Page 7 of 56 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 1113

Thread: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

  1. #121
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran leader asks Merkel for help on Zionism -German official
    20 Jul 2006 17:37:49 GMT
    Source: Reuters


    By Louis Charbonneau

    BERLIN, July 20 (Reuters) - A letter written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to German Chancellor Angela Merkel asks her to help solve the Palestinian problem and deal with Zionism, a German government official said on Thursday.

    "There's nothing about the nuclear issue (in the letter)," the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the extreme sensitivity of the issue for the German government.

    "It's all related to Germany and how we have to find a solution to the Palestinian problems and Zionism and so on. It's rather weird," the official, who has seen the letter, said.

    Iranian students news agency said on Wednesday that Ahmadinejad had written to Merkel, but until Thursday officials had not spoken about the contents.

    Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, now the state of Israel. The fate of Palestinian Arab refugees is one of the world's largest and most long-lasting refugee problems.

    Berlin's relations with Ahmadinejad have been complicated by his denial of the Holocaust, in which Germany's Nazi regime killed six million Jews, and his call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

    Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany punishable with up to five years in prison.

    "It's extremely touchy (for the German government)," said the official, adding that the government did not yet know if or how it would respond. "There are a lot of propaganda phrases about Israel and the Jews inside."

    In May Ahmadinejad wrote U.S. President George W. Bush an 18-page letter discussing religious values, history and international relations.

    In it, he took swipes at Israel and at the United States.

    He sharply criticized Bush on many fronts, implying that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses of detainees in U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib -- and his staunch support for Israel -- were somehow inconsistent with Bush's Christian beliefs.

    But the letter to Merkel was different and was not confrontational in tone, the official said.

    "It's not negative like Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush. He is not criticising Germany," he said. "It's basically about how we have to work together and solve the problems of the world together."

    In February, Merkel compared Ahmadinejad's statements and stance to Adolf Hitler's rise to power when he and his Nazi party began threatening to exterminate European Jewry.

    "Remember that in 1933 many people said it was just rhetoric," Merkel said.

    The German official said it was interesting that the letter did not discuss Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States, European Union and other countries.

    Iran is facing possible action at the U.N. Security Council over suspicions that it is developing nuclear arms. Tehran denies the charge, saying it is working on nuclear fuel only to run power stations.

    AlertNet news is provided by
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #122
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Middle East

    The Times July 21, 2006

    Britain sees chance to contain Iran's regional ambitions
    By Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor
    BRITAIN blames Iran for the eruption of fighting in Lebanon and wants to use crisis talks to build an alliance for its long-term “containment”.

    A new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme, expected next week, will be the cornerstone of this strategy, according to senior British officials.

    The plan, which echoes the “containment” of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, will aim to tap growing Arab alarm at Iran’s regional ambitions and its ability to stir up their own restive populations.

    The move reflects British frustration with the US’s failure to devise a plan for dealing with Tehran, once the Iraqi conflict stripped it of the appetite for military action.

    It is “no coincidence” that last week’s raid by Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla group, which triggered the conflict, immediately followed Iran’s declaration that it would not curb its nuclear work, officials believe.

    During nuclear talks this year, Iran has threatened to escalate the “level of activity in the region” in response to UN pressure, an official said. In recent weeks, the violence in Iraq attributed to Shia militias has also soared. “Iran has maintained its arming of Shia militias, and may have stepped it up,” an official said. Hezbollah, a Shia militant group with close ties to Iran, has received huge help from Iran in building a massive arsenal, analysts say, and is thought unlikely to move against Iran’s interests.

    Britain plans to use a flurry of talks next week to pursue the new strategy. Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, will arrive in the region on Sunday and may return the following weekend. In between, there may be regional meetings, as well as the Security Council.

    The council’s resolution is expected to make mandatory Iran’s suspension of uranium enrichment, and to set a deadline, probably the end of August, with which it must comply. The council will also say that sanctions on Iran’s military industry could follow.

    Britain will push allies to consider a wider “containment” plan. That could start with “soft” measures, such as the start of a Farsi television service, and curbs on travel, and include moves to encourage the flow of capital out of Iran. Tougher steps would focus on its arming of militant groups.

    However, some analysts argue that governments should not overstate Iran’s role in Lebanon.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  3. #123
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran's Day of Terror?
    Front Page Magazine ^ | 27 July 2006 | Robert Spencer

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for Iran’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?

    Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…”

    The Night Journey, or Miraj, is central to Islam’s claim to Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was carried on a Buraq, a miraculous horse with a human head, from Mecca to Jerusalem, where he ascended into heaven and met the other prophets. The only thing the Qur’an has to say about it is this: “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)” (17:1). There is no identification of the “farthest Mosque” with any mosque in Jerusalem in this, but the Hadith is very clear on the identification of its location with Jerusalem.

    (Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #124
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran's War
    By Kenneth R. Timmerman
    FrontPageMagazine.com | July 27, 2006

    Haifa, Israel – Some have suggested that the latest round of fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization in Lebanon is the beginning of World War III.

    Think again.



    “This is more like the Spanish Civil War,” says Daniel Seaman, an Israeli government spokesman. “What we are seeing is a series of conflicts that foreshadow a future world conflict, just as the Spanish Civil war prefigured the Second World War.”



    Seaman’s analogy is worth exploring.



    Just as Hitler used Franco as his proxy in Spain to test new military techniques and equipment on the battlefield, so Iran is using Hezbollah as its proxy to do the same.



    Hezbollah is no longer a rag-tag guerilla group, but a veritable terrorist army. “They understand complex military tactics, and are pursuing combined military operations using ground forces, missiles, intelligence, and the media,” Seaman said.



    Over the past six years, following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon, Iran began supplying Hezbollah with massive quantities of long-range artillery rockets of a type never before used against Israel.



    These Iranian-made Fajr-3 rockets have a range of around 43 kilometers, and carry a 50 kilogram warhead packed with thousands of deadly ballbearings.



    These are terrorist mass-kill weapons, designed to kill as many civilians as possible. No one standing within a 50 meter radius of one of these incoming rocket can survive, Israeli bomb experts say. The Fajr-3 was used with great success in a July 16 attack that killed eight railway workers at a repair depot in downtown Haifa.



    “When they showed me the small pellets packed inside, I thought they were showing me a suicide bomber belt,” Haifa mayor Yona Yahav told me. In fact, Iran modeled the design of the Fajr-3 warhead on the suicide bomber belts, with the clear aim of maximum its lethality.



    Syria supplied similar rockets to Hezbollah, packed with ball-bearings. Hezbollah purchased smaller rockets from Communist China, after they had been similarly modified.



    How many terrorist groups can boast an arsenal of over 10,000 long-range rockets? Only those with the backing of a sovereign state, Iran.



    Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni explained Hezbollah’s aims with stark clarity here yesterday.



    “While Israel is targeting Hezbollah, and during this operation, unfortunately it can lead to loss of civilian life, Hezbollah is targeting our cities in order to hit, in order to target civilians and to target Israeli population centers. This is a crucial difference.”



    This is a strategy Iran is testing out for a future war. Iran is testing Israel, probing Israel’s reaction, and testing the response of the international community.



    Let’s recall how this all began. On July 12, a Hezbollah commando broke through the security fence at the border and snuck into Israel. In an operation that lasted scarcely five minutes, they ambushed an Israeli army Humvee on patrol, killed three soldiers, kidnapped two others, and escaped back across the border.



    Shortly afterwards, Hezbollah launched six long-range rockets into Israel, hitting Haifa, Israel’s third largest city. It was the first time Haifa had been attacked in such a manner.



    How would the Israelis respond? Would they launch a massive ground assault into Lebanon? That was what the Iranians were hoping, because they believed it would catalyze the Muslim world against Israel, and position Iran as the new champion of the Muslim “resistance.”



    When the Israelis didn’t bite, the Iranians ordered Hezbollah to step up the rocket attacks against Israeli cities, towns and villages. On day two, they launched 133 rockets into northern Israel, 108 on day three, and 126 on day four.



    In response, Israel launched air strikes deep into Lebanon, striking the airport, cutting resupply routes into Syria, and attempting to knock out command bunkers where they believed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was hiding. But none of this deterred Hezbollah, and for good reason: the Iranians had prepared them to fight a long war, dispersing their weaponry across Lebanon.



    On July 15, Iranian advisors in charge of Hezbollah’s more sophisticated weapons stunned the Israelis by launching two sophisticated C-802 anti-shipping missiles against an Israeli SAAR-5 boat cruising some 18 kilometers off the Lebanese coast.



    One of the missiles was apparently deflected by Israeli counter-measures, and hit a Cambodian merchant vessel that was 60 km from the coast and 44 km down range from the Israeli ship, according to a technical analysis of the attack published by the Israel Resource News Agency on Tuesday. The second seriously damaged the Israeli corvette, the INS Ahi-Hanit.



    What terrorist groups possess third-generation radar-guided anti-shipping missiles? The Chinese-built C-802s were first shipped to Iran in 1995, and at the time generated concern among U.S. naval commanders in the Persian Gulf because at the time the U.S. had no defense against them.



    The Israelis had electronic countermeasures on board the Ahi-Hanit that could have deflected the missiles, the experts believe, but had turned them off for fear of friendly-fire incidents against Israeli fighters flying overhead.



    More lessons learned for the Iranians.



    And how did Israel respond to the rocket attacks?



    Anyone who has been watching television over the past two weeks has probably heard the eerie wail of the air raid sirens that go off many times each day in Haifa and in smaller towns and settlements across northern Israel.



    As many as 500,000 Israelis have fled the warzone. Most of Israel north of Haifa is deserted, while those remaining are living in underground shelters.



    Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav estimated that the economic impact has been devastating – “in the billions of shekels” of lost business for Haifa alone. That’s roughly $500 million.



    Israeli officials believe the Iranians gave the go-ahead for the kidnapping and the rocket war. They point to the unannounced arrival in Damascus the night before Hezbollah launched its attacks by the head of Iran’s National Security Council and Iran’s intelligence minister.



    For Dr. Michael Oren, author of a forthcoming book on the history of the U.S. relationship to the Middle East, the current conflict is just a stage in the war against Iran. “People need to realize this is not a bilateral conflict. It is part of the broad regional and international conflict between the West and Islamic fundamentalism championed by Iran,” he told me.



    Dr. Oren is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center for Strategic Studies in Jerusalem. He is also a major in the Israeli Defense Forces reserves. He was called up for active duty on July 21, but asked for a three day extension so he could finish his new book, Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East from 1776 to the Present.



    He believes the stakes of Israel’s effort to smash Hezbollah as an effective fighting force in Lebanon go way beyond the immediate impact on Israeli or Lebanese civilians.



    “If we don’t win in Lebanon, Iran will be well on the way to creating an arc of influence extending from the Indian border to the Mediterranean,” he said.



    Those are the stakes.



    Iran launched this war to deflect attention from the G-8 summit in Saint Petersburg from its nuclear weapons program. But at the same time, it launched this war to try out new weapons and new tactics for future conflicts.



    The next step, should the West fail to step up to the plate: how about long-range Shahab-3 missiles in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, aimed at Europe? And how do you think the Europeans would respond, seeing the devastating impact far smaller rockets fired into Israel have had on Israel’s economy?



    Can you imagine Parisians or Romans taking to the bomb-shelters? Sending their children to stay with relatives living overseas? Can you imagine them resisting Iran as Israel is doing?



    Unchecked, Iran will continue its march toward nuclear power, and it will use terrorist proxies to conduct war against the West. In the future, those proxies will have nuclear weapons.



    This is the “hurricane” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised the world earlier this week in Tehran, in yet another “mein kampf” statement.



    Now is the time to draw the line.


    Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum, New York), and Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #125
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    IRAN'S UN ENVOY REJECTS SECURITY COUNCIL DEMAND
    Ynet News ^ | 7/31/06

    Iran's UN envoy rejects Security Council demand

    Iranian UN Ambassador Javad Zarif on Monday rejected a Security Council demand that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by the end of August or face the threat of sanctions, saying the action was without legal basis.

    "Iran's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security and therefore dealing with this issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility," Zarif told the council. (Reuters)
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  6. #126
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    UN Resolution 1696:



    Security Council
    SC/8792
    Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

    Security Council

    5500th Meeting (AM)

    SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS IRAN SUSPEND URANIUM ENRICHMENT BY 31 AUGUST,

    OR FACE POSSIBLE ECONOMIC, DIPLOMATIC SANCTIONS



    Resolution 1696 (2006) Adopted by Vote of 14 - 1 ( Qatar),

    Iran Says Peaceful Programme No Threat, Council’s Consideration Unwarranted

    The Security Council, seriously concerned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was still unable to provide assurances about Iran’s undeclared nuclear material and activities after more than three years, today demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, and gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions to give effect to its decision.

    Adopting resolution 1696 (2006), under Chapter VII, by a vote of 14 in favour to 1 against (Qatar), the Council expressed its conviction that such suspension, as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the IAEA Board of Governor’s requirements, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guaranteed Iran’s nuclear programme was for exclusively peaceful purposes.

    The 15-member body called on Iran to without further delay take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which it said were essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of the nuclear programme and resolve outstanding questions. It, meanwhile, underlined the international community’s willingness to work positively for such a solution and encouraged Iran to reengage with the international community and IAEA.

    The Council endorsed the proposals of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, for a long-term comprehensive arrangement, which would allow for the development of relations with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Speaking after the adoption of the text, Qatar’s representative said he had not approved of proceeding with the vote when his region was “inflamed”. Proceeding to action at the present critical time neither served regional security nor Council unity. There was no harm in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means to identify Iran’s real intentions and the degree of its readiness to cooperate, especially since it had not rejected the package presented to it (by the six countries); it had only asked for some time to reply. The Council had certainly waited longer to act on questions of greater urgency. Qatar was totally committed to ensuring nuclear non-proliferation and ridding the Middle East of those weapons, but failure to take into account the above mentioned concerns, as well as the prevailing conditions in his region, was not helpful, he said.

    The United States speaker said that, sadly, Iran had defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and that demanded a strong response from the Council. The pursuit of nuclear weapons was a direct threat to international peace and security, and demanded a clear statement by the Council in the form of a tough resolution. It sent an unambiguous message to Iran, namely to take the steps set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, including full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. Iran should understand that the United States and others would ensure that financial transactions associated with proliferation activities would be impeded. The text was the first Council resolution on Iran in response to its nuclear programme, reflecting the gravity of the situation and the Council’s determination.

    Iran’s representative asserted that its peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community’s concerns, the sponsors’ approach flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of Member States. Today’s action by the Council, which was the culmination of efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory, violated international law, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.

    Iran’s right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT, he said. And, upholding the right of State parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes, but ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and that non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did. Yet, today, the world was witnessing a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of the current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. “This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality”, he said.

    The meeting began at 10:16 a.m. and ended at 11:25 a.m.

    Background

    The Security Council met this morning to consider the item entitled “Non-proliferation”.

    Draft Resolution

    The Council had before it a draft resolution (document S/2006/589) sponsored by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:

    “The Security Council,

    “Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006,

    “Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,

    “Noting with serious concern the many reports of the IAEA Director General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran’s nuclear programme, reported to it by the IAEA Director General, including IAEA Board Resolution GOV/2006/14,

    “Noting with serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

    “Noting with serious concern the IAEA Director General’s report of 28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,

    “Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General’s report of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38) Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, reiterated by the Council in its statement of 29 March and which are essential to build confidence, and in particular Iran’s decision to resume enrichment-related activities, including research and development, its recent expansion of and announcements about such activities, and its continued suspension of co-operation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,

    “Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere,

    “Welcoming the statement by the Foreign Minister of France, Philippe Douste-Blazy, on behalf of the Foreign Ministers of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and the High Representative of the European Union, in Paris on 12 July 2006 (S/2006/573),

    “Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme, mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, and being determined to prevent an aggravation of the situation,

    “Acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in order to make mandatory the suspension required by the IAEA,

    “1. Calls upon Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions,

    “2. Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA,

    “3. Expresses the conviction that such suspension as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Iran’s nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, underlines the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution, encourages Iran, in conforming to the above provisions, to re-engage with the international community and with the IAEA, and stresses that such engagement will be beneficial to Iran,

    “4. Endorses, in this regard, the proposals of China, France, Germany, theRussian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, for a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme (S/2006/521),

    “5. Calls upon all States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the transfer of any items, materials, goods and technology that could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ballistic missile programmes,

    “6. Expresses its determination to reinforce the authority of the IAEA process, strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, commends and encourages the Director General of the IAEA and its Secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all remaining outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the Agency, underlines the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, and calls upon Iran to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol and to implement without delay all transparency measures as the IAEA may request in support of its ongoing investigations,

    “7. Requests by 31 August a report from the Director General of the IAEA primarily on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in this resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the above provisions of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration,

    “8. Expresses its intention, in the event that Iran has not by that date complied with this resolution, then to adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary,

    “9. Confirms that such additional measures will not be necessary in the event that Iran complies with this resolution,

    “10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

    Action on Text

    The Council adopted the text as resolution 1696 (2006), by a vote of 14 in favour to 1 against ( Qatar).

    Statements

    NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar) said that, for more than two decades, his region had been surrounded by fires. And, no sooner had one died down, than another broke out. Troubles and sectarian tendencies made those fires more intense. Ever since the question of Iran’s nuclear programme was brought before the Security Council, he had repeatedly underscored the importance of a political solution to the problem, and affording diplomacy enough time to guarantee the achievement of a peaceful solution. Such a solution could be attained, if all the parties concerned showed flexibility, wisdom and a sense of responsibility. He appreciated the bold efforts undertaken by the six States in seeking a peaceful solution by offering Iran an integrated package; that was a bold and praiseworthy step. Iran had also been called upon to seriously address the international community’s concerns about the nature of its nuclear programme and guarantee its exclusively peaceful uses.

    He said that was, doubtless, a universal demand. He did not, however, approve of proceeding with the draft resolution when his region was “inflamed”. There was no harm in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means and identifying Iran’s real intentions and the degree of its readiness to cooperate, especially since it had not rejected the package presented to it, but had only asked for some time to present its reply. That had prompted his delegation to explicitly ask the Council members to grant that request. The Council had been more patient and waited longer to act on questions of greater urgency. Qatar was fully committed to the Council’s unity, especially regarding sensitive questions. Proceeding with the draft resolution at today’s critical time, however, neither served regional security nor the Council’s unity. On the contrary, that would intensify the conflagration in the region, like it or not. Separated from the nuclear reactors concerned by no more than 200 kilometres, Qatar was totally committed to ensuring nuclear non-proliferation and ridding the Middle East of those weapons. But, failure to take into account his point of view and the above mentioned concerns, as well as the prevailing conditions in his region, would not help achieve Council unity.

    JOHN BOLTON ( United States) said four months had passed since the Council had called on Iran to suspend its nuclear programme. Two months had passed since the EU-3 ( France, Germany, United Kingdom) + 3( China, Russian Federation, United States) had made its generous offer. That diplomatic effort had been preceded by more than three years of Iranian non-compliance with Non-Proliferation Treaty and its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. Sadly, Iran had defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the continued defiance of its leadership demanded a strong response from the Council. He was pleased that the Council had taken clear and firm action in passing the resolution. The pursuit of nuclear weapons constituted a direct threat to international peace and security, and demanded a clear statement by the Council in the form of a tough resolution. It sent an unambiguous message to Iran, namely to take the steps set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, including full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and suspend construction of its heavy-water reactor.

    Iran should understand that the United States and others would ensure that financial transactions associated with proliferation activities would be impeded, he said. He expected Iran -- and all other Member States -- to immediately act in accordance with the resolution. It was the first Security Council resolution on Iran in response to its nuclear programme, reflecting the gravity of the situation and the Council’s determination. He hoped the resolution would demonstrate to Iran that the best way to end its international isolation was to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. He hoped Iran would make the strategic decision that pursuit of weapons of mass destruction made it less, and not more, secure. Members needed to be prepared, however, that Iran might chose a different path. That was why the United States expressed its intention to adopt measures under Article 41 of the Charter, if Iran did not comply with the resolution.

    EMYR JONES PARRY ( United Kingdom) said that Iran’s nuclear activities and its history of concealment had raised pressing questions about whether that country’s programme was as it claimed –- solely for peaceful purposes. He was deeply concerned over Iran’s failure to cooperate fully with IAEA. After more than three years, the Agency was still unable to conclude that there was no undeclared nuclear material or related activities in Iran, including activities with a possible nuclear military dimension; that remained unanswered. The international community had shown great patience and given Iran many opportunities to show that it had no intentions to create nuclear weapons, but, unfortunately, Iran had not taken the necessary steps to build confidence.

    Nevertheless, he said, his country remained committed to working towards a negotiated solution. On 6 June, Javier Solana had presented Iran with a new set of far-reaching and imaginative proposals for a comprehensive agreement, offering a way forward, one that would give Iran everything it needed to achieve its stated ambition of developing a modern civil nuclear-power industry. That included, among other things, support for building light-water power reactors, as well as legally binding assurances relating to the supply of nuclear power material, for which it would not have to depend on a single foreign supplier. The proposals would also offer Iran, among other benefits, significant trade benefits, including with the European Union. When Mr. Solana had presented the proposal, he had made it clear that it was essential for Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, namely, full suspension of all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency.

    If Iran suspended enrichment, the United Kingdom would be prepared to suspend further activity in the Security Council, he said. Continuation of enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, would allow Iran to develop know-how to produce fissile material, which could be used for the production of nuclear weapons. The proposal had suggested a procedure to review the moratorium once confidence in Iran’s intention had been restored. He was deeply disappointed that Iran had given no indication that it was ready to seriously engage in that proposal or take the necessary steps signalling its readiness to begin. A full suspension was required to help build confidence and create the atmosphere of trust necessary for negotiations. Those talks could not succeed if Iran continued the activities, which were a main source of international concern.

    A Security Council resolution, which made mandatory the IAEA required suspension, was significant. Should Iran refuse to comply, he would work towards the adoption of measures under the Charter’s Article 41. Should it implement the decision of the IAEA and the Council, and enter into negotiations, he would be ready to hold back from further action in the Council. He reaffirmed that the proposal conveyed to Iran by the six countries on 6 June remained valid. The choice was now Iran’s. He urged and encouraged it to implement the steps required by the IAEA Board and the Security Council.

    VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said the resolution expressed the need for Iran to establish full cooperation with IAEA, to clarify outstanding questions and for restoring confidence in its nuclear programme. The main purpose of the text was to support IAEA’s efforts to resolve Iran’s nuclear problem. The Agency should continue to play a central role in resolving non-proliferation issues in the context of Iran’s nuclear programme. He hoped that, with the Council’s support, it would be easier for IAEA to do that job. By acting under Article 40 of the Charter, the Council had rendered mandatory suspension of all uranium-enrichment activities. If Iran did not comply, members had expressed the intention to take appropriate action under Article 41. It was crucial to note that, it followed from the resolution, any additional measures that could be required to implement the resolution ruled out the use of military force.

    He said the resolution should help to clarify outstanding issues and restore trust in its nuclear programme. This measure should be viewed as an interim measure, for the period necessary for resolving the issue. If Iran complied with the resolution, members would be prepared to refrain from any further action. If negotiations yielded a positive solution to the problem, no additional steps against Iran would be taken in the Council. The resolution also established a provision for Tehran’s broad cooperation to meet Iran’s energy requirements. It also reaffirmed the proposals transmitted to Iran on 6 June. His delegation hoped that Tehran would seriously view the contents of the resolution and would take the necessary steps to redress the situation.

    ZIU ZHENMIN ( China) said, since the beginning of the year, the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme had attracted more and more attention. IAEA had conveyed to the Council a number of reports and resolutions related to the issue. China had all along indicated that the purpose for the Council’s review of the issue was to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism, strengthen IAEA’s authority and role, reinforce the endeavour of the Agency’s Director General to clarify outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, promote diplomatic efforts and commit to finding an appropriate solution to the issue through political and diplomatic means.

    For the same purpose, the Council had issued a presidential statement on 29 March and had just adopted a resolution, he said. Regrettably, the Iranian side had yet to respond positively to the requests of the IAEA Board of Governors and the Council’s calls. The resolution explicitly demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. It expressed the intention, in the event that Iran failed to comply with the resolution, that the Council shall adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of the Charter to persuade Iran to comply with the resolution and IAEA’s requirements. On the other hand, in the event that Iran fulfils the above obligations and return to the negotiating table, it would not be necessary for the Council to adopt additional measures.

    He said the resolution had stressed in many paragraphs the importance of finding a negotiated solution through political and diplomatic efforts. It had underlined the irreplaceable key role of IAEA in handling the issue. It had endorsed the “package proposals” put forward by China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States in early June, and emphasized that the proposals were important efforts for a comprehensive arrangement, which would allow for the development of bilateral relations and cooperation based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

    A belated appropriate solution to the Iran’s nuclear issue was due to lack of trust among the main parties involved, he said. Whether now or in the future, the Council could not handle the issue single-handedly. Dialogue and negotiations were the only way out. IAEA should always be the main mechanism for dealing with the issue. Any measures adopted by the Council should serve the purpose of diplomatic efforts. According to Article 25 of the Charter, all Member States were obliged to carry out Security Council resolutions. Under the current circumstances, China urged Iran to practice restraint, earnestly implement the requirements of the resolution and make an early response to the “package proposals”, so as to create conditions for increasing trust and promoting dialogue and negotiation.

    He called upon all the other parties to adopt a highly responsible attitude towards world peace, security and stability and the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism; remain confident and calm; practice restraint; explore new ways of thinking; and continue to creatively carry out diplomatic efforts for the settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue. He welcomed any ideas conductive to conducting talks, breaking the stalemate and reaching compromises. During the current sensitive period, it was essential for Iran and for all practices concerned not to take any steps that would harm diplomatic efforts and might lead to complications or even loss of control. He called upon all parties to resume, as soon as possible, dialogue and negotiations for the proper solution of Iran’s nuclear issue. China would continue its efforts to maintain world and regional peace and stability, safeguard and strengthen international non-proliferation mechanisms, and enhance political and diplomatic efforts for the solution of Iran’s nuclear issue.

    TUVAKO N. MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania) said that he had supported the resolution, but he regretted the failure of diplomatic efforts to engage Iran and achieve a suitable outcome that would have protected Iran’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear activities. As a matter of principle, his country was opposed to nuclear weapons, whether held by friend or foe. It was opposed, therefore, to nuclear proliferation and it strongly supported the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the non-proliferation regime it had established under the auspices of IAEA, to which Iran also subscribed.

    He said his country also firmly believed in the right of the Iranian people to civilian nuclear energy. The resolution just adopted did not in any way seek to constrain that right. On the other hand, it sought to bring any such programme under the IAEA’s verifiable inspection regime. And, that was how it should be. He was mindful that Iran had offered to respond by 22 August to the package of proposals presented by the so-called “P-5 + 1” ( China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States and Germany). He hoped that the willingness for dialogue contained in that offer would be reciprocated. Engaging Iran should be continued by all the parties, including IAEA. He had voted for the text essentially because it precluded the use of force as an option in engaging Iran. Hopefully, its adoption at the present time would not complicate matters.

    KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan) said his delegation viewed the resolution as a balanced text. Its adoption represented broad endorsement by the efforts of the EU-3 +3 to achieve non-proliferation in a vital region of the world. Japan believed that the important issue of non-proliferation should be resolved through diplomatic and peaceful means. The adoption of the text constituted a part of such efforts. He hoped and expected that Iran would take the message from the Council seriously and respond positively to it within the defined time line.

    Japan, which traditionally had friendly relations with Iran and was a country committed to nuclear non-proliferation, had undertaken its own diplomatic initiative towards the peaceful resolution of the issue. Japan would contribute its own efforts through continuous dialogue and engagement with Iran.

    CESAR MAYORAL ( Argentina) said that the text adopted today had reaffirmed the right of every Member State, indeed every State party to the NPT, in keeping with its article I and II, to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, without discrimination. He very much hoped that a solution that was diplomatic and negotiated with Iran could be reached. He called on the parties involved to resume dialogue, in order to find a solution within the context of what had been set out by the IAEA Board and the Security Council.

    Speaking in his national capacity, JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France), whose delegation holds the Council’s presidency for July, said that the resolution had been made necessary by the fact that Iran, despite the three meetings with Mr. Solana, had not been willing to seriously address the substance of the proposals of 6 June on behalf of the six countries. Thus, there had been no alternative other than to resume the activity placed on hold in the Council. He was glad that the 15-member body, through today’s vote, had supported the efforts of those six countries. France, together with Germany, would underline the following elements: the text had made the suspension requested by the IAEA mandatory, but that did not mean end to negotiations, and he had reaffirmed the proposals made on 6 June to Iran; if Iran refused to comply, the Council would work under Article 41 of Chapter VI of the Charter; and if Iran did comply and resumed negotiations, the Council could abstain from such action. He appealed to Iran to comply with the substantive proposals submitted to it last month.

    JAVAD ZARIF ( Iran) said his delegation had requested to be given an opportunity to speak before the Council took action, so that it would be appraised of the views of the concerned party before it adopted a decision. His previous request to speak before the Council when it adopted a presidential statement on 29 March had also been denied. It was indicative of the degree of transparency and fairness that the Security Council had adopted a presidential statement and a draft resolution, without allowing the views of the concerned party to be heard. For the record, he would make the statement intended for presentation before action. He expressed profound appreciation to Qatar for the negative vote based on their principles, as well as their legitimate concern for the regime.

    He said it was not the first time that Iran’s endeavours to stand on its own feet and make technological advances had faced the stiff resistance and concerted pressure of some powers permanently represented in the Council. Iran’s struggle to nationalize its oil industry had been touted in a draft resolution submitted in October 1951 by the United Kingdom and supported by the United States and France as a threat to international peace and security. That draft had preceded a coup d’état, organized by the United States and United Kingdom, in a less veiled attempt to restore their short-sighted interests. More recently, Saddam Hussein’s massive invasion of Iran in 1980 had not troubled the same permanent members to consider it a threat to international peace and security.

    Over the past several weeks, the Council had been prevented from moving to stop the massive aggression against the Palestinian and Lebanese people and the resulting terrible humanitarian crises, he said. The Council would not have the slightest chance of addressing the oppressor’s nuclear arsenal. Likewise, the Council had been prevented from reacting to the daily threats of resort to force against Iran uttered at the highest levels by the United States, the United Kingdom and the lawless Israeli regime, in violation of the Charter. On the other hand, in the past few years, a few big Powers had spared no efforts in turning the Security Council into a tool for attempting to prevent Iran from exercising its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, recognized explicitly under the NPT.

    The people and Government of Iran were determined to exercise their inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and build on their own scientific advances in developing various peaceful aspects of that technology, he continued. At the same time, as the only victims of the use of weapons of mass destruction in recent history, they rejected the development and use of all those inhumane weapons on ideological, as well as strategic, grounds. Iran’s leader had issued a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Iran had also clearly stressed that nuclear weapons had no place in its military doctrine.

    He noted that, in order to dispel any doubt about its peaceful nuclear programme, Iran had enabled IAEA to carry out a series of inspections, which had amounted to the most robust inspection of any IAEA Member State, including more than 2,000 inspector days of scrutiny in the past three years; the signing of the Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003 and implementing it immediately, until 6 February 2006; the submission of more than 1,000 pages of declarations in accordance with the Additional Protocol; and permitting inspectors to investigate baseless allegations, by taking the unprecedented step of providing repeated access to military sites.

    Consequently, he said, all IAEA reports since November 2003 had been indicative of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. In November of that year and in the wake of sensational media reports on the so-called 18 years of concealment by war, IAEA had confirmed that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities …were related to a nuclear weapons programme”. The same can be found in other IAEA reports, as recent as February 2006.

    Much had been made, included in today’s resolution, of a statement by IAEA that it was not yet in a position to conclude that there were no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran, he said. The sponsors had ignored, however, the repeated acknowledgement by the IAEA Director General that the process of drawing such a conclusion was a time-consuming process. They had also ignored the addendum to the 2005 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report, released in June 2006, which indicated that 45 other countries were in the same category as Iran, including 14 European and several members of the Council.

    Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, he said. Dealing with the issue in the Council was, therefore, unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community’s concerns, the approach of the sponsors flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community, clearly reflected in the most recent statements by foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and partly reflected in the June 2006 IAEA Board Chairman’s Conclusion.

    Claiming to represent the international community, the EU-3, in their so-called package of incentives of last August, had asked Iran to “make a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities”. A cursory look at the chronology of events since last August indicated that Iran’s rejection of that illegal and unwarranted demand had, and continued to be, the sole reason for the imposition of resolutions and statements on the IAEA Board and the Council.

    Today’s action by the Council -- which was the culmination of those efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory -- violated the fundamental principles of international law, the NPT and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension. Iran’s right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT. And, upholding the right of States parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes. Ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did.

    “Yet, exactly the opposite is the trend today”, he said. Today, the world was witness to a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. “This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality”, he said.

    The trend, he added, had reached a horrendous, and indeed ridiculous, state with the Israeli regime. That regime, a non-member of the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal was coupled with its expansionist, repressive and state-terror policies, was repeatedly recognized as the most serious threat to regional and international peace and security. Yet, it had the audacity to cry wolf about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme and lead a global campaign of threats, lies, deception, pressure, blackmail and outright extortion. In spite of the massive political and propaganda machine, no one in today’s world could accept the convoluted logic that it was okay for some to have nuclear weapons, while others were prevented from developing nuclear energy.

    Another destructive trend was the imposition of arbitrary thresholds, which were often a function of bilateral considerations, rather than objective or technical criteria, he said. The new threshold regarding enrichment was as arbitrary as the previous ones, and was simply another excuse to begin a trend to prevent the realization of the rights of the NPT members to peaceful use, while, according to the United States Ambassador, non-members could “legitimately” continue producing nuclear bombs.

    He said it had been argued that the Council’s intervention was needed to ensure cooperation by Iran with IAEA, and to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. He suggested that, in order to achieve that goal, Security Council involvement was not needed. In fact, the Council’s involvement hindered, rather than helped the ongoing process, because it was designed as an instrument of pressure. Iran’s cooperation with the Agency was far more extensive and comprehensive before action was imposed on the Board to engage the Council. As for coming back to the negotiating table, Iran had always been ready for negotiations. For almost three years, Iran had tried to sustain or even resuscitate negotiations with the EU-3. Iran had offered far-reaching proposals to usher in a new era of cooperation, in August 2004, in January, March, April, July and September 2005, and in January, February and March 2006.

    Throughout that period, Iran had adopted extensive and extremely costly confidence-building measures, including suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations, he said. All along, it had been the persistence of some to draw arbitrary red lines and deadlines that had closed the door to any compromise. That tendency had single-handedly blocked success and, in most cases, killed proposals in their infancy. That had been Washington’s persistent strategy ever since Iran and the EU-3 had started their negotiations in October 2003. “Only the tactics have changed”, he said.

    “All along, the threats by some to bring this issue before the Council and take it out of its proper technical and negotiated structure has loomed large over the negotiations and has impeded progress, derailed discussions and prevented focus on a mutually acceptable resolution,” he said. The manner in which negotiations over the recently proposed package had been conducted was a further indication of the same propensity to resort to threats and the lack of a genuine will to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Iran had publicly, and in a show of good faith, reacted positively to that initiative and had indicated its readiness to engage in fair, non-discriminatory and result-oriented negotiations about the package, within a mutually agreed time frame and without preconditions. Yet, an arbitrary deadline had been set, ex post facto, without any justification, and only to serve the totally ulterior objective of “maximizing pressure”.

    Indeed, it had taken the EU-3 nearly five months, from March to August 2005, to consider a very serious proposal by Iran last year and, even then, the EU-3 had come up with a response that did not address any elements of that proposal, he noted. An yet, while Iran had clearly stated that it required three more weeks to conclude its evaluation of the proposed package and come up with a substantive reaction, it was astonishing to see that the EU-3 and the United States were in such a rush to prematurely hamper the path of negotiations by imposing a destructive and totally unwarranted Council resolution. Compare that rush to the fact that some of the very same Powers had for the last three weeks prevented any action, not even a 72-hour truce, by the Council on the urgent situation in Lebanon. “You be the judge of how much credibility this leaves for the Security Council. Millions of people around the world have already passed their judgement.”

    Concluding, he said it was pertinent to ask what the motive was behind the long-standing urge of some permanent members to bring Iran before the Council. Was it anything but pressure and coercion? That approach would not lead to any productive outcome and, in fact, it could only exacerbate the situation. The people and Government of Iran were not seeking any confrontation and had always shown their readiness to engage in serious and result-oriented negotiation, based on mutual respect and equal footing. They had also showed, time and again, their resilience in the face of pressure, threat, injustice and imposition.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #127
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    In case you missed it, in a previous message, Iran rejected the above.

    Iran says Security Council demand illegal

    Reuters
    Monday, July 31, 2006; 12:10 PM

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif rejected as without legal basis on Monday a Security Council demand that it suspend its nuclear activities by the end of the month or face the threat of sanctions.

    "Iran's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security and therefore dealing with this issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility," Zarif told the council.


    In lengthy comments following the council's 14-1 vote on a resolution giving Tehran until August 31 to comply with its demands, Zarif said Iranians were determined to exercise their "inalienable right" to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

    Iranians were not interested in developing nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction, he said, recalling a chemical attack staged by then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on the Iranian people in 1980.

    "As the only victims of the use of weapons of mass destruction in recent history, they reject the development and use of all these inhuman weapons on ideological as well as strategic grounds," Zarif said.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #128
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    As Ahmadinejad watches-It seems no action will be taken against Iran

    Jerusalem Post ^ | 8-1-06 | CAROLINE GLICK


    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the man to watch these days. And yet it would seem that those in positions of power are paying him little heed.


    Ahmadinejad, whose proxy army Hizbullah is now waging war against Israel, has promised to respond to European and American demands to cease his country's illicit nuclear programs on August 22. As Robert Spencer, a noted expert on Islam, has explained, August 22 corresponds with the 27th of Rajab on the Muslim calendar. According to Islamic tradition, that is the day after Muhammad made his nighttime journey to Jerusalem and then flew to heaven from the Temple Mount, lighting up the skies over the holy city in his wake.


    This week the UN Security Council is supposed to pass a resolution giving Iran until August 31 to end its nuclear programs. The obvious meaning of the new deadline is that until then, in spite of Iran's direction of Hizbullah's war against Israel - a state which Iran daily threatens to destroy - no action will be taken against Teheran.


    Indeed, in all the talk of Security Council resolutions regarding the war that Iran's proxy force Hizbullah is waging against Israel, no one has mentioned the possibility of condemning Iran, or Syria, for their sponsorship of Hizbullah.


    AS THE STAKES of the war against Israel rise by the day, we find the international community, led by the US, and willingly followed by the Olmert government, scope-locked on a diplomatic agenda that is irrelevant to the imminent dangers Israel and the world now face in the midst of this Iranian sponsored jihad.


    Indeed, it is worse than irrelevant. It is counterproductive.
    For if the aims of the ongoing diplomatic blitzkrieg are all met, Israel will find itself denied its right to self-defense; with its legal right to secure and recognized borders in tatters; and with Hizbullah sitting pretty behind a protective shield of the Lebanese military and an international force that will not attack it.


    On Wednesday the UN Security Council will vote to approve a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that will mandate a cease-fire and the establishment and deployment of a multinational force to Lebanon. The tasks of the proposed force will be to man a buffer zone in southern Lebanon; enable the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border with Israel; and control Lebanon's international border with Syria.
    The purpose of the force is to prevent Hizbullah from attacking Israel and to cut it off from its logistical base in Syria while barring Israel from continuing the fight.


    THERE ARE several basic problems with this approach. First, Chapter VII resolutions are the only UN resolutions that enable the Security Council to use force and other coercive tools against UN member states. Any state breaching them is considered an international lawbreaker.


    Israel's enemies have for decades sought to have Israel come under the authority of Chapter VII resolutions, but the US has blocked all such attempts, understanding that they are aimed at denying Israel the right to defend itself.


    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues claim that the proposed multinational force would protect Israel. Yet it is already clear that this will not be the case. As things now stand, the proposed force will be led by France. Indonesia and Turkey have reportedly offered to participate. With France leading the international community in condemning Israel for defending itself; with some 40 percent of Indonesians telling pollsters that they wish to participate in jihad; and with Turkey led by an Islamist government, can anyone believe that this force will neutralize Hizbullah? None of these countries even accept that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization.


    OBVIOUSLY this force will not fight Hizbullah. But it will prevent Israel from attacking Hizbullah. And given that the force is to be mandated under a Chapter VII resolution, were Israel to take independent measures to defend itself, it would immediately become an outlaw state open to arms embargoes and other sanctions.


    Moreover, the planned multinational force is supposed to facilitate the Lebanese army's deployment along the Lebanese border with Israel. This is supposed to be a good thing. Yet, since the outbreak of the war, the Lebanese army has been actively fighting with Hizbullah. Its radars have been used to lock in Israeli targets for Hizbullah missile crews. It is paying pensions to the families of fallen Hizbullah fighters. On Sunday its soldiers reportedly shot at IDF helicopters in the Bekaa Valley.But. to date, the US-led international community refuses to recognize the Lebanese army as a combatant, and similarly insists that the aim of the postwar settlement should be to strengthen both the Lebanese government that includes Hizbullah and the Lebanese army that fights by Hizbullah's side.
    IN HER discussions with Israeli leaders, Rice has proposed that in the framework of a settlement of the current crisis, Israel give Mt. Dov on the Golan Heights to Lebanon. There has been almost no public debate about the reasonableness of the US position. Yet even the most superficial analysis makes it clear that such a move would be catastrophic for Israel's long-term viability.


    Mt. Dov, which Hizbullah refers to as the Shaba Farms, is not and has never been Lebanese territory. In 2000, following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, the UN certified that Israel had removed itself from all Lebanese territory.


    The UN further confirmed that Mt. Dov was territory Israel wrested from Syria during the course of the 1967 Six Day War. The UN stated that the fate of the territory would be determined in the course of negotiations toward a peace treaty between Israel and Syria.


    Hizbullah cut the Lebanese territorial claim to Mt. Dov out of whole cloth as a pretext for continuing its war against Israel after Israel left Lebanon. Its claim that Mt. Dov is Lebanese territory has been rejected by the international community. Yet today, the US is prodding Israel to give Mt. Dov to Lebanon as a confidence-building gesture toward the Lebanese government, which of course supports Hizbullah's demand. By adopting this Hizbullah demand, the US is breaching the decades-old foundation of the Law of Nations, which stipulates that states cannot win territory from other states through armed aggression.


    ADDITIONALLY, by supporting Hizbullah's demand, the US is in effect suing for a Hizbullah victory in this war. Hizbullah has never demanded Mt. Dov for itself. It demands the vast territory that connects the Syrian Golan to the Upper Galilee for Lebanon. And the Lebanese government, which the US seeks to strengthen, supports this Hizbullah demand just as it supports all of Hizbullah's demands. If Lebanon receives the territory, Hizbullah will be the clear victor in this war.


    Moreover, by even suggesting that Israel consider giving Mt. Dov to Lebanon, the US is undermining the very notion that Israel has a right to recognized borders. If after Israel removed itself to the international border Lebanon can receive support for additional territorial claims against Israel, that means there is no line to which Israel can remove itself in the Golan, or in Jerusalem, or in Judea and Samaria or Gaza and safely assume that its borders will be recognized by the rest of the world.


    In short, by backing Lebanese claims to Mt. Dov, the US is paving the way for future territorial claims for West Jerusalem, the Galilee, Haifa, indeed for all of Israel.


    Israel will never be able to trust that any peace treaty it signs is final. An act of aggression by its enemies may pave the way for additional claims, which in the interests of strengthening the Palestinian, Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian governments the international community is liable to support.
    IT WOULD seem that, in spite of themselves, both the US and the Israeli government have managed to maneuver themselves into diplomatic positions that undermine their own national interests. Somehow, between the US's early and misguided decision to ignore the Lebanese government's support and responsibility for Hizbullah and the Olmert government's clearly halfhearted prosecution of the war, both governments have gotten lost. The goals that now form the basis of their diplomatic agendas serve only to advance the interests of their enemies.


    A clear break from the current path must be made immediately.

    Ahmadinejad is looking on and laughing.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  9. #129
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran Focus

    http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=8143

    Tehran, Iran, Aug. 03 – Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Thursday for the “elimination” of Israel.

    Ahmadinejad was speaking at an emergency session of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Putrajaya, Malaysia, which had been organised to discuss Israeli attacks in Lebanon. His remarks were carried in full by the state-run news agency ISNA.

    He described the Jewish state as “fake” and said that it lacked any “legal foundation or legitimacy”.

    “The United States and Britain and a considerable number of Western government do not have any limits on the extent of their political, propaganda, financial, and military backing for this regime”, he said.

    He said the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which has been in intense battle with Israel over the past three weeks, had become the “symbol of Muslim resistance”.

    “The main solution is the elimination of the Zionist regime”, Ahmadinejad said.

    He called on Arab and Islamic governments to immediately halt their overt and covert political and economic ties with Tel Aviv.

    The hard-line Iranian president demanded that the U.S. and Britain pay compensation to Lebanon because they had supported the Israeli offensive. “These two governments must be held accountable for their crimes in Lebanon”, he said.

    He called on the OIC to condemn the U.S. and Britain for their “key role” in the conflict, and added that the U.S. did not have “competence” to be a member of the United Nations Security Council.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #130
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

    Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei praises Hezbollah

    08/02/2006
    Khamenei criticised the US for supporting Israel's evil acts in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against them. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance," he said.

    Israeli troops



    Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday praised Hezbollah and pledged not to abandon support for Lebanese resistance against Israel, state television reported.


    Israel has been fighting Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas since July 12, when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. At least 646 people have been killed in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 54 Israelis have died in three weeks of fighting.


    "The only way to succeed is to continue resistance against the occupier regime (Israel)," said Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state in Iran and who dominates the country's policy on the Middle East conflict. "Iran will stand by ... the brave Lebanese nation and the combatant Palestinian nation."


    Opposition to Israel is one of the cornerstones of belief of the Islamic Republic. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".


    Khamenei criticised the United States for supporting Israel's "evil acts" in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against Israel. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance more than before in the Islamic world," Khamenei said.


    Israel accuses Iran of providing Hezbollah with missiles used against civilian and military targets. Although Iran armed and funded Hezbollah during the 1980s, Tehran now insists it provides only moral support to the group.
    An influential hardline cleric on Tuesday called on Muslim nations to arm Lebanese Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  11. #131
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran working with N.Korea on missiles: Institute

    By Jack Kim
    Reuters
    Thursday, August 3, 2006; 4:25 AM



    SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has been working closely with Iran to develop its long-range ballistic missiles, possibly using Chinese technology, and is building large bases to prepare for their deployment, a South Korean state-run think tank said.


    North Korea is also building new sites near the Demilitarized Zone with the South for short-range missiles and is deploying missiles with improved precision that can strike most of Japan, the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS) said in a report.


    "The development of Taepodong-2 is conducted jointly with Iran, and it is possible China's technology is used in the development of the Taepodong-2 engine," said the IFANS report, which Reuters obtained on Thursday.
    The collaboration on the long-range Taepodong-2 is part of an international network, including Pakistan, that made it possible for the impoverished North to develop and deploy missiles despite scarce resources and limited testing, the study said.


    With more than 1,000 missiles of various ranges, North Korea has come to have the world's fourth-largest arsenal and is at the center of ballistic missile proliferation, IFANS said, "not only in terms of the weapons themselves but also the technology."


    North Korea fired seven missiles on July 5, including the Taepodong-2, which U.S. officials said failed seconds into its flight and fell into waters between Japan and the Korean peninsula.


    Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy to talks on the North's nuclear program, said last month one or more Iranians watched the North's missile launch, deepening concerns about the ties between two countries with troubling nuclear capabilities.


    The Taepodong-2 is the product of joint efforts with Tehran, coinciding with Iran's development of the Shehab-5 and 6 missiles, the report said. "It is highly possible that design and technology from China, which has an arms trade with Iran, were used."


    The Taepodong-2's failure was probably because its first-stage booster rocket did not separate, the report said, the latest in a series of problems with the missile, including an explosion during an engine test in 2002.


    TACTICAL MISSILES


    The Iranian connection in the North's missile program dates back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when Pyongyang tested and began shipping its Scud-type missiles to Iran, the report said.


    The Scud-based arsenal continues to be a threat because, through modification, the weapons "have achieved leaping progress in terms of precision, high mobility and quick firing rates," the IFANS report said.
    The North's purchase of out-dated Soviet submarines in the 1990s, with launch and stabilization systems intact, has raised concern that North Korea might be trying to arm submarines with tactical missiles, it said.
    The North is building a missile command base 50 km (30 miles) north of the Demilitarized Zone for as many as 30 mobile launch pads for the Scud-type Hwasong missiles that can hit military and industrial targets deep in the South, IFANS said.


    "With the deployment of Rodong and SSN-6 missiles and the pursuit to deploy the Taepodong-2, the North is pushing ahead with the construction of new sites and silos" on the east coast and on the border with China, the IFANS report said.
    © 2006 Reuters
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  12. #132
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran warns oil could reach $200 on sanctions

    Thu Aug 3, 2006 10:59am ET

    (can you say NUCLEAR BLACK MAIL?)



    CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Global oil prices could hit $200 per barrel if the United States pursues international sanctions against Iran, an Iranian official said on Thursday, although analysts passed the comment off as saber rattling.


    Iran's Foreign Relations Vice Minister Manuchehr Mohammadi told Venezuelan state television, "The first consequence of these sanctions would be an increase in the price of oil to around $200 per barrel."
    The statement comes after the United Nations on Monday demanded that Iran suspend all nuclear development within a month or face the threat of sanctions. Iran responded that it had a sovereign right to nuclear development.


    "Clearly Iran does not want to have sanctions imposed, so they want to convey the idea that the cost of these sanctions would be incredibly high," said Tim Evans, an Energy Analyst with Citigroup Futures Research.

    "While we can't rule out $200 oil, I think we can assign it a rather low probability," he said.


    Markets appeared to shrug off the comment, with U.S. crude oil falling $1.01 to $74.80 on signs that Tropical Storm Chris would not become a hurricane.


    Tension over Iran's nuclear ambitions, which has rattled oil markets in recent weeks, has been overshadowed by the bloody conflict in Lebanon.
    "It serves (Iran's) interests to create this kind of concern in the world community about the price of oil," said Mark Routt, a senior analyst with Energy Security Analysis Inc. "But there are elements to suggest it might not reach that level."


    He said high prices have lead to an increase in non-OPEC production and turned once prohibitively expensive projects like Canadian tar sands into profitable ventures.


    At the same time, Routt said, product demand has been dampened by alternative fuel products like biodiesel and ethanol.


    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has backed Iran's nuclear program and developed close ties to the Iranian government. Chavez visited Iran last week as part of a two-week world tour meant to boost global alliances.
    © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  13. #133
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran cleric says shut down Security Council
    tiscal ^ | 04/08/2006 | Reuters



    TEHRAN (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council should be scrapped for trying to make Iran halt its atomic work while failing to stop Israel’s offensive against Lebanon, a senior Iranian clerical politician said on Friday.
    The comments by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the constitutional watchdog the Guardian Council, confirmed Tehran’s defiance in the face of a U.N. resolution ordering it to stop making atomic fuel by the end of this month.


    The West accuses Iran of enriching uranium for use in warheads. Tehran says it is only for power stations.
    "They must close down this United Nations and its Security Council, what kind of a Security Council is this?" Jannati told Friday prayer worshippers in Tehran.


    Jannati lambasted Israel for brutal tactics during the massive offensive it launched against Lebanon after Hizbollah guerrillas seized two of its soldiers on July 12, and criticised the world body for taking no action.
    "The United Nations and the Security Council are so weak, so incapable and so influenced by major powers that they cannot even issue a resolution," he said.


    "But when it comes to Iran and trampling on Iran’s right to use nuclear energy, they quickly issue a resolution," he added.
    Some hardline student groups and Islamic militiamen vowed to attack the British embassy in Tehran after Jannati’s sermon.
    Police mustered at the building after some religious conservatives boasted they were going to storm the mission.


    Britain is often attacked in Iran on the ground that it created the state of Israel.


    "The United Nations and the Security Council are so weak, so incapable and so influenced by major powers that they cannot even issue a resolution," he said.


    "But when it comes to Iran and trampling on Iran’s right to use nuclear energy, they quickly issue a resolution," he added.
    Some hardline student groups and Islamic militiamen vowed to attack the British embassy in Tehran after Jannati’s sermon.
    Police mustered at the building after some religious conservatives boasted they were going to storm the mission.


    Britain is often attacked in Iran on the ground that it created the state of Israel.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  14. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Why is this not being reported by the major news outlets? Who is tell these people to not to talk about this?


    Iran's smuggling of uranium from African mine uncovered
    Shipment of bomb-making material from 'closed' Congo site intercepted
    Posted: August 6, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

    Tanzanian customs officials have uncovered an Iranian smuggling operation transporting large quantities of bomb-making uranium from the same mines in the Congo that provided the nuclear material for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima sixty-one years ago today, reports the London Sunday Times.

    A United Nations report, outlining the interception last October, said there is "no doubt" the smuggled uranium-238 came from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province.

    The Shinkolobwe uranium mine was officially closed and its main shafts covered with concrete in 1961, before the country became independent from Belgium, but U.N. investigators have reported evidence of ongoing mining operations.

    In the late 1990s, the government allowed small-scale mining for cobalt, leading to uncontrolled and dangerous mining activities that grew to 6,000 miners a day entering the former Shinkolobwe mine site. The U.S. demanded that the Congalese government regain control over the site because of fears that uranium could be bought and sold on the black market. Despite a ban on access to Shinkolobwe issued by President Joseph Kabila in January 2004, nine people were killed in a collapse at the site in July of that year.

    "The situation in Shinkolobwe could be described as anarchistic - there is no respect for mining safety regulations," Bernard Lamouille, an expert in small-scale mining who participated in the U.N. assessment, told the Environment News Service.

    According to reports in 1999, Congolese authorities sought assistance from North Korea to re-open the mine.

    The smuggled uranium discovered by Tanzanian customs agents was hidden in shipment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. According to the manifest, the coltan was to be smelted in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan after being shipped to Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest port.

    "There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter," one customs official said.

    "This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50 kilograms of ore. When the first and second rows were removed, the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium."

    Uranium-238, when used in a nuclear reactor, can be used to create plutonium for nuclear weapons.

    "The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help," he said. "We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this."

    According to the U.N. report, which has been submitted to the sanctions committee, Tanzania provided "limited data" on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized over the past ten years.

    "In reference to the last shipment from October 2005," the report reads, "the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from [Katanga province] by road through Zambia to the United Republic of Tanzania."

    www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51405
    Last edited by falcon; August 7th, 2006 at 01:33.

  15. #135
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Islam's Useful Idiots
    Monday, 07 August 2006
    Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

    Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population. Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

    The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

    The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

    Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”

    The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

    Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.

    But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

    The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

    Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

    But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same—the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.

    No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha, leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

    Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia.

    The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

    Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.

    Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

    The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.

    http://www.amilimani.com/index/

  16. #136
    Senior Member Joey Bagadonuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Venice, Florida
    Posts
    228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default "Cataclysmic Events" for Aug. 22nd?

    Looks like the modern day Hitler is doing his best to bring about Armageddon.
    This just in from Drudge...from a Wall Street Jornal op-ed piece.


    ================================================== ========

    http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm


    WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran's Ahmadinejad May Have 'Cataclysmic Events' In Mind For August 22
    Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET

    In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton's Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers."

    "In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined."

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

    "This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

    Developing...

    ***
    ...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

  17. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    698
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Aug 10, 2006

    Clearing the path for US war on Iran
    By Gareth Porter

    WASHINGTON - Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shi'ite organization's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective - the weakening of Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.

    In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the US administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program - the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    One leading expert on Israeli national-defense policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the US administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, says administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

    But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

    The risk to Israel of launching such an offensive was that it would unleash the very rain of Hezbollah rockets on Israel that it sought to avert. But Luttwak believes the Israelis calculated that they could degrade Hezbollah's rocket forces without too many casualties by striking preemptively.

    "They knew that a carefully prepared and coordinated rocket attack by Hezbollah would be much more catastrophic than one carried out under attack by Israel," he said.

    Gerald M Steinberg, an Israeli specialist on security affairs at Bar Ilon University who reflects Israeli government thinking, did not allude to the link between destruction of Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and a possible attack on Iran in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week. But he did say there is "some expectation" in Israel that after the US congressional elections, President George W Bush "will decide that he has to do what he has to do".

    Steinberg said Israel wanted to "get an assessment" of whether the United States would "present a military attack against the Iranian nuclear sites as the only option". If not, he suggested that Israel was still considering its own options.

    Specialists on Iran and Hezbollah have long believed that the missiles Iran has supplied to Hezbollah were explicitly intended to deter an Israeli attack on Iran. Ephraim Kam, a specialist on Iran at Israel's Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, wrote in December 2004 that Hezbollah's threat against northern Israel was a key element of Iran's deterrent to a US attack.

    Ali Ansari, an associate professor at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and author of a new book on the US confrontation with Iran, was quoted in the Toronto Star on July 30 as saying, "Hezbollah was always Iran's deterrent force against Israel."

    Iran has also threatened direct retaliation against Israel with the Shahab-3 missile from Iranian territory. However, Iran may be concerned about the possibility that Israel's Arrow system could intercept most of them, as the Jaffe Center's Kam observed in 2004. That elevates the importance to Iran of Hezbollah's ability to threaten retaliation.

    Hezbollah received some Soviet-era Katyusha rockets, with a range of 8 kilometers, and hundreds of longer-range missiles, after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. But the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, citing a report by Israeli military intelligence at the time, has reported that the number of missiles and rockets in Hezbollah hands grew to more 12,000 in 2004.

    That was when Iranian officials felt that the Bush administration might seriously consider an attack on their nuclear sites, because it knew Iran was poised to begin enrichment of uranium. It was also when Iranian officials began to imply that Hezbollah could retaliate against any attack on Iran, although they have never stated that explicitly.

    The first hint of Iranian concern about the possible strategic implications of the Israeli campaign to degrade the Hezbollah missile force in south Lebanon came in a report by Michael Slackman in the New York Times on July 25. Slackman quoted an Iranian official with "close ties to the highest levels of government" as saying, "They want to cut off one of Iran's arms."

    The same story quoted Mohsen Rezai, the former head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, as saying, "Israel and the US knew that as long as Hamas and Hezbollah were there, confronting Iran would be costly" - an obvious reference to the deterrent value of the missiles in Lebanon. "So, to deal with Iran, they first want to eliminate forces close to Iran that are in Lebanon and Palestine."

    Israel has been planning its campaign against Hezbollah's missile arsenal for many months. Matthew Kalman reported from Jerusalem in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 21, "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's main purpose in meeting with Bush on May 25 was clearly to push the United States to agree to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program. Four days before the meeting, Olmert told CNN that Iran's "technological threshold" was "very close". In response to a question about US and European diplomacy on the issue, Olmert replied, "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

    At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's ynetnews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work.

    It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a way of dramatically reducing the risks involved in an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by ynetnews but not by US news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied."

    Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to cause havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive. The Israeli plan may have given US Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites.

    Rumsfeld was the voice of administration policy toward Iran from 2002 to 2004, and he often appeared to be laying the political groundwork for an eventual military attack on Iran. But he has been silenced on the subject of Iran since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took over Iran policy in January 2005.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH10Ak05.html

    Jag

  18. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    698
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...291960,00.html

    Iranian general: We will soon carry out large military exercise



    The serving Iranian General Commander of the Iranian Army, General Muhamad-Reza Ashtiani said, "In the coming days Iran will initiate a large military exercise." This was reported the Iranian news agency Mehr.

    In a press conference the general announced that 12 divisions of the land forces will participate in the exercise and that it also include joint exercise of the land, sea, and air forces. During the exercise, that Iranian army will test new weapons and ammunition. (Dudi Cohen)

    (08.16.06, 11:41)

    Jag

  19. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    710
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran military to launch war-games

    Iran Focus

    Tehran, Iran, Aug. 16 – Iran will launch a new round of war-games later this week, putting on display new Iranian-make armaments, a top military commander announced on Wednesday.

    The military exercises involving land and air combat forces will begin Saturday in several border provinces where anti-government protests have been most rampant.

    “We must show the enemies the Islamic Republic’s military capability”, the deputy commander of the regular armed forces, Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Ashtiani, told reporters.

    Ashtiani said that the manoeuvres, code-named “Zolfaghar”, will be in support the policies of the government and in particular the Foreign Ministry, a possible reference to the military’s backing for the theocratic state’s nuclear program.

    He specifically mentioned the provinces of East and West Azerbaijan, Khorassan, Kurdistan, and Sistan-va-Baluchestan as regions where the manoeuvres will take place.

    Among items which will be put on display in the military drills are armour-piercing bullets manufactured by the Defence Industries Organisation, affiliated to the Ministry of Defence, he said.

    Ashtiani said that the armed forces were “ready to thwart” all “plots” against the Islamic Republic, adding that no army in the world could match Iran’s regular armed forces, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and its affiliated organs.

    Iran has a dual military system with a regular armed forces as well as the IRGC. Both report directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=8263

  20. #140
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

    Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran That's it. That's the whole list of national security priorities.
    JINSA ^ | April 14, 2006




    Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran That's it. That's the whole list of national security priorities.


    Whatever we do in Iraq and whatever Iraqi politicians do; whatever we do to Hamas; however hard we look for Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri; whoever runs our port terminals; whatever the price of gasoline; however we secure our borders; whoever leaked Valerie Plame's name - under the shadow of a nuclear-capable Iran, American and allied options are reduced.


    Iran's announcement that it has mastered the enrichment of uranium on an industrial scale, and thus stands steps away from being weapons-capable, was poetic. "Iran's nuclear activities are like a waterfall which has begun to flow. It cannot be stopped."


    Poetry aside, we disagree.


    At least one analyst suggests that Iran could only generate enough for a one-shot demonstration to halt the current round of talks at the UN by presenting the Security Council with a fait accompli. An Israeli official said Iran had proved a "rudimentary research and development capability" needed to create nuclear weapons, but it did not mean that the Iranians had "mastered the nuclear fuel cycle." Israel's Chief of Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin, called the announcement "a bargaining chip... meant to move the debate to the next point - the extent of enrichment."


    However, even a demonstration project means that Iran has acquired the knowledge to enrich uranium after which, like biting the apple, you cannot "un-know." If the Iranian program is not stopped, some analysts believe Iran could master the fuel cycle by the end of the year. This is what Israel considers the "point of no return."


    The Iranians themselves say they are looking to increase the centrifuge string from the current 164 (enough to test the technology) to 3,000 (enough for industrial purposes, or to make one bomb per year) and then to 50,000 (do the math yourself). The ringer here, of course, is that we don't know what we don't know. There are suggestions of a parallel, clandestine program; that the 3,000 centrifuges already exist, that the knowledge base is stronger than we think.


    It is easier, in this case, to be Iran than it is to be the rest of us. Iran has only to determine its path and travel along. The key diplomatic players (the US, Russia, China, the EU-3, Israel, and the UN) are still working through a jumble of plans, policies and possibilities, with some still wedded to their financial objectives and others wedded to the idea that the US or Israel will make the problem disappear without involving them - except in the condemnation phase.


    It won't happen. This Iranian demonstration may be the only warning we get to dispense with our individual financial or political goals and find a unified way to a) make the Iranians stop, or b) make the Iranians stop. That's it. That's the only priority.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •