My guess is that Israel is waiting to see if Romney is elected. They don't trust Obama not to throw them under the bus after the election, but they do trust Romney to back them up if the sanctions do not work.

Which is one reason why I wouldn't vote for Romney.

HB, you'd better be quick before the balloon (or something) goes up!

are people really giving a sh** what candidates talk during an election campaign?

The meltdown of the value of the Iranian currency is directly linked to the sanctions.

Nonsense. When I left Iran in early 1979 shortly after Khomeini assumed control, the Rial exchange rate was 70.35 to US$1.

Within six months the exchange rate had plummeted and has kept doing so for over 30 years. The last time I looked it was something like 13,000 rials to $1.

It's the regime, not the so-called sanctions and always has been.

Edit in: typo

I'm not referring to ancient history. I'm talking about the dramatic drop in the last year, the last month.

I'm not referring to ancient history. I'm talking about the dramatic drop in the last year, the last month.

it's the black market rate that dropped dramatically. except for currency hoarders it has no effect (yet) on domestic prices. ~10% in 2011 and a sudden big drop (~10%) was in feb 2012.

The meltdown of the value of the Iranian currency is directly linked to the sanctions.

Nonsense. When I left Iran in early 1979 shortly after Khomeini assumed control, the Rial exchange rate was 70.35 to US$1.

Within six months the exchange rate had plummeted and has kept doing so for over 30 years. The last time I looked it was something like 13,000 rials to $1.

It's the regime, not the so-called sanctions and always has been.

When I left in January (1979) we asked our head office in London to check on the exchange rate with Bank Melli, just down the road in Baker Street. Bank Melli said they would not exchange any Rials for sterling or any other currency.

So, the night before we scarpered, I went to see a friend of mine, a jeweller, in Shiraz and he showed up at our office next morning with a suitcase of gold. We all exchanged xxx touman for yyy ounces of gold and went to the airport. Immigration and customs went on a tea-break, so we went out to the plane, declared flight to Bushire and then the damned pilot lost his way and wound up in Bahrain. Luckily our MD was there with a fistful of tickets to Blighty.

(Unfortunately Gatwick was snowbound and we had to spend the night in Schiphol Airport - where we wanted to spend the remaining Irani Rials. "I'm not taking that camel-money" says the barman and we had a dry, happy, discomfortable night of it)

As there were only a dozen of us left at the end, our Fokker Friendship was packed with wives and kids from our Irani colleagues, who had mainly Irani Rials to support themselves. They found that in the money-changer souk in Bahrain they could get virtually full value for their currency. We all found support everywhere, except from President Carter.

Error.

The meltdown of the value of the Iranian currency is directly linked to the sanctions.

Nonsense. When I left Iran in early 1979 shortly after Khomeini assumed control, the Rial exchange rate was 70.35 to US$1.

Within six months the exchange rate had plummeted and has kept doing so for over 30 years. The last time I looked it was something like 13,000 rials to $1.

It's the regime, not the so-called sanctions and always has been.

When I left in January (1979) we asked our head office in London to check on the exchange rate with Bank Melli, just down the road in Baker Street. Bank Melli said they would not exchange any Rials for sterling or any other currency.

So, the night before we scarpered, I went to see a friend of mine, a jeweller, in Shiraz and he showed up at our office next morning with a suitcase of gold. We all exchanged xxx touman for yyy ounces of gold and went to the airport. Immigration and customs went on a tea-break, so we went out to the plane, declared flight to Bushire and then the damned pilot lost his way and wound up in Bahrain. Luckily our MD was there with a fistful of tickets to Blighty.

(Unfortunately Gatwick was snowbound and we had to spend the night in Schiphol Airport - where we wanted to spend the remaining Irani Rials. "I'm not taking that camel-money" says the barman and we had a dry, happy, discomfortable night of it)

As there were only a dozen of us left at the end, our Fokker Friendship was packed with wives and kids from our Irani colleagues, who had mainly Irani Rials to support themselves. They found that in the money-changer souk in Bahrain they could get virtually full value for their currency. We all found support everywhere, except from President Carter.

Our company agreed to take the rials for deposit to the corporate Iranian bank account and pay the employees in US dollars with their final pay.

That cost the government of Iran a pretty penny in the long run.

Our company agreed to take the rials for deposit to the corporate Iranian bank account and pay the employees in US dollars with their final pay.

That cost the government of Iran a pretty penny in the long run.

Unfortunately the Iran government owed so much to our company that it declared bankruptcy when we were all back in the UK. Some guys were allocated to other companies within the group, but I went to work in Saudi for the Germans.

The start of my thirty-year insanity trip.

Moscow announced on Tuesday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in town and the two countries signed contracts worth "more than" US$4.2 billion in an arms deal that includes Iraq's purchase of 30 Mi-28 attack helicopters and 42 Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air missile systems that can also be used to defend against attack jets.

who wants to bet with me that the Pantsir SAMs are meant for Maliki's Iranian friends? i'm of course only addressing ChuckD, you others, who have no idea, please keep quiet

Moscow announced on Tuesday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in town and the two countries signed contracts worth "more than" US$4.2 billion in an arms deal that includes Iraq's purchase of 30 Mi-28 attack helicopters and 42 Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air missile systems that can also be used to defend against attack jets.

who wants to bet with me that the Pantsir SAMs are meant for Maliki's Iranian friends? i'm of course only addressing ChuckD, you others, who have no idea, please keep quiet

I will not take the bet.

Iran ready to double uranium enrichment at Fordo - IAEA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20368030

For what purpose? This is very bad news if it is true.

Iran ready to double uranium enrichment at Fordo - IAEA

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20368030

For what purpose? This is very bad news if it is true.

I thought so, too. But to what extent is this announcement a kind of counterweight to the increased aggressive activity, from both sides, between Israel and Gaza?

For what purpose?

To manufacture nuclear weapons. This not come as surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

For what purpose?

To manufacture nuclear weapons. This not come as surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

I mean what justification could Iran give? In the past they have said 6% enriched was for nuclear power needs which could be considered valid. In the past they have said 20% enriched was for medical reasons which again, could be considered valid. They are already able to produce vastly more than they need for medical purposes so they can't use this to justify doubling production.

Iran ready to double uranium enrichment at Fordo - IAEA

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20368030

For what purpose? This is very bad news if it is true.

I thought so, too. But to what extent is this announcement a kind of counterweight to the increased aggressive activity, from both sides, between Israel and Gaza?

This is an IAEA rather than and Iranian announcement.

For what purpose?

To manufacture nuclear weapons. This not come as surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

I mean what justification could Iran give? In the past they have said 6% enriched was for nuclear power needs which could be considered valid. In the past they have said 20% enriched was for medical reasons which again, could be considered valid. They are already able to produce vastly more than they need for medical purposes so they can't use this to justify doubling production.

Who knows? They will come up with something and those that want to believe them will until it is too late.

For what purpose?

To manufacture nuclear weapons. This not come as surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

I mean what justification could Iran give? In the past they have said 6% enriched was for nuclear power needs which could be considered valid. In the past they have said 20% enriched was for medical reasons which again, could be considered valid. They are already able to produce vastly more than they need for medical purposes so they can't use this to justify doubling production.

heretic questions:

-why does Iran need a justification to dump an agreement which was signed under the Shah's regime in 1968 which was later (1978) extended parallel with the United States awarding Iran "most favoured nation status"?

-does Iran still have that "most favoured nation status?"

-are all other agreement/laws signed/ratified under the Shah still valid?

-why should Iran have less rights than the three beggar nations India, Pakistan and Kim IL Whatchamacallit Korea which possess nuclear weapons and have a history of recent wars?

getting my flak-jacket

Here is a good answer as to why it is important to stop Iran nukes:

http://www.washingto...7636_story.html

Some have argued that even in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Yet this ignores the immensely costly, complex and tension-ridden realities of Cold War-era deterrence, the apocalyptic strain in the Iranian theocracy and the near-certainty that several regional powers will go nuclear if Iran does. Once nuclear balances are forged in conditions where tensions are no longer purely bilateral, as in the Cold War, and in still-developing countries whose technology to prevent accidents is rudimentary, the likelihood of some nuclear exchange will mount dramatically.

Sure you can attack this piece because its by Kissinger, but he makes some excellent points. Also pretty impressed he is still alive and writing opinion pieces on important current issues!

Here is a good answer as to why it is important to stop Iran nukes:

http://www.washingto...7636_story.html

[quotation removed due to possible 'fair use' violations as I will quote another section from the link]

Sure you can attack this piece because its by Kissinger, but he makes some excellent points. Also pretty impressed he is still alive and writing opinion pieces on important current issues!

Its enrichment capacity — long underreported to the International Atomic Energy Agency — has been expanded to thousands of centrifuges (the instruments that enrich uranium to bomb-grade material). The level exceeds any reasonable definition of peaceful uses authorized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The inevitable culmination is a nuclear weapon.

I don't like the way this is worded though within the context of the entire piece it's correct, somewhat devisive but essentially correct.

For what purpose?

To manufacture nuclear weapons. This not come as surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

I mean what justification could Iran give? In the past they have said 6% enriched was for nuclear power needs which could be considered valid. In the past they have said 20% enriched was for medical reasons which again, could be considered valid. They are already able to produce vastly more than they need for medical purposes so they can't use this to justify doubling production.

heretic questions:

-why does Iran need a justification to dump an agreement which was signed under the Shah's regime in 1968 which was later (1978) extended parallel with the United States awarding Iran "most favoured nation status"?

-does Iran still have that "most favoured nation status?"

-are all other agreement/laws signed/ratified under the Shah still valid?

-why should Iran have less rights than the three beggar nations India, Pakistan and Kim IL Whatchamacallit Korea which possess nuclear weapons and have a history of recent wars?

getting my flak-jacket

The Board of Governors of the IAEA consists of :

Board Members for 2012-2013

For the 2012-2012 period, the new composition of the 35-member IAEA Board is: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Rep. of, Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, Tanzania, United States of America and Uruguay.

Board Officers

The Chair of the Board of Governors for 2012-2013 is the Governor from Canada, Mr. John Barrett. He succeeds Mr. Filippo Formica, Governor from Italy.

The Ambassadors and Resident Representatives of Hungary and South Africa were elected as Vice-Chairmen. They are Mr. Pál Kovács, Governor from Hungary, and Mr. Xolisa Mfundiso Mabhongo, Governor from South Africa.

Now I cannot see why India and Pakistan should be there, as they have not signed the non-proliferation treaty (as far as I know) and I cannot see any country represented there that could be considered as being friendly to Iran. Russia, maybe.

But I can see several that are hosrile - some for religio-political reasons, such as Saudi Arabia, others for politico-economic reasons, such as the USA and UK.

No matter how much uranium is produced with 20% enrichment, it will never be able to make a nuclear explosive weapon. It may be used to make a conventional weapon with a dirty shrapnel effect, but it will not explode as a nuclear blast. One must enrich to around 85% to get fissionable explosive material. Very simple. But not told by all these lying politicians to the general public, because they want to take your money in higher taxes and this seems like a good excuse to them, while they keep you - Joe Public - in ignorance of the facts.

It is all a bunch of lies by venal politicians.

No matter how much uranium is produced with 20% enrichment, it will never be able to make a nuclear explosive weapon.

Can't argue with this.

You have obviously not bothered to read much of the thread with regard to the Fordo enrichment plant have you?

Your standard 'off the peg' cascade can enrich the gas produced by heating yellowcake close to 20% which is enough for rod production used for power (6%) and for research / medical purposes (20%). Admittedly it does take a while unless you have many cascades to do this, since Iran has admitted it has MANY cascades it's not an issue but let's put this to one side. Fordo (military site) has type 2 or second generation centrifuges which use previously enriched uranium gas but can enrich further (90%) and faster. Why would Iran need this? It is a much much more expensive way to get from 6% to 20% but perhaps they are in a hurry and need lots of research / medical grade uranium for some reason. They have enough 20% enriched for their own market and enough to give away or sell to the entire planet so nobody anywhere would have to make any. Iran has in stock and produces enough to supply the entire planet so I ask you, what is the purpose of doubling production?

I may critisize UG on his choice of US President and I may criticize JT on circumcision but that does not mean I criticize them on everything. I can't fault their reasoning on this issue and I agree 100%.

Here is a good answer as to why it is important to stop Iran nukes:

http://www.washingto...7636_story.html

you are right JT, it would be quite easy to cut the architect of "Ton Kin" and a couple of millions killed and maimed in South East Asia into little pieces, but i personally admire Kissinger and have to agree with him.

what i wanted to point at with my "heretic" questions are bare facts and in my opinion Iran should be told bluntly "no nukes for you or else! we know that on paper you have the right to enrich Uranium, but we have changed the goal posts. why? because we can! period!"

what i hate is the ridiculous yada yada non-proliferation yakety yak signed agreement rubbish politicians and an obedient media uses to bullshit the ignorant public.

Can't argue with this.

Fordo (military site) has type 2 or second generation centrifuges which use previously enriched uranium gas but can enrich further (90%) and faster. Why would Iran need this?

In that case go back to near the start of this thread, where I proposed that the IAEA should present Iran with an ultimatum that limited their enrichment programme to a 20% ceiling. This would have stopped all the discussions about weapons-grade material and would have (hopefully) stopped any sanctions.

What has happened is that the US Government has been screaming about military threats and sanctions, with the UK and other governments following like sheep, and the Iranian authorities then thinking that if we are being accused of all this with no proof, then why not go ahead and develop the bloody things? (If they are, which we still do not know)

Having now read JT's post of the Henry Kissinger 'guest article' in the Washington Post, this broadly supports what I have been saying - the IAEA, or the UN, or a special inspectorate, should monitor Iran's level of enrichment.

I hadn't bothered to read the article before, as I consider HK to be too old and too prejudiced to offer a balanced view of the situation. I support Israel's possession of a nuclear deterrent, as it will only be used in a defensive situation, whoever may be in power in Israel. I could not say the same about an Iranian nuclear weapon, nor would I support the Indian/Pakistani nuclear weapons, although the US and Europe have happily turned a blind eye to these two belligerent countries.

Interesting anti-Obama propaganda from Iran:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/20/obama_depicted_on_a_huge_billboard_in_tehran_iran_next_to_shemr.html

Most Iranians are NOT anti-American. Even with all the sanctions. But they will be if there is an actual war.

The Iranians LOVE his pick for Secretary of Defense.

The Iranians LOVE his pick for Secretary of Defense.

That might be true. But war is a last resort. Kerry understands that.

That would be Secretary of State.

Interesting anti-Obama propaganda from Iran:

http://www.slate.com...t_to_shemr.html

Most Iranians are NOT anti-American. Even with all the sanctions. But they will be if there is an actual war.

And most Iranians are not happy with their government as seen with mass protests when the last election was stolen. I speak daily with a friend in Tehran (mostly about food) via a proxy and she feels that things are going to go off fairly soon. When I say go off I mean internally.

Interesting anti-Obama propaganda from Iran:

http://www.slate.com...t_to_shemr.html

Most Iranians are NOT anti-American. Even with all the sanctions. But they will be if there is an actual war.

And most Iranians are not happy with their government as seen with mass protests when the last election was stolen. I speak daily with a friend in Tehran (mostly about food) via a proxy and she feels that things are going to go off fairly soon. When I say go off I mean internally.

Let's pray that it's not a long-drawn-out struggle as in Syria.