Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out?

Mike Ion Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:10:57 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Reports that at their Camp David meeting in July, Brown gave Bush the green light for US air strikes on Iran - possibly offering support from RAF bases and the British navy patrolling the Gulf - are deeply worrying.



At PMQs this week Brown (in answer to a question about Iran from Michael Meacher) once again refused to rule anything out in terms of future action against Iran.

The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy, but it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. It can only be encouraged, through dialogue and open economic activity - a fact that Brown has long understood (unlike many of his US counterparts).

Is it not now time for Brown to rule out any British involvement in any future US/Israel military action against Iran? The new round of economic sanctions are unlikely to have any real effect (Iran's biggest trading partner is China) and there will be increased pressure from hawkish Republicans for some kind of preemptive strike against Iran.

Britain cannot and must not be part of any US or Israeli led action. Brown must make this abundantly clear - and soon.

tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? | 54 comments (54 topical)

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#1)

by rwendland on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:35:36 PM GMT

Hear,  hear.

But to be be picky Iran does have a democratic system, with a complex system of checks and balances, though with aspects to be criticised. The President is elected for a four year term, and there are about 7 major political parties. There are issues with the way the Guardian Council restricts presidential candidates.  But given that the west rarely criticises the Saudi Arabian or Jordanian political system, our criticism of Iran's more democratic system seems hypocritical. Really, it's more that we don't like the output of the system rather than the system itself.

And we should dwell on the fact that our legislative upper house has religious leaders appointed to it (the bishops in the House of Lords - the 26 Lords Spiritual), and that buying a place in our legislative upper house seems possible. Perhaps we should sort this out before throwing too many stones at other democratic systems.


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#2)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:29:44 PM GMT

God, the relativists are out today.

Iran indeed does have democratic elements within it, but, as i've pointed out before on these forums, it is not a liberal democratic state. No rule of law, massive restrictions on free speech, oppression of women, etc.

As for its 'complex systems of checks and balances', (a term which, quite frankly, is choamskyist in the sheer bullshitness in conveys), having the supreme theocratic leader choose the presidential candidates is like choosing between shit and shite. The same goes for the legislature. The output of the political system is one step away from being dictated to by the supreme leader.

Incidentally, you can actually find elements of democracy in Saudi Arabia, as they have elections to some local government positions. But that's just being picky.

Even putting Iran in the same league as Britain is an insult. We have problems yes, but to even compare a small minority of bishops in what is effectively an advisory chamber (only one year delay remember) to the Islamic republic of Iran which is run by the theocrats is just plain ignorant and stupid.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#4)

by jkitleft on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM GMT

I agree that Iran is not a true 'liberal democratic' state, but I don't think we can have any moral credibility when talking about Iran, when we are allies with countries like Saudi Arabia, who aspouse even more anti-semitic, sexist attitudes, and just as homophobic attitudes. I'm not comparing UK to Iran, just Saudi Arabia to Iran


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#6)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:40:52 PM GMT

Yes, I agree that our relationship with the Saudis is not desirable, but sadly it's necessary. Really, the international is about what can be done, not what should be done, and this is the only moral position we can really take in regards to Iran.

Plus, the Saudis, unlike the Iranians, are not moving towards building a nuclear weapon.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#7)

by rwendland on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:11:29 PM GMT

OK, I accept that "contorted system of checks and balances" would have been a better turn of phrase. But Iran's system does appear to pass the primitive democratic test: "can the electorate at regular periods turf out the current government and have a different party run affairs" - as long as the new government is Islamic. Both the president and MPs have 4 year terms.

The Supreme Leader does have excessive control, especially of the military, but is also indirectly elected by the elected but screened Assembly of Experts.

Its the Guardian Council, not the Supreme Leader, that can veto presidential candidates.

It's all complex/contorted, but pluralistic, and I think it would be accepted as a reasonable early democracy for a theocratic state if Iran followed different policies. We don't seem to get too excited by Jordan's system where a king appoints the Prime Minister, the government, and members of the upper house (the Senate).


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#8)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:41:06 PM GMT

Again, as the candidates are chosen by the supreme leader and unelected council, it's the difference between shit and shite. Democracy is about choice, not just voting. Just because the electorate votes regularly, and there are fixed terms for representatives, doesn't make it any more democratic.

The reason why we don't get excited about Jordan's constitution is that they don't make a song and dance about having a sham democracy, and are honest about being a dictatorship. 

Also, the reason we don't moan about Jordan in general is that they don't fund terrorists or are building nuclear weapons. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#17)

by rwendland on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 02:31:28 PM GMT

> Also, the reason we don't moan about Jordan in general is that they don't fund terrorists or are building nuclear weapons.

Yes, that's my point, don't know why we are disagreeing. It is the policies of the Iranian political system that really we don't like, if they were aligned with western interests we wouldn't be moaning (much) about their political system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#3)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:51:27 PM GMT

Though I'm not in favour for a war with Iran at this present time, or in the near future, however ruling any action out is not a very clever thing to do. The international is a place where subtleties and small statements mean a lot. Ruling out action against Iran will only embolden the state further with its nuclear ambitions and insurgent activities. If it doesn't think anybody will do anything about it, it will just get bolder. Quite frankly a militant islamic state should never be allowed to spread its bile around the world.


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#5)

by Mike Ion on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:34:02 PM GMT

Laurence - thanks for the detailed and interesting resonse to the post. I too am not in favour of a war with Iran, however I think Brown could rule out any British military action and would be perfectly justified in doing so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#9)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:58:22 PM GMT

To rule out military action would be wrong - right now he should be threatening it if worst comes to worst.

Why on earth should he?

We have an islamo facist nation that wants to destroy israel, that is supporting terrorism AGAINST OUR TROOPS. Do you people have any sense? You are doormats and currently, you are allowing a tyrant to piss on you.

It makes me SICK that people would even dare talk up the democratic credentials of Iran  - nation that HANGS teenagers from cranes in public, that buries women in the ground and STONES them to death.

Have a bit of solidarity with our brothers in Iran that have been violently put down by the tyrants.

They are a democracy in name - in reality, there is no choice, and opposition is SILENCED.

We don't want war, nobody does, but this is one of the greatest threats to world peace in a generation.

We woud be doing them a favour in the long run if made clear, that should they not cease from what they are doing, their nuclear programme will be destroyed.

Israel has every right to defend itself from the Iranian threat, as a friend of israe we should be standing side by side with them and our American friends, as together once again we confront a threat to our way of life.


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#11)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:37:49 PM GMT

Why did you have to bring up Israel? Nothing good ever comes out of it, just polarised arguments that are never constructive.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#12)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:39:45 PM GMT

For two reasons:

1. The original poster mentioned Israel.

2. Because they are a key player in this story - they should be mentioned, and I'm happy to debate anybody here on Israel, in a respectful way of course.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#15)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:55:29 AM GMT

that's specious reasoning to suggest that by intervening that Iran will become a democracy. Remember 1979, America got involved, and there was a revolution. Saudi Arabia supports Israel. You're not allowed to be a Jew and live there. We are doormats for the regime in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia beheads robbers, rapists and drug trafficers in a delightful place called 'Chop Chop square'. Women are publically beat. Have some solidarity with women, Jews, gays etc in Saudi Arabia who are tortured and killed. In Saudi Arabia, there is no choice, they have no elected government, free press or political parties. This is one of the most threatning ideologies in a generation. We would be doing them a favour, if we told them that they should stop what they're doing, and that women should be able to dress norally and drive a car. Jewish people have every right to exercise the religion in Saudi Arabia. We should stand side by side with these opressed minorities, to confront a threat to their lives.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#16)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:56:25 AM GMT

that was meant to be 'Saudi Arabia supports Israel?'


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#21)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 06:52:10 PM GMT

I agree with you - but I think to take a moral stand on Saudi Arabia - we would have to do the same with China etc etc.

It is isn't nice, but to cut cooperation on the W.O.T with the government which is helping in our struggle, would be a mistake.

Also, I'm not saying it would bring democracy, and please note, that we are not talking about invasion - not even the biggest hawks would go that far.




[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#18)

by Muj on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 04:55:36 PM GMT

what makes me sick is Apartheid is alive and kicking according to Mandela & Tutu and its not S Africa but as they rightly point the cruel brutal colonising state of Israel who have a total disregard for over 65 UN resolutions. Why no debate about Israels' racism and human rights abuses.
Despite Israel's PR machine of neocons who portray the perpertrators as victims, the reality is the zionist state kills civilians, destroys homes, ancient olive groves, ruins crops, uses human shields and roadblocks that prevent access to education jobs and healthcare, witholds electricity to civilians in that concentration camp aka the Gaza strip. I believe Israel and its apologists refer to "collective punishment" of an innocent and helpless people.
Thats what makes me sick the deilberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#22)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 06:59:54 PM GMT

"what makes me sick is Apartheid is alive and kicking according to Mandela & Tutu and its not S Africa but as they rightly point the cruel brutal colonising state of Israel who have a total disregard for over 65 UN resolutions"

What a load of shite. Israel is a soveign state which treats its citizens FAR better than its arab neighbours treats jews, or even its own citizens.

"Despite Israel's PR machine of neocons who portray the perpertrators as victims, the reality is the zionist state kills civilians, destroys homes, ancient olive groves, ruins crops, uses human shields and roadblocks that prevent access to education jobs and healthcare, witholds electricity to civilians in that concentration camp aka the Gaza strip. I believe Israel and its apologists refer to "collective punishment" of an innocent and helpless people."

Clearly you a despicable anti semite - hence your disgraceful reference to a 'concentration camp'.

Israel has done as much as it possibly can to safeguard the lives of palestinians, it has in its legal system, the most fair and impartial in ALL of the middle east.

The arabs have sadly resorted to decades of terrorism, TARGETTING innocent civilians, something the terrorist regimes celebrate. Israeli LAW (something many of these other nations know nothing about) strictly forbids the targetting of innocent civilians.

The Palestinians have used ambulances, and schools to launch attacks. They have intentionally placed their terror factories by the side of schools and used children to carry out their crimes.

Israel has time and again offered its hand in peace, it has made deals with both egypt and jordan - two former sworn enemies to secure peace, and in return these former invaders have received their land back.

Where is your voice for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of jews that were forced from their homelands across the middle east?

Nowhere, whereas the Palestinians largely left of their own accord, some were even begged to stay by jews living in the holy land, but were FORCED out by none other than the arab commanders who described the war as a war of extermination - the same arabs who openly sided with the enemy in both world war one and two.




[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#27)

by Muj on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:30:54 PM GMT

how predictable of zionists to play their ace card the "anti semite" libel which is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel's racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of jew hatred. Pathetic insects like you that inflate the meaning of "anti semitism" to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double edge sword. The problem is definitional inflation like any inflation it cheapens the currency. Its recently happened to Jimmy Carter, and Archbishop Tutu and the authors Mearsheimer & Walt but is wearing a little thin. Save the name calling for Anne Coulter.

The war Criminals who lead Israel could have peace for the taking but simply concentrate their efforts on another round of dispossession making the lives of the Palestininas unbearable. Israel is a racist state whose obvious and provable intent is to continue to steal Palestinian land, oppress Palestinians herd them into smaller and smaller enclaves and ultimately hope to drive them into the sea. After all zionists well before ww2 came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm and whose very existence they contrived to ignore. That is presumambly why the commanders who directed the rapes and child killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#29)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:41:51 PM GMT

"how predictable of zionists to play their ace card the "anti semite" libel which is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel's racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of jew hatred. "

I am not a zionist, I have no direct ties to any israeli - or jew for that matter. Nice try though.

As for anti semitism - when you make quite distasteful references to 'concentration camps' you are playing a rather sick game.

Criticism of Israel is fair, but when it is not balanced and inflammatory like yours, as well as ignoring the abuses of most of the rest of the middle east - the vendetta against the jewish state clearly raises questions of anti semitism.

As for zionism - you can happily mention it, because the zionists in Israel wrre ordered a century ago to help the palestinians, as they did by providing them jobs and building a state out of nothing, they were ordered to treat them well, and to stay off of palestinian holy land. 

"Its recently happened to Jimmy Carter"

Well his idiotic wording was the issues - and he apologized for it. He knew he was wrong.

"The war Criminals who lead Israel could have peace for the taking but simply concentrate their efforts on another round of dispossession making the lives of the Palestininas unbearable. "

War criminals? lol You side with the neo nazis who say the same sort of nonsense. Congratulations.

Your post is very light on the facts, high on rhetoric however.

"After all zionists well before ww2 came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm and whose very existence they contrived to ignore. That is presumambly why the commanders who directed the rapes and child killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel. "

That is actually false - jews had lived in Israel for generations - of course they were thrown out themselves at one stage.

The land they took was not owned by palestinians - as it happens, they BOUGHT land for jordanian landlords. They legally own the land and provided palestinians with jobs.

As it was palestinians came to THEM in search of jobs they were not provided by their own greedy leaders.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#30)

by Muj on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:12:21 PM GMT

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" - Archbishop Desmund Tutu.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#31)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:51:07 PM GMT

"If you side with the oppressor, you're just as bad" - me 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#32)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:52:35 PM GMT

I'm not defending all of Israel's actions, but they're not an oppressor. They are always under threat of suicide bombers, please stop incinuating that they are trying to slaughter the Palestinians.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#34)

by Muj on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 09:50:25 PM GMT

its curious how zionists attempt attempt to invert ones objective. While the IDF attack defenceless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F16's & Apache helicopters & palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation with the Pentagon as a hidden partner the moment people of conscience call for a moral stand against the oppressive and unjust behaviour of Israel as an alternative to recent palestinian acts of desperation all hell breaks loose. End Israeli Apartheid. No wonder when S Africa was under the racism of Apartheid  its natural alliance was with Israel. Clearly a natural alliance of two socities who had usurped someone elses land.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#35)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 10:34:08 PM GMT

"While the IDF attack defenceless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F16's & Apache helicopters & palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation with the Pentagon as a hidden partner the moment people of conscience call for a moral stand against the oppressive and unjust behaviour of Israel as an alternative to recent palestinian acts of desperation "

You really are a pathetic little smear merchant aren't you? You are either incredibly stupid - or are just an awful liar.

Sadly Palestinian terrorists HIDE amongst children, and other civilians. They then launch rocket attack from those locations into israel, hundreds a month.

When successful, once they have murdered israeli children, they celebrate in the streets, hand out sweets and the evil son of a bitch who fired the rock is celebrated as a hero.

In Israel, should their forces accidently kill a civilian, there is litigation, and great regret.

Even during the war of independence, the arabs targetted innocent people.

On one occasion, during street to street combat Israel killed some civilians. They officially apologised to the jordanians, who they were at war with. In response, the invading arab armies, burned a dozen israeli paramedics alive in their vehicles. It is these people who you are siding with.

"End Israeli Apartheid"

Maybe you could provide some facts to back up your bollocks.

Here, I'll make my case, maybe you can make yours:

The evil south african regime denied black citizenship.

The Israeli declaration of independence stated:

“participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

The over 150,000 arabs in Israel were granted citizenship.

 - It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race in Israel

 - Arabs have served in  diplomatic and government positions and an Arab serves on the Supreme Court - the most democratic institution in the WHOLE REGION

 - 10 Arabs Are members of the knesset

 - Laws dictated where nonwhites could live, work, and travel in South Africa, and the government imprisoned and sometimes killed those who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs in the Knesset.

Compare that to several arab states the DENY jews the right to citizenship.

In Palestine the regime does not permit freedom of speech it does not approve of, people are killed because of it!

A poll in the 1990s showed a staggering 80 PERCENT of Palestinians polled admire the Israeli system over their own.

Now THAT is telling.

"No wonder when S Africa was under the racism of Apartheid  its natural alliance was with Israel. Clearly a natural alliance of two socities who had usurped someone elses land. "

Israel has unsurped nobodies land. They bought and made use of their land fair and square. As Yassar Araprat once said, the Palestinians will only be allowed to return to Israel once it no longer exists.

As for Israel and South Africa, again, get your facts right, Israel had diplomatic relations with South Africa as did SUCCESSIVE Labour governments in Britain.


Jewish groups fought side by side for an end to that evil regime, and that is a historical fact.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#37)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:24:50 AM GMT

I don't think it's right that Israel does some of the things it does, but I'm tired of some people trying to take the moral high ground, if someone blew themselves up in a Pizza place in Tel Aviv, as if Israeli lives are a tuppence worth compared to Palestinians. Many also seem to try and smear Jews as being part of the 'elite' while forgetting the fact that they have been the most oppressed people on this earth for over a millenia. There is a diproportionate amount of successful Jews yes, but that's because they realised that if they were ever going to break out of the ghettos that they were forced into, they were going to have to do it by themselves.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#38)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:27:52 AM GMT

the ghettos that they were forced into, was a reason why Jewish thinkers played an integral part in founding socialism (and also communism), and I can't believe some people are actually suggesting ,that they might actually in the majority support Apartheid


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#39)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:28:42 AM GMT

stop calling us zionists, you really are sounding like a conspiracy theory nutjob


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#28)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:36:08 PM GMT

None of this is Jewish people's fault. I don't support the idea of state's being started on the basis of their religion or race. But Israel has a right to exist as long as Muslim-only or Christain-only countries exist (incidentally, Israel isn't a 'Jews only state', so don't try and spin it as if it is, and as if they are trying to commit a mass genocide). I will always be critical of some of Israel's actions, I think the Qana missile strike constitutes a war crime for example. But we try and portray this as some Jewish/American conspiracy. Jews didn't feel safe anywhere. After the murder of around 6 million of them, the survivors were either silenced behind the Iron Curtain, and some of them couldn't speak up, because in America, they were percieved to be heavily involved with Socialism/Communism. So Israel became a strong possibility. People begin to hate Israel, when they feel the so-called 'Holocaust card' is being played, while ignoring the fact that other minority factions, or other factions play their 'cards' all the time, without being questioned. So let's stop pretending that all the other middle east states are cosmopolitan metropolises, and recognise the fact that some are spreading anti-semitism (the longest running form of bigotry going around), which only furthers the cycle of anti-muslim/anti-arab sentiments. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#33)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:54:38 PM GMT

That is true. Alot of the problems has arisen out of the spreading of anti semitic propaganda - state funded in some cases.

We have all seen the hamas terror training camp for children - this has to stop.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#10)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:00:08 PM GMT

"Britain cannot and must not be part of any US or Israeli led action. Brown must make this abundantly clear - and soon. "

So you would rather see a nuclear armed Iran rather than making a stand with those evil Israelis?


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#13)

by JamesM on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 12:54:02 AM GMT

You appear to be mixing up two entirely separate problems.

Of course it is right that "the only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy", and we would all prefer Iran to be a liberal democracy rather than a repressive, theocratic state. But western statesmen are not meeting to discuss the lamentable state of Iranian public life, they are meeting to discuss the nuclear weapons that only the most credulous would doubt Iran is building.

Very few people - certainly not "many" of Gordon Brown's US counterparts - are advocating regime change in Iran in similar terms to Iraq. If "many" people in the US were discussing such a prospect then you might expect, say, John Bolton to be one of them; except that he isn't. What many people, including John Bolton, are discussing is a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

In your post above you correctly state that democracy would be desirable in Iran. But you then take a massive leap - without even mentioning Iranian nuclear ambitions - and arrive at the non sequitur that any strike, under any circumstances would be wrong.

My own position is that the only thing worse than a strike on Iran would be Iran possessing a nuclear missile. If your position is the reverse then you ought to say so. 


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#14)

by rwendland on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 03:07:09 AM GMT

> the nuclear weapons that only the most credulous would doubt Iran is building.

I think it's just that you are using language loosely, but no-one serious thinks Iran is currently building nuclear weapons. Currently they don't have the fissile material to build one with, having only enriched small amounts of uranium to 4.8%, suitable only as nuclear reactor fuel, in a pilot plant.

The concern is that Iran is trying to work up to a nuclear breakout state capability, where they could leave the NPT and the IAEA monitoring regime, and have a weapon in about 6 months to a year. Generally the estimate is that Iran could be in that position between 2010 and 2015. The IAEA director-general quote to that effect is:

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed, ... All the intelligence services agree on that, ... I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb"

Iran still has many technical hurdles to overcome, in particular demonstrating that their enrichment centifuges will run reliably using lower quality Iranian rather than imported uranium feedstock.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#24)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:03:34 PM GMT

The UN has twice found it enriched to a far higher level than they need, they have also seen in Iran, nuclear weapons blueprints:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-30-un-iran_x.htm

We have the current president that has threatened to destroy israel in a 'great storm' and a former president who has talked up the arabs chances of winning a nuclear war with israel.

The EU3 and the US (along with Russia) only last year offered the Iranian regime a compromise which would allow them to have nuclear power, with strict safeguards - they turned it down.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#19)

by Curlew on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 05:51:04 PM GMT

> the nuclear weapons that only the most credulous would doubt Iran is building.

I would love to know who the US think these weapons are aimed at?  If it is the USA then their anti-missile systems will prevent any ingress.  If it is another Middle Eastern country then surely Iran will be shooting themselves in the foot - any fall-out will head back their way - given the west>east prevailing winds.

 


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#25)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:05:54 PM GMT

I'm not 100% on this - but I don't think that it is complete or any where near complete, so they wouldn't simply be able to shoot it down.

Further to that, the fear is, it could end up on a truck with a load of illegal immigrants on the mexican border.

America should take no risks.

As for a fellow country in the middle east - destroying israel is objective number one, hell even the chinese are reportedly prepared to lose half their major cities if it comes to it, and they're not even religious!


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#36)

by Curlew on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:43:46 AM GMT

If the US anti-missile system isn't complete then why is Putin so touchy?

Illegal immigrants? Mexico?  There are plenty of other places to get fissile material from that are closer to home than Iran.

America should start behaving like a neighbour and not a barbarian at the gate.

To lose half their major cities is a pointless act - the government would fall - China is emerging as a strong public state - they have much to lose.  Remember M.A.D., it works.

(and USA Today is the equivalent of the Daily Mail.)

It's oil just OIL.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#42)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:57:00 PM GMT

"If the US anti-missile system isn't complete then why is Putin so touchy?"

Because he wants to PREVENT it. The US is still testing the very logic of the missile defense shied, with mixed but improving results.

They then plan to instal the 'technology' in these countries.

"Illegal immigrants? Mexico?  There are plenty of other places to get fissile material from that are closer to home than Iran."

A ready made nuclear bomb? Certainly not.

The American non border is long suspected of being an easy hole to smuggle through all kinds of bad things, from drugs, to 'economic slaves' to potentially terrorists.

"To lose half their major cities is a pointless act - the government would fall - China is emerging as a strong public state - they have much to lose.  Remember M.A.D., it works.

(and USA Today is the equivalent of the Daily Mail.)"

I wouldn't compare those two at all - you could find that same story anywhere btw, it was widely reported.



[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#46)

by Curlew on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:06 AM GMT

> A ready made nuclear bomb?

So okay - they build and make one in Iran - some guy puts it in his suitcase and heads for the airport, docks whatever.  You clearly have no understanding how much a full bomb weighs Loz. Any dirty bombs have to be brought into a country in parts - in which case why source the materials from a country half way across the world?

The politics of fear.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#50)

by Loz on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:37:12 PM GMT

Yes - and it could easily be bought into America in parts - from Iran.

Where else are they going to source it from?

In Iran they have a provider for the resources and enough islamo facists willing to carry out the plot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#20)

by copey86 on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 06:21:39 PM GMT

Britain should have no part in the invasion of Iran, and the level of debate relied upon by those who would have the army of  the British State go to war is dissapointing to say the least.

The Iranian regime is a reactionary theocratic regime -end of. It could well be developing nuclear weapons as well. This does not justify invasion. The best chance of refrom towards democracy in Iran comes from within Iran itself - from its radical workers, socialists, and student movements. It is the lives of these people people here seem willing to throw away by encouraging the baitng of the Iranian government- the perfect exscuse for a brutal crackdown on the 'enemy within'. Nevermind the cost in lives of, god forbid, an invasion on top of that. The logical yet crude response is that this would be better than a nuclear war in the region. Lets just clarify - nuclear weapons only work by not using them. That is how MAD works. The only state in the region who might use them is the US client state of Israel, or the US itself as Bush (Unelected remember?) descends furhter into his madness. The most likely cause of nuclear war is from the western imperialist nations, not the nutjob theocracy.

Comments like this: "I agree that our relationship with the Saudis is not desirable, but sadly it's necessary" are deplorable. It is Not necessary at all to support the Saudi dictatorship, it is, however, in the interests of global capital, we are a capitalist economy, our govt operates on a capitalist basis, and thus plays ball accordingly no matter how horrific and amoral the profit led capital domination of mankind turns out to be. Hence the quashing of the SFO probe. The interest of justice and of profit have only one winner when they collide.

And this:"We have an islamo facist nation that wants to destroy israel, that is supporting terrorism AGAINST OUR TROOPS. Do you people have any sense? You are doormats and currently, you are allowing a tyrant to piss on you." Who put the troops there? The attacks on the living are bad enough, but what about the 600,000 dead already?  The dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqis infrastructure and oil resources? I'm glad you want the same for the people of Iran. As for 'Islamo-fascist', who buys the oil that funds this fascistic regime? WE DO. Just like the labour govt keeps shut about all the UK companies co-operating with the Burmese junta all the while denouncing it when it comes to prominece in the media.

"as together once again we confront a threat to our way of life" - Whose way of life? What threat exactly?  Everything seems fine to me. I'll sell you this rock that keeps away tigers, well you dont see any tigers do you? Of course it works!


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#26)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:14:50 PM GMT

"It could well be developing nuclear weapons as well. This does not justify invasion"

Good, because nobody is talking about invasion, and nobody is talking about them getting nukes - their nuclear facilities will be a smoking hole in the ground before this could ever happen.

"The best chance of refrom towards democracy in Iran comes from within Iran itself - from its radical workers, socialists, and student movements. It is the lives of these people people here seem willing to throw away by encouraging the baitng of the Iranian government- the perfect exscuse for a brutal crackdown on the 'enemy within'."

Yes, please do send suggestions on a postcard to the student movement - you'll just have to find the address to the secret prisons they run containing these poor souls that dared to stand up the other year.

Sitting around and hoping for the best is an absurd strategy.

"works. The only state in the region who might use them is the US client state of Israel, or the US itself as Bush (Unelected remember?) descends furhter into his madness. The most likely cause of nuclear war is from the western imperialist nations, not the nutjob theocracy."

Your racism toward israel is disgraceful and your accusations are baseless smears with a tint of anti semitism. How else could one explain your flagrant lies?

As for Bush - he was elected - and second time around, his share of the vote increased.

"Who put the troops there? The attacks on the living are bad enough, but what about the 600,000 dead already? "
 
And who killed those people? Islamo facist terrorists - the same ones funded and armed in Iran that have killed our own troops.

The fact our troops are there, building schools and risking their lives to protect iraqis  every day is no justification for terrorism - it seems you disagree with this.

"The dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqis infrastructure and oil resources?"

Irans oils resources exceed pre war levels at this time - and the contracts are being enjoyed by chinese companies - with tens of billions going into Iraqi construction projects.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#40)

by copey86 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:44:01 PM GMT

Oh the vulgarity! Oh see the sanctimonious moral posturing - look at me, you screech, you think that Our Boys in Iraq deserved to be blown into pieces, you want the Iranian students to get your postcards from their prison cells - by god on those grounds who wouldn't take such a tone with me. But wait.. whats that?.. In the distance, getting closer now, the galloping hooves of the wild horses of total utter bullsh*T.

1. The soldiers at the command of the British State should be removed from Iraq immediately, they cannot stop the now historically ordained bloodbath in Iraq now its inner tensions have been unleashed, and are only going to be killed as a result. Not one drop of their blood more shed please.

2. In addition, in case you have not noticed, Our Boys are no longer donning hard hats and building schools and hospitals for the Iraqi people - they are located in barracks in the main airport of Basra city, and patrol out of it to give security backup to the native forces.

3. What construction work that has been taking place,for example by the US, has been exposed in the press as shoddy. Private companies (Haliburton, Carylye Group) taking their no contest fees and either doing the shoddiest job possible, or sub contracting so far down that the same bad job is done by many smaller cells of their corporate bodies.

4. Bush was not elected the first time, their are doubts about the second. All recounts showed that Gore won in Florida -remember all those black folks disenfranchised by Jeb Bush for having vaguely similiar name spellings to incarcerated individuals? The Reagan appointed judges getting Bush in then quickly retiring?

5. The electronic voting machines used in the US are owned and manufactured by 5 private companies. Two of these are Haliburton and Clearchannel, the others, I cant recall right now, are also linked directly to the incumbents financial allies. These machines have been shown to have been easily hacked and no permanent records of the votes are kept. This is not proof I grant you, but it is suspicous.

6. Begone conspiracy here cometh Iran! I am glad that you are willing to give the Iranian regime an exscuse to crack down on the 'enemy within' in the 'national interest' by bombing their facilities pre-emptivley. My postcard may not find their jail cell, but if you get our way, your postcard will not find their graves. Of course if Iran did acquire the bomb then the later possibility of invading it, or by other indirect means, getting at its oil reserves, becomes a lot slimmer. The imperialist nations do not want an oil rich country, with a hostile government, made impossible to invade conventioanlly- that leaves only certain other alternatives if they have the stomach for it, which they may well do.

7. Chinese companies have their nose in the Iraqi trough as well do they? This is good how? As for 'tens of billions going into Iraqi construction projects'-imagine how much more they'd have to spend if it weren't being siphoned off by global capital? Ah you say, but if saddam was still there they wouldn't have any! Fair enough, but they wouldnt have a civil war either! And with Israel getting het up about the mullahs, and Turkey threatening to invade Iraqs north, and Russia warning the US to leave Iran alone (For its own selfish reasons of course), and chinese companies joining western ones at the trough, and the selling off of Iraqs public infrastructure,and the bogus 'construction' work,and radicalised political islam, and the faltering war in Afghanistan, and 600,000 dead, and suicide bombings... well i'm glad this is your vision of the world in action!


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#43)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:24:19 PM GMT


No, because there would be one side, one party - Saddams, with his torture chambers, mass graves and wars with his neighbours amongst others.


"and the faltering war in Afghanistan,"
 

The 80 terrorists killed today in Afghanistan disagree with your assessment, as do the majority of afghans who polls show have high regard for their democracy and future.


"and 600,000 dead,"


That figure simply isn't true. Those that HAVE been killed, have overwhelmingly been killed by islamist terrorists.


"well i'm glad this is your vision of the world in action!" 


My vision is for freedom and democracy for all. There are two sides - one which is for that, and another against it.


The other side is made up of some of the most evil and barbatic human being to have ever walked our planet.


They don't intend on giving up the fight for their warped beliefs, and neither should we as democratic and free nations.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#44)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:26:35 PM GMT

Hmm, seems to have cut out some of my post. Second time lucky:

"1. The soldiers at the command of the British State should be removed from Iraq immediately, they cannot stop the now historically ordained bloodbath in Iraq now its inner tensions have been unleashed, and are only going to be killed as a result. Not one drop of their blood more shed please."

And you think no more british blood will be spilt when an islamo facist regime takes over?

How naieve.

"2. In addition, in case you have not noticed, Our Boys are no longer donning hard hats and building schools and hospitals for the Iraqi people - they are located in barracks in the main airport of Basra city, and patrol out of it to give security backup to the native forces."

The point is - they have been doing this, and you somehow note this when blaming our presence for the strife. You do this, yet you don't question what sort of people will blow up schools as a response to us building them.

Why is that?

You are worse than the appeasers of the 1930s, you are like the American leaders of roughly the same period. A foreign policy which ignores a problem until it comes and bites you, and sadly in your case I'd hazzard a guess, still you'd do nothing.

"3. What construction work that has been taking place,for example by the US, has been exposed in the press as shoddy. Private companies (Haliburton, Carylye Group) taking their no contest fees and either doing the shoddiest job possible, or sub contracting so far down that the same bad job is done by many smaller cells of their corporate bodies."

Contracts have gone to all sorts of people, and largely they have been met. The Iraqi economy is growing at a pretty impressive rate, oil production exceeds pre war level, as does electricity AND water.

Something you would hardly be able to believe considering the negative media campaign.

"4. Bush was not elected the first time, their are doubts about the second. All recounts showed that Gore won in Florida -remember all those black folks disenfranchised by Jeb Bush for having vaguely similiar name spellings to incarcerated individuals? The Reagan appointed judges getting Bush in then quickly retiring? "

Again you are factually wrong. For a start - the American legal system made its ruling and it decided in bush's favour, and correctly at that. President Bush won Florida fair and square, and won the election despite not winning a majority of votes (who are we to judge on that front?!


As was shown in the end, even under the supreme court initiated and gore requested re counts BUSH WON:

Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225

•  Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430

•  Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493

Further to this a Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice found no evidence of  racial discrimination

"5. The electronic voting machines used in the US are owned and manufactured by 5 private companies. Two of these are Haliburton and Clearchannel, the others, I cant recall right now, are also linked directly to the incumbents financial allies. These machines have been shown to have been easily hacked and no permanent records of the votes are kept. This is not proof I grant you, but it is suspicous."

I agree, the American democratic system is very dodgy. It is not proof however of a conspiracy.

"6. Begone conspiracy here cometh Iran! I am glad that you are willing to give the Iranian regime an exscuse to crack down on the 'enemy within' in the 'national interest' by bombing their facilities pre-emptivley."

Our security has to come first, however painful that may be. If Iran gets a nuke - the war that we wilol be forced to fight will be far greater than the conflict that looms however awful that may be.


"The imperialist nations do not want an oil rich country, with a hostile government, made impossible to invade conventioanlly- that leaves only certain other alternatives if they have the stomach for it, which they may well do."

Hmmmm----yet they still buy oil from venezuela - their fourth largest supplier.

"7. Chinese companies have their nose in the Iraqi trough as well do they? This is good how?"

I didn't say it was good, it isn't, my point is, many of the nutjob conspiracy idiots believe it is all going in to George Bush and his 'neo con' friends bank accounts which is completely false.

"Fair enough, but they wouldnt have a civil war either!"


No, because there would be one side, one party - Saddams, with his torture chambers, mass graves and wars with his neighbours amongst others.


"and the faltering war in Afghanistan,"
 

The 80 terrorists killed today in Afghanistan disagree with your assessment, as do the majority of afghans who polls show have high regard for their democracy and future.


"and 600,000 dead,"


That figure simply isn't true. Those that HAVE been killed, have overwhelmingly been killed by islamist terrorists.


"well i'm glad this is your vision of the world in action!" 


My vision is for freedom and democracy for all. There are two sides - one which is for that, and another against it.


The other side is made up of some of the most evil and barbatic human being to have ever walked our planet.


They don't intend on giving up the fight for their warped beliefs, and neither should we as democratic and free nations.




[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#45)

by copey86 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:27:44 AM GMT

"You are worse than the appeasers of the 1930s, you are like the American leaders of roughly the same period. A foreign policy which ignores a problem until it comes and bites you, and sadly in your case I'd hazzard a guess, still you'd do nothing. "

Rofl! You argued your case very well and, it seemed at first to be so much less bonkers than previously, then this morsel was devoured by my eyes in all its repellent verbiage. Yes Loz, I am an appeaser, if Hitler were around i'd have been all like, 'Hey, he's not so bad, he's just misunderstood - look at these mediocre paintings he did, see!'. Despite what apparent factual flaw may have faulted my tertiary arguments on Bush etc, which I have yet to verify as I cant be bothered right now, overall I feel vindicated on the meat of the issue.

"And you think no more british blood will be spilt when an islamo facist regime takes over?

How naieve."

This is not a matter of naivety, but of geography.British troops in britain cannot be killed by terrorists/resistance in iraq. why? coz they're not there. Unless you are implying the bloody establishment of a theocratic caliphate in the UK, in which case I recommend you seriously chill out, get a drink, and find a suitable positive mantra to repeat when needed.

On reconstruction -"The point is - they have been doing this, and you somehow note this when blaming our presence for the strife. You do this, yet you don't question what sort of people will blow up schools as a response to us building them.

Why is that?" - Oh, you ARE awful, tssk! Yes, despite the woeful lack of planning for the Iraqi people, despite the deliberate minimal use of troops in the invasion as the Iraqi people were simply expected to get on with things magically by themselves, and despite the creamng off a billions of dollars, yes, Our Boys have partaken in limited amounts of necessary infrastructural repair - though it was many months before water, electricity and the like were operable in large parts of Iraq. Of course they were right to do this, the point is that the Iraq invasion should not have put them there in the first place.
"Contracts have gone to all sorts of people, and largely they have been met. The Iraqi economy is growing at a pretty impressive rate, oil production exceeds pre war level, as does electricity AND water.

Something you would hardly be able to believe considering the negative media campaign." - The integration of a 'liberalised' oil rich state into the global economy will of course provide growth in terms of the absolute mass of cash flying about the place, nevermind the lifting of the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children! That this is pretty much inevitable given the scenario does not exculpate the companies using this war and the ensuing devastation and reconstruction as their own personal orgy. Legislation passed in the Iraqi parliament gives 20% of all oil profits de facto to the International Oil Companies, this legislation was written by the americans in league with the oil companies, and the weak posistion of Iraq essentially means that this state of long term vassalage will continue into the forseeable future. As for the, no doubt privatised water and electirc, the introduction of a single pack of aa batteries would have been enough to raise Iraqs electricity production to pre war levels. In other cases of forced privatisation (frequently imposed by the IMF as conditional on loans) of water, the situation where the poorest suddenly find that they can no longer afford what was reviously cheap or free is no doubt being mimicked in Iraq. The people of Iraq, not their liberators, will pay for the rebuilding of the country in disproportionate terms.

As for Venezuela, the US govt supported the military/right wing media coup against him, and continues to do its best to demonise him (And no, before we go there, I do not think the sun shines out of his, or castros arse) The US's own backyard, in an increasingly developed and prosperous S America is also going to be dealt with in a different manner.
Ultimately, for all our differences (your godly purity and righteousness, my terror supporting appeasing-ness) it ultimateyl comes down to the question of "Should Irans suspected Nucleat Facilties be bombed?" At this stage I think no. As far as I know the council above  President Akmadinawhatever, has opened secret talks with the US to resolve the matter (So much for his supreme power, though whether it somes to anything is uncertain). And, obviously, I think not. Iran is not just a monochrome place filled with lunatic jihadists, nor is it the new nazi Germany, nor is Akmalooneybin to be taken too seriously - he is a rhetoricist and a right wing populist, using the 'external threat' to cover growing domestic problems. I do not want to give his rhetoric a reality, you do.




[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#48)

by Loz on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:26:20 PM GMT

"Despite what apparent factual flaw may have faulted my tertiary arguments on Bush etc, which I have yet to verify as I cant be bothered right now, overall I feel vindicated on the meat of the issue."


I'm afraid your attitude tells me that you are an appeaser. Most appeasers don't even know it. It's all 'jaw jaw' until we realise we are actually in a 'war war'.


I'm not saying you would have appeased Hitler, but do you not find it quite incredible that we have people here showing classic sign of racism against Israel, verging on anti semitism along with an absurd defense of Iranian democracy.


We cannot afford to let Iran have a nuclear weapon - for that reason we cannot take military action off the table - anybody that thinks we should is an appeaser at best.


"This is not a matter of naivety, but of geography.British troops in britain cannot be killed by terrorists/resistance in iraq. why? coz they're not there. Unless you are implying the bloody establishment of a theocratic caliphate in the UK, in which case I recommend you seriously chill out, get a drink, and find a suitable positive mantra to repeat when needed."
 
No I am not suggesting that. Let me explain. An islmo facist tyranny in Iraq would mean state sponsorship of terrorism abroad against her enemies - namely, us and the Americans.

This is something Israel has learnt.

"Oh, you ARE awful, tssk! Yes, despite the woeful lack of planning for the Iraqi people, despite the deliberate minimal use of troops in the invasion as the Iraqi people were simply expected to get on with things magically by themselves, and despite the creamng off a billions of dollars, yes, Our Boys have partaken in limited amounts of necessary infrastructural repair - though it was many months before water, electricity and the like were operable in large parts of Iraq. Of course they were right to do this, the point is that the Iraq invasion should not have put them there in the first place."

Well it did, and regardless of your opinions of the war - they overthrew one of the most barbaric regimes in history, the did participate in economic and social development and they put their necks on the line every day to protect and secure the Iraqis.

I ask again, what kind of people is it that will happily blow up innocent people?

There are some horrific stories out there about these animals. In one case, a well documented case, a group of terrorists, murdered and COOKED a child, before serving him to his parents - their crime? Supposedly collaborating with the infedels.

We just cannot afford to run away from Iraq and leave it to these sort of people.

It is a short term fix to a long term problem.

"nevermind the lifting of the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children!"

Actually - those children were all killed by Saddam and his regimes plundering of their money, not to mention his oil for food corruption.

"Legislation passed in the Iraqi parliament gives 20% of all oil profits de facto to the International Oil Companies, this legislation was written by the americans in league with the oil companies, and the weak posistion of Iraq essentially means that this state of long term vassalage will continue into the forseeable future. "

The oil companies, foreign or not, that are so essential to the development of this infrastructure gaining a profit out of this really is no crime - especially not 20%.

The Iraqis could never have developed this again on their own. In time foreign investment in their oil will decline.

" The people of Iraq, not their liberators, will pay for the rebuilding of the country in disproportionate terms."

I don't think that is fair or indeed accurate. The US has a long term commitment to Iraq and continues to invest massive ammounts of money in reconstruction and development as do many other nations.

The people that are paying, are the brave soldiers of our country, and our coalition friends as well as brave iraqis risking their lives for a better Iraq.

Political ideology aside - we should all support that. 

"As for Venezuela, the US govt supported the military/right wing media coup against him, and continues to do its best to demonise him (And no, before we go there, I do not think the sun shines out of his, or castros arse) The US's own backyard, in an increasingly developed and prosperous S America is also going to be dealt with in a different manner."

There is no evidence the US supported any coup. And has not demonised him - lets not forget it was chavez in his state tv two hour weekly tv programme that has called bush names such as 'drunkard' and has gone into the US, and refered to him as the 'devil' an act which prompted even many of Bush's biggest haters in congress to strongly criticise chavez.

"it ultimateyl comes down to the question of "Should Irans suspected Nucleat Facilties be bombed?" At this stage I think no."

You'd like it to be that simple, but that isn't the question.

The question is - do you think the iranians should be able to develop their nuclear programme in defiance of UN resolutions?

Do you rule out military action in every circumstance?

"As far as I know the council above  President Akmadinawhatever, has opened secret talks with the US to resolve the matter (So much for his supreme power, though whether it somes to anything is uncertain)."

They did have talks - In Iraq, but they made no progress according to both sides.

" do not want to give his rhetoric a reality, you do."

It is no just rhetoric - this regime is complicit in terrorism across the regime.







[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#23)

by Muj on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:00:53 PM GMT

even Cameron in his speech in Berlin ridicules the idea that “you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000ft.”


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#41)

by alexhilton on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:23:27 PM GMT

This seems to have stimulated some interesting debate on the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Am I wrong in thinking there is an important distinction between a terrorist organisation committing atrocities and a democratic state doing so?


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#47)

by rwendland on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:56:55 PM GMT

An interesting question for the proponents of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is why do it in 2006/7?

Iran will have to leave the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before building a nuclear bomb, as the IAEA monitoring under the NPT would identify when the enrichment of bomb grade uranium was starting. So we would have about 6 months notice before Iran could finish a bomb, and the current CIA and IAEA estimates are that the earliest Iran would be able to do this is sometime between 2010 and 2015. That 6 months notice is enough to mount a bombing campaign to destroy the enrichment centrifuges.

Waiting until Iran leaves the NPT would garner more international support for a bombing campaign, as it would show that Iran's claims of enrichment just for nuclear fuel are false, so there would be less anti-American reaction. Also more nuclear equipment would be destroyed then, which would be a bigger setback as Iran has limited stocks of the materials needed to build centrifuges.

So what is the overall advantage of bombing now rather than waiting until it is internationally indisputable that Iran is going for a bomb?


Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#49)

by Loz on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:35:24 PM GMT

"Iran will have to leave the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before building a nuclear bomb, as the IAEA monitoring under the NPT would identify when the enrichment of bomb grade uranium was starting."

The IAEA and its authority is extremely weak. Banal in the extreme.

Iran has hidden tunnels, building and all sorts.

The reality is, their 'on/off' cooperation makes it difficult to really know where their programme is.

Highly enriched uranium has already been found a couple of times now, and the IAEA has seen documents relating to the creation of nuclear weaponary.

"and the current CIA and IAEA estimates are that the earliest Iran would be able to do this is sometime between 2010 and 2015. That 6 months notice is enough to mount a bombing campaign to destroy the enrichment centrifuges."

The CIA told us that Iraq had WMD - they were wrong.

The IAEA along with most of the world didn't know about the original Iraqi programme nor the Libyan.

Estimates in fact vary - with the israelis having a far smaller estimate for example.


"So what is the overall advantage of bombing now rather than waiting until it is internationally indisputable that Iran is going for a bomb?"

Because waiting until the programme is more developed - the point of no return is fast approaching, some argue it has already happened.

History has taught us that waiting for a threat to develop is more dangerous. It is the easy way out - and ultimately it could doom us all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#52)

by rwendland on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:01:36 AM GMT

> Highly enriched uranium has already been found a couple of times now,

Both these traces have been explained, and neither is from enrichment in Iran:

  1. The HEU traces from the Karaj Waste Storage Facility were from leaking US supplied HEU used fuel from the 1967 US supplied TRR research reactor.
  2. The earlier HEU traces found on various bits of equipment came from Pakistan where the used equipment was imported from - detailed isotope proportion analysis showed that it from the Pakistani enrichment programme.

Why do you think the media no longer go on about these HEU traces?

> the IAEA has seen documents relating to the creation of nuclear weaponary.

Is that the 15-page Uranium-Casting Document from Pakistan? It doesn't give any dimensions, so is hardly a bomb design, though nothing you need for peaceful nuclear power either. Iran claims it is a sales-type brochure given to them by Pakistan for equipment Iran did not purchase. I think the IAEA is still investigating this.

> Estimates in fact vary - with the israelis having a far smaller estimate for example.

So you prefer the Israeli estimate to CIA/IAEA/other intelligence agencies. Care to provide a link to the Israeli estimate you are relying upon?

In fact the estimates aren't that critical. The important thing is that while IAEA is monitoring the centrifuges Iran can't enrich to bomb-grade levels, so we have at least 6 months notice of the completion of any first bomb, and rather longer for enough nuclear bombs to realistically attack Israel with, and longer still to a powerful modern thermo-nuclear bomb design.

Iran would also need to develop a missile deployment system for a nuclear weapon that could be realistically threaten Israel, which would have to involve a lot of obvious missile tests. Iran's old airforce is no match for Israel's modern airforce.

My own view is that Iran will back-off once it get to a low nuclear threshold state status: uranium enrichment and its own research reactor. The difficulties and risks of developing a nuclear capability that can match Israel will be all too obvious, and pressing on with its own civil nuclear programme will give it the regional status it seeks - so is a face-saving way out.

> History has taught us that waiting for a threat to develop is more dangerous.

A world where everyone goes for pre-emptive strikes isn't a world that will last that long, unless there is a single super-dominant power that pre-emptively puts down all opposition.

> The IAEA and its authority is extremely weak. Banal in the extreme.

Well, I'll leave others to judge on whether you have an evidence-based view on that.

But no country has yet developed a nuclear weapon while subject to IAEA monitoring. And uranium-enrichment plants and plutonium production reactors are very large; extremely difficult to hide from satellite and elint monitoring. So while initial R&D can be done in secret, development into a production programme in secret is pretty much impossible these days.


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#53)

by Loz on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:58:58 AM GMT

"Both these traces have been explained, and neither is from enrichment in Iran:
  1. The HEU traces from the Karaj Waste Storage Facility were from leaking US supplied HEU used fuel from the 1967 US supplied TRR research reactor.
  2. The earlier HEU traces found on various bits of equipment came from Pakistan where the used equipment was imported from - detailed isotope proportion analysis showed that it from the Pakistani enrichment programme.
Why do you think the media no longer go on about these HEU traces?"

I stand corrected - I was refering to your number 1 point, I was aware of the pakistan traces.

"Is that the 15-page Uranium-Casting Document from Pakistan? It doesn't give any dimensions, so is hardly a bomb design, though nothing you need for peaceful nuclear power either. Iran claims it is a sales-type brochure given to them by Pakistan for equipment Iran did not purchase. I think the IAEA is still investigating this."

It includes documents in their possession which show how to make uranium into a sphere  - a process only used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

"So you prefer the Israeli estimate to CIA/IAEA/other intelligence agencies. Care to provide a link to the Israeli estimate you are relying upon?"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061218145804.7ehykkio&show_article=1

'"If Iran's nuclear programme continues at its current pace, they will succeed in having a bomb within three of four years," Dagan was quoted as telling the commission Monday.'
 
That one.

And besides, I didn't say I 'prefer'.

"In fact the estimates aren't that critical."

No they're not - we need to act well in advance.

"The important thing is that while IAEA is monitoring the centrifuges Iran can't enrich to bomb-grade levels, so we have at least 6 months notice of the completion of any first bomb, and rather longer for enough nuclear bombs to realistically attack Israel with, and longer still to a powerful modern thermo-nuclear bomb design"

What a bunch of absolute nonsense. You would happily place the lives of millions of israelis on the IAEA? A joke.

They were in Iraq for years, and as tapes have since show, inspectors were deceived by saddams regime.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1

"

SADDAM HUSSEIN: Lieutenant General Hussein

HUSSEIN KAMEL: Thank you, sir.

Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons.


We did not reveal all that we have. On the subject of missiles, they can bring up three issues with us now, in one year or in two years' time. They are undeclared -- one of them being the location. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. Sir, this is my work and I know it very well. I started it a long time ago, and it is not easy. The issues are more dangerous, a lot more dangerous than what they came to know. I am explaining to your excellency, sir.

With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, which we assume that they have not raised, and our belief that the sole problem is that of the biological weapons. No, sir. I think they have detailed information about the missiles, and if they want to bring them up, they will as I said because we did not complete. In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological.
Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. Therefore sir, if they want to create problems, I see that our argument now is that biological is everything. No, sir, I disagree and I have to be candid in front of your Excellency. I substantially disagree on this issue. They want it item by item. For the time being, they are not raising all of them with us and we did not declare. I will come back, sir, to the question of whether is it better for us to declare or to stay? In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. Not the 17 tons, no. We have a disagreement which is essential and known. We know it ourselves.

All this, sir, and we have some teams working; one team working in the same direction, but the other team does not know. How come they [the inspectors] don't know -- if they want to? There is what leads to knowledge. There are materials we have imported from America by volume. We have imported from Europe by volume.

...

As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them."

No, I'm not saying they had weapons in 03, this isn't the point, these tapes were recorded in the early to mid 90s - the UN, the IAEA would later find out Iraq did have in that period weapons etc they had no idea about. Even as they were in the country destroying other weapons.

The point is - to place your bets on the IAEA is a big mistake.

Irans cooperation is up and down - in the past they have refused access and are ignoring international demands for them to stop enriching uranium.

"Iran would also need to develop a missile deployment system for a nuclear weapon that could be realistically threaten Israel, which would have to involve a lot of obvious missile tests. Iran's old airforce is no match for Israel's modern airforce."

Iran is investing heavily in missile development and have released a number of new missiles in the past two years, notibly recording it for state tv.

I agree their air force is not a threat - and it certainly wouldn't be their prefered method of deployment.


Besides, even if they DIDN'T use a nuclear weapon - it would be an extremely dangerous and negative development for world peace for the most obvious reasons.


"and pressing on with its own civil nuclear programme will give it the regional status it seeks - so is a face-saving way out."

It could have achieved that by taking the EU3/Russia deal that would have allowed them to have nuclear power but they rejected it.

"A world where everyone goes for pre-emptive strikes isn't a world that will last that long, unless there is a single super-dominant power that pre-emptively puts down all opposition."

A 'pre emptive' strike assumes there has been no negotiation on the matter - in fact their has been, for years.

Iran has made clear it is going nowhere and there is no chance they will back down. They have said this explicitly. They have rejected more than fair compromises and have continued to funds terrorists in the region.

They are not a democracy, and they cannot be trusted.

"Well, I'll leave others to judge on whether you have an evidence-based view on that"

I gave my reasons and you cut it out of your response.

"And uranium-enrichment plants and plutonium production reactors are very large; extremely difficult to hide from satellite and elint monitoring. So while initial R&D can be done in secret, development into a production programme in secret is pretty much impossible these days."

Not according to the North Korean and perhaps more recently the Syrians it isn't.

People were clueless as to what was going on in North Korea  -1 bomb, 5 bombs - no bombs.

Nobody was decisive as to the scale of the programme.

And all of a sudden we find them testing a bomb.

They mean well, but the IAEA cannot police the nuclear world - it simply isn't possible.

If somebody wants to hide something - if they're clever enough they will, and as I have shown, there are plenty of examples where this has happened.





 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#54)

by rwendland on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:03 PM GMT

> I stand corrected - I was refering to your number 1 point, I was aware of the pakistan traces.

The media made a huge splash of the allegation, but there was hardly a mention of the explanation when it came out, so it's not a surprise you didn't know if you don't read IAEA docs. It's a bit rough on Iran that their return of the 93% HEU that the U.S. supplied and replacement with LEU in 1987 in the research reactor was turned into this huge bad-news story for them. The IAEA always thought this was the likely innocent explanation for this trace in the waste fuel facility, but it was heavily spun as an Iran-scare story in the US. It's no wonder the Iranians are wary about how IAEA inspection news is portrayed in the media.

> It includes documents in their possession which show how to make uranium into a sphere  - a process only used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Yes, but it gives no dimensions or detailed specifications of how to do it. It's a 15 page overview of technology essentially 60-years-old, a fair bit of which is now in the public domain. At this level it's nothing like a bomb cookbook - Iran's explanation that it was a sales-pitch from A.Q.Khan is entirely plausible. Iran voluntarily showed the document to the IAEA as part of a package of 60 docs from Pakistan, so it's no big Iranian secret.

If Iran had detailed designs of a high explosive lens system, which I think is the tricky part of an implosion design, that would be a different matter. People in the know aren't much worried about what is in these 15 pages, the worry is if Iran actually bought the full package from A.Q.Khan.

> '"If Iran's nuclear programme continues at its current pace, they will succeed in having a bomb within three of four years," Dagan was quoted as telling the commission Monday.'

That Israeli assessment is compatible with the current CIA/IAEA assessment of 2010-2015. It was made in 2005, before the more recent info that Iran has only running its enrichment centrifuges at about 25% of maximum capacity, and only using 12 cascades so far. It's not clear if this is because of technical difficulties, a conservative test strategy, or for political reasons.

But Iran's enrichment progress has been much slower than forecast in 2005, so a 2008-9 prediction on 2005 is entirely compatible with 2010-2015 now. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? (#51)

by RedRooster on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:05:45 PM GMT

I was at a Conference policy seminar with the FO team last month, and one of them (I forget who, sadly) pretty much dismissed military action against Iran out of hand, saying they didn't think it would work.  It surprised me, because it was a lot more of an unequivocal dismissal than I was expecting.

Don't know if that's already been mentioned- I gave up reading comments about half way into the Israel / apartheid debate. 


Iran: should Brown really rule 'nothing' out? | 54 comments (54 topical)