The Iran Thread

[DACrowe]

****'s not looking good is it?

 

[BlackLantern]

I think if someone does something to Iran, it will be one of her neighbors or Israel

 

[Marx]

I think if someone does something to Iran, it will be one of her neighbors or Israel

And Iran will retaliate with the power of a thousand suns! It is not a wise decision to mess with Ahmedinijad and Iran.

 

[BlackLantern]

Ahmedinijad just needs to be given enough rope and someone will get tired of his crap....I have an odd feeling some type of revolt could happen within Iran in the next couple years

 

[Marx]

Ahmedinijad just needs to be given enough rope and someone will get tired of his crap....I have an odd feeling some type of revolt could happen within Iran in the next couple years

I would not be surprised to see some sort of uprising in Iran. Ahmedinijad has approval ratings similar to Bush.

 

[Raiden]

I would not be surprised to see some sort of uprising in Iran. Ahmedinijad has approval ratings similar to Bush.

I hope so, but like Ahmedinijad Bush hasn't retreat from his policies nor rhetorics despite his low approval rating.

 

[Marx]

Report: US 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html




(At some point, this has to stop.)

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

70,000 Strong Iranian exile community group support armed opposition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7479681.stm

 

[Hobgoblin]

Report: US 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html




(At some point, this has to stop.)

Well, thats a pretty definite period of time, isn't it? (Fighting to be started by the end of Bush's term.) I cant see how a war with Iran could be pulled off. We barely have Iraq under control with the 100,000+ troops we have there. How are we supposed to fight Iran when we are so thinly stretched already?

At the very least, we will know if this reporter is full of crap in a few months.

 

[Alex The Great]

i just hope Canada don't get involved in this ****.

It's America's War (and kinda there fault) so why should we help em?
sure there are allies and junk but really. Has Canada EVER had a terrorist attack/invasion? If i can recall. No. oh well.

If the US does Bomb Iran then this won't end well....really.

 

[Marx]

Bush moves to downplay rumors of war
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/bush-moves-to-downplay-rumors-of-war/

 

[Hobgoblin]

And the international smack talk continues.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/09/iran.missiles/index.html

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

How could you honestly believe that bombing Iran and STARTING ANOTHER WAR is a good idea? Iraq has been a disaster and Afghanistan is falling apart.

Starting another war just screams "responsibility." Doesn't it?

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I can't stand the thought of starting another war (which is what bombing Iran would cause) when our military is already stretched beyond its limit!

Agreed. Good point.

It would be absolutely STUPID of Bush to try something like this on his way out the door...but then again, we are talking about George W. Bush.

 

[Marx]

Agreed. Good point.

It would be absolutely STUPID of Bush to try something like this on his way out the door...but then again, we are talking about George W. Bush.

Another war with a country like Iran would spell disaster for this country. I would really like to believe that Bush wouldn't pull something like this so close to the end of his term. (As much as I can't stand him or this administration, and as reckless and irresponsible as they have been...if he went through with it I would honestly be shocked.)

Even if it is something as "simple" as a tactical missle strike, Ahmedinijad will react, and with full force claiming that any attack on his country was a declaration of war.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You're probably getting tired of this, but it continues. An Iran War would be terrible for America, but it may not have a choice if Israel gets really nervous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

 

[Superman4ever]

I just saw this interview and thought I'd resurrect this thread:

[YT]nRWX53-Ofqc[/YT]

BTW, when the hell was Mr. Sparkle banned?

 

[The Senator]

hahaha do you take like a course in Jingoism?
do you actually know of the US relationship with the SAME EXACT nutjobs that you now decry, the active relationship that financed their wars and the fact that the US pretty much put them in power, not only that, but after seeing what these cats were capable of doing during the Afghan war when it came to foreigners on their soil?

they put military bases all over the damned middle east.
and, while we are talking about "responsibility" did you know that the US was instrumental in pushing back democracy in Iran, so much so that Madeleine Albright admitted in 2000 that the US/CIA financed and planned "operation Ajax" what was operation Ajax you ask? why the plan to overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran, to install a Pro-west ( and we all know that this doesn't mean pro-Mexico) Dictator, that's right, the US super-awesome bastion of freedom and democracy admits to having installed a dictator, a move which has been credited as a more than considerable contribution to the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

so while YOU not knowing history might not be ready to " accept responsibility" those of us that actually read about stuff that happened in the past (that's history BTW) know better.
see, it's not just about the Koran, if any other superpower removed a democratically elected official and replaced him with a pro-them dictator you would be calling for their heads on a platter.
let's see how objective you can be about this.

btw the reason for operation Ajax ( for those of you at home, the removal of the elected official and the installment of a dictator) was OIL!

oh Mr Sparkle, there you go again with your paranoid delusions right?
except both the British and the Americans agreed that this was about Iran nationalizing their oil production, so in effect the US was instrumental in removing the only democratic government the region ever had just so the Brits could have their oil concession back.

yay history.

you'll notice the Koran and the Virgins had nothing to do with it.

This is one of the best posts written in this forum.

Oh Mr Sparkle, where does the time go?

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack. Some western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon's Shia movement Hizbollah to strike at the US.

"It's over ten years since Hizbollah's last terror strike outside Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos Aires [killing 85 people]", said one official. "There is a large Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hizbollah supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action".

Even if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission.

"The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of an uranium enrichment plant.

In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US.

Several high-level Israeli officials have hinted over the last two years that Israel might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans.

Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis.

Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear programme in the dying weeks of Bush's term.

During Saddam Hussein's rule in 1981, Israeli aircraft successfully destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was due to start operating.

Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.

In contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, which are officially described as intended only for civilian purposes, are dispersed around the country and some are in fortified bunkers underground.

In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded. In a speech to the Knesset the following day he confined himself to telling Israel's parliament: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests".

Three weeks after Bush's red light, on June 2, Israel mounted a massive air exercise covering several hundred miles in the eastern Mediterranean. It involved dozens of warplanes, including F-15s, F-16s and aerial refueling tankers.

The size and scope of the exercise ensured that the US and other nations in the region saw it, said a US official, who estimated the distance was about the same as from Israel to Natanz.

A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

The exercise and Mofaz's comments may have been designed to boost the Israeli government and military's own morale as well, perhaps, to persuade Bush to reconsider his veto. Last week Mofaz narrowly lost a primary within the ruling Kadima party to become Israel's next prime minister. Tzipi Livni, who won the contest, takes a less hawkish position.

The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option.

The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters.

Looks like things might settle down after all. Its the highlighted part that concerns me. Is it likely? I dont know.

 

[Superman4ever]

This is one of the best posts written in this forum.

Oh Mr Sparkle, where does the time go?

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

 

[The Overlord]

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

Likely because he broke the rules and got banned, no offense to Mr. Sparkle, but he was a bit too full of himself sometimes and tended to be pretty rude to anyone who dared to disagree with him.

 

[The Senator]

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

He told Super Kal and Moviefan that they were homosexuals because they were not currently involved in heterosexual relationships, basically arguing against the idea that homosexuals choose to be gay, since heterosexuals obviously don't make a choice to be straight.

That apparently was the straw which broke the moderators' back.

 

[Hobgoblin]

The past few days have seen some conflicts over the state and quality of Iran's nuclear program. We have had Sec Gates say that the Iranian regime is not close to nuclear weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5201Y920090301

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

Gates' comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN's "State of the Union" that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

"We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen said.

Mullen had been asked about a watchdog report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month that said Iran had built up a stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The reported stockpile of 1,010 kg would be enough -- if converted into highly-enriched uranium -- to make a bomb, analysts have said.

The United States suspects Iran of trying to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran insists it is purely for the peaceful generation of electricity.

Gates said there has been "a continuing focus on how do you get the Iranians to walk away from a nuclear weapons program" in the Obama and Bush administrations.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration favors diplomatic engagement with Tehran to defuse the dispute over its nuclear intentions, but has called Iran's nuclear program an "urgent problem" the international community must address.

The challenge, Gates said, is finding a balance between sanctions to pressure Iran and incentives for engagement with the United States and Europe. A sharp decline in oil prices since last year increases the chances for a resolution. "There are economic costs to this program; they (the Iranians) do face economic challenges at home."

MULLEN TALKS OF 'VERY BAD OUTCOME'

U.S. spy agencies believe Iran lacks enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb, but cannot rule it out, Adm. Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told Congress last month.

"Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material but (we) still judge it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon," he said. "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad or will acquire in the future a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon."

He reiterated a view that Iran was undertaking two of three activities needed for a nuclear arms program -- developing uranium-enrichment technology and nuclear-capable ballistic missile systems. U.S. intelligence agencies have said Iran suspended developing a nuclear warhead, the third activity.

"Iran having nuclear weapons, I've believed for a long time, is a very very bad outcome -- for the region and for the world," Mullen said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta last week declined to discuss any possible new U.S. policies being considered in this area, saying this is classified.

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen; Editing by Randall Mikkelsen and Doina Chiacu)

And we've had some more alarming statements from Adm. Mike Mullen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mullen_iran

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer – Mon Mar 2, 12:29 am ET

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a "very, very bad outcome" should Tehran move forward with a bomb.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the assessment when questioned in a broadcast interview about a recent report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the state of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can create nuclear fuel and may be sufficiently advanced to produce the core of warheads.

Mullen was asked if Iran now had enough fissile material to make a bomb. He responded, "We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I've believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

Mullen's spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said Mullen was referring only to the International Atomic Energy Agency's finding that Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

Experts differ on whether that stockpile is enough to allow Iran to further refine the material and arm one weapon, should it choose to do so. Experts also disagree about how long it would take Iran to make the leap to a deployable weapon. Iran is continuing an accelerated nuclear development program.

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

"There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government" on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, "We just don't know" exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

"We are concerned they are getting close" to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are "not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time" for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report "confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program."

Iran, now subjected to various penalties by the U.N., the U.S. and others over its nuclear program, denies it wants to build a bomb. It asserts its program is intended to provide the country with the homegrown ability to generate electricity from nuclear reactors.

So far, the U.S. has not relented in its claims that Iran has ambitions to join the club of nuclear-armed nations. Mullen seemed to restate that position in his remarks on CNN's "State of the Union." He was not asked to elaborate.

Under an international nuclear treaty it has signed, Iran has the right to develop a civilian program for the nuclear generation of electricity. But any such program must be open to international inspection. Iran has balked at that after it became known in past years that the country had hidden portions of its nuclear effort that could be linked to a weapons program.

At issue now is Iran's uranium enrichment efforts. The Bush administration insisted that was a precursor to making weapons-grade materials. President Barack Obama has sought to change course with Iran, offering diplomatic engagement in a bid to prove Tehran has more to lose by ignoring the wishes of other countries than it has to gain through its nuclear efforts.

"The question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us and so on if they walk away from that program," Gates said. "Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home."

Days after Obama announced his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Mullen and Gates made clear their support for the commander in chief's approach.

Mullen said he was comfortable with the decision, while noting he was reluctant to talk about "winning and losing" in Iraq. Rather, he said, the conditions are in place for the Baghdad government to successfully take control of the country.

Mullen said Obama listened extensively to the American military leadership and U.S. commanders in Iraq before announcing withdrawal. Under the president's order, the 142,000 U.S. forces in Iraq would be drawn down to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by the 2010 date. All forces would be withdrawn by the last day of 2011.

Gates said he thought it was "fairly remote" that conditions in Iraq would change enough to alter significantly the Obama plan. He said the president has said he retains the authority to change a plan if it's in the national security interests of the United States.

"Our soldiers will be consolidated into a limited number of bases in order to provide protection for themselves and for civilians who are out working in the Iraqi neighborhoods and countryside as well," Gates said. "The risk to our troops will be substantially less than certainly was last year, and it has, has gradually declined."

Gates appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," while Mullen also was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."

So, how real is the threat? Is this just another round of what we saw leading up to invading Iraq?

 

[Paradyme]

I think once again the threat won't be realized until after they've given or dropped the nuke themselves on Israel or within the US.

We sit back and do nothing but send them angry letters and impose sanctions that they could care less about.

Plus with the backing of Russia they know that they are untouchable. They probably think even if they do drop a nuke they'll still be untouchable.

I think the threat is real. I think it is there. The mans rhetoric should make that abundantly clear.

 

[Hobgoblin]

-Being allied with the Russians certainly gives them a confidence boost. -Persistent rhetoric should always be taken seriously.
-We've been hearing forever that they've been working on a nuclear program. Shortly after we invaded Iraq, I read that Iran's nuke testing hours were far and away more numerous than Iraq's.

Still, what can we do about it? Its a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. A strike at the nuclear facilities would result in the closing of the Straights of Hormuz, amount other retaliatory actions. Without oil, the teetering economy would fall apart. If we dont remove the threat, we can kiss Israel goodbye.

So whats the best course of action?

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I think once again the threat won't be realized until after they've given or dropped the nuke themselves on Israel or within the US.

We sit back and do nothing but send them angry letters and impose sanctions that they could care less about.

Did I miss the last time we did nothing and someone got nuked?