Bet on the day Iran sites will get bombed.

lostexpectation

April 10th 2006

Nuttzz

about the same time as the North Korean ones do....You honestly think the yanks are going to stretch their forces even further? The cure to an increasingly unpopular war is not another unpopular war....

Wibbs

I wouldn't be too sure about that. An airstrike or cruise missle attack would be a very easy and safe(for them) thing to do. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the US tried this, possibly with Israeli backing or cooperation. After all it's Israel that would have the most to fear from any Iranian nuclear program. Well that would be the official line anyway. The Iranian prez doesn't do his country any favours with his increasingly nutty ranting either.

Maskhadov

Israel have done this type of thing before. I wouldnt be in the bit surprised.

ronbyrne2005

theres about 32 nuclear sites and the experts reckon it would be difficult to deal with the problem with limited airstrikes. it would imflame the muslim world too much,i dont think they will do it but israelis might try and in the process start another major was between the muslim countries of the reigon and the "state" of israel.

pete

Maskhadov wrote:

Israel have done this type of thing before. I wouldnt be in the bit surprised.

yeah, so Mordechai Vanunu says....

GypsumFantastic

Someone's going to have to do something as the European 'diplomacy' isn't exactly wooing the Mullahs, eh?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country, like Iran, that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world.

Der Spiegel: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council?

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

Der Spiegel: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. I thought you and the UK and France were.

Der Spiegel: You aren’t?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. You’ve got the lead. Well, lead!

Der Spiegel: You mean the Europeans?

Rumsfeld: Sure. My goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don’t have to do everything!

Der Spiegel: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany.

Rumsfeld: That’s hardly the phrase I would have selected.


No wonder the Iranians feel cocky enough to remove the UN-imposed seals. Who's gonna stop them? The Europeans that have taken their eye off the ball to such an extent that they don't even know where it is? The international community? Who's that? Belgium and Norway? The UN? Well, they've just shown their contempt for that organisation. I wonder who's gonna have to step in to the Iranian 'negotiations'.

flogen

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Someone's going to have to do something as the European 'diplomacy' isn't exactly wooing the Mullahs, eh?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country, like Iran, that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world.

Der Spiegel: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council?

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

Der Spiegel: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. I thought you and the UK and France were.

Der Spiegel: You aren’t?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. You’ve got the lead. Well, lead!

Der Spiegel: You mean the Europeans?

Rumsfeld: Sure. My goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don’t have to do everything!

Der Spiegel: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany.

Rumsfeld: That’s hardly the phrase I would have selected.


No wonder the Iranians feel cocky enough to remove the UN-imposed seals. Who's gonna stop them? The Europeans that have taken their eye off the ball to such an extent that they don't even know where it is? The international community? Who's that? Belgium and Norway? The UN? Well, they've just shown their contempt for that organisation. I wonder who's gonna have to step in to the Iranian 'negotiations'.

That wasn't great but it did show promise. Try the creative writing forum next time, perhaps.

Once you're done there look here, then realise that EU countries seem to be taking the right path, and the IAEA are likely to go to the Security Council with the issue.

GypsumFantastic

flogen wrote:

That wasn't great but it did show promise.

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

flogen wrote:

Once you're done there look here, then realise that EU countries seem to be taking the right path,

So successful, in fact, that Iran has restarted its programme.

So successful that Iran was forced to concede that it "will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognise its right to do so." So the Europeans have managed to knock Iran down to an ultimatum of 'let us go nuclear or else we'll go nuclear'. Bravo to the European negotiators. Iran on the run.

flogen wrote:

and the IAEA are likely to go to the Security Council with the issue.

Wow, the Security Council. From your same beloved BBC site -

"Its parliament has passed a law obliging the Iranian government to stop short-notice visits of its nuclear sites by UN inspectors if it is referred to the UN Security Council. "

And who do you believe, amongst the friendly international community, will enforce any UN 'resolution' or 'condemnation'? Spain?

randombassist

Rice seemed to be very eager to help the European moves by the big three, but that seems to have failed now. And with their prime ministers comments about wiping Israel off the map, international opinion has hardened significantly against them.

I agree that there's a chance of Israel taking matters into their own hands and bombing them. They made quite a big deal of the fact that they were buying a couple of hundred 'bunker buster' bombs from the US a while ago, I think they were trying to send the Iranians the message that they're serious about stopping them. We might just see those in action. However I think before it goes that far, there will be more negotiations, this gives them a better bargaining position.

flogen

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

I was referring to your rant afterwards, but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

So successful, in fact, that Iran has restarted its programme.

So successful that Iran was forced to concede that it "will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognise its right to do so." So the Europeans have managed to knock Iran down to an ultimatum of 'let us go nuclear or else we'll go nuclear'. Bravo to the European negotiators. Iran on the run.

This latest move has come in response to the removal of UN seals by Iran, so it comes after the restart, not before.

Wow, the Security Council. From your same beloved BBC site -

"Its parliament has passed a law obliging the Iranian government to stop short-notice visits of its nuclear sites by UN inspectors if it is referred to the UN Security Council. "

What? Iran is being hostile towards the UN, that's hardly a surprise, is it?

And who do you believe, amongst the friendly international community, will enforce any UN 'resolution' or 'condemnation'? Spain?

I don't know, but I doubt Germany, the UK and France are all pushing the UN on this issue just so they can block any planned resolution or statement in relation to it.

GypsumFantastic

flogen wrote:

I was referring to your rant afterwards,

Ah, I see. It was snide and pointless. Fair enough.

flogen wrote:

but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

'Fraid not. You'll need to buy said publication from a reputable newsagent near you.

flogen wrote:

This latest move has come in response to the removal of UN seals by Iran, so it comes after the restart, not before.

This statement makes little sense.

flogen wrote:

What? Iran is being hostile towards the UN, that's hardly a surprise, is it?

It isn't to me. But then I wasn't the one investing a lot of hope in the UN having any clout to sort it out.

flogen wrote:

I don't know, but I doubt Germany, the UK and France are all pushing the UN on this issue just so they can block any planned resolution or statement in relation to it.

Who said anything about blocking resolutions or statements? But they're just bits of paper. Do you believe Iran will halt its programme because of a sternly worded letter?

randombassist

GypsumFantastic wrote:

But they're just bits of paper. Do you believe Iran will halt its programme because of a sternly worded letter?

Actually they're quite a bit more than pieces of paper. UN security council reolutions in the past have authorised military action, peacekeeping missions, and sanctions. Sanctions are being touted at the moment as one possible way of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and would certiainly have a detrimental effect on them, whether or not they decist on the back of it.

dathi1

The yanks haven't a hope of achieving anything by bombing Iran. Even with sanctions Iran can threaten to turn off the taps and in an already volatile oil market this would have disastrous consequences for an already lacklustre US economy.
Iran now also has more influence than ever before across the middle east. From their new proxy Al Basrah province in what was southern Iraq to the Mediterranean coast in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon attacking Iran would mean a total goodbye to US influence in Iraq..........maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing after all??

kurisu

whos taking over if sharon dies, that could be the difference between israel and the US attacking iran

Manic Moran

randombassist wrote:

Actually they're quite a bit more than pieces of paper. UN security council reolutions in the past have authorised military action, peacekeeping missions, and sanctions. Sanctions are being touted at the moment as one possible way of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and would certiainly have a detrimental effect on them, whether or not they decist on the back of it.

"Oh No! Hans Brix!"
"Kim, show us your underground facilities, or else"
"Or else what?"
"Or else we will be very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are!"


More seriously, the authorisations are one thing, but someone actually has to go and carry them out. In 1831, the courts declared an action by President Jackson to be illegal. He replied "Mr Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce" The same thing happens with UN resolutions. There have been ample UN resolutions, many of which are completely unenforced, and some which were enforced solely by a few members. If we were to say that the US isn't in a position to do anything (Which I dispute, but anyway), and let's say the reprecussions of an Israeli strike are such that it would be politically prohibitive, who else is going to have both inclination and the ability to do anything? The Russians certainly wouldn't, the Germans can't, the British might if they felt inclined (and probably used RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus as a base), the French could carry out a strike, but doesn't have enough assets to do it... I am at a loss offhand to think of any UN-sponsored military action barring the Congo which didn't have a major US involvement in it. Which brings us back to the problem of American involvement, both in the realm of international relations, and domestic support.

NTM

Manic Moran

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

start another major was between the muslim countries of the reigon and the "state" of israel.

I'm curious. Why put quotation marks?

NTM

Sand

I was referring to your rant afterwards, but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

'Fraid not. You'll need to buy said publication from a reputable newsagent near you.

By the power of google, and 5 seconds of my time.

TBH, Id imagine the US is not so much delegating to the EU3 on this matter as distancing itself from whats for quite some time been a case of the EU3 saying "Stop it!", and the Iranians replying "Why should we exactly?" The EU3 havent been able to come up with a suitably convincing answer. The limits of soft power are exposed. I think the US tried to bail them out before by saber rattling, but the EU3 quickly reasserted their weakness by ruling out force even as a last resort. I think even the EU3 are regretting making such a big deal of it because theyre now unable to back out without looking weak, and they cant continue without looking weak.

I agree that there's a chance of Israel taking matters into their own hands and bombing them. They made quite a big deal of the fact that they were buying a couple of hundred 'bunker buster' bombs from the US a while ago, I think they were trying to send the Iranians the message that they're serious about stopping them. We might just see those in action. However I think before it goes that far, there will be more negotiations, this gives them a better bargaining position.

There will be more negotiation, but not involving Israel. Given the Iranian Presidents comments on Israel and Jews in general Id imagine its only a matter of time before they bomb every nuclear related facility in Iran back into the stone age - probably with US nudge and wink. Theyre skating uphill though, nuclear technology is 60 years old at this stage. Anyone with the proper resources and motivation can develop it, as the Israelis demonstrated themselves.

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm curious. Why put quotation marks?

NTM

Kind of wondering that myself.

Hobbes

Iran and NK are hardly comparable.

Anyway as for the bombing. If any country was to do it then it would be Israel. They have already said they would not rule out pre-emptive strikes and done such things before.

The issue of if they do it or not rests on the US. Despite Israels intent any such action would inflame the whole of the middle east. Iraq would be even more messed up then before. Bush is also fighting serious approval ratings and this would tank them if he was to side with Israel after a pre-emptive strike. It would drag the US into further conflicts in the middle east and then bring into question why Israel was allowed do such a thing with money they got from the US.

All roads would lead back to the US.

Also I find the whole thing hypocritical. All these countries getting up in arms over Iran yet did nothing when Israel did the exact same thing and even went as far as building a fake control room to their nuclear plant to hide the fact they were building nuclear weapons (plus US+UK helping them build them).

randombassist

hey MM, Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that UN resolutions are the way to go about doing things, and I'm not saying they always work. I was just saying that sometimes they are more than a 'piece of paper' but perhaps you were just being flippant with that comment! Of course it needs US support, they are a permanent member after all. But if you look at sanctions against Iraq and South Africa, it is possible to take action through the security concil. In the case of Iraq it led to the well documented suffering of lots of ordinary people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it can happen, which you seemed to dismiss.

And sand, I agree that they won't want to involve israel in any new negotiations, Iran wouldn't stand for it, and Israel aren't big on talking to them either. I was just agreeing with a previous comment that Israel have the capability, and the materiels to strike.

As for Hobbes. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's hypocritical in relation to Israel. However I do think that a distinction should be drawn between the dogmatic totalitarian state that is Iran, and democracy in Israel. The Israeli's really did feel like they were going to be wiped off the map, the wars and attacks on them did nothing to ease those worries, so they pushed for 'the bomb' as a way of securing their future. I'm not saying it's right, but there is a difference in the type or regieme and the motives present.

Captain Trips

MY money is by by March 2006.

In March 2006, Iran will launch it's € euro-based oil bourse. The US (incredibly) don't want this. Last country to start selling in Euros was Iraq, which since it was given democracy and peace, has returned to selling in US $.

NOw, to complicate matters (and it's into speculation time), if the EU don't "oppose" this, as in Iraq's case, and are pro-war/invasion/redemption/whatever, then the euro will trounce the dollar by year end. If E3 (or whoever, new europe, old europe, etc., ) do not support sanctions/war (unlikely given Merkel) then same as Iraq, but Israel will attack first.

I mean, come on, all liklihood is that covert SpecOps teams have been going at it tit for tat for months IMHO.

Have a google http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Iran+euro+oil+bourse&meta=. Given the recent gas issue in Europe, it will be interesting to see any new developments especially with Merkel and the ?Rapid Reaction Force??. I think the days of Mission Accomplished and Shock and Awe are over, TBH.

Bets on - 1 euro = $1.40-50 by end of year, if no war on Iran. Maybe I'll call Paddy Power.

As an addendum to this: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/37fee9b4-8231-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html. This has been going around for a while, but I bet a lot of large currency stakeholders are taking note of Iran developments.

Wars don't happen for ideaologies. They happen for money and power. Or else CHina is the next target of invasion, right?

GypsumFantastic

Manic Moran wrote:

More seriously, the authorisations are one thing, but someone actually has to go and carry them out.

Exactimundo.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

All these countries getting up in arms over Iran yet did nothing when Israel did the exact same thing

Different political regimes and Israel does not have a stated intent to annihilate any of its neighbours - though it is surrounded by neighbours who have, at various points in the last 50 years, stated their intent to annihilate it - or an expressed belief in Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. we don't mind if we get blown up as long as you die too.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Different political regimes and Israel does not have a stated intent to annihilate any of its neighbours

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance. I'm still not used to this whole double standards thing.

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Nuttzz

Dont know about the rest of you but I find it a bit tasteless to be "betting" on when a country will be bombed....

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance. I'm still not used to this whole double standards thing.

Yea it's a puzzler alright. Funny how Saddam got slapped for much the same thing(though he actually didn't have nukes in the end).

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Tbh, It's slightly different when the others refuse to even recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and given a chance would wipe it off the map. I can't remember the Israelis saying the same kinda crap in the past. Also they're a secular democracy, whereas many of their antagonists are hardly that.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance.

It's not entirely okay but it's not morally equivalent to the Iran case.

Hobbes wrote:

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Because one is an act of aggression - we're going to annihilate you - and one is an act of defence against said aggressors. If a country says they're going to destroy you, you don't hang around and watch them build the military capability to do so or stand back and admire their troops.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It's not entirely okay but it's not morally equivalent to the Iran case.

We have to agree to disagree then. Because a lie is a lie.

Because one is an act of aggression - we're going to annihilate you - and one is an act of defence against said aggressors.

Ok if a country says "We are going to attack your country first to defend ourselves" are you going to stand around and do nothing or stand back and admire their troops?

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

We have to agree to disagree then. Because a lie is a lie.

Exactly.

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Grey area tbh. If the US knew that the Japanese were about to launch an attack on pearl harbour back in the day, would sinking their aircraft carriers be a defensive act? I can see how under law it may not be, but for practicalities sake would it not be? I do take your point though.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

I'm hoping someone will come up with a strong argument to show how this can be done.

Then you can ask them what happens if Iran uses this as its justification - that it believed Israel was going to pre-emptively strike its (allegedly) legitimate nuclear research facilities, and that it had the right therefore to strike first.

The problem with allowing pre-emption is that you'll find it very hard to decide who provoked whom. If either side seriously believes the other will attack...they have grounds for pre-emptive action, right? But once you have grounds for pre-emptive action, the other side now has grounds for pre-pre-emptive action regardless of the validity of the reasoning for the pre-emption that you are pre-empting.

What it boils down to is that the usual sides will condemn the people/nations they usually condemn, and will insist that the side they ususally support is - as always - perfectly justified in its actions.

Having said all of that, I see the whole current affair as being relatively standard political to-ing and fro-ing. Bit of a storm in a teacup, from what I can see.

Iran agreed to negotiations. They then discovered that the EU et al wanted to negotiate what the Iranians would accept in order to give up their nuclear research, while they themselves wanted to negotiate the conditions under which their research could continue.

In short, the negotiations failed because neither side was actually negotiating the same thing. Iran refuses to totally abandon its research, and the other side refuse to accept anything less.

I see the abandonnig of talks and a resumption of research as a show of strength by the Iranians - they agreed to halt extraction until an agreement was reached, but now see that no agreement can be reached given the positions both sides are unwilling to move from. This left them three choices:
- "negotiate" a complete submissal to the EU/US demands
- keep extraction halted indefinitely whilst remaining in talks they know will get nowhere
- abandon talks, and put pressure on the EU/US to move from their current position.

Coupled with the situation in Iraq, and the sabre-rattling we've seen recently (anti-Israel commentary), my opinion is that Iran is basically making a power-play. Its pushing in every arena it can, taking advantage of the overall conditions which the "Mess o' potamia" (as Jon Stewart has referred to it on occasion) has brought about.

jc