket had reached "space", generally defined as 62.5miles above earth. The launch is a major landmark for Ahmadinejad, who said during a ceremony opening Iran's first space centre: "We need to have an active and influential presence in space. Building and launching a satellite is a very important achievement."

During his visit, he also donned special glasses to view a 3-D film about space. A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, condemned the test, saying: "It's unfortunate Iran continues to test ballistic missiles. This regime continues to take steps that only further isolate it and the Iranian people from the international community." The test was a forerunner to the anticipated launch early next year of Iran's first satellite, Omid (Hope), which Iranian scientists have reportedly spent 10 years developing. If it is fired successfully, Iran will become the 11th nation to have its own satellite in orbit since the Soviet Union successfully launched the first in 1957. A satellite jointly developed by Iran and Russia was launched on Russian soil in 2005.

Iran insists the Omid satellite will be used to improve phone and internet services while also monitoring natural disasters. But some analysts say it will also give the Islamic regime the capacity to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are guided using satellite technology. Bhavini Rama, at the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, said Tehran had not released enough detail for observers to assess whether Omid could be used for such purposes. "It's probably going to be an observation satellite and could be used for intelligence purposes," she said. "This is a big step for Iran but it still has a long way to go in terms of catching up with the US and other space powers."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2252546,00.html

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Are you foolish enough to believe that if Iran stopped killings foo-foos and criminals and had their women start walking around in miniskirts somehow Washington and Tel Aviv will cancel their plans of attacking Iran?

How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you say stupid things like this? I mean is this REALLY how your mind works or are you just pretending to not get it, just so that you don't have to admit you've been an idiot on certain points?