Principia Discordia

I'm giving it a 1/7 chance, after today's IAEA report.

Playbook goes like this: Israel and Saudi Arabia want Iran gone, but they don't want to do the heavy lifty.  Cue a bunch of scary stories about assassination and nuclear potential and war plans.  Pressure mounts internally and externally for Something To Be Done.

The people around Obama are probably the least enthusiastic about war in the Beltway elite, but this does not mean much in the grand scheme of things.   Obama may also see there being some kind of electoral gain from a war, especially if Romney is in the race and it looks like independents are shying away from the White House campaign.

The odds are still lower than a war would be with the Republicans in charge, and it's not a done deal yet...but the stuff I'm hearing is discouraging, to say the least.  I feel like ringing Hillary Clinton and shouting down the line "you're getting played, you dumb fuck", but that's just a good way to get onto airport check lists.

how do you think war would unfold with them?
it seems that it would look very different than what we have experience with heretofore...
i can see some kind of overt action on the pretext of keeping them from going nuclear, but boots on the ground?  that would be scary.  and i'm not absolutely sure the US population would stand for it.

could you foresee a 'coalition of the willing' to engage in a conventional war with Iran?
and who might take up sides with Iran in such a conflict?

I would be surprised if the US put boots on the ground in Iran... through from what I'm picking up around here, if Israel gave over on the Pali issue, the Turks might well go kick some Persian ass. They seem to be trying to get the dominant position in the region and having a nuclear Iran on the southern border isn't in their best interests.

Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2011, 07:07:59 PM
how do you think war would unfold with them?
it seems that it would look very different than what we have experience with heretofore...
i can see some kind of overt action on the pretext of keeping them from going nuclear, but boots on the ground?  that would be scary.  and i'm not absolutely sure the US population would stand for it.

could you foresee a 'coalition of the willing' to engage in a conventional war with Iran?
and who might take up sides with Iran in such a conflict?

Russia and China have supported Iran in the past, though, I don't think that they would offer military support if the war involved the US- war between any of these powers with the US is the last thing any of them would want, and the last thing we would want also.

If either Russia or China offered military support to Iran prior to any declaration of war, it would probably discourage the US from getting involved. Unless it was the type of war where superpowers support lesser powers without directly fighting each other.

My own prediction:  I don't see us going in against Iran...too complicated a measure.   Too risky by half.  Plus, no one in Iran would really want that--the Imams running the joint might posture, but that's as far as they'll go.  Turkey won't go against Iran, either, same reason.  Though Turkey is now trying to vy against Iran for the "most powerful Islamist nation"...and it's interesting to say the least to watch them go at it.

Turkey's example is an interesting one in and of itself.  I wish that beautiful little country well, though I think they go overboard sometimes in their usurpation of people's freedoms.  On the other end of the spectrum from Iran, of course.

I've been suspecting that the US is gearing up for a war on Iran for a bit.

They'd carry out airstrikes.

But it wouldn't stop there.  Iran would likely close the Hormuz Straits, sponsor terrorist attacks against US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and agitate for an uprising in the Shi'a dominated region of Saudi Arabia.  Which, incidentally, produces all the oil.  Hezbollah would probably also take advantage of the chaos to start needling Israel also, since Tel Aviv will be looking eastward and not north.

In short, it would be a clusterfuck.

it doesn't seem to me that anyone would benefit enough to justify pushing for it...
i think (further) deniable measures to prevent nuclear capability are sufficient and inevitable, though.

I think it's going to happen.

We've finally reached Curtiss Lemay's ideal of perpetual war.

Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2011, 07:55:48 PM
it doesn't seem to me that anyone would benefit enough to justify pushing for it...
i think (further) deniable measures to prevent nuclear capability are sufficient and inevitable, though.

It would certainly benefit Tel Aviv and Riyadh.  If they did it themselves, Iran might target them instead.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 07:56:37 PM
I think it's going to happen.

We've finally reached Curtiss Lemay's ideal of perpetual war.

Yep.

Hey, hey, Orwell!

I think that the US has a boner for the Middle East and this shit isn't going to stop for a long, long time.

US policy elites have convinced themselves Iran getting the The Bomb will be the end of all civilization as we know it.  Possibly because Americans are generally considered to be bad at geography (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003565.html), and they have not realised the USA is not in the Middle East.

The fact that Pakistan is twice as treacherous and three times as unstable as Iran and yet still has nuclear weapons is, of course, Missing The Point.

America might not have a real interest but I'm kind of worried Israel might drag them into it.
Frankly I haven't been following this as closely as I should, because my family is in Israel and the thought of war with Iran scares the bujeezus out of me, but I'm not sure it's such a crazy scenario.
Fact: the exiting head of one of the Israeli intelligence agencies, a few months ago, went public in the Israeli media about PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak having *actively been working on war with Iran for years*. Said exiting head claimed he worked hard to make sure those nutjobs didn't get anywhere while he was in his job, but as soon as he became a civilian he had to make sure to alert the public to help keep it from happening. He noted that although Israel might survive war with Iran, the casualties would be horrific and any victory likely Pyrrhic. I recall mention of massive land invasion.
Now, Netanyahu – who has been running on the Iran panic platform for years and years, like many of the established politicians there – very quickly forced the ex-head to retract his statement.
And in case anyone thought that was because the statement was false, Netanyahu and Barak are now publicly trying to get a majority in government for an attack (as of last week – again, I'm not following this like I should) and I think I heard something about them talking with the US.

It's important to recall that when it comes to Israel, Obama is very limited in what he can do because of the ridiculous power held by AIPAC (as well, I guess, as the alignment of the Republic majority in Congress with the uncritical pro-Netanyahu "pro-Israel" platform.) As we've seen over the past couple of years, Netanyahu's government blatantly and deliberately ignore Obama+Clinton and their interests whenever it suits them. This is because Israeli foreign relations have become entirely consumed by Israeli internal politics – our "leaders" are more concerned with telling the public what it wants to hear and with posturing the way the public likes to see than with actually managing our country's position in the world.

The vague and horrific scenario I can imagine, then, is that Netanyahu+Barak manage to wrangle the political support to initiate an attack, then force the Obama administration to do something. If the attack is happening, there will be counter-attacks from Hezbollah, possibly Hamas, and certainly Iran itself. Netanyahu may publicly blame Obama for abandoning Israel if the US does not intervene with great force. Seeing as land invasion (via Syria?) may be in play, any response that does not include a lot of feet on the ground is not going to be enough. I imagine that any scenario in which the US does not do enough to help Israel would be unacceptable to the White House as far as both US and international politics: domestically, they could kiss re-election goodbye, and internationally, they would be creating a vacuum in which basically anybody who steps in might become the new major player in the region. On the US side of things, I imagine that even if it's obvious to everyone involved that Israel started this thing, most American Jews would not feel able to vote for an Obama who stood by and let the counter-attacks come – not even the growing number of American Jews who deeply question Israel's politics and the uncritical US "pro-Israel" stance. I'm not sure how much of a critical base they are but I get the impression Obama can generally count on them.

This is more or less where the thought ends. Let's hope it's completely wrong.

Side note: Tel Aviv isn't where decisions are made, it's just the internationally recognized capital. Jerusalem (my hometown, yo!) is where the fucktards sit and plot their plots.

Everything you've said about the situation in Israel matches what I've heard.  I also think I heard a top ranking Mossad official state that war with Iran was necessary, but war by Israel was unthinkable.  Hence why they are pulling all the stops out to get the US to do it for them.

I find the land invasion scenario unlikely, though.  Getting troops to Syria would be no easy feat, and Syria is already on a knife-edge due to the civil unrest there - the presence of foreign troops would cause the whole thing to spiral entirely out of control, and possibly draw Turkey in as well (they may no longer be friends with Israel, but they despise Assad nearly as much, and are not keen on seeing Tehran flex their muscles westwards).  Iran will stick to unconventional responses, maybe send a few likely lads from the Qods Force to liase with Hezbollah and Hamas, give them extra targeting data, supply them with higher quality explosives, carry out raids, that kind of thing.

One facet that doesn't come up much is the role of Azerbaijan in any such conflict.  Israel has a large military base on the Azeri-Iranian border, which is as likely a target as downtown Tel Aviv.

Shit, I wasn't aware we had *any* bases outside of Israel.
Guess there's a good reason why "according to foreign sources" has become a standard way to say "you don't have this from me, but..." in Israel...

Thanks for the perspective on Syria. Music to my ears.

Hmm. I find Turkey's position interesting, though unsurprising. Likewise, the political jockeying to get someone else to do the dirty work. I will have to pay attention to the developments on this.

Turkey's been on the out with Israel for a long time, but is practically supporting a rebel army in Syria, so in this case, their interests converge.

The former has led the Turkish state to be hysterically decried as a New Ottoman Empire by US conservatives, because, you see, some allies (Israel) are more equal than others (NATO allies).

Quote from: Cain on November 08, 2011, 07:09:18 AM
Turkey's been on the out with Israel for a long time, but is practically supporting a rebel army in Syria, so in this case, their interests converge.

The former has led the Turkish state to be hysterically decried as a New Ottoman Empire by US conservatives, because, you see, some allies (Israel) are more equal than others (NATO allies).

I've been doing a lot of research on the history of Turkey... I personally don't think I'd ever want to be their enemy. From the early period of the Gokturks and Hunturks up through the Ottomans and then Atatürk, these people have historically kicked some serious ass. Beyond just the millitary might, the overwhelming nationalism is interesting as well. There are lots of internal conflicts, disagreements etc... but they hold a solidarity of "WE ARE TURKS FIRST". If they have an outside enemy, all internal conflict gets pushed aside. The most publicly visible internal issues surround the Kurds. The Turkish Kurds protest and have loud disagreements, but as soon as the PKK crosses the border from Iraq, the Turkish Kurds ready to kill for Turkey.

In the Left vs Right, there's all the normal political fighting, but if a politician from one side tried the American technique of "They aren't a real Turk" or "They want to destroy our nation" they would be booed out of politics.

I would never want to take these people on in a fight, especially as they continue to gain influence in the region.

They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

Cain, my guess is that Turkey wouldn't act militarily against Iran except in the most extreme of circumstances because it would probably put an end to any hopes of joining the EU if they did act unilaterally. And if they did decide they had reason to take military action against Iran, I have my doubts as to whether NATO would back them. What's your take on that aspect of this?

I'd be surprised if they did anything in any scenario except the one with Iranian troops using Syria as a staging ground for the invasion of Israel (which seems very unlikely indeed).

I'm not so sure they care that much about joining the EU any more - what I'm hearing is they've realised France and Germany are going to keep kicking entry into the Eurozone down the road for, well, forever.  When you're letting in Bulgaria and Romania before Turkey, it seems fairly obvious it's not corruption, economics or unstable politics are the issue here (it's not religion so much as the CAP, but the former probably plays some role).  They generally want to keep the EU on side though, for trading purposes.

But Turkey and Iran do have a quid quo pro on the Kurdish question, which is of great concernt to Ankara, since Baghdad cannot really effectively act on any claims it has north of Mosul.  That's also another reason for their undermining of Syria - lots of PKK types found refgue in Damascus.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 01:14:22 PM
They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

I'd say 3:

Attila the Hun (for obvious reasons)
Sultan Suleiman (military genius and badass)
Ataturk (took on the Brits, French, Aussies etc, then took out what was left of the Ottomans and chased the Greeks out of what is now Western Turkey)

Quote
Cain, my guess is that Turkey wouldn't act militarily against Iran except in the most extreme of circumstances because it would probably put an end to any hopes of joining the EU if they did act unilaterally. And if they did decide they had reason to take military action against Iran, I have my doubts as to whether NATO would back them. What's your take on that aspect of this?

I think they could bring enough political pressure to force Iran to play ball... especially if Israel came to terms on the Pali issue. Unilaterally going to war preemptively with Iran is unlikely IMO. However, if they could get credit for fixing Israel and the Pali's as well as ending the nuclear threat from Iran, I think it would put them exactly in the position they want to be in regionally.

I agree with Cain's points as well... Turkey is quickly distancing itself from the EU, not just because of the difficulty getting in, but because recent events economically have left Turkey doing very well, while the EU is struggling. The President (or was it the PM?) recently said in a news conference that Turkey will no longer be pursuing a position in the EU.

As for the PKK issue, its currently Turkey's biggest internal concern. They're already making incursions into Northern Iraq.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 01:14:22 PM
They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

I'd say 3:

Attila the Hun (for obvious reasons)
Sultan Suleiman (military genius and badass)
Ataturk (took on the Brits, French, Aussies etc, then took out what was left of the Ottomans and chased the Greeks out of what is now Western Turkey)

What about the guy that did multiple helicopter-assisted prison breaks, he was Greek, wasn't he?

Just to give y'all some perspective on how batshit insane Israeli politics are, in the scenario where Erdogan calls Netanyahu and says "look, the Iranians are about to [invade/bomb/poop on] you to smithereens, but I'm willing to put all of my force behind stopping that if you immediately go on CNN and announce an end to the occupation and the siege on Gaza" – even in that scenario I'm not sure if Netanyahu would do it. I think he and Barak may be able to count on gaining more politically by commanding an insane defense-and-counterattack at the cost of say, a quarter of our population, than they would by ending the oppression of the Palestinians. This in the short term, which in Israeli politics is also the only term.

I wish they weren't such a bunch of short-sighted, self-interested, pompous, systemically corrupt ex-generals voted in by a public that thinks the Jewish people are still exiles and essentially think of Israel as one big Eastern European shtetl (albeit militarized) – but that's what they are, and that's what the public is, and the politics of the country in question tend to favor the guy who looks like a big bad-ass rather than the guy who actually dose some good for a change.
The last guy who tried to reap political gain by doing something that seems like a bold move towards peace was Sharon with his "disengagement" from Gaza, a move designed to prove that pulling out of the West Bank is impossible. It probably worked out exactly as he expected, except for the part where he fell into a coma soon after. The disengagement further radicalized the residents of nutjob settlements (about 1/3-1/2 of the West Bank), led to the election of the most insane, self-destructive government in Israel's history, and set Gaza up as a case to point at and say "look what happens when we try to give them freedom". (The fact that Gaza's occupation has been an unbroken chain for decades is irrelevant, because the disengagement has been thoroughly spun as its end, the siege as a completely separate thing. Also irrelevant to most Israelis is that we put an end to one of the first democratically-elected governments in the Arab world when we decided Hamas was the wrong choice and forced the Palestinians into a civil war.)

Right now I wouldn't count on any scenario or any amount of objective self-interest causing Israel to end the occupation (the necessary first step towards ending the conflict.) With the right public atmosphere leading up to the events, who knows, but if there's been any (alleged) terrorist attack in the two weeks preceding, I'd bet on Netanyahu playing the tough general and dragging the US in after him.

Apparently, Sarkozy can see the writing on the wall. this would appear at first blush to be the first step in distancing France from being entangled in any upcoming conflicts in the region: http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-told-obama-fed-israeli-pm-092347721.html

Sarkozy, for his many faults, has been something akin to a voice of reason in Middle Eastern politics.  I believe he has Jewish roots of some kind, which may explain his interest in the region beyond the normal.

Someone just blew up an Iranian Revolutionary Guard arms depot.  They're claiming it is an accident, which it may well be.

The interesting thing is, even if it was provocation by the USA or Israel, they obviously don't want to claim it was.  They're not above lying, Iran is a state, after all, but they're clearly not interested in a scrap, if they're not using this for propaganda purposes.

Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2011, 11:06:37 PM
Someone just blew up an Iranian Revolutionary Guard arms depot.  They're claiming it is an accident, which it may well be.

The interesting thing is, even if it was provocation by the USA or Israel, they obviously don't want to claim it was.  They're not above lying, Iran is a state, after all, but they're clearly not interested in a scrap, if they're not using this for propaganda purposes.

Some sources are claiming that an Iranian missile expert was killed in the blast.

http://www.debka.com/article/21474/

Keep in mind, I havent seen anything about this in the MSM and Im not sure of how reliable the source is.

Debka are pretty unreliable, according to what I hear.  The fact they're not charging for their analysis, and that they're allied with World Net Daily, is rather telling.

Which doesn't mean they're wrong, only that we need confirmation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/iran-exile-group-claims-blast-near-tehran-hit-closely-guarded-missile-base/2011/11/12/gIQArKv4FN_story.html

QuoteAmong those killed was Hasan Moghaddam, a senior Guard commander.

http://www.mideastmag.com/114597/iran-loses-its-top-missile-expert-in-explosions-sparked-by-failed-bid-to-fit-nuclear-warhead-on-shahab-3/

Quote Hassan Moghadam, head of Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) missile development and sections of its nuclear program, was killed in the explosions that hit two IRGC bases 46 kilometers west of Tehran Saturday, Nov. 12.

QuoteAn exiled Iranian dissident group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK, meanwhile claimed that the blast hit a missile base run by the Revolutionary guard rather than an ammunition depot.

I'm sure that's just a misprint, and what they actually meant was "a Saddam Hussein supporting terrorist group and political death cult, the MeK, said"...

I see they mention that, later on, but by that point, most readers have lost interest.  Also, lol, nukes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/mek-lobbying_n_913233.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/us-iran-iraq-jones-interview-idUSTRE73Q79820110427

It seems theres been a bit of push lately to have them removed from the list of terrorist organizations, despite the fact that they killed 7 Americans in the past. The main argument seems to be that they oppose Iran. Iran being the pinnacle of all evil anyone who opposes them must be good!

They're very popular with the GOP, because...well, yeah, they hate Iran.  That's where the push to take them off the list of terrorist organisations comes from, mainly.

Oh, look

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/14/israel-mossad-iran-blast

QuoteA series of news reports linking Israel's intelligence agency the Mossad to a blast at a military facility in Iran, in which 17 people were killed and a further 15 wounded, has gained widespread coverage in the Israeli media on Monday.

While Iranian officials insist the explosion at the Bid Ganeh base was accidental, caused by the movement of ammunition, claims from anonymous western and Israeli officials that Saturday's blast was a covert Israeli operation have gained momentum.

Leading Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot picked up a post by US blogger Richard Silverstein claiming the Mossad had teamed up with Iranian militant group Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) to execute the alleged attack. MEK denies involvement in the attack.

Leftwing broadsheet Ha'aretz also led with reports that a western intelligence source quoted in Time magazine had claimed the Mossad carried out the attack in an attempt to stall Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. The official is said to have warned: "There are more bullets in the magazine."

The blast at the base, which is reported to have been a storage facility for long-range missiles, was so powerful that it was said to have been felt 30 miles away in the capital, Tehran.

Among those killed was Major General Hassan Moghaddam, the Revolutionary Guard Commander charged with "ensuring self-sufficiency" in armaments, and described by Iranian media as a pioneer in Iranian missile development.

Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, responded to news of Moghaddam's death by saying: "May there be more like it."

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office refused to comment on growing speculation of the Mossad's involvement. Ilan Mizrahi, former head of the national security council and former deputy head of the Mossad, also would not be drawn into substantiating the claims: "I have no idea whether this blast was accidental or whether it was sabotage. But I will say God bless those who were behind it, because the free world should be doing its best to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear military capability."

Wow. I'll be interested to see the reactions to Israel's statements.

Why would Iran want to cover that up?

to deny the appearance of weakness, perhaps...

And because they don't actually want a war.  It's all well to accuse Israel of nefarious spying activities, but once they're running covert ops in your country...well, the nationalists will call for a response.  And, er, well, I don't rate the Iranian air forces chances.

Ah. I'm running on like two hours' sleep for the third day in a row, or I suspect that would have been obvious, lol. Thanks guys. :)

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2011, 04:29:37 PM
And because they don't actually want a war.  It's all well to accuse Israel of nefarious spying activities, but once they're running covert ops in your country...well, the nationalists will call for a response.  And, er, well, I don't rate the Iranian air forces chances.

Yeah, if I recall they didn't do particularly well in their war with Iraq.

That was ages ago, but...

To be fair to Iran, they didn't have quite the level of support Saddam Hussein did, and officer corps tend to undergo a level of...restructuring after any revolution.

Though, of course, the USA and Israel were arming both sides of that conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#First_arms_sale).

Richard Silverstein is notorious for having unbelievable scoops that sometimes really shouldn't be believed. So the evidence is still pretty flimsy.
I'm not convinced that anything might drive Barak and Netanyahu not to take credit if Israel was behind the attack. After all, they've seen much better times domestically, and they've been talking aggressive about Iran for ages.

So right now I'd call this a suspicious coincidence.

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2011, 05:20:40 PM
To be fair to Iran, they didn't have quite the level of support Saddam Hussein did, and officer corps tend to undergo a level of...restructuring after any revolution.

Though, of course, the USA and Israel were arming both sides of that conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#First_arms_sale).

Well, sure.  The enemy of my enemy is my customer.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2011, 07:40:39 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2011, 05:20:40 PM
To be fair to Iran, they didn't have quite the level of support Saddam Hussein did, and officer corps tend to undergo a level of...restructuring after any revolution.

Though, of course, the USA and Israel were arming both sides of that conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#First_arms_sale).

Well, sure.  The enemy of my enemy is my customer.

That's a pretty awesome quote you got there, Roger.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 18, 2011, 08:56:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2011, 07:40:39 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2011, 05:20:40 PM
To be fair to Iran, they didn't have quite the level of support Saddam Hussein did, and officer corps tend to undergo a level of...restructuring after any revolution.

Though, of course, the USA and Israel were arming both sides of that conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#First_arms_sale).

Well, sure.  The enemy of my enemy is my customer.

That's a pretty awesome quote you got there, Roger.

I AM America.   :lulz:

Quote from: VERBL on November 18, 2011, 07:37:19 PM
Richard Silverstein is notorious for having unbelievable scoops that sometimes really shouldn't be believed. So the evidence is still pretty flimsy.
I'm not convinced that anything might drive Barak and Netanyahu not to take credit if Israel was behind the attack. After all, they've seen much better times domestically, and they've been talking aggressive about Iran for ages.

So right now I'd call this a suspicious coincidence.

True, but I place considerably more weight on the reporting of Ha'aretz.

Is this one of those cases where, regardless of how the depot actually exploded, it's in the best interests of the Israeli gov't if everyone thought they were behind it, while still maintaining plausible deniability?

Probably.  Rather like their entire SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM everyone knows they have, but will never, ever be mentioned as a possible reason why Iran might be seeking nukes, along with seeing US and Israeli military bases springing up on almost all its borders.

Why can't we attack someplace nice for a change? Like southern France... we could liberate the Cathars.

Quote from: wudgar on November 19, 2011, 11:31:18 PM
Why can't we attack someplace nice for a change? Like southern France... we could liberate the Cathars.

I think that the French did a pretty decent job of liberating them from this planet centuries ago.

We could, however, liberate the Basque I suppose.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK22Ak02.html

QuoteA former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repudiated its major new claim that Iran built an explosives chamber to test components of a nuclear weapon and carry out a simulated nuclear explosion.

The IAEA claim that a foreign scientist - identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko - had been involved in building the alleged containment chamber has now been denied firmly by Danilenko himself in an interview with Radio Free Europe published last Friday.

The latest report by the IAEA cited "information provided by Member States" that Iran had constructed "a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments" - meaning simulated explosions of nuclear weapons - in its Parchin military complex in 2000.

The report said it had "confirmed" that a "large cylindrical object" housed at the same complex had been "designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives". That amount of explosives, it said, would be "appropriate" for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon.

But former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading".

Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim.

"There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment.

Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables."

Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons program. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said.

The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin.

But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran.

The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko - a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons - was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link between Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber.

The Associated Press reported on November 11 that unnamed diplomats suggested Volodymyr Padalko, a partner of Danilenko in a nanodiamond business who was described as Danilenko's son-in-law, had contradicted Danilenko's firm denial of involvement in building a containment vessel for weapons testing. The diplomats claimed Padalko had told IAEA investigators that Danilenko had helped build "a large steel chamber to contain the force of the blast set off by such explosives testing".

But that claim appears to be an effort to confuse Danilenko's well-established work on an explosives chamber for nanodiamond synthesis with a chamber for weapons testing, such as the IAEA now claims was built at Parchin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15823622

QuoteThe UK has imposed new sanctions against Iran which will cut off all financial ties with Iranian banks.

It follows the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran and concerns about its nuclear programme.

From 1500 GMT on Monday, all UK credit and financial institutions are required to cease all transactions with banks including the Central Bank of Iran.

Chancellor George Osborne said there was evidence that Iran's banks were funding its nuclear weapons programme.

This is the first time the UK has used powers created under the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act to cut off a country's banking sector in this way.

The United States and Canada are also expected to announce further economic sanctions against Iran on Monday.

Hey girls and boys, here's an interesting thing: do you know how the modern financial system was formed?  It was mostly by the Templars, who created international banking.  You see, as states centralised and raised ever larger armies, the cost of maintaining forces in the field in a war situation could quickly strip the assets of even the richest countries, especially as the duration of a conflict became correspondingly longer.

As such, those with large sums of cash and the ability to transport it, such as the Templars and, later, more modern banks (such as the Medici Bank) became vital to any successful military policy.  It is widely believed, for instance, that the War of the Roses was won due to the backing of the aforementioned Medici Bank, and that Britain's success in the Seven Years War was because British credit with Dutch banks was better than that of the French.

This continues to be true even to this day.  Who financed the Iraq War, apart from as-yet unborn American citizens?  It was Chinese banks, backed by the Chinese government.  The first Gulf War was supported by Gerrman and Japanese banking institutions.  So, when you cut off a foreign nation's banks from accessing international lines of credit, based on a spurious charge, what message do you think that sends to the Mullahs in Tehran about our intentions?

Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 21, 2011, 07:13:48 PM
Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?
\
:mccain:

II think you nailed it, Twid.

This whole things is getting stickier and stickier.

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 21, 2011, 07:13:48 PM
Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?

Ahahahahaha

No

I can tell you from the frontlines that something just shifted

not necessarily for the better.

I'm hearing so many disturbing things via my State and FCO friends re: Iran its not even funny anymore.

Look into what Adam Werritty, unvetted "special advisor" to our former Defence Secretary, was doing in Tel Aviv with the British Ambassador to Israel, and his links to "opposition groups" in Iran and subsequent debriefing at the hands of MI6.  The assassins who keep killing Iranian physicists.  The unexplained explosions, the border violence, the hacking programs directed against Iranian critical infrastructure, the unusual circumstances surrounding the Iranian assassination plot in the USA.

We're already at war.  The fighting just hasn't been made overt yet.

Quote from: Cain on November 22, 2011, 10:41:23 AM
I'm hearing so many disturbing things via my State and FCO friends re: Iran its not even funny anymore.

Look into what Adam Werritty, unvetted "special advisor" to our former Defence Secretary, was doing in Tel Aviv with the British Ambassador to Israel, and his links to "opposition groups" in Iran and subsequent debriefing at the hands of MI6.  The assassins who keep killing Iranian physicists.  The unexplained explosions, the border violence, the hacking programs directed against Iranian critical infrastructure, the unusual circumstances surrounding the Iranian assassination plot in the USA.

We're already at war.  The fighting just hasn't been made overt yet.

Do you think this is a war that will remain undeclared? Like, will it continue to be a shadow war for regional stability or some other reason?

If anything is going to be resolved, it will ultimately require open conflict - the Iranian regime is too stable to collapse due to covert action.

The sticking problem seems to be who should actually do the dirty: Israel or the USA.  This dance has been going on since 2005, at least.  Most in Israel would prefer the USA to do the deed, though some outspoken militarists think they'll fuck it up, like they did Iraq and so Israel should carry out the strikes.  Equally, in the USA, most would prefer Israel to do the damage - after all, they're closer, already an international pariah and, well it's their security at stake, much more so than the USA.  On the other hand, some identify US security needs directly with Israeli security needs, and so argue a US strike is both necessary and required.

Until the pendulum eventually swings into one of these camps, there will be incessant backdoor bickering about who should do it.  I think, ultimately, it will fall to the USA - the Arab monarchies are also looking to topple Tehran, and they can feed back information to Washington to make Iran look more like a rogue state, rather than the regional challenger to their supremacy it actually is.

What do you think the outcome will be?

Also, probably a decent question, what factor do you think US debt will play into all of this?

I'm in Ankara currently and the air is charged with discussion the Turkish position regarding Syria. The PM is taking a threatening position and the public seems torn between thinking its a bluff and thinking its legit. The nightly news has about 15 minutes worth of stories dedicated to showing off Turkish troops in training and discussing how Russia and Turkey could launch a joint attack on Syria. That's pretty much pulled all attention off of Iran here, at least from the public perspective... Any noise from your side on this topic, Cain?

The Russian thing sounds pure bullshit, I have to say.  The Russians refuse to condemn Syria, and have made noises about human rights abuses by the rebels there.

I'd suggest bluff...though Turkey has been taking in refugees in large numbers, and the rumour is military defectors are being trained and sent back in to aid the rebel effort.  The Israelis think the Army may move in and set up buffer zones on the Syrian border, and allow the rebels to use those areas as bases for larger-scale assaults...which seems a reasonable conclusion.  The Turks can claim they are merely protecting their borders and protecting refugess per international law, whilst actually carrying out limited military operations to aid the rebels.

Quote from: Cain on November 23, 2011, 07:33:56 PM
The Russian thing sounds pure bullshit, I have to say.  The Russians refuse to condemn Syria, and have made noises about human rights abuses by the rebels there.

I'd suggest bluff...though Turkey has been taking in refugees in large numbers, and the rumour is military defectors are being trained and sent back in to aid the rebel effort.  The Israelis think the Army may move in and set up buffer zones on the Syrian border, and allow the rebels to use those areas as bases for larger-scale assaults...which seems a reasonable conclusion.  The Turks can claim they are merely protecting their borders and protecting refugess per international law, whilst actually carrying out limited military operations to aid the rebels.

Thanks for th more informed view.

On an unrelated note, the American Embassy is very nice, a beautiful campus.

Uncomfirmed rumour

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-from-well-placed-well-informed.html

QuoteIt appears that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain [monarchy], Kuwait, Oman are lobbying for an IDF (Israeli Defence Force) strike. [since they appear to have failed to persuade the US and Europeans to strike against Iran's nuclear program.]

If there is one thing that the Israelis and Gulf monarchies can agree on, it is that Iran sucks.

Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2011, 11:52:44 AM
Uncomfirmed rumour

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-from-well-placed-well-informed.html

QuoteIt appears that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain [monarchy], Kuwait, Oman are lobbying for an IDF (Israeli Defence Force) strike. [since they appear to have failed to persuade the US and Europeans to strike against Iran's nuclear program.]

If there is one thing that the Israelis and Gulf monarchies can agree on, it is that Iran sucks.

Would and Israeli attack improve relations between Israel and the other Gulf nations at all? Or would it be, "thanks for bombing Iran, but you still really suck."?

Probably the latter.  Though I'm not too sure how the Sunni monarchies view the Palestinian issue these days.  The relationship could possibly get warmer, though without official acknowledgement.  More likely, the removal of a unifying threat will cause them to have less in common after all, and go back to squabbling.  Israel does have its nuclear arsenal after all, and Saudi Arabia has covertly sought nuclear power before now.  Could be a new arms race, right there.

In the meantime, I don't think we'll see a war until Syria is dealt with.  And the current rumours are that a no-fly zone may be established via the UN, carried out by Turkey, logistically backed by NATO and given diplomatic and financial cover by the Gulf Co-Operation Group.  Take Assad out and cripple Iran's major ally first, before going to war.

My (perhaps not entirely informed) impression is that most of the Arab countries are basically just fine with Israel and the Palestinian situation, and they make a lot of noise out of it because it is a handy tool in deflecting attention outwards. This is, I think, also exactly the same vice versa, with Israel regarding the regional Arab countries. Iran is, of course, a slightly different story.

Apropos, it's worth noting that the Arab League made a serious peace plan offer to Israel last decade, which was simply ignored.

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/11/target-iran-washingtons-countdown-to.html

QuoteThe Iranian people know what it means to earn the enmity of the global godfather.

As William Blum documented in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 1953's CIA-organized coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, guilty of the "crime" of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, may have "saved" Iran from a nonexistent "Red Menace," but it left that oil-rich nation in proverbial "safe hands"--those of the brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Similarly today, a nonexistent "nuclear threat" is the pretext being used by Washington to install a "friendly" regime in Tehran and undercut geopolitical rivals China and Russia in the process, thereby "securing" the country's vast petrochemical wealth for American multinationals.

As the U.S. and Israel ramp-up covert operations against Iran, the Pentagon "has laid out its most explicit cyberwarfare policy to date, stating that if directed by the president, it will launch 'offensive cyber operations' in response to hostile acts," according to The Washington Post.

Citing "a long-overdue report to Congress released late Monday," we're informed that "hostile acts may include 'significant cyber attacks directed against the U.S. economy, government or military'," unnamed Defense Department officials stated.

However, Air Force General Robert Kehler, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) told Reuters, "I do not believe that we need new explicit authorities to conduct offensive operations of any kind."

The Pentagon report, which is still not publicly available, asserts: "We reserve the right to use all necessary means--diplomatic, informational, military and economic--to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests."

Washington's "interests," which first and foremost include "securing its hegemony over the energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia" as the World Socialist Web Site observed, may lead the crisis-ridden U.S. Empire "to take another irresponsible gamble to shore up its interests in the Middle East ... as a means of diverting attention from the social devastation produced by its austerity agenda."

Recent media reports suggest however, that offensive cyber operations are only part of Washington's multipronged strategy to soften-up the Islamic Republic's defenses as a prelude to "regime change."

Jesus we live in spooky times.

All these actions are a part of Fourth Generation Warfare, no? We're watching the board being set up.

More 5GW, really, but I take your meaning.  There is a really, really large push for taking down Iran coming from so many quarters now.  The leaks of covert action are being reported daily, which of course makes you wonder how much more isn't being reported.  The Mullahs are effectively under seige.

Hadn't heard yet about this explosion monday at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant, but this news piece says it was not an accident, according to Israeli intelligence...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-mysterious-blast-in-iran-s-isfahan-damaged-key-nuclear-site-1.398671 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-mysterious-blast-in-iran-s-isfahan-damaged-key-nuclear-site-1.398671)

these things do seem to be coming with increasing frequency.

Asia Times correspondent Peter Lee has a good piece on Syria

http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2011/11/syrian-revolution-hijacked.html

QuoteThe Syrian revolution—a broad-based, non-sectarian, democratic anti-despot national movement—has failed.

Mass demonstrations never materialized in Damascus and Aleppo. The military and security forces didn't crack. The Alawite on Sunni crackdown (Alawites form the backbone of the army/security forces/irregular goon squads) fomented sectarian divisions, with most non-Sunnis minorities cleaving desperately to the Assad regime. Prosperous Sunnis have presumably been hedging their bets by donating to the anti-government cause in recent days but have not explicitly abandoned the regime.

The Gulf powers and the West would have welcomed a Ba'athist regime collapse at the hand of domestic anti-government demonstrations.

That didn't happen.

As the peaceful democratic movement has faltered, there has been no move from the Western/Gulf powers to encourage reconciliation and reforms.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

Kicking all the Iranian diplomats out of Britain - I'm wondering if this is a sign that the situation with Iran is a lot closer to a shooting war than I previously thought?  I mean, I doubt the British government could engineer the looting of their own embassy in order to provide a pretext for further isolating the Iranian government, but since it did happen, are they capitalizing on it to move up the timetable toward more overt action?

(Slightly off-topic, why is it always "college students" who loot Western embassies in non-Western countries?  Does anyone actually believe that?)

It was fairly obvious, however, that putting Iran under banking sanctions (the importance of which I explained earlier) would provoke an extreme reaction in the Iranian government.  It was deliberate provocation, in addition to attempting to undermine the regime's ability to fight a war.  That reaction was almost certainly expected and prepared for.  The FCO is one of the most intelligent and forward thinking of all British government offices...I'd like to hear what the Tehran Embassy thought in the days leading up to and just after the economic sanctions were declared.  Unfortunately, I don't have friends quite that high up in the Foreign Office.

Also no, no-one believes it was college students, unless they are all studying at "Tehran Paramilitary College".

The Russian reaction is going to be the one to watch for.  China is willing to throw Iran under a bus, but Russia has invested a lot more in the regime, and will likely offer expertise and arms...and probably loan the Iranian government the money to buy them, too.

Russia has reacted...and in a most unusual manner, also

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16210330

QuoteRussia has circulated a UN Security Council resolution aimed at resolving the crisis in Syria, in a move that surprised the Western nations.

The draft condemns the violence by both Syria's government and the opposition, but does not mention sanctions.

Western nations said the proposal was not tough enough but that they were prepared to work on the document.

The West has been pushing the council to act on Syria for months, but Russia - and China - vetoed such proposals.

QuoteRussia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the document urged an end to the violence, but did not mention any sanctions.

"The reaction of colleagues in the Security Council was very constructive," he said.

"They made a number of comments as to the text... and we said that we were looking forward to working with them, in order to adopt a text, a resolution of the security council, which will really bring about an end to violence and crisis in Syria."

The draft demands that "all parties" in Syria stop violence.

But it also includes a new reference to "disproportionate use of force by Syrian authorities", in what is seen by some analysts as toughening of Moscow's position towards Damascus.

The document also "urges the Syrian government to put an end to suppression of those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association".

Western diplomats said the current draft did not fully reflect the gravity of the human rights situation in Syria, but added that they would negotiate on the text.

In short, Russia is pushing for regime reforms, in hopes of preventing complete revolution.  Gosh, I wonder where they could have gotten such an idea from?

The problem is, Western governments (or rather, the "permanent party" of think tank creatures, military contractors, bankers, the Israel Lobby, intelligence agencies and so on that are embedded within the democratic political structure) are intent on revolution.

However, this could be the kind of warning shot that would make Assad scale down his violence and perhaps consider reforms.  I don't think that would actually stop the rebels by this point, but it would then legitimise a Russian backing of the government should the rebels break any terms of cease-fire or be seen as the belligerent party.  And Russian arms and expertise would certainly counter the influence of Ankara and Doha in Syria.

Quick question, Cain. Based on operation - pull out of Iraq by xmas. What is the most cost-effective use of those middle east assets? I was wondering if redeploying somewhere else sandy, nearby would be a lot cheaper than bringing them home and then maybe having to send them all the way back there in a years time. (no idea how these things work, really)

Do you know this video about Iran?

Ahmadinejad | 2008 Christmas message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b4Fkdx771g
Weird.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 16, 2011, 10:14:03 AM
Quick question, Cain. Based on operation - pull out of Iraq by xmas. What is the most cost-effective use of those middle east assets? I was wondering if redeploying somewhere else sandy, nearby would be a lot cheaper than bringing them home and then maybe having to send them all the way back there in a years time. (no idea how these things work, really)

To be honest, I'm not sure.  However, as I'm sure you are aware, money is essentially no issue for the Pentagon.  In addition to having a trillion dollar budget, most of its wars are waged off the books, with few questions asked when it comes to cost.

Realistically, I think the US will maintain its current strategic pose, both in the region and globally.  The troops will withdraw, Obama will use covert action, drones and combined naval/air force operations to cripple Iran, should it come to war.  The Army will downsize as planned, and redeployment of forces to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia will continue.

There is a remarkable amount of reluctance among the American liberal press to label the acts of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists as terrorism.

Well, lets see: Group A (the nuclear physicists) are being killed by Group B (depending on who you ask, the USA/Israel/MeK) to convince Group C (the Iranian government) to act differently.  There is a measure of utility in killing nuclear physicists, as opposed random bystanders, but not really, because that expertise is not going away unless you kill everyone in Iran with a background in physics and the ability to use Google.  Furthermore, I suspect the scientists most responsible for the program are working within the military, and thus are much harder targets than people teaching at Tehran Poytechnic.

It also neatly fits the definition of terrorism as "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime", since under the laws of war, targeting the physicists would also be considered a war crime.  Assassination seems more reasonable than outright warfare, and it is, but only when you actually target people who matter.  Otherwise its just pointless murder for political reasons, i.e; terrorism.

I seem to recall one of the Republican candidates saying something along the lines of "I hope the U.S. is responsible for killing the Iranian scientists." (I forget the exact details. I will see if I can't dig it up tomorrow morning).

Anyway, it is rather disappointing, when a candidate for POTUS can get away with expressing support for terrorist acts, and hoping that the U.S. is responsible.

Santorum was getting rather excited about the whole thing, the other day.  I'm fairly sure he had a stiffy, the way he was going on.

That said, I think if someone doesn't like the smell of car bombings and targeted killings in the morning, then the job of President of the USA is not a job for them.  Remember, Jimmy Carter was considered a limp-wristed humanitarian, and he unleashed the Mujahideen against the Soviets.  You think the Taliban are bad?  The Washington Post at the time reported that the mujahideen liked to "torture victims by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another."

Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2012, 08:21:24 AM
Santorum was getting rather excited about the whole thing, the other day.  I'm fairly sure he had a stiffy, the way he was going on.

That said, I think if someone doesn't like the smell of car bombings and targeted killings in the morning, then the job of President of the USA is not a job for them.  Remember, Jimmy Carter was considered a limp-wristed humanitarian, and he unleashed the Mujahideen against the Soviets.  You think the Taliban are bad?  The Washington Post at the time reported that the mujahideen liked to "torture victims by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another."

I'm just disappointed that no one (that I've seen) has come out strongly against that position (either politicians, or members of the media). I'd like to imagine that there was a time when that sort of comment would be a political blunder, or at least catch some flak. I could be wrong about that, but it makes it no less disappointing.  :lulz:

(Fully aware of the realities of office, disappointed in the tone and atmosphere of the election, if that makes sense.)

Ron Paul has condemned it, as you would expect.  Gary Johnson too, I believe.

And hell, the past wasn't much better.  Recall, Nixon had Gordon Liddy on call, a man who came up with half a dozen plans to assassinate Daniel Ellsberg.  The entire CIA was conceived as a covert action arm of the Presidency, with the "cover" of an intelligence gathering agency, according to Chalmers Johnson, who was of course a contractor for them at one point (when the term meant an academic expert, and not a noob with a gun and a chip on his shoulder) and so had access to the historical records to prove it.

Bit hazy on how such things were conducted before the OSS, but I suspect organised crime and old boys networks dating basic to college, fraternities and so on, were the principal links.

Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2012, 10:14:14 AM
Ron Paul has condemned it, as you would expect.  Gary Johnson too, I believe.

And hell, the past wasn't much better.  Recall, Nixon had Gordon Liddy on call, a man who came up with half a dozen plans to assassinate Daniel Ellsberg.  The entire CIA was conceived as a covert action arm of the Presidency, with the "cover" of an intelligence gathering agency, according to Chalmers Johnson, who was of course a contractor for them at one point (when the term meant an academic expert, and not a noob with a gun and a chip on his shoulder) and so had access to the historical records to prove it.

Bit hazy on how such things were conducted before the OSS, but I suspect organised crime and old boys networks dating basic to college, fraternities and so on, were the principal links.

Good to know people are still criticizing it at least. I saw it come up exactly once, and then disappear from my radar, so I obviously just missed that. (To be honest, I don't really follow the news on the primary, and pretty much ignore anything about Ron Paul, because his supporters tend to tell me all about him anyway... perhaps i should pay more attention).

and thanks for the historical reminders. It's pretty depressing state of affairs, but like you said, I guess it was never much better.  :lol:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12/russia-says-nato-persian-gulf-nations-plan-to-seek-no-fly-zone-for-syria.html

QuoteRussia received information that members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and some Persian Gulf countries are preparing military intervention in Syria, the head of the Russian Security Council said.

Turkey, a NATO member, may play a key role, Nikolai Patrushev, who used to head the country's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, told Interfax in comments confirmed by his office. The U.S. and Turkey are working on a possible no-fly zone to protect Syrian rebels, Patrushev said.

"We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, working under the 'Libyan scenario', intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention," the Russian security chief said.

The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.

Note: Greece currently depends on Iranian energy for 25% of its total energy consumption.  In other words, the Greek economy, already on the ropes, will almost certainly be in a full blown crisis within the next month, crippling the Eurozone and sending waves of panic throughout  international markets.

Why did the faceless idiots that run the EU agree to these sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Why did the idiots that run American foreign policy ask the EU to engage in such sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

Goddamn it.

Fuck.

Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2012, 03:49:50 PM
The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.
...
Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

you think that this will push Iran to attack? (who would they attack?) or are you saying that their lack of capitulation will be considered an aggressive act that justifies attacking them?

Iran would likely close the Straits of Hormuz, as the opening act of any war (ignoring the currently existing covert war, of course).

Their resistance to "respecting the will of the international community" is being pushed as a legit reason to attack, but I think without an overt action on Iran's behalf, only those already in the tank for invasion would be outspoken supporters of an open attack. 

Getting Iran to throw the first public punch would go a long way to whipping up something approaching popular support.  And the Iranian government are dumb enough to do it.  To be honest, with their banking access cut off, there are already numerous angry voices calling for action (what kind?  who knows?  but Something Must Be Done).

Eventually, the Iranian government will be in a very precarious situation.  Constant inaction in the face of US and Israeli aggression will make them look weak, and may empower more radical elements within the Revolutionary Guard and those around the President to take matters into their own hands.  It'll be a "jump or be pushed" scenario for the ruling mullahs.

Press TV's licence to broadcast in the UK has been revoked.

Not that censoring enemy propaganda is a wartime move or anything  :lol:

So, probably can expect open fighting to begin fairly soon?

What do you think would be the outcome of all of this? Would the US stop short of replacing the government or would we attempt to occupy and dismantle the current regime in favor of a pro-US dictatorship democracy?

Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2012, 03:49:50 PM
The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.

Note: Greece currently depends on Iranian energy for 25% of its total energy consumption.  In other words, the Greek economy, already on the ropes, will almost certainly be in a full blown crisis within the next month, crippling the Eurozone and sending waves of panic throughout  international markets.

Why did the faceless idiots that run the EU agree to these sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Why did the idiots that run American foreign policy ask the EU to engage in such sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

What you have to understand, Cain, is that middle-America is now CONVINCED that we're going to have a war with Iran, and that nothing they do or say would stop it...That is, the ~40% or so who think we SHOULD try to stop it.

And there's no reason for war.  None at all.  Not even the flimsy pretext we had for Iraq.  It's all End Times bullshit in the heads of crazy yahoos and their even crazier/more cynical representatives.

This could rumble on for months longer yet.

Lets recall, it took 12 years to go from fighting to occupying Iraq, and then another 9 years to actually leave.

Occupation is off the cards, I am fairly certain.  It'd be the Libya model again - "kinetic operations" mixed with ground forces supporting local proxies and assassinating key military/regime figures, in hope of collapsing the regime.  Here, the local proxies would be the Sunni extremists, Jundullah, the MeK terrorists, some Baloch ethnic nationalists and anyone with a grudge against the regime.  Qatar, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would almost certainly also be involved covertly, too.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2012, 05:42:42 PM

Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2012, 03:49:50 PM
The EU placed sanctions on Iranian oil imports today.

Note: Greece currently depends on Iranian energy for 25% of its total energy consumption.  In other words, the Greek economy, already on the ropes, will almost certainly be in a full blown crisis within the next month, crippling the Eurozone and sending waves of panic throughout  international markets.

Why did the faceless idiots that run the EU agree to these sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Why did the idiots that run American foreign policy ask the EU to engage in such sanctions?  Because they're idiots.  Now they're pushing Iran into a situation where its only options are capitulation and war, and it will almost certainly choose the latter, or at the very least try to acquire nuclear weapons to offset further attempts to overthrow the government, thus "justifying" the war we are going to be embroiled in, the idiots.

What you have to understand, Cain, is that middle-America is now CONVINCED that we're going to have a war with Iran, and that nothing they do or say would stop it...That is, the ~40% or so who think we SHOULD try to stop it.

And there's no reason for war.  None at all.  Not even the flimsy pretext we had for Iraq.  It's all End Times bullshit in the heads of crazy yahoos and their even crazier/more cynical representatives.

Yep.  It's pure idiocy.

Allegedly, there is some wranging going on behind the scenes in the Obama administration which suggests original thinking on Iran...but the President only barely controls the State Department and Pentagon, at the best of times (shit, it took a Rumsfeld to bring the generals to heel, and they eventually got their revenge for that.  And a Clinton runs State).  Equally, while I think the Supreme Ayatollah is a lot more circumspect and pragmatic than his detractors give him credit for, the institutional mechanisms and personalities of the Iranian State (ie the President, the Revolutionary Guard etc) are geared towards confrontation.

And Bibi is cackling in the background like a maniac, determined to achieve his Place in History, and prove he is the only one who can be relied upon to defend Israel.  Meanwhile, Europe doesn't even know what it is doing half the time, and its feedback systems for understanding its interactions with the world are utterly borked.

All the indicators are that this will end in bloodshed, because the vast majority of people who have a say in it are convinced it can end no other way.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA27Ak01.html

QuoteThe decision on Monday by the European Union to phase out purchases of Iranian oil by July 1 is timed to US legislation that has the same deadline for sanctions against foreign banks that continue to do business with the Iranian central bank. However, European and US experts on Iran cite the fear of a new war as a key reason for the EU decision.

"The French administration is worried about Israel attacking Iran this year," a French researcher, speaking on condition of anonymity because he advises the French government, told Inter Press Service (IPS) on Wednesday.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague, answering questions on Tuesday in the House of Commons, said the new sanctions were designed "to lead us away from any conflict by increasing the pressure for a peaceful settlement of these disputes".

The EU decision reflects Israeli success in pressuring both the United States and Europe. Israeli officials have repeatedly called for "crippling" sanctions against Iran, suggesting that might forestall their use of military force against Iran's nuclear facilities - and collateral damage in terms of sharply higher oil prices and increased regional instability.

There is particular concern that Israel might act in 2012 out of concern that Iran is nearing nuclear weapons capability and in the belief that the Barack Obama administration would be obliged to support Israel in a US presidential election year.

Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated with Europeans a decade ago after the US Congress first enacted sanctions that sought to penalize foreign oil companies doing business with Iran, told IPS on Wednesday that the EU turnaround was "remarkable and stunning, given where they were on sanctions in general and Iran in particular".

Eizenstat credited the Obama administration's success in "multilateralizing" the dispute, building on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions initiated by the George W Bush administration.

Eizenstat, who co-chairs an Iran task force of the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think-tank, added that the current US government had benefited from a dual track policy of extending "the hand of friendship along with the club of sanctions".

Of course, historically, sanctions have been very good at avoiding war.


...

AHAHAHAHAHA.

If this the best they come up with to avert war, we might as well start launching the missiles now.

Cain,
With war against Iran being apparently baked in the cake, do you think that there is anything that individuals who see this coming can do to spin the public perception positively ahead of time?  That is to say, demonstrate that a portion of the population sees that we are being herded in this direction and do not believe it to be wise or necessary? (to ourselves as well as the world at large)
I'm assuming there's not a whole helluva lot that Joe Q Public could do to actually influence whether or not it will occur, but...
It just seems like now would be the time to Do Something About It.


I've heard some speculate that we might be deploying the repurposed USS Ponce as an Afloat Forward Staging Base to provoke an incident from Iran for pretext, or as a false flag target that we (or Israel) can sink for the same purpose.  Think there could be any legitimacy to those concerns?

Not really, no.  Iran has been built up as a Hitler-esque Nazi Death Machine since about 1979.  That's 30 years of solid propaganda.

If you feel you have to do something, point to the example of Iraq.  "Everyone knew" they had WMD.  "Everyone knew" the occupation would be a cakewalk.  "Everyone" was utterly wrong on that score, and Iran is three times the size of Iraq, a lot more nationalistic and a lot more psychologically primed to see the US as enemies as well.

But it wont make a difference.  Foreign policy is the area where public opinion has about the least impact on decisions made.

Any and all military movements in the Gulf are suspicious, at this stage.

Good news

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak02.html

QuoteChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders on January 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the US is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in US politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this autumn.

Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in either US or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive.

The substance of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis has become known, however, to active and retired senior flag officers with connections to the JCS, according to a military source who got it from those officers.

A spokesman for the JCS, Commander Patrick McNally, offered no comment on Wednesday when Inter Press Service (IPS) asked him about the above account of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis.

The message carried by Dempsey was the first explicit statement to the Netanyahu government that the United States would not defend Israel if it attacked Iran unilaterally. But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had given a clear hint in an interview on "Face the Nation" on January 8 that the Obama administration would not help defend Israel in a war against Iran that Israel had initiated.

Asked how the United States would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral attack on Iran, Panetta first emphasized the need for a coordinated policy toward Iran with Israel. But when host Bob Schieffer repeated the question, Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."
Defense Minister Barak had sought to dampen media speculation before Dempsey's arrival that the chairman was coming to put pressure on Israel over its threat to attack Iran, but then proceeded to reiterate the Netanyahu-Barak position that they cannot give up their responsibility for the security of Israel "for anyone, including our American friends".

There has been no evidence since the Dempsey visit of any change in the Netanyahu government's insistence on maintaining its freedom of action to attack Iran.

Hm. Do you reckon that we really would stick to that if Israel started shit?

Hard to say.  But even sending the message has to give the Knesset hawks pause for thought.  Bibi and his lackeys have been painting Obama as an anti-Israeli bigot and all round villain for quite some time now, the sort of person who would stand by and let Israel be destroyed.  Now Obama is saying he wont help if they start shit without his approval...well, because of the picture they've painted of him, they have to at least consider the possibility that it's true.

I still think a manufactured crisis in September or October is the option that Bibi is most heavily considering.  It has the maximum potential to either secure American assistance or get rid of Obama.  But this also suggests Obama's administration is aware such a trick may be in the making, and they presumably also are preparing some kind of countermeasure, for an Israeli attack.

When I took part in war-gaming an Iranian nuclear weapon crisis scenario, one of the things which came up was the idea that Al-Qaeda assets, captured by Tehran and kept in prisons after being caught fleeing from Afghanistan in 2001-2, might be released in the event of an invasion.

Now, this was in 2006, when Al-Qaeda was still scary, so it made a certain amount of logical sense.  Furthermore, the UNSC had just passed a resolution to disarm Iran of its nuclear arsenal, and this was while US troops were still in Iraq in large numbers.

However, the scenario the WSJ lays out makes less sense than what a bunch of 20 year olds were able to come up with

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197421440415962.html

QuoteU.S. officials say they believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

The men, who were detained in Iran in 2003, make up al Qaeda's so-called management council, a group that includes members of the inner circle that advised Osama bin Laden and an explosives expert widely considered a candidate for a top post in the organization.

The assertions are likely to amplify tensions between Washington and Tehran. A Senate committee on Thursday moved to intensify sanctions to force Iran into negotiations on its nuclear program, while Tehran has largely defied pressure. This week, Iran prevented U.N. nuclear inspectors from gaining access to sites and scientists, according to diplomats.

Skeptics caution that intelligence on Iran's activities is limited and worry that some policy makers might use provocative reports to justify military action against Tehran. Iran has denied any connection with al Qaeda.

U.S. officials believe there have been recent indications officials in the Iranian government have provided al Qaeda operatives in Iran limited assistance, including logistical help, money and cars, according to a person briefed on the developments.

In an invasion, sure.  All bets are off.  When its an invasion, you throw open the prisons and give the worst of the scum in there free access to the amoury.

But before then?  Lets face it, these guys have been locked up for a long time.  Very little access to the outside world.  Do they even know what is going on?  Futhermore, Al-Qaeda is in tatters - most of the old guard are dead or holed up somewhere in Pakistan, almost as isolated as the Iranian prisoners.  Their resources have been seized by governments around the world and vicious factional groups who don't recognize the authority of the leadership in Pakistan are hardly likely to welcome some old-timers from back in the day.

Also, Iran has Hezbollah, who are actually and legitimately scary.  Hmm, use the scary, dependable assets who are ideologically sympathetic and materially linked to you, or use the people who've been out of action for years, are part of a hostile network and whose abilities are suspect at best?  It's a no brainer.

Russia and China vetoed intervention in Syria.  For those at home still keeping score, I did say after Libya, the next time NATO wanted to intervene, Russia and China would say no.

Watching Susan Rice (US Ambassador to the UN) lose her shit on Twitter over the whole sordid thing almost made it worth it.  Remind me again why anyone would expect Russia to back the overthrow of the government which is leasing it the Tartus Naval Base, the only Mediterranean base for the Russian fleet?

The Syrians are apparently doing everything short of razing Homs to the ground and salting the earth.  Not surprising, really.  Homs is the location of a major oil refinery, and so part of the critical infrastructure the Syrian state needs to ensure its survival.  The Israelis bombed it back in the 70s, during the Yom Kippur war, which should give you an idea of how important it is.

Rumour is American officials are privately blaming the Damascus car-bombing on Al-Qaeda, and suspect they had a role in the assassination of Syrian general this morning.

If this is true, then it would not be a huge leap to suspect possible Qatari involvement as well.  They were quick to back, train and arm Al-Qaeda linked militants in Libya, and the GCG has been calling for some kind of action in Syria.

And this increases the probability of war with Iran?

Maybe, maybe not.

Current thinking is regime change in Syria is a sop to Israel, to stop them from pushing too hard for war with Iran.  On the other hand, success there also suggests a higher probability of success in Tehran, and so more support for an attack.

Also, most Syrian and Lebanese Sunnis are much more supportive of Al-Qaeda and suspicious of Iran than anywhere outside of Iraq.  Putting in a regime in Damascus less inclined to crush Sunni radicalism may free up such groups for bolstering Sunni organisations in Iraq - aside from removing Iran's key ally in the region.

Quote from: Cain on February 12, 2012, 04:42:00 AM
Current thinking is regime change in Syria is a sop to Israel, to stop them from pushing too hard for war with Iran.

Jesus.  We're like an abused spouse.

Obama was sounding a lot more threatening in front of AIPAC today.  On the other hand, it was AIPAC, and this was an election year.

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/) is a bit worrying though:

Quote...it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa.

Yeah, because that worked out really well for Colonel Gaddafi.  I'm sure the mullahs are just lining up for a program that ends up with them being anally raped with knives before being shot in the head (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20124758-503543/globalpost-qaddafi-apparently-sodomized-after-capture/).

Only an idiot would disarm after Iraq and Libya.  The Iranians are many things, but they are not idiots.  Nuclear ambiguity is the only thing preventing them from being invaded in 10 years time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17251279

Video linked within seems interesting, may be out of context.

The piece reads as a move to exert political pressure, which is a bit of a problem as, well, shit's still going down pretty much everywhere, constantly
Yet, the video is classic posturing - No action off the table, strong emphasis and pauses at all military mentions. It could be the Israel orientated audience, but my "Oh fuck, here we go again soon" sense is tingling.

Calling it now - The president that leads "The War on Terror" into to Pakistan is probably coming. Not today, but at this rate I'd say within the century.

To ensure fulfilment of said prophecy every and all future world leader is about to, and simultaneously likely to, invade Pakistan. They should be worried.

Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2011, 06:10:37 PM
I'm giving it a 1/7 chance, after today's IAEA report.

Playbook goes like this: Israel and Saudi Arabia want Iran gone, but they don't want to do the heavy lifty.  Cue a bunch of scary stories about assassination and nuclear potential and war plans.  Pressure mounts internally and externally for Something To Be Done.

The people around Obama are probably the least enthusiastic about war in the Beltway elite, but this does not mean much in the grand scheme of things.   Obama may also see there being some kind of electoral gain from a war, especially if Romney is in the race and it looks like independents are shying away from the White House campaign.

The odds are still lower than a war would be with the Republicans in charge, and it's not a done deal yet...but the stuff I'm hearing is discouraging, to say the least.  I feel like ringing Hillary Clinton and shouting down the line "you're getting played, you dumb fuck", but that's just a good way to get onto airport check lists.

I loathe admitting it, however, my indicator was their purportedly throttling internets...

David Cameron, making shit up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/iran-building-nuclear-weapon-david-cameron

QuoteDavid Cameron has warned that Iran is seeking to build an "inter-continental nuclear weapon" that threatens the west, as he urged Israel to allow time for sanctions to force the Iranians to change their strategic stance.

He was speaking after the cabinet was briefed for an hour by the national security adviser, Sir Kim Darroch, on the imminence of the threat to the UK posed by Iran.

It is the first time Cameron has made such an explicit warning that Iran could endanger UK security, and has faint echoes of the warnings from Tony Blair's government that Iraq could fire weapons of mass destruction with 45 minutes' notice.

It is understood that the government's National Security Council is also looking at potential reprisals in the UK if Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike against an Iranian nuclear weapons site. Cameron will be briefed by President Barack Obama next week on the US approach to any such strike when the two leaders meet in Washington.

Is this the same inter-continental ballstic missile which Donald Rumsfeld warned they would have by 2003?  And the same nuclear weapons that Bibi warned they would have by 1995?

"faint echoes"?

I've just had a bout of deja vu so hard it's made my eyes bleed.

Yeah, srsly.  It's also not the opinion of the American intelligence services, or the IAEA.

American haven't forgotten the past, they never even noticed it in the first place.


The willingness of The People to be led by the nose is, frankly, quite embarrassing.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 07, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
American haven't forgotten the past, they never even noticed it in the first place.


The willingness of The People to be led by the nose is, frankly, quite embarrassing.

You said it, LMNO.

One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

With a minimum amount of snark on my part, I must ask to what degree or amount do you think what they are saying is true.

(You, on the other hand, can answer with as much snark as you'd like.)

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

Good to know, Cain; I appreciate you keeping us updated on this stuff.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 07, 2012, 02:10:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

With a minimum amount of snark on my part, I must ask to what degree or amount do you think what they are saying is true.

(You, on the other hand, can answer with as much snark as you'd like.)

This question also occurred to me.

I have an overwhelming urge to grab people and scream "They're doing it again you stupid fuckers! This is YOUR fault!" at them over and over until they either ask me what I'm talking about or run away.

Actually, I resist these urges all too often, so I'll indulge myself in this time.

If you see no posts for the next few weeks assume I've been imprisoned somewhere and need assistance.

I also have a mild suspicion that Cain has access to a form of time travel.

Quote from: Junkenstein on March 07, 2012, 02:14:02 PM
I also have a mild suspicion that Cain has access to a form of time travel.

And if he does, the fact that he's not making a killing on the stock market is a very troubling sign.

Hard to say.  However, they're putting a lot of religious weight on it, and I think if they violated that, it would send a message that the Islamic government is no longer credible even by its own standards.

My belief is that, like Japan, Iran wants to have a nuclear capacity, but not a nuclear stockpile, and that it is concerned more by high internal oil consumption (at a time of high oil prices, no less) than it is by having the capacity to strike the USA .  The more oil they can sell, the better their economy, which then strengthens their relative position in global affairs far more effectively than pursuing nukes.

I sometimes forget that not all countrys' appeal to religion is 110% hypocrisy.

Well, it probably is in some sense, but it's also a fairly costly signal, if the regimes top religious authority says "nuclear weapons are sinful" and then goes around and makes a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the regime may go ahead and do that, but keep it secret and hope the public never find out.  It's a hard one to call.  But I think nuclear capability would technically not violate that position, while allowing them to have a latent capacity and thus threat, which makes it perfect for their purposes.

Without knowing fully their actual intentions, or how many milestones past proof of principle they went, is it now valid to claim "latent" nuclear (weapon) threat.  Meaning, has it already become the kind of knowledge one can claim to posses without practical demonstration? (not that I'm asking for it)

3:33&1/3 2OF3 ? Read 2607 / 4 IX
3:33&1/3 2OF3 ? Read 2574 / 2 EB

of course they did (80-81}
the ERA i refer to as I.con E_ron v Iran/contra
in the latter 80's OR earily 90's there was a shelve of books
say 15 feet of an encyclopedic ||||||||->15ft|||||| volume
written & displayed with the I/c title. every book was the same
size and thickness as the one to its left | not being a book Junky
i never bothered to look inside of  1. My guess would be 300 pages
and the books were not large{8x10) More like 4x6x1.1 | at the
time they were visable i would just say to myself  Icon/Iran 80/81
Whereas the tail has now taken on Prime time TV time May as well
type the following. There are plenty on Nukes around for Sail or rent
& no point in i/i Even? bothering to make A new 1. To me it seams
as thought They/con can "with impunity" take hostages  at will &
have, HAVE those taken organized & ready | probably D'Ployed
the real Question to consider was why was B.O. paid to serve
and to what end. I ask U that. to what end of the Me v Thee or T/M
5:20

Quote from: Doktor M. Phox0 on March 07, 2012, 02:11:06 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

Good to know, Cain; I appreciate you keeping us updated on this stuff.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 07, 2012, 02:10:17 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
One sign of hope is that the P5+1 talks are restarting.

And with the Supreme Ayatollah apparently taking charge (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html), there might even be progress:

Quote"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

With a minimum amount of snark on my part, I must ask to what degree or amount do you think what they are saying is true.

(You, on the other hand, can answer with as much snark as you'd like.)

This question also occurred to me.

6 CIB ? 5:3o-5:38 Read 2626 / MAN_38 |Afgan : Water is ?
5:39 the children ? Women : fled Hom ? Seria (in v out} 41 Gaza ? France etc
5:41 clock stop 

The general feeling of things in my reserve unit is that it is a strong possibility that will be going to war, or that Israel will nuke them (hopefully(ya right)).

5:49 PDt / 4:49:49board

In regards to the idea that covert action has been in the work for some time...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17365416

Nothing particularly new and exciting. I was more taken by the change of tack. No mention at all about nukes, much more emphasis on   the "cyber army" and claims regarding VPN's are no longer secure.

Guessing there's more to this than the obvious: "Control information within your borders as far as possible"

When will Iran learn from the west? You need to deny and condemn these things if you want to carry on doing them.

Whoops.  A supposedly leaked Iranian document claims the sanctions have strengthened their economy and are hurting European economies

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/juancole/ymbn/~3/oNam8O7LjAw/western-intelligence-analysts-worry-that-iran-sanctions-are-hurting-west-irgc.html

QuoteIran: Report Describes Western Intelligence Services' Perspectives on Iran
Report entitled: "Behind the Scenes Look at Five Intelligence Services' Meeting on Iran"
Javan online
Thursday, March 22, 2012 ...
Document Type: OSC Translated Text...

Javan online

20 March 2012

Report Describes Western Intelligence Services Perspectives on Iran

Javan online: Informed sources say the wave of intelligence reports in the West that say the oil sanctions have ended to Iran's great advantage have caused much confusion among the men of government in Europe and America.

An informed source who works in the area of the economy and tracks intelligence reports about Iran reported that in the last month more than three intelligence reports produced by European and American intelligence services classified confidential and above, have all concluded that for numerous reasons Iran has been the big winner in the oil sanctions and that in a completely smart way these sanctions have increased Iran's revenues while the average revenues of the nations of the world are decreasing because of the economic crisis.

Nuclear Iran writes that an informed source said: "In Stockholm, teams from the CIA (America), Mossad (Israel), MI6 (England), BND (Germany) and DGSE (France) are now discussing one of the main areas of focus in these reports, which is that instead of reducing Iran's revenue, in the last three months the oil sanctions have increased Iran's revenues by more than $3 billion."

This source added: "Western services who want to express views about the content of their findings believe by cleverly intensifying the verbal clashes with America and Israel Iran has caused constant shocks to the price of oil without any oil sanctions being effectively applied against it."

According to this informed official the Western services and especially the German service believe Iran has made good use of the existing crisis in the world economy and has presented the West with a choice between weakening its economy by intensifying the sanctions against Iran or sharply reducing the sanctions.

This source continued: "The Stockholm meeting has effectively become a trial of America and Israel. The European nations believe Iran in coordination with Russia and China has used the main weakness of the Western nations, meaning the extreme sensitivity of public opinion in these nations to fuel price increases, and it has created conditions where the chance of the political survival of the people currently governing these nations has been greatly reduced, especially since almost all of these nations including America and France are about to hold elections. Accordingly the probability exists that insisting on putting restrictions on Iran's oil sector will lead to internal crisis in the Western nations."

This source, who emphasized the many limitations on providing intelligence about this, also added that the Western services believe the 12 Esfand (2 March) elections showed that the government of Iran has succeeded in stopping the project of "transferring pressure to the people" and has effectively not allowed foreign pressures to have an impact on ordinary life in Iran.

According to this source the intelligence evaluation of the five Western sources is that the people of Iran believe existing inflation is due to a domestic process and that there is no relationship between this inflation and the pressures of the West.

On this basis those at the meeting have decided the BBC Persian Service under MI6 oversight must produce a new propaganda package about the relationship between sanctions and inflation.

The existing intelligence shows that this meeting was a preliminary for a more essential meeting to be held in the month of May and at that meeting the European nations will examine the possibility or impossibility of applying oil sanctions against Iran in June 2012.

Existing intelligence shows that these services have still warned that insisting on oil sanctions against Iran will further damage relations with Russia, China and India.

This intelligence source said: "There is the sense that the European and American intelligence community regard the sanctions option, like the war option, as being ineffective in influencing Iran's calculations."

(Description of Source: Tehran Javan online in Persian Website of hardline conservative daily affiliated with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC); ) '

So, is this drum-beating for war? I'm assuming they won't try divestment.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

QuoteFrom the air, the terrain of the Department of Energy's Nevada National Security Site, with its arid high plains and remote mountain peaks, has the look of northwest Iran. The site, some sixty-five miles northwest of Las Vegas, was once used for nuclear testing, and now includes a counterintelligence training facility and a private airport capable of handling Boeing 737 aircraft. It's a restricted area, and inhospitable—in certain sections, the curious are warned that the site's security personnel are authorized to use deadly force, if necessary, against intruders.

It was here that the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted training, beginning in 2005, for members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a dissident Iranian opposition group known in the West as the M.E.K. The M.E.K. had its beginnings as a Marxist-Islamist student-led group and, in the nineteen-seventies, it was linked to the assassination of six American citizens. It was initially part of the broad-based revolution that led to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran. But, within a few years, the group was waging a bloody internal war with the ruling clerics, and, in 1997, it was listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. In 2002, the M.E.K. earned some international credibility by publicly revealing—accurately—that Iran had begun enriching uranium at a secret underground location. Mohamed ElBaradei, who at the time was the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency, told me later that he had been informed that the information was supplied by the Mossad. The M.E.K.'s ties with Western intelligence deepened after the fall of the Iraqi regime in 2003, and JSOC began operating inside Iran in an effort to substantiate the Bush Administration's fears that Iran was building the bomb at one or more secret underground locations. Funds were covertly passed to a number of dissident organizations, for intelligence collection and, ultimately, for anti-regime terrorist activities. Directly, or indirectly, the M.E.K. ended up with resources like arms and intelligence. Some American-supported covert operations continue in Iran today, according to past and present intelligence officials and military consultants.

If the Bush admin did train MEK, then that is clearly illegal.

It also raises questions as to who the MEK are taking their marching orders from right now.  A lot of the evidence I had seen suggested Israel as the main culprit.  But this puts the spotlight back on the US role.

The White House should have been briefed on this.  But that doesn't mean it was either.  Lots of unsettling implications.  Is the White House aware of this?  Are MEK still being run by JSOC?  Were they cut loose, only to turn to Israel?

P5+1 talks starting up again today.

America has a chance to make good with Iran here, as it has backed away recently from more militaristic rhetoric, prompting some rare praise from the Supreme Ayatollah.

However, European and Israeli and Saudi interests do not necessarily align with American ones.  Russia can be bought off, but China want continued access to Iranian oil.  That's a fair bit of potential for cross-purposes to screw something up. Israel and Saudi Arabia can pressure both America and China with varying degrees of effectiveness, for example, though not without consequence.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 07, 2012, 02:58:18 PM
I sometimes forget that not all countrys' appeal to religion is 110% hypocrisy.

This may be of interest

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ND20Ak01.html

Quote- The Barack Obama administration's new interest in the 2004 religious verdict, or fatwa, by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning the possession of nuclear weapons, long dismissed by national security officials, has prompted the New York Times to review the significance of the fatwa for the first time in several years.

Senior Obama administration officials have decided to cite the fatwa as an Iranian claim to be tested in negotiations, posing a new challenge to the news media to report accurately on the background to the issue. But the April 13 New York Times article by James Risen rehashed old arguments by Iran's adversaries and even added some new ones.

Former Obama White House Iran policy coordinator Dennis B Ross, known for his close ties with Israel and hardline views on Iran, was quoted as suggesting that Khamenei may not be committed to nuclear weapons after all. But Ross implies that the reason is United States sanctions and perhaps the threat of war rather than that the 2004 fatwa was a genuine expression of policy.

The Times report repeated a familiar allegation, attributed to unnamed "analysts", that the fatwa is merely a conscious deception justified by the traditional Shi'ite legal principle called taqiyyah. But a quick fact check would have shown that taqiyyah is specifically limited to hiding one's Shi'ite faith to avoid being killed or otherwise seriously harmed if it were acknowledged.

Risen also cited unnamed "analysts" who argued that Khamenei's recent statements that Iran had not and would not develop nuclear weapons were contradicted by remarks he had made last year "that it was a mistake for Colonel Muammar el-Gaddafi of Libya to give up his nuclear weapons program".

But the quote from Khamenei complained that "this gentleman wrapped up all his nuclear facilities, packed them on a ship and delivered them to the West and said, 'Take them'!" Khamenei then added, "Look where we are, and in what position they are now."

QuoteMissing from the Times article was any reference to Iran's refusal to retaliate with chemical weapons for Iraq's repeated chemical weapons attacks on Iranian cities, based on US intelligence on Iranian troop concentrations, killing 7,000 immediately and severely injuring at least 100,000.

Although US military officers disseminated reports during the war alleging Iranian use of chemical weapons against Iraq, the most authoritative study of the issue, Joost Hilterman's 2007 book A Poisonous Affair, shows those reports represented US disinformation. Hilterman concludes that no reliable evidence ever surfaced that Iran used such weapons during the war.

In a dispatch from Qom on October 31, 2003, Robert Collier of the San Francisco Chronicle, quoted Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of the highest ranking clerics in Iran, as saying in an interview that Iran never retaliated against Iraqi chemical attacks with its own chemical weapons because of the strong opposition of Iranian clerical authorities to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"You cannot deliberately kill innocent people," Saanei said.

The only reference in the Times report to Khamenei's role in the 2003 nuclear policy turning point was the statement that Khamenei "ordered a suspension of Iran's nuclear weapons program."

In fact, however, Khamenei did far more than "suspend" nuclear weapons work. He invoked the illicit nature of such weapons in Islam in order to enforce a policy decision to ban nuclear weapons work.

There is evidence that there was a long-simmering debate within the Islamic Republic behind the scenes over whether Iran should leave the door open to a nuclear weapons program or not. Both Khamenei and president Hashemi Rafsanjani had publicly opposed the idea of possessing nuclear weapons in the mid-1990s, but pressure for reconsideration of the issue had risen, especially after the aggressive posture of the George W Bush administration toward Iran.

Jesus Christ. For years I've operated a strict policy of assuming that whatever our rulers tell us is wrong and that, conversely, the opposite of what they say is probably nearer the truth. I realised all along that this was a naive way of looking at things but it helped me develop a kneejerk mistrust of anything that came out a politician's mouth or via the media outlets which they pollute with their bullshit.

However, this revelation has caused me to rethink this shit. Is it possible that, in the case of Iran I actually got it right and our lying cocksuckers glorious leaders are actually about to declare war on the last place on earth where the management have real, honest to fuck principles?

Say it aint so  :eek:

http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/19/japans_greatest_threat_comes_from_the_persian_gulf_not_north_korea

QuoteAs a result of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactors were knocked out and largely destroyed. Then safety checks and scheduled maintenance stops halted the remaining active reactors. Today, only one of Japan's reactors is operating and it is scheduled to go down for maintenance soon. Once the reactors are turned off, it is proving extremely difficult to overcome public opposition to turning them back on. Those living near the reactors are afraid of a repeat of the Fukushima experience and don't want to hear about the power being turned back on. While understandable, this means that over a third of Japan's electric generation capacity is out of action. With Japan's hot, humid summer approaching, there is fear of serious power shortages despite draconian conservation measures.

Now here's where the Persian Gulf comes in. To replace the lost nuclear power, Japan has been importing large quantities of oil from the Gulf to power its remaining conventional generators. This has driven up the price of oil, but at least it has relieved to some extent the electricity shortage.

However, any kind of strike on Iran or military action in the Gulf is virtually guaranteed to close, at least temporarily, the Straits of Hormuz and thereby to shut off the oil shipments to Japan. Thus, in a very real sense, a strike on Iran is also likely to be a strike on Japan.

At the German Marshall Fund meeting that I attended earlier in the week in Tokyo, there was much discussion of the North Korean missile failure and its implications. In the midst of this discussion, a senior Japanese official almost screamed at the audience not to become preoccupied with North Korea and missiles. Said this person, "the North Korean missile is not a real threat to Japan. The much greater threat is a closure of the Persian Gulf. We must prevent that by all means."   

Just to toss some fuel on the fire:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/22/1627259/iranian-military-says-its-copying-us-drone

Quote:

Quote"Iran's military has started to build a copy of a U.S. surveillance drone captured last year after breaking the software encryption, Iranian media reported on Sunday. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division, said engineers were in the final stages of decoding data from the Sentinel aircraft...

Pretty sure this is *really* irritating to a few ppl near Washington. Much like a small pebble in one's shoe, whilst on a marathon. Even in a hobbled state at the national level, Irans Eng/Sci abilities can be embarrassing for the US.

I heard the other night, Geoffrey Robertson QC talking about the need for progress with Iran on the grounds that there are dangerous extreme Islamic elements in the government who would like to engage in literally apocalyptic warfare to bring on Armageddon.

Thoughts?

That seems to be overstating the case somewhat.

There probably are such extremists, sure, but the Iranian government's foreign policy, especially since the late 80s, has been marked by an extreme amount of pragmatism - to the point of being willing to covertly co-operate with Israel (against Iraq) and with the USA (against the Taliban).  These are not the actions of a government controlled by messianic lunatics, dreaming of the Apocalypse.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-israel-military-june-503/

QuotePresident Barack Obama says the United States could launch an attack on Iran as early as this June, Israeli media reports.

According to a report on Israel's Channel 10 News that has since been picked up by the Times of Israel, Pres. Obama will use an upcoming meeting overseas to discuss a military strike on Iran. Pres. Obama is scheduled to visit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next month, and during the get-together the two leaders will reportedly work out the details for a possible assault.

Pres. Obama will tell Netanyahu that a "window of opportunity" for a military strike on Iran will open in June, Channel 10 claims.

Israel has long-urged the White House to use its military prowess to intervene in Iran's rumored nuclear weapon procurement plan, demands which have by-and-large been rejected by the Obama administration. According to the latest reports, though, the United States might finally be willing to use its might to make a stand against Iran's race for a nuke.

So, what happened with that report on the previous page from last year that suggested the Iranian gvt really doesn't want nukes?  Or is this an Israeli COINTEL maneuver?

Yeah, this is really strange.  I haven't been following the situation very closely recently, but it seems like a complete reversal of policy.

The choice of June seems odd, too.  Another article suggested it's because Iran has elections in June, and the country is divided internally between the ayatollahs and folks who want out from under the thumb of the ayatollahs, that this is somehow the perfect time to strike?  I would think that would instead unify the whole country against us, rather than lead to chaos and/or some sort of regime change.

I just don't get this at all.