Israel to attack Iran by Dec 2009?! [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 12:08 AM

"Obama Urged to Ready Tougher Iran Sanctions, Military Strike

Tue Sep 15, 12:01 am ET

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should begin preparing crippling sanctions on Iran and publicly make clear that a military strike is possible should the Iranian government press ahead with its nuclear effort, a bipartisan policy group said.

“If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities,” said the study from the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

The report was written by Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia; Daniel Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana who also served as ambassador to Germany, and retired General Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European command. Their assessment comes as the U.S. prepares to participate in preliminary talks with Iran on Oct. 1 designed to gauge its commitment to address concerns about its nuclear aims.

The report echoes the Obama administration’s conclusion that Iran’s atomic work is approaching a destabilizing point at which it may be able to build a bomb.

Coats, Robb and Wald write that Iran will have enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by next year, “leaving little time for the United States to prevent both a nuclear- weapons capable Islamic Republic and an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.”

Gasoline Sanction

The authors back a bill that would sanction foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran, if negotiations fail. They say the administration should have prepared “sufficient financial, political and military pressure” before agreeing to negotiations.

The U.S. will dispatch its undersecretary of state for political affairs, William Burns, to the Oct. 1 meeting with U.S. allies and Iran without conditions. Iran has said its nuclear program is closed for discussion. The State Department said yesterday it will use the meeting to outline the consequences of Iran proceeding with a nuclear program.

The U.S. and its allies on the United Nations Security Council plus Germany have pushed Iran to accept a suspension of sanctions in exchange for Iran’s halt to uranium enrichment.

Iran has expanded its nuclear stockpile to 1,430 kilograms of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride compared to 75 kilograms in December 2007, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has also almost doubled its number of centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz since 2007.

Deadline Proposed

The authors say a deadline of 60 days should be set for determining Iran’s seriousness once it commits to negotiations. If those negotiations fail, the administration should toughen sanctions and “prepare overtly for any military option.”

Such preparations could include deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.

In the absence of U.S. action, Israel is more likely to strike, the authors argue, saying that an Israeli strike “entails more risks than a U.S. strike.”

Israeli officials say that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to their country’s existence. "

To contact the reporter on this story: Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090915/pl_bloomberg/agxurwqsefos_1

secondsun

17-09-2009, 06:56 AM

...just a thought!

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

... and 2nd November is also 112!... all we can do is wait and watch i guess!?

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 09:18 AM

Interesting... do you have the source/link??

I think that Iran will be the initial trigger point, leading to a war the likes of which the world has never seen before.

It concerns me that whilst this potential WWIII is building up in a very real and imminent way, most people seem more worried about 'swine' flu, or the ecomony, or worse, irrelevant MSM diversions.

We all know war is 'created'... and the vast majority of ordinary people don't want it (on any 'side')... but I wonder.. what will people actually do to try and stop it happening ?? I know after Iraq, public protest seemed futile (UK anyway), as in spite of vast numbers out on the streets before the invasion, it made not one jot of difference.. they don't listen, much less care, about public opinion. Nothing will stop them putting into action their plans. :(

So... what can we do? Ideas or suggestions anyone??

funkslug

17-09-2009, 10:25 AM

so its China/japan/middle east against the west & Israel??? WE LOOSE HANDS DOWN. If china has 10% of the US, the Saudi's et al must have at least another 20%; both surely could sink the west overnight if they really wanted to without a single nuke being fired. Add to that the 2 million under arms in 24 hours in Iran, Israel will have to use their nukes; no doubt in their mind they will..

And where will i be during all this?? I will be on a beach in West Africa, living on a boat and smokin big doobies.

MAKE TEA NOT WAR!

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 10:34 AM

"We loose"??

for me, there are no 'sides'.

"We" means humans, be they West or East, Middle, South or North. Humanity loses hands down. All people are loosers in war, apart from the few elite at the top who are controlling the 'game' for their own selfish purposes.

But yes, I agree.. Make Tea Not War, or make Freinds not Enemies.

:)

so its China/japan/middle east against the west & Israel??? WE LOOSE HANDS DOWN....

MAKE TEA NOT WAR!

funkslug

17-09-2009, 10:43 AM

"we loose"??

For me, there are no 'sides'.

"we" means humans, be they west or east, middle, south or north. Humanity loses hands down. All people are loosers in war, apart from the few elite at the top who are controlling the 'game' for their own selfish purposes.

But yes, i agree.. Make tea not war, or make freinds not enemies.

:)

i agree wholeheartedly, but the powers that be don't, and the sheeple will follow: They always do.

e7304

17-09-2009, 12:13 PM

This ties in , possibly, with the Webots and HPH findings.

Wall St journal has accused Obama of "forcing" Israel to pre-emptive attack. (a joke).

"Public opinion" is going against Israel more and more, and Israel is a big "game theory" user. The longer they wait the more opinion goes against them.

My bet would be November, especially if the MSM takes up the December meme. You strike before expected.

If a "financial" problem occurs at the end of September, then it appears everything may be setting up for mid-late November.

captaincaper

17-09-2009, 12:16 PM

Sure I remember reading exactly the same headline 12 mths ago :rolleyes:

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 07:08 PM

"Russian FM says NO new sanctions on Iran"

... see http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/17/russian-fm-says-no-new-sanctions-on-iran/

wakeup2nwo

17-09-2009, 07:19 PM

yep this has all been predicted for a long time now and seems to be coming true :(

New World Order plan Europe, America vs Russia, China - Lisbon Treaty - WW3 - Lyndon LaRouche - YouTube

rodin

17-09-2009, 07:27 PM

yep this has all been predicted for a long time now and seems to be coming true :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA6w_Hps_Y&feature=channel_page

Hitler product placement

The British is totally ZOG same USA

COG in China

Communists v Capitalists - who wins? Zionists. WW1. WW2. and after WW3.

.... all ists are Judaists controlled and SET UP from the GET GO

La Rouche like Alex Jones a half truther - controlled opposition

Its the JEWS doing this

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 07:50 PM

How's this for blatant propoganda? Up until yesterday, all 'official' reports by nuclear monitoring agencies were stating Iran did NOT have the capacity or evidence of Nuclear weapons:

"AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
Sep 17 01:23 PM US/Eastern

Email to a friend Share on Facebook Tweet this

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.
The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief.

The document says Iran has "sufficient information" to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AP714G0&show_article=1

when stories like that get released into MSM, you can guarantee that the war machine is about to be launched into action in not too distant future :mad:

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 08:42 PM

"U.S. missile defense system to likely be deployed in Israel

Global Research, September 17, 2009
Trend News Agency

Last week The Jerusalem Post reported that the Defense Ministry was preparing for the possibility that the United States would decide to deploy missile defense systems in Israel.

Senior officials had told the Post that the United States might leave missile defense systems in Israel following a joint missile defense exercise the two countries will hold next month.

The Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer says President Barack Obama has told him that the US is abandoning plans to put a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Czech Premier told reporters in Prague on Thursday that Obama phoned him to say that Washington has decided to scrap the plan that had deeply angered Russia.

Fischer says Obama confirmed that Washington no longer intends to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.

The Bush administration had said the missile shield was a strategic way to counter a threat from Iran or another rogue state in the Middle East. But Russia was deeply angered by the prospect of having US interceptor rockets in countries so close to its territory."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15260

So.. the MSM today is covered in news about how US cancelling Eastern Europe Missile Defence system, but is not reporting that instead, it will likely be placed in Israel... no doubt quietly and "off record".

dlb2007

17-09-2009, 08:48 PM

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/europe/obama+shifts+defence+focus+to+iran/3347307

Obama officials have stressed that the Europe missile defence plan has not been abandoned altogether but that it is being redesigned to meet the more immediate Iranian threat.

worlds beyond

17-09-2009, 08:49 PM

"Obama Changes Course on Missile Shield
New System to Be Deployed Further South

by Jason Ditz, September 17, 2009

Reports late last month from a top Warsaw newspaper turned out to be essentially accurate. President Barack Obama announced today that the US is in fact going to scrap the Bush Administration’s Eastern European missile shield in favor of one that is smaller, and positioned further south.

President Obama insists the new shield will provide actual defensive capabilities much sooner than the 2007 deal, which would have put a radar base in the Czech Republic and a handful of missiles in Poland at some point in the next decade.

Though the shield was opposed by a significant majority of voters in both Poland and the Czech Republic, their respective governments were outspoken in their support and will likely be irked by the plan’s abandonment. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, long unhappy with US plans to put missiles along his country’s western frontier, has praised the move.

Republican Congressman John Boehner angrily condemned the move, saying it proved that Obama was ignoring the threat posed by some of the world’s most dangerous regimes, and that it would ultimately “empower Russia”

The Obama Administration, and the Bush Administration before them, long maintained that despite being deployed far from Iran and right next to Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, the shield was a move against Iran and had nothing to do with Russia.

The new plan will be to deploy smaller missile defense batteries off-shore in the Mediterranean Sea. Eventually it is expected that those missiles will be moved to some location in the Balkans or Turkey."

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/17/obama-changes-course-on-missile-shield/

No mention of Israel here either!

coco

18-09-2009, 12:39 AM

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...ntent=readmore

Misreading the Iranian Situation
September 15, 2009

You are viewing free STRATFOR intelligence. Join our weekly email list to have the latest articles sent to you.

The Iranians have now agreed to talks with the P-5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany. These six countries decided in late April to enter into negotiations with Iran over the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program by Sept. 24, the date of the next U.N. General Assembly meeting. If Iran refused to engage in negotiations by that date, the Western powers in the P-5+1 made clear that they would seriously consider imposing much tougher sanctions on Iran than those that were currently in place. The term “crippling” was mentioned several times.

Obviously, negotiations are not to begin prior to the U.N. General Assembly meeting as previously had been stipulated. The talks are now expected to begin Oct. 1, a week later. This gives the Iranians their first (symbolic) victory: They have defied the P-5+1 on the demand that talks be under way by the time the General Assembly meets. Inevitably, the Iranians would delay, and the P-5+1 would not make a big deal of it.
Talks About Talks and the Sanctions Challenge

Now, we get down to the heart of the matter: The Iranians have officially indicated that they are prepared to discuss a range of strategic and economic issues but are not prepared to discuss the nuclear program — which, of course, is the reason for the talks in the first place. On Sept. 14, they hinted that they might consider talking about the nuclear program if progress were made on other issues, but made no guarantees.

So far, the Iranians are playing their traditional hand. They are making the question of whether there would be talks about nuclear weapons the center of diplomacy. Where the West wanted a commitment to end uranium enrichment, the Iranians are trying to shift the discussions to whether they will talk at all. After spending many rounds of discussions on this subject, they expect everyone to go away exhausted. If pressure is coming down on them, they will agree to discussions, acting as if the mere act of talking represents a massive concession. The members of the P-5+1 that don’t want a confrontation with Iran will use Tehran’s agreement merely to talk (absent any guarantees of an outcome) to get themselves off the hook on which they found themselves back in April — namely, of having to impose sanctions if the Iranians don’t change their position on their nuclear program.

Russia, one of the main members of the P-5+1, already has made clear it opposes sanctions under any circumstances. The Russians have no intention of helping solve the American problem with Iran while the United States maintains its stance on NATO expansion and bilateral relations with Ukraine and Georgia. Russia regards the latter two countries as falling within the Russian sphere of influence, a place where the United States has no business meddling.

To this end, Russia is pleased to do anything that keeps the United States bogged down in the Middle East, since this prevents Washington from deploying forces in Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Georgia or Ukraine. A conflict with Iran not only would bog down the United States even further, it would divide Europe and drive the former Soviet Union and Central Europe into viewing Russia as a source of aid and stability. The Russians thus see Iran as a major thorn in Washington’s side. Obtaining Moscow’s cooperation on removing the thorn would require major U.S. concessions — beyond merely bringing a plastic “reset” button to Moscow. At this point, the Russians have no intention of helping remove the thorn. They like it right where it is.

In discussing crippling sanctions, the sole obvious move would be blocking gasoline exports to Iran. Iran must import 40 percent of its gasoline needs. The United States and others have discussed a plan for preventing major energy companies, shippers and insurers from supplying that gasoline. The subject, of course, becomes moot if Russia (and China) refuses to participate or blocks sanctions. Moscow and Beijing can deliver all the gasoline Tehran wants. The Russians could even deliver gasoline by rail in the event that Iranian ports are blocked. Therefore, if the Russians aren’t participating, the impact of gasoline sanctions is severely diminished, something the Iranians know well.

Tehran and Moscow therefore are of the opinion that this round of threats will end where other rounds ended. The United States, the United Kingdom and France will be on one side; Russia and China will be on the other; and Germany will vacillate, not wanting to be caught on the wrong side of the Russians. In either case, whatever sanctions are announced would lose their punch, and life would go on as before.

There is, however, a dimension that indicates that this crisis might take a different course.
The Israeli Dimension

After the last round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israelis announced that the United States had agreed that in the event of a failure in negotiations, the United States would demand — and get — crippling sanctions against Iran, code for a gasoline cutoff. In return, the Israelis indicated that any plans for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be put off. The Israelis specifically said that the Americans had agreed on the September U.N. talks as the hard deadline for a decision on — and implementation of — sanctions.

Our view always has been that the Iranians are far from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is, we believe, the Israeli point of view. But the Israeli point of view also is that, however distant, the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons represents a mortal danger to Israel — and that, therefore, Israel would have to use military force if diplomacy and sanctions don’t work.

For Israel, the Obama guarantee on sanctions represented the best chance at a nonmilitary settlement. If it fails, it is not clear what could possibly work. Given that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has gotten his regime back in line, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently has emerged from the recent Iranian election crisis with expanded clout over Iran’s foreign policy, and that the Iranian nuclear program appears to be popular among Iranian nationalists (of whom there are many), there seems no internal impediment to the program. And given the current state of U.S.-Russian relations and that Washington is unlikely to yield Moscow hegemony in the former Soviet Union in return for help on Iran, a crippling sanctions regime is unlikely.

Obama’s assurances notwithstanding, there accordingly is no evidence of any force or process that would cause the Iranians to change their minds about their nuclear program. With that, the advantage to Israel of delaying a military strike evaporates.

And the question of the quality of intelligence must always be taken into account: The Iranians may be closer to a weapon than is believed. The value of risking delays disappears if nothing is likely to happen in the intervening period that would make a strike unnecessary.

Moreover, the Israelis have Obama in a box. Obama promised them that if Israel did not take a military route, he would deliver them crippling sanctions against Iran. Why Obama made this promise — and he has never denied the Israeli claim that he did — is not fully clear. It did buy him some time, and perhaps he felt he could manage the Russians better than he has. Whatever Obama’s motivations, having failed to deliver, the Israelis can say that they have cooperated with the United States fully, so now they are free by the terms of their understanding with Washington to carry out strikes — something that would necessarily involve the United States.

The calm assumptions in major capitals that this is merely another round in interminable talks with Iran on its weapons revolves around the belief that the Israelis are locked into place by the Americans. From where we sit, the Israelis have more room to maneuver now than they had in the past, or than they might have in the future. If that’s true, then the current crisis is more dangerous than it appears.

Netanyahu appears to have made a secret trip to Moscow (though it didn’t stay secret very long) to meet with the Russian leadership. Based on our own intelligence and this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that Netanyahu was trying to drive home to the Russians the seriousness of the situation and Israel’s intent. Russian-Israeli relations have deteriorated on a number of issues, particularly over Israeli military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and Georgia. Undoubtedly, the Russians demanded that Israel abandon this aid.

As mentioned, the chances of the Russians imposing effective sanctions on Iran are nil. This would get them nothing. And if not cooperating on sanctions triggers an Israeli airstrike, so much the better. This would degrade and potentially even effectively eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, which in the final analysis is not in Russia’s interest. It would further enrage the Islamic world at Israel. It would put the United States in the even more difficult position of having to support Israel in the face of this hostility. And from the Russian point of view, it would all come for free. (That said, in such a scenario the Russians would lose much of the leverage the Iran card offers Moscow in negotiations with the United States.)
Ramifications of an Israeli Strike

An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do.

Some have pointed out that the Iranians would be hurting themselves as much as the West, as this would cripple their energy exports. And it must be remembered that 40 percent of globally traded oil exports pass through Hormuz. The effect of mining the Persian Gulf would be devastating to oil prices and to the global economy at a time when the global economy doesn’t need more grief. But the economic pain Iran would experience from such a move could prove tolerable relative to the pain that would be experienced by the world’s major energy importers. Meanwhile, the Russians would be free to export oil at extraordinarily high prices.

Given the foregoing, the United States would immediately get involved in such a conflict by engaging the Iranian navy, which in this case would consist of small boats with outboard motors dumping mines overboard. Such a conflict would be asymmetric warfare, naval style. Indeed, given that the Iranians would rapidly respond — and that the best way to stop them would be to destroy their vessels no matter how small before they have deployed — the only rational military process would be to strike Iranian boats and ships prior to an Israeli airstrike. Since Israel doesn’t have the ability to do that, the United States would be involved in any such conflict from the beginning. Given that, the United States might as well do the attacking. This would increase the probability of success dramatically, and paradoxically would dampen the regional reaction compared to a unilateral Israeli strike.

When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control. In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control.

It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act.

It should also be remembered that Obama reads intelligence reports from Moscow, Tehran and Berlin. He knows the consensus about him among foreign leaders, who don’t hold him in high regard. That consensus causes foreign leaders to take risks; it also causes Obama to have an interest in demonstrating that they have misread him.

We are reminded of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis only in this sense: We get the sense that everyone is misreading everyone else. In the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans didn’t believe the Soviets would take the risks they did and the Soviets didn’t believe the Americans would react as they did. In this case, the Iranians believe the United States will play its old game and control the Israelis. Washington doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu may see this as the decisive moment. And the Russians believe Netanyahu will be controlled by an Obama afraid of an even broader conflict than he already has on his hands.

The current situation is not as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, but it has this in common: Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap. Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. We aren’t so sure.
__________________

coco

18-09-2009, 12:40 AM

Cheers dlb2007! I haven't seen you in a while. :)

coco

18-09-2009, 12:51 AM

How's this for blatant propoganda? Up until yesterday, all 'official' reports by nuclear monitoring agencies were stating Iran did NOT have the capacity or evidence of Nuclear weapons:

Absolutely right. D.C. claims that Obama is abandoning Bush's plan but he's not IMO. He repositioning himself on the game board. Iraq had WMD's also remember? :rolleyes:

Hasn't Iran stopped trading in the dollar or planning is to do so soon?

coco

18-09-2009, 01:17 AM

President Obama Speaks on Missile Defense in Europe

The President announces a new phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe after the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that he revise the previous Administrations 2007 plan for missile defense. This new approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment. September 17, 2009.

whitehouse's Channel - YouTube

lase

18-09-2009, 04:29 AM

Where the West wanted a commitment to end uranium enrichment,

THEY sold them the gear to feckin enrich it in the first place.

http://www.damnwankers.com/wankers.gif

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/bill-hillary-clinton-hippie.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bush_evil.jpg

http://media.2news.tv/images/061222_Queen_Elizabeth_II.jpg

realy

18-09-2009, 05:58 AM

Japan ready to withdraw support for Afghanistan war:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6836939.ece
japan, good move here!!

worlds beyond

18-09-2009, 07:54 AM

I'm fairly certain China won't be far behind them.. they and Afghanistan are friends (in political sense).

All the MSM propoganda is building this week, re: reasons to stay there, " get tough" with Taleban etc... makes me sick.

But good on ANY country who withdraw support for US/UK/NATO forces in Afghanistan... or anywhere else they have invaded.

Japan ready to withdraw support for Afghanistan war:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6836939.ece
japan, good move here!!

worlds beyond

18-09-2009, 01:03 PM

"Israel vows to make every effort to stop delivery of S-300s

www.chinaview.cn 2009-09-18 16:11:39

JERUSALEM, Sept. 18 (Xinhua) -- Israel needs to make every effort to stop the S-300 missile defense system from reaching countries where Israel Air Force (IAF) may need to fly, local daily the Jerusalem Post cited an IAF commander as saying Friday.

"The S-300 is a Russian-made surface-to-air missile system that is very advanced, with long ranges and many capabilities," Major General Ido Nehushtan told the newspaper in an exclusive interview.

"We need to make every effort to stop this system from getting to places where the IAF needs to operate or may need to operate in the future," he said, referring to Iran.

Russia and Iran signed a deal for the sale of the system several years ago, but according to latest Israeli assessments, it has yet to be delivered, the newspaper said.

The S-300 is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft missile systems in the world and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 km and can hit targets at altitudes of 90,000 feet (27,432 meters).

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to Moscow for talks, which according to some news reports focused on the possible sale of the S-300 to Iran.

Israel sees Iran as its arch-foe and has refused to rule out the possibility of launching military attacks against the Islamic republic's nuclear sites.

Israel's primary concern is Iran's purchase of the S-300, said local daily Ha'aretz, noting that should the missiles be deployed outside Iran's nuclear facilities, it would be very difficult for Israel to strike them.

Earlier this month, reports surfaced that the Mossad, Israeli intelligence agency, was involved in the interception of the missing Arctic Sea cargo ship in August. According to some versions, the ship was carrying S-300 missiles destined for Iran.

While vague in his answers on the Iranian threat, Nehushtan said in the interview that Israel "retains the right to defend itself" and that "ultimately, the job of the IAF is to provide security for the State of Israel and we know how to do this."

Israel prefers that the Iranian issue be handled by the international community, he said, adding that "We would be happy if these efforts are successful."

Editor: Sun Yunlong

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/18/content_12075754.htm

worlds beyond

18-09-2009, 01:09 PM

"IAEA: No Proof Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Program

Leaked "Annex" Claims Iran Probably Has Technology to Create a Bomb

by Jason Ditz, September 17, 2009

The Associated Press earlier today leaked the details of what it believes is the “secret annex” to the IAEA report on Iran, which claims that the IAEA “assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on HEU as the fission fuel.”

The IAEA would not confirm the authenticity of the document, but reiterated that it has “no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.”

The annex also accuses Iran of having tested explosives which could be used in such a device and that some of the warheads it is working on might be able to be used to carry a nuclear payload.

Though much has been made of the report, Iran’s hypothetical capability to make a weapon from highly enriched uranium would require them to enrich uranium to much higher levels than they are currently doing for energy production, and the IAEA has continued to verify that none of its uranium has been diverted to any such purpose.

And while the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of seeking such a weapon publicly, privately its intelligence community still stands behind its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which expresses confidence that Iran is not actually working on weapons."

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/17/iaea-no-concrete-proof-iran-has-nuclear-weapons-program/

jonahmc

18-09-2009, 02:00 PM

The BNP's Lee Barnes writes about the up-coming war with Iran.
(Note how he connects the dots regarding the federal reserves release of 2 trillion dollers to secret
banks and organisations)

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/09/no-missile-shield-war-coming.html

No Missile Shield = WAR COMING !
The fact that Obama has stated the US missile shield is not going to be built is 100% proof that a war with Iran by Israel is going to happen very soon.

The US either had to contain Iran via the missile shield or remove its nukes.

Therefore the nukes will now be removed by Israel.

Now we also know why the US are so busy getting involved in Pakistan, to ensure the country is stable when the attacks against Iran begin.

We also now know why the Federal Reserve has released 2 trillion dollars to secret banks and organisations - this is the 'war float' a cash liquidity reserve to stabilise the global economy if the shit really hits the fan.

I would suggest that people start stocking up on food stuffs, medicines etc as the attack on Iran will be met with massive assymetric warfare attacks in the UK by Iranian agents and their Islamist lackeys in our towns and cities.

And here:

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/09/hey-buddy-can-ya-lend-me-2-trillion.html

TUESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2009

Hey Buddy, can ya lend me 2 Trillion bucks ?
2 Trillion dollars, three times what the US government recently borrowed, which was 700 Billion dollars, has been given in secret loans by the Federal Reserve - the question is to and what for.

I suspect this is money being issued prior to war on Iran.

This is a 'slush fund' for the Banksters in the event of a global economic collapse if Iran attacks Israel after Israel attacks Iran and then Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons.

This is war money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Treasury, Fed, Obama

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

President-elect Barack Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, also didn't respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment from Obama. In a Sept. 22 campaign speech, Obama promised to ``make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.''

The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Sept. 14 Decision

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.

`We Need Transparency'

``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.

The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.

Frank Backs Fed

``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''

The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

`Unclog the Market'

Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.

Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.

``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''

TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.

AIG Lending

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''

The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. AIG today said it received an expanded government rescue package valued at more than $150 billion.

The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.

``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Ratings Cuts

Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.

Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.

The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

e7304

18-09-2009, 02:01 PM

"It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act."

This comment by Strafor seems to confirm they will attack no matter what. They have had total support from the US, BUT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS "HEH HOLD UP" they revert to their disgusting rabid status.

Pure evil exists in this world. This proves it. They have their propganda units in place through out all the western democracies.....this time though it may turn against them.

coco

18-09-2009, 04:08 PM

realy

18-09-2009, 04:50 PM

jonahmc

18-09-2009, 05:28 PM

One of Jonahmc's articles made mention of the 2 trillion. I'd like to play one of my favorite records for him and all of you. :D

This is a high quality version of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5, 2009.

Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ

It's just a few trillion, no big deal, nothing to worry about. OMG, these people
act as if they are just little children who's just been caught stealing a cookie from the jar, instead of the theft of the future wealth of many many generations of US tax payers. Out of control is not the word for it. It's total contempt, and It's an act of war against the common people.

coco

18-09-2009, 05:35 PM

Forgive me fellow members and mods. Some of the videos I am posting in this thread have also been posted in the 'Is the Recession Over' thread.

Jonahmc, Congressman Grayson is a frustrated gentleman as seen here trying to speak with AIG CEO Edward Liddy. And you're absolutely right that they ARE behaving as children who have been caught doing something wrong - because in my opinion they have.

Rep. Alan Grayson asks AIG CEO Edward Liddy to name the employees of AIG who managed the credit default swap business that destroyed the company. At first Liddy says he will, then he says he doesn't know their names, then he says he wants them protected.

It's not pretty.

Alan Grayson Questions CEO Edward Liddy on AIG Cover-up - YouTube

worlds beyond

19-09-2009, 08:33 AM

" Adjusted U.S. missile defense more effective against Iran - Gates

07:0219/09/2009

WASHINGTON, September 18 (RIA Novosti) - An adjusted U.S. missile defense in Europe would be more effective than the previously planned one even if the current intelligence data on the Iran threat is wrong, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

President Barack Obama announced Thursday that Washington was dropping its previous plans to deploy elements of a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Two major developments led to the revision of the U.S. missile defense strategy in Europe: the increasing threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, rather than intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the significant advances in the U.S. missile defense capabilities in recent years.

"I probably am more familiar with the risks of over-reliance on intelligence than anybody because I've seen how often it's been wrong," Gates told journalists. "If the intelligence is wrong and the Iranians develop a capability sooner than the intelligence is saying, this architecture gives us a better chance of being able to cope with it."

The Bush administration sought to deploy an omni-directional radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland as defense against potential strikes from Iran. Russia has consistently opposed the plans as a threat to its security and the strategic balance of forces in Europe.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev praised the U.S. move to scrap the missile shield plans as "a responsible approach" toward the dialogue between Moscow and Washington."

http://en.rian.ru/world/20090919/156183074.html

Bold and highlighted text added by me.. this is quite an astounding sentence, with clear implications of their already decided intentions.

worlds beyond

20-09-2009, 10:11 AM

"News Home > U.S. News > Gates lashes out at...

Gates lashes out at critics of U.S. missile plan

Sat Sep 19, 8:07 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday lashed out at critics of a new missile defense plan for Europe and insisted it was not a concession to Russia, as some charge.

Gates, a Republican who served in senior positions under former President George H.W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion article for the New York Times that the criticism of the plan is misguided.

"I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith," Gates said.

The objective of the missile plan is to counter the threat of missile attack from Iran, not Russia.

The Bush plan was intended to intercept long-range Iranian missiles, but Iran has yet to develop long-range missiles and U.S. intelligence recently determined that Tehran is unlikely to have such missiles until between 2015 and 2020.

As a result, Gates changed the plan to counter the possibility of short- and medium-range missiles.

Moscow had protested the Bush plan because it would be based in the Czech Republic and Poland. Leaders in the Czech Republic and Poland had found comfort in the Bush plan because they saw it as some protection against nearby Russia.

Under Obama's new plan, the United States would initially deploy ships with missile interceptors and in a second phase would field land-based defense systems.

Since the plan was announced, Gates has been taking fire from Republicans as well as many military analysts. Democrats and arms control experts have welcomed the plan.

Senate John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the new plan "misguided" and said it was a concession to Russia and an abrogation of an agreement between the United States, the Czech Republic and Poland.

Gates, however, said it was "a better way forward" and argued that Europe will still have missile defense under it. He said it was a distortion to call the new plan "some sort of concession to Russia."

"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. Of course, considering Russia's past hostility toward American missile defense in Europe, if Russia's leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected -- and welcome -- change of policy on their part," he said."

(Editing by Paul Simao)

worlds beyond

20-09-2009, 10:25 AM

" Sep 19, 2009 1:31 | Updated Sep 19, 2009 17:06

'Gaza report unfair, lenient with Hamas'

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON

Richard Goldstone
Photo: AP

The Obama administration sharply criticized a UN report Friday alleging that Israel committed multiple war crimes in Operation Cast Lead this year. The State Department statement ended nearly a week of muted reactions to findings already rejected by Israel.

The US State Department said the conclusions of a UN commission headed by South African Justice Richard Goldstone were unfair to Israel and did not fully deal with the role in the conflict of the Palestinian group Hamas. It said the United States objected to a recommendation that Israeli actions be referred to the International Criminal Court.

"Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel," spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

"While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas's deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative," he said.

The UN report, released Tuesday, faulted Israel for civilian deaths in Gaza, saying it used disproportionate force in the offensive. About 1,400 Palestinians were killed during the three-week conflict. Israel charged that Hamas was to blame, saying its fighters placed rocket launchers and forces in crowded neighborhoods.

The report also called Hamas's firing of rockets at Israeli civilians a war crime.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu slammed the findings, saying Israel's security forces were exercising their country's right to self-defense. The United States had been largely silent until Friday, limiting its response to expressions of concern about unspecified content and the panel's mandate.

That mandate was given to Goldstone and his colleagues by the UN Human Rights Council this year, before US President Barack Obama decided to end the Bush administration's policy of snubbing the body and join it.

Kelly said Friday that the United States wanted to keep discussion of the report within the council and had "very serious concerns" about a recommendation that it be raised at other bodies, including the International Criminal Court.

"We note in particular that Israel has the democratic institutions to investigate and prosecute abuses, and we encourage it to use those institutions," he said.

US officials also are troubled by the possibility that Arab states and others might attempt to raise the report at next week's UN General Assembly session. Kelly said it was important for the world to remain focused on trying to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"We hope efforts related to the Middle East at the Human Rights Council and other international bodies will look to the future and how we can support the goal of a two-state solution," he said. "

How many more 'independent' reports (UN, IAEA etc.) can the US conveniently 'ignore' or claim are not objective? Israel has committed many war crimes, just as the US has. When will truth and justice be brought to light?? :(

converger

20-09-2009, 10:30 AM

Hi Mods,
I realise already posted this on another thread, but felt this important enough to warrant its own thread? If you feel differently, feel free to remove one or other!

"Sep 16, 2009 15:28 | Updated Sep 16, 2009 22:48

Sneh: We may have to attack Iran by Dec.
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Israel will be compelled to attack Iran's nuclear facilities if Western powers do not impose serious sanctions against Teheran by the end of 2009, former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday.

Iran calls for boycott of military strikes on counties with nuclear facilities

"We cannot live under the shadow of an Iran with nuclear weapons," he was quoted as telling Reuters, in an interview on a visit to the UK. "By the end of the year, if there is no agreement on crippling sanctions aimed at this regime, we will have no choice."

Sneh reportedly stressed that a military strike would be "the very, very last resort. But ironically it is our best friends and allies who are pushing us into a corner where we would have no option but to do it.
"I wonder if they will [put a tougher sanctions regime in place] quickly enough," Sneh said. "If not, we are compelled to take action."

RELATED
Steinitz: Only real pressure can deter Iran
Analysis: Time running out on Iran, but Israel hopes tide will turn
Sneh, who holds no position in the government and was speaking in a personal capacity, told Reuters it was not clear the US and EU had the gumption to take such steps, which should include tougher banking and oil curbs, by year's end.

He added that the need for the involvement of Russia and China "is a myth," as strict sanctions imposed by the West would be tough enough to work.

"It is bloodless, and it even stops short of a naval blockade," he said.

Sneh reportedly explained that Jerusalem could not accept a nuclear-armed Iran because government processes would be "substantially distorted," as the cabinet's decision-making would be hostage to the fear of Teheran's nuclear retaliation.

If the Islamic republic completed its military nuclear program, immigration to Israel would stop, young men and women would emigrate to pursue their future in places seen as more secure and investment in Israel would be reduced, he reportedly said.

The former deputy minister also warned that Iran would pressure moderate Arab states to toughen their positions vis-a-vis Israel, and that a nuclear Iran would prompt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to obtain nuclear weapons themselves, bringing about a Middle East "fully loaded with nuclear weapons."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1251804588696

they wont dare to attack iran
then iran will re-attack
iran is strong fortified country .
US now incapable to carry out another war .

worlds beyond

20-09-2009, 10:43 AM

I so wish that were true.... that they would not attack Iran ('they' being US or Israel, or anyone else) ... it will be a crime on a Global scale if they do.

However... the building picture looks like this is indeed their plan and intention.

Those in the true power-seats of Israel and US are hell-bent on invading Iran... no matter what the people of their countries/the world want or think.

When oh when will humanity learn... and live in PEACE???

they wont dare to attack iran
then iran will re-attack
iran is strong fortified country .
US now incapable to carry out another war .

coco

20-09-2009, 10:49 PM

I could be wrong and I hope I am but I think the US might maybe position itself to permit Israel to do it.

As far as Mr. Gates is concerned, I regard him as a yes man. I know that dynamics change over time but I think he is just a yes man to both Bush's and now Obama.

Russia was very displeased that the US was considering setting a missle shield next door - after the Georgia event - even though the US allegedly didn't consider Russia to be a military threat. Now it moves the shield a bit closed to Iran. My probably wrong theory is that the US would be handy to offer support to Israel should the deal go down.

Or maybe Bush, Jr. really thought Iran had greater capability at the time and decided to consider the defense shield in Eastern Europe right after the Russia-Georgia action. :rolleyes:

I think the US is positioning itself for the next leg of a military action. :(

coco

20-09-2009, 10:51 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

Iran's leader says US nuke accusations wrong

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's supreme leader said Sunday that U.S. officials know they are wrongly accusing Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

In Iran's first official reaction to the U.S. decision to scrap a European missile intercept system to defend against threats from Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed President Barack Obama's administration is following the same policies as its predecessor.

"The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state-run radio. "Despite its apparent friendly messages and words" the Obama administration is pursuing the same policy of Iran-phobia, he said.

The U.S. administration has invited Iran to start a dialogue on its nuclear program and gave a vague September deadline for Tehran to take up the offer. The U.S. and five other world powers accepted an offer from Iran earlier this month to hold "comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive" talks on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Oct. 1 for talks on Iran's nuclear program. Iran has long maintained the program is purely for peaceful purposes and Khamenei reiterated that Iran considers the production and use of nuclear arms forbidden by the country's Muslim beliefs.

The Obama administration announced earlier this month it was scrapping a Bush-era plan for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Former President George W. Bush contended the system was needed to shoot down any Iranian missile if Tehran ever developed one with adequate range to threaten the United States or Europe.

U.S. officials have said the decision was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than originally thought. The scrapped plan will be replaced by a new one initially geared more to the threat of short- and medium-range missiles from Iran.

Khamenei also addressed Iran's domestic political crisis, warning government supporters against accusing opposition members of wrongdoing without proof. It was the latest indication that the Islamic government may be easing up on critics of the June presidential election.

In a speech marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei appeared to be working to iron out tensions that have created the country's biggest domestic political crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution — the fallout from the disputed June 12 election in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election in a race critics say was marred by widespread fraud.

Amid mass trials of supporters of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, as well as claims of abuse, coerced confessions and intimidation by security forces targeting the opposition, Khamenei said while a suspect's own confession was admissible, his testimony or accusations could not be used to implicate others in the unrest.

"We do not have the right to accuse without any proof," Khamenei said, urging the judiciary and security forces to pursue offenders within the bounds of the law. The speech was carried live on Iran's state radio and television.

"What a suspect says in court against a third party has no legitimate validity," he said.

Khamenei did not single out any individuals, but his remarks appeared to refer to testimony by some detainees who maintain that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and other reformists supported Mousavi to weaken Khamenei.

Rafsanjani — who has been absent from several recent official ceremonies, including a Friday prayer led by the supreme leader earlier in September — was seen sitting in the first row of worshippers during the prayer ceremony at which Khamenei spoke.

Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad, support that has further angered critics and opened up a wide rift between the country's influential clerics — reformists on one side, hard-liners on the other.

But in what could be an attempt to bridge that gap, he said accusing others in the media without any proof would create a climate of suspicion.

The country has already been faced with just such a situation for months since tens of thousands took to the streets in protests after the elections, sparking a harsh government crackdown in which hundreds were arrested or detained and dozens subsequently being brought to court in mass trials. Some opposition members say 72 died in the post-vote police crackdown, roughly double the government's official casualty figures.

Khamenei's latest comments could signal a change in the direction of the ongoing court cases against protesters. Some detainees blamed opposition figures and their supporters of fomenting the postelection unrest. Among those blamed were Rafsanjani and his son.

worlds beyond

20-09-2009, 11:57 PM

the US and Israel joint missile defence exercises are coming up soon.. sometime in October.... will be interesting to watch out for anything occurring around the dates they take place.

Also noted today's news that Obama OK'd a large order of military heardware, including fighter jet, to Morocco.

sorry not saved the links but am fairly sure both were on Brietbart.

worlds beyond

21-09-2009, 09:24 AM

" IDF, U.S. military to simulate Iran missile strike on Israel

Last update - 14:21 20/09/2009

Report:

By Haaretz Service

Tags: Iran, Gaza, Israel News, IDF

The Israel Defense Forces and the U.S. military will soon hold a training exercise in which they will simulate missile attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported Sunday.

The exercise will be carried out as part of the ongoing maneuvers between Israel and the United States, the London-based paper said, which will reportedly be the broadest-ever this year.

According to the paper, the drill is also part of U.S. President Barack Obama's new missile defense plan, under which the Pentagon will initially deploy ships with missile interceptors instead of stationing missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

The objective of the missile plan is to counter the threat of missile attack from Iran, not Russia.

The report came shortly before Defense Minister Ehud Barak was to leave for the United States, where he was to meet with his counterpart, Robert Gates.

Only last month, the IDF held a joint naval exercise with the U.S. and Turkish militaries in the international waters off Israel's coast, according to Army Radio. Six missile boats, three helicopters and two jets participated in the drill, which simulated search and rescue operations, Army Radio reported."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115703.html

worlds beyond

21-09-2009, 03:01 PM

"Page last updated at 13:45 GMT, Monday, 21 September 2009 14:45 UK

Israel's 'options open' on Iran

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes
Israel has not ruled out any options in dealing with Iran's nuclear programme, a senior Israeli official has said.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said there was no guarantee Israel would not launch a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The comments come a day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Israel had assured him it had no such plans.

Tehran says its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and denies it is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

On Sunday, Mr Medvedev told CNN that Israeli President Shimon Peres had told him in person Israel was not planning any strikes on Iran.

But Mr Ayalon said the remark was "certainly not a guarantee" that there would be no military action.

"I don't think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorised to speak for Israel and certainly we have not taken any option off the table," he said.

Mr Ayalon's comments were echoed by Israel's army chief, Lt Gen Gabi Ashkenazi, who said Israel had "the right to defend itself and all options are on the table".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8267189.stm

sade

21-09-2009, 03:03 PM

I thought it was supposed to happen months ago.
What happens if WW3 doesn't start (Israel/Iran starting it) in DEC 2009?
Then we'll have rumours about it happening again in 2011 september and so on...
There is obviously no end to this nonsense.

coco

21-09-2009, 03:04 PM

The Case of the Missing Nukes

Two years ago, six nuclear armed weapons were
attached to the wings of a B-52 bomber and
flown from North Dakota to Barksdale, the USAF
staging base for Middle East operations...........

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82915

worlds beyond

21-09-2009, 03:13 PM

"US ships arrive in Israel ahead of joint drill

Sep. 21, 2009

Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

"US Navy missile ships started arriving in Israel on Sunday ahead of next month's joint missile defense exercise between the IDF and the American military's European Command.

Called Juniper Cobra, the exercise will include the Arrow missile defense system as well as three American systems - the THAAD, Aegis and PAC3 - that will all be deployed in Israel for the duration of the exercise.

Defense officials said the exercise would not begin for a few weeks, but that the ships were already arriving to begin preparing the infrastructure for the joint drill, the largest since Israel and the US began holding the biennial Juniper Cobra drill in 2001.

The arrival of the ships began a day before Defense Minister Ehud Barak was scheduled to fly to Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates. Defense officials said that their talks would focus on the Iranian threat, Israeli-US defense cooperation as well as the role Israel will play in the new American missile defense shield announced last week.

Expectations in Israel are that the US will deploy several Aegis ballistic missile ships - that are capable of intercepting ballistic missiles - in the Mediterranean and Red seas. Israel is already home to the advanced X-Band radar that the Bush administration gave as a farewell gift last October.

Officials said it was possible that the US would decide to leave some systems in Israel following the drill to bolster Israeli defenses in face of the Iranian threat. One possibility under discussion is that Aegis ships, that carry SM3 missile interceptors, will be deployed in the Mediterranean and Red seas.

On Sunday, Gates wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in which he contended that the new European defense plan - which won't include a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, as per the US announcement last week - was a reworking of the previous proposal, and provided more protection in light of the current threat assessments.

Gates said that while the previous plan would not have provided any protection before at least 2017 - and likely later - the new program will begin providing some level of protection by 2011, will receive a significant boost in capability by 2015, and will be built over time to create "an increasingly greater zone of protection."

"The new approach to European missile defense actually provides us with greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede," Gates wrote.

He challenged critics who have slammed the new plan as a concession to Russia, which had vehemently opposed placing a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue," Gates said. "If Russia's leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected, and welcome, change of policy on their part. But in any case the facts are clear: American missile defense on the continent will continue, and not just in Central Europe."

"This proposal is, simply put, a better way forward," Gates summed up his position. "It is a very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198161404&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

archemis

21-09-2009, 03:28 PM

blueyonder2012

21-09-2009, 05:01 PM

CNN: U.S HELPING FUND IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

worlds beyond

21-09-2009, 06:05 PM

Why has Israel has never ever been officially inspected by IAEA, or any other official Nuclear Weapons inspectorate.. and this despite the fact they have over 200 working and "ready" nuclear warheads/missiles... more than any other Middle Eastern country by a vast majority and more than many of the Nato members to boot!

When living in US for a while for work, years ago, I realised just how true it is that Israel is the 53rd US state. And since then it has become even more embedded and intertwined and in control of so much behind the scenes.

coco

21-09-2009, 07:14 PM

CNN: U.S HELPING FUND IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

WOW! Knocked my socks off!

worlds beyond

22-09-2009, 02:18 PM

just found this....

"Peres: Netanyahu will repay Ahmadinejad

President tells northern students that 'peace with Arabs will not come from love, but rather calculation'

Sharon Roffe-Ofir

President Shimon Peres told schoolchildren in the north that "the prime minister will be demonstratively absent from a meeting with one of the most evil and horrible people of modern history, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who lies through his teeth about the existence of the Holocaust and curses Israel".

...Western presence during Ahmadinejad’s UN speech a moral outrage
Full Story...

Referring to the Iranian president's speech at the upcoming UN General Assembly, Peres added that Ahmadinejad "is pessimistic and has no future, and I'm sure Prime Minister Netanyahu will repay him."

During his visit to the agricultural school 'Kaduri', Peres also spoke about the trilateral summit called by US President Barack Obama, who plans to meet with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the UN event.

He commended the initiative and said, "Each side lowers its expectations but no one can lower our expectations for peace – they will always remain high and I am sure the prime minister will carry them higher. President Obama has promised to contribute to peace, and I hope Abu-Mazen (Abbas) will go back to talks and progress towards peace."

Peres appeared to feel at home among the 1,660 Kaduri alumni, including the sister of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Rachel. He addressed them and said, "We must not launch negotiations by saying east Jerusalem is a settlement. This has not and will not happen."

Referring to Arabs living in the West Bank, Gaza, and the entire region he added, "I know they are not romantic. They don't love us, and that's an understatement. But peace will not come from love, it will come from calculation. Peace that doesn't come from love also has a chance, and we will fight for such peace."

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3780157,00.html

coco

22-09-2009, 06:13 PM

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106750&sectionid=351020101

Iran to display 'sophisticated' air defense system
Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:54:59 GMT

As Iran prepares to celebrate a national military remembrance week, the army plans to put on display the latest domestically-manufactured equipment and a state-of-the-art air defense missile system.

The military parade of Iran's armed forces will be held on Tuesday, the first day of 'Sacred Defense Week.'

The equipment, to be displayed in the parade, include various fighter jets, helicopters, unmanned planes, surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles, armored vehicles, surface warships, air defense systems and electronic and telecommunication equipment.

According to Fars News Agency, the air defense system to be displayed in the parade is Iran's most sophisticated missile system. The report did not name or provide details of the system.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to attend the ceremony which will mark the first day of 'Sacred Defense Week' -- an annual commemoration of the 1980-1988 war imposed by Iraq under former dictator Saddam Hossein.

kingmob

22-09-2009, 07:25 PM

WOW! Knocked my socks off!

HOw the hell did something like this even get on CNN?

coco

22-09-2009, 07:38 PM

HOw the hell did something like this even get on CNN?

The report was very intriguing but Dobbs' strong commentary took me off guard. I wonder if he was reprimanded for his behavior.

blueyonder2012

22-09-2009, 08:31 PM

CNN: U.S HELPING FUND IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9xwcIDlvw

HOw the hell did something like this even get on CNN?

The game rules always seem to be you have to tell the people but you can then you can dress up the propaganda around it!!

Its the repetition of propaganda that gets them believing!!

:eek::rolleyes:

infinite_consciousness

22-09-2009, 11:05 PM

WW3 is coming! :eek:

worlds beyond

23-09-2009, 08:20 AM

Yeah right. Funny how when people point fingers at others, there's always three pointing back at themselves... where/what exactly is the evidence that Iran sponsors terrorism?? The elite in Israel are desperate to invade and decimate Iran, with or without US.

"Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism"

Benjamin Netanyahu: 'Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism'
September 22, 2009 5:59 PM

Charlie Gibson sat down to interview Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, and we've posted the entire interview video and transcript below. Some of the topics discussed include the Israeli settlements, Iran's nuclear powers and Netanyahu's meeting today with Obama and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Take a look and chime in below with your thoughts.

CHARLES GIBSON, HOST: Mr. Prime Minister, the president described the
meetings today as frank and productive. We're told you might be able to
add the words "blunt" and "testy."

Is that fair?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I'd say frank and
productive. They were very good. I'm glad the president invited the --
the prime minister of Israel, myself, and the leader of the Palestinian
Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, for this meeting. We've been calling for five
months for a meeting to get the peace process moving forward and I'm
glad it's finally happened.

GIBSON: The president said a few months ago, for the peace process to go
on, the settlements have to stop.

Do you get the sense that the White House might accept some sort of a
limited freeze?

And are you willing to offer one?

NETANYAHU: Look, I -- I think the issue of settlements is something that
belongs to the final negotiations. It -- it can't prejudge the
negotiations. It can't be resolved before we even begin to talk about it.

I've said that I'm willing to meet Palestinian leaders anytime,
anywhere, and I'm glad that this is -- this obstacle seems to be removed
and we can get on with the business of forging a lasting and secure
peace between us. At least I hope that's the case.

GIBSON: If that condition has been removed, I don't know it. It has been
a precondition as far as the Palestinians were concerned to come to the
table. You have preconditions. They have preconditions. One of them is
that settlements stop.

NETANYAHU: I think putting on preconditions is a -- is a way to make
sure that the peace process does not move forward. For 16 years,
Israelis and Palestinians have been negotiating. There has been robust
construction of communities and settlements throughout. Nobody place
this precondition. And I think placing it right now is to make sure that
the peace process does not go forward.

The issue of the settlements has to be resolved. It should be resolved
at the end of negotiations, not before the negotiations. And the sooner
we put it aside and start moving and talking about how do we actually
live next to one another, how do we have the Palestinians live next to
Israel without threatening Israel, without having the territories that
are ceded to them become bases for thousands of rockets that have
already been launched at Israel from other places that we vacated?

If we can get this idea of mutual recognition and security, then we'll
have a solution to all the problems, including the problem of settlements.

GIBSON: But Mr. Prime Minister, are you saying unequivocally, you will
not offer any kind of a freeze -- limited, full, any kind of a freeze --
on settlements as a precondition to talks?

NETANYAHU: I said that I would look to reconcile two things. One is to
start the peace -- the peace process again, something that I'm glad -- I
hope that we started today. And, second, to enable normal life to
continue. There are a quarter of a million people living in these -- in
these communities. You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools.
They need health plans. They're living. I'm committed not to build new
settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for
existing settlements. But people have to live. You can't freeze life.

So there is a way, I think, to relaunch the peace process and not get
bogged down with this question, because we've just wasted six months on
this issue. We could waste another six months. I think that's not good.

GIBSON: Would you...

NETANYAHU: I want to move on to peace...

GIBSON: Would you take some (INAUDIBLE)...

NETANYAHU: And I think the sooner -- the sooner we put this to the side,
the quicker we can move forward toward peace.

GIBSON: Would you take some kind of a freeze for eight months or 12
months, since I understand that was discussed today?

NETANYAHU: No, we actually didn't get into these -- these discussions.
And I'm sure if there's a will to relaunch the peace process, you'll
find me committed to that. Anytime there's an Arab leader who has
genuinely committed to peace, such as Anwar Sadat, we made peace. That
was a Likud government under Menachem Begin.

When Yitzhak Rabin, the Labor prime minister, met the late King Hussein,
who wanted peace, we made peace. If the Palestinian leadership says we
want peace, we recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the nation state of
the Jewish people, just as we're asked to recognize the Palestinian
state as the nation state of the Palestinian people. If you recognize
Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state and if we have the necessary
security arrangements of demilitarization, I think we'll move to peace.
And that's the winning formula for peace -- a demilitarized Palestinian
state that recognizes the Jewish state. That's something that I have
united the country behind and we can move forward and get on with it.

GIBSON: If...

NETANYAHU: And get on with peace.

GIBSON: A former Israeli prime minister, the great Abba Eban, used to
say about the Palestinians, they never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.

If you take this position on settlements, aren't you missing an opportunity?

NETANYAHU: Well, you know, we've had peace negotiations when settlements
were being built without any limitations. I have made certain
suggestions on how to move forward and I think the Palestinians have to
understand, here's a -- here's a government in Israel that unites the
political spectrum. It wants peace. It wants to move ahead with peace.
It wants a genuine peace, a defensible peace, one in which the
Palestinians recognize Israel and Israel has the necessary security.

But we want the Palestinians to live next to us in dignity and -- and
also in prosperity and security.

This is an opportunity. Don't waste it. Don't -- don't squander this
opportunity by discussing the issues -- issues that will only block the
progress of the negotiations. Let's go. Let's move.

GIBSON: But the -- but I come back to the point. You have preconditions,
they have preconditions. But not making some move in the -- in the
direction of their preconditions, aren't you missing an opportunity or
don't you run the risk of missing...

NETANYAHU: No.

GIBSON: ...an opportunity?

NETANYAHU: No, Charlie, I said no preconditions on the beginning of
negotiations. I said I'm willing to go anywhere, anyplace to meet any
Arab leader and, first of all, the Palestinian leaders, to move toward
peace. I certainly think we have certain foundations for a -- for those
negotiations to succeed. I think the Palestinians have to recognize
Israel as the Jewish state and I think we need security.

But I didn't place any conditions on beginning the negotiations. And
it's precisely those preconditions on negotiations that have stymied our
progress so far.

So I'm glad President Obama called this meeting today. I hope it puts
aside the question of preconditions. Everybody said they're not placing
preconditions. I'm not and I hope the Palestinians don't. I think we
have to move on with the business of peace.

GIBSON: If talks were to resume, would it be your position that they
have to start totally from scratch or could they start with past
Israeli-Palestinian agreements as a foundation?

NETANYAHU: I think there have been a lot of discussions and obviously
they -- there's a record here. I myself made agreements with the
Palestinians when I was prime minister. There have been other
agreements. And quite apart from that, there have been negotiations --
theoretical discussions.

So we're committed to what was formally negotiated as binding agreements
by previous Israeli governments. We will consider other ideas, but we
are -- we have our own mandate. And that mandate is from the broad
public in Israel that says we want a real peace. You know, we don't want
a peace where we hand over territory which becomes a race for Iran's
proxies so they can fire thousands of rockets on us.

We want a real peace. You know, we don’t want a peace where we hand over
territory which becomes a base for Iran’s proxy so they can fire
thousands of rockets on us. We want real peace. We’re one of the tiniest
countries in the world.

Now, if you’re the size of Monaco or the size of Luxembourg, that by
itself doesn’t pose a security problem. But if your neighbors also say,
"We’re going to destroy you or throw you into the sea and fire thousands
of rockets at you," that does pose a security problem. So, Israel wants
both recognition and security from its neighbors, and this will be the
task of the negotiations in the coming months.

And you know what, Charlie? I believe that with good will and with
courageous leadership on the Palestinian side, we can achieve it. And I
think Mamoud Abbas has a great choice to make. We all do. But he has to
decide: is he going to be an Arafat or an Anwar Sadat? If he’s an Anwar
Sadat, he’ll find in me a partner for peace and we’ll make peace.

GIBSON: On -- on your condition, or under your definition of accepting
formal agreements, I’m curious. Are you saying -- where does that put
Oslo? Where does that put Annapolis? Are those bases for future
discussions, or do you go back to the beginning?

NETANYAHU: Well, Annapolis was an agreement, was a declaration. Rather
than get into these questions, I think we just -- let’s get on and move
with it. There are plenty of things to do. We could – we could pick at
-- nit-pick -- at previous agreements.

I said today in the meeting with President Obama and Mr. Abbas, I said,
"Look, we could hurl accusations at each other from here to eternity.
There’s no point. I mean, we could waste more time. Let’s just sit down
and discuss the most basic things of how we achieve a peace between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. How do we ward off the terrorists and the
Iranian sponsors? How do we establish a climate of prosperity,
legitimacy and security that will serve the purposes of both the
Israelis and Palestinians and the broader concern for peace that good
people – good-intentioned people – well-intentioned people everywhere
share?"

GIBSON: Mr. Prime Minster, just a couple of questions, if I may, on
Iran. Earlier this year, you and President Obama were in agreement,
giving Iran until the end of the year to negotiate. Is that still the
timeframe?

NETANYAHU: I don’t want to discuss whether we need another week or
another month. The crucial question is, what’s the goal? And the
president assured me time and again that the goal is to prevent Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon. And I think that’s the right goal.

There is a growing awareness in Washington, I believe in European
capitals and elsewhere, that the development or acquisition of Iran of
nuclear weapons is something that endangers world peace.

Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism. Now, imagine what
terrorism could be if the terrorists had a patron that gave them a
nuclear umbrella, or worse, if that patron actually gave them nuclear
weapons. That’s a nightmare scenario, and we all have to ensure that it
doesn’t happen.

GIBSON: Our intelligence services, your intelligence services, struggle
with the issue of how close they are to having nuclear weapons and how
close they are to delivering them. How close do you think they are?

NETANYAHU: They’re getting closer. There’s no question about that.

GIBSON: And what does that mean? The Iran government right now is in
turmoil. Does that make them more dangerous or less?

NETANYAHU: I think -- I think this regime is a lot weaker than people
thing, and I think the civilized countries are lot stronger than they
tend to think about themselves. This -- this regime tyrannizes its own
people, guns them down when they peacefully protest for freedom.

So, the application of external pressure, I think, would not coalesce
the people of Iran with the government. It will actually coalesce them
against the government, because they truly detest this regime. So, I
think Iran is susceptible to pressure today. It’s highly dependent on
refined -- the importation of refined petroleum. There are other things
that could be done to weaken this regime, and they should be done
quickly. If not now, when?

GIBSON: But my question is, do you think the weak government in Iran, to
use your term, becomes more dangerous or less?

NETANYAHU: I think that it becomes more dangerous if it becomes
stronger. And it becomes stronger if it develops nuclear weapons. The
experience of such regimes is that once they pass a threshold, then you
can have even a primitive society -- and there's one in Asia -- that is
almost an anthill (ph) society developing nuclear weapons and all of a
sudden it becomes important like China or Japan. And -- but much more
dangerous. And I don't think Japan or China are dangerous.

To have the ayatollah regime acquiring nuclear weapons, no matter how
weak they are today, tomorrow they will be a hell of a lot stronger. And
that is something that would threaten the peace of the world. It should
not be allowed to happen.

GIBSON: You say they are close, in your mind.

Is there a point where it becomes impossible for Israel to live in the
shadow of a nuclear Iran?

NETANYAHU: Charlie, I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. Of course,
every country reserves the right of self-defense and Israel is no exception.

But as I'm pointing out today, the development of nuclear weapons by
Iran would pose an enormous problem to the stability of the Middle East,
to the flow of oil from the Middle East, to the security of my country,
to the possibility of having terrorists enjoy a nuclear umbrella or
having -- or receiving, actually, nuclear weapons from this Iranian regime.

There are so many reasons -- endless reasons why this should not be
allowed to happen. And it's time the international community acted in
unison to make sure that it doesn't happen.

GIBSON: But you say they are close.

Doesn't that take it out of the realm of the hypothetical?

NETANYAHU: I think there is a growing understanding in the major
capitals of the world -- virtually in all of them -- that it's
important, that it's an international issue, an international concern to
make sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

GIBSON: The international community has been reluctant to impose
sanctions. You went to Moscow earlier in the year to talk about
supplying air defense weapons to Iran.

Do you really think that the rest of the commun -- the world community
is now any closer to putting the kind of pressure that you discussed
against Iran on them?

NETANYAHU: Well, I'm not going to refer to press speculations about this
or that visit. But I'll tell you what I say to all the world leaders
that I've -- that I meet, including in today's meetings and the meeting
I had with President Sarkozy. And that is that because time is getting
shorter, because Iran is moving ahead to develop nuclear weapons, the
international community has to act in a much tougher way.

And I think the best thing to do is to apply what I think Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton called crippling sanctions on Iran. Believe me,
it's -- the regime is susceptible to it. I think it's been en masse. I
think people know what the nature -- the true nature of this tyranny is
about. And the application of this pressure might do the job.

The sooner we do it, the sooner we'll find out and the less will be the
need to take stronger actions.

GIBSON: Mr. Prime Minister, appreciate it. Thank you for your time."

September 22, 2009

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/charlie-gibson-interviews-benjamin-netanyahu-the-full-transcript.html

worlds beyond

23-09-2009, 08:37 AM

"IAEA passes resolution on Israeli nuclear issue

www.chinaview.cn 2009-09-23 10:50:54

by Xinhua writer Liu Gang

VIENNA, Sept. 22, (Xinhua) -- The recently concluded 53rd General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that urged Israel to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to put its entire nuclear program under IAEA inspection.

One senior official of the IAEA, who declined to be named, told Xinhua on Tuesday that it was the first time in nearly 20 years that the IAEA passed a resolution directly addressing Israel's nuclear program.

The non-binding resolution was passed by a 49-45 margin with 16abstentions. It will lead people to pay more attention to the Israeli nuclear issue, on which views have long been divided in the international community.

Israel not only has conventional military superiority in the Middle East, but is widely suspected to possess nuclear weapons, including land, air and sea three-dimensional nuclear strike capability.

Israeli government neither confirms nor denies its military nuclear capacity as a matter of policy.

The Jewish state is also the only country in the region that is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore accepts only limited IAEA inspection.

Since 1991, there has been annual IAEA conferences attempting to address Israel's nuclear issue. However, until Sept.18, the West had lobbied successfully against a vote, and no resolution had been passed in the previous conferences.

At this year's IAEA general conference, countries that voted for the resolution included Arab countries, which have been wary of the Israel's nuclear program, developing countries, as well as permanent U.N. Security Council members such as Russia.

All of this indicates that, in addition to Arab countries, an increasing number of countries worldwide have become concerned over the possible threat of Israel's nuclear program.

On the question of whether there should be a resolution on the Israeli nuclear issue, some Western countries once again put forward the motion of "no-action."

If the majority of member states support the motion, relevant resolutions would not be submitted to the general conference to be voted.

But the motion lost by an eight-vote margin.

Western states nipped a resolution concerning Israel's nuclear issue by using the strategy of first voting on the "no-action" motion in several past IAEA general conferences.

Despite concerns of Arab countries on Israel's nuclear capabilities, the United States and its allies have insisted that Iran is the biggest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and put constant pressure on it.

After the official resolution was passed, Iran's Ambassador AliAsghar Soltanieh said the vote was "a triumph, a glorious moment" which "made us see the hope that the West would adjust their policies."

Israel's delegate David Danieli said his country would not cooperate with this resolution.

"This resolution will only aggravate the political conflict and division in the Middle East region", he said.

Western countries, including the United States and the European Union, also opposed the resolution, arguing that after Thursday's resolution calling for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction was adopted, there was no need for a separate one on Israel.

They also said it was unfair and counterproductive to isolate one member state.

"Such an approach is highly politicized and does not truly address the complexities at play regarding crucial nuclear-related issues in the Middle East," chief U.S. delegate Glyn Davies said. "

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/23/content_12100923.htm

concordewarrior

23-09-2009, 08:37 AM

WW3 is coming! :eek:

Israel will be wiped off the world map.

whitewolf

23-09-2009, 09:03 AM

'WW3' is already under way. It is the battle of shadow against light, negative against positive, on the path to global human consciousness awakening and evolution and the ascension of Earth and human kind.

Unfortunately, the 3D dramas that are occuring, and which will become more frequent from November 2009, are serving to act as a distraction to most people, and they are doing a good job too! Rise above the drama of the deliberate constructs of conflict, war, recession, disease, financial hardship .. and so on, and on, and on ..... and do something spiritual, even if it is only 5 minutes meditation, or a quiet walk in the woods. The World is going to become more 'mad' in the very near future and connecting with your spiritual essence is the only way to ride the storm without fear and remain happy and content.

A x

I totally agree with what you wrote, Archemis. I'd also like to add that I feel we must remain detached but aware of these dramas whilst choosing actions/thoughts/dreams that come from a deep awareness of our infinite oneness. Emotional non-attachment to such 'distractions' whilst in full awareness is the key I feel, easier said than done I know!
This is all illusion and nothing really matters, we collectively create our collective illusion. To recognise that also, by default, requires recognition of the nightmare we have and continue to create. We have to look at this nightmare square in the face so to speak, take responsibility and choose love.

As an aside; perhaps the swine flu and the swine flu vaccine silliness is a 'red herring' designed to keep us looking the other way, meanwhile a greater evil is growing....just a thought

concordewarrior

23-09-2009, 09:17 AM

People worldwide are becoming more and more selfish and materialistic no one is ever going to change that.
When the next big war breaks out they will become ferocious like wild animals they will not hesitate to steal and kill.

worlds beyond

23-09-2009, 03:06 PM

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Iran downs strange bright craft over Persian Gulf

A satellite image of Iran's Khark and Khargou Islands in Persian Gulf were the bright objects were reportedly sighted by the IRGC Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has targeted and downed an unidentified shining object after sighting it over Persian Gulf waters.

""Glowing objects were sighted over the Persian Gulf. IRGC air defense targeted one of the objects successfully, forcing it to plummet and sink in the seas off Boushehr (Province),"" said top regional commander, Brigadier Ali Razmjou.

""The three bright objects were detected by our radars when flying over the Persian Gulf Islands of Khark and Khargou,"" he added, according to a Monday report posted on IRNA.

Brig. Razmjou explained that when the radars indicated that they were not Iranian aircrafts, the IRGC fired at the three objects. He also added that the fallen objects' remains have not been found yet.

The exact time and location of the sighting and downing of the weird aircraft has not been announced. "

(Source: Press TV)

coco

23-09-2009, 05:58 PM

[QUOTE=worlds beyond;1058279539]Yeah right. Funny how when people point fingers at others, there's always three pointing back at themselves... where/what exactly is the evidence that Iran sponsors terrorism?? The elite in Israel are desperate to invade and decimate Iran, with or without US....../QUOTE]

It's the build up, my friend. :(

BTW, very good thread. Thank you.

realy

23-09-2009, 08:08 PM

concordewarrior

23-09-2009, 08:53 PM

Not sure if I should trust Debkafile... maybe this is just propaganda? :confused:

Iran loses its only AWACS as Ahmadinejad threatens the world
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
September 23, 2009, 12:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iran's AWACS destroyed in parade collision
Up above a big military parade in Tehran on Tuesday, Sept. 22, as Iranian
president declared Iran's armed forces would "chop off the hands" of any
power daring to attack his country, two air force jets collided in mid-air.
One was Iran's only airborne warning and control system (AWACS) for
coordinating long-distance aerial operations, DEBKAfile's military and
Iranian sources disclose.

The proud military parade, which included a march-past, a line of Shehab-3
missiles and an air force fly-past, was planned to give Ahmadinejad a
dazzling send-off for New York and add steel to his UN Assembly speech
Wednesday.

Dubbed "Simorgh" (a flying creature of Iranian fable which performs wonders
in mid-flight), the AWACS' appearance, escorted by fighter jets, was to have
been the climax for the Iranian Air force's fly-past over the parade.
Instead, it collided with one of escorting planes, a US-made F-5E, and both
crashed to the ground in flames. All seven crewmen were killed.
Eye witnesses reported that the flaming planes landed on the mausoleum
burial site of the Islamic revolution's founder Ruhollah Khomeini, a
national shrine.

According to Western observers, no distress signals came
from either cockpit indicating that the collision and explosions were sudden
and fast.

DEBKAfile's military sources say the disaster was a serious blow to the
Iranian Air Force not long after its first and only AWACS went into service
in April 2008. It was a renovated version of the Russian Ilyushin 76, part
of Saddam Hussein's air force before it was transferred to Iran in 1991
during the first Gulf War.

Tehran hired Russian technicians to carry out renovations and install
up-to-date radar. At the launching ceremony of the upgraded AWACS, Air Force
commander Brig. Gen. Ahmad Miqani boasted its new radar systems were made in
Iran and able to spot any airplane or missile at a distance of 1,000
kilometers from Iran's borders.

The loss of this airborne control system has left Iran's air force and air
and missile defenses without "electronic eyes" for surveillance of the skies
around its borders

concordewarrior

23-09-2009, 09:13 PM

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=106913&sectionid=351020101

Ahmadinejad says French deserve better leaders
Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:37:22 GMT

In what appears to be the start of a war of words with the French president, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the people of France deserve better than their leaders.

On August 31, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iranians deserved better after Iran's 10th presidential election in June.

When asked to comment on the remarks, President Ahmadinejad, who is in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, said his French counterpart seems to be crossing the line with his statement.

"The French people deserve better than their current leaders," he told France 2 television when asked to comment on President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent remarks on Iran.

"Mr. Sarkozy is meddling in the internal affairs of our country. I too have a similar view," Ahmadinejad told France 2 television. "The French people deserve better than their current leaders."

Ahmadinejad also urged Paris to move to earn the release of a French academic, Clotilde Reiss, who is held in Iran on alleged charges of espionage and aiding a Western plot in the aftermath of the presidential election.

"Unfortunately, we have seen no action by the French government" in favor of the prisoner, Ahmadinejad said.

Reiss is on bail and staying in the French Embassy in Tehran and awaits a verdict after her appearance in a televised mass trial.

Ahmadinejad pointed to a number of Iranians being held in France and suggested that a prisoner swap could be arranged between Tehran and Paris for the release of Reiss.

MD/HGH

coco

23-09-2009, 09:19 PM

Just wondering.............

Are the incidents in posts 65 and 66 related?

worlds beyond

23-09-2009, 11:29 PM

"Sarkozy sets deadline for Iran to suspend nuclear program

www.chinaview.cn 2009-09-24 05:23:19

PARIS, Sept. 23 (Xinhua) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy set December as the deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear program and warned Iran not to make "tragic mistake" in a television interview on Wednesday.

"There will be a deadline, which in my view is the month of December," Sarkozy told French television from New York where he is attending the 64th United Nations General Assembly session.

Iran has refused UN's demand of suspending its nuclear program, insisting that it is just used for civilian purpose, but agreed to hold talks on Oct. 1 with six powers -- China, the United States, France, Russian, Britain and Germany.

The French president expressed his dissatisfaction with unfruitful talks with Iran over nuclear issue. "Now we all know towards what catastrophes our obstinate attempts to solve the problems of the 21st century with 20th century ideas and instruments may lead us."

Speaking of the French teaching assistant Clotilde Reiss, being confined in Iran on accusation of spying, Sarkozy rejected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's suggestion of prisoner exchange.

"No. This is blackmail," Sarkozy said. "Clotilde Reiss is innocent."

When interviewed by France 2 television aired on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad suggested that France can release some Iranian prisoners in exchange for Reiss' release."

Editor: Yan

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/24/content_12103685.htm

worlds beyond

24-09-2009, 08:48 AM

"Iranian Leader Offers U.S. Access To the Country's Nuclear Scientists

Ahmadinejad Says Talks Could Build Trust Over Issue

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, September 24, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 -- Iran is willing to have its nuclear experts meet with scientists from the United States and other world powers as a confidence-building measure aimed at resolving concerns about Tehran's nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

At international talks next week on its nuclear ambitions, Iran also will seek to buy from the United States enriched uranium needed for medical purposes, Ahmadinejad told reporters and editors from The Washington Post and Newsweek. Agreement by the Americans, he suggested, would demonstrate that the Obama administration is serious about engagement, while rejection might give Iran an excuse to further enrich its stock of uranium.

"These nuclear materials we are seeking to purchase are for medicinal purposes. . . . It is a humanitarian issue," Ahmadinejad said in the interview. "I think this is a very solid proposal which gives a good opportunity for a start" to build trust between the two countries and "engage in cooperation."

Nuclear research reactors are used to create radioactive isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The Iranian president said that about 20 medical products are created at a reactor in Tehran but that more fuel is needed.

Ahmadinejad made his proposal against the backdrop of increasingly urgent efforts by the United States and other major powers to prod Iran to fully disclose its nuclear program or face stricter sanctions. On the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday discussed the possibility of what Obama called "serious, additional sanctions," while France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, told French television that the "dialogue is achieving nothing. There will be a timeline, a date limit. In my mind, it's the month of December."

Medvedev, echoing a statement he made last week, said: "Russia's position is simple: Sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat will meet counterparts from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in Geneva to discuss the nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad said he will bring the new proposal. In a meeting Wednesday evening at the United Nations, foreign ministers and senior officials from the six countries met to plot strategy for the session.

"We expect a serious response from Iran" and will decide on "next steps" if it is not forthcoming, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a statement approved by the six nations.

Obama singled out Iran and North Korea as nuclear outliers in his speech before the General Assembly on Wednesday. "If they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable," he said as Ahmadinejad sat in the fifth row of the chamber. "The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear."

Iran's medical reactor was supplied by the United States during the shah's rule. But according to David Albright, a former weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, Iran received additional uranium only from Argentina after the 1979 revolution. Argentina cut off those supplies sometime in the 1980s.

Albright said Iran's latest move is "clever" because there is "implied blackmail" behind the idea. If the material is not supplied, Iran could announce that it has no choice but to make the material, which is nearly 20 percent enriched; the material Iran is now producing is 3 to 5 percent enriched and suitable only for energy purposes. Allowing Iran to purchase the new material would require a waiver of international sanctions.

While weapons-grade material is more than 90 percent enriched, making material for the medical reactor could put Iran on the next step to reaching that level.

Albright said the proposal to make Iran's nuclear experts available to answer questions from international scientists is also potentially significant because Iran has not previously allowed such a meeting, even in an unofficial setting.

U.S. officials declined to comment on the proposal. The Iranian president did not mention the proposal during a speech to the General Assembly on Wednesday night; instead, he spent much of the address ranting against Israel and capitalism. Many diplomats, including those from the United States, left the chamber.

In the one-hour interview, Ahmadinejad appeared relaxed and confident, frequently bantering with and challenging the interviewers as he spoke through an interpreter. He also talked in detail about various technical reports on Iran's nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He insisted that Iran has no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons but did not directly answer whether his government would pledge never to acquire them. "We fundamentally believe nuclear bombs are the wrong thing to have," he said.

He also asserted that the attention focused on Iran's uranium enrichment is misplaced, because, he said, it is only for electricity and cannot be used for bombs. "Don't you think it is hilarious to say that it is potentially dangerous for Iran to possess one nuclear warhead for the whole world, but that the fact that the United States possesses 10,000 of them poses no threat whatsoever?" he jibed.

Ahmadinejad expressed some hope for a change in relations with the United States with the election of Obama, but he warned that the new administration should not simply repackage old proposals with new language.

"Cosmetic or superficial changes will not be able to resolve any of the problems we face today. It will only complicate them," he said.

"We hope Mr. Obama is seeking real change," he added. "We are of the belief that if he decides he will at least be able to change at least a segment of the changes he had his mind set on. And we are willing to help bring about those changes."

At that point in the interview, Ahmadinejad announced Iran's readiness to purchase nuclear material from the United States and to have its nuclear experts hash out issues with other experts. "Why not just let them sit and talk and see what kind of capacity they can build? I think it is good thing to happen," he said.

When the subject turned to the war in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad seemed almost to gloat about the dilemma facing the United States.

"Everyone knows that NATO is close to final defeat in Afghanistan," he said. "We could just stay silent about it and be an onlooker because at the end of the day, some NATO states happen to be our enemies. So we can be happy they are getting defeated there. But we are not happy. It saddens us."

But, he said, "we are ready to assist, provided, though, that the policies being pursued change. . . . Afghanistan does not have a military solution to it."

Ahmadinejad expounded at some length about the sad history of foreign invaders in Afghanistan. When it was pointed out to him that more than 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he shrugged.

"Have they managed to sort of reappear and be alive again after the crimes that were carried out in Afghanistan?" he said. "Not only that, but tens of thousands after have been killed as a result. You cannot wash blood with blood."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304168_pf.html

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 11:56 AM

here we go..... it's starting to heat up...

" Obama: Iran has secret nuclear facility

Sep 25 06:46 AM US/Eastern
By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer

PITTSBURGH (AP) - President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain will accuse Iran at the opening of the G-20 economic summit Friday of building a secret facility to produce nuclear fuel, a senior White House official told The Associated Press.

The official said the three leaders—Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy—will demand that Tehran open the covert facility up to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran has kept the facility, 100 miles southwest of Tehran, hidden from international weapons inspectors for years, but the U.S. has long known of its existence, the official said.

Obama decided to go public with the revelation after Iran learned that Western intelligence agencies were aware of the project.

The official said the plant could be in operation by next year.

Word the three leaders would make the announcement was first reported by The New York Times.

Meanwhile, a diplomat in Vienna and another European government official told The Associated Press on Friday that Tehran has informed the IAEA that it has a previously undeclared uranium enriching facility.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was confidential, said Iran revealed its existence in a letter sent Monday to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the atomic energy agency.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made no mention of the facility this week while attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York, but said that his country had fully cooperated with international nuclear inspectors.

Administration officials said the disclosure would make it easier to make the case for imposing sanctions if Iran blocks inspections or refuses to quit its nuclear program.

"They have cheated three times," a senior White House official told the Times. "And now they have been caught three times."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. "

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AU9UTO0&show_article=1&catnum=0

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 12:00 PM

"Page last updated at 10:45 GMT, Friday, 25 September 2009 11:45 UK

Iran 'has second enrichment site'

The existence of Natanz was revealed by exiled groups several years ago
Iran has revealed the existence of a second uranium enrichment plant, the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed.

Tehran made the announcement earlier this week in a letter to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei.

Iran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant at Natanz, which IAEA inspectors are monitoring.

The US, UK and France are set to accuse Iran of concealing the plant later on Friday, media reports say.

They and other Western nations have long feared that Iran is planning to develop an atomic weapon.

Tehran has always insisted its programme is for peaceful means.

Iran is supposed to have stopped all enrichment under threat of sanctions from the UN Security Council.

News of the Iranian letter comes days before Iran is due to enter fresh talks over its controversial nuclear programme.

'Comprehensive' talks

The IAEA confirmed it received a letter from Iran on Monday informing it that "a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction".

Iran told the agency that no nuclear material had been introduced into the plant, and enrichment levels would only be high enough to make nuclear fuel, not a bomb.

In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to "provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible", an IAEA statement adds.

Earlier, the New York Times quoted US officials as saying that the secret site - built inside a mountain near the ancient city of Qom - is not yet complete, but could be ready for operation next year.

ANALYSIS

BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds
The New York Times report comes at a critical time as further sanctions on Iran, especially on its oil and gas industry, are being discussed.

If Iran is found to have hidden a plant from the IAEA, it will be put on the defensive.

Previously it had announced plans only for expanding its current enrichment plant at Natanz.

The Security Council has ordered Iran to freeze enrichment and has imposed sanctions aimed at its nuclear and ballistic missile work.

Iran has refused to comply, arguing that it has the right to develop a civil nuclear power programme.

It said the facility is believed to be capable of holding some 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium for electricity or, at higher levels of enrichment, for a bomb.

This development will encourage fears that Iran has other secret facilities that could be used to make a nuclear bomb, the BBC's Tehran correspondent, Jon Leyne, says in London.

Natanz, some 250km (150 miles) south of Tehran, had been kept secret until its existence was revealed by exiled groups several years ago, he adds.

In a report of its visit to Natanz in August, the IAEA said the site was operating 4,592 centrifuges and a further 3,716 were installed.

It said work on the first of two production halls for centrifuges, Iran had previously told inspectors it was planning, was nearly complete.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR SITES
Iran insists that all its nuclear facilities are for energy, not military purposes
Bushehr: Nuclear power plant
Isfahan: Uranium conversion plant
Natanz: Uranium enrichment plant, 4,592 working centrifuges, with 3,716 more installed
Second enrichment plant: Existence revealed to IAEA in Sept 2009. Separate reports say it is near Qom, and not yet operational
Arak: Heavy water plant

Iran's key nuclear sites
Iran has been under months of pressure to accept US President Barack Obama's offer of talks on its nuclear ambitions.

Earlier this month, Tehran agreed to "comprehensive" talks on a range of security issues - but made no mention of its own nuclear programme.

The talks are due to be held in Geneva on 1 October with Tehran and the five permanent UN Security Council members - US, UK, Russia, China and France - plus Germany.

President Obama has hinted at pursuing tougher sanctions against Tehran if progress over the crisis is not made.

Russia recently signalled it might be prepared to soften its opposition to further sanctions against Iran, although China has said such pressure would not be effective. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8274262.stm

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 12:02 PM

"Netanyahu Leads Calls for Harsh Moves Against Iran

Despite Talks Next Week, G8 Issues Ultimatum

by Jason Ditz, September 24, 2009

Antiwar Forum

Following yesterday’s comparatively brief speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today belonged firmly to the anti-Iran crowd, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu getting the ball rolling on what was a day of calls for harsh action against the nation.

Netanyahu’s rancorous address to the UN General Assembly was punctuated by demands for the body to harshly punish Iran for its civilian nuclear program, saying the nation was a threat to the entire world and the UN had to stand up to their “barbarism.”

But the calls for action didn’t stop there. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, citing a UN Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, demanded “immediate” actions against the Iranian government to prove the group was serious. France, as with all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, has a significant nuclear arsenal.

The UN rhetoric was followed by an announcement from Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on behalf of the G8. The group is demanded that Iran abandon enrichment of uranium even for civilian purposes within three months and is threatening harsh new sanctions if they don’t comply. Despite the demands, Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program as a member of the non-proliferation treaty and has ruled out abandoning the program."

concordewarrior

25-09-2009, 12:23 PM

IsraHell are such big hypocrits they are the first in line to refuse signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Netanyahu should really shut his ugly mouth! :mad:

They will use every excuse to launch an attack against Iran with the full support of the United States (of IsraHell), the UK, Germany and France.

B*st*rds!!! :mad:

keithm

25-09-2009, 12:45 PM

BREAKING NEWS on sky,

US,UK AND FRANCE to make statement on iran at 1.30pm uk time.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 12:59 PM

"Friday, September 25, 2009

Netanyahu slams UN for hosting Ahmadinejad: 'Have you no shame?'

"Following are excerpts from the speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24.

"Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. ShareThis

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a document outlining plans for the Auschwitz death camp as he addresses the 64th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, on Sept. 24 Reuters/Lucas Jackson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler's deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father's two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances - by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations, Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us -my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come. "

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_israel0754_09_24.asp

I dont know whether to laugh or cry or throw up at his speech :mad: and US/UK and most Europe applauded him numerous times apparently. SICK.

keithm

25-09-2009, 01:17 PM

will they use this imaginary facility as an excuse for an attack.

keithm

25-09-2009, 01:24 PM

they've known about this so called facility since 2002,

it begs the question as to why this is being brought up now.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:29 PM

Watch here (in UK only - sorry!) for live statement from Obama re: Iran due 1.30pm GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7927039.stm

"President Obama's Iran statement .... (video due 1.30pm GMT)...

President Barack Obama makes a statement on Iran's announcement of the existence of a second uranium enrichment plant before the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh."

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:44 PM

US, UK and France live now on BBC!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7927039.stm?ls

video link

weddings

25-09-2009, 01:47 PM

I believe an attack on Iran is already finalised and will happen irrespective of sanctions. The Obama piece you mentioned interest me too because why would the US stop persuing Al Queda, it represents the perfect scenario - a war which is endless and cannot be won, but more to the point Al Queda is the perfect excuse to remove civil liberties.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:47 PM

... jeeeez.. what's going on with Gordon's 'nodding dog' head?!

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:48 PM

interesting he just said (Obama) that Germany's chancellor wished to "disassociate herself from these remarks" !!

keithm

25-09-2009, 01:51 PM

no one bought into the swineflu bullshit so its war instead.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:52 PM

I think both were planned a long time ago, and they will implement both too.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 01:54 PM

so.... the bottom line is.. they are giving Iran until 1st October.. then that's it.. they will start to put their full plan into action. :mad:

I am SICK of UK PM's speaking "On behalf of all of UK"... No no no no NO. You do not! Brown and Blair (and all the others) will have a LOT to answer for when they get to the "other side".

keithm

25-09-2009, 01:57 PM

iran just announced that they are getting rid of the petro dollar to the euro,coincidence or what.

whenever a country has done this before,the last one being saddam hussein in iraq,war has followed.

freedom1st

25-09-2009, 02:02 PM

I f*cking hate these hypocritical, lying scumbags. Israel has broken every bloody UN resolution, and we're talking 100's. They don't obey the rules on nuclear proliferation and then you've got the US and UK telling certain states they can't have nukes but the US/UK can?!! This is hypocrisy in the extreme, Armadinijhad must be thinking wtf? Although he knows more than most what these bastards are like. The msm is just as guilty and if Iran is invaded then all these f*ckheads will have blood on their hands. Evil, pure evil! And don't even get me started on that little worm Sarkozy. Aaaaaaaagh!

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 02:07 PM

me thinks this is going to be the lead-in to WWIII... words fail me at their absolute evil and deceit. :mad::(

concordewarrior

25-09-2009, 02:10 PM

I believe an attack on Iran is already finalised and will happen irrespective of sanctions.

Now if they do this there is no doubt that IsraHell will be flattened like a pancake and turned into glass in no time.

Let WWIII begin. I want to see the big fireworks.

keithm

25-09-2009, 02:10 PM

i think this is why obama was the chosen one,

no white republican would have been able to get away with this because of the iraq bullshit,its been in the planning years.
gordon brown just as well buy a house in the U.S because he won't be welcomed back here.

keithm

25-09-2009, 02:18 PM

apparently beer and takeaway food sales went through the roof during shock and awe.

keithm

25-09-2009, 02:23 PM

obamas offer to ahmadinejad is alot like bush and blairs offer to saddam

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 03:12 PM

Still think it interesting Obama's remarks about German chancellor ... of course, with Iran's recent deals with China etc. re: Oil, it's hard to see what sanctions can be of any real effect... so that line of 'action' will be probably be brief and is mere lip service, whilst they put into place final manuevres for WWIII ...

I do not for one minute think Mahmoud is a saint.. far from it.. but Iran has not attacked any nation for .. ermm.. eons. plus, this is not about the leaders.. this is about the thousands and thousands of innocent people, women and children too, who will suffer the most horrific injuries and deaths.

What damn right have they to do this?? Even more so when you only need glance in the backyard of most western nations (not to mention Israel) to see the piles of UNinspected and UNmonitored nuclear weapons. It is outrageous.

If (when) they strike Iran... may they rot in hell... slowly.

concordewarrior

25-09-2009, 03:20 PM

I do not believe there is any God or Heaven or Hell.

I wish them all mad zionist hypocrit Heads of States to rot right here on Earth.

:mad:

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 03:52 PM

It's an expression! Hell .. Earth.. wherever.. I hope they rot.

For anyone who misse the earlier live speech.. here's the (totally unbiased.. not) summary from BBC:

"Page last updated at 14:22 GMT, Friday, 25 September 2009 15:22 UK

Iran 'concealed nuclear facility'

US President Barack Obama: 'Iran must act immediately'

Iran concealed the building of a second uranium enrichment plant in defiance of calls for transparency over its nuclear plans, US President Barack Obama says.

The leaders of the US, UK and France demanded UN inspectors be given immediate access to the facility.

Iran revealed the existence of the plant to the UN watchdog on Monday, saying it was not yet operational and would only be used for nuclear energy.

Iranian officials in New York and Tehran denied the plant was a secret.

Tehran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant, at Natanz.

Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear programme

Gordon Brown
UK Prime Minister

Full text: Leaders' comments
Send us your comments
Iran's decision to build a secret facility represented a "direct challenge to the basic compact" of the global non-proliferation regime, US President Barack Obama said, making a statement in Pittsburgh, where he is hosting a G20 summit.

Despite Iran's assertions that the facility was for peaceful purposes, the new plant was "not consistent" with that goal, the US president said.

Iran now faces the prospect of tougher international sanctions if it does not satisfy Western calls for full disclosure in the coming months.

'Line in the sand'

Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr Obama said it was time for Iran to begin meeting its international commitments.

ANALYSIS

BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds
Iranian ambitions for this site are not known. It could be that they wanted a back-up in case their main plant at Natanz was attacked. But another fear is that they intended to enrich uranium more highly at the secret plant, to a level suitable for a nuclear explosion.

The discovery will strengthen the demands by the US and its allies for further sanctions to be imposed on Iran unless it suspends all enrichment, as required by the Security Council.

Iran on defensive over secret site

"Iran must comply with UN Security Council resolutions and make clear it is prepared to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations," Mr Obama said.

Tehran would be held accountable for any failure to meet these responsibilities, he said.

Speaking after Mr Obama, the French and British leaders used strong language to insist that Iran would now have to disclose full details of its entire nuclear programme or face new and tougher sanctions.

Gordon Brown stressed that the US, France and UK were "at one" on the issue, and accused the Iranians of "serial deception".

There was now "no choice but to draw a line in the sand" over the nuclear issue, he said.

"Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear programme."

Mr Sarkozy said the situation was a challenge to the entire international community.

"Everything must be put on the table," the French president said, adding that the world needed to see a "step change" from Iran in the coming months.

Underground plant

Iranian officials were quick to deny the latest plant was any kind of clandestine project.

"This installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its existence to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Ali Akbar Saleri, head of Iran's nuclear agency, told the AFP news agency.

Iran says it does not need to inform the IAEA of any new site until 180 days before any nuclear material is place in the facility.

The existence of Iran's first enrichment plant, at Natanz, was only confirmed after intelligence emerged from Iranian exile groups several years ago.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR SITES

Iran insists that all its nuclear facilities are for energy, not military purposes
Bushehr: Nuclear power plant
Isfahan: Uranium conversion plant
Natanz: Uranium enrichment plant, 4,592 working centrifuges, with 3,716 more installed
Second enrichment plant: Existence revealed to IAEA in Sept 2009. Separate reports say it is near Qom, and not yet operational
Arak: Heavy water plant

Key nuclear sites in detail
Western governments are said to have known of the existence of the new enrichment plant for several months.

It is said to be an underground facility at a mountain on the site of a former missile site belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards north-east of the holy city of Qom.

Construction on the facility started in earnest in mid-2006, diplomatic sources said.

Iran's letter to the UN watchdog, the IAEA, came as the New York Times cited US officials giving the first details of the new plant.

The IAEA confirmed it received a letter from Iran on Monday informing it that "a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction".

Iran told the agency that no nuclear material had been introduced into the plant, and enrichment levels would only be high enough to make nuclear fuel, not a bomb.

In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to "provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible", an IAEA statement adds.

The disclosure of the new plant comes one day after world leaders stressed the need for greater co-operation against nuclear proliferation and shortly before Iran is due to resume talks with international powers on the issue.

Since taking office in January, Mr Obama has told Tehran than he is ready for direct talks on the nuclear issue, but has had no firm response from Iran.

Reports that Western officials have known of the existence of the enrichment plant for several months suggest that Mr Obama's policy was put in place even as he was aware of the new construction near Qom, correspondents note.

Earlier this month, Tehran agreed to "comprehensive" talks on a range of security issues - but made no mention of its own nuclear programme.

The talks are due to be held in Geneva on 1 October with Tehran and the five permanent UN Security Council members - US, UK, Russia, China and France - plus Germany.

Iran now faces the prospect of tougher sanctions if it fails to meet international demands for transparency. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8274903.stm

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 04:05 PM

this from Tehran Times yesterday...

"September 24, 2009

Commander stresses importance of bolstering defensive power

TEHRAN (FNA) - An Iranian Army top commander on Wednesday highlighted the importance of strengthening the country's defensive power.

""If we increase our defense power, we will be able to portray Iran as a more independent, more important and more honorable country in the international arena,"" Brigadier General Mohammad Hossein Dadras said.

The commander added that those countries which enjoy more scientific capabilities are the powerful nations of the world, and noted, ""Countries which possess power and strength can stand on their own feet, and this fact proves the importance of scientific capabilities in area of (military) defense.""

A few months ago Iran started production of 30 important military tools and equipment, including electronic, telecommunication and radar devices.

Former Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar stated during an inaugural ceremony held in Tehran in May for the launch of operation of the production lines of the said devices, ""These new production lines and products are related to electronic warfare, anti-electronic warfare, radar and sonar systems, air and sea cruising and positioning, electro optical and laser systems and different advanced and thermal night goggles, military communication and simulators.""

At the time Najjar reiterated that Iran has produced advanced electronic warfare and anti-electronic warfare and radar systems, including information gathering, wiretapping, orientation, spotting and positioning systems which operate in different (radio) bands, process different kinds of information and have the capability to identify enemy data, spot enemy transmitters and confuse or paralyze them."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=203834

and this...

"September 24, 2009

'Military strikes cannot halt Iran's nuclear program'

The director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) says Iran's defensive readiness is at such a level that Israel will never be able to attack the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations.

Asked about the Israeli threats against Iran's nuclear program, Ali-Akbar Salehi ruled out the possibility of any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

“We have taken all the necessary defensive precautions, including air defenses, and we hold regular maneuvers at the nuclear sites. So I assure the great Iranian nation that the installations will not be attacked,” the Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying on Tuesday.

However, Iran will still take any threat seriously, he stressed.

“We have taken all precautions and we are sure that no military attack will be able to stop Iran's nuclear program,” Salehi stated.

Officials of Israel, which is the only player in the Middle East that possesses a nuclear arsenal, have repeatedly declared their determination to halt Iran's nuclear program, even through the military option. "

rodin

25-09-2009, 04:08 PM

Don't know if this has been posted
Up above a big military parade in Tehran on Tuesday, Sept. 22, as Iranian president declared Iran's armed forces would "chop off the hands" of any power daring to attack his country, two air force jets collided in mid-air. One was Iran's only airborne warning and control system (AWACS) for coordinating long-distance aerial operations, DEBKAfile's military and Iranian sources disclose.
The proud military parade, which included a march-past, a line of Shehab-3 missiles and an air force fly-past, was planned to give Ahmadinejad a dazzling send-off for New York and add steel to his UN Assembly speech Wednesday.
Dubbed "Simorgh" (a flying creature of Iranian fable which performs wonders in mid-flight), the AWACS' appearance, escorted by fighter jets, was to have been the climax for the Iranian Air force's fly-past over the parade. Instead, it collided with one of escorting planes, a US-made F-5E, and both crashed to the ground in flames. All seven crewmen were killed.
Eye witnesses reported that the flaming planes landed on the mausoleum burial site of the Islamic revolution's founder Ruhollah Khomeini, a national shrine. According to Western observers, no distress signals came from either cockpit indicating that the collision and explosions were sudden and fast.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6280

Sabotage

strengthofknowledge

25-09-2009, 04:11 PM

QUIT worrying and chatting about this shit!!! get off your ass and take action! actions speak louder then words! EDUCATE! then when you see the headlines say "IRAN IS NOW AT WAR WITH ISRAEL""" THEN its time to sit on our asses again and hideout with food and supplies. but until then___ GET OUT THERE AND EDUCATE PEOPLE!!! ITS OUT LAST CHANCE!!!

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 04:11 PM

USA knew all along about Iran's 'new' facility... :rolleyes:

"10:44 September 25th, 2009

West raises stakes over Iran nuclear programme

Posted by: Paul Taylor

President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain have deliberately raised the stakes in the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme by dramatising the disclosure that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant. Their shoulder-to-shoulder statements of resolve, less than a week before Iran opens talks with six major powers in Geneva, raised more questions than they answer.

It turns out that the United States has known for a long time (how long?) that Iran had been building the still incomplete plant near Qom.

Did it share that intelligence with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and if not, why not?

Why did it wait until now, in the middle of a G20 summit in Pittsburgh, to make the announcement — after Iran had notified the International Atomic Energy Authority of the plant’s existence on Monday, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had delivered a defiant speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday and after the Security Council had adopted a unanimous resolution calling for an end to the spread of nuclear weapons on Thursday?

Is this all part of Obama’s choreography to build international pressure on Iran by getting Russia, in return for the dropping of plans to put a U.S. missile shield in Poland the Czech Republic, to threaten more sanctions against Tehran? A U.S. official says Obama shared the intelligence with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev at the United Nations this week and China had only just been informed. Did Obama try and fail to get Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao — both in Pittsburgh — to join the three Western leaders on the podium? Or was his hand forced on timing by the fact that the New York Times had got wind of the Iranian nuclear plant and was set to publish the news on Friday?

The division of labour between Obama, Sarkozy and Brown was striking. The U.S. president sounded stern but his tone was measured. He stressed his commitment to dialogue and negotiation with Iran and to Tehran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy. He did not mention sanctions, let alone the possibility of military action. It fell to the Europeans to inject a tone of menace.

Sarkozy accused Iran of defying the international community and taking the world on a dangerous path, and said that unless Tehran changed course by December, there would be tougher sanctions. Brown charged the Islamic Republic with deception and said the international community had no choice but “to draw a line in the sand”, and that he did not rule out anything although sanctions were the preferred route.

Will the latest disclosure on what Iran insists is a peaceful nuclear programme persuade Russia to renounce the sale of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran? Will it persuade China, which reaffirmed its scepticism about more sanctions this week and has begun supplying gasoline to Iran, to change its mind? The West sees Iran’s dependency on imported fuel as a key vulnerability.

Friday’s dramatic announcement was a clear effort to appeal to the world court of public opinion and maximise pressure on Tehran before the Oct. 1 talks, but there is no sign that the Islamic Republic’s leaders are even considering yielding on their nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, they seem convinced that the nuclear standoff will enable them to patch over deep internal divisions over the disputed June presidential election by playing the patriotic card."

http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/09/25/west-raises-stakes-over-iran-nuclear-programme/

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 04:14 PM

hey.. before you blow your trumpet and start lecturing people, take a moment to consider that there are undoubtedly MANY on this forum who are already very active in DOING things to "educate" others and who are already DOING things about these issues, one way or another! ;)

QUIT worrying and chatting about this shit!!! get off your ass and take action! actions speak louder then words! EDUCATE! then when you see the headlines say "IRAN IS NOW AT WAR WITH ISRAEL""" THEN its time to sit on our asses again and hideout with food and supplies. but until then___ GET OUT THERE AND EDUCATE PEOPLE!!! ITS OUT LAST CHANCE!!!

pureheart

25-09-2009, 04:15 PM

strengthofknowledge

25-09-2009, 04:20 PM

hey.. before you blow your trumpet and start lecturing people, take a moment to consider that there are undoubtedly MANY on this forum who are already very active in DOING things to "educate" others and who are already DOING things about these issues, one way or another! ;)

oh i know i know,im one of them . Thats just my daily announcement to the the people that arent helping and just absorbing info and not sharing with there neighbor! :D

concordewarrior

25-09-2009, 04:20 PM

Don't know if this has been posted
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6280
Sabotage

I believe this is full blast propaganda with no Iranian AWACS plane destroyed in a crash.

If you have anymore info on this please post.
Thank you.

How about IsraHell allowing inspection of THEIR nuclear facilities hey?

decim

25-09-2009, 04:24 PM

All just in time for the liesborn treason rat ification, giving the eu the power to raise armies from 'member' slaves, I mean states.

obama brown sarkozy the triumvirate of western zionist puppetry announce their bogeyman has a secret program of WMD's. Iran does have a secret weapon, trading oil for currencies other than dollars. It scares obamas fed reserve lithographers of debt, to death.

No mention of isreals secret nuke arsenal provided by the USA.

coco

25-09-2009, 04:40 PM

iran just announced that they are getting rid of the petro dollar to the euro,coincidence or what.

whenever a country has done this before,the last one being saddam hussein in iraq,war has followed.

Well then we have no choice but to give them the Hussein treatment. They stopped trading in US dollars as well and had to be punished severely! *sarcasm*

pureheart

25-09-2009, 05:23 PM

Can't we do something?

Like refuse to pay our taxes if our country makes a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran?

coco

25-09-2009, 05:33 PM

Can't we do something?

Like refuse to pay our taxes if our country makes a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran?

Let's say a few people decide not to file. The IRS gives them the treatment, bust their door down, arrest them, take their property, fines, prison, etc.

Oh you want to run? You will be found. Oh you want to threaten us? We will fire. It's happened before over the years. Murderers can get out with less time served than someone who defies IRS.

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 05:42 PM

this is results so far of public vote on Russia Today homepage re: Iran...

" RT asks:

What is to be done about Iran’s new enrichment capacities?

11% : Impose more sanctions as soon as possible

13% : Send inspectors and find all unaccounted for uranium

26% : Destroy all facilities by any measures necessary

50% : Accept Tehran’s nuclear ambitions

vote

view answers without voting"

http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-25/g-20-evil-empire.html

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 06:05 PM

just in case anyone not yet seen the video, or wants to read the script, here's full text from Boston.com :

"Text of Obama, Sarkozy, Brown statements on Iran

By The Associated Press

September 25, 2009

Statements by President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday about an Iranian nuclear facility, as provided by the White House:

OBAMA:

Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the nonproliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities. As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program. Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow -- endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.

It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations. We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-one negotiations. Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.

And that's why there's a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany. At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.Continued...

To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

I should point out that although the United Kingdom, France and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5-plus-one, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks.

I would now like to turn to President Sarkozy of France for a brief statement.

SARKOZY: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen, we have met yesterday for a meeting -- a summit meeting of the Security Council on disarmament and nuclear disarmament. I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path. I have recalled all the attempts that we have made to offer a negotiated solution to the Iranian leaders without any success, which what has been revealed today is exceptional. Following the enriching plant of Natanz in 2002, it is now the Qom one which is revealed. It was designed and built over the past several years in direct violation of resolutions from the Security Council and from the IAEA. I am expecting from the IAEA an exhaustive, strict and rigorous investigation, as President Obama just said.

We were already in a very severe confidence crisis. We are now faced with a challenge, a challenge made to the entire international communities. The six will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva. Everything -- everything must be put on the table now.

We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. This is for the peace and stability. Thank you.

BROWN: America, the United Kingdom and France are at one. Iran's nuclear program is the most urgent proliferation challenge that the world faces today.

As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.

Confronted by the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand. On October the 1st, Iran must now engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner. If it does not do so, it will be further isolated.

And I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions.

Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: that Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program. Thank you......"

Page 1 2
Next ....." (continues)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/25/text_of_obama_sarkozy_brown_statements_on_iran/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news

worlds beyond

25-09-2009, 06:10 PM

I refuse to have G Brown speak on my "behalf"... there must be MILLIONS in UK alone who are opposed to what is happening... Yet the 'StoptheWar' website has nothing.. only Afghanistan.. same at other similar sites I checked this afternoon... it seems IRAN is not yet on the campaigning radar yet (or very well hidden if it is!)....

anyone good at writing petitions?

anyone got any good ideas for how to protest / stand up about this (not necessarily 'taking to streets' type action!)

ideas anyone.....??

perhaps someone can start a new thread with campaigning/action plan ideas??

I am away for weekend now... so doubt I'll be able to check in for a few days...

have a peaceful weekend !

kblood

25-09-2009, 06:23 PM

Israel doesnt want to live under the shadow of Iran with nuclear weapons...

Like they ever gave a choice to Iran when they got nukes themselves. The war has been so close to happening for years now. I do not think it will happen in december either. But maybe it will happen in 2010. I hope somehow it can be stopped.

keithm

25-09-2009, 07:37 PM

this probably accounts for why brown and obama have increased troop numbers in afghanistan,after all it does border iran.

realy

25-09-2009, 10:57 PM

'Any Day Now, as the Song Goes.

Dog Poet Transmitting…….

The Perfect Storm approaches as reptile leaders Netanyahoo, Barak and Peres plan out the critical false flag event that they will need to force America into attacking Iran for them, just as they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.'

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=156451

worlds beyond

27-09-2009, 08:31 AM

"Iran to put new uranium plant under IAEA supervision
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives a press conference upon arrival in Tehran. Iran said on Saturday …

Jay Deshmukh – Sat Sep 26, 3:53 pm ET

TEHRAN (AFP) – Iran said on Saturday it will put its newly disclosed uranium enrichment plant under the supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, in a move welcomed by the United States.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, said the disclosure was a "firm blow" to Western powers opposed to Tehran's atomic work.

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

Dismissing allegations that the plant has a military purpose, Salehi said the facility is being constructed as a "precautionary measure in case of an unwanted incident against our nuclear programme." Analysis

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the decision to grant access to the IAEA.

"It is always welcome when Iran makes a decision to comply with the international rules and regulations, and particularly with respect to the IAEA," she told reporters in New York.

Earlier on Saturday, Salehi said Tehran would allow IAEA inspectors to inspect the plant, 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Tehran on the road to the Shiite holy city of Qom.

On Friday, the IAEA said Tehran wrote to the agency on September 21 disclosing that it is building a new uranium enrichment facility.

"God willing this new plant will become operational soon and make the enemy blind," Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's chief of staff, was quoted by Fars news agency as saying on Saturday.

Iran's hardline president claimed the disclosure as a success for the Islamic republic.

"This issue was turned around in a way that (now) we believe they regret bringing it up," Ahmadinejad told reporters on his return home from the UN General Assembly in New York.

"They may pursue this issue through the media but it has become a firm blow to the arrogance," in reference to the United States and other Western powers, the hardline Iranian president said.

The announcement of the new facility came just days before an October 1 meeting in Geneva between Iran and six world powers to discuss Tehran's disputed atomic programme. Nuclear standoff: chronology

Ahmadinejad denied Tehran was building the plant in secret, as charged by Western leaders, and told reporters in New York on Friday the facility was "completely legal."

"We actually informed the agency (IAEA) 18 months ahead of time. Is this the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do? I thought we are supposed to be encouraged for taking this action."

US President Barack Obama and other Western leaders have threatened Tehran with new sanctions if it does not come clean during the Geneva talks between Iran and Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and the United States.

The six world powers suspect Tehran is developing atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy programme, a charge Iran vociferously denies.

Uranium enrichment lies at the heart of the nuclear controversy, since the process can be used to make an atomic bomb as well as producing fuel for nuclear reactors. Uranium enrichment explained

Obama said Tehran's new facility was "a serious challenge to the global non-proliferation regime, and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion."

"But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions," he said in his weekly audio and video address on Saturday.

Iran's leaders "must now choose -- they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation."

On Friday, Obama did not rule out a military option to halt Tehran's galloping nuclear drive, and on Saturday, Iran's arch-foe Israel called for an "unequivocal" response from the West.

"We are not surprised by the recent revelations, because we have been saying that Iran is developing its nuclear activities for military purposes, and the facts prove it now," Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics

rollotomaz1

27-09-2009, 11:27 AM

It's everywhere you look. Make front pages here..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6231260/Obama-demands-Iran-allows-inspection-of-secret-nuclear-plant.html

and here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

and here....

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/World-Leaders-Obama-Brown-Sarkozy-Slam-Iran-Over-Second-Uranium-Enrichment-Plant/Article/200909415389461?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15389461_World_Leaders_Obama%2C_Brown% 2C_Sarkozy_Slam_Iran_Over_Second_Uranium_Enrichmen t_Plant

Yawn.

If you keep telling this kind of news to the average person on the street through whatever channel and keep saying it often enough they will probably belive something is going to happen, then when it does its not so surprising, its called mind games, pure and simple.

I have never bought a newspaper in my life, they are so full of bull shit, which you come home to see even more of the same kind on the TV, I'm sure that people love this kind of thing, and have been conditioned into this kind of thinking, try leaving such things out of your mind for a time, and you might be a little happier,

Because Iran spouted off saying what they were going to do to Isreal and keep repeating it over a number of years is the same thing, there must be a hidden agenda in there somewhere, do you really think that one or two nuclear weapons is going to have any gain over Isreal, it would gain absolutely nothing, they are not going to risk themselves just to get rid of another, I wasn't this stupid at the age of 7.

There is definately a twist to this story, ask yourself, who and where are these kinds of ideas coming from, because, if I lived next door to a 18 stone brick out house with muscles the size of mellons, I certainly wouldn't tell him I was going to kick his face in, unless I was drunk or coersed,

There is more to all of this than meets the EYE, if the west wants rid of their nuclear threat for good, you can bet they or with the help of others will try to manipulate Iran into some kind of corner where they are going to react accordingly, giving them the excuse for action.

And have you thought of this one, does Iran have any biological weapons ?

We don't see the many different attempts to broker both peace and war, the most important parts are always left out, leaving the oh so terrible parts there instead of showing the real suffering that severe sanctions is having on the women and children of the country, if any country really loved its citizens they wouldn't do it to them or any others.

If you have a solid leader in such times like these you can unite your own people so well that they will not suffer, the west tried to do the same thing to Castro, but the people stood behind him so well that the west had to try and asasinate him so they could get in through the back door and insert a demi leader.

The same goes for Iran, they haven't started a war in over 100 years, they haven't tried to, or taken over a neighbuoring counrty, so the west will find it really hard to attack them any time soon, if they do then the rest of the world will see what the west really stands for, and in the long run the agressor always looses in a big way eventually.

coco

27-09-2009, 11:09 PM

I heard a quick blurb about this on the news this morning. I don't remember if it was FOX, CNN or MSNBC; I flip around during commercials.

http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=107216&sectionid=351020201

US drone hits political party's office in Iraq
Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:56:37 GMT

A US reconnaissance drone has crashed into the office of one of Iraq's biggest political parties, the US military has said.

The drone struck the local office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab political group in the northern city of Mosul on Saturday, Reuters reported.

Major Derrick Cheng, a military spokesperson in northern Iraq, says no injuries have been reported and there is no indication that the drone has been shot down.

Cheng said it was a coincidence that the drone struck the political party's office.

The cause of the crash is under investigation.

Yahya Abid Mahjob, a senior party member, said the drone hit the roof and then crashed into the back yard. He added that the party has urged the US military to take more precautions with their drones, AP reported.

On the news report I saw this morning, the journalist concluded by saying the US said it was an accident. - Just found another story with a little bit more info

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html

U.S. Drone Strikes Office of Sunni Party in Iraq’s North

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: September 26, 2009

BAGHDAD — Four people were killed in the northern city of Mosul on Saturday [unrelated] and a United States military drone surveillance aircraft crashed into the headquarters of a Sunni political party there, damaging the building but causing no injuries, officials said.

The American military said it was not clear why the small remotely operated plane fell from the sky in the Ghizlani neighborhood in west Mosul, one of the most violent areas of a multiethnic city contested by various religious and ethnic groups.

The accident, which occurred about 7 a.m., caused only minor damage to a building housing the Mosul branch of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country’s main Sunni political party.

Maj. Derrick Cheng, a United States military spokesman, said the Americans had offered to help repair the building’s damaged roof and severed electrical wires.

Major Cheng said the craft was later recovered by American troops..............

archemis

28-09-2009, 10:31 AM

I totally agree with what you wrote, Archemis. I'd also like to add that I feel we must remain detached but aware of these dramas whilst choosing actions/thoughts/dreams that come from a deep awareness of our infinite oneness. Emotional non-attachment to such 'distractions' whilst in full awareness is the key I feel, easier said than done I know!
This is all illusion and nothing really matters, we collectively create our collective illusion. To recognise that also, by default, requires recognition of the nightmare we have and continue to create. We have to look at this nightmare square in the face so to speak, take responsibility and choose love.

As an aside; perhaps the swine flu and the swine flu vaccine silliness is a 'red herring' designed to keep us looking the other way, meanwhile a greater evil is growing....just a thought

It's good to meet you :)

Namaste
A x

worlds beyond

28-09-2009, 11:14 PM

"MI6: Saudis Will Let Israel Bomb Iran Nuclear Site

British Paper Cites MI6 Chief's Mossad Meeting

by Jason Ditz, September 27, 2009

Citing a meeting between MI6 chief Sir John Scarlett and Mossad chief Meir Dagan, British newspaper The Daily Express is claiming that Saudi Arabia is “ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.”

The story hasn’t been confirmed any place else but provides yet another speculation that Israeli forces may be poised to launch a military strike against Iran.

It had previously been rumored in July that the Saudi government had approved the use of its airspace for an attack, though the Israeli government eventually denied it. Israel and Saudi Arabia have no diplomatic relations.

The new site, which was revealed to be in construction last week by the Iranian government, is much smaller than the existing Natanz enrichment facility, but is expected to use more efficient, modern technology. It is reportedly under a mountain near the city of Qom, one of the holiest cities in Shi’ite Islam, and an attack by Israel near the city would almost certainly provoke outrage."

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/27/mi6-saudis-will-let-israel-bomb-iran-nuclear-site/

worlds beyond

28-09-2009, 11:17 PM

"Syria calls for Israel to join nuclear treaty

Syria echoes Arab calls for Israel to join nuclear nonproliferation treaty

SLOBODAN LEKIC
AP News

Sep 28, 2009 12:20 EST

Israel must comply with the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency if the Mideast is to become a region free of weapons of mass destruction, Syria's foreign minister said Monday.

Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moualem echoed calls by many Arab nations during the current U.N. General Assembly session for Israel to comply with the IAEA's demand to submit its nuclear facilities to the agency's safeguard regime and to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty restricts any nuclear program to nonmilitary purposes.

Israel has never said it has nuclear weapons, but is universally believed to possess a sizable arsenal of such warheads.

The U.S. and its allies consider Iran the region's greatest proliferation threat, fearing that Tehran is trying to achieve the capacity to make nuclear weapons despite its assertion that it is only building a civilian program to generate power. They also say Syria — which, like Iran is under IAEA investigation — ran a clandestine nuclear program, at least until Israeli warplanes destroyed what they describe as a nearly finished plutonium-producing reactor two years ago.

Islamic nations, however, insist that Israel is the true danger, saying they fear its nuclear weapons capacity.

Earlier this month, the 150-nation IAEA conference adopted a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program for the first time in 18 years. Iran hailed the vote as a "glorious moment."

The result was a setback for Israel, the United States and other backers of the Jewish state. It also reflected building tensions between Israel and its backers and Islamic nations, backed by members of the 120-nation Nonaligned Movement.

The meeting adopted a resolution calling for a Mideast free of nuclear weapons in a near-consensus vote, with only Israel voting against.

"Syria stresses the need to commit Israel to comply with the resolution adopted by the IAEA ... regarding Israeli nuclear capabilities," Al-Moualem said.

Attempts to contact the Israeli mission to the U.N. for comment were unsuccessful on the holiday of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar."

Source: AP News

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/syria-calls-for-israel-to-join-nuclear-treaty-2/

worlds beyond

28-09-2009, 11:25 PM

"The US and Iran: A Manufactured Crisis
Part 1

by Jack A. Smith

.
Global Research, September 27, 2009

No one knows what will emerge ultimately from the talks beginning in Geneva Oct. 1 between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany on the matter of the Tehran government¹s nuclear program.

Iran says it looks forward to the talks and promises to be forthcoming. But judging by the stance of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany last week at the UN conferences in New York and the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, draconian sanctions may be enacted against Iran in a few months. This would result in yet another crisis that the world doesn¹t need just now.

Russia and China ‹ which hold veto power in the Security Council that can weaken or prevent additional sanctions ‹ have up to now resisted the Obama Administration¹s drive for tough new UN punishments. President Barack Obama met separately during the week with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao in an effort to obtain their agreement to threaten more stringent sanctions should Iran procrastinate during the talks.

The White House later suggested to the press that Medvedev may be coming around to Obama¹s point of view, but this seems to be based on very skimpy evidence ‹ a remark that "in some cases sanctions are inevitable." Hu evidently didn¹t even go that far. China opposes sanctions in principle as a means of resolving international disputes.

Moscow and Beijing do not subscribe to the negative depiction of Iran promoted by Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris and Bonn. They understand the situation to be far more complex than the U.S. and its allies publicly acknowledge.

The Iran question suddenly took center stage Sept. 25 during a week of hectic political activity. The White house set up a hastily arranged and theatrically produced press conference at the start of the G20 meeting in order to detonate a political bombshell intended to destroy Tehran¹s contention that it is only interested in nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

The conference opened with Obama standing at the microphone with French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown standing solemnly to his left and right. It was explained that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would have joined the trio but was delayed.

Obama then declared that Iran had for several years been secretly building an underground plant in mountainous terrain to manufacture nuclear fuel near the city of Qom about 100 miles from Tehran, in addition to the plant and facilities in Natanz already known to the world. He suggested the new plant was intended to produce weapons without the world¹s knowledge.

Obama then charged that ³Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime .... Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow .... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.² Refusal to ³come clean,² he said, ³is going to lead to confrontation.²

Sarkozy and Brown followed Obama and seemed to go even further than the American leader in denouncing Iran, explicitly demanding harder sanctions. Said Brown: ³The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community.²

The New York Times reported that ³after months of talking about the need for engagement, Mr. Obama appears to have made a leap toward viewing tough new sanctions against Iran as an inevitability .... American officials said that they expected the announcement to make it easier to build a case for international sanctions.²

The majority of House and Senate members have long been critical of Iran¹s government and the new allegations have only substantiated their suspicions. Right wing Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the leading Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declared: "The U.S. and other countries must immediately impose crippling sanctions on the Iranian regime, including cutting off Iran¹s imports of gasoline. The world cannot stand by and watch the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran become reality." Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated "now is the time to supplement engagement with more robust international sanctions."

As intended, the hyped disclosure created headlines around the world. It probably convinced many Americans, already primed to detest Iran, that Tehran is building nuclear bombs to obliterate the U.S. and Israel. This is not an unlikely conclusion for many people to accept after 30 years of Washington¹s incessant campaign to demonize the government that overthrew and replaced America¹s puppet, the dreaded Shah of Iran. The U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Iran after this act of lèse majesté and the subsequent ³hostage crisis,² and has nourished a grudge to this day.

If push does come to shove with Iran it is important to remember how effortless it was to hoodwink the majority of American politicians and the masses of people into backing a completely unnecessary war against Iraq. As in the buildup to the unjust invasion of Iraq, today¹s U.S. corporate mass media is playing its principal part to perfection ‹ uncritically echoing government distortions about the danger of Iran¹s nonexistent nuclear weapons. The Iran situation is different, but yet similar in terms of mass public manipulation and the possibility of a future confrontation getting out of hand.

Can this be, once again, a situation of high-stakes geopolitics where things are not as they seem? We think so. Let¹s look at the immediate charge against Iran, based on the ³revelations² of the last week, then take on the bigger picture in Part 2.

The ³shocking² news may have been delivered with a sense of surprise and high urgency, but U.S. intelligence agencies, joined by their counterparts in some allied countries, were aware since 2006 that Iran was constructing a second uranium processing plant that still remains under construction and is not operational. According to a Sept. 26 article circulated by the McClatchy newspaper group quoting a U.S. intelligence official, "There was dialogue with allies from a very early point.²

Bush Administration Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnel first informed Obama about the facility soon after he won election. He has been kept up to date since then. Before going public with the information last week, the president saw to it that several other governments were told in advance, as was the IAEA and others.

Washington officials claimed Iran became aware ³in late spring² that the U.S. was spying on the ³secret² facility. They said Iran then informed the International Atomic Energy Agency Sept. 21 about the existence of its project, implying Tehran did so because its cover was blown. In a statement Sept. 24 the IAEA acknowledged that Tehran had informed them that a ³pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country,² and that it ³also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility.²

Iran insisted to the Vienna-based IAEA and the world that the enrichment plant under construction is designed only for fueling nuclear power installations. Soon after Obama¹s G20 speech, Iran¹s Atomic Energy Organization declared the new ³semi-industrial enrichment fuel facility² was ³within the framework of International Atomic Energy Agency¹s regulations.² Press reports said ³The head of Iran's nuclear program suggested UN inspectors would be allowed to visit the site.² The invitation was extended before Washington¹s demand that it do so.

A quite unruffled Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared at a press conference in New York after Obama¹s disclosures. He seemed to regard the American president¹s allegations, and the staged manner in which they were delivered, not only the making of a mountain out of a molehill but an act of bad faith just before the talks are to begin, suggesting non-threateningly that Obama will come to regret his confrontational demeanor.

Ahmadinejad told the press that the plant in question wouldn't be operational for 18 more months and that it did not violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He went further and said nuclear weapons "are against humanity [and] they are inhumane," comments in keeping with his recent calls for eliminating all nuclear weapons. The Iranian leader also said that Iran informed the IAEA about the plant only a few days ago instead of when ground was broken because construction had reached the stage where it should be reported, not because it found out that a U.S. spy agency was watching.

What are we to make of this? First it must be understood there is a complex dispute over the IAEA¹s safeguard provisions governing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran considers itself to be in total compliance with the NPT, and this appears to be true. Inter-Press Service reporter Jim Lobe wrote Sept. 25 that ³Under the basic Safeguards Agreement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory, member states are required to declare their nuclear facilities and designs at least 180 days before introducing nuclear materials there.²

According to an article in the Sept. 26 New York Times by Neil MacFarquhar, ³Tehran¹s stance hinges on different interpretations of the agency¹s regulations, said Graham Allison, the director of Harvard University¹s Belfer Center and an Iran nuclear expert.

³For two decades, the agency required Iran to report only when nuclear material [for uranium enrichment] was introduced to a facility. By 2003 it rescinded that, in line with the guidelines for most [but not all] countries, demanding reporting when construction began, Mr. Allison said. But the agency never declared Iran out of compliance when Tehran claimed the old agreement was still in place.²

In talking to the press after Obama¹s speech, Ahmadinejad said that the new facility would be completed in 18 months, so under Iran¹s understanding of its responsibilities, its notification was a year in advance. The U.S. maintains that Iran informed the IAEA when it learned U.S. spy agencies had become aware of the plant, but if that were so, why did Teheran wait three months before contacting the nuclear agency?

"What we did was completely legal, according to the law,² the Iranian president said. ³We have informed the agency, the agency will come and take a look and produce a report and it's nothing new." According to the Associated Press Teheran¹s notice to the IAEA specified that the enrichment level would be up to 5%, suitable only for peaceful purposes. Weapons-grade material is more than 90% enriched.²

The AP also noted that the IAEA now ³says Iran is obliged to make such a notification when it begins design of such facilities² and that ³a government cannot unilaterally abandon such an agreement.² This is confusing, of course. But since Iran was never designated as noncompliant and was allowed to proceed under the previous rules after it registered its rejection, the thunderous criticism emanating from the U.S., Britain and France appears to have no merit."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15421

realy

29-09-2009, 07:37 PM

Sunday September 27,2009
By Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/130251/Saudis-will-let-Israel-bomb-Iran-nuclear-site

worlds beyond

29-09-2009, 10:15 PM

"Analysis – Iran Debate Pretty Much Over
Is Iran's Lack of Nuclear Weapons Really Beside the Point?

by Jason Ditz, September 28, 2009

The Obama Administration was seemingly foiled last week when it was discovered that the “secret” Iranian nuclear facility they were about to reveal to the rest of the UN Security Council had already been reported to the IAEA, by Iran, as legally required.

But no one seemed to notice. The Western media still crowed about the “uncovering” of a secret facility by the Obama Administration and ran several stories questioning the ramifications in the lead-up to this week’s talks.

Today Slashdot, a popular news and current affairs discussion site, has run a discussion entitled “Iran’s nuclear ambitions” which underscores the tenor of the topic. Slashdot’s readership tends to be pretty politically independent and have above average education, so one would think they’d be more skeptical about the case for war than the average voter.

And there is a pretty even split between pro-war and anti-war positions on the discussion. Lots of grousing about empire. Lots of mentioning Israel. But there is one thing you won’t see, and that’s any serious questioning of whether or not Iran is creating nuclear weapons.

Despite the US intelligence community saying they aren’t, despite the IAEA saying they have seen no proof that they are, pretty much everyone takes Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” for granted, and are just split over whether or not its worth going to war over.

It’s not hard to imagine why this is. Both the Bush Administration and Obama Administration have cheerfully ignored their own intelligence communities and trumpeted this myth of the threat posed by Iran. If you’re the average person who doesn’t spend all day paying attention to this stuff you’d probably figure if one was lying about it so overtly the other party would call them on it. Not so.

But while we can take some solace in the fact that so many on Slashdot don’t see this as a good reason to go to war, if everybody believes Iran is making nuclear weapons this argument is pretty much over, and then the pro-war side has won. If facts don’t matter the state can ALWAYS scare the public into war.

It worked in Iraq… and 6+ years after the occupation a non-trivial minority of Americans still think Iraq had WMDs. Now it seems like it’s just a matter of if President Obama really wants to attack Iran or not.

And that’s not so straightforward. The US has 130,000+ troops in Iraq and will likely have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan very soon. Conquering Iran will be no cakewalk, and even with the international good will the Obama Administration seems to have it is unlikely NATO is going to jump at the chance for another war.

But unless Americans are really willing to revisit the underlying claim of Iran’s mythical nuclear weapons program, the debate is over. Thursday’s talks will be about lining up international forces on Obama’s side for sanctions or worse against Iran, and the media will gleefully report the official line, no matter how little sense it makes."

Related Stories
September 27, 2009 -- Clinton: Nothing Iran Can Do to Convince US Nuclear Program Is Peaceful
September 25, 2009 -- Obama: Iran Is on Notice, Won’t Rule Out Military Action
September 25, 2009 -- Calls for More Harsh Action After Iran Reveals New Construction"

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/analysis-iran-debate-pretty-much-over/

worlds beyond

29-09-2009, 10:51 PM

"Key facts to keep in mind while opposing war against Iran

by Phil Wilayto

.
Global Research, September 29, 2009
After Downing Street

Representatives of Iran and six of the world's most powerful countries are scheduled to meet this week in Geneva, one of a series of events that increasingly looks like a rerun of the build-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

As we prepare for a barrage of anti-Iranian media spin, it would be good for anti-war activists to remember five basic facts:

One: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

Two: The U.S. has not discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran.

Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.

Four: Despite what we all have repeatedly heard, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust. (Please see quotes below.)

Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.

On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat is to meet with representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the U.S., U.K, France, Russia and China, plus Germany, a group dubbed the G-5-plus-1. These will be the first international talks to address Iran's nuclear program in more than a year.

During these negotiations, Iran will attempt to discuss a wide range of issues. The six countries – or at least the U.S., U.K., France and Germany – will make demands on Iran's nuclear program that they already know will be rejected. These four most powerful Western nations will then move to impose even harsher sanctions than the three sets they have already rammed through the U.N. Security Council.

There may even be a military attack on Iran by Israel, a move already given the green light by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

And this will all be in violation of international law.

Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?

Iran has a program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes. Part of that program involves enriching uranium to power nuclear reactors. Enriched uranium is also an essential component in building a nuclear bomb, but the enrichment process is so different that it would be virtually impossible to conceal it, and Iran is the most inspected country in the world.

Further, Iran was one of the first countries to sign the U.N.'s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it renounced the right to build nuclear weapons in return for not only the right to develop nuclear power, but to receive help in doing so from the world community.

There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Not from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the U.N. body charged with making sure NPT members abide by that treaty. Not from the U.S. and its 16 separate intelligence agencies, nor from Israel and its Mossad intelligence agency nor from counter-revolutionary Iranian organizations such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), all of which have been working overtime to come up with any fact, report, material or rumor with which to indict Iran.

Meanwhile, of course, none of the G-5, G-5-Plus-1, G-20 or G-We-Rule-the-World countries are saying “boo” about Israel's estimated 200 nuclear weapons, let alone the U.S. with its 10,000.

It's true that Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a finite resource. Even Iran's vast reserves will someday run out. So it's developing alternative sources of energy, including solar and wind, as well as nuclear.

The U.S and other Western powers are opposed to Iran developing nuclear power because that would ensure Iran can remain independent. And strong. And influential in its own region. And that is unacceptable to the world's former colonizing powers.

Iran, like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and many other countries, rejects the status of a “second-tier” country. These countries refuse to accept the authority of the Empire.

They have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppressors and have charted their own independent courses on the world stage. Their peoples are like runaway slaves who have established their own modern maroon colonies and as such are viewed as a threat to the orderly administration of the New World Order.

And they must be brought back under control, lest they serve as dangerous examples for those peoples still enslaved.

That's why keeping those countries from developing technologically is a prime goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Has the U.S. discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran?

On Sept. 21, the Iranian government sent a letter to the IAEA in Vienna describing the construction of a plant designed to enrich uranium, up to 5 percent in purity, sufficient for energy production but well below the 90 percent level required for weapons-grade material. “Further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the letter stated.

According to the provisions of the NPT, Iran and other treaty signatories are required to inform the IAEA six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational. President Ahmadinejad later told a news conference that the new facility won’t be up and running for 18 months.

In other words, Iran was a year early in fulfilling its treaty obligations to provide notice to the IAEA.

But on Sept. 25, U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy interrupted their G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to hold a press conference at which they charged Iran with constructing a secret nuclear fuel facility.

Sarkozy, whose country depends on nuclear power for 80 percent of its energy needs, detailed intelligence information that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community.” Obama charged Iran with “breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”

The next day, Iran announced it would place the plant under the IAEA's supervision.

So: Iran built a nuclear facility. Then, fully one year before the required deadline mandated by the U.N.'s NPT, it informed the IAEA about the plant's existence. But, just days before the Oct. 1 seven-nation negotiations, the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France decided to hold a dramatic press conference to denounce Iran for breaking the rules.

A Sept. 26 story in The Washington Post noted that “the rapidly escalating confrontation provided (Obama) with a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage. Obama's detractors have long called him naive for his willingness to engage diplomatically the nation's adversaries, including Iran. Republicans say his decision to change the deployment of a missile shield for Eastern Europe demonstrates weakness, and critics have chastised him for taking time to weigh a decision on sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

“The announcement also provided a boost for the CIA at a time when the agency is facing harsh attacks - and possible prosecution - for detainee interrogations.”

Are the recent Iranian missile tests an offensive move?

Starting on Sept. 26, Iran began testing a number of missiles, including its medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 and, on Sept. 28, its longer-range Shahab-3. The latter missiles are believed to have a range of up to about 1200 miles, far enough to reach Israel, U.S. bases in the Middle East and parts of Europe.

So the question is, are the missiles meant to be defensive or offensive?

Defensive, according to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency: “As a result of this capability, those who used to speak of attacking Iran are now declaring that they entertain no such desires or thoughts, for they have realized that attacking Iran is an extremely dangerous act.”

It's a little hard to argue with that logic, since Israeli officials have now toned down their threats to attack Iran, citing an increased international concern after the revelation that Iran had been building a new uranium enrichment facility.

Yes, the missiles could be used to attack as well as defend or retaliate. But Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. For it to launch a war now against nuclear-armed opponents would be a complete departure from 30 years of foreign policy into the realm of insanity, something for which there is no recent historical precedent.

Does President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust?

Every time I read somewhere that President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust, I try and go back and find his original quote. That's not easy, because most of the time the alleged denial is paraphrased or partially quoted.

This month, I finally got a break.

On Sept. 24, Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, interviewed President Ahmadinejad at his hotel in New York. The transcript (see
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113175352&ps=rs) says Ahmadinejad's remarks were delivered via a translator.

Here's the relevant section of that interview:

...

INSKEEP: We have, in a previous interview, discussed how you feel (the Holocaust) is being used unjustly to justify Israel, so we need not cover that ground again. But if you would like to describe to me what specifically you believe happened between 1942 and 1945, I would be interested.

AHMADINEJAD: But then 1942 to 1945 is still about the Holocaust, right? I do raise a couple of questions about the Holocaust, and you are a member of the media, and I believe that you should actually tell people what these questions are, and try to receive answers from them as well.
The first question is, is the Holocaust a historical event or not? It is a historical event. And, having said that, there are numerous historical events. So the next question is, why is it that this specific event has become so prominent? Normally, ordinary people and historians pay attention to historical events. Why are politicians giving so much attention to this particular event? Why are they so biased about it? Does this event effect what is happening on the ground this day, now? What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination. Sometimes we look at history to learn the lessons of history.

INSKEEP: Are you acknowledging that millions of people were killed? Millions of Jews, specifically, were killed during World War II?

AHMADINEJAD: If you bear with me so that I can complete my statements, you will receive your answer. I'm asking, and I'm asking a number of serious questions. And I'm not addressing these questions to you, but to a wider audience — everyone — anyone who cares about the fate of humanity; who care about human beings and the rights of people. These are serious questions. If we are looking at history with the aim to learn — derive lessons from it, then what this indicates is that in the future, we should not carry out the same mistakes that were done in the past. While I personally was not alive 60 years ago, I happen to be alive now, and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago. So the fundamental question I raise here is that, if this event happened, where did it happen? As a form of an objection question, who was it carried by? Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?

...

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently pointed out that, before the European Conquest, the Americas were home to some 90 million indigenous people. A few hundred years later, there were 4 million.

Up to 100 million Africans died as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

Surely these also were “holocausts.”

Six million Jews were systematically murdered in what has come to be known as The Holocaust. And, although it is rarely mentioned, that diabolically efficient mass murder also took the lives of up to 5 million political prisoners, trade unionists, communists, gays and Roma people. Truly, this was one of the world's great atrocities – an atrocity committed in Europe, by Europeans, against Europeans.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. Or Iran.

So why, after being elevated to a status above all other mass murders in history, is it used to justify the establishment of what basically is a European colony on Arab land?

Ahmadinejad isn't calling the Holocaust a myth – he's asking why the mythology that has been built up around it is used as a weapon against the Palestinian people and those who support their struggle for self-determination.

Iran has oil

Iran has a lot of oil. And that oil has been off-limits to the world's private oil companies since it was nationalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Huge potential profits are at stake. Further, whoever controls the flow of oil – whether or not that involves actual ownership – can control the development of world production, commerce and politics. And the U.S is determined that, rather than allow a multi-polar world to develop, it will be the only country to play that role.

Tasks facing the U.S. anti-war movement

After an unfortunate year-long ebb, the anti-war movement in the U.S. is again beginning to show signs of life. This October there will be many local and regional protests against the U.S-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most will also address the expanding war in Pakistan and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

While some of these protests also will demand no war against Iran, there seems to be less enthusiasm for addressing this issue. The barrage of media attacks, charges and misinformation has taken its toll. The controversy around the Iranian presidential elections and their aftermath have also played a role. Taken together, these factors have to a certain extent disarmed the anti-war movement, even as the possibility of a new war grows ever more serious.

Now is the time to reaffirm this one simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny. It has the right to determine its own form of government, choose its own leaders, decide on its own relations with the rest of the world. And the U.S., as the world's foremost imperialist power, ought to be the last country on earth to presume to dictate to any other how to conduct itself.

It's not necessary to agree with every pronouncement of the leaders of oppressed countries in order to demand loudly and determinedly “No war, sanctions or internal interference!” If we were anti-slavery activists in the 1800s, would we stand by as Nat Turner or John Brown were about to be hung, arguing about tactics or controversial statements? Or would we defend the oppressed and their defenders?
This is how we need to approach the issue of defending Iran.

This October, as we denounce the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people, we must also raise our voices loud and clear to demand “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”

Phil Wilayto, is a writer and organizer based in Richmond, Virginia, USA. A civilian organizer in the Vietnam-era GI Movement, he is the author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic” (December 2008) and “An Open Letter to the Anti-War Movement: How should we respond to the events in Iran?” (June 2009) He can be reached at DefendersFJE@hotmail.com.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15456

worlds beyond

29-09-2009, 11:37 PM

"Iran chides U.N.'s Ban over nuclear comments

Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:51pm EDT
By Patrick Worsnip

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran chided U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for criticizing its disclosure of a new nuclear plant, saying he was repeating "baseless" Western charges and should have awaited the views of U.N. experts.

At a meeting on Friday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ban expressed "grave concern" about the uranium enrichment plant that is being built south of the Iranian capital, according to Ban's press office.

His view echoed those of U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In a statement released to media on Tuesday, Iran's U.N. mission said Ahmadinejad had responded by saying Ban had forestalled the opinions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Ahmadinejad "said it is of grave concern that the U.N. Secretary-General, instead of waiting for the IAEA, as the competent body, to reflect on this issue ... has chosen to repeat the same allegations that (a) few Western powers are making," the statement said.

Western powers have accused Tehran of concealing the nuclear plant until it was about to be discovered and repeated their worries the enriched uranium will be used to build atomic weapons. Iran says it only aims to produce electricity.

Ahmadinejad also had dismissed "baseless allegations of concealment" and said Iran had informed the IAEA of the plant a year earlier than it was obliged to under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the statement said. Ahmadinejad made similar comments at a news conference in New York on Friday.

"Iran has acted with utmost transparency in this regard and it should be encouraged for having done so instead of being unfairly criticized," the statement said.

GENEVA TALKS

Asked at a news conference about the Iranian criticisms, Ban repeated his view that the Iranian plant violated U.N. Security Council resolutions, which have called on Tehran to halt enrichment. Iran says it has the right to do so.

"I know that ... (the Iranians) have informed the IAEA on September 21st about the existence of this, but then what has happened before September 21st while this facility was being constructed?," Ban said.

"Therefore there is clearly a question of transparency," he said, adding that Tehran should have notified the U.N. watchdog "long before."

Iran has said it is willing to let the IAEA inspect the facility, located near the city of Qom. Ban said he hoped the issue would be resolved through dialogue, with IAEA involvement.

Iranian officials and representatives of six major powers, including the United States, China and Russia, will hold talks on Tehran's nuclear ambitions in Geneva on Thursday.

Later on Tuesday, Ban met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and said he told him Iran faced "suspicion and distrust," but that the United Nations was ready to help Tehran "find some proper place in the international community" if it came clean about its nuclear program. Continued..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58S4RY20090929

mind1universe

29-09-2009, 11:42 PM

STOP SPAMMING.

This has been going on for 4 years now. The reason they still are is because they can't get a war to start. There is no place for war on this world. Nobody is attracting it.

So kindlu stop feeding the trolls. The only way someone knows this is because the guy/girl is watching news reports and governments speeches on this.

Think
Feel
and be aware of what your creating.

If you want war, keep these threads operational.
If you want peace then keep bringing balance forward.

rollotomaz1

30-09-2009, 12:46 AM

Here is an intresting theory about wars and how they have thought about it in the past, a series of 12.

*Rare Video* Part 3 Iron Mountain Report - YouTube

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:07 AM

"Iran says will not discuss second nuclear plant
Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:39am EDT

TEHRAN/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran said on Tuesday it would not discuss a previously secret nuclear plant at international talks this week but Washington vowed to bring it up and demanded Tehran prove it is not developing an atomic weapon.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, asked about Iran's insistence it would not discuss the facility in the Geneva talks, declared: "They may not, but we will."

Iranian officials and representatives of six major powers, including the United States, China and Russia, will hold talks on Tehran's nuclear ambitions in Geneva on Thursday. It is the first such encounter since U.S. President Barack Obama took office early this year promising more active U.S. diplomacy.

Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, made clear that Iran feels the newly disclosed uranium enrichment plant is off-limits for discussion.

"We are not going to discuss anything related to our nuclear rights, but we can discuss about disarmament, we can discuss about non-proliferation and other general issues," Salehi told a news conference.

"The new site is part of our rights and there is no need to discuss it," he said, adding Tehran would not abandon its nuclear activities "even for a second."

The back-and-forth suggested a tense atmosphere and little optimism ahead for the talks, after U.S. President Barack Obama joined with leaders of Britain and France last week to disclose the existence of the Iranian plant and call on Tehran to let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect it.

Iran's IRNA news agency quoted MP Mohammad Karamirad, a conservative and member of parliament's foreign policy and national security commission, as saying Iran could close the door completely to cooperation with world nuclear authorities.

POSSIBLE NEW SANCTIONS

"If the Zionists and America continue their pressure on Iran and if the talks...do not reach a conclusion, then parliament will take a clear and transparent position, such as Iran's withdrawal from the NPT," he said.

Washington has suggested possible new sanctions on banking and the oil and gas industry if Tehran fails to assuage Western fears it seeks nuclear weapons. U.S. officials believe sanctions could now have more effect, playing on leadership divisions evident since a disputed Iranian presidential poll.

Gibbs, at a White House briefing, said the onus was on Iran "to demonstrate visibly for the world that they have a peaceful nuclear program designed for power and energy rather than a secret program to develop a nuclear weapon."

The United States and its Western allies have made clear they will focus on Iran's nuclear program at the Geneva meeting. Iran has offered wide-ranging security talks.

"My expectation, or my hope, is that we will be able to get...the guarantees from Tehran, that the program in which they are engaged in is a peaceful program," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told reporters in Gothenburg, Sweden.

"I don't think it will be easy to ask for, but we will continue to engage." Continued..."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLT56449320090930

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:11 AM

?????Hey????

hmm.. don't agree this thread is spamming... does anybody else feel it is??

Nor am I a "troll" (nor feeding any trolls).... to my knowledge.

much less am I "wanting war" by posting the news on this very serious issue ...

Am somewhat perplexed and saddened by your comments towards me... especially that by posting what is going on (whether MSM or alt news) is somehow "creating" the war....

I thought this was a "NEWS" thread.. and thought that was the point of this sub forum... to post 'news' ?!

STOP SPAMMING.

This has been going on for 4 years now. The reason they still are is because they can't get a war to start. There is no place for war on this world. Nobody is attracting it.

So kindlu stop feeding the trolls. The only way someone knows this is because the guy/girl is watching news reports and governments speeches on this.

Think
Feel
and be aware of what your creating.

If you want war, keep these threads operational.
If you want peace then keep bringing balance forward.

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:13 AM

"US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn’t Add Up

by Gareth Porter, September 30, 2009

Antiwar Forum

The story line that dominated media coverage of the second Iranian uranium enrichment facility last week was the official assertion that U.S. intelligence had caught Iran trying to conceal a "secret" nuclear facility.

But an analysis of the transcript of that briefing by senior administration officials that was the sole basis for the news stories and other evidence reveals damaging admissions, conflicts with the facts, and unanswered questions that undermine its credibility.

Iran’s notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the second enrichment facility in a letter on Sept. 21 was buried deep in most of the news stories and explained as a response to being detected by U.S. intelligence. In reporting the story in that way, journalists were relying entirely on the testimony of "senior administration officials" who briefed them at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh Friday.

U.S. intelligence had "learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised," one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because "they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid."

Later in the briefing, however, the official said "we believe," rather than "we learned," in referring to that claim, indicating that it is only an inference rather than being based on hard intelligence.

The official refused to explain how U.S. analysts had arrived at that conclusion, but an analysis by the defense intelligence consulting firm IHS Jane’s of a satellite photo of the site taken Saturday said there is a surface-to-air missile system located at the site.

Since surface-to-air missiles protect many Iranian military sites, however, their presence at the Qom site doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran believed that Washington had just discovered the enrichment plant.

The official said the administration had organized an intelligence briefing on the facility for the IAEA during the summer on the assumption that the Iranians might "choose to disclose the facility themselves." But he offered no explanation for the fact that there had been no briefing given to the IAEA or anyone else until Sept. 24 – three days after the Iranians disclosed the existence of the facility.

A major question surrounding the official story is why the Barack Obama administration had not done anything – and apparently had no plans to do anything – with its intelligence on the Iranian facility at Qom prior to the Iranian letter to the IAEA. When asked whether the administration had intended to keep the information in its intelligence briefing secret even after the meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1, the senior official answered obliquely but revealingly, "I think it’s impossible to turn back the clock and say what might have been otherwise."

In effect, the answer was no, there had been no plan for briefing the IAEA or anyone.

News media played up the statement by the senior administration official that U.S. intelligence had been "aware of this facility for years."

But what was not reported was that he meant only that the U.S. was aware of a possible nuclear site, not one whose function was known.

The official in question acknowledged the analysts had not been able to identify it as an enrichment facility for a long time. In the "very early stage of construction," said the official, "a facility like this could have multiple uses." Intelligence analysts had to "wait until the facility had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended for use as a centrifuge facility," he explained.

The fact that the administration had made no move to brief the IAEA or other governments on the site before Iran revealed its existence suggests that site had not yet reached that stage where the evidence was unambiguous.

A former U.S. official who has seen the summary of the administration’s intelligence used to brief foreign governments told IPS he doubts the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Qom site was an enrichment plant. "I think they didn’t have the goods on them," he said.

Also misleading was the official briefing’s characterization of the intelligence assessment on the purpose of the enrichment plant. The briefing concluded that the Qom facility must be for production of weapons-grade enriched uranium, because it will accommodate only 3,000 centrifuges, which would be too few to provide fuel for a nuclear power plant.

According to the former U.S. official who has read the briefing paper on the intelligence assessment, however, the paper says explicitly that the Qom facility is "a possible military facility." That language indicates that intelligence analysts have suggested that the facility may be for making low-enriched rather than for high-enriched, bomb-grade uranium.

It also implies that the senior administration official briefing the press was deliberately portraying the new enrichment facility in more menacing terms than the actual intelligence assessment.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offer the day after the denunciation of the site by U.S., British, and French leaders to allow IAEA monitoring of the plant will make it far more difficult to argue that it was meant to serve military purposes.

The circumstantial evidence suggests that Iran never intended to keep the Qom facility secret from the IAEA but was waiting to make it public at a moment that served its political-diplomatic objectives.

The Iranian government is well aware of U.S. capabilities for monitoring from satellite photographs any site in Iran that exhibits certain characteristics.

Iran obviously wanted to make the existence of the Qom site public before construction on the site would clearly indicate an enrichment purpose. But it gave the IAEA no details in its initial announcement, evidently hoping to find out whether and how much the United States already knew about it.

The specific timing of the Iranian letter, however, appears to be related to the upcoming talks between Iran and the P5+1 – China, France, Britain, Russia, the United States, and Germany – and an emerging Iranian strategy of smaller back-up nuclear facilities that would assure continuity if Natanz were attacked.

The Iranian announcement of that decision on Sept. 14 coincided with a statement by the head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, warning against preemptive strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities.

The day after the United States, Britain, and France denounced the Qom facility as part of a deception, Salehi said, "Considering the threats, our organization decided to do what is necessary to preserve and continue our nuclear activities. So we decided to build new installations which will guarantee the continuation of our nuclear activities which will never stop at any cost."

As satellite photos of the site show, the enrichment facility at Qom is being built into the side of a mountain, making it less vulnerable to destruction, even with the latest bunker-busting U.S. bombs.

The pro-administration newspaper Kayhan quoted an "informed official" as saying that Iran had told the IAEA in 2004 that it had to do something about the threat of attack on its nuclear facilities "repeatedly posed by the Western countries."

The government newspaper called the existence of the second uranium enrichment plan "a winning card" that would increase Iran’s bargaining power in the talks. That presumably referred to neutralizing the ultimate coercive threat against Iran by the United States."

(Inter Press Service)

wakeup2nwo

30-09-2009, 10:20 AM

ron paul seems to think were going to war with iran

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

runciter

30-09-2009, 10:26 AM

ron paul seems to think were going to war with iran

ron paul is a mason

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

ahmadinejad is a mason

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SNlhCvDC5vI/AAAAAAAAWC4/k42xxjQQzsI/s400/mahmoud+king.jpg

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 12:30 PM

"China, U.S. risk rifts in Middle East:
...former Chinese envoy

Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:41am EDT

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING (Reuters) - China and the United States risk deepening rifts over influence and oil in the Middle East, Beijing's former envoy to the region has said, urging his nation to bolster ties with Iran and other energy-exporting powers.

Sun Bigan was China's special envoy on the Middle East until March, and in a new essay he said U.S. President Barack Obama's effort to improve ties with Islamic states in the Middle East was a tactical shift that had not removed the potential for friction between Washington and Beijing in the region.

China faced growing risks to energy security as it increasingly relied on imported oil, especially from the volatile Middle East, where Beijing's sway had been limited, Sun said.

"The U.S. has always sought to control the faucet of global oil supplies. There is cooperation between China and the U.S., but there is also struggle, and the U.S. has always seen us as a potential foe," he wrote in the September issue of "Asia & Africa Review," which reached subscribers this week.

"Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable. We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security," Sun wrote in the Chinese-language journal, which is published by the State Council Development Research Center, a prominent state think tank.

Sun's essay was written before the latest flare-up over Iran's nuclear ambitions, which has renewed Western pressure on Beijing to distance itself from Iran and back sanctions.

China's Foreign Ministry has urged restraint on all sides ahead of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as Germany, in Geneva on Thursday. The permanent Council members are the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China.

Sun, who now works for a government-run association promoting ties with Asia and Africa, was not directly involved in nuclear negotiations with Iran, but he served as China's ambassador there, as well as in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

He could not be contacted at the association on Wednesday.

BLUNT WARNING

The unusually blunt warning from a former senior diplomat, nonetheless underscores some of the anxieties over oil, influence and security that are likely to shape China's response to the West's confrontation with Iran.

"Both now and in the future, the Middle East should be our first choice in importing oil and developing oil cooperation," Sun wrote. China should focus on strengthening trade with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Oman, he added.

Washington would strive to ensure Iraqi oil remained under U.S. control, he said, but "Iran has bountiful energy resources and its oil gas reserves are the second biggest in the world, and all are basically under its own control."

"Oil gas" is the natural gas found in oil fields.

In the first eight months of this year, Iran was China's third biggest foreign source of crude oil, with shipments of 17.2 million tonnes, a rise of 14.7 percent compared to the same period last year. Angola and Saudi Arabia were the first- and second-ranked suppliers. Continued......."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE58T0Z420090930

wakeup2nwo

30-09-2009, 07:25 PM

Why Iran? ... Why not Iran?! (9.2009) - YouTube

wakeup2nwo

30-09-2009, 07:40 PM

ron paul is a mason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P1rxW1TJ0c&feature=related

ahmadinejad is a mason

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SNlhCvDC5vI/AAAAAAAAWC4/k42xxjQQzsI/s400/mahmoud+king.jpg

Ive never known what to think about Ron Paul, i had my doubts about him, is there a thread exposing him on this forum? he seems to be playing the saviour in all this but ive herd him slating 911 truth before witch led me to think of him as a go between, like Glen beck.. what people say there gonna do and what they do are two different things and ron paul hasn't done anything good as of yet as far has i can see.
he talks a good talk knowing they aint gonna listen but so did obama before he was elected, does anyone see ron paul being elected in 2012 as the saviour?

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:29 PM

I always check news on all 'sides' ..... and according to Jerusalem Post....

"Sep 30, 2009 20:25 | Updated Sep 30, 2009 20:31

'US Jews back military strike on Iran'

By HAVIV RETTIG GUR

A majority of American Jews support military action against Iran to prevent the Teheran regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, a new study claims.

A ballistic missile is displayed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, in front of a picture of late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini during a military parade ceremony just outside Teheran, Iran.
Photo: AP

Asked if they would support American military action, 56% of American Jews said they would, while just 36% opposed it, according to the American Jewish Committee's 2009 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion.

An even greater number support Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear program, with 66% in favor and just 28% against.

The survey, which polled 800 representative American Jews and was conducted by Synovate between August 30 and September 17, also dealt with US-Israeli relations, worries over anti-Semitism and identity.

It found that a majority of American Jews oppose the Obama administration's recent policy of demanding a total Israeli settlement freeze, but this did not translate into support for keeping these settlements in the long term.

While 51% oppose the American freeze demand (though a substantial 41% agree with it), fully 60% said Israel should dismantle all (8%) or some (52%) of the West Bank settlements in the context of a permanent settlement with the Palestinians.

Despite any criticism, however, American Jews believe that Israeli-American relations were being handled well by the two country's leaders. The Obama administration received 54% approval, compared to 32% disapproval, in its handling of this relationship while Netanyahu garnered a slightly better 59%-23%.

In general, the vast majority of respondents believe US-Israeli relations are strong, with 81% saying they were either "very" or "somewhat" positive and just 16% disagreeing.

Asked about the prospects for peace, three-quarters of the respondents expressed profound skepticism over Arab intentions, saying they agreed with the statement "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel." Just 19% disagreed.

Thus it is perhaps not surprising that 51% do not believe there will ever "come a time when Israel and its Arab neighbors will be able to settle their differences and live in peace." That pessimism rises substantially, to 79%, when the Palestinian side of the equation is Hamas. Just 17% think peace is achievable between Israel and Hamas.

But the pessimism is not reflective of their hopes. American Jews favor a Palestinian state, even "in the current situation," by a factor of 49-41, through they are opposed (58 to 37) to compromising on Israeli jurisdiction over Jerusalem.

The survey briefly delved into questions of identification.

Asked for their political affiliations, respondents revealed the expected overwhelming identification with the Left and Center. Fully 53% said they were Democrats, 30% Independent and just 16% Republicans.

As for religious affiliation, 27% said they were Reform, 24% Conservative, 9% Orthodox and 2% Reconstructionist. But the most popular answer, at 36%, was "just Jewish."

Jewishness was important to the respondents, with 51% saying it was "very important" in their lives, 33% "fairly important" and just 15% "not very important."

This Jewish identification, however, did not necessarily translate into a feeling of connection with Israel. Just 28% said they felt "very close," 41% "fairly close," and fully 30% were either "fairly distant" or "very distant."

The survey had a margin of error of 3%. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1254163553245

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:35 PM

"No credible evidence' of Iranian nuclear weapons, says UN inspector

Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran was 'on the wrong side of the law' but rejects British intelligence claims

Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk

Wednesday 30 September 2009 18.51 BST

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said British claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme were unfounded. Photograph: Roland Schlager/EPA

The UN's chief weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, said today he had seen "no credible evidence" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, rejecting British intelligence allegations that a weapons programme has been going on for at least four years.

The claims and counter-claims came on the eve of a potentially decisive meeting in Geneva between diplomats from six world powers and an Iranian delegation about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran insists its programme is for peaceful purposes, and that there is nothing illegal about a uranium enrichment plant under construction near the city of Qom, the existence of which was revealed last week. Iranian leaders say they did not have to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until six months before the first uranium was processed.

But ElBaradei, the outgoing IAEA director general, publicly disagreed today, saying Iran had been under an obligation to tell the agency "on the day it was decided to construct the facility". He said the Iranian government was "on the wrong side of the law".

However, ElBaradei rejected British intelligence claims that Iran had reactivated its weapons programme at least four years ago. By making the claims the UK broke with the official US intelligence position that Iranian work on developing a warhead probably stopped in 2003. They said that even if there was a halt, as reported in a US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) two years ago, the programme restarted in late 2004 or early 2005.

British officials had been privately sceptical about the NIE finding since its publication in 2007, but this was the first time they had made detailed allegations about Iran's weapons programme.

BND, the German intelligence organisation, this year provided evidence in a court case saying it believed weapons work in Iran had continued after 2003. A leaked internal memo written by the IAEA also found that Iran probably had "sufficient information" to build a bomb, and that it had "probably tested" a high-explosive component of a nuclear warhead.

ElBaradei has angrily rejected claims from Israel, France and the US that he had suppressed the internal IAEA report, saying all relevant and confirmed information had been presented to member states.

Tomorrow's talks will take place in a secluded villa on the edge of Geneva. The Iranian delegation will be led by its chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, who at a similar meeting in Switzerland last year delivered a lecture more than two hours long about recent Iranian history and the global balance of power. But he refused to discuss Iran's nuclear programme.

Iranian officials say its programme remains non-negotiable, despite five UN security council resolutions calling for Iran to suspend enrichment. Western negotiators say they will push for a date for an IAEA inspection of the Qom uranium plant, and further concrete steps from the Iranian government to restore international confidence in the peaceful purpose of its programme. Failing that, multilateral talks will start on the imposition of more sanctions.

The Kremlin said today that the Russian position on sanctions would depend on the degree of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA. However, Russia and China are expected to resist the far-reaching measures aimed at Iran's energy sector being promoted by the US, Britain and France."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/iranian-nuclear-weapons-mohamed-elbaradei

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:40 PM

"Developing its Advanced Weapons Arsenal: Israel Takes Delivery of 2 German-Built U212 Subs

by Agence France-Presse

Global Research, September 30, 2009
DefenseNews - 2009-09-29

JERUSALEM -- Israel has taken delivery of two German-built submarines, a military spokesman said Sept. 29.

"We have received two Dolphin-class submarines," he said on condition of anonymity.

The submarines, called U212s, can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, although when it confirmed the sale in 2006 the German government said the two vessels were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.

Delivery was initially expected in 2010.

Including the new subs, Israel has five German submarines - the most expensive weapon platforms in Israel's arsenal.
....
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the U212s are designed for a crew of 35, have a range of 2,810 miles and can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Israeli media have written that the Dolphin submarine could be key in any attack on Iran's controversial nuclear sites.

An Israeli submarine recently used the Suez Canal for the first time in June, escorted by Egyptian navy vessels, in what Israeli media said was intended as a message to Iran.

Widely considered the Middle East's sole, if undeclared, nuclear power, Israel suspects Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, a charge Tehran denies."

Global Research Articles by Agence France-Presse

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15466

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 08:51 PM

" Jeremy HaftAuthor, China issues expert, businessman and member of the Council on Foreign Relations

Posted: September 30, 2009 12:38 PM

Don't Misread Iran and China
Actually, Iran's rise is really bad news for China. China's economy can't grow without oil. And most of China's oil is imported. Its top oil source is Saudi Arabia. Its second is Iran.

The only way the oil can get to China by sea is through the Persian Gulf into the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Iran sits on the Strait's northern shore. Any armed conflict with Iran would effectively shut down the shipping lanes and put a serious crimp on China's oil supply. Very bad for Chinese national security.

China is taking a very risky gamble on Iran. It has bet the economic farm on a stable Middle East, yet its second largest oil supplier is the region's most de-stabilizing force. China doesn't hold all the cards in this game. In fact, they're all in, and very exposed.

China desperately needs the rise of a peaceful Iran -- not an adventurist, militaristic Iran. Here, the US and China's national interests strongly align. We must work together with the Chinese at the coming G-5 plus 1 talks to corral Iran's weak regime into becoming the kind of regional actor that is safe for China's energy security, and therefore safe for the world.

Remember, sanctions that bite Iran will bite China, too. To work at odds with China, which still holds a lot more leverage over Iran than we do, would be a near guarantee of failure.

Related News On Huffington Post:
China Opposes Iran Sanctions Sought By U.S.
BEIJING China will not support increased sanctions on Iran as a way to curb its nuclear program, a government spokeswoman said Thursday... "

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-haft/dont-misread-iran-and-chi_b_304438.html

wakeup2nwo

30-09-2009, 09:01 PM

thanks for all the info worlds beyond so what do you think is occurring? i see the U.S making the same accusations as they did with north Korea a few months back, nothing happened there, the way i see it is that Iran and north Korea are against the NWO and are under attack by the elite to become part of a global empire?
whats your thoughts worlds beyond?

worlds beyond

30-09-2009, 09:26 PM

I agree in part, that Iran (as with certain other Middle Eastern countries especially) will not cow-tow to US/West, therefore become a target of US/Western aggression etc. But I also think this involves underlying issues of resources, Oil being a major factor, along with Dollar, having outright control over Nuclear arms, not to mention the Israeli 'need' to target Iran.

There are many layers to this.. and I do not know all the answers... but I do know this has been in the pipeline for a long time, and it appears that now is the time they are going to start kicking it off for real.

I knew someone for many, many years, a gentleman of the utmost integrity, intelligence and also extremely knowlegable... he was also very close to and involved with a certain "elite" group (who shall remain nameless).... anyway.. one day (about 15 years ago) we were privately discussing something rather esoteric.. and he suddenly told me (in no uncertain terms) that WWIII was already planned out and would be kicked off between Israel and Iran... ... I know.. I cannot provide any evidence of him, or his links, or the conversation, but I can promise you this is truth, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt this man's word.

He actually 'knew' this would happen... it wasn't his opinion or theory as such, or his beliefs or anything. He just knew it as fact and took it as such, even arranging things in his life taking this future 'fact' into account (he said he knew it would happen in his lifetime). He was no drama queen, extremely down to earth and logical, and not given to flights of fancy or anything. He was absolutely definite and very clear, it would be Israel and Iran, not ANY other Middle Eastern countries that would start this off.

So, there you go. Make of it what you will. I'm not trying to scare anyone. There are a thousand things that could take any one of us at any given moment. WWIII should be no surprise to anyone. There is conflict almost constantly on this planet... I often wonder... what have humans ever really, truly learned...........???

thanks for all the info worlds beyond so what do you think is occurring? i see the U.S making the same accusations as they did with north Korea a few months back, nothing happened there, the way i see it is that Iran and north Korea are against the NWO and are under attack by the elite to become part of a global empire?
whats your thoughts worlds beyond?

kblood

01-10-2009, 12:33 AM

Should it come to war though, China would have no choice but to aid Iran. Anything else would be giving away a major source of oil to the US. I believe China in some ways agreed with the war against Iraq. Probably some agreement made. I doubt China would want to loose Iran as an oil source though, but the war would be hamper income for them as well. So avoiding war would probably be of great interest to them.

worlds beyond

01-10-2009, 09:14 AM

"Turkey against economic sanctions against Iran, says FM

www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-01 15:12:47

ANKARA, Oct. 1 (Xinhua) -- Turkish foreign minister said economic sanctions against Iran will not produce any results and that Turkey does not want its region to face a new armed clash regardless of the source of the tension, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported late Wednesday.

Turkey attaches importance to diplomatic means which will not require those sanctions in tackling the Ian nuclear issue, Ahmet Davutoglu told a press conference.

The minister said Turkey would be one of the countries most harmed by a sanction against Iran.

He said the Iran nuclear issue should be solved only by diplomatic means instead of military ones, which is one of Turkey's basic principles on the issue.

Turkey was against limiting a country's right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, he said.

"It is an obligation, not only a right, (to make peaceful use of nuclear technology) especially for the countries which do not have natural energy resources," Davutoglu was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, countries must pursue nuclear activities within the scope of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and exert every effort to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, he said.

Iran and six major powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- will meet on Oct. 1 in Geneva to resume international efforts to settle Iran's nuclear issue after a 2008 session ended without substantive progress.

The United States and its allies have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear program, while Iran has denied the U.S. charges and insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

The United Nations Security Council has so far levied three rounds of sanctions on Iran. "

Special Report: Iran Nuclear Crisis

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/01/content_12157876.htm

... now we just need the rest of the world to follow Turkey's lead and speak up and put a stop to the US/Israeli warmongering ....

worlds beyond

01-10-2009, 09:19 AM

"Iran Decision Time approaches for Israel

www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-01 00:32:23

by David Harris

JERUSALEM, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- Thursday sees the start of a historic process with potentially earth-shattering consequences as Iran begins official talks with six world powers about its nuclear program.

It is a process that for now is expected to be limited to three months. If it does not produce results that satisfy Israel, the Jewish state could, in the eyes of some analysts, well be tempted to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

ESTIMATING CHANCES OF SUCCESS

Six countries negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program hope the negotiations will end positively, without the need for a fresh round of sanctions. All seven governments are putting some form of positive spin on the talks.

"We, as the representatives of the Iranian nation, strongly support the talks within the framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran's package of proposals," a group of 239 Iranian lawmakers were quoted as saying by Tehran Times on Wednesday.

However, in Israel there is a distinct pessimism about the chances of success for the talks.

Menashe Amir, who heads Israel Radio's Persian Service for a quarter of a century, said "The Iranians will continue with their foot-dragging policy and I don't think these talks will lead anywhere."

If nothing is achieved by the end of the year -- the deadline set by some of Iran's interlocutors, Israel will then have to ask itself what it should do.

Israel is convinced that Iran is in the midst of a nuclear-weapons program, something Iran has always denied. Tehran insists that its nuclear plan is only for peaceful purposes. In recent years, all Israeli governments have said a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

The international community generally believes Israel has a plan up its sleeve, but thus far Israel has remained stony silent about its options.

ISRAEL'S OPTIONS

Israel's hand is fairly limited. If fresh sanctions are imposed in the new year, the United States is expected to demand Israel not attack Iran while the effectiveness of the measures is judged.

However, if Israel remains convinced that Iran is going down the path of building a nuclear arsenal, it will not matter whether the sanctions lead to Iran's agreement to allow international inspectors to its nuclear installations.

Israel will simply have to decide whether it is going to attack Iran.

While stressing he has no knowledge of Israel's plans, Amir points out that Israel has always lived up to the mantra that if its existence is challenged it will fight to defend itself.

Israel has not always waited until attacked before striking out. More relevant are Israel's actions in 1981. The country sent fighter jets over Iraq, where they destroyed the Osirak nuclear facility.

The situation in Iran is far more complex. The world learned last week of another nuclear facility -- at its northwestern city of Qom, but some believe Iran has more nuclear facilities. The San Francisco Chronicle, The Media Line news agency and others have reported over the past five years on the plethora of nuclear sites Iran is said to have.

If such claims are true the mission that Israel would have to undertake would be incredibly complicated and require pinpointed simultaneous strikes at numerous locations around Iran.

The United Arab Emirates-based military analyst Theodore Karasik believes Iran will not capitulate in the talks and Israel will launch an attack sooner or later.

That strike would be led by the Israel Air Force with possible backup from the navy, said Karasik, who is Director for Research and Development at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis.

Israel has the capability to hit numerous targets, he said, adding that the key question is whether Israel would be allowed to fly towards Iran directly or indirectly.

Assuming Israel was to successfully complete such a mission, in which it would use American-made bunker-busting bombs, its military planners would then have to consider any Iranian response.

Amir believes Iran would retaliate but that its missiles are not as sophisticated as Tehran would have the world believe and that its air force is weak.

Karasik also thinks Iran would strike back, but not only at Israeli targets. Iran, he said, would make the case that the United States was involved, whether arguing American pilots were on board Israeli jets or simply saying that Israel utilized American planes and missiles.

In the short term, Iran would close off the Strait of Hormuz for some 10 days, purely as a protest, but that act would help no one, including the Iranians, Karasik argued.

Tehran would also likely to fire missiles or some other asymmetrical weapons with limited success.

A WARNING TO THINK TWICE

It is the longer-term response that is more troubling, Karasik said.

Israeli interests would be attacked anywhere in the world, but if Tehran was to accuse the Americans or anyone else of involvement in the strikes, they could expect retaliatory action during the subsequent eight to 10 months, he suggested.

The other option for Israel is simply not to attack. Its leaders could think that eventually another Western nation would opt for that route, or they may simply say to themselves, "we have our own nuclear deterrent and we will have to learn to live with another nuclear power in the region."

This type of talk should be the preferred option, according to Shafeeq Ghabra, a professor of political science at Kuwait University.

Israel not only has conventional military superiority in the Middle East, but is widely suspected to possess nuclear weapons, including land, air and sea three-dimensional nuclear strike capability. Israeli government neither confirms nor denies its military nuclear capacity as a matter of policy.

"Attacking Iran will only add to the vengeance and radicalization in the region. Methods of counter attack are not that hard with modern technology. No one is safe," Ghabra told Xinhua.

He links the Iranian issue to that of the Israeli-Palestinian. Should Israel reach a peace deal with the Palestinians that would go a long way towards calming the region, Ghabra said.

However, that type of connection is dismissed by Israel. It points to statements made by Iran calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, something Tehran has preferred without linkage to the Palestinian question.

All of this leaves the leaders of six world powers hoping that October's talks with Iran will produce positive results that will lead to a calming of the waters. "

worlds beyond

01-10-2009, 06:40 PM

"Iran’s Nuclear Theater Meant to Divert Attention

by Ramzy Baroud

Global Research, October 1, 2009

World events have taken an interesting turn recently, with the Goldstone report, which wreaked havoc in the beginning of the week being nearly completely overshadowed by Iran’s revelation of another nuclear facility, according to diplomats in Vienna on September 25.

The Iran nuclear threat - although theater is a more suitable term - was highlighted repeatedly, first by US President Barack Obama during a UN speech on September 23, then again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day. The latter came armed with maps and relentlessly provoked Holocaust memories, following the ever so predictable, albeit insensitive and deceptive pattern.

This charade was meant to distract from the nearly 600 page UN report, prepared by South Africa judge Richard Goldstone and others, dedicated mostly to Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Confirming that Israel wantonly used weapons, including illegal weapons, against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza and going so far to say that Israel did not only commit war crimes, but indeed may have also committed crimes against humanity, the findings of the report were all set by the wayside. The report was utterly rebuked by Netanyahu and his ilk, arrogantly disregarded and shelved.

Concurrently, Israel’s official statement regarding the IAEA’s pressure on Israel to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that Israel “deplored” such a notion. The Israeli conceit may be redundant, but is as ever infuriating.

Many of Israel’s devoted supporters accused the Goldstone mission of fabricating conclusions before the investigations even came to a close.

And so yet again, Israel unhesitatingly established that they it’s above the law, promptly and successfully turning the world’s attention to the greater menace: Iran.

It seems that President Obama is also learning some painful lessons regarding the balance of power between the US and Israel, going into negotiations in Washington this past week – along with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas - with a strong stance for the complete freeze of all settlement activity, and ending with clear and potent calls for the Palestinians to continue down the road of diplomacy inspite of Israel’s refusal to consider the option of adhering to international law. In the words of Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, “No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten.”

Learning from past history, one can hardly be optimistic to expect a US victory in the second round, or anytime soon for that matter.

And thereafter, the Israeli cue was emulated, and Obama followed it to the letter. Israel’s recent use of illegal weapons on civilians, its arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and its refusal to consider disarmament paled in comparison to the potential threat that could arise should Iran seek a nuclear weapon some time in the future.

Obama’s words to Ahmedinejad and the people of Iran at the UN were decisive: “They are going to have to make a choice: Are they willing to go down the path to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons ... or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.”

This is sure to ignite a war of words, to the pleasure of Netanyahu and his extremist government.

But the outcome of this duel will certainly exceed the realm of words.

It seems that Obama’s rebuke and Netanyahu’s declarations could actually lead to the detriment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and indeed to us all, by encouraging nations who until this point do not possess nuclear weapons to expedite the creation of their own arsenal. After all, what we have learned from this episode is that nations who do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction had better get on the band-wagon and make some, for it seems that without them, they are nothing more than sitting ducks.

How ironic it is, and what a sweet-talker Netanyahu is, to successfully divert the worlds eye, ears and conscience away from what he has indeed done, to the dangerous notion of what another man with up until this point can only be branded for fiery speeches, could do some time in the future.

As for Ahmedinejad’s crusade for Iran, it could be very possible that in the end, the ones who will pay for his bold declarations will be as usual, the Palestinians, who after the scourge of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead nearly one year ago, still await the bare necessities to rebuild, still thirst for clean water and basic sustenance. Netanyahu has been tireless at drawing parallels between Iran and Gaza, presenting them both to the world as dire threats to the existence of the Jewish State. When addressing the UN in New York on September 24, he branded Iran once again, exhorting that. “The struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism. This Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism. What starts as attacks on Jews always ends up engulfing others. This regime embodies the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism.”

Interesting words from a man whose former administration and current administration could very well face the International Criminal Court for the endorsing the carrying out of crimes against humanity.

Such utterances make one wonder, just who in the world are we to trust, and who in the world are we to fear?

For the time being however, one can only hope that the international community reject all attempts to be blinded by Netanyahu’s fear mongering, and insist on a stern and decisive investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza, as presented in the Goldstone report so that the real culprits, not the imagined ones in Tehran, pay for their heinous crimes against the defenseless people of the Strip. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15496

worlds beyond

01-10-2009, 10:05 PM

John Pilger...

"The Lying Game: Drum-beating for War against Iran
How we are prepared for another war of aggression

by John Pilger

Global Research, October 1, 2009
New Statesman - 2009-09-20

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake "nuclear threat", with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.

In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist”in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush's America, Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15486

runciter

02-10-2009, 09:01 AM

Ive never known what to think about Ron Paul, i had my doubts about him, is there a thread exposing him on this forum? he seems to be playing the saviour in all this but ive herd him slating 911 truth before witch led me to think of him as a go between, like Glen beck.. what people say there gonna do and what they do are two different things and ron paul hasn't done anything good as of yet as far has i can see.
he talks a good talk knowing they aint gonna listen but so did obama before he was elected, does anyone see ron paul being elected in 2012 as the saviour?

i used to like him, but now i think he's just controlled opposition.

runciter

02-10-2009, 09:04 AM

more on ahmadinejad (click to enlarge)

http://www.whale.to/b/finger.JPG (http://bp2.blogger.com/_xf4bnaVpK4w/R8wmV_wh7aI/AAAAAAAAAD8/CMpao10bQ54/s1600-h/finger.JPG)

Here are four photos that are obvious intentional poses. Otherwise how could the photographer frame the camera to capture the index finger just at the edge like that? Pointing the finger away from the body is known in occult circles as "the sign of faith", while pointing upward is the "sign of preservation".

http://waitingtorot.blogspot.com/2007/11/12-masonic-signs-of-recognition_27.html

runciter

02-10-2009, 09:07 AM

http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/a862dc25e021c475181a8b00cf9f9473.jpg

(March 30, 2007)

In his exclusive newsletter, Icke recently wrote that Ahmadinehad seems to be playing the Illuminati game: "The propaganda war against Iran really picked up after the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the Islamic Republic in 2005. After he took office in the August he was soon making speeches that the American propagandists and spinners must have dreamed of. I cannot believe this was a fortuitous coincidence. He defeated the one-time favourite, the former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani whose reputation and record would have made it almost impossible to demonise Iran as a threat to America or anyone else."

Icke continued: "Mehdi Karroubi, a Reformist candidate seeking to open Iranian society and oppose the extremes of hardline Islam, finished a good third in the first round of voting. He then alleged that a network of mosques, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Basij militia forces had illegally generated support for Ahmadinejad and specifically named Mojtaba Khamenei, a son of the Supreme Leader Ayatolla Khamenei, as being involved in this election fraud. The Ayatollah told Karroubi that the allegations were below his dignity and he would not allow the crisis in Iran that they could cause. Karroubi wrote back, resigning from all his political posts and some Reformist newspapers were stopped from publication for publishing Karroubi's letter."

Finally Icke says: "British and American military intelligence ousted Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 in a CIA-planned coup called Operation Ajax; imposed the vicious Shah of Iran as a dictator; and then removed him for the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Why would the same forces not continue to be involved in election manipulation in Iran when they so badly needed Ahmadinejad to defeat Rafsanjani for their 'Axis of Evil' plan to work?"

http://www.savethemales.ca/001967.html

rollotomaz1

02-10-2009, 01:19 PM

The rest of the civilised world has taken down their walls, Israel builds hers higher and higher and continue to allienate the entire reigion around them, when the USA collapses from within when the oil runs out, what then, building bridges would be a much better option, once the draw bridge is lifted its only a matter of time before their food runs out and in time nature will be the absolute winner, same story same ending for everybody.

worlds beyond

04-10-2009, 09:55 PM

and now this... the level of hypocrisy and injustice re: how Iran is treated vs Israel by US and Co. and also UN et al ... it's just unbelievable.... :mad:

"Oct 3, 2009 8:41 | Updated Oct 3, 2009 15:41

'US won't make Israel disclose nukes'

By JPOST.COM STAFF

US President Barack Obama will not pressure Israel to publicly disclose its suspected nuclear weapons program, nor will he pressure the Jewish state to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, the Washington Times reported on Friday.

Obama and Netanyahu during their White House meeting in May.
Photo: AP [file]

According to unnamed officials quoted by the paper, the understanding between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reached during the first meeting between the two leaders at the White House in May.

The Times reported that there had been concern in Israel that the US president would renege on a 1969 agreement between Jerusalem and Washington, because of his focus on the Iranian nuclear threat, and his push for nonproliferation.

Speaking to Channel 2 last week, Netanyahu seemingly made reference to the nuclear understanding, stating that when Obama mentioned nuclear nonproliferation in his speech to the UN General Assembly, he was referring to North Korea and Iran, rather than Israel.

The Times also quoted an unnamed Senate staffer as saying that Obama had given Israel an "NPT treaty get out of jail free card." "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254393086509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

worlds beyond

04-10-2009, 10:05 PM

"ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast

www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-04 22:44:00

TEHRAN, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.

"This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.

ElBaradei arrived in Iran Saturday for talks with Iranian officials over Tehran's nuclear program.

Leaders of the United States, France and Britain have condemned Iran's alleged deception to the international community involving covert activities in its new underground nuclear site.

Last month, Iran confirmed that it is building a new nuclear fuel enrichment plant near its northwestern city of Qom. In reaction, the IAEA asked Tehran to provide detailed information and access to the new nuclear facility as soon as possible.

On Sunday, ElBaradei said the UN nuclear watchdog would inspect Iran's new uranium plant near Qom on Oct. 25."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm

coco

05-10-2009, 12:15 AM

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n009.html#iran

Statements of the Director General
7 September 2009 | Vienna, Austria
IAEA Board of Governors

Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
You have before you my report on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since my last report, the Agency has continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has cooperated with the Agency in improving safeguards measures at the Fuel Enrichment Plant and in providing the required access to the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak for purposes of design information verification.

On all other issues relevant to Iran´s nuclear programme, however, there is stalemate. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency´s reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme.

In this context, I should repeat that all information made available to the Agency relevant to Iran´s nuclear programme which has been critically assessed by the Agency in accordance with its standard practices has been brought to the attention of the Board. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.

In my view, there are three key areas relevant to Iran´s nuclear programme that need to be addressed.

First, and specifically, Iran needs to respond fully to all the questions raised by the Agency in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to its nuclear programme. To this end, it is essential that Iran substantively re-engage with the Agency to clarify and bring to closure all outstanding issues, including the most difficult and important questions regarding the authenticity of information relating to the alleged weaponization studies, by granting the Agency access to persons, information and locations.

I also call on those who provided the information to enable the Agency to share with Iran as much information as possible to assist the Agency in moving forward with the verification process.

Second, and more generally, Iran needs to implement the Additional Protocol. Without the Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran, especially given Iran´s past record of failing to declare material and activities.

Third, Iran´s future intentions concerning its nuclear programme need to be clarified to respond to the concerns of the international community. This is essentially a question of confidence-building between Iran and the international community through comprehensive dialogue and other measures. I call on all parties to begin this dialogue as soon as possible and urge Iran to respond positively to the recent US initiative in this regard.

coco

05-10-2009, 12:18 AM

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200918.html

IAEA Press Statements

Press Statement

IAEA Safeguards Reporting Process
28 August 2009 | In light of recent reports that suggested the IAEA was withholding information on Iran´s nuclear activities, the IAEA provides the following information regarding the preparation of reports by the IAEA Director General on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran:

All the information provided by third parties that (a) has been vetted and corroborated by the Agency in accordance with its practices, and (b) which has been authorized by the providers of such information to share with Iran, has been described to the Board of Governors in the reports of the Director General.

As a matter of course, the Agency receives information from a variety of sources that may have relevance to the implementation of safeguards. Any such information is shared by the Agency with the country concerned, and as appropriate, with the Board of Governors only after it has been vetted in accordance with the Agency´s practices. There is currently no other information on Iran available to the Agency which has completed this process.

The Secretariat´s safeguards conclusions for a State are reached through the implementation of the State´s Safeguards Agreement and (if the State has one in force) Additional Protocol. In addition, as part of the process, the Secretariat also analyses information it receives/acquires from a variety of sources. The Agency has limited means to determine the veracity of such information independently. Nevertheless, such information is critically assessed, in accordance with the Agency´s practices, by corroborating it, inter alia, with information available to the Agency from other sources and from its own findings. To the extent possible, the Agency shares such information with the State concerned with a view to obtaining clarification. This process is strictly based on the rights and obligations of the Secretariat enshrined in the safeguards agreement (and Additional Protocol) with the State, and in certain cases in pursuance of a pertinent request of the Security Council. Details on the Agency´s inspection and verification methods are to be found on its Web Site.

It goes without saying that not all technical details can be presented in the reports. Instead, the reports provide a comprehensive and cohesive picture of the implementation of safeguards in the country concerned, enabling the Board of Governors to consider the Secretariat´s conclusions and agree on follow-up action as appropriate. The Board´s work is further facilitated through technical briefings restricted to Member States only, where the Secretariat provides amplifications of the technical details contained in the reports and responds to questions.

The Secretariat´s reports are the product of an integrated team of experts and agreed to by all relevant members of the Secretariat and, of course, the Director General. Drafting any such report is an iterative process and, as with all its reports, the Secretariat goes through several different drafts with a view to assuring technical quality. This is to ensure that, at the end of a thorough discussion and assessment among all staff involved in the process, the Board of Governors will be presented with a product that is transparent, objective, balanced and factually correct.

coco

05-10-2009, 12:26 AM

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html

IAEA Press Statements

Press Statement

Recent Media Report on Iran
17 September 2009 | With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.

At the Board of Governors´ meeting on 9 September 2009, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned that continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless.

The Agency receives information from a variety of sources that may have relevance to the implementation of safeguards. All such information is critically assessed by a team of experts working collectively in accordance with the Agency´s practices.

The IAEA reiterates that all relevant information and assessments that have gone through the above process have already been provided to the IAEA Board of Governors in reports of the Director General.

Press Contacts
Press Office
Division of Public Information
[43-1] 2600-21273
press at iaea.org

About the IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) serves as the world's foremost intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Established as an autonomous organization under the United Nations (UN) in 1957, the IAEA carries out programmes to maximize the useful contribution of nuclear technology to society while verifying its peaceful use.

NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information visit the Press Section of the IAEA's website (http://www.iaea.org/Resources/Journalists/), or call the IAEA's Division of Public Information at (431) 2600-21270.

coco

05-10-2009, 12:40 AM

[Emphasis by Coco]

http://www.takimag.com/article/fool_me_twice1/

Iran Fool Me Twice?
by Paul Craig Roberts on October 02, 2009

Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the “mainstream media” about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.

The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the U.S. government.

Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.

As there is no real case against Iran, Barack Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.

First the facts: As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.

In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on Sept. 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on Sept. 25 that Iran has been caught with a “secret nuclear facility” with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility.

Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion.

The U.S. media, even the “liberal” National Public Radio, quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine. Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be “a secret nuclear facility.”

Thomma reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s “secret” facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkoszy.

Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of “mainstream media” reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on Sept. 21.

Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: “The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide.”

Dareini goes on to write that “the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday.” Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.

Dareini’s untruthful report of “a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years” helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm.

There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best—lying through their teeth. The U.S. “mainstream media” repeats the lies as if they were facts. The U.S. “media” is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the U.S. government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the U.S. and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (Sept. 7, 2009) the baseless “accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.”

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the nonexistent “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons.

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama regime.

Like the Bush regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama regime is based in lies and deception.

Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

Anders Lindman

05-10-2009, 12:52 AM

The supposed Iran - Israel conflict is just a charade for the masses. This is what we need to explain to people. So that we no longer can be played against each other.

coco

05-10-2009, 12:58 AM

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/

Jim Traficant vs. AIPAC, Round II
by Devin Reid Saucier on October 01, 2009

In Round I, Greta van Susteren stood in AIPAC’s corner and responded to Congressman Traficant’s claims with softballs like “Israel is a democracy and our ally, right?” and “Are you an anti-Semite?”

This time, Traficant entered the heavyweight division and took on Sean Hannity. Unlike Greta, Hannity came prepared with these heavy-hitters:

“These remarks sound like the conspiratorial, anti-Semitic remarks of people that we have heard from over the years.”

“That’s insane.”

“That’s conspiratorial, nut-job stuff.”

“To suggest, as you’re doing here tonight, that they control our Congress… is an absurdity! It sounds like you are a kook!”

Skip ahead to 4:00 when the real swinging starts.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

worlds beyond

06-10-2009, 10:43 AM

"October 6, 2009
Ritter on Iran
Scott Ritter challenges idea that Iran is close to producing a nuclear weapon"

video interview....

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4305&updaterx=2009-10-06+02%3A36%3A14

worlds beyond

06-10-2009, 01:27 PM

"Oct 6, 2009 1:43 | Updated Oct 6, 2009 4:52

US may leave PAC3 systems in Israel

By YAAKOV KATZ

Israel and the US are in talks regarding the possibility that America will leave several Patriot 3 missile defense systems behind, following a joint missile defense exercise that will begin next week, defense officials said Monday.

The Patriot (PAC) 3 system.
Photo: AP

The Juniper Cobra exercise will begin next week in southern Israel, where US and Israeli forces will run simulations on various threat scenarios involving missile attacks against Israel.

Ahead of the exercise, some 15 US Navy ships have arrived in Israel, in addition to about a dozen transport planes that brought equipment to air force bases in the Negev.

This year's drill is being described as the largest joint exercise ever held by the countries. During it they will jointly test four ballistic missile defense systems - the Israeli Arrow 2, the ship-based Aegis, the high-altitude THAAD and the Patriot (PAC) 3 systems. This is the first time that all of these systems are deployed here.

Israeli defense officials said that there were ongoing talks between the sides regarding the possibility that the US would leave several of the PAC3 systems behind following the drills.

"There are talks about this possibility and the Americans will likely decide to leave the PAC3 systems here after the exercise," one official said.

Juniper Cobra, senior defense officials said this week, is aimed at creating infrastructure in case Israel is attacked and the US decides to send the Aegis or THAAD to bolster the Arrow. The exercise spans several days and involves hundreds of Israeli and American soldiers, mostly from the air force.

The primary focus of the Juniper Cobra exercise held in 2007, for example, was integrating the lower-altitude US Patriot missile systems with the higher-altitude Arrow 2. This year, the integration will focus on improving the interoperability between the Arrow, THAAD and Aegis.

Ahead of the 1991 Gulf War, the first Bush administration sent Patriot missile batteries to help defend the country against Saddam Hussein's Scud missile attacks, and last October, the second Bush administration gave Israel a farewell gift in the form of the X-Band radar, which is deployed in the Negev and is capable of detecting targets thousands of miles away, providing five to seven minutes of warning before an Iranian missile strikes. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254756249260&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

coco

06-10-2009, 04:18 PM

worlds beyond

07-10-2009, 09:07 PM

According to Israeli media, US 'may' be planning to bomb Iran (or North Korea!)...

"Oct 7, 2009 10:01 | Updated Oct 7, 2009 15:49

'US may be planning to bomb Iran'

By JPOST.COM STAFF

Article's topics: Iranian Nuclear Threat, Pentagon

The US could be in the process of accelerating provisions for a possible attack on Iran, according to an ABC News report published Tuesday.

Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
Photo: AP [file]

The report cited a recent Pentagon decision to push for funding to build a "gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)," originally planned for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon's 2009 request, which was approved last week, was published by ABC, as well as the previous 2007 request.

To explain why the bomb was needed at this juncture, the Pentagon only said, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." ABC noted that the departments which requested the MOP had responsibility over North Korea and Iran.

The report also stated that this weapon would be "ideally suited" for a strike on Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, or the recently revealed plant at Qom.

US aerospace manufacturer and defense contractor McDonnell Douglas received a $51.9 million contract to build the four MOPs, the report said."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861887735&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

worlds beyond

07-10-2009, 09:12 PM

from US media.. part of article below...

"Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?

Is the U.S. Stepping Up Preparations for a Possible Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities?

By JONATHAN KARL
Oct. 6, 2009

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been sparring with President Obama over whether Iran is developing the technology to build nuclear weapons.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.

Related
Bunker-Buster Bombs -- Is Iran Next?Clinton, Gates Say Troop Surge Not for Public DebateAfghan Attack Ups Stakes on Troop DebateNow the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.

Click here to see a copy of the Pentagon's request, provided to ABC News.

The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb's "development and testing", and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.

'Urgent Operational Need'
The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).................." (cont)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343

worlds beyond

07-10-2009, 09:18 PM

"Leaked Iran Paper Based on Intel That Split IAEA

by Gareth Porter, October 07, 2009

Excerpts of the internal draft report by the staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published online last week show that the report’s claims about Iranian work on a nuclear weapon is based almost entirely on intelligence documents that have provoked a serious conflict within the agency.

Contrary to sensational stories by the Associated Press and the New York Times, the excerpts on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reveal that the IAEA’s Safeguards Department, which wrote the report, only has suspicions – not real evidence – that Iran has been working on nuclear weapons in recent years.

The newly published excerpts make it clear, moreover, that the so-called "Alleged Studies" documents brought to the attention of the agency by the United States five years ago are central to its assertion that Iran had such a program in 2002-03.

Whether those documents are genuine or were fabricated has been the subject of a fierce struggle behind the scenes for many months between two departments of the IAEA.

Some IAEA officials began calling for a clear statement by the agency that it could not affirm the documents’ authenticity after the agency obtained hard evidence in early 2008 that a key document in the collection had been fraudulently altered, as previously reported by this writer.

As journalist Mark Hibbs reported last week in Nucleonics Week, opposition to relying on the intelligence documents has come not only from outgoing Director- General Mohamed ElBaradei but from the Department of External Relations and Policy Coordination.

Since September 2008, however, the Safeguards Department, headed by Olli Heinonen, has been pressing for publication of its draft report as an annex to a regular agency report on Iran.

Heinonen leaked the draft to Western governments last summer, and in September it was leaked to the Associated Press and ISIS. That has generated sensational headlines suggesting that Iran can already build a nuclear bomb.

The draft report says the agency "assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device." But other passages indicate the authors regard such knowledge only as a possibility, based on suspicions rather than concrete evidence.

It says the "necessary information was most likely obtained from external sources and probably modified by Iran." But it cites only the 15-page "uranium metal document" given by the A.Q. Khan network to Iran when it purchased centrifuge designs in 1987.

"Based on the information in the document," it says, "it is possible that Iran has knowledge regarding the contents of a nuclear package."

The IAEA "suspects" that the 15-page document was part of "larger package that Iran may have obtained but which has not yet come to the Agency’s attention," according to the leaked excerpts.

But that document only outlines procedural requirements for casting uranium into hemispheres, not the technical specifications, as the IAEA report of Nov. 18, 2005, noted. No evidence has ever surfaced to challenge the Iranian explanation that Khan’s agents threw in the document after a deal had been reached on centrifuges in an effort to interest Iran in buying the technology for casting uranium.

The IAEA affirmed that it has found no evidence that Iran ever acquired such technology.

The only external "nuclear package" ever reported to have been provided to Iran is a set of flawed technical designs for a "high-voltage block" for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon, which was slipped under the door of the Iranian mission in Vienna by a Russian scientist working for CIA’s Operation Merlin in February 2000.

Another far-reaching claim in the draft report is that the IAEA "has information, known as the Alleged Studies, that the Ministry of Defense of Iran has conducted and may still be conducting a comprehensive program aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab-3 missile system."

It does not explain how the "Alleged Studies," which are documents on work done in 2002 and 2003, could have any bearing on whether Iran is now conducting work on nuclear weapons.

Using the same language found in published IAEA reports, the draft suggests that the Alleged Studies intelligence documents represent credible evidence. "The information, which has been obtained from multiple sources, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent," it says.

But that characterization of the intelligence first shown to the IAEA by the United States in 2005 has been contested by skeptics in the agency. A senior official familiar with the documents suggested in an interview with IPS last month that the claim of "multiple sources" may be misleading.

Given the existence of "intelligence sharing networks," the official said, "one can’t rule it out that one organization got the intelligence and shared it with others." That would explain the reference to "multiple sources consistent over time," he said.

The initial U.S. account, according to the official, was that the documents came from the laptop computer of one of the Iranian participants in the alleged nuclear weapons research program Later, however, that account was "walked back," he said.

"There are holes in the story," said the official.

The introduction by ISIS to the excerpts from the report, evidently based on conversations with the IAEA personnel, confirms that the documents did not come from Iran on a laptop computer, as U.S. officials had claimed in the past. It suggests that the documents were smuggled out of Iran as "electronic media" by the wife of an Iranian who had been recruited by German intelligence and was later arrested.

That new explanation is highly suspect, however, because an intelligence agency would not confirm the identity of one of their agents, even if he were arrested. Asked about the ISIS account, Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the Middle East when the "laptop documents" surfaced, said it "sounds unusual."

The draft report also argues that the information in the documents is credible, because it "refers to known Iranian persons and institutions under both the military and civil apparatuses, as well as to some degree to their confirmed procurement activities."

But the senior official cast doubt on that claim as well. The names of people working in the relevant Iranian military and civilian organizations are readily obtainable, he observed. "It’s not difficult to cook up such a document," the official told IPS.

The draft paper states that the agency "does not believe that Iran has yet achieved the means of integrating a nuclear payload into the Shahab-3 delivery system with any confidence that it would work."

That statement hints at the fact that the reentry vehicle studies were found to have serious technical problems. The senior official told IPS that the Sandia National Laboratories, which ran computer simulation analyses of the plan, not only found that none of them would have worked, but had expressed doubt that they were genuine.

The paper makes an indirect reference to a plan for a bench-scale facility for uranium conversion, but does not mention that it had several technical flaws, as acknowledged by Heinonen in a February 2008 briefing for members.

Nor do the draft report’s conclusions deal with the fact, confirmed by the senior official to IPS, that none of the intelligence documents have any security markings, despite the fact they are purported to be part of what presumably would have been Iran’s most highly classified program."

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Gareth Porter
New Doubt Cast on US Claim Qom Plant is Illicit – October 2nd, 2009
US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn’t Add Up – September 29th, 2009
Fears of Blame for Defeat Shadow Afghan War Meetings – September 28th, 2009
US Afghan Campaign Plan Says Key Groups Back Taliban – September 22nd, 2009
IAEA Conceals Evidence Iran Documents Were Forged – September 14th, 2009

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/10/06/leaked-iran-paper-based-on-intel/

coco

15-10-2009, 11:40 PM

Truth be told, all we can do is see what happens. That's my stance from here forward regarding anything. When it comes to what's real and what's disinfo, we have no way of honestly knowing until after something's happened and even then we can only listen to either side proclaim what their idea of the truth is. - Coco

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091005_two_leaks_and_deepening_iran_crisis?utm_s ource=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091005&utm_content=readmore

Two major leaks occurred this weekend over the Iran matter.

In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The second leak occurred in the British paper The Sunday Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The second revelation was directly tied to the first. There were many, including STRATFOR, who felt that Iran did not have the non-nuclear disciplines needed for rapid progress toward a nuclear device. Putting the two pieces together, the presence of Russian personnel in Iran would mean that the Iranians had obtained the needed expertise from the Russians. It would also mean that the Russians were not merely a factor in whether there would be effective sanctions but also in whether and when the Iranians would obtain a nuclear weapon.

We would guess that the leak to The New York Times came from U.S. government sources, because that seems to be a prime vector of leaks from the Obama administration and because the article contained information on the NIE review. Given that National Security Adviser James Jones tended to dismiss the report on Sunday television, we would guess the report leaked from elsewhere in the administration. The Sunday Times leak could have come from multiple sources, but we have noted a tendency of the Israelis to leak through the British daily on national security issues. (The article contained substantial details on the visit and appeared written from the Israeli point of view.) Neither leak can be taken at face value, of course. But it is clear that these were deliberate leaks — people rarely risk felony charges leaking such highly classified material — and even if they were not coordinated, they delivered the same message, true or not.

The Iranian Time Frame and the Russian Role
The message was twofold. First, previous assumptions on time frames on Iran are no longer valid, and worst-case assumptions must now be assumed. The Iranians are in fact moving rapidly toward a weapon; have been extremely effective at deceiving U.S. intelligence (read, they deceived the Bush administration, but the Obama administration has figured it out); and therefore, we are moving toward a decisive moment with Iran. Second, this situation is the direct responsibility of Russian nuclear expertise. Whether this expertise came from former employees of the Russian nuclear establishment now looking for work, Russian officials assigned to Iran or unemployed scientists sent to Iran by the Russians is immaterial. The Israelis — and the Obama administration — must hold the Russians responsible for the current state of Iran’s weapons program, and by extension, Moscow bears responsibility for any actions that Israel or the United States might take to solve the problem.

We would suspect that the leaks were coordinated. From the Israeli point of view, having said publicly that they are prepared to follow the American lead and allow this phase of diplomacy to play out, there clearly had to be more going on than just last week’s Geneva talks. From the American point of view, while the Russians have indicated that participating in sanctions on gasoline imports by Iran is not out of the question, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did not clearly state that Russia would cooperate, nor has anything been heard from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the subject. The Russian leadership appears to be playing “good cop, bad cop” on the matter, and the credibility of anything they say on Iran has little weight in Washington.

It would seem to us that the United States and Israel decided to up the ante fairly dramatically in the wake of the Oct. 1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. As IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei visits Iran, massive new urgency has now been added to the issue. But we must remember that Iran knows whether it has had help from Russian scientists; that is something that can’t be bluffed. Given that this specific charge has been made — and as of Monday not challenged by Iran or Russia — indicates to us more is going on than an attempt to bluff the Iranians into concessions. Unless the two leaks together are completely bogus, and we doubt that, the United States and Israel are leaking information already well known to the Iranians. They are telling Tehran that its deception campaign has been penetrated, and by extension are telling it that it faces military action — particularly if massive sanctions are impractical because of more Russian obstruction.

If Netanyahu went to Moscow to deliver this intelligence to the Russians, the only surprise would have been the degree to which the Israelis had penetrated the program, not that the Russians were there. The Russian intelligence services are superbly competent, and keep track of stray nuclear scientists carefully. They would not be surprised by the charge, only by Israel’s knowledge of it.

This, of course leaves open an enormous question. Certainly, the Russians appear to have worked with the Iranians on some security issues and have played with the idea of providing the Iranians more substantial military equipment. But deliberately aiding Iran in building a nuclear device seems beyond Russia’s interests in two ways. First, while Russia wants to goad the United States, it does not itself really want a nuclear Iran. Second, in goading the United States, the Russians know not to go too far; helping Iran build a nuclear weapon would clearly cross a redline, triggering reactions.

A number of possible explanations present themselves. The leak to The Sunday Times might be wrong. But The Sunday Times is not a careless newspaper: It accepts leaks only from certified sources. The Russian scientists might be private citizens accepting Iranian employment. But while this is possible, Moscow is very careful about what Russian nuclear engineers do with their time. Or the Russians might be providing enough help to goad the United States but not enough to ever complete the job. Whatever the explanation, the leaks paint the Russians as more reckless than they have appeared, assuming the leaks are true.

And whatever their veracity, the leaks — the content of which clearly was discussed in detail among the P-5+1 prior to and during the Geneva meetings, regardless of how long they have been known by Western intelligence — were made for two reasons. The first was to tell the Iranians that the nuclear situation is now about to get out of hand, and that attempting to manage the negotiations through endless delays will fail because the United Nations is aware of just how far Tehran has come with its weapons program. The second was to tell Moscow that the issue is no longer whether the Russians will cooperate on sanctions, but the consequence to Russia’s relations with the United States and at least the United Kingdom, France and, most important, possibly Germany. If these leaks are true, they are game changers.

We have focused on the Iranian situation not because it is significant in itself, but because it touches on a great number of other crucial international issues. It is now entangled in the Iraqi, Afghan, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese issues, all of them high-stakes matters. It is entangled in Russian relations with Europe and the United States. It is entangled in U.S.-European relationships and with relationships within Europe. It touches on the U.S.-Chinese relationship. It even touches on U.S. relations with Venezuela and some other Latin American countries. It is becoming the Gordian knot of international relations.

STRATFOR first focused on the Russian connection with Iran in the wake of the Iranian elections and resulting unrest, when a crowd of Rafsanjani supporters began chanting “Death to Russia,” not one of the top-10 chants in Iran. That caused us to focus on the cooperation between Russia and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on security matters. We were aware of some degree of technical cooperation on military hardware, and of course on Russian involvement in Iran’s civilian nuclear program. We were also of the view that the Iranians were unlikely to progress quickly with their nuclear program. We were not aware that Russian scientists were directly involved in Iran’s military nuclear project, which is not surprising, given that such involvement would be Iran’s single-most important state secret — and Russia’s, too.

A Question of Timing
But there is a mystery here as well. To have any impact, the Russian involvement must have been under way for years. The United States has tried to track rogue nuclear scientists and engineers — anyone who could contribute to nuclear proliferation — since the 1990s. The Israelis must have had their own program on this, too. Both countries, as well as European intelligence services, were focused on Iran’s program and the whereabouts of Russian scientists. It is hard to believe that they only just now found out. If we were to guess, we would say Russian involvement has been under way since just after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, when the Russians decided that the United States was a direct threat to its national security.

Therefore, the decision suddenly to confront the Russians, and suddenly to leak U.N. reports — much more valuable than U.S. reports, which are easier for the Europeans to ignore — cannot simply be because the United States and Israel just obtained this information. The IAEA, hostile to the United States since the invasion of Iraq and very much under the influence of the Europeans, must have decided to shift its evaluation of Iran. But far more significant is the willingness of the Israelis first to confront the Russians and then leak about Russian involvement, something that obviously compromises Israeli sources and methods. And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.

Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.

It follows from this that the use of this intelligence in diplomatic confrontations with Russians and in a British newspaper serves a greater purpose than the integrity of the source system. And that means that the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future — the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system.

Possible Outcomes
There are two possible outcomes here. The first is that having revealed the extent of the Iranian program and having revealed the Russian role in a credible British newspaper, the Israelis and the Americans (whose own leak in The New York Times underlined the growing urgency of action) are hoping that the Iranians realize that they are facing war and that the Russians realize that they are facing a massive crisis in their relations with the West. If that happens, then the Russians might pull their scientists and engineers, join in the sanctions and force the Iranians to abandon their program.

The second possibility is that the Russians will continue to play the spoiler on sanctions and will insist that they are not giving support to the Iranians. This leaves the military option, which would mean broad-based action, primarily by the United States, against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Any military operation would involve keeping the Strait of Hormuz clear, meaning naval action, and we now know that there are more nuclear facilities than previously discussed. So while the war for the most part would be confined to the air and sea, it would be extensive nonetheless.

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.

It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama’s hand.