"Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
full-scale war between the US and Iran (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter steve albino
- Start date
- Replies 381
- Views 62K
- Watchers 11
oh shit
Well-Known Member
can international law settle the current dispute? i asked myself.
- Thread starter
- #164
steve albino
New Member
US says Iran top terror sponsor
Last Updated: Friday, 28 April 2006, 16:55 GMT 17:55 UK
Iranians sign agreement to carry out suicide attacks against Israel
Iran has made clear its support for suicide bombings in Israel
Iran is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism", according to the US state department's annual report on world terrorism.
It finds that Iran's Revolutionary Guards and intelligence ministry are directly involved in planning and supporting terrorist acts.
There was no immediate response from Tehran which is locked in a row with the US over its nuclear programme.
The report also argues that al-Qaeda had been weakened.
The US report says other state sponsors of terrorism include Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Cuba.
Cuba, for example, is accused of harbouring members of Spain's Eta militant group and Colombian leftist rebel groups.
Iraq, the report adds, is "not currently a terrorist safe haven" although Islamist militant groups view it "as a potential safe haven and are attempting to make it a reality".
The international community's actions have degraded the core al-Qaeda leadership group
BBC State Department correspondent Jonathan Beale says that, by highlighting successes in disrupting the al-Qaeda network, the US hopes to convey the message that it is winning the war on terror.
But the dramatic rise in the number of terrorist attacks paints a very different picture, our correspondent adds, even though the US puts that down to a new broader definition of what is a terrorist attack.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4955430.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 28 April 2006, 16:55 GMT 17:55 UK
Iranians sign agreement to carry out suicide attacks against Israel
Iran has made clear its support for suicide bombings in Israel
Iran is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism", according to the US state department's annual report on world terrorism.
It finds that Iran's Revolutionary Guards and intelligence ministry are directly involved in planning and supporting terrorist acts.
There was no immediate response from Tehran which is locked in a row with the US over its nuclear programme.
The report also argues that al-Qaeda had been weakened.
The US report says other state sponsors of terrorism include Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Cuba.
Cuba, for example, is accused of harbouring members of Spain's Eta militant group and Colombian leftist rebel groups.
Iraq, the report adds, is "not currently a terrorist safe haven" although Islamist militant groups view it "as a potential safe haven and are attempting to make it a reality".
The international community's actions have degraded the core al-Qaeda leadership group
BBC State Department correspondent Jonathan Beale says that, by highlighting successes in disrupting the al-Qaeda network, the US hopes to convey the message that it is winning the war on terror.
But the dramatic rise in the number of terrorist attacks paints a very different picture, our correspondent adds, even though the US puts that down to a new broader definition of what is a terrorist attack.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4955430.stm
- Thread starter
- #165
steve albino
New Member
US envoy to push for early Iran resolution
10 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said that he would press for quick adoption by the Security Council of a draft resolution that would legally bind
Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment. He spoke to reporters after the 15-member council received an eight-page report from
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei stating that Tehran had failed to comply with the 30-day UN deadline, which expired Friday, to halt enrichment.
He said the draft being considered under Chapter 7 of the UN charter "will simply make mandatory the obligations already imposed on Iran by previously existing IAEA resolutions."
"We're invoking the mandatory provisions of Chapter Seven, and this resolution itself will not dictate or foreshadow a future action," Bolton said. "That really puts the ball back in Iran's court, and it's up to them whether they will honor their obligations."
A Chapter 7 resolution is invoked to deal with "threats to peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression" and is binding on all UN member states.
Asked whether the proposed resolution, which is expected to be submitted next week, would contain a deadline for Iranian compliance, Bolton said: "We've been discussing a very short turn-around period for complying with the resolution...Our view is it should be a very short period.
Iran rejects Western allegations that its civilian nuclear program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons and said that as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to enrich uranium.
Enrichment can be used to produce nuclear reactor fuel but also fuel for bomb-making.
Bolton reiterated that Washington had no quarrel with the people of Iran and sought to impress upon them that pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is not in their national self-interest.
"We have no quarrel with the people of iran. We have a quarrel with the government that's seeking to acquire new weapons," Bolton said. "Iran holds the key to this in its own hand. It can prevent the council from going further by giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, as other countries have done."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006042...pFSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
10 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said that he would press for quick adoption by the Security Council of a draft resolution that would legally bind
Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment. He spoke to reporters after the 15-member council received an eight-page report from
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei stating that Tehran had failed to comply with the 30-day UN deadline, which expired Friday, to halt enrichment.
He said the draft being considered under Chapter 7 of the UN charter "will simply make mandatory the obligations already imposed on Iran by previously existing IAEA resolutions."
"We're invoking the mandatory provisions of Chapter Seven, and this resolution itself will not dictate or foreshadow a future action," Bolton said. "That really puts the ball back in Iran's court, and it's up to them whether they will honor their obligations."
A Chapter 7 resolution is invoked to deal with "threats to peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression" and is binding on all UN member states.
Asked whether the proposed resolution, which is expected to be submitted next week, would contain a deadline for Iranian compliance, Bolton said: "We've been discussing a very short turn-around period for complying with the resolution...Our view is it should be a very short period.
Iran rejects Western allegations that its civilian nuclear program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons and said that as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to enrich uranium.
Enrichment can be used to produce nuclear reactor fuel but also fuel for bomb-making.
Bolton reiterated that Washington had no quarrel with the people of Iran and sought to impress upon them that pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is not in their national self-interest.
"We have no quarrel with the people of iran. We have a quarrel with the government that's seeking to acquire new weapons," Bolton said. "Iran holds the key to this in its own hand. It can prevent the council from going further by giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, as other countries have done."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006042...pFSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
- Thread starter
- #166
steve albino
New Member
Petro-Euro: A reality or distant nightmare for the U.S.?
4/30/2006 1:50:00 PM GMT
Will big international oil trading companies agree to accept deals in Euros?
In the current ‘crisis’ over Iran’s plans to develop nuclear technology, the real reason for open U.S. hostility towards Iran is often over-looked. For the past few years, Iran has been planning to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant centre of the Middle East oil trade. Currently there are only two oil trading centres in the world; New York and London and both trade only in U.S. Dollars. What will make the proposed IOB different is that it has stated that it will trade in Euros not Dollars.
The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade and the U.S. economy has benefited hugely from this status as it has led to being the world’s largest reserve currency kept by State Banks the world over. It is an open secret that since the 1970’s, OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia) has been instructed by the U.S. to only trade in US Dollars.
The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in Euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to many experts, such a move could lead to a collapse in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s. The IOB has been on Iran's agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly dropped as the deadline neared. The question is whether Iran wishes to have the nuclear issue resolved before taking on the US Dollar in the IOB or whether Iran has been intimidated by U.S. pressure and threats of possible nuclear strikes and decided to postpone the IOB indefinitely.
March 20, the latest rumoured date, would have coincided with the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.
Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. China, which is emerging as Iran’s largest customer, would have no objection to paying Iran in Euros and thus begin the move from the dollar to the euro.
"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading centre, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.
"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in Euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.
Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties with Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.
Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2003 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for Iraq’s oil exports and Oil for Food programme, choosing Euros instead. After discovering no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, speculation naturally moved onto the real cause of the invasion; many now are convinced that was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute Dollars for Euros.
Even more worrying than Iran’s statements, however, were those recently made by the Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, in a recent meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington. Kudrin caused his American hosts huge discomfort by openly questioning the dollar's pre-eminence as the world's "absolute" reserve currency.
The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning U.S. trade deficit "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability." The U.S. Federal Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action - raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in check.
Given the fact that Iraq’s oil production is now lower than before the U.S. invasion and that the country is now a net importer of oil (incredible for a country sitting on the world’s second largest known reserves) and its oil effectively not available in the international market despite the presence of over 130,000 U.S. troops, it is little wonder if finance ministers and governors of State Banks all over the world are getting nervous about the U.S. military’s ability to ensure oil supplies; a task it has been charged with exclusively since the First Gulf War of 1991.
Russia with its huge oil and gas reserves could present an even bigger challenge to the U.S. and the dollar's supremacy and could not be threatened by any American political or military retaliation same way as Iran. The irony of the situation is that Iran and Russia are both in a much stronger bargaining position given the U.S. failure in Iraq to increase or protect oil supplies, thereby leading to a huge increase in oil prices, making both Iran and Russia much richer in the process.
The dollar’s current position is due to the fact that the U.S. currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central bank reserves worldwide and the fact that all international oil transactions have to be in US Dollars, thereby making the dollar the international oil currency. This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand, whatever the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America is increasingly reliant on this status. The unprecedented weight of U.S. liabilities means that any threat to the dollar's dominance could result in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into recession.
Recently Sweden has cut its dollar holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent, with the Euros share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some Gulf States have also lately mooted a shift into the Euro. Such sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the single currency last week.
Another important point is that the EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU, which makes Russia a strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start trading in Euros. The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the U.S. currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which looks likely sooner or later, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading.
The U.S. knows this, which is why it is very sensitive to any debate on the dollar’s position. The next 12 months will decide if Russia or Iran will take the first meaningful steps to challenge the dollar and whether the Petro-Euro will become a reality rather than just a distant nightmare for the U.S. government.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11145
4/30/2006 1:50:00 PM GMT
Will big international oil trading companies agree to accept deals in Euros?
In the current ‘crisis’ over Iran’s plans to develop nuclear technology, the real reason for open U.S. hostility towards Iran is often over-looked. For the past few years, Iran has been planning to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant centre of the Middle East oil trade. Currently there are only two oil trading centres in the world; New York and London and both trade only in U.S. Dollars. What will make the proposed IOB different is that it has stated that it will trade in Euros not Dollars.
The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade and the U.S. economy has benefited hugely from this status as it has led to being the world’s largest reserve currency kept by State Banks the world over. It is an open secret that since the 1970’s, OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia) has been instructed by the U.S. to only trade in US Dollars.
The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in Euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to many experts, such a move could lead to a collapse in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s. The IOB has been on Iran's agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly dropped as the deadline neared. The question is whether Iran wishes to have the nuclear issue resolved before taking on the US Dollar in the IOB or whether Iran has been intimidated by U.S. pressure and threats of possible nuclear strikes and decided to postpone the IOB indefinitely.
March 20, the latest rumoured date, would have coincided with the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.
Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. China, which is emerging as Iran’s largest customer, would have no objection to paying Iran in Euros and thus begin the move from the dollar to the euro.
"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading centre, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.
"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in Euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.
Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties with Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.
Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2003 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for Iraq’s oil exports and Oil for Food programme, choosing Euros instead. After discovering no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, speculation naturally moved onto the real cause of the invasion; many now are convinced that was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute Dollars for Euros.
Even more worrying than Iran’s statements, however, were those recently made by the Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, in a recent meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington. Kudrin caused his American hosts huge discomfort by openly questioning the dollar's pre-eminence as the world's "absolute" reserve currency.
The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning U.S. trade deficit "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly be satisfied with this instability." The U.S. Federal Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action - raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in check.
Given the fact that Iraq’s oil production is now lower than before the U.S. invasion and that the country is now a net importer of oil (incredible for a country sitting on the world’s second largest known reserves) and its oil effectively not available in the international market despite the presence of over 130,000 U.S. troops, it is little wonder if finance ministers and governors of State Banks all over the world are getting nervous about the U.S. military’s ability to ensure oil supplies; a task it has been charged with exclusively since the First Gulf War of 1991.
Russia with its huge oil and gas reserves could present an even bigger challenge to the U.S. and the dollar's supremacy and could not be threatened by any American political or military retaliation same way as Iran. The irony of the situation is that Iran and Russia are both in a much stronger bargaining position given the U.S. failure in Iraq to increase or protect oil supplies, thereby leading to a huge increase in oil prices, making both Iran and Russia much richer in the process.
The dollar’s current position is due to the fact that the U.S. currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central bank reserves worldwide and the fact that all international oil transactions have to be in US Dollars, thereby making the dollar the international oil currency. This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand, whatever the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America is increasingly reliant on this status. The unprecedented weight of U.S. liabilities means that any threat to the dollar's dominance could result in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into recession.
Recently Sweden has cut its dollar holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent, with the Euros share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some Gulf States have also lately mooted a shift into the Euro. Such sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the single currency last week.
Another important point is that the EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU, which makes Russia a strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start trading in Euros. The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil - read Saudi Arabia - is priced in dollars, the U.S. currency will retain its hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which looks likely sooner or later, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-based oil trading.
The U.S. knows this, which is why it is very sensitive to any debate on the dollar’s position. The next 12 months will decide if Russia or Iran will take the first meaningful steps to challenge the dollar and whether the Petro-Euro will become a reality rather than just a distant nightmare for the U.S. government.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=11145
- Thread starter
- #167
steve albino
New Member
114-Member Non-Aligned Movement Backs Iran on Its Nuclear Program
June 2, 2006
Tehran Times.com / Reuters
George W. Bush's repeated statements that Iran is acting in defiance of "world opinion" has been undercut by the world's 114 non-aligned states, which have issued a draft statement in Malaysia that notes Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is perfectly legal and that Tehran has been cooperating with nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/30/news/iran.php
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (May 31, 2006) — The world's non-aligned states threw their weight behind Iran in its nuclear stand-off with the West, according to a draft statement prepared on Tuesday for a meeting in Malaysia.
The 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was expected on Tuesday to adopt the draft text, which makes no criticism of Iran's nuclear activities and says Tehran is cooperating with nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It stressed the need for cooperation to continue but warned against any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities poses a great danger to human beings and the environment," said a copy of the draft obtained by Reuters.
"The ministers reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop research, production and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination...," it added, calling on Iran's fuel-cycle policies to be respected.
Hosts Malaysia set the tone on Monday, when its prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, made a strong call for NAM to back Iran and accused the West of double-standards, citing inaction over Israel's nuclear advances.
Iran says it wants to resume EU talks
Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that Tehran is ready to restart negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program, but he ruled out direct talks with the United States, the Associated Press reported.
"I announce that Iran is ready to respond positively to the call" made by the Nonaligned Movement "for resuming the negotiations on Iran's nuclear issue without any preconditions," Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki told reporters.
"Accordingly, I would announce our readiness to restart immediately the negotiations with the EU Three to resolve the issues," he said, referring to Britain, France and Germany.
"In Tehran, ambassadors of those countries have been informed about our position," he added.
Mottaki said there was no question of direct talks with the United States.
"Because of the bad temperament of the Americans, for the time being we have suspended direct talks (with the U.S). After changing of the behavior we may consider again," said Mottaki who was in Malaysia to attend a meeting of the NAM foreign ministers. Asked on Tuesday if Iran was afraid U.S. forces could attack its nuclear facilities, Mottaki told reporters, "They are not in the position to create a new crisis in the region."
"They are in a lot of difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan," he added.
June 2, 2006
Tehran Times.com / Reuters
George W. Bush's repeated statements that Iran is acting in defiance of "world opinion" has been undercut by the world's 114 non-aligned states, which have issued a draft statement in Malaysia that notes Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is perfectly legal and that Tehran has been cooperating with nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/30/news/iran.php
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (May 31, 2006) — The world's non-aligned states threw their weight behind Iran in its nuclear stand-off with the West, according to a draft statement prepared on Tuesday for a meeting in Malaysia.
The 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was expected on Tuesday to adopt the draft text, which makes no criticism of Iran's nuclear activities and says Tehran is cooperating with nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It stressed the need for cooperation to continue but warned against any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities poses a great danger to human beings and the environment," said a copy of the draft obtained by Reuters.
"The ministers reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop research, production and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination...," it added, calling on Iran's fuel-cycle policies to be respected.
Hosts Malaysia set the tone on Monday, when its prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, made a strong call for NAM to back Iran and accused the West of double-standards, citing inaction over Israel's nuclear advances.
Iran says it wants to resume EU talks
Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that Tehran is ready to restart negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program, but he ruled out direct talks with the United States, the Associated Press reported.
"I announce that Iran is ready to respond positively to the call" made by the Nonaligned Movement "for resuming the negotiations on Iran's nuclear issue without any preconditions," Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki told reporters.
"Accordingly, I would announce our readiness to restart immediately the negotiations with the EU Three to resolve the issues," he said, referring to Britain, France and Germany.
"In Tehran, ambassadors of those countries have been informed about our position," he added.
Mottaki said there was no question of direct talks with the United States.
"Because of the bad temperament of the Americans, for the time being we have suspended direct talks (with the U.S). After changing of the behavior we may consider again," said Mottaki who was in Malaysia to attend a meeting of the NAM foreign ministers. Asked on Tuesday if Iran was afraid U.S. forces could attack its nuclear facilities, Mottaki told reporters, "They are not in the position to create a new crisis in the region."
"They are in a lot of difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan," he added.
I think this is good news.
No telling what the Americans will do though.
No telling what the Americans will do though.
- Thread starter
- #169
steve albino
New Member
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=10380
Iran: Bush Isolated, Under Pressure,
by Phyllis Bennis - June 07, 2006 Institute for Policy Studies
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]** The Bush administration's "offer" to join direct talks with Iran reflects Washington's international isolation on the Iran issue; the offer itself is simultaneously very significant and entirely fake.
** The U.S. is still trying to ratchet up international pressure against Iran - proposing an "antimissile shield" for Europe, still threatening a return to the UN Security Council and calling for a "coalition" to impose economic sanctions - but the split between the U.S. and Europe is rising, and the Bush administration looks increasingly desperate.
** New threats against Iran from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during his visit to the United States appear to be mostly designed to shore up his hard-line credentials for a domestic audience, but still cannot be dismissed out of hand.
** U.S. policymakers need to be pushed to challenge Bush's claim that "nothing can be taken off the table" - to say precisely that some things MUST be kept "off the table," and those things include threats of a preventive attack against Iran and threats to use nuclear weapons of any sort, both of which are violations of international law.
** We need serious diplomacy; the U.S. should enter into direct talks with Iran without preconditions, and prepare to provide security guarantees and renounce talk of "regime change" in Tehran. The goal should be creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free one throughout the Middle East.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
The Bush administration's decision to participate in talks with Iran is a direct result of its failure to win even a modicum of international support for its military and economic threats, as well as a rising chorus of influential military, retired diplomats, and other elite voices within U.S. policy circles. Bush's plummeting approval ratings (down below 30%) and the increasing media and public focus on the abject failures and U.S. war crimes in Iraq have also played a key role in challenging the attack-Iran cabal. The uniformed military services tend to oppose a military strike against Iran since they are more aware of the potential consequences; the pro-war contingent appears to believe that "regime change," based on the Iraq model, would somehow succeed. Whether they actually still believe that the Iranian population would welcome a U.S. attack or the overthrow of the regime with sweets and flowers remains uncertain, but Cheney's longstanding leadership of the attack-Iran club makes the White House climb-down particularly significant.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]On the other hand, Washington's "offer" to negotiate with Iran only after Iran agrees to verifiably abandon all enrichment activity means that it is not yet a serious proposal. What happens to Iran's enrichment program - which is legal for civilian nuclear power use under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - is supposed to be the result of negotiations; imposing a its abandonment as a precondition means the U.S. is not yet serious about diplomacy. Initially, Iran welcomed the U.S. offer but rejected the preconditions. But European pressure has remained intense, since it has been clear that the "E-3" negotiators (France, UK and Germany) could not offer Iran the one thing Tehran was clear that it needed for negotiations to succeed: a security guarantee that it would not be the target of U.S. attack or destabilization "regime change" efforts. Only the U.S. itself could provide such a guarantee. But the Bush administration has not indicated any willingness so far to consider a security arrangement; earlier public State Department statements that "security guarantees are not on the table" remain on the table. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The U.S. also gave in to Europe's proposal to offer a package of incentives, including a light-water reactor and guaranteed supplies of fuel, designed to entice Iran into giving up its enrichment program. Without a U.S. security guarantee Iran will likely reject that offer. Washington also agreed to take the issue off the Security Council agenda. And no sanctions were included in the package. But a day later the U.S. renewed its threats to return to the Council in the future if Iran does not agree to suspend its enrichment program. Although Bush claimed that Russia and China now accepted the U.S. threat to return to the Council, neither Moscow nor Beijing made any new statement that actually softened their longstanding opposition to sanctions. Earlier administration announcement of plans to build an "anti-missile shield" to protect Europe from Iranian missiles have gained no traction in Europe or among the U.S. public.[/FONT]
Iran: Bush Isolated, Under Pressure,
by Phyllis Bennis - June 07, 2006 Institute for Policy Studies
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]** The Bush administration's "offer" to join direct talks with Iran reflects Washington's international isolation on the Iran issue; the offer itself is simultaneously very significant and entirely fake.
** The U.S. is still trying to ratchet up international pressure against Iran - proposing an "antimissile shield" for Europe, still threatening a return to the UN Security Council and calling for a "coalition" to impose economic sanctions - but the split between the U.S. and Europe is rising, and the Bush administration looks increasingly desperate.
** New threats against Iran from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during his visit to the United States appear to be mostly designed to shore up his hard-line credentials for a domestic audience, but still cannot be dismissed out of hand.
** U.S. policymakers need to be pushed to challenge Bush's claim that "nothing can be taken off the table" - to say precisely that some things MUST be kept "off the table," and those things include threats of a preventive attack against Iran and threats to use nuclear weapons of any sort, both of which are violations of international law.
** We need serious diplomacy; the U.S. should enter into direct talks with Iran without preconditions, and prepare to provide security guarantees and renounce talk of "regime change" in Tehran. The goal should be creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free one throughout the Middle East.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
The Bush administration's decision to participate in talks with Iran is a direct result of its failure to win even a modicum of international support for its military and economic threats, as well as a rising chorus of influential military, retired diplomats, and other elite voices within U.S. policy circles. Bush's plummeting approval ratings (down below 30%) and the increasing media and public focus on the abject failures and U.S. war crimes in Iraq have also played a key role in challenging the attack-Iran cabal. The uniformed military services tend to oppose a military strike against Iran since they are more aware of the potential consequences; the pro-war contingent appears to believe that "regime change," based on the Iraq model, would somehow succeed. Whether they actually still believe that the Iranian population would welcome a U.S. attack or the overthrow of the regime with sweets and flowers remains uncertain, but Cheney's longstanding leadership of the attack-Iran club makes the White House climb-down particularly significant.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]On the other hand, Washington's "offer" to negotiate with Iran only after Iran agrees to verifiably abandon all enrichment activity means that it is not yet a serious proposal. What happens to Iran's enrichment program - which is legal for civilian nuclear power use under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - is supposed to be the result of negotiations; imposing a its abandonment as a precondition means the U.S. is not yet serious about diplomacy. Initially, Iran welcomed the U.S. offer but rejected the preconditions. But European pressure has remained intense, since it has been clear that the "E-3" negotiators (France, UK and Germany) could not offer Iran the one thing Tehran was clear that it needed for negotiations to succeed: a security guarantee that it would not be the target of U.S. attack or destabilization "regime change" efforts. Only the U.S. itself could provide such a guarantee. But the Bush administration has not indicated any willingness so far to consider a security arrangement; earlier public State Department statements that "security guarantees are not on the table" remain on the table. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The U.S. also gave in to Europe's proposal to offer a package of incentives, including a light-water reactor and guaranteed supplies of fuel, designed to entice Iran into giving up its enrichment program. Without a U.S. security guarantee Iran will likely reject that offer. Washington also agreed to take the issue off the Security Council agenda. And no sanctions were included in the package. But a day later the U.S. renewed its threats to return to the Council in the future if Iran does not agree to suspend its enrichment program. Although Bush claimed that Russia and China now accepted the U.S. threat to return to the Council, neither Moscow nor Beijing made any new statement that actually softened their longstanding opposition to sanctions. Earlier administration announcement of plans to build an "anti-missile shield" to protect Europe from Iranian missiles have gained no traction in Europe or among the U.S. public.[/FONT]
- Thread starter
- #170
steve albino
New Member
Israel claims Iran link to crisis
Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers last week was timed to divert attention from Tehran's nuclear programme, the Israeli PM has claimed. Ehud Olmert said that the cross-border raid in which the two soldiers were taken and eight others killed was co-ordinated with Tehran.
US President George W Bush meanwhile accused Syria of trying to use the crisis to get back into Lebanon.
About 30 people died in a seventh day of conflict, most of them in Lebanon.
Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora said Israel was "opening the gates of hell and madness" on his country.
In a BBC interview, he urged Hezbollah to release the two Israeli soldiers but said Israel's response to the crisis had been disproportionate.
As the unrest continues, the UN has announced that its non-essential staff are to join the tens of thousands of foreigners fleeing the crisis.
Israel launched its assault and blockade last Wednesday after the two soldiers were captured.
About 230 Lebanese people have been killed since then - the vast majority of them civilians, but including about 30 soldiers. The number of Hezbollah fighters killed is not known.
Twenty-five Israelis have died - 13 civilians and 12 members of the military.
Israel has frequently blamed Syria and Iran for arming and backing Hezbollah, but Mr Olmert's comments were the first explicit claim of Tehran's direct involvement in the capture of the soldiers, correspondents say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5192990.stm
Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers last week was timed to divert attention from Tehran's nuclear programme, the Israeli PM has claimed. Ehud Olmert said that the cross-border raid in which the two soldiers were taken and eight others killed was co-ordinated with Tehran.
US President George W Bush meanwhile accused Syria of trying to use the crisis to get back into Lebanon.
About 30 people died in a seventh day of conflict, most of them in Lebanon.
Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora said Israel was "opening the gates of hell and madness" on his country.
In a BBC interview, he urged Hezbollah to release the two Israeli soldiers but said Israel's response to the crisis had been disproportionate.
As the unrest continues, the UN has announced that its non-essential staff are to join the tens of thousands of foreigners fleeing the crisis.
Israel launched its assault and blockade last Wednesday after the two soldiers were captured.
About 230 Lebanese people have been killed since then - the vast majority of them civilians, but including about 30 soldiers. The number of Hezbollah fighters killed is not known.
Twenty-five Israelis have died - 13 civilians and 12 members of the military.
Israel has frequently blamed Syria and Iran for arming and backing Hezbollah, but Mr Olmert's comments were the first explicit claim of Tehran's direct involvement in the capture of the soldiers, correspondents say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5192990.stm
- Thread starter
- #171
steve albino
New Member
Iran forces urged to prepare to hit Israel
reuters, unsigned - 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.
"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.
The Basij are volunteer Islamic militiamen.
"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.
An Israeli air strike killed 54 civilians, including 37 children in the southern Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, the bloodiest single attack since Israel's 19-day-old war on Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas began.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are historically close to Hizbollah and were deployed in south Lebanon during the 1980s. Mostafa Chamran, spiritual father of the Guards, forged his reputation fighting in Lebanon.
The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are directly answerable to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Although Iran funded and armed Hizbollah in the 1980s, it has insisted recently its support is mainly moral and political.
However, many sources have said Iranian arms are being used against Israeli civilian and military targets.
An Israeli military source has said an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles (95 km) hit and badly damaged a ship during Israel's offensive against Lebanon.
Hizbollah said it fired "Raad (Thunder) 2" and "Raad 3" rockets at a rail depot in Haifa. Raad missiles are Iranian.
Israel's army said it destroyed an Iranian-made Zelzal missile with range of between 74 and 99 miles before it was launched.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060730/wl_nm/mideast_iran_revenge_dc
reuters, unsigned - 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.
"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.
The Basij are volunteer Islamic militiamen.
"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.
An Israeli air strike killed 54 civilians, including 37 children in the southern Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, the bloodiest single attack since Israel's 19-day-old war on Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas began.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are historically close to Hizbollah and were deployed in south Lebanon during the 1980s. Mostafa Chamran, spiritual father of the Guards, forged his reputation fighting in Lebanon.
The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are directly answerable to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Although Iran funded and armed Hizbollah in the 1980s, it has insisted recently its support is mainly moral and political.
However, many sources have said Iranian arms are being used against Israeli civilian and military targets.
An Israeli military source has said an Iranian-made C802 radar-guided land-to-sea missile with a range of 60 miles (95 km) hit and badly damaged a ship during Israel's offensive against Lebanon.
Hizbollah said it fired "Raad (Thunder) 2" and "Raad 3" rockets at a rail depot in Haifa. Raad missiles are Iranian.
Israel's army said it destroyed an Iranian-made Zelzal missile with range of between 74 and 99 miles before it was launched.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060730/wl_nm/mideast_iran_revenge_dc
- Thread starter
- #172
steve albino
New Member
Tehran Takes Gloomy View of the Lebanon War and Truce
August 14, 2006, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00)
While the damage caused Israel’s military reputation tops Western assessments of the Lebanon war, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report an entirely different perception taking hold in ruling circles in Tehran.
After UN Security Council resolution 1701 calling for a truce was carried Friday, Aug. 11, the heads of the regime received two separate evaluations of the situation in Lebanon – one from Iran’s foreign ministry and one from its supreme national security council. Both were bleak: their compilers were concerned that Iran had been manipulatively robbed of its primary deterrent asset ahead of a probable nuclear confrontation with the United States and Israel.
While the foreign ministry report highlighted the negative aspects of the UN resolution, the council’s document complained that Hizballah squandered thousands of rockets – either by firing them into Israel or having them destroyed by the Israeli air force.
The writer of this report is furious over the waste of Iran’s most important military investment in Lebanon merely for the sake of a conflict with Israeli over two kidnapped soldiers.
It took Iran two decades to build up Hizballah’s rocket inventory.
DEBKAfile’s sources estimate that Hizballah’s adventure wiped out most of the vast sum of $4-6 bn the Iranian treasury sunk into building its military strength. The organization was meant to be strong and effective enough to provide Iran with a formidable deterrent to Israel embarking on a military operation to destroy the Islamic regime’s nuclear infrastructure.
To this end, Tehran bought the Israeli military doctrine of preferring to fight its wars on enemy soil. In the mid-1980s, Iran decided to act on this doctrine by coupling its nuclear development program with Israel’s encirclement and the weakening its deterrence strength. The Jewish state was identified at the time as the only country likely to take vigorous action to spike Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
The ayatollahs accordingly promoted Hizballah’s rise as a socio-political force in Lebanon, at the same time building up its military might and capabilities for inflicting damage of strategic dimensions to Israel’s infrastructure.
That effort was accelerated after Israeli forces withdrew from the Lebanese security zone in May 2000. A bunker network and chain of fortified positions were constructed, containing war rooms equipped with the finest western hi-tech gadgetry, including night vision gear, computers and electronics, as well as protective devices against bacteriological and chemical warfare.
This fortified network was designed for assault and defense alike.
Short- medium- and long-range rockets gave the hard edge to Hizballah’s ablity to conduct a destructive war against Israel and its civilians – when the time was right for Tehran.
Therefore, Iran’s rulers are hopping mad and deeply anxious over news of the huge damage sustained by Hizballah’s rocket inventory, which was proudly touted before the war as numbering 13,000 pieces.
Hizballah fighters, they are informed, managed to fire only a small number of Khaibar-1 rockets, most of which hit Haifa and Afula, while nearly 100 were destroyed or disabled by Israeli air strikes.
The long-range Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2, designed for hitting Tel Aviv and the nuclear reactor at Dimona have been degraded even more. Iran sent over to Lebanon 50 of those missiles. The keys to the Zelzal stores stayed in the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers who were in command of Hizballah. Nasrallah and his officers had no access to these stores.
But Tehran has learned that Israel was able to destroy most of the 22 Zelzal launchers provided.
more...
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201
August 14, 2006, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00)
While the damage caused Israel’s military reputation tops Western assessments of the Lebanon war, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report an entirely different perception taking hold in ruling circles in Tehran.
After UN Security Council resolution 1701 calling for a truce was carried Friday, Aug. 11, the heads of the regime received two separate evaluations of the situation in Lebanon – one from Iran’s foreign ministry and one from its supreme national security council. Both were bleak: their compilers were concerned that Iran had been manipulatively robbed of its primary deterrent asset ahead of a probable nuclear confrontation with the United States and Israel.
While the foreign ministry report highlighted the negative aspects of the UN resolution, the council’s document complained that Hizballah squandered thousands of rockets – either by firing them into Israel or having them destroyed by the Israeli air force.
The writer of this report is furious over the waste of Iran’s most important military investment in Lebanon merely for the sake of a conflict with Israeli over two kidnapped soldiers.
It took Iran two decades to build up Hizballah’s rocket inventory.
DEBKAfile’s sources estimate that Hizballah’s adventure wiped out most of the vast sum of $4-6 bn the Iranian treasury sunk into building its military strength. The organization was meant to be strong and effective enough to provide Iran with a formidable deterrent to Israel embarking on a military operation to destroy the Islamic regime’s nuclear infrastructure.
To this end, Tehran bought the Israeli military doctrine of preferring to fight its wars on enemy soil. In the mid-1980s, Iran decided to act on this doctrine by coupling its nuclear development program with Israel’s encirclement and the weakening its deterrence strength. The Jewish state was identified at the time as the only country likely to take vigorous action to spike Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
The ayatollahs accordingly promoted Hizballah’s rise as a socio-political force in Lebanon, at the same time building up its military might and capabilities for inflicting damage of strategic dimensions to Israel’s infrastructure.
That effort was accelerated after Israeli forces withdrew from the Lebanese security zone in May 2000. A bunker network and chain of fortified positions were constructed, containing war rooms equipped with the finest western hi-tech gadgetry, including night vision gear, computers and electronics, as well as protective devices against bacteriological and chemical warfare.
This fortified network was designed for assault and defense alike.
Short- medium- and long-range rockets gave the hard edge to Hizballah’s ablity to conduct a destructive war against Israel and its civilians – when the time was right for Tehran.
Therefore, Iran’s rulers are hopping mad and deeply anxious over news of the huge damage sustained by Hizballah’s rocket inventory, which was proudly touted before the war as numbering 13,000 pieces.
Hizballah fighters, they are informed, managed to fire only a small number of Khaibar-1 rockets, most of which hit Haifa and Afula, while nearly 100 were destroyed or disabled by Israeli air strikes.
The long-range Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2, designed for hitting Tel Aviv and the nuclear reactor at Dimona have been degraded even more. Iran sent over to Lebanon 50 of those missiles. The keys to the Zelzal stores stayed in the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers who were in command of Hizballah. Nasrallah and his officers had no access to these stores.
But Tehran has learned that Israel was able to destroy most of the 22 Zelzal launchers provided.
more...
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201
- Thread starter
- #173
steve albino
New Member
Israel’s fight against Hezbollah is aimed at removing obstacles in the way of U.S.-Iran war
8/10/2006 8:30:00 PM GMT
It seems that the U.S. is on the verge of making the same mistake it committed in Iraq over three years ago. But this time against Iran, as it has been reported by The New Yorker magazine in its April 17 issue- that the Bush administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, to force it halt its nuclear activities.
Some experts are suggesting that the current conflict in Lebanon, which Israel claims is an “act of defence” against the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah, and the rocket attacks it launches targeting Israeli towns, is actually aimed at preparing the ground for an American war on Iran; i.e. weakening Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites, according to an article on Asia Times Online.
By trying to inflict as much damage as possible to Hezbollah's arsenal and preventing any resupply from Iran, Israel is removing a major obstacle in the way of the Bush’s administration which in the past feared that trying to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities would mean that Israel will suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rocket attacks that will pour on Israeli towns in retaliation of striking Iran, the movement’s foremost supporter in the region.
According to Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, the U.S. government has decided earlier to put its plans involving an attack on Iran on hold, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack targeting Israeli towns in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.
But Israeli officials decided that attacking Lebanon and thus destroying Hezbollah's arsenal as well as preventing future weapons supplies would eliminate Bush’s administration’s fears and thus encourage it resort to the military option in dealing with Iran’s nuclear issue.
In an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week, Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israeli specialist on security affairs at Bar Ilon University, stressed the link between destroying Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and preparing for a U.S. war on Iran.
But he did say there is "some expectation" in Israel that after the U.S. congressional elections, Bush "will decide that he has to do what he has to do."
Israel wanted to "get an assessment" of whether the U.S. would "present a military attack against the Iranian nuclear sites as the only option," Steinberg said.
more...
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=338
8/10/2006 8:30:00 PM GMT
It seems that the U.S. is on the verge of making the same mistake it committed in Iraq over three years ago. But this time against Iran, as it has been reported by The New Yorker magazine in its April 17 issue- that the Bush administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, to force it halt its nuclear activities.
Some experts are suggesting that the current conflict in Lebanon, which Israel claims is an “act of defence” against the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah, and the rocket attacks it launches targeting Israeli towns, is actually aimed at preparing the ground for an American war on Iran; i.e. weakening Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites, according to an article on Asia Times Online.
By trying to inflict as much damage as possible to Hezbollah's arsenal and preventing any resupply from Iran, Israel is removing a major obstacle in the way of the Bush’s administration which in the past feared that trying to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities would mean that Israel will suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rocket attacks that will pour on Israeli towns in retaliation of striking Iran, the movement’s foremost supporter in the region.
According to Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, the U.S. government has decided earlier to put its plans involving an attack on Iran on hold, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack targeting Israeli towns in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.
But Israeli officials decided that attacking Lebanon and thus destroying Hezbollah's arsenal as well as preventing future weapons supplies would eliminate Bush’s administration’s fears and thus encourage it resort to the military option in dealing with Iran’s nuclear issue.
In an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week, Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israeli specialist on security affairs at Bar Ilon University, stressed the link between destroying Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and preparing for a U.S. war on Iran.
But he did say there is "some expectation" in Israel that after the U.S. congressional elections, Bush "will decide that he has to do what he has to do."
Israel wanted to "get an assessment" of whether the U.S. would "present a military attack against the Iranian nuclear sites as the only option," Steinberg said.
more...
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=338
- Thread starter
- #174
steve albino
New Member
US Iran report branded dishonest
The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading". In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.
The IAEA also took "strong exception" to claims made over the removal of a senior safeguards inspector.
There was no immediate comment from Washington over the letter.
But Rep Rush Holt, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, which released the report, said it had never been meant for release to the public.
"This report was not ready for prime time and it was not prepared in a way that we can rely on. It relied heavily on unclassified testimony," he told the BBC's PM programme.
'Deja vu'
Signed by a senior director at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vilmos Cserveny, the letter raises objections over the committee's report released on 23 August.
It says the report was wrong to say that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels.
The letter took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA removed senior safeguards inspector Chris Charlier for "allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception" over its programme.
It said Mr Charlier had been removed at the request of Tehran, which has the right to make such an objection under agreed rules between the agency and all states.
He remains head of a section investigating Iran, the IAEA says.
The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
The letter, sent to Peter Hoekstra, head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, was aimed at setting "the record straight on the facts", the IAEA said.
"This is a matter of the integrity of the IAEA and its inspectors," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.
A Western diplomat called it "deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period".
The IAEA and the US clashed over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war in Iraq in March 2003.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
Published: 2006/09/14 17:07:19 GMT
The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading". In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.
The IAEA also took "strong exception" to claims made over the removal of a senior safeguards inspector.
There was no immediate comment from Washington over the letter.
But Rep Rush Holt, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, which released the report, said it had never been meant for release to the public.
"This report was not ready for prime time and it was not prepared in a way that we can rely on. It relied heavily on unclassified testimony," he told the BBC's PM programme.
'Deja vu'
Signed by a senior director at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vilmos Cserveny, the letter raises objections over the committee's report released on 23 August.
It says the report was wrong to say that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels.
The letter took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA removed senior safeguards inspector Chris Charlier for "allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception" over its programme.
It said Mr Charlier had been removed at the request of Tehran, which has the right to make such an objection under agreed rules between the agency and all states.
He remains head of a section investigating Iran, the IAEA says.
The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
The letter, sent to Peter Hoekstra, head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, was aimed at setting "the record straight on the facts", the IAEA said.
"This is a matter of the integrity of the IAEA and its inspectors," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.
A Western diplomat called it "deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period".
The IAEA and the US clashed over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war in Iraq in March 2003.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
Published: 2006/09/14 17:07:19 GMT
- Thread starter
- #175
steve albino
New Member
Iran-Ireland Joint Stances Widen Mutual Cooperation
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Ireland's new Ambassador to Tehran met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and presented his credentials to him here on Tuesday.
A statement released by the Presidential Press Office said that during the meeting, the President noted the peace-loving spirit of the Iranian nation all throughout the history and stressed that establishment of strategic relations between the Middle-Eastern and European countries would help to the expansion of peace and stability in the world.
He asserted that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a signatory of any military pact or treaty in the world and expressed the hope that no more war would be waged in the world and no human blood would be shed.
Referring to the two countries' ties, President Ahmadinejad mentioned that Iran and Ireland enjoy abundant potentials for enhanced bilateral, regional and international relations, and stated that utilization of the said potentials would render help to the increase of cooperation between the world of Islam and the Middle-East states and the EU countries, in addition to the materialization of the economic goals of both Iran and Ireland.
For his part, Ireland's new Ambassador to Tehran John Didi noted the vital role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the world of Islam and the Middle-East, and called for the development of mutual ties in all the different areas.
The diplomat also briefed the Iranian President about the latest condition of the Muslims in his country, and underlined the need for the creation of a common understanding among the divine religions and cultures.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8507040583
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Ireland's new Ambassador to Tehran met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and presented his credentials to him here on Tuesday.
A statement released by the Presidential Press Office said that during the meeting, the President noted the peace-loving spirit of the Iranian nation all throughout the history and stressed that establishment of strategic relations between the Middle-Eastern and European countries would help to the expansion of peace and stability in the world.
He asserted that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a signatory of any military pact or treaty in the world and expressed the hope that no more war would be waged in the world and no human blood would be shed.
Referring to the two countries' ties, President Ahmadinejad mentioned that Iran and Ireland enjoy abundant potentials for enhanced bilateral, regional and international relations, and stated that utilization of the said potentials would render help to the increase of cooperation between the world of Islam and the Middle-East states and the EU countries, in addition to the materialization of the economic goals of both Iran and Ireland.
For his part, Ireland's new Ambassador to Tehran John Didi noted the vital role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the world of Islam and the Middle-East, and called for the development of mutual ties in all the different areas.
The diplomat also briefed the Iranian President about the latest condition of the Muslims in his country, and underlined the need for the creation of a common understanding among the divine religions and cultures.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8507040583
тхеодоре кацзынски
Well-Known Member
Interesting, but not really surprising. At least this is coming out before the US decides to invade Iran.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 5,972
- Solutions
- 1
So, now that even the new US Defence Secretary is saying that attacking Iran would be a really bad idea, does anyone here still think this is going to happen?
Not in this current administration.
They're probably hoping they'll embroil Iran in Iraq which will soften them up and waste some resources.
Iran won't bite. Not the way the Americans want.
They're probably hoping they'll embroil Iran in Iraq which will soften them up and waste some resources.
Iran won't bite. Not the way the Americans want.
killy kill
(Retired)
Blair in the news recently calling for moderate nations in the mid-east to unite against Iran.Think it's the first time he's been so outspoken about isolating Iran,slightly worrying
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now