A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability

[Q24]

After reading that am still of the opinion Iran is to blame for a lot of what's going on between it and the IAEA.

my initial reply back on a earlier page was to this part of your post, (below)

in answer to that question - Iran should allow unlimited access and fully comply with the IAEA. i cant accept the logic of Iran was cooperating but the west still pushed for more - so now Iran doesn't fully cooperate or does the bare minimum required.

The question needed to be asked is, why doesn't Iran go one better, put two fingers up to the west and go above and beyond what the IAEA want. that to me would be Iran's trump card, and who could argue with that?

Iran did go above and beyond their standard commitment to the NPT (more so than any other country has ever done), they suspended enrichment for two years and offered a further two years on top of that. All of this co-operation was rebuked by the West because only “permanent” suspension was ever good enough.

The bottom line is this: in all of the IAEA reports, Iran has not once been found in breach of the NPT and there is not a shred of credible evidence for a nuclear weapons programme… yet they have been referred to the U.N. Security Council and hit with three rounds of sanctions all at the instigation of Western powers (if you have followed closely then you will know that China and Russia have little interest in imposing sanctions; it is only a means of political leverage on external issues such as missile defence shields and Taiwan).

All the while, these demands are coming from countries who are nuclear-armed (not to mention the close presence of India, Pakistan and Israel who did not have such pressure put on them) and against a backdrop of military threats from the U.S. and Israel. If I was Iranian then I’d be furious at the West for such double-standards.

You suggest that Iran’s “trump card” is to bend over backwards to appease the West but we have already seen that it simply does not work – those powers will not cease their pressure short of “permanent” suspension in violation of Iran’s rights under the NPT. Iran’s way of “putting two fingers up to the West” is to reduce co-operation with the IAEA to a basic level as further than that got them precisely nowhere anyway.

There are 47 countries in the world with nuclear programmes right now including Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, Vietnam and Venezuela.

Why are Iran being singled out by the West?

You would probably say (fed by Western media) that it is because of Iranian support to Hamas and Hezbollah but the prospect of Iran supplying nuclear weapons (even if it were the intention to develop them at some point in the future) to these groups is a non-starter as blame would immediately fall on Iran as though they had carried out any attack themselves. Perhaps you would then revert to the idea that any speculative nuclear weapons may be used directly on Israel, though this does not hold water because Iran have never threatened a war of aggression on that regime. Look at the Arab-Israeli war and Six-Day War – there was no Iranian aggression and in fact Iran has not initiated war with any other country for over 150 years from back in the day when it was known as Persia. These suggestions for singling out Iran do not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

So what is the actual motivation?

Since early in the 20th century the West has regarded the Middle East as a vital strategic asset in regard to energy resources and wider world influence. The U.S. aim in the region is to retain and increase control over these energy resources through a strategy of military infiltration and subverting of any power that may rise to challenge their position as the dominant outside influence. This is undisputed historical and stated fact, fully available for study and is precisely the route taken by the West for decades. The final barrier to complete U.S. dominance in the Middle East is Iran – it is the single nation in that region which is not subservient and with the potential to rise to super-power status thus severely challenging Western hegemony.

As far as the West are concerned (the politicians anyway), this is not an option – arms deals where it suits to gain favour or produce conflict, covert operations overthrowing governments and support to dissident groups, any manner of propaganda tactics, along with outright war are all feasible to prevent this outcome. Again, this type of interference is all fact, examples of which are found in any number of documented events.

This is what must be understood for everything to fall into place – Iran’s nuclear programme in itself is not the issue, but truly it is the West’s chosen pretext of today.

It is the people; the human race as a whole, that ultimately suffer for this strategy.

[Karlis]

... (Snip) ...

In 2002 Iran disclosed the construction of nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak prior to the introduction of nuclear materials, in full accordance with their standing safeguard agreement. IAEA inspectors were permitted access to these facilities and in 2003 the agency declared that Iran had provided a “comprehensive” declaration of its nuclear activities, that there was “no evidence” of attempts to build nuclear weapons and at that time did not declare Iran in non-compliance with the NPT.

... (Snip) ...

It is undeniable, as I said previously, that Iran has been put in an impossible position, engineered and exploited by the West.

Q24, you seem to be well-informed and up to date with Iran's nuclear issues. What is your opinion about the nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak and the events as described from 2002 to 2006 in the Wikipedia excerpt below? For brevity, I deleted the rest of your post, but do you feel that the Wiki article contradicts anything that you posted?

Regards,

Karlis

2002–2006

On August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for an Iranian dissident group National Council of Resistance of Iran, publicly revealed the existence of two nuclear sites under-construction: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. It's been strongly suggested that intelligence agencies already knew about these facilities but the reports had been classified.[53]

The IAEA immediately sought access to these facilities and further information and co-operation from Iran regarding its nuclear program.[54] According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,[55] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This 'six months' clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the IAEA Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so February 26, 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.[56]

France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the EU-3) undertook a diplomatic initiative with Iran to resolve questions about its nuclear program. On October 21, 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement known as the Tehran Declaration[57] in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations. The EU-3 in return explicitly agreed to recognize Iran's nuclear rights and to discuss ways Iran could provide "satisfactory assurances" regarding its nuclear power program, after which Iran would gain easier access to modern technology. Iran signed an Additional Protocol on December 18, 2003, and agreed to act as if the protocol were in force, making the required reports to the IAEA and allowing the required access by IAEA inspectors, pending Iran's ratification of the Additional Protocol.

The IAEA reported November 10, 2003,[58] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." Iran was obligated to inform the IAEA of its importation of uranium from China and subsequent use of that material in uranium conversion and enrichment activities. It was also obligated to report to the IAEA experiments with the separation of plutonium. A comprehensive list of Iran's specific "breaches" of its IAEA safeguards agreement, which the IAEA described as part of a "pattern of concealment," can be found in the November 15, 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program.[59] Iran attributes its failure to report certain acquisitions and activities on US obstructionism, which reportedly included pressuring the IAEA to cease providing technical assistance to Iran's uranium conversion program in 1983.[60][61] On the question of whether Iran had a hidden nuclear weapons program, the IAEA's November 2003 report states that it found "no evidence" that the previously undeclared activities were related to a nuclear weapons program, but also that it was unable to conclude that Iran's nuclear program was exclusively peaceful.

In June 2004, construction was commenced on IR-40, a 40MW heavy water reactor.

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) and the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany acting on behalf of the European Union (EU) (known in this context as the EU-3). The measure was said at the time to be a voluntary, confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time (six months being mentioned as a reference) as negotiations with the EU-3 continued. On November 24, Iran sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four days later. According to Seyyed Hossein Mousavian, one of the Iranian representatives to the Paris Agreement negotiations, the Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that Iran would not consider a permanent end to uranium enrichment:

Before the Paris [Agreement] text was signed, Dr Rohani...stressed that they should be committed neither to speak nor even think of a cessation any more. The ambassadors delivered his message to their foreign ministers prior to the signing of the Paris agreed text... The Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that if the latter sought a complete termination of Iran's nuclear fuel-cycle activities, there would be no negotiations. The Europeans answered that they were not seeking such a termination, only an assurance on the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear programme to military ends.[62]

In February 2005, Iran pressed the EU-3 to speed up talks, which the EU-3 refused to do so.[63] The talks made little progress because of the divergent positions of the two sides.[64] In early August 2005, after the June election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's President, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan,[65] which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"[66] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment.[67] Several days later, the EU-3 offered Iran a package in return for permanent cessation of enrichment. Reportedly, it included benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields, as well as long-term supplies of nuclear materials and assurances of non-aggression by the EU (but not the US),[66]. Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization rejected the offer, terming it "very insulting and humiliating"[66] and other independent analysts characterized the EU offer as an "empty box". Iran's announcement that it would resume enrichment preceded the election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad by several months. The delay in restarting the program was to allow the IAEA to re-install monitoring equipment. The actual resumption of the program coincided with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the appointment of Ali Larijani as the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator.[68]

In August 2005, with the assistance of Pakistan[69] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran.[70] In September 2005, IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei reported that “most” highly-enriched uranium traces found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components, validating Iran's claim that the traces were due to contamination. Sources in Vienna and the State Department reportedly stated that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved.

The IAEA Board of Governors deferred a formal decision on Iran's nuclear case for two years after 2003, while Iran continued cooperation with the EU-3. On September 24, 2005, after Iran abandoned the Paris Agreement, the Board found that Iran had been in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement, based largely on facts that had been reported as early as November 2003.[71]

On February 4, 2006, the 35 member Board of Governors of the IAEA voted 27–3 (with five abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) to report Iran to the UN Security Council. The measure was sponsored by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, and it was backed by the United States. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition that the council take no action before March. The three members who voted against referral were Venezuela, Syria and Cuba.[72][73] In response, on February 6, 2006, Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other voluntary and non-legally binding cooperation with the IAEA beyond what is required by its safeguards agreement.[74]

In late February 2006, IAEA Director Mohammad El-Baradei raised the suggestion of a deal, whereby Iran would give up industrial-scale enrichment and instead limit its program to a small-scale pilot facility, and agree to import its nuclear fuel from Russia. The Iranians indicated that while they would not be willing to give up their right to enrichment in principle, they were willing to consider the compromise solution. However in March 2006, the Bush Administration made it clear that they would not accept any enrichment at all in Iran.

The IAEA Board of Governors deferred the formal report to the UN Security Council of Iran's non-compliance (such a report is required by Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute),[75] until February 27, 2006.[76] The Board usually makes decisions by consensus, but in a rare non-consensus decision it adopted this resolution by vote, with 12 abstentions.[77][78]

On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium. President Ahmadinejad made the announcement in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad, where he said "I am officially announcing that Iran joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." The uranium was enriched to 3.5% using over a hundred centrifuges.

On April 13, 2006, after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said (on April 12, 2006) the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course in its nuclear ambition; President Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran won't back away from uranium enrichment and that the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power, saying "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," because "We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation to enrich uranium."[79]

On April 14, 2006, The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) published a series of analyzed satellite images of Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.[80] Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. In addition, a series of images dating back to 2002 shows the underground enrichment buildings and its subsequent covering by soil, concrete, and other materials. Both facilities were already subject to IAEA inspections and safeguards.

Iran responded to the demand to stop enrichment of uranium August 24, 2006, offering to return to the negotiation table but refusing to end enrichment.[81]

Qolam Ali Hadad-adel, speaker of Iran's parliament, said on August 30, 2006, that Iran had the right to "peaceful application of nuclear technology and all other officials agree with this decision," according to the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency. "Iran opened the door to negotiations for Europe and hopes that the answer which was given to the nuclear package would bring them to the table.""[81]

In Resolution 1696 of July 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities.[82]

In UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of December 26, 2006, the Council imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.[83] These sanctions were primarily targeted against the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies[84] and, in response to concerns of China and Russia, were lighter than that sought by the United States.[85] This resolution followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had permitted inspections under its safeguards agreement but had not suspended its enrichment-related activities.[86] LINK to wiki source

[Q24]

Q24, you seem to be well-informed and up to date with Iran's nuclear issues. What is your opinion about the nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak and the events as described from 2002 to 2006 in the Wikipedia excerpt below? For brevity, I deleted the rest of your post, but do you feel that the Wiki article contradicts anything that you posted?

Regards,

Karlis

The Wiki article does not contradict anything that I posted. I can see from the text that you have bolded where you believe there is a discrepancy. The idea that some big ‘secret’ was ‘exposed’ is absolute bunk. Here is how it fits: -

Under Iran’s safeguard agreement it was not required to declare research or construction of nuclear facilities; only inform the IAEA six months prior to the introduction of nuclear material. In any case, U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of the Natanz and Arak facilities prior to 2002 yet, for the reason just mentioned, there was simply no legitimate complaint to make.

When the nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak were publicly revealed by an Iranian dissident group, the IAEA requested details which Iran summarily disclosed – I suspect at this point there was concern that perhaps enrichment work may have already began. Full inspections were permitted and the Iranian nuclear programme was cleared by the IAEA as in accordance with the NPT. As it turned out, Iran did not achieve uranium enrichment at Natanz until 2006 so were well within the timeframe of their obligation to notify the IAEA.

Further, Iran’s nuclear programme at large was never hidden. It was the U.S. who assisted Iran in commencing their nuclear programme under rule of the Shah and in 1974 it was Western contractors who began construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant. The IAEA carried out inspections during the 1980s and 1990s finding activities to be consistent with peaceful purposes and even advising development of the nuclear programme. It was Russia who took over the work for completion of the Bushehr nuclear plant in 1995. The following year China agreed to construct another nuclear facility for Iran and although they pulled out under U.S. pressure, Iran built the site based on Chinese plans which was again visited by the IAEA.

So you see, the nuclear programme was well known and until the point where Western powers began calling for “permanent” suspension of enrichment along with referring the case to the U.N. Security Council, Iran had been fully co-operative with the IAEA and their NPT obligations.

You must understand that this nuclear issue is a pretext of the West raised by those who came to power in the U.S. in 2001. These individuals had previously stated on record that Iraq and Iran were their main targets due to geopolitical interests and the issue of maintaining U.S. global pre-eminence. They needed their excuses to provide the public for the military implementation of this plan – for Iraq it was WMDs and for Iran it is the nuclear ‘weapons’ programme.

History repeats (apparently sometimes in short cycles) – are you going to fall for the same trick twice?

[ExpandMyMind]

excellent, Q24. not just in this thread, everything you have posted in relation to iran in the last week has been spot on.

i cannot understand how anyone could read what you have posted and not come to the conclusion that iran, (and the western public), are the victims here.

it just goes to show you how biased and indoctrinated some people are and have been - when actual facts and information do nothing to influence their opinion.

to me, it's as plain as day where the closest version of the truth lies.

[stevewinn]

excellent, Q24. not just in this thread, everything you have posted in relation to iran in the last week has been spot on.

i cannot understand how anyone could read what you have posted and not come to the conclusion that iran, (and the western public), are the victims here.

it just goes to show you how biased and indoctrinated some people are and have been - when actual facts and information do nothing to influence their opinion.

to me, it's as plain as day where the closest version of the truth lies.

Its a world game of one upmanship. Iran is no innocent player, and i wish people would stop all this western media driven rubbish, look at Iran's neighbours not one of them want a nuclear Iran, behind closed doors the Saudis, the Kuwaitis the Egyptians UAE. all have their fingers crossed - in hope that someone will take out Iran's Nuclear program.

To me the IAEA reports are crystal clear, Iran is in breach. its OK taking snip bits out of reports and if you read the full IAEA reports everyone will see Iran cooperates in some parts and not in others.

anyway who cares, because am in no doubt Iran's nuclear program will produce a nuclear weapon. and when this happens its going to be much harder to deal with a nuclear Iran than a non-nuclear Iran. but lets make it harder for ourselves. instead of a small cluster**** we can have one big almighty one.

were struggling with a nuclear North Korea, image adding Iran to that, followed by the highly possible arms race in the middle east.

interesting times ahead.

[J.B.]

Chinese interesting with a weapon the Japanese know better than everyone!

[Q24]

Its a world game of one upmanship. Iran is no innocent player, and i wish people would stop all this western media driven rubbish, look at Iran's neighbours not one of them want a nuclear Iran, behind closed doors the Saudis, the Kuwaitis the Egyptians UAE. all have their fingers crossed - in hope that someone will take out Iran's Nuclear program.

I completely agree with you about each country wanting to be one-up on the other. What I do not agree with are the moral implications of the way we in the West are going about it; huge resources committed to interference in the affairs of foreign nations to the detriment of their development and wellbeing of the common people on both sides, rather than focussing on bettering ourselves internally to stay ahead of the game. Surely all of that investment in covert operations and fighting wars to secure oil supplies over the years would have been better put to use in research of alternative energy sources to remove reliance on the Middle East altogether. Perhaps I am underestimating the megalomania of some individuals in desiring wider world influence.

Regarding the media (Western in this discussion though it is the same anywhere in the world), the agendas are apparent simply with observation of what and how issues are reported along with an awareness of the facts of current events.

The fact could be that a Palestinian has fired a rocket toward Israel in retaliation for eviction from their land and killing of their people… and the headline becomes, “Iranian Backed Terrorists Attack Israel”. The fact could be that British military personnel were detained after entering Iranian territorial waters… and the headline becomes, “Iran Takes Brits Hostage”. The fact could be that Iran is developing a civilian nuclear programme within obligations of the NPT… and the headline becomes, “Iranian Nukes Threat”. This type of reporting is ceaseless and implants unbalanced (sometimes plain false) information in the minds of the reader/viewer.

Many somehow trust that the media provides objective reporting and opinion on major issues when in fact it is but a political tool used to shape opinion and bend the will of the people to the bidding of their leaders – they miss that the media is owned and controlled at the highest levels by tycoons of huge influence who rub shoulders with the same politicians who are driving the previously mentioned pretexts!

Here is an example: during the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, of the 175 newspapers owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch across the U.S. and U.K. (that’s not including his further TV news channels), every single one editorialised explicitly in favour of the war. You’re not going to tell me that a random sample of this number of people would just so happen to all share the same view. You see, in important issues the media is dictated from the top.

To me the IAEA reports are crystal clear, Iran is in breach. its OK taking snip bits out of reports and if you read the full IAEA reports everyone will see Iran cooperates in some parts and not in others.

I agree that Iran could do more at this point in time but I hope that after my recent posts it is equally as crystal clear why they do not.

[stevewinn]

I completely agree with you about each country wanting to be one-up on the other. What I do not agree with are the moral implications of the way we in the West are going about it; huge resources committed to interference in the affairs of foreign nations to the detriment of their development and wellbeing of the common people on both sides, rather than focussing on bettering ourselves internally to stay ahead of the game. Surely all of that investment in covert operations and fighting wars to secure oil supplies over the years would have been better put to use in research of alternative energy sources to remove reliance on the Middle East altogether. Perhaps I am underestimating the megalomania of some individuals in desiring wider world influence.

Regarding the media (Western in this discussion though it is the same anywhere in the world), the agendas are apparent simply with observation of what and how issues are reported along with an awareness of the facts of current events.

The fact could be that a Palestinian has fired a rocket toward Israel in retaliation for eviction from their land and killing of their people… and the headline becomes, “Iranian Backed Terrorists Attack Israel”. The fact could be that British military personnel were detained after entering Iranian territorial waters… and the headline becomes, “Iran Takes Brits Hostage”. The fact could be that Iran is developing a civilian nuclear programme within obligations of the NPT… and the headline becomes, “Iranian Nukes Threat”. This type of reporting is ceaseless and implants unbalanced (sometimes plain false) information in the minds of the reader/viewer.

Many somehow trust that the media provides objective reporting and opinion on major issues when in fact it is but a political tool used to shape opinion and bend the will of the people to the bidding of their leaders – they miss that the media is owned and controlled at the highest levels by tycoons of huge influence who rub shoulders with the same politicians who are driving the previously mentioned pretexts!

Here is an example: during the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, of the 175 newspapers owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch across the U.S. and U.K. (that’s not including his further TV news channels), every single one editorialised explicitly in favour of the war. You’re not going to tell me that a random sample of this number of people would just so happen to all share the same view. You see, in important issues the media is dictated from the top.

i can see where your coming from. But living in the age of information technology, available from mobile phones through to the internet. no one should really be ill-informed. the information - for and against in any debate is available at our finger tips. all people have to do is sieve through it all and draw their own conclusion. but i do agree the Media do play a big role in shaping the world we live in.

I agree that Iran could do more at this point in time but I hope that after my recent posts it is equally as crystal clear why they do not.

see this is where i have a problem with the whole Iran not fully cooperating. Why should Iran change to this stance -just because the west pushed for more. it just doesn't make sense. what have Iran got to lose by fully cooperating? nothing. what have they got to lose by doing what they are doing at present - their whole nuclear program, including the nuclear sites...sanctions etc....

If i was Iran and i had nothing to hide, because my nuclear program was for energy only i'd have the IAEA in the country permanently, have them present at every major breakthrough with unlimited access to anything and everything at their request. that way no matter what the media says or tries to spin the fact would be Iran has more than fully cooperated. how can any media or government drum up support for a military strike on Iran? it would be near impossible.

[Q24]

i can see where your coming from. But living in the age of information technology, available from mobile phones through to the internet. no one should really be ill-informed. the information - for and against in any debate is available at our finger tips. all people have to do is sieve through it all and draw their own conclusion. but i do agree the Media do play a big role in shaping the world we live in.

Notwithstanding that most people will not go to the extent of researching and/or verifying facts for themselves, even the majority of those who do so have already had their neutrality compromised by the wider reporting of the mass media that cannot be avoided. Everyone knows not to believe everything they hear/read but I would question how many people really believe it on the big issues and are aware of the degree to which we are being led. An objective conclusion can only be drawn with full realisation that the mainstream media is a political tool and the understanding that there are motivations behind it.

Just look at the other recent thread to see the scare-tactics in action. The channel is Fox News, created and owned by Rupert Murdoch who I spoke about above. Anyhow, you already agreed that the media plays a big role in shaping our perceptions so you are probably wondering why I’m still going on about it - I will take this to the other thread where it belongs.

see this is where i have a problem with the whole Iran not fully cooperating. Why should Iran change to this stance -just because the west pushed for more. it just doesn't make sense. what have Iran got to lose by fully cooperating? nothing. what have they got to lose by doing what they are doing at present - their whole nuclear program, including the nuclear sites...sanctions etc....

If i was Iran and i had nothing to hide, because my nuclear program was for energy only i'd have the IAEA in the country permanently, have them present at every major breakthrough with unlimited access to anything and everything at their request. that way no matter what the media says or tries to spin the fact would be Iran has more than fully cooperated. how can any media or government drum up support for a military strike on Iran? it would be near impossible.

The limiting of co-operation only to meet basic obligations of the NPT is what Iran are attempting to use for leverage; it is a protest at what they feel is unfair treatment by the West. They are saying that if you continue this pressure to permanently halt our nuclear programme and push on with harmful sanctions despite there being no evidence of weaponisation, then you are escalating the situation and can forget about co-operation beyond the minimum required by the NPT. Just last week, Iran’s envoy to the IAEA implied that the country could quit the NPT altogether (whilst still maintaining a peaceful nuclear programme) if they are not dealt with justly – and you better believe them when they say this. It may be the case that there is no consideration from the West but other nations including China and Russia will be taking serious heed.

I must reiterate – Iran did provide full co-operation as you suggest for a couple of years until 2006. You say that if this were the case then “no matter what” there could be no argument against Iran, and on the face of it that should be correct. So how is it that Iran were still reported to the U.N. Security Council with the threat of sanctions? Why is it that Russia and China still had to make amendments to the text of the Security Council resolution to ensure that the U.S. could not use the same loophole for war that they exploited to invade Iraq? The fact is that the West came up with another pretext despite the full co-operation of Iran and would do so again – if Iran continued to bend to demands then it wouldn’t be long until the West would insist on full disclosure of Revolutionary Guard military facilities to ensure no nuclear diversion! No, you get pushed so far by a bully and then you must make a stand as Iran have done.

This conflict is not about the nuclear programme… the West know what they are doing and won’t let it drop “no matter what”. You didn’t respond to my post regarding motivations of the West here but I do hope you considered it at least.

___________________________________________________________

On a lighter note, Liverpool are right now 1-0 down to Wigan with only a couple of minutes left to play!

[acidhead]

Notwithstanding that most people will not go to the extent of researching and/or verifying facts for themselves, even the majority of those who do so have already had their neutrality compromised by the wider reporting of the mass media that cannot be avoided. Everyone knows not to believe everything they hear/read but I would question how many people really believe it on the big issues and are aware of the degree to which we are being led. An objective conclusion can only be drawn with full realisation that the mainstream media is a political tool and the understanding that there are motivations behind it.

Yes.. you hit the nail on the head....

In the western world the media blitzes daily and it creates situations where the whole populations are basically standing in a circle shooting each other instead of looking over our shoulders and recognizing that we have been set up.

And who wins the shoot out? -the bankers and the NWO

[J.B.]

Oh, you know how far the U.S./ the West wants to go. . . Iran: The protectorate of the U.S. of A. An extension of our empire, where we can walk through the countryside as if we own it. A nice jump-off point for a Middle East expansion. Take the entire Holy Land with our country-sized military base.

[stevewinn]

This conflict is not about the nuclear programme… the West know what they are doing and won’t let it drop “no matter what”. You didn’t respond to my post regarding motivations of the West here but I do hope you considered it at least.

___________________________________________________________

On a lighter note, Liverpool are right now 1-0 down to Wigan with only a couple of minutes left to play!

This is a reply to your 'Motivation of the west' post from the other thread. pretty much of what you've said has been the motivation or the way of the world for hundreds of years. that's why in my reply i said its all a game of one upmanship. you know and understand what i mean, in order to be at the top you need to take actions which keep you there, Iran is a pain in the bum. and so needs to be taken down a peg or two. its not just their nuclear program its Iranian foreign policy and proxy wars, the underhand tactics, funding the likes of Hezbollah and others.

the nuclear program is a big thorn in the side of the west. once Iran goes nuclear, - weapons wise we'll have to invite them to sit at the table instead of keeping them under our foot.

then we have the strategic location of Iran with the supply of oil, over land, but especially by sea through the straits of Hormuz 20-30% of world oil comes through the straits. which means iran could control the price of world oil, with a knock on effect on world economies like ours in the west. we've seen what can happen in a monetary "credit crunch" and how bad our economies have been effected. at least we can "print money" to help or ease our situation. imagine an Oil "crunch" were there is nothing we could do!

just imagine a more confident Iran, a confidence brought about by having the status of nuclear power. Iran could very well much do has they please with the straits of Hormuz, block them, limit shipping. and what could the west do, direct confrontation with a nuclear power? or would we have to grovel using diplomatic means which has huge benefits for Iran.

On a lighter note, Liverpool are right now 1-0 down to Wigan with only a couple of minutes left to play!

So we sink to new depths, thats the first time Wigan have ever beat us. but thats no surprise we are setting all sorts of records under Rafa. like the longest losing streak in 50 odd years.

Rafa has to go, and go soon. 4th place has gone, My dad has been supporting liverpool since the 60's and when Rafa took over my dad said: this man will take us nowhere. and me the plonker said no, he's a good manager look what he done with Valencia, and then he went on to win us the Champions league, and i was saying to my dad told ye he was a great manager. my dads words you just wait and see, my dad long before me spotted his inability to win the premiership. and the defensive mindset. couple this with playing players out of position and the negativity and we have a recipe for disaster. AKA 2009/10 season we are witnessing now. October was when this season died a death for me.

[Q24]

we'll have to invite them to sit at the table instead of keeping them under our foot.

and what could the west do, direct confrontation with a nuclear power? or would we have to grovel using diplomatic means which has huge benefits for Iran.

That’s exactly it - the easy fix is to keep Iran (and any other growing power) under our foot through confrontation rather than (god forbid) have to invite them to sit at the table and engage in diplomacy, perhaps having to cede some of our control in the process. From a human (rather than nationalistic) standpoint, the issue then becomes one of morals and I will leave it to each individual to decide which approach is justified and which is perhaps rather tyrannical.

October was when this season died a death for me.

At least you still have the Europa League to look forward to… next season too that is!

[stevewinn]

That’s exactly it - the easy fix is to keep Iran (and any other growing power) under our foot through confrontation rather than (god forbid) have to invite them to sit at the table and engage in diplomacy, perhaps having to cede some of our control in the process. From a human (rather than nationalistic) standpoint, the issue then becomes one of morals and I will leave it to each individual to decide which approach is justified and which is perhaps rather tyrannical.

i select the easy option.

At least you still have the Europa League to look forward to… next season too that is!

the way were going i doubt we'll qualify for the Europa league. the only way i can envisage us qualifying for the Europa league is if a team above us wins the FA cup.

[Q24]

i select the easy option.

Even if, as evident, that involves oppression, war and countless deaths?

I guess that’s easy to say when you’re Western and fiercely patriotic, but at least you’re honest about it.

the way were going i doubt we'll qualify for the Europa league. the only way i can envisage us qualifying for the Europa league is if a team above us wins the FA cup.

In other news tonight, Manchester Utd crush Milan 7-2 on aggregate to progress in Europe’s premier competition!

[stevewinn]

Even if, as evident, that involves oppression, war and countless deaths?

I guess that’s easy to say when you’re Western and fiercely patriotic, but at least you’re honest about it.

well ideally a world at peace and everyone one equal and in harmony with our environment is what we should strive for, but that means taking on evolution. because to me the human species is aggressive by nature, and would cause murder in a empty house.

In other news tonight, Manchester Utd crush Milan 7-2 on aggregate to progress in Europe’s premier competition!

played well United. excellent Manager at the helm. Liverpool just doesn't feel like Liverpool to me. first time i've felt like this in my 27 years. the Manager has ruined the club, some blame the owners but 20 million on Aquilani, 18 million glen Johnson. (good player) but never 18 million. we all knew before the season we'd need a back up striker. Crouch and Bellamy should have never been sold.

[Stardrive]

Even if, as evident, that involves oppression, war and countless deaths?

Isn't that what the Hojatieh want to have happen to hasten the return of the Mahdi?

[Q24]

Isn't that what the Hojatieh want to have happen to hasten the return of the Mahdi?

I used to think that there was a select group who thought along those lines but I’m not so sure now. At any rate I can’t find any radical group claiming they wish to initiate a war to hasten return of the Mahdi. I would be interested if you could point me in the right direction if such a statement from a significant source does exist - it’s being repeated so often that I’m thinking it must be sourced somewhere.

The most that I can find is a general consensus that war and plague along with taking Muslim land back from foreigners is said to precede the coming of the Mahdi – no mention that Iran should be the instigator or that nuclear weapons are required to be a part of this mind you. These prophecies have existed for centuries and yet Iran has started no war in the past 150 years despite the capability if it so wished. It could be the case that Mahdists are simply preparing should war be initiated by foreign powers.

The leaders of Iran should really be given more credit – they aren’t stupid. They know that should any war break out with the West then nuclear weapons or not it would end in crushing defeat for Iran. It is believed that a part of the reason that Iran accepted a ceasefire in the war with Iraq is due to the risk of open warfare with the U.S. and the same fear must still exist today. This is why any hypothetical nuclear weapons programme in the future would not be intended for suicidal offensive purposes, but for assurance against invasion.

One other thing – I would hazard a guess that a good portion of the 175 million Muslims in Pakistan also hold beliefs regarding the return of the Mahdi and yet they have not used their known nuclear weapons in the past 30 odd years.

You see, the Mahdi is said to be the bringer of peace and justice to the world with Jesus at his side – I can’t imagine they would be all too impressed with anyone who used nuclear weapons in aggression.

Linking the ancient prophecy of the Mahdi to the modern day nuclear programme is just more Western propaganda.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Q24

[Stardrive]

Q24, after researching this a bit I have found some rather odd inconsistancies. It appears that claim is nothing more than jounalistic sensationalism but I'll have to look into more.

Busy at the moment but I will post my findings later.

[Persia]

Iran’s sensitive nuclear labs, missiles secreted at Bushehr

http://www.debka.com/article/9016/

[AI Construct]

A country should be judged by it's actions and in the case of Iran, it hasn't attacked anyone. It's a shame you can't say the same about America, Israel and Great Britain. Those who continue to demonize Iran continuously talk about nothing but proxy wars, unfortunately that's their only come back and they have no evidence to back up such wild claims, except some propaganda CIA, media reports which are unfounded and therefore not true. The Pentagon and the CIA are the biggest bull#### artists on the face of the Earth. I sincerely hope Iran stands it's ground and tells the US, UK & Israel to go scew itself. Neither of these governments can take the moral high ground, simply because they don't know the meaning of such words. I have more respect for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than I will ever have for my own corrupt government. (aka bought and paid for political prostitutes.)

http://wn.com/President_Ahmadinejad_said_Iran_has_no_interest_in_nuclear_bomb_on_Larry_King_Live_Part_3_of_5

http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/42/The-US-proxy-war-claim-over-Iran-revealed-.html

[conspiracysrus]

i think that religious nutters with nukes is a daunting thought

they could attack without any reason.

they might destroy nations weaker then themselves.

they could steal everything those poor brown people have.

and spread such bad feeling among every race on earth that a 3rd world war would be almost certain.

and if i was iran id wanna protect myself against them too.

[AI Construct]

The Christian Zealots in the US scare me more than any religious fanatics in Iran. Iran hasn't even preemptively attacked anyone with conventional weapons, so it's ludicrous to say that they definitely would if they acquired nukes. Any country that uses nukes against it's neighbours is simply destroying itself.

[conspiracysrus]

look at and compare irans history to the wests in the last 100 years.

probably the most violent acts there have been are the revolution to evict the puppet sellout shah and the war they fought with iraq..which was funded by the u.s and its friends against iran.500,000 deaths

meanwhile weve had.

ww1..almost 40,000,000 deaths

ww2..nagasaki hiroshima.the haulocaust. over 60,000,000 deaths.

vietnam..1.1,000,000 deaths

korean war.. 2,800,000 deaths

so who should we really trust??

[ExpandMyMind]

i think that religious nutters with nukes is a daunting thought

they could attack without any reason.

they might destroy nations weaker then themselves.

they could steal everything those poor brown people have.

and spread such bad feeling among every race on earth that a 3rd world war would be almost certain.

and if i was iran id wanna protect myself against them too.

As soon as they were to use nukes in this hypothetical situation they would be wiped from existence. We wouldn't need a moon for the glow from Persia would do the trick.

There is no way a country, who has never actually attacked another country, and with a rich history, thousands of years old, would ever use a nuke. It would be the end of the country, literally. To assume they would, is to be extremely paranoid.

Besides, there is nothing to suggest they are even looking to acquire nukes. Everything about their nuclear program is closely monitored - to the point that they have cameras in every installation watching every move of every person.

I'm with conspiracysrus on this

Edited September 26, 2010 by expandmymind