The US, Britain and France united in condemnation of Iran on Friday after Tehran’s admission that it has been constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility that Washington fears could help produce a nuclear bomb.
As the world’s major powers prepare to meet Iran next week for critical talks on its nuclear programme, US President Barack Obama disclosed the existence of the plant, 160km south of Tehran.
On Saturday, Iranian media reported that the Revolutionary Guards will stage missile defence exercises starting on Sunday. The war games announcement is expected to futher heighten the nuclear dispute.
Iran has been enriching uranium at the plant in Natanz under inspection but it had never before admitted the existence of the second site to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
#35 Cursor_
Absolutely spot on. Couldn’t agree more.
The reason Iran wants the nukes is because of the perceived threat of attack. They are pretty much useless as offensive weapons.
Alfred1 -“They want a world war using nuclear weapons…they believe their Messiah will give Islam world victory…but they must start it.”
Uhuh. How’s Iran gonna start a world war, with or without nukes? You’re dribbling, man. Is it a full moon already?
Alphie, how do you expect people to take you seriously if you don’t back up your words?
We’ll both send John a certified cheque and he’ll keep it (would you do that John?) until the 2012 Federal election is over. I lose if, as you say in your own words, Palin wins by a landslide. You win if she does win by a landslide.
Easy.
#44 Alfred1
HaHa! Great reference. An ultra-Zionist who advocates attacking Iran. Whoda thunk it!
Some interesting reading on this loon.
Idiots like this are more dangerous than the religious twits at the helm of Iran.
I’m with loonie Alfred on this one. Time to take out Iraq’s capabilities.
However, the way to do it is thru the support of NATO allies. Only a leader like Obama can muster that level if support.
The Cheney regime and his bitch Bush fucked things royally but we can still recover with the right leadership. This is cause for optimism.
#45 Alfred1
Is odd that Lewis is the only source of this quote. Very fishy indeed.
[Biden said] Iran — a key concern for the United States — was not a threat.
“I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat,” he told CNN’s Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.
“The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America,” he said.
This was said last week by the vice-president.
Obama’s UN address was also contradictory.
>What should we do about Iran’s nuclear program?
Make sure that the IAEA is allowed to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities so that they do not divert any nuclear material to making weapons.
So far, that is what has happened. The IAEA has not reported any Iranian violation. So why is there talk of sanctions?
#48 Dallas said
“I’m with loonie Alfred on this one. Time to take out Iraq’s capabilities. However, the way to do it is thru the support of NATO allies.”
A couple of things to think about – I really doubt there would be NATO support for this. Also, this has the nasty possibility of turning into a war that stretches from Palestine to Pakistan.
Alfred, you are still refusing to address the bet. Come on, I’m sure if you walked straight out of your room, you would find something in that basement of worth to put towards this bet of your credibility.
Just like Hannity, a Republican coward of immense proportions.
Surgical strikes and assassinations are not honorable ways to fight. If they are such a threat, then go to war and take them out.
#10
Oh yeah, because the Middle East was so stable before the Iraq war.
#21
> We are lucky a republican
> was not in office during
> the Cuban missle crisis.
What an idiotic statement. The last Republican in office would have been IKE. Between IKE and Kennedy, which of the two do you think wouldn’t have completely bungled the operation? Let’s just say that IKE had a bit more experience in planning large invasions.
#27
My bet would be for a strategic strike to lop off the head of the snake. If they can wipe out the government of Iran, the Iranian people might actually pull themselves together and put in a reasonable government.
#35
> Now that is 60+ years
> of history. And countries
> that fear and detest
> each other, yet
> NO BOOM BOOMS.
Past results do not guarantee future returns. The problem with your theory is that rests on the assumption that since they haven’t bombed each other yet, they won’t bomb each other in the future. It only takes one incident to make for a seriously bad day. In fact, if the day is bad enough, we might all go with them.
To answer the original post’s question, there is another possibility not listed: destabilize the Iranian government before they can complete the bomb or complete a missile. I.e., encourage a revolution before they have the capability. I suspect this is where Obama is going but such an operation would be kept under tight wraps.
tHOMAS,
HOW do you think the leader got his job in the first place.
And the LAST few were religious AND REALLY hated the USA..
The Ones running against this person are EVEN WEIRDER..
#16
You don’t get it.
Iran is in part (30% or so) religious freaks society. ANd unfortunately for the rest of the world, they follow their religion is the vilest, most hateful kind. These people don’t care about their own life, much less yours and any other non-believers. All that matters is Allah and (what they think is) his will.
Have you tried talk sense with i.e. Adventists of the 7th Day? Or the “Creationist” nuts? If you did, you know you can’t talk sense with religious people, because any religion is based on FAITH. Same goes for these wackos.
The only way to protect yourself against it is to kill them first. You can’t make “peace talks” with someone wanting you dead no matter what. Sure they’ll agree to anything you want to hear from them when they are weaker than you are and have no chance to conquer or eliminate you, but as soon as they get slightest whiff of a chance any previous talks will become invalid rubbish and they will strike you down.
Islam is one of the most discriminating and hateful religions, similar to Judaism in those aspects. Both believe in their followers’ supremacy, and as “supreme beings” their religions not only allow them, but even ask them to lie, cheat, steal and kill if neccessary any non-believers. Islam’s “holy war” was proclaimed by Mohammad centuries ago, it is continuing, and it will not end until entire world is under muslim religio (or – hopefully – there are no more prophet Mohammad followers left).
So it’s not surprise Middle East was and is such shithole for centuries.
One thing old commies had right: religion is like opium.
#57 Thomas
If we all lived with what MIGHT happen, we’d all be in a closet in fetal position pissing ourselves.
Humans have one thing you can always count on.
Self-Preservation.
And when they lose that, they only want to end themselves. Not others.
Only psychopaths want others to suffer along with them. We have never had a psychopath in power. We have had sociopaths, but no psychopaths.
The leaders in power around the world, even those whom CLAIM they want some religious or ideological maelstrom to come, are unwilling to lay their OWN lives down. That is why Bin Laden was NOT in the planes that flew on 9/11.
Instead these people gladly let young men, whom are compulsive due to their brains not being fully developed until after age 24, to do it for them. Just like all the 40+ year old leaders of the world that send their under 25 year old soldiers off to war.
They all know if you are under 25, you are fit for slaughter due to having a superman complex, being fed patriotic garbage (lies) and a lack of control of compulsive responses. In fact you ask any recruiter and they will say the younger the better.
No matter how bad the day is for a 40+ year old world leader, it will never result in the exchange of fission weapons within earth’s atmosphere again. The world changed when other nations got the bomb.
The only instance you might (less than 1% chance) find a fission weapon could be used, is a small one used by a psychopath. Then your really bad day scenario could play out.
You are much more likely to have them use conventional weapons as they are easier to obtain, store, transport and manufacture than a fission weapon.
There is one golden standard with psychopaths. Something you will always be able to count on.
They do not like to fail.
So they plan out everything to the colour of paint on the weapon. Nothing is left to chance. They see their plan as no different than a man buying the right gift for his wife. It is that calm, matter of fact attitude that separates them from the sociopath and makes them psychopaths.
No psychopath does things on a spur of the moment.
The chances for a total nuclear war are almost none. So you can stop wringing your hands with anxiety. And start thinking how it is far more likely some idiot texting in their SUV will kill you than a nuke from an Iranian nutjob.
Cursor_
#52 ..I really doubt there would be NATO support for this. Also, this has the nasty possibility of turning into a war that stretches from Palestine to Pakistan.
I agree NATO support is unlikely but there is one person that can pull it off – Pres Obama. He already has the backing of France and GB to take action.
The nasty possibility of a conflict stretching broad is only matched by the more likely possibility of a nuclear exchange with Israel – which is even worse when you factor in what we have to do.
I don’t know why we should care…they aren’t going to nuke Paris or DC, for God’s sake. If they nuke anyone it will be a nation in violation of more UN mandates than any nation in history, a nation created by killing and evicting the rightful owners, a nation based on religious apartheid and hatred of their neighbors.
Who gives a crap if the Israelis get nuked? What have they ever done for us except drag us into conflicts? They are the basic source of nearly all the problems in the Middle East. Getting rid of them will bring peace to the world, as hard as it is to hear it. I’m sure the bleeding heart Repugs will call me names for telling the truth everyone knows.
Obama is doing the right thing by distancing the US from this pariah and signalling that we won’t defend them. About time an American president stopped putting protection of a criminal nation above our own interests.
You failed to include the most important poll choice: “Mind our own fucking business for a change.”
The CIA overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 (over OIL, of course) eventually led to the Islamic Revolution and all sorts of other unintended negative consequences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The threat of mutually assured destruction worked well for both the US and Soviet Union for the entire duration of the cold war and it would work for any nuclear standoff between Israel and Iran. The reason for all the hubbub about Iran getting nukes is entirely due to the desire of the US and Israel to continue to act with impunity in the gulf region, not due to any fear that Israel will actually be attacked since that would be absolutely suicidal for the attacking state.
#61
It doesn’t have to be a “total” nuclear war, where every country launches its missiles, to produce a seriously bad day. If Pakistan and India were to use a significant portion of their arsenal on only each other, the effects to the rest of us could be catastrophic. If Iran and Israel were to develop comparable arsenals (Israel might already be there) and do the same, the effects to the surrounding nations would be awful.
Would you define most fanatical religious types, akin to the ones that blow up abortion clinics, as psychopaths? Would you define Ahmadinejad as a psychopath? He has certainly provided rhetoric to make us think that. He has clearly stated that he feels that Jews should be eliminated. There are many fanatical Muslims that believe the same as they are taught that at almost every level of school. Stalin never came out and said he wanted to wipe the rest us off the face of the earth. The only thing that stops him is the means to do so.
#66
> Who gives a crap if
> the Israelis get nuked?
> What have they ever done
> for us except drag us
> into conflicts? They are
> the basic source of
> nearly all the problems
> in the Middle East.
> Getting rid of them
> will bring peace to
> the world, as hard
> as it is to hear it.
Hey, why stop there? If we get rid of everyone else in the Middle East as well, that will also bring peace to the region.
#68
You need to look at these things in perspective. At the time we were in the midst of the Cold War. Having control over the oil fields was vital should the Soviets launch an attack and to prevent them from having influence over the flow of oil. Every decision (including doing nothing) can have negative consequences. It is a different situation now. Currently, Iran is run by a crazy man that wants to eradicate the Jews. With conventional weapons, we might be content with doing nothing. However, if he develops the ability to make nuclear weapons, that escalates the danger and if we gets missile technology (like say from North Korea) that increases the danger even more.
Why don’t we simply use the same directed-energy EMP weapons, that were used on 9/11 to take down WTC 7, and destroy the Iranian nuclear sites from our orbital weapons platforms?
I would agree with an assumption that it would be cool to nuke the WHOLE middle east, except for a few MAJOR concerns, that has bypassed your recognition.
OIL
SPICES
POPPIES
THOSE that are NOT fighting, that are trying only to survive the regime they are in.
This whole area is known as the “bread basket” for a Very good reason.
NOT just oil is here. This is the areas that have the MOST in Spices in the whole of the world. This has been known since TIME began.
NUKE it, and then find a way to grow the same’ someplace else?? not possible. its already been tried.
#35, Cursor… ditto. Well said.
The first country to use nuclear force would be very, very sorry they did. My guess is that any country who used nuclear weapons first, would either be pummeled to death and dismantled… or it would die a slower death by being economically and physically strangled, as never seen before.
I am really surprised at how many people feel Bush’s policy of “preemption” to be a valid national policy — especially after how many people griped about him “preempting” in Iraq.
But, I guess it’s ok now because the Obamessiah has said it was ok. Sounds like a bunch of pigs moving into the farmer’s house to me.
#68, FTW
#73 – U.S, Russia, China, U.K., France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran.
OK, these are all the countries that either have proven nuclear weapons, or likely the have them. And, agreed, if any of these countries actually used these weapons against another country, they would face terrible consequences.
But, mutually assured destruction only works as a deterrent when applies to countries. If a terrorist group gets a nuke (or dirty bomb) from Pakistan or Iran and uses it in Tel-Aviv or Pittsburgh, then who exactly do we retaliate against?
We had this problem after 9/11: Most of the hi-jackers were Saudi, yet we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Should we have nuked Saudi? Saudi is quite happy to have Al Quaeda run around all over, as long as they don’t do it in Saudi Arabia.
So I’m not worried about Iran building nuclear weapons. But I am very worried that they’ll let terrorists use the technology as long as it can’t be linked back to them.
#66 is dead on…if one small, illegally-founded fascist country seems to be the focus of all the anger in the Mideast, maybe there’s a reason for that. The ENTIRE Muslim world can’t be totally offbase, except in the minds of neocon lunatics.
We should not insert ourselves where we have no business…let the neighborhood solve things without getting involved. No one will miss them, and the Islamic radicals will have their main concern removed. Yes, some innocents will get caught up in it, but isn’t that a small price to pay for the end of a conflict that has claimed hundreds of thousands and held back progress in a central part of the world?
Obama knows this and is signaling strongly that we will not get in the way of this LOCAL dispute between cousins. He will end up doing more for peace than any President in history by getting us out of this family fight and letting karma take its course.
#77 MP
US support for Israel is only one bone of contention. The big one is US support for the corrupt and totally authoritarian Saudi state.
The real solution is energy independence and a much reduced presence in the Mid East.
#75, Chuck… good point.
“What should we (USA) do?” We are all agreed that doing nothing, aka imposing sanctions, will result in Iran having nukes with rockets in 3-5 years? Do we trust Iraq to be responsible with these weapons or will they use them directly or give them to fanatics?
I think the risk is too high Iraq will use them. So what we should do is “easy.” Tell them to stop and if they don’t bomb the sh*t out of their military nuclear facilities with advice that if they retaliate then the rest of their military sites will be taken out.
Pretty simple really.
Israel was founded by the forced removal and/or killing of the natives as part of a western plan…which resulted in generations of refugees kept poverty-stricken and oppressed in camps within sight of their ancestral land….I’d say that’s not ok, but apparently you think it’s fine.
Jews used to live peacefully within the Muslim world…it was only when they started trying to grab someone else’s land for their own that things got rough. Again, this is not our fight in any case. We should step out of the way rather than defend what a billion people in the area consider the wrong side of the conflict.
And for your last statement, I’ll grant that most of the anger is in the Arab world…so let’s just say 400 million of the 407 million people in the Mideast…Israelis are still a tiny minority considering the trouble they cause. Are they really worth the possible world consequences of this conflict continuing in the age of nukes and other WMD? Really?
Nice colonial view of Arab societies you’ve got there Bobbo…who are you to say how other societies arrange themselves? We have to respect their choices even if we don’t like them. This West-centric view is why we thought we could change Afghanistan and Iraq into quiet little versions of Indiana.