BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

"They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone."



Right. Hitler said what he meant, too, and people like you said he didn't mean it....

Tell me about the Baha'i that have been killed , tortured, or imprisoned. How many Jews are in Iran, compared to under the Shah? What rights do they have?

Now look at Israel- How many Arab Moslims are living there? Compare to Jordan, the PALESTINIAN ARAB MOSLIM HOMELAND.

WHen will the Arab Moslims leave the Jewish Homeland and go back to their own, as defined in the LAST INTERNATIOANALLY ACCEPTED borders???


When the Palestinians accept the last set of internationally accepted borders (1923), and move out of the West Bank into Jordan ( the Arab Moslim Homeland), there will be peace in the region.

Any violence in Palestine until then is due entirely to the refusal of the Palestinian Moslims to abide by those borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM

And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM

Iran hasn't said it wants Israel destroyed. Their president said he expects the political entity that Iranians consider to be an aggressive apartheid regime to be dismantled at some point in the future. There is a big difference between these two things. Keep in mind that the term "Israel" for many people in that region doesn't have anything to do with the landmass that Israel is sitting on, or even the general population of that country, but refers specifically to the regime that holds power there. To the Iranians, that regime is what they would term the Zionist regime. They want that regime to go away. They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM

"But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony"



I will consider this to be your unsupported opinion, and let the facts speak for reality.

Iran has declared it wants Israel destroyed.
Israel has declared that it wants the UN to hold Iran to the NPT that Iran signed, and benefited from.

What part of "Death to Jews!" do you not understand????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

And I think the mention of the Palestinians is a key point. While some people like to accuse those who don't see Iran as a threat of not caring about Israel, that makes no sense in the context of a discussion with someone who cares about the Palestinians (leaving aside the wrongheadedness of accusing such people of not caring about Israel, or at least Israelis).

I think it should be obvious that I wouldn't want the Palestinians (or Israelis) to be the target of a nuclear weapon. But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony.

Which is why it is patently obvious to me that the kind of incessant beating of the war drums to incite people to want the US or Israel to attack Iran that we see in the articles being posted here in this thread also has nothing whatever to do with anyone's own self-defense, and is entirely motivated by hegemonic ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM

No, I definitely don't consider it inevitable. Or even remotely likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

"They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this."

Which they have been, in the past, and can be in the future.


But what happened to " They can't get the material for at least five years, so we can take our time talking with them?

If the UN was wrong before, why should we think them right in the future? Are you willing to accept a nuclear explosion that will kill all the Palestinians ( as well as Israelis and most Lebanese) as inevitable?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Seoul: N. Korean missile can hit U.S. bases

Story Highlights
New missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers

Weapons could reach Alaska or U.S. bases on Guam

Tensions on Korean peninsula running high

   
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- Stalinist North Korea deployed new medium-range ballistic missiles and expanded special forces training during 2008, South Korea's defense ministry reported.

The missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles), possibly putting U.S. military bases in the Pacific Ocean territory of Guam within striking distance, the Ministry of National Defense said in its 2008 Defense White Paper, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Monday.

The paper, published after weeks of delay, calls the North's 1.2 million-strong military an "immediate and grave threat," according to Yonhap.

The report adds that the North has recently bolstered its naval forces, reinforcing submarines and developing new torpedoes, in addition to increasing its special forces training after reviewing U.S. military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tension between Pyongyang and Seoul has increased in recent weeks, with North Korea announcing it would scrap peace agreements with the South, warning of a war on the Korean peninsula and threatening to test a missile capable of hitting the western United States.

U.S. and South Korean officials have said that North Korea appears to be preparing to test-fire its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2. Pyongyang tested one of the missiles in 2006, but it failed 40 seconds after launch.

The missile is thought to have an intended range of about 4,200 miles (6,700 kilometers), which if true, could give it the capability of striking Alaska or Hawaii.

North Korea has been involved in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, Japan, Russia, South Korea and China, which is an effort to end the nation's nuclear program, which the U.S. says is linked to nuclear weapons.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who returned from Asia on Sunday after her first overseas trip in the post, recently called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html


"As I put the tea water on to boil and turned on the tv this morning, I was assaulted by the claim that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you've seen it in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or heard the same CBS report that I did, or even read it on Kevin Drum.

It's a lie.

Much as I hate to do so, because psychology tells us that repetition will help to fix the erroneous message in our minds, I will quote the most egregious statement of this "news."

     Iran has enriched sufficient uranium to amass a nuclear bomb - a
     third more than previously thought - the United Nations announced yesterday.

Ah yes. And if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

The issue here is concentration. Mining uranium concentrates it from the ore. Purification and conversion to UF6 concentrates it further. The purpose of the enrichment centrifuges is to concentrate the fissionable U-235.

Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration. See also this post from earlier this week.

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

updated 8:05 a.m. EST, Fri February 20, 2009

   Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say

Story Highlights
ISIS report says Iran has enough uranium for nuclear weapon

Uranium would need further refinement before turning into weapon

Iran says claims it intends to build nuclear bombs are "baseless"

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian scientists have reached "nuclear weapons breakout capability," according to a new report based on findings of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

The Institute for Science and International Security report concludes Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

The type of uranium the International Atomic Energy Agency report says Iran has would have to be further enriched to make it weapons-grade.

The institute drew its conclusions from an IAEA report dated February 19, 2009. An official in the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the report for CNN, but didn't want to be named.

The IAEA report is posted on the Web site of ISIS, a Washington-based non-profit and non-partisan institution focused on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

It also finds that while Iran has dramatically increased installation of centrifuges that can be used for enriching uranium -- from 4,000 to 5,400 -- its scientists aren't using the new units yet. They remain in "research and development mode."

In the IAEA report, the agency also says no substantive progress has been made in resolving issues about possible "military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has consistently denied the weapons allegations, calling them "baseless" and "fabricated."

Iran says its nuclear program is necessary to provide civilian energy for the country, but other countries have voiced concern that its true purpose is to produce nuclear weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM

By Mark Heinrich
Mon Sep 15, 8:12 AM ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - ....But Iran seemed some way from refining enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if it chose, the report indicated.

Iran had stockpiled 480 kg (1,050 pounds) of low-enriched uranium so far. It would need 15,000 kg (33,000) to convert into high-enriched uranium for fuelling an atom bomb, said U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"That would be a significant quantity, one unit of HEU, and would take on the order of two years," said one official.

In its last report in May, the IAEA said Iran appeared to be withholding information needed to explain intelligence that it had linked projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead. "

..................................................................


FIVE months 4 days later....


Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:15 PM

Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

No such sites have been proved to exist, although for decades Iran concealed evidence of its nuclear programme.

A senior UN official added that countries usually waited until they had an enriched uranium stockpile sufficient for several bombs before proceeding to develop fissile material. He conceded that Iran now had enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

"Do they have enough low enriched uranium to produce a significant quantity [enough high enriched uranium for a bomb]?" he said. "In theory this is possible, [although] with the present configuration at Natanz it isn't."

David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said: "If Iran did decide to build nuclear weapons, it's entering an era in which it could do so quickly."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,MV
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:39 AM

I think there's going to be more war in the middle east coming up so Iran. A likely cause would be some kind of attack on Israel either genuine or set up by the powers that be.

MV

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:14 AM

N. Korea preps for satellite launch amid 'space development' claim

Story Highlights
U.S. satellite captured images of launch preparations, senior official said

North Korea's explanation cryptic: "One will come to know later what will be launched"

Country's right to "space development" rejected by South Korea

   
(CNN) -- Denying recent intelligence suggesting it is preparing to test a long-range missile, North Korea signaled Monday it is gearing up to launch a satellite, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

A senior U.S. official told CNN last week that an American spy satellite had snapped an image of preparations at a North Korean site previously used to launch Taepodong-2 missiles.

The photograph shows North Korea assembling telemetry equipment involving sophisticated electronics used to monitor missile launches, the official said, adding there was no direct evidence that a missile was being moved to the launch pad.

North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Monday it will go ahead with its "space development" program, Yonhap said, adding that the report is a possible message to Washington ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Seoul, South Korea, this week. Watch Hillary Clinton board her flight to Asia »

"One will come to know later what will be launched in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," KCNA said, according to Yonhap, but it denied a missile test is planned. "Space development is the independent right of the DPRK and the requirement of the developing reality," KCNA said, calling outside reports a "vicious trick" aimed at stopping the nation's sovereign activity, Yonhap reported.

The reclusive North Korean regime made a similar claim after launching a rocket in 1998, saying it succeeded in putting a satellite into orbit, Yonhap said.

U.S. intelligence officials initially said after the August 1998 test that North Korea launched a two-stage Taepodong-1 missile, but later said it was a three-stage missile, and the third stage broke up in an unsuccessful attempt to put a small satellite into orbit.

South Korea rejected the North Korean claim that it has a right to space development, with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan saying at a parliamentary session, "Whether it is a missile or a satellite, [a launch] would constitute a violation of the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1718," Yonhap reported Monday.

That resolution, adopted in October 2006, imposed sanctions against North Korea -- and demanded it stop nuclear activity and missile testing -- after it launched a Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile. The missile failed 40 seconds after launch, but the Taepodong-2 is believed to have an intended range of about 2,500 miles (about 4,025 kilometers), making it capable of striking Alaska.

Asked about the matter last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates would only say, "Well, since the first time that they launched the missile it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across ... to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization."

North Korea has been involved on and off in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

Clinton left for Asia on Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state, and is scheduled to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state of a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society before her departure, Clinton called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

She said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang so long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against South Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:13 AM

Clinton warns against N. Korean missile launch


Story Highlights
Clinton: Missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward"

U.S. officials say evidence shows N. Korea preparing long-range missile launch

North Korean officials dispute claim, saying state preparing to launch a satellite

Hillary Clinton bypassing Europe, heading for Asia, on first trip as secretary of state


From Jill Dougherty
CNN
   
TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her strongest comments yet about North Korea Tuesday during her tour of Asia.

Speaking at a news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, the U.S. secretary warned that a possible North Korean missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." Clinton said the U.S. is "watching very closely" actions by North Korea.

U.S. officials recently said they obtained evidence that North Korea was gearing up for a launch of a long-range missile.

North Korean officials disputed the claim, saying in the country's official news agency that North Korea was preparing to launch a satellite.

Clinton also said Tuesday that there is a possibility that the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea could improve if North Korea abides by the obligations that it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program.

If that happens, there is "a chance to normalize relations, to enter into a peace treaty rather than an armistice and to expect assistance for the people of North Korea," she said.

Clinton left for Asia Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state and is slated to also travel to China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Watch what issues Clinton will focus on during her tour »

Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:02 AM

Washington Post

Living With A Nuclear North Korea
By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; Page A13

Will North Korea ever give up its nuclear weapons?

To test its intentions, I submitted a detailed proposal to Foreign Ministry nuclear negotiator Li Gun for a "grand bargain" in advance of a visit to Pyongyang last month. North Korea, I suggested, would surrender to the International Atomic Energy Agency the 68 pounds of plutonium it has already declared in denuclearization negotiations. In return, the United States would conclude a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, normalize diplomatic and economic relations, put food and energy aid on a long-term basis, and support large-scale multilateral credits for rehabilitation of North Korea's economic infrastructure.

The North's rebuff was categorical and explicit. Its declared plutonium has "already been weaponized," I was told repeatedly during 10 hours of discussions. Pyongyang is ready to rule out the development of additional nuclear weapons in future negotiations, but when, and whether, it will give up its existing arsenal depends on how relations with Washington evolve.

Sixty-eight pounds of plutonium is enough to make four or five nuclear weapons, depending on the grade of plutonium, the specific weapons design and the desired explosive yield. Li Gun would not define "weaponized," despite repeated questions, but Gen. Ri Chan Bok, a spokesman of the National Defense Commission, implied that it refers to the development of missile warheads.

Faced with this new hard line, the United States should choose between two approaches, benign neglect and limiting the North's arsenal to four or five weapons.

Benign neglect would mean a suspension of ongoing efforts to denuclearize North Korea by providing economic incentives and moving toward normalized relations. But it would also mean avoiding the hostile policies initially pursued by the Bush administration with their implicit goal of "regime change."

The strongest argument for this approach is that the United States has nothing to fear from a nuclear North Korea. Pyongyang developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons, to counter a feared U.S. preemptive strike, and U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Pacific will deter any potential nuclear threat from the North.

The purpose of this strategy would be to end the present bargaining relationship in which Pyongyang uses its nuclear program to extract U.S. concessions. It would be risky, though, because Pyongyang could well react with provocative moves to make sure that it is not neglected.

Under the second approach, the six-party denuclearization negotiations would be continued with the goal of limiting North Korean nuclear weapons to the four or five warheads so far acknowledged. This would require, first, U.S.-orchestrated arrangements to provide the 200,000 tons of heavy fuel oil that have been promised but not yet delivered to North Korea in return for its disabling the Yongbyon plutonium reactor, and, second, negotiating the terms for dismantling the reactor so that additional plutonium cannot be reprocessed.

The terms outlined to me in Pyongyang for dismantling the reactor are much tougher than those hitherto presented: completing the two light-water reactors started during the Clinton administration and conducting the broadened verification process envisaged by the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea in a statement last July. This could require inspections of U.S. bases in South Korea to verify that the United States has removed its nuclear weapons, as announced in 1991, in parallel with inspections of North Korean nonmilitary nuclear installations. The inspections in North Korea would include taking samples at suspected nuclear waste sites, a key U.S. demand, but the "weaponized" plutonium would not be open to inspection.

While in Pyongyang, I found evidence that the hard-line shift in the North's posture is directly related to Kim Jong Il's health. Informed sources told me that Kim had suffered a stroke in August. While still making "key decisions," he has turned over day-to-day authority in domestic affairs to his brother-in-law, Chang Song Taek, and effective control over national security affairs to the National Defense Commission. I was not permitted to see several key Foreign Ministry officials identified with flexible approaches to the denuclearization negotiations whom I have regularly seen in previous trips.

The bottom line is that there is a continuing policy struggle in Pyongyang between the hard-liners in the National Defense Commission and pragmatists who want normalization with the United States. Continued U.S. engagement with North Korea leading progressively to economic and political normalization would strengthen the pragmatists.

If the United States can deal with major nuclear weapons states such as China and Russia, it can tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea that may or may not actually have the weapons arsenal it claims. Just in case Pyongyang has, in fact, learned to miniaturize nuclear warheads sufficiently to make long-range missiles, the Obama administration should couple a resumption of denuclearization negotiations with a revival of the promising missile limitation negotiations that the Clinton administration was about to conclude when it left office. "If we can have nuclear negotiations," said negotiator Li Gun, "why not missile negotiations?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:06 PM

"It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country."

Press freedom watchdog says Iran curtailing press freedoms February 10, 2009

Washington, 10 February (IranVNC)â€"In a survey released today, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] accused the Iranian government of curtailing press freedoms and trying to reassert control over the media.

The report, entitled "Attacks on the Press in 2008", also says Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used state subsidies as a "weapon" against newspapers and magazines that are critical of his government.

"Ahmadinejad sought to suppress independent media by manipulating government subsidies, exerting censorship, and using the punitive tools of detention and harassment," the report says.

Noting that Iran’s economy is largely government-based, and that publications heavily rely on ad revenue from state-owned companies, CPJ said that Ahmadinejad’s administration urged government institutions to withhold advertising from critical publications.

The Aftab Yazd daily said it faced a 60 percent drop in state subsidies after it was identified in a 2007 government report as a leading government critic, the survey reports.

The CPJ, a nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, reports that more than 30 Iranian journalists were investigated or jailed during 2008. Many of those were denied basic rights in prisons or subject to secret trials without access to defense attorneys, the group claims.

Those imprisoned included Mohammad Seddiq Kaboudvand, the head of the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan, and Mojtaba Lotfi, a blogger who was sentenced to four years in prison in November on anti-state charges, CPJ reports.

In addition, Iranian authorities continued to crack down on Kurdish, Azeri and Arabic-language publications, along with journalists who tried to cover the government’s treatment of ethnic minorities, the report said.

"Journalists defending women’s rights faced a particularly strong backlash from the government," CPJ reports, adding that at least seven women’s rights writers were summoned to court during 2008.

In anticipation of the June 2009 presidential election, the Iranian government is also stepping up its Internet censorship, the press freedom group reports.

"The government issued regular bulletins to Internet service providers, identifying critical news, politics, women’s rights, and human rights sites to block," the survey said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:46 AM

BB:

Mexico is probably TOO close for us to deal with. Our little involvement in 1915 was pretty unsuccessful, if I'm thinking of the same thing you are. It was interesting as we used Wright aircraft for spotting, maybe first military use of aircraft in history, and George Patton as a young product of West Point, experienced some action. Otherwise it was not fruitful. In the end, the United States supplied Juarez on the Q T, and let him do his thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM

Cyprus: Detained ship broke Iran arms export ban
         

Menelaos Hadjicostis, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

NICOSIA, Cyprus – A ship detained off Cyprus has breached a U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, Cyprus' foreign minister said Tuesday.

But Markos Kyprianou refused to specify what had been found on the Cypriot-flagged Monchegorsk, which U.S. officials suspect was delivering arms to Hamas militants in Gaza.

Kyprianou said Cyprus will decide what to do with the cargo once the search of all containers aboard the ship is completed.

Cyprus inspected the Monchegorsk twice after it arrived Jan. 29 under suspicion of ferrying weapons from Iran to Hamas fighters in Gaza. It remains anchored off the port of Limassol under tight security.

Returning the shipment to Iran has been ruled out, but Kyprianou said possible options include confiscating and storing it in Cyprus or another country.

Last week, Cyprus applied for and received guidance from the U.N. Security Council Sanctions Committee on whether the cargo breached sanctions barring Iran from sending arms abroad.

The committee was established in December 2006 to oversee a Security Council-imposed embargo on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, an export ban on arms and related material, and individual targeted sanctions including travel bans and an assets freeze.

Iran has denied accusations it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity.

Kyprianou said Cyprus would "turn to friends" for help if authorities decide against storing the Monchegorsk's cargo on the island.

Britain's Minister for Europe Caroline Flint, who is visiting Cyprus, said her country is ready to help.

"My understanding is that Cypriot authorities are looking into what the situation is, what is the specifications on these weapons that are there," Flint said after talks with Kyprianou.

"And I think when we have a better report of that, the U.K. and I'm sure other countries will want to help in whatever way we can to make sure that they are disposed of effectively."

The U.S. military stopped the ship last month in the Red Sea, and said it found artillery shells and other arms on board. But it could not legally detain the ship, which continued to Port Said, Egypt, and then to Cyprus.

U.S. officials had said the ship was headed for Syria.

Israel launched a 22-day offensive late last month on Hamas-controlled Gaza to try to end militant rocket fire on Israelis and to halt the smuggling of arms into the Palestinian territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:37 AM

900!
Oh yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:40 AM

The large and important states of Mexico and Pakistan are ripe for "a rapid and sudden collapse," says a startling new report on worldwide security threats issued by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. While Mexico destabilization may seem less likely to the public, the report explains, the sustained assaults by drug cartels severely affect government, police and judicial systems. Should Mexico descend into chaos, U.S. homeland security would require immediate response.
Mexico's descent into "failed state" status is of special concern to the U.S.-Mexico border region. The El Paso Times consulted expert Brig. Gen. Jose Piojas, the executive director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration, who noted the state of flux in Mexican conditions even over the last nine months. In an equally dangerous worst-case scenario, the military report also considered the rapid collapse of Pakistan, which carries with it the threat of nuclear war.
Based in Norfolk VA, the Joint Forces Command is a combat command of the Defense Department, which includes different military service branches, both active and reserves, and functions to transform the military's capabilities. While no one can predict the future, it tries to forecast the future to keep the U.S. prepared for potential emergencies. It's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report puts Pakistan and Mexico on the same level insofar as it assesses global threats and future wars.
U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued a similar evaluation of Mexico's security problems recently. Drug violence and corruption in Mexico are two major factors affecting its stability.
In response, Mexican President Felipe Calderón advised embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico. He met this week with U.S. officials, including President-elect Barack Obama, to advocate for an end to gun running and smuggling of arms from the U.S. into Mexico.

Joint Operating Environment (Report JOE 2008) PDF HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:51 AM

Actually, one of the nations highest on the list is Mexico.

Over 8,000 killed in Baja California by drug lords...

Anyone care to remember 1915?


But those 8,000 civilians were not killed by Jews, so there will be no moaning or demonstrations or demands for the removal of the Mexican government.

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

I think Iran deserves some respect for orbiting last week. Iran is a much more complicated country than is usually acknowledged in the US media, and its hideous Islamic overlay of a government must inevitably be thrown off by a sophisticated populace which may involve some brinksmanship, but I think the likelihood that they will encourage an attack from Israel by themselves attacking Israel is lower than the other menace I mention below.

CarolC's assertions regarding Israel's plans are ludicrous, if not hysterical. Israel orbited in 1982 and has managed to avoid using her ability to send up satellites as a means to deliver weapons from that time to this.

There are many uses of satellites other than as weapons. Using satellites to aide communications and collect information from the ground is, I think, more conducive to peace than war.

As to the query at the head of this thread, I currently think the answer is: Pakistan. If the Obama administration is going to try to 'win' in Afghanistan, it will require effective penetration of Pashtun lands which cross borders and which even Pakistan has not been able to make much headway in, this will involve Pakistani territory and will challenge the stability of Pakistan. In seven, going on eight years of US involvement in Afghanistan we have not yet succeeded and don't exactly see a clear path to success. So Pakistan will inevitably get involved and disaster is entirely possible. We don't have the ability to take on Iran or Korea at the same time, and in the case of Korea, Japan and China have more to fear than ourselves (not to mention SOUTH Korea).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:49 AM

Washington Post


A Missile for Mr. Obama
North Korea is calling, Mr. President.
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A16

IT HASN'T been easy for foreign governments to command the attention of the Obama administration in its opening days, but North Korea is doing its best. Last week, the secretive Stalinist regime was spotted transporting what looked like a Taepodong-2 missile toward a launch site. In theory, the rocket has a range of more than 4,000 miles, which would allow it to reach Alaska. In trotting it out, Pyongyang is transparently threatening to violate U.N. resolutions by conducting its first flight test since 2006. This follows a steadily escalating series of provocations by the North toward South Korea, including the repudiation of past non-aggression agreements and a threat of "all-out confrontation."

The attention-getting behavior may look infantile, but from the North's point of view it is quite logical. Time and again in the past decade, dictator Kim Jong Il has manufactured a crisis by testing missiles or a nuclear weapon, taking steps to produce bomb-grade plutonium, or expelling international inspectors. In most instances he has been rewarded with diplomatic attention and bribes of food and energy from South Korea, the United States, China and other nations, in exchange for reversing or freezing the actions. The Bush administration took office eight years ago declaring it would not condone such payoffs. It meekly ended, in October, by bribing Mr. Kim to reverse steps toward resuming plutonium reprocessing.

The mess inherited by the Obama administration is considerably worse than that encountered by President Bush. North Korea recently declared that it has weaponized its entire declared stock of plutonium, which if true means it has five or six nuclear weapons. In theory, the Bush administration won Mr. Kim's commitment to give up this stockpile in a step-by-step process in exchange for economic and diplomatic favors. In practice, Pyongyang's behavior never changed: While reneging or cheating on its own commitments, it used brinkmanship to extract concession after concession from Washington.

The Obama administration now will have to determine whether and how it can revive the broken disarmament process. (Curiously, it has reportedly decided to appoint the architect of that failure, Christopher R. Hill, as ambassador to Iraq, though he lacks Middle East experience and doesn't speak Arabic.) But first it will have to answer a more fundamental question: Will it, too, respond to North Korean missile tests and war threats with attention and bribes? The State Department took a step in the right direction on Thursday by announcing a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to South Korea, Japan, China and Indonesia this month -- while omitting North Korea from the list of issues she would focus on. If there's one lesson to be learned from the past decade, it's that rewarding the North's provocations will only ensure more of them -- and that while that strategy works, the regime will not take genuine steps toward disarmament.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 02:36 PM

Since the government of Israel has announced its intention to attack Iran within the next year, and in light of it's previous history, I think it's safe to say that it's the government of Israel that is not sane, and they are the ones of whom we should be afraid. It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:33 PM

Oh, since AMSATs have been up for years, you would claim that the Ham operators of the world have their own ICBMs???

*** I *** can build a satellite- ( actually, a launch vehicle, too) but I do not have an active program to produce weapons grade fissionable material at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

LH,

As often is the case, you do not pay attention to the details.

"First Iranian satellite launched "

The 2005 launch was on a launch vehicle (Russian Kosmos 3M ) from Russia, and it was the first Iranian SATELLITE to be launched.



"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile"

This launch was on an Iranian launch vehicle, thus it was the first launched BY IRAN.


If this is confusing to you, how do you expect to make any judgements at all about the relative hazards and risks of either the Iranian space or nuclear programs?



"BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. "

No, since the Russians are sane enough ( I think ) NOT to allow a warhead to be launched on their booster ( unless they do it themselves).


Better start looking up- the N. Koreans are testing a launch vehicle that can reach Canada. THEY might put a live warhead on it, just to see if it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:16 PM

Funny....this is at least the second time the "News" media have reported the FIRST launch of an Iranina satellite! ;-) Here's a report from the BBC News on Thursday, 27 October 2005:

Iran's previous "first time" in space....

First Iranian satellite launched

The Iranian satellite was joined by others from China and Europe
Iran launched its first satellite into space from Plesetsk in northern Russia on Thursday, joining a select club of countries.
A joint project between Iran and Russia, the Sina-1 satellite will be used to take pictures of Iran and to monitor natural disasters.

It blasted off aboard a Russian Kosmos 3M rocket early on Thursday morning.

The satellite was built for Iran by Polyot, a Russian company based in the Siberian city of Omsk.

Director General of Iran Electronic Industries Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh said Sina-1 was the result of years of research and 32 months of construction.

Research activities

Mr Mahmoudzadeh said the $15m research satellite would contain a telecommunications system and cameras that would be used for monitoring Iran's agriculture and natural resources.

It could also be deployed after disasters such as earthquakes.

He stressed, however, that the satellite represents only the first step in Iran's space programme.

"Considering that the satellite weights 170kg and is carrying a camera, it is an initial model as far as technical know-how and experience are concerned."

The launch had initially been scheduled for the end of September, but problems with the Iranian satellite forced a delay.

Iran's former defence minister, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, unveiled his country's space programme in 1998.

The launch makes Iran the 43rd country to possess its own satellites.

Sina-1 shared the ride with other satellites from China, Russia and Europe.


*************

You know what? Much of our so-called "news" is little more than calculated propaganda, designed and timed to produce an impression in people's minds. There appears to be an effort underway right now to scare people by making them think Iran just now entered space for the first time. Not so. They entered space back in October 2005, according to the BBC.

When is "the News" really the News, and when is it just a PR exercise?

BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. ;-) Dear, dear, it's all so scary! Better launch a pre-emptive strike while there's still time, right? (Mass murder is always justifiable if we are the ones who contemplate doing it...because we are GOOD people and our way of life is the best.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM

New Launch: 2009 February 2, 1836 UTC
Site: Semnan Satellite Launch Site, Iran
Launcher: Safir 2
International Designators(s): 2009-004A

SSC Name Owner
33506 OMID IRAN


"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile, thrusting the Islamic republic into an elite club of space-faring nations, state media reported.

"The small Omid communications satellite was launched Monday evening aboard a Safir 2 rocket, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"Launch was likely around 1830 GMT [our analysis shows it closer to 1836 UTC], or around 10 p.m. Iran time, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who provides satellite data on the Internet.

"Iran did not release the launch time in state news reports.

"The 72-foot-tall Safir 2 rocket probably blasted off from a launch site in Iran's Semnan province in the north-central part of the country [Google Earth file].

"The launcher flew southeast over the Indian Ocean to avoid flying over neighboring countries, according to Charles Vick, senior fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank.

"Two objects from the launch, likely the Omid satellite and part of its booster, are circling Earth in oval-shaped [sic] orbits.

"The orbits range in altitude from low points of 153 miles [246 km] to high points of 235 miles [378 km] and 273 miles [439 km]. The orbital inclination is 55.5 degrees, according to U.S. military tracking data.

"Iran joins a small group of countries with the ability to build and launch their own satellites into orbit."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:40 AM

3/1 North Korea

2/1 Syria

2/1 Iran

2/1 France

Evens bar

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

For the sake of Bobert and others that may not understand what "ORBIT" means, a spacecraft that can reach orbit is capable of hitting anywhere on the Earth's surface...

"George Bush- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Teribus- 2700 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"BB- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Saws- +- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft





Iran says it sent own satellite into orbit
AP - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:40:14 AM
By NASSER KARIMI

APIran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers.

The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

The reports were not immediately verified by outside observers. Some Western observers have accused Tehran of exaggerating the capabilities of its space program.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One of the worries associated with Iran's fledgling space program is that the same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that the satellite, which he said had telecommunications capabilities, had reached its orbit and had made contact with ground stations, though not all of its functions were active yet. The launch was intended to be a message of peace and friendship to the world, Ahmadinejad told state television. "We need science for friendship, brotherhood and justice," he said.

The announcement of the Omid's launch came as officials from the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and China were set to meet Wednesday near Frankfurt to talk about Iran's nuclear program.

The group has offered Iran a package of incentives if it suspends uranium enrichment and enters into talks on its nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions to pressure Iran to comply.

Iranian television said the satellite would orbit at an altitude of between 155 and 250 miles (250 and 400 kilometers). It was taken into orbit by a Safir-2, or ambassador-2, rocket, which was first tested in August and has a range of 155 miles (250 kilometers).

The radio report said the satellite is designed to circle the earth 15 times during a 24-hour period and send reports to the space center in Iran. It has two frequency bands and eight antennas for transmitting data.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 05:43 PM

Israel issues new warning on Iranian nuclear arms

Dec 17 03:26 PM US/Eastern


JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is warning that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it could try to attack the United States.
Barak said the world should press Iran to stop it from building nuclear weapons.

He spoke at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He said, "If it built even a primitive nuclear weapon like the type that destroyed Hiroshima, Iran would not hesitate to load it on a ship, arm it with a detonator operated by GPS and sail it into a vital port on the east coast of North America."

Indicating the possibility of a military strike, Barak said, "We recommend to the world not to take any option off the table, and we mean what we say."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 06:00 PM

I do not really see what good Obama offering Israel this does. I would not imagine for a second that Iran would launch any sort of attack involving nuclear weapons that could be traced directly to Iran. That is too clear cut and they could not wriggle out of the terrible retribution that would come their way.

The danger in Iran's secret/covert/call-it-what-you-will nuclear weapons programme is that it is used to arm others and they carry out the attack. Two fairly small devices smuggled into the country and detonated in Haifa and Tel Aviv, no finger-prints, no smoking gun, nothing to connect the attack to any Sovereign State. Those who supported the attack can draw the international communities notice to the fact that their stockpiles remain intact, because the secret programme that created those weapons and the material to make them has not been totally transparent. They can prove and have it verified by the Russians, the Americans and whoever that no missiles were launched, no aircraft left their bases. So what is the reaction of the world going to be? Israel is already in ruins, bulk of the population dead. Collateral damage would also include a significant number of Palestinians dead, but those who direct and support the terror attacks on Israel from afar have never cared a toss about the lives of Palestinians, they will be regarded as being blessed and "in Paradise" as is the due of every true martyr. In such circumstances I can just imagine the degree of posturing that would be done internationally and the ever so sincere rationalising that would be argued in order to justify the fact that nothing will be done, the UN would settle upon setting up another totally ineffective and impotent Hariri type enquiry under threat of Security Council Veto by France, Russia and China, for anything more forceful.

The only way that the US offer of protection against a nuclear strike, once Iran had acquired a weapon would be to state loud and clear that it was now in Iran's best interest to make absolutely certain that nothing was ever launched at Israel ever again, otherwise on detection of launch, or in the event of an explosion within Israel's borders, Iran would be held responsible and attacked. Maybe then Hezbollah might have to return some of the 40,000 rockets to Tehran, and then maybe the material to make the Kassam's would not be smuggled through the tunnels into Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM

more from above:

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.

"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" asked a senior Israeli security source. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"

The same source noted that the fact that there is talk about the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. The decision to proceed toward the development of nuclear arms is now purely a matter for Iran's leaders to decide. Intelligence assessments, however, suggest that the Iranians are trying to first accumulate larger quantities of fissile material, and this offers a window of opportunity for a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent an Iranian bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM

Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Barack Obama   

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."
Advertisement

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:16 PM

Dec 8, 2008 20:08 | Updated Dec 9, 2008 15:23
Report: Iran rocket arsenal tripled in 2008
By JPOST.COM STAFF


In a sign that Iran is taking military measures to ward off the threat of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the country has tripled the number of long-range rockets in its arsenal, Channel 10 reported on Monday.

According to the report, Iran possessed 30 Shihab-3 missiles at the beginning of 2008. Currently, the country claims to have over 100 over long-range missiles capable of hitting Israel.

While the ability of the Islamic Republic to strike any point in Israel has long been known, this latest build-up potentially points to an Iranian intent to launch a protracted counter-strike against those who seek to destroy its nuclear program.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.

Last summer, Iran held a massive missile exercise during which it claimed to have launched an improved version of the Shihab-3, known to have a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Iranian Fars News Agency Web site reported that the Shihab-3 had recently been equipped with an advanced guidance system that significantly improves the missile's accuracy and can correct its flight plan in midair.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:25 PM

Iran has got an election in June. All the signs are that Ahmadinejad is liable to lose, because he's been doing a lousy job as president domestically. (Sounds familiar?)

His best chance of winning is if posturing by the outside world builds him up, and makes it feel unpatriotic to vote against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: goatfell
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:19 AM

or should that be the world

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:27 AM

Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon
Thursday, November 20, 2008

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make a single nuclear bomb, according to atomic experts analyzing the latest report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

To date, Iran had enriched about 1,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium suitable for nuclear fuel, according to two confidential reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that were obtained by The Associated Press.

Several experts told The Times the milestone was enough for a bomb, but Iran would have to further purify the uranium fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that experts in the West are unsure Iran has been able to achieve.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades, told the newspaper. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

The report found the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.

The report on Iran — which also went to the U.N. Security Council — cautioned that Tehran's stonewalling meant the IAEA could not "provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities." And it noted that the Islamic Republic continued to expand uranium enrichment, an activity that can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material.

While that conclusion was expected, it was a formal confirmation of Iran's refusal to heed Security Council demands to freeze such activities, despite three sets of sanctions meant to force an enrichment stop.

Iran denies weapons ambitions, and Syria asserts the site hit more than a year ago by Israeli warplanes had no nuclear functions. But the two reports did little to dispel suspicions about either country.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency also said Wednesday that a Syrian site bombed by Israel in 2007 had the characteristics of a nuclear reactor.

The documents were being shared with the 35 nations on the IAEA's board.

On Syria, the agency also said that soil samples taken from the bombed site had a "significant number" of chemically processed natural uranium particles. A senior U.N official, who demanded anonymity because the information was restricted, said the findings were unusual for a facility that Syria alleges had no nuclear purpose.

The same official characterized U.N. attempts to elicit answers from Tehran on allegations that it had drafted plans for nuclear weapons programs as at a standstill.

The Syrian report said "it cannot be excluded" that the building destroyed in a remote stretch of the Syrian desert on Sept. 6, 2007, was "intended for non-nuclear use."

Still, "the features of the building ... are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site," it said, suggesting facility's size also fits that picture.

The report took note of Syrian assertions that any uranium particles found at the site must have come from Israeli missiles that hit the building, near the town of Al Kibar. And it cited Damascus officials as saying the IAEA samples contained only a "very limited number" of such particles.

But the report spoke of a "significant number of ... particles" found in the samples.

The senior U.N. official said "the onus of this investigation is on Syria" and noted that the traces were not of depleted uranium — the most commonly used variety of the metal in ammunition, meant to harden ordnance for increased penetration.

Satellite imagery made public in the wake of the Israeli attack noted that the Syrians subsequently removed substantial amounts of topsoil and entombed the building in concrete. But the report also suggested similar activities at three other Syrian sites of IAEA interest.

"Analysis of satellite imagery taken of these locations indicates that landscaping activities and the removal of large containers took place shortly after the agency's request for access," it said.

Beyond one visit in June to the Al Kibar site, Syria has refused IAEA requests to return to that location and examine the three other sites, citing the need to protect its military secrets.

In addition, said the report, "Syria has not yet provided the requested documentation" to back up its assertions that the bombed building was a non-nuclear military facility.

Iran denies such plans, saying it wants to enrich for a future large-scale civilian nuclear program. But suspicions have been compounded by its monthslong refusal to answer IAEA questions based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM

Iran increases stockpile of uranium
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and James Blitz in London

Published: November 19 2008 18:01 | Last updated: November 19 2008 23:00

Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear programme, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog reported on Wednesday, deepening the dilemma facing US president-elect Barack Obama over his campaign promise to engage with Tehran.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals that Iran is rapidly increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium, which could be rendered into weapons-grade material should Tehran decide to develop a nuclear device.

Timeline: Iran's nuclear development -
Nov-19The agency says that, as of this month, Tehran had amassed 630kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride, up from 480kg in late August. Analysts say Iran is enriching uranium at such a pace that, by early next year, it could reach break-out capacity – one step away from producing enough fissile material for a crude nuclear bomb.

"They are moving forward, they are not making diplomatic overtures, they are accumulating low enriched uranium," said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy in Washington. "These guys are committed to their nuclear programme: if we didn't know that, they just told us again."

The IAEA report also says there has been a breakdown of communication between the agency and Iran over alleged research on an atomic weapon. "The Iranians are making good progress on enrichment but there is absolute stone-walling on past military activities," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International institute for Strategic Studies. "It's very disappointing."

The progress chalked up by Iran increases the difficulties for Mr Obama, who campaigned on promises of talking to America's enemies, although during the election he scaled down his initial vow to meet Iran's leaders to a more general commitment to consider doing so if it advanced US interests.

"Obama faces a real dilemma," said the Eurasia Group's Mr Kupchan. "He must decide whether to pursue diplomacy quickly in light of rapid Iranian progress or whether to wait in the hope of a more moderate Iranian leadership after Iran's June presidential election."

European diplomats have responded favourably to Mr Obama's suggestion of US engagement with Iran, although they are keen to avoid unilateral US actions that would rip up the approach fashioned by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

IAEA officials said relations between the organisation and Iran had deteriorated so much there had been no contact between them for over two months, UN officials said on Wednesday.

"We had gridlock before but then at least we were talking to each other. Now it's worse. There is no communication whatsoever, no progress regarding possible military dimensions in their programme," a senior UN official said.

Ahead of Wednesday's report, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the Iranian president, signalled that his country would press ahead with its nuclear program.

In a speech broadcast on TV, he said the US and its major allies wanted to deprive Iran of "honor and independence" by pressuring the country into halting its uranium enrichment work.

"Now the great powers are disappointed, as they have not the least bit of hope to break the Iranian people down," he said. "If great powers seek to take over Iran's rights, Iranian people will slap them so hard that they won't find their way back home."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM

The President Who Will Deal With Iran
By Michael Gerson
Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A19

A specter is haunting the presidential race -- and it is not just the economy. It is the specter of a nuclear Iran.

Economic downturns are wrenching but cyclical. Nuclear proliferation is more difficult to reverse, creating the permanent prospect of massive miscalculation and tragedy. America's next leader may be known to history as the president who had to deal with Iran.

This topic received glancing attention in the second presidential debate. Barack Obama called a nuclear Iran "unacceptable." John McCain said it would raise the prospect of "a second Holocaust." But neither man seriously confronted the choices ahead.

Days earlier, at an event at the Nixon Center here, the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, David Kay, delivered a bleak assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. The Iranian regime, he argues, is about 80 percent of the way toward its nuclear goals -- perhaps two to four years from "effective, deployable weapons."

Kay believes that the reaction to this threat by both political parties is unrealistic. By simply saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, America is set up for a choice between "suicide" (a disastrous military attack on Iran) and "humiliation" (a galling acceptance of the unacceptable). Instead, Kay calls for a new round of "skillful diplomacy" to persuade Iran to stop at what he calls "virtual capability" -- a global recognition that it could produce nuclear weapons in short order, without all the drawbacks caused by actually producing those weapons.


But this would be the third major attempt at diplomacy, not the first. Russia has offered Iran enriched nuclear material for use in its civilian nuclear plants in exchange for abandoning its fuel-enrichment program. Iran refused, demonstrating, at the least, that it wants the technical know-how -- the "breakout capability" -- to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has offered direct, face-to-face talks with Iran if it would merely suspend (not abandon) its enrichment program. This also has been turned down. Another diplomatic effort -- perhaps offering normalized relations and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran's full cooperation -- might further isolate Iran if it refuses the deal. But even many supporters of such an initiative admit that Iran is likely to refuse.

So Kay seems resigned to a policy of containment -- holding Iran directly responsible if it transfers nuclear weapons to terrorists, providing nuclear guarantees to our friends in the region so they don't feel pressured to develop their own. Past nuclear proliferation to nations such as France and India, he argues, proved less destabilizing than many first feared.

The problem with this approach? Iran may be a different proliferation threat from any we have faced before. The regime cultivates ties to violent nonstate proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. While in some ways calculating, its leaders also seem drawn toward dangerous terrorist adventures -- such as blowing up U.S. troops in Beirut or Jewish community centers in South America. Iran's religious radicalism introduces an unpredictable element of irrationality. And some future conflict between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel could easily and quickly escalate.

What are the alternatives? Attempting to destabilize the Iranian regime from within -- by covert action and support for dissidents -- does not seem realistic on a four- or five-year timeline. American capabilities in this regard are limited, and Iranian repression of reformers is ruthless.

So if a nuclear Iran is truly unacceptable, we may be left with the use of military force. And this seems credible only under narrow circumstances. As Gary Samore, my colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, points out, Iran can move from breakout capability to the development of nuclear weapons in only two ways. It can do the final enrichment of weapons-grade material at some secretly constructed facility with a few thousand hidden centrifuges -- a difficult and risky proposition. Or it can quickly convert its known centrifuges for such production. This would probably take a few weeks and require the expulsion of international inspectors. During this short time lag, Iran's intentions would be fully revealed, and the case for bombing its facilities would be strongest.

This may be the true test of the next president: a few days to make one of the most consequential decisions in modern history. It is difficult to imagine why anyone would covet the responsibility for that choice -- but it is necessary to discern who is best prepared to make it.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbuce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM

North Korea said to be deploying missiles

By Mark Heinrich and Jack Kim
1 hour, 12 minutes ago



VIENNA/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea deployed more than 10 missiles on its west coast apparently for an imminent test launch, a South Korean newspaper said on Thursday, and Pyongyang halted U.N. monitoring of its nuclear complex.

The potentially destabilizing moves followed reports that the United States had offered to remove North Korea from its terrorism blacklist this month in an effort to keep a nuclear disarmament pact from falling apart.

It would be an unprecedented test if North Korea fired all 10 of the surface-to-ship and ship-to-ship missiles. Intelligence sources quoted by the Chosun Ilbo paper said they thought the North may launch five to seven of them.

North Korea has forbidden ships to sail in an area in the Yellow Sea until October 15 in preparation for the launch, an intelligence source told the paper.

A South Korean defense ministry official declined to comment on the report but said the government had no indication of unusual activity in the North.

The United States urged North Korea not to do anything, including launching missiles, that would make matters worse. "We would urge North Korea to avoid any steps that increase tension on the peninsula," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He said actions by Pyongyang in the last month had not been helpful, but added: "What they have done thus far is reversible. They can take a different set of decisions. We urge them to do so."

The halt to U.N. monitoring throughout the Yongbyon nuclear complex was a significant step toward scrapping the pact to dismantle its atomic bomb programed, officials and diplomats said at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has today informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately, access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement.

"The DPRK also stated that has stopped its disablement work, which was initially agreed upon within the Six-Party Talks," he said.

"Since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activities would no longer be appropriate. IAEA inspectors will remain in Yongbyon pending further information by the DPRK."

KOREAN NUCLEAR PLANS

Two weeks ago, the reclusive Stalinist state expelled the monitor team from Yongbyon's plutonium-producing plant, kernel of its atom bomb capability, and vowed to start reactivating the Soviet-era facility shortly.

At the time, Pyongyang let the IAEA continue verifying the shutdown status of other parts of Yongbyon. The IAEA's tools included surveillance cameras and seals placed on equipment.

Exactly two years ago, North Korea alarmed the world by conducting its first nuclear weapon test.

The pact appeared to unravel last month after Pyongyang, angry at not being removed from a U.S. blacklist of sponsors of terrorism, vowed to rebuild the largely dismantled Yongbyon.

North Korea has a history of timing its missile launches during periods of increased tension or negotiation to signal a hard line, analysts say.

U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang last week in a bid to convince North Korea to return to a disarmament-for-aid deal and halt plans to restart an aging nuclear plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium.

Kyodo news agency, quoting unidentified Japanese government sources, said Hill agreed that Washington would not make verification of Pyongyang's uranium enrichment programed

or proliferation activities a condition of delisting.

The United States suspects North Korea has a parallel uranium enrichment programed in addition to its plutonium-producing reactor in Yongbyon and that it has proliferated nuclear technology to Syria.

The United States put North Korea on its list of state sponsors of terrorism for the 1987 midair bombing of a South Korean airliner over the Andaman Sea that killed 115 people.

Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said he had not seen any increased military activity in North Korea, "nor have we responded in any way with any military posture changes."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM

North Korea prepares to restart nuclear facility

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - North Korea announced Thursday that it is preparing to restart the facility that produced its atomic bomb, clearly indicating that it plans to completely pull out of an international deal to end its nuclear program.

North Korea told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was stopping the process of disabling its main nuclear site and barring international inspectors from the Yongbyon facility, the agency said.

Pyongyang "informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

North Korea "also stated that it has stopped its (nuclear) disablement work," its statement said.

"Also, since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activites would no longer be appropriate," the statement said, referring to the north by its formal acronym.

But the statement said the IAEA's small inspection team would remain on the site until told otherwise by North Korean authorities.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month after telling them to remove IAEA seals from the plant in a reversal of its pledge to disable its nuclear program in return for diplomatic concessions and offers of energy aid.

But Thursday's statement was the clearest indication to date that the North planned to abrogate the deal, said a senior diplomat linked to the IAEA who demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to the media.

The North was to eventually dismantle the complex in return for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil under a February 2007 deal with the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

But the accord hit a bump in mid-August when the U.S. refused to remove North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism until the North accepts a plan for verifying a list of nuclear assets that the Pyongyang regime submitted to its negotiating partners earlier.

"Let's just wait and see over the next several days. We're reviewing the situation and I am talking to my colleagues and when we have an announcement, we'll have an announcement," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington when asked about the announcement.

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

Diplomats: NKorea bans UN staff from nuke complex

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - Diplomats say that North Korea has made all of its Yongbyon nuclear facilities off limits to international inspectors.

The diplomats say the North's decision was made recently but declined to offer details. The diplomats demanded anonymity Thursday because their information was confidential.

The reported move expands the area that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are no longer allowed to monitor.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month, when it made good on threats to restart its weapons-producing atomic program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 02:48 PM

further on last story. Think maybe the Iranians are trying to get a reason to attack?????



From Times Online October 7, 2008

Iran creates international panic after claiming US plane violated airspace
(Seth Wenig)

An Iranian news agency sparked fears of an international standoff and left the Pentagon scrambling to identify its planes today after it reported that a US jet had strayed into its territory and been forced to land.

The semi-official Fars News Agency this afternoon said that five US military officials and three civilians were interrogated at an unnamed Iranian airport after accidentally straying into the Islamic Republic's airspace.

They were released after it was established that the plane had not entered the territory intentionally, the agency said, adding that it did not know when the incident had happened.

After hastily investigating the claims, however, the Pentagon poured scorn on them.

The US said that all of its planes in the Middle East had been identified and none had recently been missing or involved in any incident.

"According to the combined air operations centre, all our aircraft are accounted for and we have no reports of any aircraft landing in Iran," US Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder said.

As the story unfolded, a senior Iranian military official told Iranian state television's Arabic-language channel Al-Alam that what was said to be a military jet was, in fact, a private Hungarian business aircraft and that no Americans were on board. It added that the incident dated back to September 30.

"The airplane is now being confirmed as a light transport plane with no Americans onboard," US military spokesman Lieutenant David Russell said.

"From what I am seeing, it was a Falcon business jet. We have accounted for all our aircraft and none are missing."

Tensions between Iran and the United States have been running high in recent years with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline Iranian President, refusing to stop enriching uranium.

The US suspects Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons and the UN has imposed sanctions on Tehran. However, Iran says uranium enrichment is for energy use only.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM

PLEASE note before comments that this was *NOT* a US Plane!





Iran Fighters Force Plane To Land

3:49pm UK, Tuesday October 07, 2008

Iranian news agencies sparked fears of an international stand-off by reporting that a US fighter jet had been forced to land after flying into their country's airspace.

Plane forced down by Iranian air force was a Falcon jet

Reports that the jet was a US warplane with military personnel on board were contradicted by other sources inside the country, which said its nationality was in fact Hungarian.

Reports said five people were interrogated, but allowed to leave the following day after it became clear their trespass into Iranian airspace had been a mistake.

They added that the interrogation revealed that they had strayed over the border unintentionally en route to Afghanistan.

However, the Pentagon denied that any of its aircraft were missing and it later emerged that the plane was a Falcon passenger jet.

The plane is said to have entered Iranian airspace from Turkey despite repeated warnings by the Islamic Republic Air Force.

Reports said the jet was flying low in an attempt to slip under Iranian radar before being made to touch down.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:27 AM

Point of discussion: The terms of the Lebenon ceasefire ( UN brokered) were that

1. Israel would withdraw ( which it did)
2. Hezboallah would not be resupplied ( which it was)
3. Hezboallah would release the two Israelis kidnapped ( which they did not)


Now, WHY SHOULD ISRAEL pay any attention to the UN, which has demonstrated that it has no intention of standing behind its resolutions or agreements?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:24 AM

Bet on Israel bombing Iran
By Robert Baer

Monday, September 29th 2008, 8:44 AM

Are we going to have an October surprise, an attack on Iran by either the Bush administration or by Israel to stop the regime from becoming a nuclear power?

It could happen - and alter the dynamics of the presidential race in the blink of an eye - but only if Israel pulls the trigger. Don't expect the United States to drop bombs anytime soon. The reason: Iran has us over a barrel.

According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, Bush earlier this year nixed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, the President said no because we couldn't afford Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran closing down Persian Gulf shipping. Nonetheless, cynical speculation is now swirling in some quarters that with the financial collapse working against McCain - and Bush's legacy coming into focus - the President might reconsider. Could that tail really wag the dog?

RELATED:AHMADINEJAD TELLS NEWS THERE ARE GAYS IN IRAN
Probably not. The fundamental global power dynamics have not changed. Iran has successfully blackmailed us. Iranian Silkworm missiles could close down Gulf oil exports in a matter of minutes, taking about 17 million barrels a day of oil off world markets. Americans could suddenly be looking at the prospect of $10-$12 for a gallon of gas. If the collapse of Wall Street doesn't push us into a depression, that would. And Bush is right: An angered Iran could punish us with thousands of extra casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Iranian-trained, armed and funded fighters flow back into the war zones with a vengeance.

So, giving the go ahead to Israel would just not be worth it.

But none of this changes the fact that Israel - on its own, without U.S. complicity - is moving closer to a decision to attack Iran, almost by the day.

RELATED:A WAKEUP CALL ON IRAN'S NUKES
What many Americans miss is that Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence, not an imagined danger used by politicians for political advantage. Every Israeli city is within range of Iranian/Hezbollah rockets. To make matters worse, since the July 2006 34-day war, Hezbollah may have as much as trebled the number of rockets it has targeted on Israel.

Meantime, Hezbollah has become the de facto state in Lebanon. And lest we forget, Israel lost that July 2006 war to Hezbollah, pulling its troops out of Lebanon without having obtained a single objective. In other words, Israel no longer has its deterrence credibility, the fear that it can decisively retaliate against its enemies.

Israel knows that international diplomacy against Iran up until now has been a farce. Iran called Bush's bluff, ignored sanctions and continued its nuclear program with impunity. And if the Israelis needed another psychological kick in the pants, last week North Korea announced that it is back to building a bomb, likewise with impunity.

Finally, Israel has to calculate that American influence around the world is on the wane. Americans are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, after the war in Georgia, Russia is opening up its flow of weapons to Iran.

Couple all of this with Israel's suspicion that Iran is within only a few short years of having a nuclear bomb, and Israel knows time is not on its side. It is starting to believe that it has no choice but to change its fortunes with arms.

This much is certain. Whether the President is named Bush, McCain or Obama, he will either have to prepare for war in the Gulf or find a way to bring Iran back into the nation-state system. The day of reckoning is near.

I myself think a deal can be cut with Iran. During the last 30 years, Iran has gone from a terrorist, revolutionary power to far more rational, calculating regional hegemon. Its belligerence today has more to do with a weakened United States and Israel than with any plans to start World War III.

The question is what price Iran would exact for a settlement. Or more to the point: Would we prefer to take our chances with an Israeli surprise?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

Fine. The US will wait until after Iran uses the bomb on Israel, watch the entire Middle East go up in mushroom clouds, and then tell the EU and China it has to go to Russia for oil.

But I doubt that the remaining (alive) 30% of the world population will say that the UN had done its job...




And you ignore that Iran has violated its NPT obligations. To NOT enforce them is to say that there is no need for international agreements or consequences for violating them.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that it is OK that Canada exports asbestos in violation of UN laws....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

Mutual threats have been repeatedly hurled in all directions, BB, by Iran, the USA, and Israel. If it was a situation in a town the police would arrest ALL those making such threats. They would arrest the USA, Iran, and Israel, and put them all on trial for uttering death threats in an unlawful fashion.

They have all said, in effect, "if you do so-and-so...or if I think you might do it...I'm going to kill you". That is a death threat, and it's illegal in civil law. It should also be illegal in international law (and it is in fact), but there's no neutral authority to enforce that law.

You can't have a lawful town if there is no neutral police force to enforce the laws equally.

As for open assault, the USA has openly assaulted and invaded other nations with its armed forces. That is a far greater crime than merely uttering death threats.

To put it simply, if the Iranians behaved as you do (meaning the American government you support) you would THEN have adequate cause to be as upset about them as you seem to be. You would then have total justification for war (assuming you had the power to undertake it with any hope of success).

Look, if ANY nation acted like the USA does in launching "pre-emptive" wars (wars of choice) and was NOT a military superpower with greater firepower than anyone else in the world, then many other nations in the world would soon go to war against it and crush it (like they did Saddam in 1991). You don't seem to get that. Hitler didn't get it either. People like Hitler, Bush, Cheney, Saddam, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin...they never get it. All they believe in, really, is "might makes right".

They are their own justification in their own eyes. Other people don't have to see it that way.