BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:00 PM

I don't understand the above post. I didn't say Iran was willing to negotiate about enriching uranium.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:29 PM

CarolC: "Iran is offering to negotiate on all of the things the West is saying are the reason it doesn't want Iran to enrich uranium. "


The reason is that it is in violation of the NPT which gave Iran the assistance to get ANY nuclear power. If they refuse to negotiate on it, they remain in violation of the NPT, and thus outside of the family of civilized nations, by violating their international treaties.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM

Is the above poster suggesting that I said Iran was willing to negotiate about uranium enrichment? Because if they are, they need to read what I said a lot more carefully.

However, Iran has the right under the NPT to enrich uranium, as it do all of the other countries that are signatories to that agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:58 PM

Unless they refuse the continuous monitoring that they stopped. Then they are in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:00 AM

Are they still refusing the monitoring? Or did they just stop if for a limited period of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:48 AM

"continuous"

The fact that they refused monitoring means that there is some period of time that they were not monitored, and they have not accounted for all material and operations during that time.

THAT is the violation. They can have monitoring of the KNOWN facilities and still not be in compliance with the NPT- THEY HAVE TO ACCOUNT for what occurred durnig the period of non-monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 01:34 PM

US worried about Venezuelan arms buildup
         
Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Mon Sep 14, 7:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A U.S. official said Monday that Venezuelan arms acquisitions could spark an arms race in Latin America and he also expressed misgivings about the country's possible nuclear ambitions.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said U.S. officials were worried about Venezuela's arms buildup, "which we think poses a serious challenge to stability in the Western Hemisphere."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia has opened a $2.2 billion line of credit with which his country could buy weapons. He said Venezuela needed more arms because it felt threatened by Colombia's decision to give U.S. troops greater access to its military bases.

Kelly urged Venezuela to be "very clear about the purposes of these purchases."

Responding to a reporter's question about whether the United States would be worried about nuclear transfers between Iran and Venezuela, Kelly said: "The short answer is, to that, yes, we do have concerns."

Chavez has expressed interest in starting a nuclear energy program. Chavez is a close ally of Iran and defends its nuclear program as being for peaceful purposes, while the United States and other countries accuse Tehran of having a secret nuclear weapons program.

It remains unclear whether Iran could transfer nuclear technology to Venezuela in the future. Russia, for its part, has agreed to help Venezuela establish a nuclear energy program.

"We're going to start working on that with Russia," Chavez said Sunday. "We're not going to make an atomic bomb. ... We're going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful aims as Brazil, Argentina have."

Kelly noted that Venezuela is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would restrict any nuclear program to nonmilitary purposes.

"We'll be looking closely at this," Kelly said. He offered no details.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
         
22 mins ago

VIENNA – 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardebruce
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 06:41 AM

Iran president says Holocaust "pretext" to form Israel

Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:43am EDT

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday the Holocaust was a "lie" and a pretext to create a Jewish state that Iranians had a religious duty to confront.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime (Israel) is a national and religious duty."

Since coming to power in 2005, Ahmadinejad has provoked international condemnation for saying the Holocaust was a "myth" and calling Israel a "tumor" in the Middle East.

His government held a conference in 2006 questioning the fact that Nazis used gas chambers to kill 6 million Jews in World War Two.

Ahmadinejad's critics say his fiery anti-Western speeches and questioning of the Holocaust have isolated Iran, which is at odds with the West over its disputed nuclear program.

The hardline president, who often rails against Israel and the West, warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

European countries have criticized the hardline president for his views on Israel, which Iran refuses to recognize since its 1979 Islamic revolution.

Israel, the United States and their European allies suspect Iran of trying to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear work is aimed at generating electricity.

RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS

Ahmadinejad said Iran rejected any Middle East peace plan that did not guarantee the rights of the Palestinians.

"The Palestinians should know that they owe everything to their resistance," he said, rejecting any solutions based on compromises.

The hardline leader played down the importance of any protests he may face in New York during his upcoming trip to attend the U.N. General Assembly.

"These futile actions have no political value. The Iranian nation will not blink an eye over your actions," he said to chants of "Death to Israel." Ahmadinejad railed against the United States during his previous appearances at the General Assembly, which takes place at the U.N. headquarters on international territory on the east side of Manhattan.

All world leaders are invited to the annual gathering in September, to the discomfort of the United States which has been forced over the years to allow in foes like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

Last Chance for Iran

By Daniel R. Coats, Charles S. Robb and Charles F. Wald
Monday, September 21, 2009

History counsels skepticism toward Iran's newly rediscovered willingness to negotiate. Western diplomats have often walked away from such talks empty-handed. We believe, however, that the Oct. 1 talks present an important opportunity to reveal Tehran's intentions and for President Obama to convince other nations of the need for biting sanctions. They must be taken seriously.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that the objective of this latest round of talks should be "to meet and explain to the Iranians, face to face, the choices that Iran has." Tehran has time and again made the same unfortunate choice: to use the promise of diplomatic engagement to delay and discourage international pressure.

We have little time left to expend on Iranian stalling tactics, if that is indeed what this overture is. As we noted in a report for the Bipartisan Policy Center last week, which was based on an in-depth study of Iran's known enrichment capacities and uranium stockpile by a respected nuclear power expert, we believe Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon by 2010. Meanwhile, Israel appears ever more determined to conduct a unilateral military strike if necessary.

If diplomacy is to succeed, the United States cannot allow Iran to dictate the terms of engagement. Agreeing on a realistic strategy with our partners is at least as important as what is said around the negotiating table. As we have argued in earlier reports and on this page, successful diplomacy with Iran requires first "laying a strong strategic foundation" of alliance- and leverage-building. So long as Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities, the United States and its partners should limit negotiations to a specific time frame. If credible progress is not made in that time, we must be prepared to walk away from the negotiating table. Otherwise, Tehran will be able to drag out the talks endlessly while its centrifuges continue to spin.

Another key condition for successful negotiations is building leverage on Iran. Ideally, during the Group of 20 summit this week and the time before the talks, there could be a push for expanded sanctions targeted at Iran's financial and energy sectors, as well as at foreign companies that do business with them. By ratcheting up pressure on Iran before we sit down, Western negotiators would gain both sticks (additional measures) and carrots (repealing sanctions) with which to induce Iranian cooperation.

There is, unfortunately, little international appetite for tougher sanctions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's strong statement on Wednesday notwithstanding, European support is not universal. Also, Russia has rejected sanctions outright, while China is intent on increasing its commercial and energy ties to Iran.

Thus President Obama's primary objective during and after negotiations must be marshaling international support for more robust sanctions. Although the circumstances are not yet clear, we hope that the administration's recent decision to shelve planned missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic is tied to Russian concessions on Iran; if not, this could significantly undermine our leverage with Russia as well as Iran.

U.S. participation in the October talks will further demonstrate its commitment to diplomacy and build additional global goodwill. If it becomes evident that these talks will end as have all past negotiations -- fruitlessly -- the limitations of engagement, and the need for tougher measures, will be hard to deny. We must not mistake process for progress.

Should the international community fail to support sanctions even in those circumstances, there is still much that United States can do to pressure Tehran. It could conduct overt military preparations, such as sending an additional carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf or holding military exercises in the region. This should demonstrate to Tehran the costs of continued defiance and persuade European leaders that they make armed conflict more likely by refusing to adopt tougher measures.

If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option. This need not involve a strike. A naval blockade would help ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions, such as an embargo on gasoline imports. Ultimately, though, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, albeit risky, option of last resort.

Next month's talks may be one of the last opportunities to diplomatically address the advancing Iranian nuclear threat. If Iran chooses to waste yet another such chance, President Obama will have no choice but to fulfill his February commitment to "use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:17 AM

Nuclear Debate Brews: Is Iran Designing Warheads?


Published: September 28, 2009
This article is by William J. Broad, Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger.

WASHINGTON — When President Obama stood last week with the leaders of Britain and France to denounce Iran's construction of a secret nuclear plant, the Western powers all appeared to be on the same page.

Behind their show of unity about Iran's clandestine efforts to manufacture nuclear fuel, however, is a continuing debate among American, European and Israeli spies about a separate component of Iran's nuclear program: its clandestine efforts to design a nuclear warhead.

The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these "weaponization" efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public.

Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

The debate, in essence, is a mirror image of the intelligence dispute on the eve of the Iraq war.

This time, United States spy agencies are delivering more cautious assessments about Iran's clandestine programs than their Western European counterparts.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:32 PM

Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity
         
George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago

VIENNA – Iran moved closer to being able to produce nuclear warheads Monday with formal notification that it will enrich uranium to higher levels, even while insisting that the move was meant only to provide fuel for its research reactor.

Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told The Associated Press that he informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of the decision to enrich at least some of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 percent, considered the threshold value for highly enriched uranium.

Soltanieh, who represents Iran at the Vienna-based IAEA, also said that the U.N. agency's inspectors now overseeing enrichment to low levels would be able to stay on site to fully monitor the process. And he blamed world powers for Iran's decision, asserting that it was their fault that a plan that foresaw Russian and French involvement in supplying the research reactor had failed.

"Until now, we have not received any response to our positive logical and technical proposal," he said. "We cannot leave hospitals and patients desperately waiting for radio isotopes" being produced at the Tehran reactor and used in cancer treatment, he added.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to take Iranian low enriched uranium, further enriching it and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.

At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.

"No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."

Israel, Iran's most implacable foe, said Iran's enrichment plans are "additional proof of the fact that Iran is ridiculing the entire world."

"The right response is to impose decisive and permanent sanctions on Iran," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already announced Sunday that his country would significantly enrich at least some of the country's stockpile of uranium. Still, Monday's notification to the IAEA was important as formal confirmation of the plan, particularly because of the rash of conflicting signals sent in recent months by Iranian officials on the issue.

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for the country's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Achieving the 20-percent level "would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium," said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators.

Soltanieh declined to say how much of Iran's stockpile — now estimated at 1.8 tons — would be enriched. Nor did he say when the process would begin. Albright said enriching to higher levels could begin within a day — or only in several months, depending on how far technical preparations had progressed.

Apparent technical problems could also slow the process, he said.

Iran's enrichment program "should be like a Christmas tree in full light," he said. "In fact, the lights are flickering."

While Iran would be able to enrich up to 20 percent, it is not considered technically sophisticated enough to turn that material into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. A senior official from a member nation of the 35-country IAEA board said that issue cast Iran's stated reason for higher enrichment into doubt.

Legal constraints could tie Iran's hands as well. The senior official said he believed Tehran was obligated to notify the agency 60 days in advance of starting to enrich to higher levels.

The official asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue. The IAEA had no immediate comment.

On Sunday, Iranian officials said higher enrichment would start on Tuesday.

The Iranian move came just days after Ahmadinejad appeared to move close to endorsing the original deal, which foresaw Tehran exporting the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then conversion for fuel rods for the research reactor.

That plan was welcomed internationally because it would have delayed Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapons by shipping out about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile, thereby leaving it with not enough to make a bomb. Tehran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, insisting it needs to enrich to create fuel for an envisaged nuclear reactor network.

The proposal was endorsed by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the six powers that originally elicited a tentative approval from Iran in landmark talks last fall. Since then, however, mixed messages from Tehran have infuriated the U.S. and its European allies, who claim Iran is only stalling for time as it attempts to build a nuclear weapon.

Even before Iran's formal notification of the IAEA, some of those nations criticized the plan and suggested it would be met by increased pressure for new penalties on the Islamic Republic.

Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions — and three sets of U.N. sanctions — aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.

Iran's enrichment plans "would be a deliberate breach" of the resolutions, the British Foreign Office said. In Berlin, Ulrich Wilhelm, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Germany and its allies were watching developments and were prepared to "continue along the path of raising diplomatic pressure."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM

Iran plans 10 new enrichment plants in 2010/11
         
CBC.ca Mon Feb 8, 1:52 am ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities during the next Iranian year, its atomic energy chief was quoted as saying, in comments likely to further raise tension with the West.

The statement by Ali Akbar Salehi on Sunday evening comes after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier in the day instructed Iran's Atomic Energy Organization to start work on producing higher-grade nuclear fuel for a Tehran reactor.

Iran's announcement raised the stakes in its dispute with the West, but Ahmadinejad said talks were still possible on a nuclear swap offer by world powers designed to allay fears the Islamic Republic is making an atomic bomb.

Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organization, also on Sunday said Iran would start producing uranium enriched to a level of 20 percent on Tuesday, in the presence of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He said Iran will formally inform the Vienna-based U.N. agency about the move in a letter on Monday, Iran's Arabic-language television station al Alam reported. He earlier said production would take place at Iran's Natanz site.

But Salehi also suggested production would be halted if Iran received fuel enriched to 20 percent from abroad. Iran has expressed readiness to exchange its low-enriched uranium for higher-grade fuel, but wants amendments to the U.N.-drafted plan.

"Iran would halt its enrichment process for the Tehran research reactor any time it receives the necessary fuel for it," Salehi said.

Iran in November announced plans to build 10 new enrichment plants in a major expansion of its atomic program, but did not specify the timeframe. The West fears Iran's nuclear work is aimed at making bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

"Iran will set up 10 uranium enrichment centers next year," al Alam quoted Salehi as saying. The Iranian year starts on March 21.

Analysts have expressed skepticism whether sanctions-bound Iran, which has problems obtaining materials and components abroad, would be able to equip and operate 10 new plants.

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants and, if refined much further, provide material for bombs. Iran currently enriches uranium to a level of 3.5 percent. A nuclear bomb would require 80 percent or more.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:07 PM

Report: Iran disrupting satellite transmissions

JPOST.COM STAFF
12/02/2010 10:34

Several international networks have said that Iran is disrupting their Farsi-language satellite transmissions, Israel Radio reported Friday.

BBC Radio, The Voice of America and the German network Deutsche Welle defined the interference as electronic disturbances from Iran.

The report said that the regime began to disrupt the transmissions on Thursday with the beginning of celebrations on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The Islamic nation has also been blocking GMail since Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:02 PM

UN nuke agency worried Iran may be working on arms
      
George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago

VIENNA – The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday expressed concern for the first time that Iran may currently be working on ways to turn enriched uranium into a nuclear warhead, instead of having stopped several years ago.

Its report appears to contradict an assessment by Washington that Tehran suspended such activities in 2003. It appears to jibe with the concerns of several U.S. allies that Iran may never have suspended such work.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is currently being looked at again by American intelligence agencies.

In a report prepared for its 35 board nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency also said that Iran managed to make a minute amount of near 20-percent enriched uranium within days of starting production from lower-enriched material. Higher enrichment puts Iran nearer to the capability of making fissile warhead material, should opt to do so.

Iran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms. But the confidential report, made available to The Associated Press, said Iran's resistance to agency attempts to probe for signs of a nuclear cover-up "give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."

The language of the report — the first written by Yukiya Amano, who became IAEA head in December — appeared to be more directly critical of Iran's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA than most previous ones under his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei.

It strongly suggested that intelligence supplied by the U.S., Israel and other IAEA member states on Iran's attempts to use the cover of a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was compelling.

"The information available to the agency ... is broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," said the report, prepared for next month's IAEA board meeting.

"Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," said the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:54 AM

AHMADINEJAD: 'YEP, I'M NUCLEAR!'
February 17, 2010


The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for V.P.).

Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."

Gee, that's weird -- because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians -- even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) -- all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence -- and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who -- amazingly -- was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."

And so they did.

So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven't had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can't spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran's nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE's conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran's operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, "Iran Now Loves Israel."

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report "a declaration of the Iranian people's victory against the great powers."

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted "intelligence" agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report "appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House's bomb-Iran brigade -- and especially that of Vice President Dick Cheney."

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, "No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it's clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake."

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother's housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

"Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago," Olbermann thundered, "instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled."

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: "Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess ... in response to Iran's anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?"

Bush had "smeared" Iran!

Olbermann's Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush "has zero credibility."

Olbermann's even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility "has suffered another serious blow."

Poor Iran!

Olbermann's most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know -- with delightful originality -- "what the president knew and when he knew it." This was on account of Bush's having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that's on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report "liars" and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE's laughable report.

Even if you weren't aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn't notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn't any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!



COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:03 PM

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukesRate this story

Report finds Tehran keeping options

By Bill Gertz

Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.

"Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," the annual report to Congress states.

A U.S. official involved in countering weapons proliferation said the Iranians are "keeping the door open to the possibility of building a nuclear weapon."

"That's in spite of strong international pressure not to do so, and some difficulties they themselves seem to be having with their nuclear program," the official said. "There are powerful incentives for them to close the door completely, but they are either purposefully ignoring them or are tone deaf. You almost want to shout, 'Tune in Tehran.'"

The CIA report is the latest official study expressing concern over Iran's continuing nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency on March 3 issued a report warning that continuing nuclear activities in violation of U.N. resolutions raise "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

The U.S. report was produced by the CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC. It is called the 721 report for the section of a 1997 intelligence authorization law requiring it.

The report also says that North Korea, based on a nuclear test in May 2009, now "has the capability to produce nuclear weapons with a yield of roughly a couple of kilotons TNT equivalent." A kiloton is a measure of a nuclear bomb's power and is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.

On Iran, the report says that it is "keeping open" its options for building nuclear arms, "though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

The report reflects the published conclusion of a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that stated Iran had halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The report, posted on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Web site, was written before a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, which is nearing completion and is expected to revise the earlier estimate, although details have not been disclosed.

According to the report, Iran expanded nuclear infrastructure and uranium enrichment in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that since 2006 have called on Tehran to halt the enrichment.

During the first 11 months of last year, the main uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz produced about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride, compared with about half a ton the previous year.

The number of centrifuges at Natanz increased from about 5,000 to 8,700 last year, although the number reported to be working is about 3,900, indicating the Iranians are having problems with the machines. The centrifuges enrich uranium gas by spinning it at high speeds.

Last year, Iran disclosed it is building a second gas-centrifuge plant near the city of Qom that will house an estimated 3,000 machines. U.S. officials have said the Qom facility, which was discovered in 2007, is a clear sign Iran's nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, because the facility is too small for nonmilitary uranium enrichment.

Iran also continued work last year on a heavy water research reactor.

On missiles, the report said Iran is building more short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and stated that "producing more capable medium-range ballistic missiles remains one of its highest priorities."

Three test flights of a new 1,240-mile-range Sejil missile were conducted in 2009, the report said, noting that assistance from China, North Korea and Russia "helped move Iran toward self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles."

The report also said that Iran has the capability of producing both chemical and biological weapons, and Tehran continued to seek dual-use technology for its bioweapons program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25118.htm

"Reporting" on Iran Should Seem Familiar

By Glenn Greenwald

March 31, 2010 "Salon" -- Fox News currently has an article at the top of its website that is headlined: "CIA: Iran Moving Closer to Nuclear Weapon." The report, by DOD and State Department correspondent Justin Fishel, begins with this alarming claim:

    A recently published report by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon despite some technical setbacks and international resistance -- and the Pentagon say it's still concerned about Iran's ambitions.

But, as blogger George Maschke notes, that statement is categorically false. The actual report, to which the Fox article links and which the DNI was required by Congress to submit, says no such thing. Rather, this is its core finding:


"We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons. Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."


The report says the opposite of Fox's statement that "Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon." And, of course, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran ceased development of its weapons program has never been rescinded, and even the most hawkish anonymous leaks from inside the intelligence community, when bashing the 2007 NIE, merely claim that analysts "now believe that Iran may well have resumed 'research' on nuclear weapons -- theoretical work on how to design and construct a bomb -- but that Tehran is not engaged in 'development' -- actually trying to build a weapon."

This misleading "reporting" is hardly confined to Fox News. Reporting on Obama's efforts to secure international sanctions, Reuters today makes this claim:

    [E]evidence has mounted raising doubts about whether Tehran is telling the truth when it says its nuclear program is only to produce peaceful atomic energy.

    Particularly damning was a report in February from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that said Iran may be working to develop a nuclear-armed missile.

But as Juan Cole correctly notes:

    This Reuters article also misinterprets the stance of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN, which continues to certify that none of Iran's nuclear material, being enriched for civilian purposes, has been diverted to military uses. The IAEA has all along said it cannot give 100% assurance that Iran has no weapons program, because it is not being given complete access. But nagging doubt is not the same as an affirmation. We should learn a lesson from the Iraq debacle.

Meanwhile, The New York Times' David Sanger -- who is the Judy Miller of Iran when it comes to hyping the "threat" based overwhelmingly, often exclusively, on anonymous sources -- continues his drum beat this week. In an article co-written with William Broad, Sanger warns -- "based on interviews with officials of several governments and international agencies" ("all" of whom "insisted on anonymity") -- that "international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build more sites in defiance of United Nations demands." But rather than the secret, nefarious scheme which the NYT depicts this as being, these plans for additional sites were publicly announced -- by the Iranian government itself -- many weeks ago.

As I've noted before, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iran wanted a nuclear weapons capability. If anything, it would be irrational for them not to want one. What else would a rational Iranian leader conclude as they look at the U.S. military's having destructively invaded and continuing to occupy two of its neighboring, non-nuclear countries (i.e., being surrounded by an invading American army on both its Eastern and Western borders)? Add to that the fact that barely a day goes by without Western media outlets and various Western elites threatening them with a bombing attack by the U.S. or the Israel (which itself has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and categorically refuses any inspections or other monitoring). If our goal were to create a world where Iran was incentivized to obtain nuclear weapons, we couldn't do a better job than we're doing now.

But regardless of one's views on that question, or on the question of what the U.S. should do (if anything) about Iranian proliferation, the first order of business ought to be ensuring that the reporting on which we base our views is accurate. A CNN poll from February found that 59% of Americans favor military action against Iran if negotiations over their nuclear program fail (see questions 31-32) -- and that's without the White House even advocating such a step. As the invasion of Iraq demonstrated, the kind of fear-mongering, reckless, and outright false "reporting" we're seeing already -- and have been seeing for awhile -- over Iran's nuclear program poses a far greater danger to the U.S. than anything Iran could do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:27 PM

Israel says N.Korea shipping WMDs to Syria

AP Tue May 11, 8:43 am ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday accused nuclear power North Korea of supplying Syria with weapons of mass destruction.

Lieberman's office quoted him as telling Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at a meeting in Tokyo that such activity threatened to destabilise east Asia as well as the Middle East.

"The cooperation between Syria and North Korea is not focused on economic development and growth but rather on weapons of mass destruction" Lieberman said.

In evidence he cited the December 2009 seizure at Bangkok airport of an illicit North Korean arms shipment which US intelligence said was bound for an unnamed Middle East country.

Lieberman said Syria intended to pass the weapons on to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia and to the Islamic Hamas movement, which rules Gaza and has its political headquarters in Damascus.

"This cooperation endangers stability in both southeast Asia and also in the Middle East and is against all the accepted norms in the international arena," Lieberman was quoted as telling Hatoyama.

Thai officials at the time said that acting on a tipoff from Washington they confiscated about 30 tonnes of missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons when the North Korean plane landed for refuelling in Bangkok.

Israel has accused North Korea in the past of transferring nuclear technology to Syria, which is technically in a state of war with the neighbouring Jewish state, although the two last fought openly in 1973.

Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported in 2007 that Israel seized North Korean nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site in Syria and then destroyed the site in an air attack.

Syria denied the report.

The communist regime in North Korea has denied collaborating on nuclear activity with Syria, while Israel has maintained an official silence on the reported September 2007 raid and strike.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:28 PM

Russia says may build nuclear power plant in Syria

By Denis Dyomkin

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Russia may help build a nuclear power plant in Syria, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko told Reuters on Tuesday as the Kremlin moved to strengthen ties with a Soviet-era ally in the Middle East.

On the first state visit to Syria by a Kremlin chief since the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev played up prospects for nuclear power cooperation and said Washington should work harder for peace in the Middle East.

"Cooperation on atomic energy could get a second wind," Medvedev said at a news conference with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after their talks.

Assad said he and Medvedev "talked about oil and gas cooperation, as well as constructing conventional or nuclear powered electricity stations."

Asked whether Russia would build an atomic power plant in Syria, Shmatko told Reuters: "We are studying this question."

Syria is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency for a suspected nuclear site that Israeli warplanes destroyed in 2007. Syria said the site was a conventional military complex.

The nation has been plagued for years with huge electricity shortages, with power generation falling one-third short of demand and the population expanding at 2.5 percent a year.

Israel has opposed Russian arms sales to Syria in the last several years, and nuclear energy cooperation between Damascus and Moscow may anger the Jewish state.

Shmatko said that cooperation with Russia on a possible nuclear plant would require Damascus to abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


MORE ATOMIC PLANTS IN IRAN?

He also suggested Russia might build more nuclear power reactors in Iran beyond the one it plans to switch on this year near the city of Bushehr despite likely U.S. disapproval.

"We are in favour of continuing cooperation with Iran in the energy sphere to the full extent, including in building light-water reactors," Shmatko told journalists.

Russia says all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power programmes and is aggressively seeking contracts abroad to build nuclear power plants.

But Medvedev, who has indicated Russia could support new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, called for "constructive cooperation with the international community on Iran's part."

The United States and some European countries believe Iran's nuclear programme is a front for an effort to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies it.

Moscow backed Syria through the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Kremlin is seeking to reinvigorate ties in the Middle East nations. It forgave most of Syria's multi-billion dollar debt.

Russia has also improved ties with Israel and tried to increase its clout to advance the Middle East peace process.

Medvedev repeated Russia's proposal for a Middle East peace conference in Moscow, but he suggested the United States would have to do more if peace efforts are to make headway.

"I agree with my colleague that the American side could take a more active position," Medvedev said at the news conference with Assad.

He said shuttle diplomacy and indirect talks could be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:30 PM

Iran could fire nuclear missile within two years, says think tank

Iran will be able to deploy a missile capable of carrying a one-tonne nuclear warhead within two years, according to a report from a leading security think tank.

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Published: 6:22PM BST 10 May 2010

The International Institute for Strategic Studies said Iran's missile development programme was expanding in tandem with its drive to acquire an atomic capability.

The Sajjil-2 missile, with a range of 1,400 miles, was test-fired at the end of 2008 and will be ready for deployment in 2012. The weapon relies on solid fuel for propulsion, which means it has a short preparation time and can't be as easily deterred by a pre-emptive strike.

Although the missile is initially likely to carry a conventional warhead, the development of similar missiles in other countries has been closely tied to a nuclear weapons programme.

"Iran is the only country to have developed a missile of this reach without first having developed nuclear weapons," the report said.

The missile would be capable of hitting Israel and parts of southern Europe depending on the size of the warhead. A nuclear device weighting between 750 kilograms and one ton could be placed on the models seen in testing.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a specialist on Iranian security, said the report demonstrated that Iran had devoted substantial resources to ballistic technology and an associated space race, even though its economy was failing. "Iran has been extremely active and increasingly active over the years," he said. "It's very clear that huge investment are being made in both missile technology and the space programme."

Efforts to stop Iran enriching uranium in contravention of nuclear treaties top the global diplomatic agenda and have already seen three rounds of United Nations sanctions imposed.

The report dismissed American fears that Iran was on track to develop an intercontinental missile that would be capable of a range beyond 3,450 miles in the near future. It said the development would not take place in the current decade.

"Logic and the history of Iran's revolutionary missile and space launcher development efforts suggest Tehran would develop and field an intermediate range missile before embarking on a programme to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the American East coast," it said.

While Iran is developing a large range of missiles and building new launching sites, it has not proven its ability to improve the accuracy of its weapons.

The IISS also warned that the missile programme was fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:43 PM

"The report says the opposite of Fox's statement that "Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon." "


No, it does not. Try reading for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:42 PM

Diplomats: Iran expands enrichment facility

Posted 4h 55m ago

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has set up new equipment that will allow it to boost its efficiency at enriching uranium at higher levels, diplomats said Friday. The move is likely to give the U.S. more leverage with Russia and China in its push for new U.N. sanctions on Tehran.
Iran's clandestine enrichment activities were discovered eight years ago and have expanded since to encompass thousands of centrifuges churning out material enriched to 3.5%. But despite three sets of Security Council sanctions meant to enforce demands of a freeze, Tehran moved to a new level in February, when it set up a small program to produce material enriched to near 20%.

Tehran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms and says it needs the higher enriched uranium to supply its research reactor with fuel after a U.N.-supported deal to provide the material from abroad fell apart. But the move has increased concerns because it brings the Islamic Republic closer to the ability to produce warhead material.

Uranium at 3.5%, can be used to fuel reactors which is Iran's avowed purpose for enrichment. If enriched to around 95%, however, it can be used in building a nuclear bomb, and at 20%, uranium can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than from lower levels.

The 20-percent uranium is being produced by a "cascade" 164 centrifuges hooked up in series. The diplomats said that Iranian technicians had in recent weeks assembled another 164-centrifuge cascade and the throw of a switch appeared ready to activate it to support the machines already turning out small amounts of near 20-percent uranium.

One of the diplomats, from a member country of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the new cascade is meant to reprocess the waste produced by the equipment now in operation and produce more enriched material from it.

An IAEA-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor in exchange for most of Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium initially raised Western hopes that it could temporarily curb Iran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

But it hit a dead end last year after Iran rejected it, though the country's leaders have since tried to keep the offer on the table, proposing variations without accepting the original terms. As the standoff continues, Russia and China two veto-wielding Security Council members normally against sanctions are signaling increased willingness to support a new round of U.N. penalties meant to punish the Iranian government for its nuclear defiance.

At U.N. headquarters on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said that talks on a U.S.-drafted sanctions resolution are making "good progress."

Diplomats familiar with the negotiations said a draft resolution could be circulated to all Security Council nations permanent members the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia and 10 elected countries before the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:46 PM

South Korea: North responsible for torpedo attack on warship


By John Pomfret and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 2:47 PM

South Korea will formally blame North Korea on Thursday for launching a torpedo at one of its warships in March, causing an explosion that killed 46 sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world's most perilous regions, U.S. and East Asian officials said.

South Korea reached its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship at the port of Pyongtaek, 40 miles southwest of Seoul. The Cheonan sank on March 26, following an explosion that rocked the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because South Korea has yet to disclose the findings of the investigation, said that subsequent analysis determined that the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo that had previously been obtained by South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion underscores the continuing threat posed by North Korea and the intractable nature of the dispute between the two Koreas. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak must respond forcefully to the attack, analysts said, but not in a way that would risk further violence from North Korea, whose artillery could -- within minutes -- devastate greater Seoul, which has a population of 20.5 million.

South Korea's report will also present a challenge to China and other nations. China waited almost a month to express its condolences to South Korea for the loss of life, and, analysts and officials said, has seemed at pains to protect North Korea from criticism.

South Korea will request that the U.N. Security Council take up the issue and is looking to tighten sanctions on North Korea, the officials said. The United States has indicated it would support such an action, U.S. officials said. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told his South Korean counterpart on Monday that Japan would do the same, the Japanese news media reported Tuesday.

Another consequence of the report, experts predicted, is that Lee will request that the United States delay for several years a plan to pass operational control of all forces in South Korea from the United States to the South Korean military. Approximately 28,500 U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan also means it is unlikely that talks will resume anytime soon over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has twice tested what is believed to be a nuclear weapon. China has pushed for an early resumption of those talks, but South Korean officials said they will return to the table only after there is a full accounting for the attack against the Cheonan and a policy response.

The sinking -- and the reluctance of the South to respond with an in-kind attack -- is the latest example of the raw military intimidation that North Korea has practiced for decades. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, the Korean People's Army has positioned about 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower within 60 miles of the border with the South.


David Straub, a former director of the State Department's Korea desk who is now at Stanford University, said that while the Cheonan's sinking was horrendous, it marked more of a return to "normal" behavior for North Korea than a new direction.

"We tend to look at this as shocking because things have been relatively quiet for a decade or two," he said. But North Korea killed 30 sailors aboard a South Korean warship in the 1970s; in 1983, its agents are believed to have been behind a fatal bombing in Rangoon that narrowly missed then-South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan.

What has changed, Straub said, is the Western view of North Korea. In the past, North Korean misbehavior was often rewarded with Western attention and aid from Japan and South Korea. But after North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May 2009, "opinion changed in a fundamental way," he said.

"Before there was a tendency of government officials to say, 'Well, maybe if we try hard enough to persuade the North Koreans to give up the bomb, they will,' " he said. "Now the conclusion of most people, including in the Obama administration, is that they can't see the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons on terms that would be acceptable to anyone."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:49 PM

Big powers agree on draft Iran sanctions, U.S. says
            

Arshad Mohammed And Phil Stewart – 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Major powers, including China and Russia, have agreed on a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran over its nuclear program, the United States said on Tuesday.

The announcement was a tacit rebuff to a deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey and made public on Monday in which Iran agreed to send some uranium abroad. U.S. officials regard that deal as a maneuver by Iran to delay more U.N. sanctions.

"This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran in the last few days as any that we could provide," Clinton added, repeating that Washington has many questions about the fuel swap deal.

The deal had revived the idea of a nuclear fuel swap devised by the United Nations last year with the aim of keeping Tehran's nuclear activities in check.

But Tehran made clear it did not intend to suspend domestic uranium enrichment that Western governments have said appears aimed at giving it the means to make nuclear weapons.

Western nations have reacted skeptically to the deal, although China -- the major power most reluctant to impose more sanctions on Iran -- welcomed it and urged talks with Tehran.

Clinton told lawmakers in Washington: "We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China." She gave no details of the draft, but said it would be circulated to the full Security Council later on Tuesday.

She said the agreement was reached among the five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and Germany, which have been engaged in talks on ways to address any nuclear threat from Tehran.

The Security Council will hold a closed-door session on Tuesday afternoon to receive the draft, diplomats said, and the United States is looking to get the maximum backing in the 15-member council.

NOT TIME FOR SANCTIONS?

In a sign of the difficulties Washington faces, the foreign minister of non-permanent council member Turkey told Reuters in Istanbul that it was not the time to be discussing sanctions.

"Everybody should understand... that yesterday Iran showed great flexibility which was not expected before, and this flexibility is an opportunity for a new phase of diplomacy," the minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in an interview.

Council members Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon have made clear they would have trouble supporting sanctions against Iran. Washington and its European allies say they will work hard to convince Turkey and Brazil to back the resolution.

Lebanon, diplomats say, will likely abstain from a vote on the resolution because the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah is in the government.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover under which to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is solely to generate electricity.

Western powers have said the fuel swap offer will not be enough to ease their worries and Israel, which regards Iranian nuclear capability as a direct threat, dismissed it.

Iran said it had agreed to transfer 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey within a month and in return receive, within a year, 120 kg of 20 percent-enriched uranium for use in a medical research reactor.

Clinton said the deal did not commit Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and could lead to months of negotiations before Iran turned over any of its low enriched uranium. She suggested that it was a ploy to stave off U.N. sanctions.

"The fact that we had Russia on board, we had China on board, and that we were moving early this week, namely today, to share the text of that resolution, put pressure on Iran which they were trying to somehow dissipate," Clinton added.

CHINA MORE UPBEAT ON FUEL SWAP

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said he was encouraged by the fuel swap deal. His reaction suggested that world powers discussing possible new U.N. sanctions against Iran may part ways on how much weight to give Iran's offer.

"China ... expresses its welcome and appreciation for the diplomatic efforts all parties have made to positively seek an appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Yang said, according to the Foreign Ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).

China's stance appeared more in line with Moscow's position that although many questions remained, including whether Iran intended to continue enriching uranium, further consultations were appropriate.

"After this, we need to decide what to do: Are those proposals sufficient or is something else needed? So I think a small pause on this problem would not do any harm," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking
            
Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 58 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean "all-out war."

Evidence presented Thursday to prove North Korea fired a torpedo that sank a South Korean ship was fabricated by Seoul, North Korean naval spokesman Col. Pak In Ho told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

He warned that any move to sanction or strike North Korea would be met with force.

"If (South Korea) tries to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," he told APTN.

An international team of civilian and military investigators declared earlier in Seoul that a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo at the Cheonan on March 26, ripping the 1,200-ton ship in two.

Fifty-eight sailors were rescued, but 46 died — South Korea's worst military disaster since a truce ended the three-year Korean War in 1953.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed to take "resolute countermeasures" and called an emergency security meeting for Friday.

The White House called the sinking an unacceptable "act of aggression" that violated international law and the 1953 truce. U.S. troops in and around South Korea remained on the same level of alert, said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. State Department officials reacted cautiously Thursday, refusing to call the attack an act of war or state-sponsored terror. The Obama administration's tempered response was an indication of how few options President Barack Obama has and how volatile the situation is.

"There's no interest in seeing the Korean peninsula explode," said P.J. Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman.

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama declared his support for South Korea, calling North Korea's actions "inexcusable."

However, South Korea's options for retaliation are limited.

The armistice prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack, and South Korea would not risk any retaliation that could lead to war, said North Korea expert Yoo Ho-yeol at Korea University in Seoul.

"That could lead to a completely uncontrollable situation," he said, noting that Seoul and its 10 million residents are within striking range of North Korea's forward-deployed artillery.

South Korea and the U.S., which has 28,500 troops on the peninsula, could hold another round of joint military exercises in a show of force, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think tank.

He also said the military will likely improve its early warning surveillance abilities and anti-submarine warfare capabilities to prevent such surprise attacks in the future.

Analysts said Seoul could move to punish North Korea financially, and Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan also has said Seoul would consider taking it to the U.N. Security Council. However, the matter did not arise Thursday during a Security Council meeting on Sudan, several ambassadors said afterward.

The impoverished country is already suffering from U.N. sanctions tightened last year in the wake of widely condemned nuclear and missile tests.

Any new Security Council action would require backing from permanent seat holder China, but analyst Koh Yu-hwan at Seoul's Dongguk University said Beijing, North Korea's traditional ally and backer during the Korean War, was unlikely to accept the Cheonan investigation report.

China responded mildly to the report, with Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai calling the sinking "unfortunate" and reiterating the need to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea is accused of waging a slew of attacks on South Korea over the years, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner that killed all 115 people on board. It has never owned up to the attacks, and Seoul has never retaliated militarily.

Since the signing of a nonaggression pact in 1991, clashes between the North and South have focused on the waters off their west coast.

North Korea disputes the maritime border drawn unilaterally by U.N. forces at the close of the Korean War, and the area where the Cheonan sank has been the site of several deadly naval clashes, most recently in November.

Pak, the North Korean naval official, said his country had no reason to sink the Cheonan.

"Our Korean People's Army was not founded for the purpose of attacking others. We have no intention of striking others first," he told APTN. "Why would we attack a ship like the Cheonan, which has no relation with us? We have no need to strike it, and doing so would have no meaning for us."

Investigators from the five-nation team said detailed scientific analysis of the wreckage, as well as fragments recovered from the waters where the Cheonan went down, point to North Korean involvement.

Torpedo fragments found on the seabed "perfectly match" the schematics of a North Korean-made torpedo Pyongyang has tried to sell abroad, chief investigator Yoon Duk-yong said. A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier, he said.

"The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine," he said. "There is no other plausible explanation."

Pak, the North Korean military official, dismissed it as faked evidence.

"If there were indications that the sinking was our doing, then the whole thing is an act — theatrics by the South Koreans to implicate us," he said.

The colonel spoke to APTN outside another foreign warship: the USS Pueblo, seized by North Korea in a high-seas hijacking in 1968. The American captain and crew were held for 11 months before being freed.

Towed to Pyongyang in 1999, the ship is popular tourist sight, a floating museum moored along the Taedong River that showcases North Korea's naval exploits.

Pak, a 55-year veteran whose uniform was bedecked with medals, said he was among those who helped capture the USS Pueblo more than four decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:11 AM

Or China?

US warns over Beijing's 'assertiveness'
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: May 25 2010 17:50 | Last updated: May 25 2010 23:59

The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China's military is more aggressively asserting its territorial claims in regional waters.

Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times: "There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea."

EDITOR'S CHOICE
China and US seek to strike conciliatory note - May-24US to press China on business - May-20China to hit US chicken with new tariffs - Apr-28Timeline: China-US trade spats - May-18Insight: Other states can fill gap between US and China - Apr-27Opinion: China revaluation will not cure imbalance - Apr-11He said China's extensive claims to islands and waters in the region were "generating increasing concern broadly across the region and require address".

The admiral's remarks follow complaints by Japan in recent weeks about aggressive behaviour from a Chinese coastguard vessel in contested waters and a Chinese military helicopter in international waters.

Some of China's neighbours have been watching the People's Liberation Army's modernisation and efforts at expanding the navy's reach with unease, and defence experts see this expansion as one factor behind a developing arms race in south-east Asia.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a97c53a-681a-11df-a52f-00144feab49a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:41 PM

I have deliberately avoided this thread, but I will post some thoughts and then go away again.

In 1966, Kim Il Song announced and began what has since become known (among those who know of it) as the "DMZ War" or the "The Second Korean Conflict." Highlights of this include the Blue House Raid, the capture of USS Pueblo, and the shoot-down of the US EC-121 "spy plane" (oh, go look them up!). Between 1967 and the end of 1969 the DPRK attacked forces of both the Republic of Korea and the US, causing death among both the military and the civilian populations.

Kim Il Song did this "in support of his Socialist brethren" in Vietnam and elsewhere: i.e., the US was focused on Vietnam and he felt it a good time to start a "People's Uprising" in South Korea (it backfired mightily on him). I recommend reading Daniel P. Bolger's "Scenes From An Unfinished War" (Leavenworth Papers No. 19) for a good history of this period.

With the US tied up in Afghanistan, why wouldn't the same thinking apply now? In 1968-69, the US had about 56,000 troops in ROK, now the US has about 28,000 troops there. However, the ROK Army was well-equipped and trained then and is even moreso now.

Military estimates believe that the DPRK could fight a war for about 30 days on the supplies it has; the ROK could last six or more months. The US forces could hold the attack route north of Seoul and the Chorwan Valley until the ROK Army could move.

EVEN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS used by the DPRK, perhaps especially so, it would make no difference in the outcome. Russia is no longer the USSR and is very unlikely to get involved on either side; China would lose its trade relationship with its largest trading partner, the US, if it joined with the DPRK -- and these days China is into making money and not exporting "revolution". Should nuclear weapons be used in a Korean fight the world would be appalled and DPRK might well face the prospect of an invasion BY China and Russia from the North because of the destabilization it caused.

I think that if Kim Jong Il did order an attack on the South he would be assassinated by his senior military commanders who actually KNOW the score and do not live in a dream world of iPods and gold-plated pistols.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:04 PM

Succinct and accurate Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 08:08 PM

China May Shield North Korea as Lee, U.S. Seek Action on Ship
By Bloomberg News

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is likely to resist pressure to acknowledge that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship when he flies to Seoul tomorrow to meet South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and Japan's Yukio Hatoyama.

China hasn't followed South Korea, Japan and the U.S. in blaming North Korea for the March 26 sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors. Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun yesterday repeated a call for "restraint" by both sides and said China had no "firsthand information" on the sinking.

China wants to avoid a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and is concerned that taking South Korea's side may provoke North Korea into further escalations and even lead to war, said Shen Dingli, vice dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Shanghai's Fudan University.

"North Korea is dying, and we can make things worse," Shen said. "We have assumed North Korea is not a rational actor."

China has a big stake in stability in Northeast Asia. Japan and South Korea are China's third- and fourth-biggest trading partners after the European Union and the U.S., with combined two-way trade reaching $485.1 billion in 2009, Chinese customs figures show.

China's two-way trade with North Korea, at $2.7 billion last year, is less than 1 percent of that total, even though the two countries share a 1,415-kilometer (880-mile) border and an alliance going back to China's 1950 entry into the Korean War.

"If our region falls into chaos it will undermine the interests of all parties concerned," Zhang said yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=awElM7vM4Vq4&pid=20601087

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 08:20 PM

China will try to restrain DPRK and may even veto US Security Council action. However, a veto would not prevent ROK from acting (as it already has) unilaterally -- and the US would be dragged into any shooting war. The US has in the past prevented ROK from acting against DPRK and indeed talked ROK out of a nuclear weapons program (all US nukes were removed from the Korean pennisula by 1991) by pointing out that ROK was covered by US nukes deliverable by missile and bomber. What the US (and China, Russia, and Japan) fear is a unilateral action by either side in Korea. ROK will probably not attack DPRK, but the same cannot be said of DPRK. A dying regime may want to take whoever it can with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM

IAEA: Iran has over 2 tons enriched uranium -2 bombs' worth
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
06/01/2010 02:26

VIENNA — Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country preparing to produce a nuclear weapon.

Two tons of uranium would suffice for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.

On enrichment, the report said Iran had now enriched 2,427 kilograms to just over three percent level. That means shipping out 1,200 kilograms (as proposed by the IAEA late in 2009) now would still leave Iran with more than enough material to make a nuclear weapon. That makes the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil unattractive to the U.S and its allies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

Syria conducted nuclear experiments: IAEA document

May 31 05:45 PM US/Eastern

Syria has told the UN atomic watchdog about past nuclear experiments, but is still refusing to cooperate over allegations that it was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korea's help, a new report revealed Monday.
In a restricted four-page report obtained by AFP, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Syria "provided the Agency with information concerning previously unreported uranium conversion and irradiation activities" at a small research reactor in Damascus.

Syria insists the scale of the experiment was small, "involving tens of grammes of nuclear material" and took place in 2004.

A senior diplomat familiar with the IAEA investigation said it was too early to determine whether the experiments were purely of a small scientific nature, as Syria claimed, or part of wider, more extensive research.

At the same time, the IAEA complained that Syria had not cooperated with its investigation into allegations that Damascus had been building an undeclared reactor at a remote desert site called Dair Alzour until it was bombed by Israeli planes in September 2007.

The IAEA has been investigating the allegations since 2008 and has already said that the building bore some of the characteristics of a nuclear facility.

UN inspectors also detected "significant" traces of man-made uranium at that site, as yet unexplained by Damascus.

It has also requested access to three other locations allegedly functionally related to Dair Alzour, but so far to no avail.

"As a consequence, the Agency has not been able to make progress towards resolving the outstanding issues related to those sites," the watchdog said.

"Furthermore, with time, some of the necessary information may deteriorate or be lost entirely."

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano urged Syria "to cooperate with the Agency on these issues in a timely manner."

The report is scheduled to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's 35-member board of governors at a meeting next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

North Korean envoy warns war could erupt soon

By Stephanie Nebehay Stephanie Nebehay – 47 mins ago

GENEVA (Reuters) – A North Korean envoy said on Thursday that war could erupt at any time on the divided Korean peninsula because of tension with Seoul over the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

"The present situation of the Korean peninsula is so grave that a war may break out any moment," Ri Jang Gon, North Korea's deputy ambassador in Geneva, told the United Nations-sponsored Conference on Disarmament.

North Korea's troops were on "full alert and readiness to promptly react to any retaliation," including the scenario of all-out war, he told the forum.

Ri, departing from his prepared remarks, said that only the conclusion of a peace treaty between the two countries would lead to the "successful denuclearization" of the peninsula. The 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice but no formal peace treaty.

Communist North Korea, hit with U.N. sanctions after testing nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009, is still under international pressure to dismantle its nuclear programme.

Ri repeated Pyongyang's assertion that North Korea had nothing to do with the sinking of the Cheonan warship which killed 46 sailors -- the deadliest military incident since the Korean War.

South Korea has accused North Korea of firing a torpedo at the vessel and said it will bring the case to the U.N. Security Council. A report by international investigators last month also accused North Korea of torpedoing the vessel.

Ri accused South Korea of trying to create a shocking incident in order to ignite a campaign against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea's official name.

South Korean ambassador Im Han-taek took the floor at the Geneva forum to voice regret at Ri's remarks, adding: "We believe it is only for propaganda purposes."

U.S. disarmament ambassador Laura Kennedy also rejected Ri's accusations that Washington had backed Seoul in "groundlessly" blaming the sinking on a North Korean submarine.

"I agree that the situation on the Korean peninsula is very grave but I disagree with the statement made and reject those allegations against my country," Kennedy said.

"The investigation carried out was scrupulous and painstaking and we certainly accept without doubt the results which clearly indicated where the blame lay," she added.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM

DPRK is doing again what has worked for them in the past: tell the world they are blameless and the evil puppet ROK government is acting as its master, the United States, pulls its strings. This is good for internal consumption but doesn't play well in the real world.

The USS George Washington is sailing into the disputed area. This is a BIG aircraft carrier with its accompanying flotilla.

The US currently has no nukes in Korea -- they were removed in, I believe, 1991. It was a funny sitiuation: for example, we has 138 nuclear warheads for the Davy Crockett weapon but no launchers. I suppose we were supposed to throw them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

What puzzles me is...why would the North Koreans torpedo and sink a South Korean ship in the first place, when it yields them no significant military or other gain to do so, but only imperils the entire nation?

Why? And if so, whose decision was it....one military officer's on the spot? Or his high command?

And again, why would they do it? What for? What possible good would it do them? Would they endanger their whole country just because they felt like shooting at a South Korean ship because they don't like the South Koreans?

Such things usually happen for a definite reason. It would be pertinent to first investigate what that reason might have been before engaging in further pointless warfare that kills a great many more people on both sides.


****

As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

LH,

"As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do."

Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

Of course, it is like Canada still exporting asbestos ( to keep those 1000 miners employed) in violation of international law- as long as no-one does anything to stop it, it will continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

Yes, no doubt regarding the asbestos, BB. That's what big corporations do, they flout the law...and pay off the lawmakers to look the other way.

But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium.

The USA, however, has committed the open and blatant illegality of fighting 2 undeclared wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has committed further illegalities in covert operations in Iran and elsewhere. It is the USA itself which is guilty of the sort of things it constantly accuses its next target(s) of being guilty of. (the good old imperial recipe for starting a war...)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM

LH,


"But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium. "


Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

They have NOT maintained the required monitoring that the IAEC must perform in order to be in compliance with their treaty obligations.

EVEN the UN IAEC has declared them to be in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:53 PM

My own view is that the frustration in the middle east, will lead to one side dropping the 'Big' bomb on the other ... this cannot be avoided. Israel thinks it is above the law and has the USA on its side while the rest are just pig sick with such arrogance. Who Dares Wins but we all lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:55 PM

Uh-huh...but it's a political game. Don't you get it that a few major powers control what goes on politically in this world and what goes on in our mass media, BB? And that they manipulate and control feeble organizations like the U.N. for their own purposes? They do this to control strategic resources in the world...namely oil. Iran has a great deal of oil, and it's under Iranian control at present. It is the intention of Britain and America to change that situation. It is the oil they are concerned about, in my opinion, and the nuclear issue is being used as an excuse to pressure Iran...the same tactics used previously on Saddam Hussein. They who have all the WMDs are pretending they're in danger from the guy who has none.

Meanwhile, Israel has a few hundred nukes, and the USA and the UK don't say a thing about it, don't bother Israel at all for it, because Israel is their ally, and is planning to profit directly from participating in their great strategic game against Iran and the rest of the nations in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM

Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons. They said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:14 PM

LH,

1. Israel had nukes BEFORE the NPT- If they signed, it would be as a nuclear power.

2. If there is a nuke used on Israel, there will be NO oil from the Middle East. It will take decades to put out the fires, and much longer to drill in a radioactive environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Sorry, Rapaire.

Israel has never stated if they have nuclear weapons or not.

The best estimates are 20 to 400, 200 to 500 KT devices.

Enough to ruin the day of anyone who attacks them.



Israel will not allow those who seek to destroy them profit from the attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:14 PM

The Israelis are already absolute masters of ruining someone's day in any case, BB. With or without nukes. They have proven that many times over by now.

You are talking like a lawyer, holding up the figleaf of this legal technicality or that one to justify the unjustifiable, but the figleaf has nothing to do with the practical reality, which is that Israel is an unofficial nuclear power, and a major one, and that Israel has been allowed (in fact, enabled) to become that by the USA and the UK, because they share common strategic objectives with Israel. Their common strategic objectives are to control the entire Middle East and Caspian regions, control the marketing of Middle Eastern and Caspian oil, and thus have the power to shut Russia and China out of access to those oil-producing areas.

The various Muslim countries that are suffering the consequences (the collateral damage) are just bit players in this scheme...small pieces to be sacrificed in a very large chess game that involves the real nuclear powers: The USA, China, France, Russia, Israel, and the UK. It also involves Pakistan...but they are another wretched piece to be sacrificed...and it involves India, of course, which will side with anyone who sides against Pakistan and China.

The fearmongering about Iran in the western media is the same propaganda effort as the previous fearmongering against Iraq. It's a trumped-up excuse for war so that the mighty can take a supposed "pre-emptive" action against someone who really presents no significant threat to them, but who is still standing in the way of them achieving total domination over that region.

Yeah, sure anyone who attacks Israel will rue the day. Duh! Tell me something else that's blatantly obvious. Likewise, anyone who attacks the USA, Russia, China or any other major nuclear power will rue the day. EVERYONE will rue such a day. I see no reason why Israel needs people like you to make such dark promises and veiled threats for them.....the whole world already knows how ruthless Israel is, and does not need cheerleaders like yourself to be convinced that they are bloody well dangerous to their neighbours and quite willing to exterminate them at the drop of a hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:59 PM

Golly, you mean a country might fib about something?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM

Disillusioning isn't it, Rapaire? ;-) And here I thought that the bad guys always wore the black hats!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

AP:Sanctions unlikely to stop Iranian nuclear drive
Jun 9 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA (AP) - Washington calls the latest U.N. sanctions on Iran a diplomatic victory, a show of unity by the world's big powers and a powerful way to prevent the country from making nuclear weapons.
Iran says the sanctions are an unfair attempt to keep it from developing a peaceful civilian energy program.

Whatever Iran's ultimate goal, it is clear that, like three previous sets of sanctions, the new measures are unlikely to crimp a nearly mature nuclear program that can be turned to both peaceful purposes and making atomic weapons.

The new sanctions authorize countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran; strengthen an arms embargo by banning transfers of more types of conventional arms and missiles; expand restrictions on Iran's access to nuclear technology; add more institutions to a financial sanctions watch list and urge "vigilance" in doing business with any organization linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

But because many aspects of a civilian nuclear program can also serve military purposes, Iran already has most of what it would need to make a weapon. And the cost of getting China and Russia to approve the new sanctions was the removal of provisions that would have really hurt Iran, such as an embargo on Iranian oil or a ban on gasoline sales.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its newest tally last month said Iran was now running nearly 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges and had amassed nearly 2.5 tons of low-enriched uranium that can be used for fuel, once Iran's first reactor goes on line, which is planned for some time this year.

That's also enough for two nuclear bombs if enriched to weapons-grade levels. Iran recently began enriching to higher levels for what it says will be research reactor fuel.

The process is turning out less than weapons-grade uranium. If Iran should decide to pursue a weapon, however, it would take less work to turn such higher-enriched feedstock into fissile warhead material.

It will be hard to keep Iran from obtaining more nuclear technology. Many of the companies and entities mentioned in the new sanctions list have already been subject to sanctions and Iran has found ways in the past to circumvent the penalties or create cover companies to procure items on its behalf

"I don't think anybody thinks these particular sanctions are going to trigger Iran to give up its nuclear program," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Secret Iranian nuclear activities were first revealed eight years ago when an Iranian dissident group provided evidence of a nascent government program of uranium enrichment—the technology that can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.

Iran resisted years of calls to permanently stop enriching, prompting a December 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution that called for member nations to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of all materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear activities.

It was too late. Building on black market components and know-how, Iran already had most of what it needed to maintain—and expand—its enrichment capacities. And clandestine deliveries of equipment continued despite the sanctions—as reflected in dozens of convictions worldwide of people found guilty of nuclear smuggling to Iran.

Subsequent U.N. resolutions in March 2007 and March 2008 repeated demands that Iran come clean on unexplained aspects of its nuclear program that hardened suspicions it might interested in nuclear arms.

But Iran refused—and continued expanding enrichment.

"Sanctions won't stop Iran from continuing its nuclear, missile and space program. It may create some obstacles but Iran can find ways to go around it," said Abbas Pazooki, an Iranian commentator.

Iran says that despite its oil reserves it needs nuclear energy to guarantee its future economic sustainability.

After the U.N. vote, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.

"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said.

Western intelligence reports say it is clear that Iran is interested in at least achieving the ability to produce a bomb, even if it has no specific plans to produce it at the moment. The reports from the U.S., Israel, France, Britain and other nations assert that Iran has experimented with most other key aspects of warhead production and delivery.

Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress recently that if and when Iran decides to build its first bomb, it could amass enough highly enriched uranium to do so in as little as 12 months.

An International Atomic Energy Agency document meant to be read by only a handful of the agency's top officials and leaked to The Associated Press last year expanded on some of that intelligence. It cited Iran experts at the U.N. nuclear monitor as believing that Tehran already has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.

It was the clearest indication yet that those officials share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology—even if they have not made those views public. And because the agency is generally seen as impartial, the findings added to concerns about Iran's nuclear goals

In that document, IAEA officials assessed that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

_ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead—a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

_ That Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

Iran did not comment on the report.

Whatever their efficacy, the latest sanctions may serve Iran's leadership in their drive to rally domestic support by depicting international opposition to its nuclear drive as an attack on the country.

"If you think that by making fuss and propaganda you can force us to withdraw you are wrong," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a home crowd last month. "The Iranian nation will not withdraw one inch from its stance."

In Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency officials say that Iran recently served notice that it would further cut back on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear monitor if new sanctions were adopted.

That would reduce the outside world's already narrow window on Iran's nuclear program.

___

Associated Press Vienna Bureau Chief George Jahn has reported on Iran's nuclear program since 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 06:56 PM

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=578

"On 20 May, South Korea announced that it had 'overwhelming evidence' that one of its warships, the Cheonan, had been sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine in March with the loss of 46 sailors. The United States maintains 28,000 troops in South Korea, where popular sentiment has long backed a détente with Pyongyang.

On 26 May, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Seoul and demanded that the 'international community must respond' to 'North Korea's outrage'. She flew on to Japan, where the new 'threat' from North Korea conveniently eclipsed the briefly independent foreign policy of Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected last year with popular opposition to America's permanent military occupation of Japan. The 'overwhelming evidence' is a torpedo propeller that 'had been corroding at least for several months,' reported the Korea Times. In April, the director of South Korea's national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea's military marine operations said, 'No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.' The reference to 'accident' suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:58 PM

I understand from Certain Sources I Cannot Disclose that the US has another 28,000 troops on 24-hour standby for deployment to Korea. That's all I can say about that.