WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[Scott]

An off-topic, argumentative post has been deleted.

Please stay on topic.

[gopnarak]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors, they have not attacked anyone.

Ooh, I dunno; buying dodgy missile parts off the DPRK covertly, acquiring nuke info off Pakistan covertly, building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly, refusing to answer fundamental questions on the nuclear issue, taking enrichment over & above what's needed to generate electricity, partaking in experiments tantamount to that which one might do when developing a nuke, threatening to flatten an entire country. If they're innocent, none of that would be so and they haven't attacked anyone simply because they know they'd be eviscerated. When they have the bomb, they probably wouldn't be, plus the whole region will be at it. I'm with the Yanky doodles; get in there and deploy some new bunker busters asap.

... building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly,

As long you have enemies who wouldn't hesitate to attack you and blow up your nuclear energy facilities with bombs its a wise thing to do.

If that deep deep deep in the underground one deep too deep for your bunker busters, don't get sad. Bomb one at your home, Its easier to access, saves gasoline, less risky to attack, no one shoots back, blowing it up in one second spares you all the decommissioning hassle and you can study the outcome at home and you won't upset any foreigners.

[chuckd]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors, they have not attacked anyone.

Ooh, I dunno; buying dodgy missile parts off the DPRK covertly, acquiring nuke info off Pakistan covertly, building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly, refusing to answer fundamental questions on the nuclear issue, taking enrichment over & above what's needed to generate electricity, partaking in experiments tantamount to that which one might do when developing a nuke, threatening to flatten an entire country. If they're innocent, none of that would be so and they haven't attacked anyone simply because they know they'd be eviscerated. When they have the bomb, they probably wouldn't be, plus the whole region will be at it. I'm with the Yanky doodles; get in there and deploy some new bunker busters asap.

... building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly,

As long you have enemies who wouldn't hesitate to attack you and blow up your nuclear energy facilities with bombs its a wise thing to do.

If that deep deep deep in the underground one deep too deep for your bunker busters, don't get sad. Bomb one at your home, Its easier to access, saves gasoline, less risky to attack, no one shoots back, blowing it up in one second spares you all the decommissioning hassle and you can study the outcome at home and you won't upset any foreigners.

What ARE you talking about? Your last two posts have made little sense.

Post number 301...Who is "He"? Who are you describing?

Post number 303...Huh? Bomb one WHAT in your home?

Perhaps you should take a deep breath and relax.

[gopnarak]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors, they have not attacked anyone.

Ooh, I dunno; buying dodgy missile parts off the DPRK covertly, acquiring nuke info off Pakistan covertly, building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly, refusing to answer fundamental questions on the nuclear issue, taking enrichment over & above what's needed to generate electricity, partaking in experiments tantamount to that which one might do when developing a nuke, threatening to flatten an entire country. If they're innocent, none of that would be so and they haven't attacked anyone simply because they know they'd be eviscerated. When they have the bomb, they probably wouldn't be, plus the whole region will be at it. I'm with the Yanky doodles; get in there and deploy some new bunker busters asap.

... building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly,

As long you have enemies who wouldn't hesitate to attack you and blow up your nuclear energy facilities with bombs its a wise thing to do.

If that deep deep deep in the underground one deep too deep for your bunker busters, don't get sad. Bomb one at your home, Its easier to access, saves gasoline, less risky to attack, no one shoots back, blowing it up in one second spares you all the decommissioning hassle and you can study the outcome at home and you won't upset any foreigners.

What ARE you talking about? Your last two posts have made little sense.

Post number 301...Who is "He"? Who are you describing?

Post number 303...Huh? Bomb one WHAT in your home?

Perhaps you should take a deep breath and relax.

301 "He" = Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. who else is famous for to suggest that al-Quds needs a regime change?

303 bomb a nuclear facility back home and not in Iran. check if you like it.

To bomb Iran makes no sense. take a deep breath and relax.

[Orac]

Fresh off the antisemitic conveyor belt here is the latest of Ahmadinejad's utterances. Apparently Israel is a western plot to rob the Arabs of their oil.

http://www.jihadwatc...ideast-oil.html

In a way, it's kind of a compliment. In his conspiracy paranoia, he is ascribing all kinds of foreknowledge to the West. For example, the Balfour Declaration on a Jewish homeland occurred in 1917. Oil prospecting in the Mideast gained momentum in the 1930s, with especially spectacular oil fields discovered in the late '30s. When the State of Israel was established, U.S. oil production was still going strong, and would not reach peak production for about another 22 years.

I think you need to check your timelines. Oil was being fought over in the Middle East prior to 1917. The history of Mesopotamia/Iraq is an interesting case, specifically Basra between 1914-1918.

As early as 1871 a commission of experts studied the geology of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and reported plentiful oil of good quality, but commented that poor transportation made it doubtful these fields could compete with Russian and American ones. During 1901 a German report announced the region had a veritable "lake of petroleum" of almost inexhaustible supply.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Railway

Edited February 1, 2012 by Orac

[bangkaew]

comedian rob newman talks about ww1 being about oil;

His contention that World War 1 should be taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq seems outlandish at first but he is extremely convincing.

“I am sure many of you, like me, have never been entirely satisfied with the standard explanation we were given at secondary school for the causes and origins of WW1… the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand…I mean, NO ONE is that popular…The war breaks out, and remember it’s a war to defend plucky Belgian neutrality while the Belgians are pluckily defending Congolese rubber and ivory. The FIRST British regiment to be deployed in the First World War, the Dorset regiment, goes to….Basra, 1914, where it is joined by 51 other British divisions.

..... One of the possible reasons for this was that just before WW1 the Germans were constructing the Berlin-Baghdad railway (part of which is now known as the Orient Express). This was at a time that the British and German Navies were switching from coal to oil. The British Navy at that time was probably the most powerful military force in the world so access (and denying access) to the newly discovered oil fields was vital. ...

http://www.spinwatch.org/reviews-mainmenu-24/video-reviews-mainmenu-25/3298-history-of-oil--rob-newman

[Steely Dan]

Fresh off the antisemitic conveyor belt here is the latest of Ahmadinejad's utterances. Apparently Israel is a western plot to rob the Arabs of their oil.

http://www.jihadwatc...ideast-oil.html

In a way, it's kind of a compliment. In his conspiracy paranoia, he is ascribing all kinds of foreknowledge to the West. For example, the Balfour Declaration on a Jewish homeland occurred in 1917. Oil prospecting in the Mideast gained momentum in the 1930s, with especially spectacular oil fields discovered in the late '30s. When the State of Israel was established, U.S. oil production was still going strong, and would not reach peak production for about another 22 years.

I think you need to check your timelines. Oil was being fought over in the Middle East prior to 1917. The history of Mesopotamia/Iraq is an interesting case, specifically Basra between 1914-1918.

As early as 1871 a commission of experts studied the geology of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and reported plentiful oil of good quality, but commented that poor transportation made it doubtful these fields could compete with Russian and American ones. During 1901 a German report announced the region had a veritable "lake of petroleum" of almost inexhaustible supply.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....Baghdad_Railway

Actually you are right in this, as an aside the first British troops mobilized for WW1 were sent to Mesopotamia. Still to my knowledge nobody until very recently knew of the massive oil and gas reserves in Israel or in it's territorial waters, so I suspect this fact is what brought about Ahmadinejad's latest rant.

[Scott]

A number of off-topic posts have been removed.

This thread is not directly about Israel/Jews/anti-semitism etc.

Please stay on the topic.

[gopnarak]

He is a player.

Keep in mind that Obamas words of the international isolation of Iran are only valid in USA, Israel and parts of Europe.

But not valid for the BRIC states, Turkey, Pakistan and all the Non-Aligned and of course Thailand or Cambodia who just said yesterday they wanna buy oil from Iran and how they dislike the Western bully tool sanctions

Rule of minorities over: Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on all nations across the globe to join hands to create a just world system and to establish lasting peace and security.

...

The Iranian president emphasized that Tehran wants to strengthen its ties with all countries and criticized any resort to military action to settle disputes.

Ahmadinejad said sowing tensions will not resolve any problem in the world, where “economic problems have imposed heavy pressure on the people in Europe and the United States.”

“Of course, the US government usually tends to solve its problems by creating tension, war and conflict, but today, these methods have lost their efficiency,” he pointed out.

“The world today more than tensions and conflicts is in need of camaraderie and understanding and all [people] need to enjoy equal rights,” he went on to say.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224237.html

[Steely Dan]

The world today more than tensions and conflicts is in need of camaraderie and understanding and all [people] need to enjoy equal rights,” he went on to say.

I take it he will be rushing to sign the universal declaration on human rights then. P.S Your use of Press TV links clearly demonstrates which side you are on.

[chuckd]

... building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly,

As long you have enemies who wouldn't hesitate to attack you and blow up your nuclear energy facilities with bombs its a wise thing to do.

If that deep deep deep in the underground one deep too deep for your bunker busters, don't get sad. Bomb one at your home, Its easier to access, saves gasoline, less risky to attack, no one shoots back, blowing it up in one second spares you all the decommissioning hassle and you can study the outcome at home and you won't upset any foreigners.

What ARE you talking about? Your last two posts have made little sense.

Post number 301...Who is "He"? Who are you describing?

Post number 303...Huh? Bomb one WHAT in your home?

Perhaps you should take a deep breath and relax.

301 "He" = Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. who else is famous for to suggest that al-Quds needs a regime change?

303 bomb a nuclear facility back home and not in Iran. check if you like it.

To bomb Iran makes no sense. take a deep breath and relax.

Thanks for the clarification. They still don't make much sense but at least we now know the subject matter.

By the way, I took a deep breath, relaxed and then realized we are going to need a place to test out those new bunker busters.

In my new relaxed state, I came up with the perfect solution and it isn't at home.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[flying]

I came up with the perfect solution and it isn't at home.

Since you live in Thailand I am glad to hear that

[gopnarak]

The world today more than tensions and conflicts is in need of camaraderie and understanding and all [people] need to enjoy equal rights,” he went on to say.

I take it he will be rushing to sign the universal declaration on human rights then. P.S Your use of Press TV links clearly demonstrates which side you are on.

Why does it show what side i am on?

Should i wait that the Jerusalem post has the story and that some Zionist picks it up for rotation in the jihad watcher blogosphere? and you post it here? That would be only a 2nd or 3nd hand source.

And one of your posts made me to move to press.tv. looking for something what is close as possible to the the original. So i found the article posted above.

I think its on topic and i think its interesting to watch and listen how he plays his game and also to check how "real" the isolation of Iran is. Korea and Japan hesitate to join the American sanction game. China, India, Pakistan, Turkey don't care what America wants and with Russia Iran talks.

The future might see a rehash of the good old silk route, Europe has the option to stick with the Atlantic link or to jump into the Berlin-Baghdad-Beijing Express.

My bed is on Eurasia and not Asia Pacific and a free al-Quds. and China takes over Africa simply with trade.

America has the Ron Paul option or can escalatethe speed of ts fall till they end up with a pink tide POTUS who speaks only Spanish.

[Jingthing]

A bipartisan American group suggests it is now time to show the ACTUAL willingness to use force against Iran to prevent their nuclear program falling short of using it for now. Makes total sense to me:

The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

http://www.haaretz.c...t-iran-1.410359

Edited February 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[flying]

Hardly a day goes by without some Israeli government official reiterating, once again, that Iran represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state, and threatening to strike the first blow if Uncle Sam fails to wake up in time, while Israel’s amen corner dutifully echoes the same line.

Sounds familiar?

War-weary Americans are not in the mood for another invasion and occupation in search of nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction.” This is the War Party’s Achilles’ heel.

Yep

Putting Israel First

The War Party's Achilles' heel

Edited February 1, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

More links to a notorious Ron Paulian (of the racist hate newsletters), "libertarian" (of the Israel 911 conspiracy theory obsession), "global Zionist conspiracy" website. How very surprising! No wonder these types would be either closet or not-so-closet Iran regime cheerleaders.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Shi'a Doomsday scenario? Well, without the nukes it wouldn't be such a hot party, is it? (plus probably not everyone buys into that).

One aspect of the Shia doomsday scenario you may or may not be aware of is the conditions could be brought about by misfortune being encountered by themselves without necessarily their wreaking destruction on others, hence Iran's apparent 'do your worst' attitude. It should also be borne in mind that Ahmadinejad is an ardent Twelver who has actually had some roads in Tehran widened for the anticipated procession of the Mahdi.

http://www.telegraph...new-leader.html

Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

Yes, but then still doesn't make sense to attack neighbouring countries (except maybe Israel) - not like they can add much to the meyhem.

[Morch]

I totally discount people who think Iran isn't working on a program. Either they are massively naive and/or so anti-Israel/anti-US that they have become Iran partisans.

I concur, but I do not think that the naive aspect is very common.

SPIEGEL Interview with IAEA Head Yukiya Amano

SPIEGEL: According to the most recent estimates, Iran is only a year away from building a bomb.

Amano: I'm not so sure about that. Despite all unanswered questions, we cannot say that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

http://www.spiegel.d...,738634,00.html

Face the Nation" transcript: January 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

http://www.cbsnews.c...january-8-2012/

Not sure I see your point.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons now...ok - there's also no USA attack on Iran, right now.

Iran does develop technology which will allow nuclear weapons within a relatively short time frame - the USA makes preparations to counter that.

[MrMuddle]

From the OP

"During U.S. President Barack Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week, Obama said the world now 'stands as one' to deal with Iran's nuclear program. "The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent," he said."

The world does NOT stand as one, unless of course one excludes, Russia, China, most Muslim states, several South American countries, Cuba etc. Wishful thinking on Obama's part, or perhaps it's the usual "if they don't agree with the USA, their opinions don't count" philosophy, which is making the USA less friends ( and less influential), with every passing day.

Iran's responsibility is to it's own population, and it's immediate neighbours, NOT to the USA or a distant neighbour such as Israel. If Iran chooses to develop nuclear power, for the consumption of it's own population, they have every right to do so. Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

[Ulysses G.]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

[Morch]

It is hard to imagine an attack which will not include neutralizing some of Iran's response capability.

I am in no way blaming you but what you say is true

You know this is the classic "You Never Want a Serious Crisis To Go To Waste" mentality.

It is both disgusting & amazing at the same time.

Because basically you have Iran who again has invited inspectors to come & look.

Yet those that make a habit of invading oil producing countries still are banging their drums &

if & when they make their move it will be as you said.

Same as other places they have struck. They say they will do their "surgical" "preemptive" strike

to save the world from these supposed bad guys who truth be told have done nothing wrong.

Now when they start their surgical strike of course they cannot put themselves in danger so they will

start knocking out another country's defenses first to clear a path for their *surgical* strike

Of course many will be killed because soldiers are manning these defense systems. Defense systems

that this country has every right to have will be totaled.

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors,

they have not attacked anyone. They are being pursued on speculation alone & that will be enough.

They will have said to have broken a treaty that has long been broken by those who attack them.

It will be said that THEY escalated the problem when the refused to sell oil to the EU.

Yet it was the EU who first threatened them with not buying. Iran calls their bluff & now it is Iran's fault?

It will be similar to Libya where they claim to only want to clear a path & in the end topple everything

always claiming to only need to clear a way for... in Libya's case the rebels...in this case the *surgical* strike.

Pretty sick thinking & embarrassing to think it comes from countries that claim to be fighting the good fight.

Not sure if the visit was invited or not (doesn't really matter all that much):

"Amano said that the energy agency proposed the mission, and Iranian authorities "agreed to accept" it. But the Islamic news agency reported Nackaerts is traveling at Tehran's invitation."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/29/world/meast/iran-nuclear-iaea/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

I'm not naive enough to think that oil isn't a major consideration here. But I'm also pretty sure it isn't the only one. My naivety doesn't include a very peaceful nuclear Iran, as well.

Concerning a possible USA strike and casualties: here the way things are - you wear a uniform, you're fair game. Doesn't mean your life means less, or that it hurts less. It's just built in with the concept of being a soldier.That said, there's overdoing it, like the first Gulf war ("Desert Storm").

Then again, Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 totaled 11 casualties.

Difference here is that there is no land action on part of the USA, so targets will essentially be limited to those who can pose a threat to the USN/USAF forces and ICBMs etc, plus the attack sites themselves.

So yes, if there's an attack, people will get killed. Probably quite a few who don't care one way or the other , would rather be somewhere else and in another time and place could share a beer and a laugh with the attackers. That the way it goes. There will also be some casualties the other side, of course. I do not think numbers will be on par with the Gulf War, not that it will matter much to those who draw the short straw.

War isn't nice.

Civilians aren't fair game. Everyone who ever played arcade shooting games knows that.

Most countries make some attempt at placing their "fare game" targets away from civilians, some tell then to move out when fearing an attack. Civilians are also not to be used as shields.

I'm really not quite sure how it works out in this case.

The "bad guys" aren't as innocent as you may want to believe. They are involved with terrorism and they do run a tight ship inside their country. Also not the best neighbors some countries might wish for. Haven't blown up the world or anything, but they do not play nice. "Haven't done anything wrong" is streching reality a bit.

Of course, you got other countries doing pretty much the same. Difference is Iran manages to combine vehement rhetoric (often unacceptable between countries), being strategically placed, having a lot of oil, and the capability to carry threats out.

As to speculations...well the last report from of the IAEA is a little more than speculations. I guess if there are reasonable explanations given, the IAEA will issue a new report. So far, this did not happen. And of course, there is no attack yet.

The fact that the USA isn't the goody good hero in shiny armor doesn't necessarily make Iran into an innocent victim.

But just so that I won't come out as some warmonger (I do hope it won't come to that, just don't place much faith in it), here's what's been on my mind when I first read the OP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziZHoCaZ1Fs

[Morch]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I'm not sure that the signing of contracts is a central point here.

It seems more like realpolitik - "we bungled up before and others got away with it, not this time". Especially when "this time" seats on a barrel of oil and got a big mouth.

Not saying realpolitik isn't right, mind. You can't win them all and sometimes you got to pick the ones you can handle.

[geriatrickid]

This thread is really going about in circles with the expected wacko theories presented. How about a dose of reality?

Iran has repeatedly stated it views the USA and several EU nations as an enemy. Why else would the government allow mobs to attack the US compound (which was under protection of the Swiss)? Why else would government leaders use some rather chilling language to express their sentiments? Iran has repeatedly stated that it wants Israel removed as a nation and has used nasty rhetoric in the process. Iran is the one that has obfuscated and screwed around on the nuclear facility inspections since day one.

Yes, Israel may have nuclear weapons. Yes, India, the UK, Russia and the USA have nuclear weapons. However, no one is particularly worried that any of the aforementioned countries will launch a nuke at someone because of a disagreement. However, there is worry from the rest of the world that Iran will do so. Even Russia and China acknowledge this concern. The issue that the rest of the world, particularly those at risk have is to how best to manage the situation. Ideally, this matter should be resolved peacefully, but that would require cooperation from Iran and Iran hasn't been particularly willing to discuss the matter. A breakthrough may be on the horizon if a jump in oil prices hurts Iran's largest customer, China, and if the UN drafts a statement acceptable to both Russia and China. as of yesterday, Russia was indicating it was possible as the draft proposal was incorporating Russian "language" into the wording. Both Russia and China will turn quickly if they believe their interests are at stake. As of now, they do not believe that is the case. Russia is on the hot seat now with the Arab world over its backing of the Syrian regime and it might show movement on this issue to take the pressure off.

[maidu]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions. As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I didn't know that India and Pakistan haven't signed the nuclear treaty, and Iran has. Looking at those three scenarios objectively, it would appear that India and Pakiistan are more naughty than Iran, if they don't even have the decency to sign a non-proliferation treaty (that's the treaty you're referring to, I presume).

Looked at from another perspective: I think most people agree the world is overpopulated. Too many people strain the planet's carrying capacity. There are several ways in which populations get eliminated (besides just dying naturally). One of those ways is war. The saber rattlers joining ranks around Iran (and Iran itself) may be putting a dent in overpopulation numbers.

In a similar vein. There are big countries like China, India, Russia and Brazil, which don't have a dog in this fight. They'd rather stand on the sidelines, and perhaps see what sorts of pickings are left - when the dust clears.

The aloof countries figure, ::"let the US and some of its European friends send bombs and troops over to yet another country which hates their interference. We'll stand on the sidelines, and no one can accuse us of being aggressive."

[gopnarak]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I'm not sure that the signing of contracts is a central point here.

It seems more like realpolitik - "we bungled up before and others got away with it, not this time". Especially when "this time" seats on a barrel of oil and got a big mouth.

Not saying realpolitik isn't right, mind. You can't win them all and sometimes you got to pick the ones you can handle.

That they signed the contract and breaking the contract would give the USA the right to attack is a troll argument.

And there is no evidence that Iran develops nuclear weapon.

[Morch]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I'm not sure that the signing of contracts is a central point here.

It seems more like realpolitik - "we bungled up before and others got away with it, not this time". Especially when "this time" seats on a barrel of oil and got a big mouth.

Not saying realpolitik isn't right, mind. You can't win them all and sometimes you got to pick the ones you can handle.

That they signed the contract and breaking the contract would give the USA the right to attack is a troll argument.

And there is no evidence that Iran develops nuclear weapon.

That you misread my post is sure, trolling possible.

If you'll actually read the link you yourself gave for the Der Spiegle interview, there are serious questions regarding Iran's intentions which are unanswered. It doesn't say "no evidence". Also, if I'm not mistaken this interview took place before the latest IAEA report came out.

[Ulysses G.]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I'm not sure that the signing of contracts is a central point here.

It seems more like realpolitik - "we bungled up before and others got away with it, not this time". Especially when "this time" seats on a barrel of oil and got a big mouth.

Not saying realpolitik isn't right, mind. You can't win them all and sometimes you got to pick the ones you can handle.

That they signed the contract and breaking the contract would give the USA the right to attack is a troll argument.

The problem is not breaking a contract. The problem is developing a nuclear weapon when they have sworn not to.

[Exsexyman]

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I agree that in an ideal world Iran, or any country for that matter should honour treaties they have signed, especially in matters as serious as this. But it is clearly wrong to just single out Iran, and use this as a justification to attack them. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind. America and the Uk are both signatory's to the Biological weapons Conventions of 1977, which declares biological weapons as "repugnant to the conscience of mankind", and prohibits further research and proliferation. Yet the US Defence Dept has admitted to continued research at 127 facilities throughout the country. Likewise the UK at Porton Down, ( An area i happen to know very well), continues to do the same thing. Would impartial inspectors be allowed in to these facilities? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Surely if Iran is obliged to "Live up to it's obligations and dismantle their programme", this rule of thumb should be applied to The US and UK. To suggest otherwise would surely leave one open to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards. Do as i say, not as i do is so very last century!

[gopnarak]

This thread is really going about in circles with the expected wacko theories presented. How about a dose of reality?

Iran has repeatedly stated it views the USA and several EU nations as an enemy. Why else would the government allow mobs to attack the US compound (which was under protection of the Swiss)? Why else would government leaders use some rather chilling language to express their sentiments? Iran has repeatedly stated that it wants Israel removed as a nation and has used nasty rhetoric in the process...

Just check the headline in the OP. Can't blame them that they see the USA as enemy.

Iran just suggested a regime change in al-Quds, and that without any warmongering talks about bombs and preemptive missile strikes.

This isn't about that Iran wants a bomb too and there isn't any evidence that they would develop nuclear weapons.

Iran runs nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy. It is their right to do so. The rest of the world is rather supportive than afraid of Iran. Iran is on the record with its wishes for peace and oppose "problem solving" by creating tension, war and conflict.

All the warmongering and sabre rattle comes only from the the big bully and his tiny aggressive sidekick.