BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

NO. At the time that France assisted Israel, it had NOT signed the NPT.




While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose.

ONLY under the guidelines and restrictions ( monitoring) of the IAEA that Iran rejected.




The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium.


False statement. The fact that they can produce the low level enrichment and have the additional centrifuges is proof that they CAN produce weapons grade fissionable material.




Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged,

No other signatory has rejected the IAEA inspections.



while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT.

Since it has no such violations, how can it be sanctioned??????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:16 PM

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968."


"A secret agreement with the French government in 1956 helped Israel build a plutonium nuclear reactor. France and Israel were natural partners then; they had been allies with Britain in a brief attempt to seize the Suez Canal after Egypt nationalized it and had shared concerns about the Soviets and unrest in North Africa."


Even YOU, CarolC, should recognize that a treaty signed AFTER 1968 does NOT control actions on and about 1956.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:26 PM

More of the double standard at work.



You mean that if we allow Israel the right to self defense, they might not be wiped out by the Arab nations? Horrors- How can we allow that~!

As I have stated, without any contrary indications,


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

All subsequent borders are the result of warfare, and if the present borders are to be rejected since they include "occupied" territory, then those ( 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974) borders must also be rejected-

If it is wrong for Israel to keep land acquired in 1967 by military force, it is EQUALLY wrong for the Arab states to keep land occupied by military force- the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza- All a part of the 1923 Jewish Homeland, occupied by Jordan in 1948. The present peace treaty between Israel and Jordan acknowledges the border as the River Jordan ( except for a few small adjustments. )

So, I expect you will join me in calling for the removal of all Arab Moslims to their Homeland, TransJordan, and the restoration of the West Bank and Gaza to Israel.

Anything else shows a double standard, that Israel cannot keep the land acquired by war, but the Arab nations can.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

clarification:

....between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, the 77% of Mandate Palestine to the east of the Jordan River where no Jews were allowed to settle, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine (Israel), the 23% of Mandate Palestine to the West of the Jordan, including the West bank and Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination. And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

Iran has not refused to admit inspectors. The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting. That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

The person who habitually is accusing me of being anti-Jewish is covering up the agenda of the Israeli government to use the military of the United States (or its own military if needed, that is paid for with money from US taxpayers) to establish an empire in the Middle East that has nothing whatever to do with defense, and everything to do with not wanting there to be any viable powerful states in that part of the world besides itself. The only bigotry on display here is coming from the supremacist who believes that only Jews have a right to a secure state in the Middle East, and that all other countries in that region should be subordinate to the state of Israel.

This is the cause of most of the tension in the Middle East today, and for this reason, it is this particular supremacist who is jeopardizing the safety of the Jews of the world and not me.

When German supremacism caused enough people in the world to feel threatened, the world responded. Israel's Jewish supremacism is causing increasing numbers of people in the rest of the world to feel threatened. Unlike the state of Israel, which wants to prevent all of the other countries in the region from having self-determination, and unlike the person who constantly accuses others of double standards, and who wants an entirely different standard applied to Israel than to any other country in the world, what I propose is that Israel simply be held to the same standard as everyone else (for the first time in its history).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination.

The Treaty ending WW I between the Ottoman Empire, which had control of the Arab region, and the victorious Allies determined that MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland.





And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

The UN partition plan was NEVER accepted by the Arab nations.- the LAST accepted borders are those of 1923.




Iran has not refused to admit inspectors.

FALSE, according to the IAEA.



The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting.

No, they and their instruments were removed for a time- during which the Iranisans moved equipment and material to "unknown locations"



That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM

"I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own."

Now let's see CarolC, every country on this planet that definitely has nuclear weapons has tested them - the superpowers many times over. There is a very good reason for that - you need to know that "yours" works, that is why Israel would have to conduct a test and so far it apparently hasn't.

"We know Israel has them."

No, not exactly, it is generally assumed that Israel has "them".

"I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway."

No CarolC I asked a perfectly valid question, as can be clearly documented all countries with nuclear weapons have conducted tests. So why hasn't Israel??

"Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing)."

Wow post 1968/1972 depending upon which countries you are talking about that is one hell of an accusation. Which doesn't wash, as I said you need to know as an imperitive that the weapon you are relying on for ultimate defence or detterence works. The Israelis are the last nation on earth that would trust another country to do that on their behalf. How do they know that the weapon being tested is their design?? They don't, there would be no way of telling. The first five have done multiple tests with their designs and I believe that certainly the US has so much data from their tests that they can now mathematically model tests without firing a weapon - The Israelis do not have that data so are therefore unable to perform the modelling with any degree of certainty of validity of the model.

That is why I'd like to hear, from those who insist that Israel is a rogue state in the middle-east because of its nuclear weapons, when it tested them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

It is a lie to say that the area that is now Israel was given in the mandate to the Jews to be their homeland. The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area.

Regardless of whether or not Arabs (Muslim or Christian) didn't agree to the partition plan that does not, and did not, give Israel the right to take any more land than what they were given in the partition plan. The only land they were ever given a right to have by any outside authority was the land they were given in the partition plan, and that land was a fraction of the land they now control.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM

The CIA has said many times that Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel got its nuclear technology from another country, it would not be necessary for them to test it to know that it works. And there are still many scientists whose professional opinion is that Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean with South Africa.

That, plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program is the reason that most governments in the world acknowledge that Israel is a nuclear armed state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:09 PM

"plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons,"


Such as? there are NO systems that are ONLY used for nuclear weapons.

If you are going to say that IRBM missiles are only useful for nuclear weapons, well, Iran has several versions of them... If Israeli IRBMs are evidence of nuclear weapons, then Iranian IRBMs ( of greater range!) are certainly equal evidence. And specifically, of NON-PEACEFUL use.



" and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program "

You mena like the equipment that Iran has, for use in it's "peaceful" nuclear program???

Why do you insist that Iran has only peaceful nuclear programs, when it has the same level of evidence that you claim proves Israeli weapons?


Further proof of your double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM

CarolC:"The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area."


beardedbruce:"MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland."

So, TransJordan WAS given to the Palestinian Arabs Moslims as a homeland. What was left was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland.

Unless you are saying that the Moslims get a homeland ( where Jews were NOT alowed to live), and Jews do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:31 AM

Dear BRUCE OF THE BEARD,

I find your use of CAPITALS (selective) EXTREMELY ANNOYING. Why do you do this? I also find that your predilection to mix arguments verges on the disingenuous. You have been asked on a number of occasions to articulate the reasons why Palestinian / Israeli problems PERSIST. What I have gathered from your response is that you justify the existence of Israel on the basis that the "VICTORIOUS ALLIES" authorised it. Not once do you even nod towards a possibility that there may be reasonable Palestinian cause for HOSTILITY towards an overbearing and aggressive neighbour which sidesteps UN mandates apparently at will.

Of course, it is always POSSIBLE that I have missed something more ENLIGHTENED in your contributions. Truth to tell, I find it very difficult to STAY AWAKE when reading your RANTS. That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:46 AM

From a link I posted earlier...


"Israel has modified American-supplied cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads on submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea, according to senior Bush administration and Israeli officials.

The previously undisclosed submarine capability bolsters Israel's deterrence in the event that Iran – an avowed enemy – develops nuclear weapons. It also complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Two Bush administration officials described the missile modification and an Israeli official confirmed it. All three spoke on condition their names not be used...

...The consensus in the U.S. intelligence community and among outside experts is that Israel, with possibly 200 nuclear weapons, has the fifth- or sixth-largest arsenal in the world...

... The U.S. sold Israel F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, both of which can be used to deliver nuclear bombs or missiles. In the 1960s, the French helped Israel develop its first generation of Jericho missiles and the Israelis had built a longer-range Jericho II by the mid-1980s.

The Jericho I and II are equipped with nuclear warheads, and satellite photos indicate that many are hidden in limestone caves southeast of Tel Aviv, near the town of Zachariah, which is Hebrew for "God remembers with vengeance.""

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:50 AM

No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there. All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:14 AM

All been hashed out elsewhere but CarolC's last post:

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there."

Very true up until the Peel Commission's Report of 1937 where after 16 years of unprovoked Arab attacks Jews in Palestine the British Government finally concluded that the two groups could not co-exist peacefully in one state. This was in the middle of what was known to the Arabs of Palestine as the "Great Revolt". From that date forward the plan was always for a two-state solution. The Peel Commission proposals were taken further by the United Nations who presented their own version of it in 1947. the Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it.

"All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there."

Again true CarolC, those Arabs who wanted to stay in what was going to become Israel were quite at liberty to stay. But Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 resulted in a war. Had the Arabs accepted the plan in 1947, there would have been no displaced people, which means today there would be no "Right of return" issue to settle, and the Arabs would have everything they say they are fighting for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

Korea (Northern) is presently desperate, cannot feeds its own people, and is planning to test an ICBM. That's a well-thought out plan, you betcha.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:47 AM

Just trying to get their old "blackmail" game going again Amos. Since your last administration stuck to the plan of involving all interested parties in six party talks North Korea has been feeling the draft.

The US does not have to worry about North Korea, Japan might, South Korea might, but if North Korea even thinks about starting anything it will be China that will bring them to heel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan."


CarolC,

No part of Mandate Palestine was supposed to be given to Moslims to be a Moslim state, but Great Britain did so, in 1923. The remainder of Mandate Palestine should have the same rights as given to the 77% where a Moslim Homeland was set up- There should have been a ban on all Moslim settlement within the declared Jewish Homeland ( the 23% WEST of the Jordan).

Since the UN Partition plan was NOT accepted by the Arab nations, and they went to war over it, there is NO reason for Israel to accept that partition as a limit to it's borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:01 PM

Note: Plutonium does not need to be enriched to be usable in weapons- the isotopes that are created in a reactor will be weapons-grade when they are separated from the other elements ( chemically) in the used fuel rods.





Iran tests its first nuclear power plant
      

Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 39 mins ago

BUSHEHR, Iran – Iranian and Russian technicians are conducting a test run of Iran's first nuclear power plant, officials said Wednesday, a major step toward launching full operations at the facility, which has long raised worried the U.S. and its allies.

At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its controversial nuclear program: The number of centrifuges operating at its uranium enrichment plant has increased to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said — up from 5,000 in November.

His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a nuclear bomb, saying its program aims only to generate electricity.

The United States has been worried over the nuclear plant at the southern port city of Bushehr because it fears Iran will reprocess the spent reactor fuel into plutonium, a potential material for a nuclear bomb. Russia has helped build the facility and is providing it enriched uranium fuel, and for a time Washington pressured Moscow to stop its assistance.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

"But U.S. concerns softened after Iran agreed to return spent fuel to Russia so it cannot be turned into plutonium."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090225/world/iran_nuclear


I'll deal with the other thing later.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM

CarolC,

Iran agreed to the IAEA monitoring, as well- until it became inconvenient and they ended it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:25 PM

btw, the next line of your quoted article:
"Washington largely dropped its opposition to the project and argued instead that the Russia fuel deal shows that Iran does not need its own domestic uranium enrichment program. "

So they do not need the centrifuges.


Why don't we post the paragraphs, instead of just the words we each want to emphasize?


"At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its controversial nuclear program: The number of centrifuges operating at its uranium enrichment plant has increased to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said - up from 5,000 in November.
His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a nuclear bomb, saying its program aims only to generate electricity.
The United States has been worried over the nuclear plant at the southern port city of Bushehr because it fears Iran will reprocess the spent reactor fuel into plutonium, a potential material for a nuclear bomb. Russia has helped build the facility and is providing it enriched uranium fuel, and for a time Washington pressured Moscow to stop its assistance.
But U.S. concerns softened after Iran agreed to return spent fuel to Russia so it cannot be turned into plutonium. Washington largely dropped its opposition to the project and argued instead that the Russia fuel deal shows that Iran does not need its own domestic uranium enrichment program. "


Either Russia is processing the spent fuel, and Iran does not need the enrichment that the IAEA is objecting to, or it requires the enrichment, and the Russians do NOT have the control required by the NPT over the fuel.

Which is it?

Do the Russians have the control, so that Iran should shut down the enrichment that the IAEA objects to

Or should Iran be able to have the enrichment because they should not be under the control of the NPT ( ie, they have the right to make weapons regardless of the treaty and UN determinations)?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:11 PM

CarolC:"plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons,"


beardedbruce: "Such as? there are NO systems that are ONLY used for nuclear weapons."




I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 11:13 AM

N. Korea threatens war if satellite shot down
      
By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 59 mins ago

… SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea put its armed forces on standby Monday and threatened "a war" if anyone tries to shoot down what regional powers suspect is an imminent test-firing of a long-range missile.

Pyongyang also cut off a military hot line with the South, causing a complete shutdown of their border and stranding hundreds of South Koreans working in an industrial zone in the North Korean border city of Kaesong.

Monday's warning — the latest barrage of threats from the communist regime — came as U.S. and South Korean troops kicked off annual war games across the South, exercises the North has condemned as preparation for an invasion. Pyongyang last week threatened South Korean passenger planes flying near its airspace during the drills.

Analysts say the regime is trying to grab President Barack Obama's attention as his administration formulates its North Korea policy.

The North also indicated it was pushing ahead with plans to send a communications satellite into space, a provocative launch neighboring governments believe could be a cover for a long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska.

U.S. and Japanese officials have suggested they could shoot down a North Korean missile if necessary, further incensing Pyongyang.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," the general staff of the North's military said in a statement carried Monday by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Any interception will draw "a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds" of the U.S., Japan and South Korea, it said.

The North has ordered military personnel "fully combat ready," KCNA said in a separate dispatch.

Obama's special envoy on North Korea again urged Pyongyang not to fire a missile, which he said would be an "extremely ill-advised" move.

"Whether they describe it as a satellite launch or something else makes no difference" since both would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution banning the North from ballistic activity, Stephen Bosworth told reporters after talks with his South Korean counterpart.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:14 PM

No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Muslims to be a Muslim state. Not ever. The term, "Muslim" (Moslem) is not interchangeable with the term "Arab".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM

On the subject of Iran and its nuclear program, all arguments will probably become irrelevant soon, as President Obama continues his diplomatic efforts there. The Iranians offered to negotiate unconditionally with the US government when Bush was president. This was shortly after Iran was indispensable in helping the US with its war against the Taliban. In return for its efforts, and in response to their offer to negotiate, the Bush administration labeled Iran a part of the "Axis of Evil". Unlike Bush, Obama doesn't have an agenda to overturn the government of Iran for hegemonic reasons, so he will succeed in working out an acceptable agreement with the government of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:47 PM

Fine, CarolC


Transjordan was given to the Arabs to be an Arab nation where Jews (even Arab ones) were not allowed to settle.


So the remainder of Mandate Palestine SHOULD have been where the Moslims were not allowed to settle.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:27 AM

It is quite simple really.The governments of both Iran and North Korea are dominated by total nutters whose sole aim is to foment fear,trouble and mischief,and engineer political instability,with the ultimate aim of precipitating war.As long as the rest of the world allows this state of affairs to continue,then we must all live in fear and foreboding,and.......wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:41 AM

NKorea accuses Obama's government of interference
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago Play Video AP –

… SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea accused President Barack Obama's government of meddling in its internal affairs Wednesday and vowed to take "every necessary measure" to defend itself against what it calls U.S. threats.

The statement by North Korea's Foreign Ministry, however, was far less harsh than rhetoric issued by the country's military during the run-up to joint U.S.-South Korean war games that started across the South on Monday. The North's military has threatened South Korean passenger planes and put its troops on standby.

Still, the Foreign Ministry's statement was significant in that it was the agency's first on the U.S. since Obama's inauguration, an analyst said.

"The Foreign Ministry is Washington's direct negotiating partner and has not engaged in criticizing the U.S. so far," said Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Seoul's Dongguk University. "This means they have started expressing pent-up complaints."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:44 AM

"In Washington, U.S. national intelligence director Dennis Blair said he believes the North is planning a space launch, but said the technology is no different from that of a long-range missile and its success would mean the communist nation is capable of striking the mainland U.S.

"I tend to believe that the North Koreans announced that they would do a space launch and that's what they intend," U.S. national intelligence director Dennis Blair said before a senate panel Tuesday.

"If a three stage space launch vehicle works, then that could reach not only Alaska and Hawaii but part of what the Hawaiians call the mainland and what the Alaskans call the lower forty-eight," he said.

...
U.S., South Korean and Japanese officials have warned Pyongyang not to launch either a satellite or missile — noting that both are the same in principle and differ only in payload.

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the country's first-ever nuclear test blast in 2006.

Seoul's Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan renewed the warning that any launch would violate the U.N. resolution. "It's not that a satellite is OK and a missile is not," Yu told reporters. "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:31 AM

Iran accused of violating UN sanctions
         
Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 10, 8:21 pm ET

… UNITED NATIONS – A key Security Council committee reported Tuesday that Iran violated U.N. sanctions by trying to send weapons-related material to Syria on a cargo ship now docked in Cyprus.

Japan's U.N. Ambassador Yukio Takasu, chairman of the committee monitoring sanctions against Iran, provided few details, but his report marked the first official confirmation that the Cypriot-flagged M/V Monchegorsk was trying to circumvent the U.N. arms embargo on Iran. The ship docked on Jan. 29 and is still there, diplomats said.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert described its shipment as "explosives and ... arms."

Takasu said a U.N. member state — identified by the United States, Britain and France as Cyprus — sent a letter to the committee in early February "seeking guidance with respect to its inspections of cargo on a vessel carrying its flag that was found to be carrying arms-related material."

The committee responded with a letter saying the transfer of the material was a violation of a 2007 Security Council resolution that prohibits Iran from transferring any arms or related material and requires all countries to prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran, Takasu said.

He told the council that the committee sent letters "to concerned member states" on March 9 asking for "any relevant information regarding this transaction" within 10 days.

Copies of the letters to Iran and Syria, obtained by The Associated Press, said the ship's manifest indicated that the Monchegorsk was chartered by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, that the cargo was loaded in Iran and was to be unloaded in Lataki, Syria.

The letters said the committee had received the results of inspections conducted on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2 on a portion of the cargo which found arms-related material, including items described as "bullet shells," high explosive shells, 125 mm armor-piercing shells, and high explosive anti-tank propellant.

...
France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert expressed concern because the shipment of "explosives and ... arms" violated sanctions imposed after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_iran_sanctions

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 10:17 PM

Whom ever is most most free, will be next!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:47 AM

Iran missile, nuclear threat 'real, dangerous' - Russian analyst
17:35 | 12/ 03/ 2009
   


MOSCOW, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the West would be making a big mistake if they ignored or underestimated the potential missile and nuclear threat coming from Iran, a Russian military expert said on Thursday.

"Iran is actively working on a missile development program. I won't say the Iranians will be able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in the near future, but they will most likely be able to threaten the whole of Europe," said Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Moscow-based Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces.

Some Western and Russian sources claim that Iran may be currently running a program, dubbed Project Koussar, to develop a totally different missile with a range of 4,000-5,000 km (2,500-3,300 miles).

"Iran has long abandoned outdated missile technologies and is capable of producing sophisticated missile systems," Dvorkin said at a news conference in RIA Novosti.

Iran successfully launched last year an upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missile as part of a navy exercise, dubbed Great Prophet 3, in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

With a reported range of 2,000 kilometers and armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead, the Shahab-3 puts Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

Western powers led by the United States, along with Israel, accuse Tehran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology for their delivery. Iran says it needs its nuclear program for the peaceful generation of electricity and missile program for space exploration.

Iran has consistently defied international demands to halt its nuclear program and insists it plans to use enriched uranium fuel produced at a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in its first domestically-built nuclear power plant, in the town of Darkhovin, which is scheduled to become operational in 2016.

Tehran announced in late February that it had 6,000 operating centrifuges at Natanz and was planning to install a total of 50,000 over the next five years.

Commenting on the Iranian nuclear program, Dvorkin said the potential danger of its military aspect was not the possibility of a nuclear strike against some countries, but the ability to assume a more bold approach in dealing with the international community after becoming a nuclear power.

"The real threat is that Iran, which is already ignoring all resolutions and sanctions issued by the UN Security Council, will be practically 'untouchable' after acquiring nuclear-power status, and will be able to expand its support of terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah," the expert said.

He added that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran could force non-nuclear countries to seek similar weapons and ballistic missile technologies thus starting a nuclear race and increasing the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

Dvorkin has had a role in writing all major strategy documents for the Strategic Nuclear Forces and the Strategic Missile Forces. As an expert in the field he participated in preparing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the START I and START II pacts, and has made a significant contribution to formulating Soviet and Russian positions at negotiations on strategic offensive arms control and reduction.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:42 AM

"Iranian leaders and proxies seem to be taking the offer of negotiations as a sign of American weakness. "The United States," taunts Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, "is ready now to talk with any party, not out of a sense of morality, but because it failed in its attempts to implement its plans in the region."

Meanwhile, the Iranian Quds Force continues to lead, train and arm Shiite terrorists within Iraq. And, in Senate committee testimony last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stated: "Some officials, such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari-Najafabadi, have hinted that Iran would have a hand in attacks on 'America's interests even in faraway places,' suggesting Iran has contingency plans for unconventional warfare and terrorism against the United States and its allies."

Rather than unclenching its fist, Iran has been pounding it on the table. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702938.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:55 AM

Reports: Russia confirms Iran missile contract
         
Reuters MOSCOW – Russian news agencies cited a top defense official Wednesday as confirming that a contract to sell powerful air-defense missiles to Iran was signed two years ago, but saying none of the weapons have been delivered.

Russian officials have consistently denied claims the country already has provided some of the S-300 missiles to Iran. They have not said whether a contract existed.

The state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies and the independent Interfax quoted an unnamed top official in the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service as saying the contract was signed two years ago. Service spokesman Andrei Tarabrin told The Associated Press he could not immediately comment.

Supplying S-300s to Iran would change the military balance in the Middle East and the issue has been the subject of intense speculation and diplomatic wrangling for months.

Israel and the U.S. fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities — including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant, which is now being built by Russian contractors at Bushehr.

That would make a military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.

It was not clear why the missiles have not been delivered, but the reports cited the defense official as saying "fulfillment of the contract will mainly depend on the current international situation and the decision of the country's leadership."

That could indicate that Russia intends to use the contract as a bargaining chip before next month's meeting between President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama.

But the defense official said Russia does not intend to abandon the contract, estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, ITAR-Tass said,

A prominent Russian analyst, Ruslan Pukhov of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said the missile contract was seen by the Kremlin as primarily a political rather than commercial matter.

"The S-300 contract, and cooperation with Iran in general, is regarded by Moscow only as an instrument of political bargaining with the West and not as a way of realizing the fundamental defense and commercial interests of Russia," he was quoted as saying by RIA-Novosti.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:54 AM

North Korea positions rocket for April liftoff
         
Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 9 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea has mounted a rocket on a launchpad on its northeast coast, American officials said, putting Pyongyang well on track for a launch the U.S. and South Korea warned Thursday would be a major provocation with serious consequences.

Pyongyang says the rocket will carry a satellite, but regional powers suspect the North will use the launch to test the delivery technology for a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska. They have said the launch — banned by the U.N. Security Council in 2006 — would trigger sanctions.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned such a "provocative act" could jeopardize the stalled talks on supplying North Korea with aid and other concessions in exchange for dismantling its nuclear program.

"We intend to raise this violation of the Security Council resolution, if it goes forward, in the U.N.," Clinton said Wednesday in Mexico City. "This provocative action in violation of the U.N. mandate will not go unnoticed, and there will be consequences."

North Korea responded Thursday by threatening "strong steps" if the Security Council criticizes the launch. Any challenge to its bid to send the satellite into space would mean an immediate end to nuclear disarmament talks, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

The statement did not specify what action the North would take.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:57 AM

Japan OKs deployment of missile defense system
         
Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

TOKYO – Japan's military mobilized Friday to protect the country from any threat if North Korea's looming rocket launch fails, ordering two missile-equipped destroyers to the Sea of Japan and sending batteries of Patriot missile interceptors to protect the northern coastline.

Pyongyang plans to launch its Kwangmyongsong-2 satellite April 4-8, a moved that has stoked already heightened tensions in the region. The U.S., Japan and South Korea suspect the North will use the launch to test the delivery technology for a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska.

Japan has said that it will shoot down any dangerous objects that fall its way if the launch doesn't go off successfully. Tokyo, however, has been careful to say that it will not intervene unless its territory is in danger.

The North said earlier this month that any attack on the satellite would be an act of war.

South Korea and the U.S. prepared deployments of their own. Seoul is also dispatching an Aegis-equipped Sejong the Great destroyer off the east coast to monitor the launch, a military official in Seoul said. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Two U.S. Aegis-equipped ships, docked at a South Korea port, will set sail in coming days, U.S. military spokesman Kim Yong-kyu said.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:54 AM

"Consider Obama's speech. Referring to North Korea, which a few hours earlier had taken a break from six-party talks to test a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles, Obama said: "Now is the time for a strong international response. . . . All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

In other words: We'll all huff and puff about North Korea, and standing shoulder to shoulder we can pat ourselves on the back for our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the United States will do nothing to destroy North Korea's nuclear or missile capability, or to topple its political regime.

Obama also addressed Iran, saying that country's "nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat," which justifies some (limited) missile defense efforts in Europe. But Obama's real hope is for dialogue with Iran, in which he will present the regime with "a clear choice":

"We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all."

Obviously, Obama recommends the first path. But notice what he didn't do:

He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world. "

whole article

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:08 AM

Confused on North Korea

Once again, the U.S. response to a provocation from Pyongyang is muddled.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A22

THE DEFINING characteristic of U.S. policy toward North Korea -- incoherence -- doesn't seem to have changed much as the Bush administration has given way to that of Barack Obama. On Sunday, Mr. Obama treated North Korea's launch of an intercontinental missile like an emergency: Woken in Prague at 4:30 a.m. by his aides, he sternly declared that "rules must be binding" and "violations must be punished," and dispatched his U.N. ambassador to seek an immediate resolution from the Security Council.

The council, however, quickly balked at sanctioning the regime of Kim Jong Il -- and understandably so. Just two days before the much-expected missile test, Mr. Obama's special envoy for North Korea, Stephen W. Bosworth, had publicly declared that "pressure is not the most productive line of approach" in dealing with the North. "After the dust of the missile settles a bit," he said, the administration's priority would be persuading Pyongyang to return to negotiations regarding its nuclear program.

Mr. Bosworth offered to go to Pyongyang "whenever it appears to be useful" to conduct bilateral talks -- something the regime has always craved. And he promised "incentives": "I think there are things that we can provide and do that the North Koreans would find positive," he told reporters.

Now, it's true that Mr. Bosworth said he thought there also should be "consequences" for the missile test and that U.S. policy should "combine pressure with incentives." But it's hardly surprising, given his statements, that China and Russia would resist new sanctions -- or that North Korea would have fired the missile in spite of U.S. warnings. Why listen to such warnings, when the administration has already made clear that its main response will be to offer more diplomatic attention, sweetened with "incentives" -- in other words, exactly what Mr. Kim was seeking?

The Bush administration tried isolating and pressuring North Korea, then turned to bribe-laden negotiations. Neither approach succeeded in changing the behavior of the regime, which continued to share its nuclear know-how with other rogue states while retaining its probable arsenal of bombs. Mr. Bosworth sounds surprisingly sure that he can break this pattern. "I'm quite confident that with some intense negotiating and diplomatic activity," North Korea's refusal to allow the verification of its plutonium stockpile can be overcome, he said.

Mr. Obama seems to believe that he can increase the pressure on Pyongyang through the reinvigorated global nonproliferation policy he announced in Prague. The measures he proposed are worthy and needed -- such as a new effort to control loose nuclear materials, a ban on the creation of new fissile material for weapons and the creation of an international fuel bank to supply nuclear reactors.

Still, it doesn't seem likely that either the North Korean or Iranian regimes will be swayed by these policies. Such concessions as have been extracted from Mr. Kim in the past have followed tough steps by the United States and China, above all the squeezing of the regime's foreign bank accounts. It's hard to believe that the Obama administration will make more progress than its predecessors without more consistency in administering that kind of medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM

NKorea vows to restart nuclear reactor, end talks

Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea vowed Tuesday to restart its nuclear reactor and to boycott international disarmament talks for good in retaliation for the U.N. Security Council's condemnation of its rocket launch.

Russia, voicing regret over the move, urged Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. The Foreign Ministry called the U.N. statement "legitimate and well-balanced," and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said all sides must stick to the current disarmament process. China, the North's main ally, appealed for calm.

North Korea's denunciation of the council's "hostile" move came just hours after all 15 members, including Beijing and Moscow, unanimously agreed to condemn the April 5 launch as a violation of U.N. resolutions and to tighten sanctions against the regime.

The U.N. statement, issued eight days after the launch, was weaker than the resolution Japan and the United States had pursued but still drew an angry response from Pyongyang, which called it "unjust" and a violation of international law.

North Korea claims it sent a communications satellite into space as part of a peaceful bid to develop its space program.

The U.S. and others call the launch an illicit test of the technology used to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile, even one eventually destined for the U.S.

A Security Council resolution passed in 2006, days after North Korea carried out an underground nuclear test, prohibits Pyongyang from engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity — including launching rockets that use the same delivery technology as missiles mounted with warheads, Washington and other nations say.

The council on Monday demanded an end to the rocket launches and said it will expand sanctions against the communist nation. The council also called for quick resumption of disarmament talks.

President Barack Obama called the statement a "clear and united message" that North Korea's action was unlawful and would result in real consequences, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

North Korea, following through on earlier threats to withdraw from international disarmament talks if the council so much as criticized the launch, announced Tuesday it would boycott the 5 1/2-year-old negotiations hosted by China.

"The six-party talks have lost the meaning of their existence, never to recover," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement, declaring it would never participate in the talks again and is no longer bound to previous agreements.

Since 2003, envoys from six nations — the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan — have been meeting in Beijing for sporadic negotiations on getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions.

Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang — a key step toward dismantlement — in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year.

In June 2008, North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its 18,000-page account of past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

On Tuesday, the North said it would restart nuclear facilities, an apparent reference to its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea already is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least about half a dozen atomic bombs.

One official at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said agency inspectors remained onsite at Yongbyon. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

Asked whether there had been any indication that the North was making good on its threats, he said only that the situation "remained status quo." That suggests IAEA cameras and seals remained in place at the facility and that the inspectors continued their monitoring activities.

The Russian foreign minister said all sides must continue denuclearization through the six-party talks.

"Any new international forum to discuss the situation on the Korean Peninsula should not be created," Lavrov told a Moscow news conference. "The negotiators of this forum have reached important agreements that impose obligations on all the parties, not only North Korea."

Analyst Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University, called Pyongyang's move yet another tactic in the regime's bid to get Washington to the negotiating table outside the six-party framework.

"The U.N. statement humiliated North Korea internationally, and that's why North Korea angrily reacted to it," said Atsuhito Isozaki, assistant professor of North Korean politics at Keio University in Japan. "Since China and Russia supported the statement, North Korea feels betrayed."

However, Prof. Yoo Ho-yeol of Korea University in Seoul said Pyongyang will find it difficult to boycott the talks entirely, since that would only serve to further isolate the impoverished country, one of the world's poorest.

China appealed for calm.

"We hope the relevant parties will proceed from the overall interest, exercise calmness and restraint," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a press conference in Beijing on Tuesday.

South Korea, expressing "deep regret," also decided Tuesday to fully join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, a program launch in 2003 to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the presidential office said.

The move is bound to further infuriate Pyongyang.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM

IAEA says North Korea is expelling its inspectors
         

AFP 55 mins ago
VIENNA – The International Atomic Energy Agency says North Korea is expelling its inspectors. The North has also told the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it is reactivating all of its nuclear facilities.

An IAEA statement Tuesday said North Korea has told inspectors to remove seals and cameras from the Yongbyon nuclear site and leave the country as quickly as possible.

The moves reflect anger at U.N. Security Council criticism of the country's latest missile launch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:42 PM

US: North Korea must cease 'provocative threats'
         

Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – As North Korea spurned a U.N. condemnation, the Obama White House called on the reclusive communist nation Tuesday to "cease its provocative threats" and respect the international community's will.

Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs said Pyongyang's vow to restart its nuclear reactor and boycott international disarmament talks is "a serious step in the wrong direction." He said the international community won't accept North Korea "unless it verifiably abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

"We call on North Korea to cease its provocative threats, to respect the will of the international community, and to honor its international commitments and obligations," President Barack Obama's chief spokesman said at his daily briefing with reporters.

His remarks came just as the International Atomic Energy Agency said North Korea is expelling its inspectors and has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it is reactivating all of its nuclear facilities.

North Korea is retaliating for the U.N. Security Council's condemnation Monday of the country's recent rocket launch. North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb, but had subsequently agreed to dismantle its nuclear program in return for massive fuel oil shipments arranged in talks with China, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan.

Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang — a key step toward dismantlement — in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year.

In June 2008, North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its 18,000-page account of past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

On Tuesday, North Korea said it would restart nuclear facilities, an apparent reference to its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea already is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least half a dozen atomic bombs.

Gibbs said the six-party talks offer the country the best path to earning international acceptance, and he said the United States stands ready to work with North Korea and its neighbors through that process.

He said the administration is "quite pleased" with the U.N. Security Council's unanimous condemnation of the rocket launch. The Security Council demanded an end to missile tests and said it will expand sanctions against North Korea.

"We're pleased with what we got," Gibbs said.

He also said the White House expects China to continue to play "a very constructive role" in any dialogue between North Korea and its neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

Iran says US journalist tried behind closed doors
         

Ali Akbar Dareini And Anna Johnson, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 5 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said Tuesday its national security court put an American journalist on trial behind closed doors on allegations she spied for the U.S. — a charge Washington calls baseless.

The unusually swift one-day trial threatened to anger the U.S. at a time when the Obama administration is showing willingness to engage its longtime adversary after many years of rocky relations.

Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation against her last week, charging her with spying for the United States.

"Yesterday, the first trial session was held. She presented her final defense," judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. "The court will issue its verdict within the next two to three weeks."

It was unclear why the trial was moving at such a fast pace — especially because the charges leveled against Saberi were so serious. Under Iranian law, those convicted of spying normally face up to 10 years in prison.

Saberi has been living in Iran for the last six years, working as a freelance reporter for news organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. Her father has said his daughter, who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, was finishing a book on Iran and had planned to return to the United States this year.

Her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said he was not authorized to speak to the media about the trial, which he was permitted to attend.

"I will comment only after the verdict is issued," he told The Associated Press.

Washington has described the charges as "baseless" and has repeatedly called for Saberi's release. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States was "deeply concerned" about the espionage charges.

But Jamshidi criticized the U.S. for saying Saberi was innocent and calling for her release.

"That a government expresses an opinion without seeing the indictment is laughable," he told reporters.

One Iran analyst said it was not a coincidence that the charges against Saberi come as Obama is making overtures to Iran.

"There are powerful hard-line factions in Tehran who do their best to torpedo or sabotage efforts to improve (U.S.-Iran) relations because they stand to lose both politically and financially, and I think I would put Roxana's case in that context," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_journalist_detained

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

NKorea threatens nuke test if UN doesn't apologize
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 5 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea warned Wednesday it will fire an intercontinental ballistic missile — or even carry out another nuclear test — unless the U.N. apologizes for condemning the regime's April 5 rocket launch.

By flaunting its rogue nuclear and missile programs, Pyongyang has raised the stakes in the escalating diplomatic tit for tat with the outside world. North Korea also said it would start generating nuclear fuel — an indication the regime will begin enriching uranium, another material used to make an atomic bomb.

North Korea is known for its use of brinksmanship and harsh rhetoric to force the West to react, but the threat of a nuclear test is significant.

Pyongyang conducted its first atomic test in 2006, and is thought to have enough plutonium to make at least half a dozen nuclear bombs. There are no indications, however, that scientists in the North have mastered the technology needed to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit onto a missile.

Still, North Korea's April 5 rocket launch drew widespread international concern. Pyongyang claims the liftoff was a peaceful bid to send a communications satellite into space, but the U.S., Japan and others saw it as a furtive test of a delivery system capable of sending a long-range missile within striking range of Alaska.

The U.N. Council denounced the launch as a violation of 2006 resolutions barring the North from missile-related activity, and later imposed new sanctions on three North Korean firms.

Within hours of the sanctions, the North claimed it had begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex to harvest weapons-grade plutonium — a clear setback to years of negotiations on disarming the communist country.

The Security Council must apologize for infringing on the North's sovereignty and "withdraw all its unreasonable and discriminative resolutions and decisions" against the North, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Otherwise, the regime "will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures," including "nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles," the ministry said.

The U.S. criticized North Korea's latest maneuver.

"Let me just say very clearly that these threats only further isolate the North," said U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood. "We again call on the North Koreans to come back to the (negotiating) table ... We've heard these types of threats before."

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed "serious concerns" about the warnings, and criticized Pyongyang for challenging the international community.

"We make it clear that the international responsibility for worsening the situation will be entirely on North Korea," the ministry said in a statement.

Prof. Kim Yong-hyun at Seoul's Dongguk University called the North's threat rhetoric designed to trigger a response from the Obama administration, which has yet to fully reveal its North Korea policy.

"The North is trying to maximize the stakes as the United States keeps ignoring it," he said. But the expert also said the regime could gradually put the threat into action if Washington fails to respond as it wishes.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, said the North appears to have begun preparations for nuclear and missile tests, noting its "unrealistic, unprecedented" demand: a U.N. apology.

He said North Korea's statement Wednesday that it will begin building a light-water reactor — another way of producing fuel — undoubtedly means Pyongyang will begin enriching uranium, a material used to make atomic bombs.

Yang said Pyongyang is angling for direct talks with Washington, with which it currently has no diplomatic relations. He said that offer would convince the North to withdraw its nuclear and missile threats.

The current nuclear standoff flared in late 2002 after Washington raised allegations that Pyongyang had a clandestine nuclear program based on enriched uranium in addition to a separate one based on plutonium. The North has strongly denied the allegations.

Since 2003, five nations — China, Japan, South Korea Russia and the U.S. — have been negotiating with North Korea on a disarmament-for-aid deal.

Months after its 2006 nuclear test, North Korea agreed in February 2007 to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began in November of that year.

By June 2008, North Korea had completed eight of 11 steps toward disablement, and blew up the Yongbyon cooling tower in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But the process came to halt weeks later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

North Korea formally walked away from the talks after the Security Council condemnation of its rocket launch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:20 PM

I have just one word for you:   Liechtenstein!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:31 AM

Obama envoy warns NKorea on nuke test, urges talks
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 9 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – President Barack Obama's top envoy for North Korea warned of "consequences" if the regime pushes ahead with a threatened atomic test and urged Pyongyang to instead return to dialogue with Washington to defuse nuclear tensions.

Stephen Bosworth arrived in Seoul from Beijing just hours after North Korea accused the Obama administration of harboring a hostile policy toward Pyongyang, saying it would expand its nuclear arsenal in response.

"Nothing would be expected from the U.S., which remains unchanged in its hostility toward its dialogue partner," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried Friday by state media. The North "will bolster its nuclear deterrent as it has already clarified."

Bosworth urged North Korea — which shocked the world by conducting a nuclear test in 2006 — not to carry out another atomic test, as the communist regime has threatened to do in retaliation for U.N. sanctions its recent rocket launch.

"If the North Koreans decide to carry out a second nuclear test, we will deal with consequences of that. And there will be consequences," Bosworth told reporters, without elaborating.

"But we can't control at this stage what North Korea does. We certainly very much hope that they will not do a second nuclear test," he said.

However, Bosworth said Washington is ready and willing to hold direct talks with Pyongyang.

"We would not interpret our policy as being hostile ... President Obama has stressed on numerous occasions that the door to dialogue remains open," he told reporters after talks with Seoul's foreign minister. He said he hopes Pyongyang realizes "it is in their interest to continue dialogue and negotiation on a multilateral basis."

Former President George W. Bush once refused direct talks with North Korea — a country that he termed as part of an "axis of evil" — but agreed to allow an envoy engage in bilateral talks with North Koreans after Pyongyang conducted the nuclear test.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama went further and said he would be willing to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il if it helps denuclearization. His administration has maintained support for the ongoing six-party nuclear negotiations, and Bosworth this week also offered direct talks between U.S. and North Korean envoys.

Analyst Paik Hak-soon at the Sejong Institute think tank said the North is trying to force Washington into higher-level direct talks in an attempt to reach a grand give-and-take deal. He said the regime appears to think the current envoy, Bosworth, is not senior enough.

"North Korea is applying maximum pressure on the United States to have bilateral talks in an attempt to restructure" the entire nuclear game, Paik said, adding that Pyongyang appears to be seeking a higher-level envoy with more dealmaking power than Bosworth.

Bosworth's trip to the region came as North Korea continued to ratchet up nuclear tensions following its controversial April 5 rocket launch.

Pyongyang characterized the launch as a successful bid to send a satellite into space. The U.S. and others saw it as a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions barring the North from ballistic missile-related activity since the same technology can be used to fire an intercontinental missile mounted with nuclear arms.

The U.N. Security Council condemned the launch and punished the regime by slapping sanctions on three North Korean firms.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the nuclear negotiations, kicking out U.S. and U.N. inspectors and warning it may conduct nuclear or long-range missile tests if the U.N. and Washington refuse to apologize for the censure.

South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper recently reported "brisk" activity has been detected at North Korea's nuclear test site, citing an unnamed South Korean government source. The report could not be confirmed.

Pyongyang is believed to have enough plutonium to make at least a half-dozen atomic bombs but not the technology required to fit a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile.

The impoverished, isolated regime agreed in 2007 to begin dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year, with Pyongyang blowing up the cooling tower at its main nuclear facility in June 2008 in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to a halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its past atomic activities. The latest round of talks in December failed to push the process forward.

Bosworth and nuclear talks envoy Sung Kim had no set plans to visit Pyongyang during his regional tour, which also includes stops in Tokyo and Moscow, the State Department said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:04 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802583.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:09 AM

In a Nuclear Minefield

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 19, 2009

In 1947, a British lawyer with no experience in the region arrived in India to draw lines on a map. Within several weeks, Cyril Radcliffe had severed the future Pakistan from India, helping to create the conditions that have since resulted in three wars and the arming of both nations with nuclear weapons. People ask what America would do if Pakistan lost control of its nukes. Wrong question. Ask instead what India might do.

That country has as many as 100 nuclear weapons and the missiles, as well as the airplanes, submarines and surface ships, to launch them. Pakistan also has around 100 nuclear weapons but lacks India's extensive delivery systems. Nonetheless, the two countries have what it takes to blow each other to kingdom come. They also have the reason. They hate each other.

The stakes in this part of the world are worth reciting because they are both terrifying and virtually unprecedented. Yet in Congress, the comparison is made to the Vietnam War. Rep. David Obey, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, has suggested that the war in Afghanistan and the effort to stabilize Pakistan have an open-ended and futile Vietnam quality to them. He wants to give the Obama administration one year to show progress -- or get out.

Others make the argument that we can only make matters worse. First "do no harm," counsels Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and the author of the best-seller "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." It is his view that the problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan are beyond us, that America has neither the power nor the know-how to do much in this vast, complex region. The trick, he says, is merely to have a plan to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons if and when the time comes.

If there is a Vietnam analogy, it may be this: Containment can be impossible. The war in Vietnam became the war in Cambodia and the war in Laos. In the end, it meant a bloodbath for the entire region. Cambodia simply went berserk, a horror that is still hard to comprehend. So, too, the unintended consequences of the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan has now been drawn into the fighting with the Taliban. The country is even less stable than it used to be. Once again, we hear that term "collateral damage." This means that the wrong people are being killed.

The challenge for President Obama is to explain to the American people why Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan are worth the lives of yet more Americans. So far, Obama has stuck pretty close to the message that he is determined to eliminate al-Qaeda -- and more power to him. But that is too little, too late. The Taliban has already spilled over the border. A bit of nation-building is what Pakistan needs. That will take time -- considerably more than the year Obey and others are willing to grant.

The relevant history here may not be Vietnam at all. It could be World War I. The assassination of a single man somehow set off a chain reaction in which millions were killed and, after a pause, it all resumed under a different name: World War II. (Books are still being written about the cause of World War I.) Now, though, the stakes are so much greater. The region is a nuclear neighborhood, a pharmacy for nuclear addicts with Pakistan choosing to add even more weapons instead of -- just an idea -- opening some schools. The region is roiled. The only constant is enmity.

The critics of Obama's policy for the region are not easily dismissed. Vietnam has its lessons; Iraq, too. What's more, they have their cumulative effect. A kind of national weariness has set in. Why us? Why is it that Americans are always asked to risk their lives? Where the hell is everyone else?

These are hard questions to answer. But an even harder question could someday come after a nuclear catastrophe when people demand to know why nothing much was done to head it off. The answer cannot be that our year was up.

To the Indians, last year's Mumbai terrorist attacks seemed ominously like the sort of sea-land operation only a government -- or a rogue element -- could pull off. They look at Pakistan, which in turn looks back at India across a line drawn long ago by an Englishman. He went home after a brief stay. It will take us much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:48 AM

Iran says launches missile with 2,000 km range

Reuters
Wednesday, May 20, 2009; 6:21 AM

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran launched a missile with a range of around 2,000 km (1,200 miles) on Wednesday and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Islamic state could send any attacker "to hell," official media reported.

The stated range of the surface-to-surface Sejil 2 missile would be almost as far as another Iranian missile, Shahab 3, and military analysts say it could enable Iran to reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.

The announcement is likely to arouse further concern in the West and Israel about Iran's military ambitions. The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

"The Sejil 2 missile, which has an advanced technology, was launched today ... and it landed exactly on the target," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

He was speaking during a rally in the northern Semnan province, where IRNA said the launch took place. State television said it was a test and showed footage of a missile soaring into the sky, leaving a vapor trail.

U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking rapprochement with Iran after three decades of mutual hostility. But, like his predecessor George W. Bush, he has not ruled out military action if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the nuclear row.

Israeli leaders have raised U.S. concern by hinting at pre-emptive strikes if they decide diplomacy has failed.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests and America's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had the power to "send to hell" any military base from where "a bullet" was fired against the country. He singled out Israel, which Iran usually refers to as the Zionist regime and does not recognize.

"Right now the Zionist regime ... threatens Iran militarily with its false threats," Ahmadinejad said.

The hardline president, who often rails against Iran's foes, faces a challenge in Iran's June 12 presidential election from moderate politicians seeking detente with the West.

Iran said in November it test fired a Sejil missile, describing it as a new generation of surface-to-surface missile. Tehran said it was ready to defend itself against any attacker.

Washington said at the time that the test highlighted the need for a missile defense system it plans to base in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter threats from "rogue states."

The Obama administration is reviewing the missile shield project for cost effectiveness and viability, though he has said Washington would continue to research and develop the plans.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:14 PM

Iran keeps saying they are prepared to defend themselves. The US and Israel keep talking about attacking Iran, not defensively, but preemptively. It's not Iran that is the rogue state.