Iran nuke endgame

[George.]

It looks like they are going for it now.

By some estimates, they are "months away" from a nuke. And the recent rethoric by their freakshow president, coupled with their breaking the UN seals on their nuke facilities, makes no realpolitik sense whatsoever unless they are indeed on the brink of having nukes.

I, for one, do not believe they will use them aggressively - no country does so when faced with the certainty of in-kind retaliation, as they are. But they would use them to deter aggression. And to act in ways which would result in aggression, if they had no deterrent...

[LeeG]

George, have you seen the movie Syriana?

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:
..rethoric ..;)

[High C]

It's time for Europe to step up and deal with this one.

[George.]

Thanks, Donn. I always get that one wrong.

[Chris Coose]

Considering the aggression they witness next door........

If Canada or Mexico got invaded and occupied, I'd suppose we would.........

what goes around.........

[TomF]

I tend to agree, High C. Or even Russia.

It's a really interesting geopolitical move - Iran wins (obviously) if they don't get stopped. They win regionally with Jihadists if anyone connected to the West or Israel blows the nuclear facilities apart. But even their Arabic neighbours would likely prefer that Iran didn't get nuclear weapons - relations with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would move forward on a very different basis.

I've got to wonder whether one of those Arabic neighbours might either covertly launch or facilitate a raid themselves, while outwardly proclaiming their outrage for the action.

[ishmael]

The comments by Iran's current president, remind me of his name, have been unhelpful.

Calling for the elimination of Israel. I'd consider it domestic fodder if he hadn't done it repeatedly.

The fact that he's a real radical doesn't help.

What did he mean? The two combined: Iran with the bomb and a president calling for Israel's elimination, is going to provoke a reaction.

And the idea that it's all rhetoric, will never happen, is naive.

Can you spell bunker busters? And, what's the choice? Israel is five minutes from Iran by ICBM.

[ 01-12-2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[ssor]

I shouldn't be too surprised to learn of a tragic runaway chain reaction that resulted in the destruction of an entire nuclear facility in central Iran...... And in other news.....

[PeterSibley]

and I'm sure they realise they are 5 minutes from Israel.....who I think have around 100 nucs and a very edgy military.

[LeeG]

b-u-n-k-e-r b-u-s-t-e-r-s

what do I get?

achtually Jack those are guided bombs that still have to be delivered by F-15 or the lighter ones by F-16 over 1500 miles. Penetrating 20' of concrete with a few hundred pounds of high explosives doesn't mean you actually stop their facilities that could be distributed over a country and deeper than 100'.
If Israel is a 20minute rocket flight from Iran then Iran is 20min or less flight from Israel. MADD works there too. Israel has subs doesn't it?

[JimD]

Originally posted by George.:
...they would use them to deter aggression...So they would only use them if someone tried to take them away? :eek:

[ishmael]

A good point, Peter. The whole fricken situation is bizarre. Israel is a creation of the western powers in the aftermath of the World Wars. Mostly Britain. That's why they are there, that's why we are there, out of a sense of responsibility, and power.

Why couldn't they pick a country with some damn oil, dammit. smile.gif

But, there we are. The political fortunes of the West in the whole region have been tied to Israel. Why is a bit of enigma, but there we are.

It seems to me that this whole religious thang is going to play out. I'd like, in my small ways, to steer it differently. It's beyond me, most days.

Those days I think the religious wackos are right. except about the part of a messiah. I already know my messiah. He's multilingual.

[imported_GregW]

One of the reasons why Iran has been able to drag this out so long, is that China had made it known in the past that it would veto any resolution brought to the Security Council that could interrupt the flow of Iranian oil to China. I don’t know what China’s current position is, however I do know that it considers Iranian oil vital to its national security. I suspect Iran is now playing its China card to go a head with it nuclear program.

[ 01-12-2006, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: GregW ]

[carioca1232001]

Iran has a handful of near close neighbours with nuclear capability, amongst these, Israel, Russia, China, India and most recently, Pakistan. :rolleyes:

It is not surprising therefore that the Persians desire to have their own nuclear deterrent.

The chief scientist behind Pakistan´s nuclear bomb admitted to selling nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya, but was granted an official pardon by Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, despite a great deal of steam that was generated over this issue ;)

End of story ?

[George.]

Originally posted by JimD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George.:
...they would use them to deter aggression...So they would only use them if someone tried to take them away? :eek: </font>[/QUOTE]Functional nukes have been around for 60 years. Several countries, including some pretty freaky ones (Pakistan, Israel, Apartheid-era South Africa) have had them for a few decades. Several others have been able to make them at a moment's notice for a while now (Brazil, Germany, Japan, etc.).

They have NEVER been used against a rival who also had them, or who could possibly mobilize an ally who had them.

[Meerkat]

SA gave up their nukes long ago - before the end of aparteid.

AFAIK, Israel does not have missle carrying subs.

Don't recall any mention of Iran having long range missle cababilty.

[ 01-12-2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[imported_GregW]

It’s somewhat ironic that Iran started its nuclear program back in the 1970’s with help and encouragement from the USA.

[carioca1232001]

SA gave up their nukes long ago ... Does gave up imply moth-balling or were the nukes handed over to official caretakers ? ;)

[Meerkat]

As I understand it, they destroyed everything, including the means of production.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

The Iranians might do well to just buy some from their local regional supplier.

They might do almost as well by letting the world know that they had already bought some...

[carioca1232001]

But once it has been done, another one can be built at anytime, unless the memory of the people involved falters, or they die ......

[ishmael]

A nuke, a nuke, a rose by any other name.

A uranium bomb is pretty easy. Bang a critical mass together. The real secret, one well hidden until the last twenty years, has been how to make plutonium and how to bang it together.

It was a huge thing. The eggheads at Alamos loved the challenge of a plute bomb

Really, that was the challenge. They'd made a refined uranium bomb in early '45. Trinity was the plute going off.

Thy physics is a little beyond me.

If you have, as the Iranians are proposing, a couple masses of refined uranium, and the means to ignite simultaneous explosions, you've got a ****in' bomb.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by ishmael:
A nuke, a nuke, a rose by any other name.

A uranium bomb is pretty easy. Bang a critical mass together. The real secret, one well hidden until the last twenty years, has been how to make plutonium and how to bang it together.

It was a huge thing. The eggheads at Alamos loved the challenge of a plute bomb

Really, that was the challenge. They'd made a refined uranium bomb in early '45. Trinity was the plute going off.

Thy physics is a little beyond me.

If you have, as the Iranians are proposing, a couple masses of refined uranium, and the means to ignite simultaneous explosions, you've got a ****in' bomb.Thank you for conclusively demonstrating that you don't have a clue.

Twain was right.

[Donn]

Look, Ish. There's another kitty following you around.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Who cares? I don't.... I'm more worried about Russia's nuclear warheads and what they're doing with all of them.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
Look, Ish. There's another kitty following you around.And a Donnkey leading the parade!

[Jagermeister]

George says (re Iran using its nukes):
no country does so when faced with the certainty of in-kind retaliation, as they are This presupposes that Iran subscribes to rational views of global politics and the balance of power, and that their goal is the continued existence of their country and their people.

But, what if the leaders of Iran believe that their role is to hasten the arrival of Armageddon? To prepare the way for the return of the Mahdi?

This is a belief ascribed to Iranian president Ahmadinejad, as described in this article Iran leader's messianic end-times mission (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48225), and others.

I do not think it a safe bet to depend upon the sanity of Iran's political leadership. They have already demonstrated their belief that dying in the service of their cause is the greatest destiny that can befall their people.

- Kevin

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I do not think it a safe bet to depend upon the sanity of Iran's political leadershipI don't think it's a good bet to depend on your governments sanity either, but I don't have a choice. In Iran's case, they're too close now. You guys have had your hands full with all those WMD's and the nuclear program in Iraq. :rolleyes:

This is Iran and Israel facing off a little. In the end, the whole area could be a parking lot if it weren't for the oil.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:

I do not think it a safe bet to depend upon the sanity of Iran's political leadership. They have already demonstrated their belief that dying in the service of their cause is the greatest destiny that can befall their people.

- KevinSounds remarkably like administration rhetoric.

The rest reminds me of the fundaright that wants to hasten the rapture, complete with the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, red cows for aacrefice - and WW III.

[ishmael]

I don't know why you doubt me. The refinment, and a small amount. Figure out the timing, a simple mechanical/electronic nicety, and we've got a bomb.

It isn't the riddle of the sands.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by GregW:
One of the reasons why Iran has been able to drag this out so long, is that China had made it known in the past that it would veto any resolution brought to the Security Council that could interrupt the flow of Iranian oil to China. I don’t know what China’s current position is, however I do know that it considers Iranian oil vital to its national security. I suspect Iran is now playing its China card to go a head with it nuclear program.Absolutely correct.

The position of China is critical to the resolution of this issue.

China has selected Iran as its oil supplier of choice precisely because Iran is the most hostile to the USA of all the Middle Eastern oil suppliers.

On the other hand, China has no time whatsoever for Islamic-fundamentalist nonsense, and, please note, China has remarkably good relations with Israel.

Personally, whilst Saddam Hussein's speechifying never reminded me of Adolf Hitler, Ahmedinajan's speechifying reminds me very much of Hitler. Today's events are his "remilitarisation of the Rhineland".

He has to be stopped, by whatever means.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:

He has to be stopped, by whatever means.It would not be a good thing to be in Iraq if/when "whatever means" are employed.

Sliding towards WW III... :eek:

[carioca1232001]

Personally, whilst Saddam Hussein's speechifying never reminded me of Adolf Hitler, Ahmedinajan's speechifying reminds me very much of Hitler. Today's events are his "remilitarisation of the Rhineland".

He has to be stopped, by whatever means. A rather dramatic development !

Makes you wonder if China will simply standby while whatever means are used to stop Iran ?

Iran has recently installed a billion-dollar anti-missile system purchased from the Russians. They seem to have tacit approval in the region. :rolleyes:

[Ross M]

"whatever means" need not be as drastic as WWIII.

Iran is quite vulnerable to sanctions, IMO.

While they sit on the 2nd largest known reserves of both petroleum and natural gas, their production system is so dilapidated that they must import 60% of their gasoline and some amount of natural gas as well Confidence Game (Newsweek) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10792967/site/newsweek).

If China can be guaranteed a prime role in an "oil for food" arrangement, they might abstain from Security Council voting...

Ross

[George.]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
But, what if the leaders of Iran believe that their role is to hasten the arrival of Armageddon? One could have similar concerns about some leaders of the US, judging from their rhetoric.

But I have yet to see a truly insane national leadership - one that did not put its own self-preservation above all else. What they spout for the consumption of the masses is something else entirely.

[PeterSibley]

Problems probably will arise if and when the issue gets to the Security Council.Very likely both China and Russia will veto any sanctions,as (in Russia's case) much to annoy the US as anything else.China has a vested interest in having good relations with its main oil supplier and the US itself would be in an interesting position oil wise if the price rose as a result of sanctions,either directly or indirectly.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jagermeister:
But, what if the leaders of Iran believe that their role is to hasten the arrival of Armageddon? One could have similar concerns about some leaders of the US, judging from their rhetoric...</font>[/QUOTE]And rhetoric like this serves only to cause your posts to be taken less seriously. Over the top.
:rolleyes:

[George.]

Over the top, High C? Did you not have a Secretary of the Interior saying that he wasn't worried about long-term environmental impacts because Armageddon would come before that? Did one of your most prominent religious leaders not just say that Ariel Sharon was being punished by God for handing over "His" land - as opposed to keeping it and building the Third Temple which will lead to Armageddon and the Second Coming in the twisted evangelical vision?

Did your Leader not say that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil?" Did he not threaten to invade these Evil Nations, with much Shock and Awe and spilt blood?

Some leaders may think that their role is to hasten Armageddon. Others think that it is to rid the world of "evil." Each madman has his own theme.

[Norske3]

Prophecy of World War III

Daniel 11:40.
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south (Iran?)push at him:and the king of the north (Europe now reformed into a superpower lead by a strongman) shall come against him like a whirlwind (an overwhelming blitz!), with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41.He (king of the north) shall enter also into the glorious land (Palestine), and many countries (Arab)shall be overthrown:but these shall escape out of his hand (captivity)(..rather they will collaborate with the invaders),even Edom (Turks),
and Moab (Jordan?) and the chief of the children of Ammon (decendants of Lots son).
42.He (king of the north)shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43. But he shall have power over the powers of gold and silver ,and all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
44. But tidings out of the east(Chinese armies) and out the north (Russian armies) shall trouble him:therefore he(king of the north) shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
45.And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain (nation of Israel);yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

(Location of the last great battle between sad mankind: Valley of Megiddo...part of the great plain of Esdraelon where the vast armies of the west,north and east will assemble (poetically known as Armageddon) and occur just before the war to END ALL WARS ...when the armies of Europe, Russia and China will stop fighting each other and turn...looking upward to see BRILLANT LIGHTS in the heavens above them:Christ returns with his Angelic Armies of the Lord ...and all the arimes of man will attempt to fight God Himself!

(Norske comment:...so, its all about the threat of oil being cut off to Europe because of the real possibility of insane atomic war destroying eveything in the middle-east..Israel being the bullseye....and the GREAT DESIRE of the Vatican wanting to relocate to preserve Jerusalem from utter destruction)

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael (the archangel) stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: AND THERE SHALL BE A TIME OF TROUBLE, SUCH AS NEVER(!) WAS SINCE THERE WAS A NATION EVEN TO THAT SAME TIME: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

So, bottom line: Christ must return to keep Mankind from utterly destroying every last life form....from humans to amoeba's...AND THE FROGS..
.....Mark 13:19,20. For in those days shall be affliction such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time,neither shall be.
And except that the Lord had shortened those days, NO FLESH SHOULD BE SAVED: but for the elects sake, whom he has chosen, he has shortened the days.

After all that... Christ will rule the entire Earth...and Mankind will finally live ...ALL peoples in peace...paradise on Earth. smile.gif
Some of the benefits of living under the rule of Christ...for a 1000 years....NO MORE EVILS:
Specifically:(just a few listed here)
1.No crime...all prisons destroyed...no door locks needed....no guns for protection needed .
2.No disease...all hospitals destroyed...all medical people retrained for "whatever".
3.No more of mans political rule/governments.
4.No more of mans taxes...just ten percent of income goes into the government of Christ.
5.Nature of animals will revert back to there original state...wolf will eat straw..they will loose their fear of man.No need for zoo's.A little child will lead a lion about...(coming home and saying .."Mommy...look what I found...can I keep him please?) smile.gif
6.No more violent weather.
7.Food production will be so abundant the plowman will overtake the haresters.
8.Pollution of the Earth will be healed...land, sea and air will be purified.Atomic wastes will be swallowed up by the earth and burned. Oil spills will disappear...etc.
9. The forests will return in great abundance....and woodenboat building WILL THRIVE!....production of fibreglass prohibitted. ...I hope :D
10.Frogs will reappear in the jungles.. :D .

...the list goes on and on and on and on....

[ 01-13-2006, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[TomF]

Norske3, I could not disagree more fully with this interpretation of the book of Daniel. Or similar interpretations of the book of Revelation, or the "mini-Apocalypse" in Mark.

t.

[Norske3]

HELLO TOM F!....And I could not agree more with your freedom to express and put in writing your understanding that what I said is utter fantasy. smile.gif smile.gif

[ 01-13-2006, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[TomF]

I'm very thick today, Norske3 - can't make out whether you're intending to expose what you think is a silly interpretation, or if instead you mean it.

Whichever. It's a common approach to Apocalyptic literature - which I don't share. But as you said about mine ... I support your perfect right to post your opinion, whichever it is.

t.

[ 01-13-2006, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
Over the top, High C? Did you not have a Secretary of the Interior saying that he wasn't worried about long-term environmental impacts because Armageddon would come before that? Did one of your most prominent religious leaders not just say that Ariel Sharon was being punished by God for handing over "His" land - as opposed to keeping it and building the Third Temple which will lead to Armageddon and the Second Coming in the twisted evangelical vision?

Did your Leader not say that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil?" a) I have no idea.

b) Pat Robertson is not one of our most prominent religious leaders.

c) Iran is part of an "axis of evil". They are a serious threat that will have to be dealt with. The longer we wait, the harder it will be. It's Europe's turn.

[ 01-13-2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Keith Wilson]

I once got an interesting little tract, printed on something resembling toilet paper, claiming that Anwar Sadat was the Antichrist, and that the Universal Product Code was the mark of the beast. I can sort of see the UPC, but Sadat seemed an odd choice.

And Pat Robertson was once a prominent far-right religious leader. Over the years he's gotten weirder and weirder, and now he only gets any publicity when he says something outrageous. Might be a motivation, eh? Michael Jackson used to be a prominent popular singer too.

[ 01-13-2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[High C]

:D

[Norske3]

YES!.TOM...hello...now here we agree!. smile.gif ...as for the time...day...hour...minute...whatever....no one knows but God the Father.For this is what Christ Himself said...not even He knows smile.gif . However Christ does narrow the Season down with all the signs that would be happening and INCREASING ..ALL HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME.

You say "taking a different approach"...meaning?...you don't believe Christ will return to keep man from destroying himself?...now that man can do it hundreds of times over... if their were enough maniacs left over from the previous blasts...turning the Earths atmosphere into a deadly cloud...resulting in worldwide winter. :eek:

Well, it is obvious to me the the Creator of all life has given man the freedom to live or die....allowing him to ALMOST "hang himself completely"...in order to prove to Mankind that it is IMPOSSIBLE to live worldwide...among all the different peoples of this planet...WITHOUT HIM!. smile.gif ...this is why all the world troubles are happening..MAN IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE ..POLLUTION OF THE MIND, THE BODY, THE EARTH ...Man doesn't have the ability to rule himself in peace....but we just keep hoping the next guy will straighten out all our problems.."HILLARY"..YES!...NOW MAYBE....JUST MAYBE. :D well, naw, not a chance....it ain't going to happen .

[ 01-13-2006, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[TomF]

Thanks for clarifying, Norske3.

I haven't a clue whether or not there will be a second coming, or if so, when. All those who have so far predicted that Christ will return immediately - starting with Paul - haven't got it right. So I'm skeptical of claims that this time, a literal reading of the story will have a different ending.

That said, I find Revelation, and to a lesser degree Daniel, to be very powerful, enlightening books. I just don't think that they describe events that will come, in the way that you seem to. As a prof of mine said, "Revelation" is about revealing what's going on ... and the 4 horsemen have always been riding. Show me a time without war, without plague, without suffering? Show me a time which, for some people, wasn't their own "end time."

All times are end times. It's up to us to live responsibly, faithfully, lovingly - with that in mind.

[Norske3]

Yes..TOM .always been wars...but never have they had the POWER to terminate all peoples worldwide as we do now.

[ 01-13-2006, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[TomF]

Arguably, we've had that power for most of the past 100 years, even before nukes. Certainly, the power's been there since the end of WWII.

Norske3, I just respectfully disagree. It's not that I think Revelation etc. isn't "true," it's what kind of truth it is. I don't believe it was ever intended to be "prophecy" in a weather-forecasting sense that "This will happen, then that, then the next." Reading it that way won't, in my view, likely prove to be the most fruitful.

I've not got the time right now to really delve into this, but perhaps later.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by TomF:
I've got to wonder whether one of those Arabic neighbours might either covertly launch or facilitate a raid themselves, while outwardly proclaiming their outrage for the action.I think you very well might be right, Tom. It's easy for Americans to forget that Persian Iranians and Arabs have very little in common except their religion (and Iran shares its flavor with Islam with a minority of Arabic Moslems). Historically, there is no love lost between Iran and the Arab countries -- like there is no love lost between Peter and Katherine, only with guns and tanks.

[Norske3]

Changing the subject here: You are in Fredericton....isn't that the beautiful land/area of "Anne of Green Gables"? smile.gif

[TomF]

Originally posted by Norske3:
Changing the subject here: You are in Fredericton....isn't that the beautiful land/area of "Anne of Green Gables"? smile.gif Close to it - Anne's from about 4 hours away, on Prince Edward Island. I have a friend who lives not 20 minutes from Green Gables itself...

... which is now, of course, utterly swarming with tourists. PEI has capitalized on its quite astonishing pastoral beauty, and on Ann, as one of the primary industries.

Off to lunch - see you later.

t.

[Norske3]

Middle East
Iran: The nuclear nightmare
Tehran's defiance sparks fears of a regional showdown
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 13 January 2006
The confrontation between Iran and the West deepened yesterday as both sides hardened their positions over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany announced that more than two years of negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme were at a "dead end" and they urged the UN nuclear watchdog to call an emergency board meeting to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, accusing Tehran of a "documented record of concealment and deception". Diplomats said the talks at the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would probably be held in the first week of next month.

The Iranian leadership stood firm in response. "We are not worried about our nuclear case being sent to the Security Council," Gholamreza Rahmani-Fazli, the deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said on Iranian television. Earlier, the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani said on radio that the stand off had "become very serious and has reached its climax". He said Iran intended to press on with its nuclear programme and had no intention of complying with " colonial taboos".

Western fears that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon have been fuelled by statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since his election in June last year. He has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" , and Iran has taken steps since August to reverse commitments to the international community on freezing its uranium-related activities. The most serious step came on Tuesday, when the Iranians broke UN seals at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which can be used to produce weapons-grade material.

As a result, Iran is faced with the real possibility of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions for the first time after more than two years of talking to the Europeans about curbing its nuclear activities.

Iran insists that its intentions in pursuing nuclear technology are peaceful. But the West has continued to harbour suspicions because of the Iranians' refusal to come clean on the extent of its nuclear programme, which was concealed from inspectors for 18 years. There also questions as to why oil-rich Iran, with its vast energy reserves, is so keen to develop nuclear energy.

Last week, a leaked EU intelligence assessment provided more details about companies and middlemen used by the Iranians in their search for nuclear suppliers in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The report provided no proof, however, that the materials were destined for a nuclear weapon.

Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector who headed the UN nuclear watchdog, said: "I think some of the Iranians want to go to nuclear weapons." He pointed to a 40-megawatt heavy-water plant at Arak, which could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb, as a sign that Iran may not have purely peaceful intentions.

A former Israeli general said he recently met Iranian figures in Europe who told him Tehran was "very determined" to acquire nuclear weapons. Uzi Dayan said his informants had an Iranian academic and civil servant background and represented "the official Iranian position". Israel has refused to rule out a possible pre-emptive military strike on Iran.

The European statement issued after the ministers' talks in Berlin stressed that the current dispute is "about Iran's failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Iran continues to challenge the authority of the IAEA Board by ignoring its repeated requests and providing only partial co-operation to the IAEA." The statement noted that this is not just a dispute between Iran and Europe "but between Iran and the whole international community" . It said it was important for the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, as well as the stability of the Middle East region, "that the international community responds firmly to this challenge".

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, urged the UN Security Council to maintain the pressure on the Iranians.

However, Iran argues that it has a right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium, and has informed the IAEA that it only intends to conduct small-scale enrichment at Natanz . The Europeans and US could face difficulties in referring Iran to the UN Security Council for breaking a moratorium which was voluntary in the first place, and without the IAEA declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations.

The Europeans and the US stressed that they still hope for a diplomatic solution to the stand off. But some analysts said it was a mistake by the Europeans and the Bush administration in recent days to use threatening language that could force Iran into even more extreme positions.

Sounds familiar?
IRAQ

WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of holding weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear arms programme. UN weapons inspectors were expelled from the country on the eve of the 2003 war.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 1995 that it had a clandestine nuclear weapons scheme following revelations by Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who had defected. Before 2003 invasion, regime was accused of concealing WMD from UN inspectors.

MISCALCULATION

Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 5 March 2003: "It serves the interest of no one for Saddam to miscalculate. It doesn't serve the interest of the United States or the world or Iraq for Saddam to miscalculate our intention or our willingness to act."

SECURITY COUNCIL

November 2002: Iraq threatened with military action unless it co-operates with UN inspectors. US leads invasion without Security Council backing.

IRAN

WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of working on nuclear weapons programme. UN weapons inspectors are at work in the country.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 2002 that it had a clandestine nuclear programme after revelations by Iranian dissidents. Iran was accused by Britain, France and Germany yesterday of "concealment and deception".

MISCALCULATION

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 11 January, 2006: "The Iranian regime has made a serious miscalculation.If negotiations have run their course and Iran is not going to negotiate in good faith, then there's no other option but to refer the matter to the Security Council."

SECURITY COUNCIL

12 January 2006: Britain, France and Germany call for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Failure to reach agreement could give US hawks - and Israel - an excuse for unilateral military action.

The confrontation between Iran and the West deepened yesterday as both sides hardened their positions over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany announced that more than two years of negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme were at a "dead end" and they urged the UN nuclear watchdog to call an emergency board meeting to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, accusing Tehran of a "documented record of concealment and deception". Diplomats said the talks at the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would probably be held in the first week of next month.

The Iranian leadership stood firm in response. "We are not worried about our nuclear case being sent to the Security Council," Gholamreza Rahmani-Fazli, the deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said on Iranian television. Earlier, the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani said on radio that the stand off had "become very serious and has reached its climax". He said Iran intended to press on with its nuclear programme and had no intention of complying with " colonial taboos".

Western fears that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon have been fuelled by statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since his election in June last year. He has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" , and Iran has taken steps since August to reverse commitments to the international community on freezing its uranium-related activities. The most serious step came on Tuesday, when the Iranians broke UN seals at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which can be used to produce weapons-grade material.

As a result, Iran is faced with the real possibility of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions for the first time after more than two years of talking to the Europeans about curbing its nuclear activities.

Iran insists that its intentions in pursuing nuclear technology are peaceful. But the West has continued to harbour suspicions because of the Iranians' refusal to come clean on the extent of its nuclear programme, which was concealed from inspectors for 18 years. There also questions as to why oil-rich Iran, with its vast energy reserves, is so keen to develop nuclear energy.

Last week, a leaked EU intelligence assessment provided more details about companies and middlemen used by the Iranians in their search for nuclear suppliers in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The report provided no proof, however, that the materials were destined for a nuclear weapon.

Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector who headed the UN nuclear watchdog, said: "I think some of the Iranians want to go to nuclear weapons." He pointed to a 40-megawatt heavy-water plant at Arak, which could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb, as a sign that Iran may not have purely peaceful intentions.

A former Israeli general said he recently met Iranian figures in Europe who told him Tehran was "very determined" to acquire nuclear weapons. Uzi Dayan said his informants had an Iranian academic and civil servant background and represented "the official Iranian position". Israel has refused to rule out a possible pre-emptive military strike on Iran.

The European statement issued after the ministers' talks in Berlin stressed that the current dispute is "about Iran's failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Iran continues to challenge the authority of the IAEA Board by ignoring its repeated requests and providing only partial co-operation to the IAEA." The statement noted that this is not just a dispute between Iran and Europe "but between Iran and the whole international community" . It said it was important for the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, as well as the stability of the Middle East region, "that the international community responds firmly to this challenge".

[Norske3]

Quote from previous post:"..........that the international community responds FIRMLY to this challenge".

And they will when the threat of their oil being cut off!....the Europeans(but not all of them) will gather their military might and secure the oil fields.

[ 01-13-2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[John of Phoenix]

I predict Armageddon in mid to late May.

And remember, it's 616 not 666. Accept no imitations.

[Norske3]

I rather dial 911.