..
In the final analysis, either the servicemen and women of the western allied powers will refuse to serve their mad overlords, or we may well be doomed.
..
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Hammer of Los » Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:20 pm
by Hammer of Los » Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:21 pm
by eyeno » Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:03 am
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:05 am
Reports: Israel, Saudis United in Desire to See Attack on Iran
Saudis, GCC Members Seen as 'Cornerstone' for US Moves Against Iran
by Jason Ditz, November 06, 2011
Though Israel’s traditional rhetoric suggests any Arab nation is automatically at odds with their position, media reports tonight are marveling at the growing unity between Israel and the Saudi leader GCC nations in their desires to see Iran attacked.
Both Israel and the Saudis are long time enemies of the Iranian government, and even if they both came by this in very different ways it should come as no surprise that the Sunni-dominated regimes of the Gulf nations are fine with Israel attacking a major Shi’ite nation.
Of course the Israeli preference remains seeing the US starting the war, but increasingly Israel’s current far-right government is mulling attacking unilaterally. Either way, Gulf officials seem to hope starting a war with Iran will quiet their respective Shi’ite populaces, which they are convinced are being roused to protest primarily by Iran.
Which seems unlikely. If anything an unprovoked attack on Iran seems liable to rile up the Shi’ites in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, et al. all the more. It also is likely to bring neighboring Iraq’s current Shi’ite-dominated government more squarely in the camp of the Iranian government, as such an attack is likely to rouse considerable anger after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq led to nearly a decade of occupation.
by Bruce Dazzling » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:30 am
IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability
By Joby Warrick, Published: November 6
Washington Post
Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.
Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.
The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to release a report this week laying out its findings on Iran’s efforts to obtain sensitive nuclear technology. Fears that Iran could quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to has fueled anti-Iran rhetoric and new threats of military strikes. Some U.S. arms-control groups have cautioned against what they fear could be an overreaction to the report, saying there is still time to persuade Iran to change its behavior.
Iranian officials expressed indifference about the report.
“Let them publish and see what happens,” said Iran’s foreign minister and former nuclear top official, Ali Akbar Salehi, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Saturday.
Salehi said that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program is “100 percent political” and that the IAEA is “under pressure from foreign powers.”
‘Never really stopped’
Although the IAEA has chided Iran for years to come clean about a number of apparently weapons-related scientific projects, the new disclosures fill out the contours of an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected. Beginning early in the last decade and apparently resuming — though at a more measured pace — after a pause in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has reviewed the intelligence files.
“The program never really stopped,” said Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The institute performs widely respected independent analyses of nuclear programs in countries around the world, often drawing from IAEA data.
“After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions,” Albright said.
U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Iran’s leaders have not decided whether to build nuclear weapons but are intent on gathering all the components and skills so they can quickly assemble a bomb if they choose to. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and intended only to generate electricity.
The IAEA has declined to comment on the intelligence it has received from member states, including the United States, pending the release of its report.
But some of the highlights were described in a presentation by Albright at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week. PowerPoint slides from the presentation were obtained by The Washington Post, and details of Albright’s summary were confirmed by two European diplomats privy to the IAEA’s internal reports. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, in keeping with diplomatic protocol.
Albright said IAEA officials, based on the totality of the evidence given to them, have concluded that Iran “has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core. In the presentation, he described intelligence that points to a formalized and rigorous process for gaining all the necessary skills for weapons-building, using native talent as well as a generous helping of foreign expertise.
“The [intelligence] points to a comprehensive project structure and hierarchy with clear responsibilities, timelines and deliverables,” Albright said, according to the notes from the presentation.
Key outside assistance
According to Albright, one key breakthrough that has not been publicly described was Iran’s success in obtaining design information for a device known as an R265 generator. The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell with an intricate array of high explosives that detonate with split-second precision. These charges compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.
Creating such a device is a formidable technical challenge, and Iran needed outside assistance in designing the generator and testing its performance, Albright said.
According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. Documents provided to the U.N. officials showed that Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design, according to two officials with access to the IAEA’s confidential files.
Danilenko’s role was judged to be so critical that IAEA investigators devoted considerable effort to obtaining his cooperation, the two officials said. The scientist acknowledged his role but said he thought his work was limited to assisting civilian engineering projects, the sources said.
There is no evidence that Russian government officials knew of Danilenko’s activities in Iran. E-mails requesting comment from Russian officials in Washington and Moscow were not returned. Efforts to reach Danilenko through his former company were not successful.
Iran relied on foreign experts to supply mathematical formulas and codes for theoretical design work — some of which appear to have originated in North Korea, diplomats and weapons experts say. Additional help appears to have come from the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose design for a device known as a neutron initiator was found in Iran, the sources said. Khan is known to have provided nuclear blueprints to Libya that included a neutron initiator, a device that shoots a stream of atomic particles into a nuclear weapon’s fissile core at the start of the nuclear chain reaction.
One Iranian document provided to the IAEA portrayed Iranian scientists as discussing plans to conduct a four-year study of neutron initiators beginning in 2007, four years after Iran was said to have halted such research.
“It is unknown if it commenced or progressed as planned,” Albright said.
The disclosures come against a backdrop of new threats of military strikes on Iran. Israeli newspapers reported last week that there is high-level government support in Israel for a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
“One of the problems with such open threats of military action is that it furthers the drift towards a military conflict and makes it more difficult to dial down tensions,” said Peter Crail, a nonproliferation analyst with the Arms Control Association, a Washington advocacy group. “It also risks creating an assumption that we can always end Iran’s nuclear program with a few airstrikes if nothing else works. That’s simply not the case.”
Special correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.
by Perelandra » Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:40 pm
Not picking on you, but FYI, that source is unsavory and I think the article is absolute rubbish.Skunkboy wrote:http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1323/815 ... usion.html
by Simulist » Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:36 pm
eyeno wrote:Warning, supporting the war in Iraq will make you sound like a fucking moron...
This is the American brain trust. 70% of America probably fits this mold. Television is a dangerous thing. (sigh) They will be rooting for all out war with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... KscDhAWPWg
)
by Searcher08 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:55 pm
Simulist wrote:eyeno wrote:Warning, supporting the war in Iraq will make you sound like a fucking moron...
This is the American brain trust. 70% of America probably fits this mold. Television is a dangerous thing. (sigh) They will be rooting for all out war with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... KscDhAWPWg
I think 70% of America definitely fits this mold, and that 90+% of America "probably" fits it.
(So, basically, I agree.
The vast majority thinks what it's told to think, which means that most people don't think much at all.
by Simulist » Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Searcher08 wrote:She who knows not - and knows not she knows not
- she is a fool... shun her
however in today's interconnected world, we do not have that option.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:43 pm
Russia issues stark warning against attack on Iran
IAEA expected to say that Iran is nearing nuclear capability, according to report
Russia and Iran warned the West against a military strike on the Islamic Republic Monday, saying an attack targeting its nuclear program would lead to civilian casualties and create new threats to global security.
The separate remarks by foreign ministers Sergei Lavrov of Russia and Ali Akbar Salehi of Iran coincided with speculation about a potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites ahead of the release of a U.N. watchdog report expected to cast more light on suspected military aspects to Iran's nuclear activity.
"This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow when asked about reports that Israel was preparing for a possible pre-emptive military strike.
In St. Petersburg, Russia, Salehi said Iran "condemns any threat of military attack on independent states."
Salehi spoke alongside Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other ministers from nations in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional grouping dominated by Russia and China in which Iran has observer status.
Germany's Foreign Ministry also rejected military action against Iran, suggesting that the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic pressure instead. "This continues to be the key way to move forward in dealing with this threat to regional and international security," a spokesman said.
Foreign assistance
New disclosures in the IAEA report provide details on an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected, The Washington Post said.
The paper said the report's findings provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians on high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.
Technology linked to Pakistani and North Korean experts also helped Iran advance its capabilities, the officials and experts told the paper.
The report says the intelligence also supports concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related nuclear research after 2003, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran halted the research in response to international pressure.
"The program never really stopped," David Albright, a former IAEA official who reviewed the agency's findings, told the paper.
"After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions," Albright told the paper.
Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy program.
Tehran denies wanting atom bombs, saying it is enriching uranium only to power reactors for electricity generation.
Story: Iran's Ahmadinejad defiant as U.S. raises heat: paper
The United States, the European Union and their allies have imposed economic sanctions on Tehran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program.
The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at the possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites, eliciting threats of fierce retaliation from the Islamic Republic.
Based on the intelligence the U.N. agency has concluded that Iran "has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device" using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core, Albright said.
Albright described some of the highlights at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week, the newspaper said, adding that it had obtained slides from the presentation and a summary of Albright's notes.
Russia and China grudgingly supported four previous rounds of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. But the two veto-wielding U.N. Security Council members have made clear any new sanctions would be an extremely tough sell.
Moscow is calling for a step-by-step process under which the existing sanctions would be eased in return for actions by Iran to dispel concerns over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is purely peaceful.
Russia, which has built Iran's first nuclear power station, has vociferously opposed any military action.
"There is no military solution to the Iranian nuclear problem as there is no military solution to any other problem in the modern world," said Lavrov.
"This is confirmed to us every day when we see how the problems of the conflicts around Iran are being resolved -- whether Iraq or Afghanistan or what is happening in other countries in the region. Military intervention only leads to many times more deaths and human suffering."
Reflecting regional fear of blowback from any attack on Iran, a government official in Kuwait said the Gulf state would not let its territory be used to launch attacks on any of its neighbors. Kuwait was a launchpad for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and lies a short distance from Iran across the Gulf.
by Skunkboy » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:24 pm
Not picking on you, but FYI, that source is unsavory and I think the article is absolute rubbish.
Russia issues stark warning against attack on Iran
IAEA expected to say that Iran is nearing nuclear capability, according to report
by Searcher08 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:33 pm
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:13 pm
Iran Plot: A Pretext for War
by Richard Javad Heydarian, November 07, 2011
For many Iran observers, Washington’s latest accusations against Iran — implicating members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States — come off as surreal, if not wholly bizarre.
At this juncture, it may be too early to pass a credible judgment on the substance and validity of the allegations, but there are just too many reasons to dismiss them as another cynical attempt to further isolate Iran. In the greater scheme of things, such accusations might be part of America’s strategy to push its “regime change” agenda in Iran. Although only a trial in an impartial, credible, and civilian court could shed light on the truthfulness of the U.S. claims, we have every reason to take Washington’s allegations with a grain of salt.
In geo-strategic terms, these allegations might pave the way for a new stage of “cold war” between Iran on one hand and the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, such as Saudi Arabia, on the other. As U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq and popular revolutions engulf much of the Middle East, the last thing Washington needs is to extinguish the prospect of a negotiated solution to Tehran’s nuclear program. Instead, Washington should accommodate Iran’s increasing interest in restarting nuclear negotiations and improving ties with its neighbors and the great powers. This is our best chance at avoiding another major clash in the region and embroiling America in an even more destructive conflict.
Cold War in the Persian Gulf
It is not a secret that there is no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The two regional powers have a history fraught with strategic rivalry and geopolitical conflict. Since 2003, the fall of Saddam Hussein — Iran’s traditional balancer — has transformed the two nations, Iran and the Kingdom, into the main indigenous pillars of power in the Persian Gulf region.
Despite Iran’s continuous efforts to normalize ties with its southern Arab neighbors, some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, led by Saudi Arabia, have continued to harbor suspicions against Iran’s growing influence in post-Saddam Iraq and the greater region. In 2010, when Yemen experienced a renewed round of sectarian conflict, Saudi troops intervened on behalf of the Sunni government. This prompted Iran to condemn what it deemed a clear violation of Yemen’s sovereignty. More crucially, Iran protested Saudi Arabia’s targeting of Shia communities in Yemen. This created a new realm of friction between the two countries.
Meanwhile, with nuclear negotiations in limbo, Iran has continued to expand its nuclear program and enrich uranium at higher levels. Consequently, a rattled Saudi Arabia has been among the most vociferous critics of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and growing influence in the region. Not only has the Kingdom been engaged in a massive arms race with Tehran, but also it has reportedly provided implicit support for further sanctions, and probably even for military incursions, against Iran’s nuclear program. This has definitively undermined efforts at stabilizing bilateral relations.
2011 has been especially challenging. Early in the year, bilateral tensions took a nosedive when Iran criticized the Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain. Iran’s condemnation of the GCC intervention, an effort to abet the Sunni Bahraini government’s suppression of mostly Shia protesters, has apparently strengthened Arab hawks, who have called for a more “decisive” approach toward Iran. Host to restive and oppressed Shia communities, Saudi Arabia in particular has been very anxious about the possibility of an Iranian-inspired “Arab Spring” in the greater GCC.
In light of recent protests in Saudi Arabia’s Shia-majority eastern regions, the Kingdom has every reason to demonize Iran and solicit Washington’s support for further isolation of Tehran. However, there is little evidence that Iran has been involved in the Shia-led protests in the Persian Gulf. In many ways, the protests, ongoing and impending, are a reflection and rejection of the deeply flawed and repressive systems that dominate the Persian Gulf region.
On the other hand, recognizing the necessity of mending ties and reversing its growing isolation within the region, Tehran has been aggressively courting its southern neighbors in recent months. In fact, Iran’s top officials, from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, have proactively engaged Arab leaders across the Persian Gulf. Iran also underscored its commitment to resolving “misunderstandings” with the Kingdom by emphasizing their mutual interest in improving ties.
In light of growing sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian leadership is also contemplating a return to the diplomatic track to improve ties with major powers. This was evident in Iran’s recent release of American prisoners to set the tone for upcoming negotiations. Domestically, the Iranian leadership is preoccupied with consolidating its power structure and instituting unprecedented economic reforms.
Therefore, assassinating a top Saudi official on American soil not only jeopardizes Iran’s national interests, but it also runs counter to Iran’s apparent strategic calculations. Facing challenges on both domestic and international fronts, Iran is in no position to provoke Saudi Arabia and the United States. If Iran really wanted to hurt the Kingdom, it could do so through proxies in Middle East. To conduct such an operation on American soil would brazenly provoke a conflict that Iran has tried to avoid for decades. Moreover, aware of the NATO-led regime change in Libya, Iran is in no mood to invite aggression from Western powers. This explains why Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said, “We are ready to patiently investigate any issue, even if it is fabricated,” and indicated his country’s willingness to cooperate with the U.S. by stating, “We also asked America to give us the information related to this scenario.”
The Paucity of the Plot Narrative
Most interestingly, the nature of the plot itself invites immense skepticism. First of all, Iran is known for its extremely sophisticated and complex intelligence-security bureaucracy. Iran, after all, has not only withstood three decades of external pressure, it has even risen as a major regional powerhouse. Its elite security and intelligence agencies are well-funded, experienced, and extremely astute. The “plot” is not only uncharacteristic of Iran’s elite security-intelligence elements, but it would be tremendously sloppy and amateurish for any major country. Comically, it would be preposterous for Iran to approach a “Mexican drug cartel” to recruit assassins for an alleged plot in America. Not only are the cartels hard to trust, but they are also filled with moles and constantly under the surveillance of U.S. authorities like the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
Second, of all potential “assassins,” it’s interesting how Iran’s agents came across a mole for the DEA. This seems to be a very unlikely coincidence. Surely, a deep, systematic, and effective background check is embedded in the security apparatus of any major country. In addition, the claim that “Iranian elements” wired a substantial down payment through legitimate financial intermediaries is also suspect. After all, the “standard” practice in these enterprises is to use third parties for recruitment and planning, shunning any direct transaction that could be traced to its source.
Lastly, the only person in custody, Mansour Arbabsiar, is not only a lousy “agent,” but his very credibility is questionable. He has been arrested for drug-related crimes in the past, and his friends and acquaintances have confidently dismissed him as someone highly apolitical and undisciplined. Surely no serious organization would consider him for a sensitive and crucial operation, especially the assassination of a top Saudi figure in Washington. Looking at the body of reports, one could say that even Hollywood movies provide a more sophisticated and palatable “plot.” This explains why American authorities have reservations about pointing their fingers directly at Iran’s top leadership, known for its strategic sagacity and rational posturing. The narrative is simply too untenable.
America’s Strategic Gaffe
Perhaps a more convincing way to interpret this entire affair is to consider the broader geopolitical picture. In light of Iran’s growing nuclear capability and deepening regional influence, Washington has been escalating its efforts to confront and isolate the country. Israeli hard-liners are already setting the mood for a potential clash with Iran, while the Saudis are considering plans to develop their own nuclear capabilities.
Given the depth of America’s domestic economic woes and President Obama’s growing unpopularity, the administration could be more interested in highlighting its foreign policy priorities. Probably, in the administration’s view, demonizing Iran is not only a good diversionary tool, but it might also serve as a platform around which new constituencies can be built and consolidated. Appeasing the pro-Israel lobby is also crucial if Obama seeks to be re-elected.
The United States has already dispatched representatives across Europe to convince its partners to consider a new round of even severer sanctions against Iran. Alarmingly, the United States is even considering sanctions against Iran’s central bank, something that could disrupt Iran’s entire economy. This would make it extremely difficult for Iran to process dollar-denominated oil transactions, a main source of the country’s export revenues. If the United States pushes forward with this, it will be virtually declaring war, not only against the Iranian leadership but against the entire Iranian population. This is a clear betrayal of Obama’s promise to reach out to the Iranian nation.
Alternatively, in light of growing protests across America and growing dissatisfaction with Obama’s economic performance, this could be also a tactical move for purely domestic political consumption. The truth may lie somewhere in between. What’s clear is that there are just too many reasons to doubt the veracity of such dreamlike allegations.
With America’s withdrawal from Iraq in sight, such actions would simply encourage greater conflict between Iran and United States. After all, Iran wields tremendous influence in Iraq. In the Persian Gulf, there are already fears of growing frictions between U.S. and Iranian naval forces, prompting top U.S. officials to call for the establishment of regularized channels of communication to prevent unwanted crises. Obama’s recent actions are not only undermining his efforts to reach out to the Iranian people, but they are also jeopardizing the prospect of a stable and reasonable relationship between Iran and America in a highly volatile region undergoing tremendous shifts. Further alienating the Iranian people and provoking the Iranian regime could be the biggest strategic mistake of Obama’s administration.
For a starter, the Obama administration should focus on rekindling nuclear negotiations with Tehran, while accommodating Iran’s openness to cooperate on any investigation concerning the alleged plot. This is the best way to avoid turning a comic plot into a real international tragedy.
by StarmanSkye » Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:07 pm
by Searcher08 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:31 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests