US should agree to Iran's right to Peaceful Nuke Tech in 2013 and give them the 20% U

qaf

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Iran has offered a path to that access so why is the US not taking that path?

Are you forgetting that it was the Iranian regime that walked away from a deal in 2009? At the time even their Russian allies were urging them to accept but they still rejected it even though they initially indicated that they were open to it. They changed the goal posts at the last minute and said they wanted the transfer to take place on Iranian soil even though they knew that was not possible. IIRC it was believed at the time that they had demonized the US so much to their citizens that when it came time to close the deal they were worried about how it would look at home. It was also believed that most of the people advising Obama, including people like Hillary Clinton, did not trust the Iranians and that this was the one opportunity for Obama (at least in his 1st term) to make a deal. So when the Iranians rejected the deal Obama went down the get tough approach that he was being advised to take by his advisors. Remember in all of this that Iran is a theocracy that is willing to crack down on its own people if they protest and lacks a free press or free elections. The US on the other hand has free and fair elections and press with national elections happening so frequently that politicians don't have much leeway when it comes to taking risks. Obama giving the Iranians months to decide to take a deal only for them to walk away at the last minute was a much bigger risk for Obama than it was to the Iranians.

InTheTrees

Stuxnet was interesting.

It could be considered an active attack on Irans nuke facilities which set them back years although nobody knows exactly who is responsible for it(!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Seaneh

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're obviously young and didnt live through the hostage crisis in the 70's or was it 80's?

There's no way the USA is going to make life easy for Iran after what happened. They have a very long memory.

SO bear that in mind while being outraged.

(And comparing it to other countries in the region is nonsense, they're all different. Saudi Arabia never stormed a US embassy and took the staff hostage).

You're obviously too young and didn't live through the decade that lead to the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis?

As usual, British and US foreign Policy biting them in the ass as they funded Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's coup to overthrow Mosaddegh's democratically elected government because he had the cheek to nationalise the natural resources of his nation and funnel the money into social and educational programs, how dare he!

Seaneh

Here's a video from 2011 of an interview with Prof. Chomsky explaining exactly why Iran isn't a threat to anyone outside it's own borders and why the US is pushing it's nonsense agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutrNbkrhIA

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

You're obviously too young and didn't live through the decade that lead to the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis?

As usual, British and US foreign Policy biting them in the ass as they funded Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's coup to overthrow Mosaddegh's democratically elected government because he had the cheek to nationalise the natural resources of his nation and funnel the money into social and educational programs, how dare he!

The Iranians are still very bitter over this. In fact, the current regime has a very anti-US stance largely due to the coup.

The problem for Iran now is - traditional counterweights to the US, e.g. China, Russia are also sanctioning them. So their argument that this is purely a witch-hunt is getting weaker.

Similarly the international community is suspicious - the Iranians are not exactly transparent with the IAEA.

The Iranians can play the victim, but sadly the average person on the street is just a victim of their own regime's bitterness and nationalism and a past that cannot be changed.

Seaneh

Jonny7 wrote: »

Similarly the international community is suspicious - the Iranians are not exactly transparent with the IAEA.

There is a video in this thread with a former IAEA inspector saying exactly the opposite, they have offered to be totally transparent. They have allowed ti IAEA far more freedom than they are obliged to and there is no evidence of any military nuclear program... Do you know more than he does?

Jonny7

Seaneh wrote: »

There is a video in this thread with a former IAEA inspector saying exactly the opposite, they have offered to be totally transparent. They have allowed ti IAEA far more freedom than they are obliged to and there is no evidence of any military nuclear program... Do you know more than he does?

Tehran hasn't been fully transparent with the IAEA.

Here's the latest report
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2013/gov2013-6.pdf

Most of the reports read like this, it's been dragging on since 2003.

Seaneh

Tehran has allowed the IAEA far more freedom than the IAEA is entitled to under the terms of the non-proliferation agreement. That os a fact.

They have also offered full transparency several times but the US and EU keep rejecting their offer. Which has been pointed out already in this thread.
They also offered to export everything they enriched to 20% in exchange for fuel rods. There has also never been any evidence that they have every even tried to enrich past 20%.


The truth is the US and EU know Iran aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons, they are just using their usual tactics to try destabilise the Iranian government.

Jonny7

Not really no


Actually, quite the opposite, there were delaying tactics on both sides, but the Iranians didn't really pursue (read scuppered) the chance for external enrichment


The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and UN, IAEA, and general international community are not sure what Iran is up to. In this situation they have to be 100% sure.

Israel I would ignore because their rhetoric cannot be trusted much on this issue.

If we were floating on a sea of oil with our economic problems I somehow doubt you'd be arguing for Enda Kenny to launch a ridiculously expensive space program and go for nuclear power.. whilst chanting "death to Britain" in the Dail

Be like Nutella

it's a mix of everything that's being said here IMO..

some people jump to point out Iran is a bunch of lying terrorist supporting bastrds and others jump to point out the bullsh1t of the US admins past and present - it's a mix of both, as everybody knows. A$$holes on both sides and everybody's playing games! and in the midst of all this - facts and realities get lost or purposefully ignored, basically whatever suits your position. Similar to pre-2003 Iraq... lots of lies and half truths... anything to get what you want... in this case to limit Iran's power whatever way you can, let's be honest.

My problem is that there are major suppositions being stacked upon each other and too much hatred and emotion involved and when it comes down to it the only credible evidence for Iran making any efforts in the brackets of ' actual military nuclear capabilities' is the detonation research they probably did pre-2003 at Parchin. AQ Kahn did his usual best to get Iran into the nuke business as he did for Pakistan and N. Korea, that much we know. The IAEA refers to this work as “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program. The US HAD a network of Intel inside Iran up to 2005 but then they lost a laptop (google it) and their whole network got burnt and the've had fuk to go on since, except maybe some compromised IAEA agent dudes.

Thing that annoys me most is, there is a disconnect between facts and reality and the weak arguments and exaggerations of many pundits and journalists which contradict think tank and sober military analysis about the Iranian 'threat' and so forth and that Iran is going 'directly for the bomb' and could have a bomb soon enough if they wanted yada yada which is just so plainly untrue it's comical and if anyone here would like to argue that Iran could achieve a reliable dangerous weaponized nuclear arsenal in anything like the time frames we see discussed in the media, which most people would 'think' from the barrage of sh1te journalism and new pieces on the issue over the last 4 years, then I'd love to hear it / debate the crap out of it.

At this point the average News-watching, paper-reading American on the street if asked about the 'Iranian threat' would be so ill informed, confused and ignorant to actual facts and have a massively exaggerated concept of how close or far Iran IS from having nuclear weapons. It's actually too late for real journalism people are predisposed at this point to believe Iran is one big Dr evil massive nuclear threat to the world which is just retarded and so sad at this point. Everybody compares everything to Iraq 2003 but in all fairness it is actually very bloody similar to the media crap before Iraq 2003 in that the memes have been consistently pumped out there by sh1te articles, fox-like sh1te news, incredibly hawkish journalists in papers like the Wash Post and NYT and the AEI and the rest of the 'Israel Lobby'... careful now : ) (and don't start that anti-Semitic conspiracy nut sh1te) to the point that nobody has a fukcin clue what the facts are and everyone just resorts to 'Iran is bad...ok' crap and avoiding any substantive factual logic based realist argument.

"...There is now little disagreement as to the intentions of the Iranians.
In the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report from November 2011, the UN agency confirmed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and reiterated the need to address this situation as soon as possible...."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/23_Iran.html

UNTRUE
but that's the sort of crap that's out there.

This is it in a nut shell.

- Iran’s nuclear program includes everything that could be needed for development of an independent civilian power industry.

- But some of the components could be used for nuclear weapons development, and there is evidence that Iran has, in the past, moved in that direction i.e. Parchin

- We do not know whether that development has continued but experts generally state that Iran's nuclear intentions (which were exploratory and nothing at all like North Korea's for instance) were pre-2003 !

- their Supreme Beardy Leader has repeatedly said in no uncertain terms over and over again and again that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and are a sin and would act against Iran's national interests and they will never develop them, as recently as two weeks ago in such strong language as to make any 180 u-turn on the issue so incredibly irrational that the only scenario in which experts actually think Iran WOULD go-directly-for-the-bomb is if the west bombed the sh1t out of their facilities and forced their hand. i.e. irrational actions lead to irrational actions

- The evidence available to those of us outside the IAEA and the intelligence services is obviously thin and second-hand. If they want a bomb, they are not rushing toward one, not even remotely.

Some of their actions may be an effort to increase their leverage in the ongoing negotiations in fact I genuinely believe we are watching a simple case of 'you can't bully us we can do what like, you bullied us in the past you won't do it again and... a kind of Iran don't do nukes but if they did ... Carlsberg-esque type thing'.

We just don’t know enough to say anything definitively ! The burden of evidence is on the accusers, especially when you're talking about bombing the sh1t out of another country and you have fuk all facts to support you're exaggerated accusations which when taken in context with the Israeli 'we don't have nukes' policy is so hypocritical... that peoples heads have actually exploded during IAEA negotiations. I get a pain in the back of my eye when I think about it ... as you all should!

Realist international relations theory says

- treat Iran as you see them,
- deal with them as they are,
- not how you emotionally view them from past actions such as 1979.
- Treat them as rational actors unless you have evidence to the contrary.
- Consider THEIR interests from THEIR perspective
- and how THEY view YOU.

I don't personally subscribe to full-on classical realist theory however it is the best model to apply to understanding this particular level and type of international relations, sabre-rattling

Have they helped organizations 'we view' as terrorists? Yes deffo.
Have the US and Israel directly carried out 'terrorism' themselves? Yes deffo.
Have the US directly helped 'terrorist' groups in the past on numerous occasions? 100% yes.
And do these two sides fukcin hate the sh1t out of each other? goddam yes! America is the 'great Satin', Iran is a bunch of 'mullah-lovin terrorist growing bastrds' - you couldn't make this sh1t up. It's like a bad 80's high school movie rivalry. The prom queen in question is 'respect and power' and everybody wants to f--- her.

Iran is NOT GOING DIRECTLY FOR THE BOMB
- THAT'S WHAT THE FACTS AND EXPERTS SAY. Just Google it - do 30 mins research you'll see expert after expert, general after general and even Obama say they are NOT going directly for the bomb. It's not debatable and it's important to consider constantly when talking or thinking about this thing. You might FEEL like they are because you've been bombarded with media crap saying they are - but that don't mean it true...

Everything else is exaggeration and fear mongering to suit one group or another or one level of 'interests' or another. There's a regional power/influence issue at play. Everybody knows that and to view the so called 'Iran Threat' in a vacuum without taking into account the greatly diminishing US military footprint in the middle east is ignorant and naive. But Iran also is playing games. Well motivated games to do with the memories of US/British 'meddling' in the past which we cannot ignore. Time to get real about all this sh1t people. America and Britain have messed with so many governments in the world there is so much resentment it's not even funny and a lot of that resentment is perfectly justifiable - would I bomb somebody because of it? No I would not.. but then again I haven't had 5 generations of my family effected by what the Iranian leaders term as 'imperial bullying' which we so often like to ignore as 'Chavez-style' nuttery. This is a story about an Iran who views itself as an Islamic country which views the US administration as evil and responsible for massive massive atrocities and which they view as untrustworthy, mind-blowingly hypocritical, who says one thing and does another etc.. and to an extent they are 100% exactly right. So start right there before you think about this thing. Again it's always useful to delineate America and the US Admin. Kinda like givin out about the girl at the cash reg in Tesco - it ain't her fault : )

But we live in different times to when the US (and Russia) was installing dictators and the world was in cold war mode and you need to acknowledge that fact because the world has changed, a lot, for the better. Hell stuff we complain about now would pale comically compared to what both Iran and America did in previous decades! But the world is watching now in HD and on the interweb! You can't get away with doing all this sh1t anymore. Hell if you do something we might talk about it on this forum... yeah... and then where would you be : ) but seriously you guys

So you're left with fewer options, softer options, bloody stupid bold-boy sanctions and all types of game playing and diplomatic negotiation which verges on utter bureaucratic nonsense at times. War by other means as they say - and in this case it is a war. Iran wants to be considered a great country basically, technologically, economically and 'Islamicly' and the US is ****ting it over its slightly shrinking 'stick' in a Chinese-dawn world.

It's actually embarrassing to watch the shapes of Israel and the US trying to make up for the fact that they cannot dictate how the world works anymore. They can't stop Iran getting the bomb without going to full -on war with them and that ain't gona happen so they can't actually do anything and Iran loves this dynamic and is mocking the US and laughing even though they have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION AT ALL OF GOING DIRECTLY FOR THE BOMB. haha they are a bunch of a$$holes the Iranian leadership no doubt and they are enjoying messing with America's head and pushing ahead with their civilian power program (whether or not it's economically sensible or not they don't care they argue it will be some day or that the technological journey is analogous to a 'space-race' type cascade of innovation etc etc whatever floats their boat). The Iranian leadership has the US exactly where they want them. They want the world to watch the US squirm and shift from one position to another while damaging the US-Israeli dynamic and letting the world watch how ineffective the US really are, how they can't bully like they used to and the Iranians are loving it. When it comes down to it this is kinda the crux of the thing and Obama has actually handled it quite well. He's put 'daylight between him and that smirking Netanyahu a$$hole. He's played the military muscle flexing role quite well without stepping too far and he's shown realism and control as far as well, ya know... not fukcing starting world war 3 in the middle east by bombing the sh1t out Iran... which would have been so incredibly damaging to the world system it can't be over stated, which of course he knew (deep breath here comes the Obama bashing). If anything this is Obama's defining contribution - he DIDN'T (and won't) bomb Iran. Fair play to him coz god knows anything can happen with these presidents and a lunatic media.

It's a game. It's remained rational so far, contrary to the best bullsh1t media attempts and here's to hoping it continues as a rational interaction between 3 states in a complex power-play. Gotta keep the heat low, don't let it boil over, give the Israeli's some camomile tea, remove chaos from the game as much as possible and do your best to infuse rationalism into the most psychotic but far reaching media on the planet.

Seaneh

Iran has oil yes, but oil is a finite resource and they know this. That is why they are pursuing a nuclear power program.
Peak oil us upon us, there isn't really much of the stuff left. They do have pretty decent gas fields as well, but again, finite.

G Power

InTheTrees wrote: »

Stuxnet was interesting.

It could be considered an active attack on Irans nuke facilities which set them back years although nobody knows exactly who is responsible for it(!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

i read recently that the whole stuxnet agenda is classed by a NATO committee report as an act of force

Corkfeen

Seaneh wrote: »

There is a video in this thread with a former IAEA inspector saying exactly the opposite, they have offered to be totally transparent. They have allowed ti IAEA far more freedom than they are obliged to and there is no evidence of any military nuclear program... Do you know more than he does?

Personally I'd view the actually IAEA reports to be the most credible. This is the latest one.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2013/gov2013-6.pdf

Iran do not have to sign up to the additional protocol however their unwillingness to sign up to it is in itself suspect. The IAEA view Iran to be purposefully undermining them. So they view it to be plausible that Iran has plans to develop nuclear weapons.

This can't be described as Iraq 2.0. IAEA reports did not concur with the US on Iraq having WMDs. However Iran has raised flags in IAEA reports.

Be like Nutella

I'd love a poll actually, if a mod is reading this - a poll which asks very simply

"Is Iran developing nuclear weapons?"

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'd love a poll actually, if a mod is reading this - a poll which asks very simply

"Is Iran developing nuclear weapons?"

I think you can create a new poll thread, there's an option

As someone who quite keenly defended Iran and Ahmadinejad in 2006 based purely on cynicism of US/Israel I am going to tell you now that poll will be no way accurate

Be like Nutella

fair enough : )

but it'll at least show us what the general sentiment around these parts - is

i.e. are US politics Boardsters of the opinion Iran is currently on a path to the bomb or not?

You could make the question a leading question.. it would be awesome... like

Do you believe Iran has 'intentions' towards nuclear weapons... open ended.. or 'ever' or in the next 50 years or whatever suited ya

or

Do you believe Iran's nuclear ambitions have a military dimension to them? (that's a nice one coz it's loaded and subjective)

or

Is Nuclear Iran dangerous to the world or a force for good?


I'm just kiddin I think just the question

Is Iran developing nuclear weapons?

covers it... I mean it's all bloody opinion anyway... haha that's the whole fukcin point isn't it.... there's absolutely no way of supporting the statement

'Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons'.... yee should consider that.

so the question is subjectively loaded no matter which way you ask it... and that is precisely the problem the US have, the media clearly has and as a result the world has!

InTheTrees

Seaneh wrote: »

You're obviously too young and didn't live through the decade that lead to the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis?

As usual, British and US foreign Policy biting them in the ass as they funded Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's coup to overthrow Mosaddegh's democratically elected government because he had the cheek to nationalise the natural resources of his nation and funnel the money into social and educational programs, how dare he!

Well that was my point wasnt it?

I was responding to the suggestion that both sides get together and hug and make up.

And how that isnt going to happen.

(And yes... US foreign policy is based on maximizing corporate profits. I get that.)

InTheTrees

G Power wrote: »

i read recently that the whole stuxnet agenda is classed by a NATO committee report as an act of force

I belive so. Check out "The Tallinn Manual". A NATO document.

http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html

Its the future of cyber warfare and equates a cyber attack with a physical attack and most importantly encourages a physical response to cyber attacks.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

so the question is subjectively loaded no matter which way you ask it... and that is precisely the problem the US have, the media clearly has and as a result the world has!

Well we can address parts of it.

The media is not one entity. Unless you think the editors of a dozen different competing Swedish newspapers are told to relay with their counterparts in Malaysia to "agree" on stories.

There are definitely certain outlets that will toe the US/Israel line completely. However, you think French media, the same papers that wasted no column inches in savagely lashing into US policy over Iraq will toe the same line? nope

Swiss outlets, German outlets, Finnish press (ranked as the freest in in the world) are being told what to say?

Iran is not a black and white issue that some are trying to make it out to be. It's a grey issue.

Be like Nutella

I never said the media was acting as one.

I just said the media (and when I use the phrase 'the media' I am clearly referring to the general media and the general effct of said general media) has been sh1t on the Iran thing because they started out presenting the 'threat' and then gradually moved on to assuming the threat and now the whole ****in world thinks Iran is right now 100% going for the bomb.... which is not a rational conclusion based on evidence or logic. I can spend an hour pulling phrases from 50 of the top experts in the field from military strategy to think tank analysts to stratfor guys to ex-CIA to current military brass to ex-Mossad to politicians in the know - the general consensus is - that Iran have not made a choice to go for the bomb, yet. That's the official line. The problematic 'meme' in play to which I allude and blame 'the media' and completely ignorant average Joe is that even though the position is that Iran is NOT going for the bomb YET or put another way - is NOT GOING FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AT ALL RIGHT NOW.... is not ever stated clearly at the start of any opinions in papers, Op Eds or sh1t news pieces. The 'standard' position is to give the 'impression' that it is a done deal that Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons - that's thew way it's presented and that's the way the average Joe reads it - this is what I'm talking about. Every single article written on the issue should have a statement within it which in black and white says 'Iran is not developing nuclear weapons right now in any way shape or form'... but of course the whole dynamic is already set in stone do I need to repeat myself 100 times you understand clearly what I mean I believe - the narrative has been written in stone even though it is false.

To put it in simple terms.

To go from point A (right now) to point B (the moment at which Iran could be considered a nuclear threat to anyone or anything) is about a ZILLION MILES APART , in every which ay you can possibly look at it.

Politically - How exactly would Iran's leader explain a complete 180 degree turnaround on his fatwa against nuclear weapons (and the fatwa of his predecessor). If somebody would like to approach that conundrum with a smidgeon of logic and sobriety I'd appreciate it. I'm open to new ideas.

Militarily how the hell does Iran 'breaking-out' and going directly for the bomb make any damn sense at all? Considering that it would be quite bloody obvious were they to do underground tests (plural!!!!!!!!) to get the thing to blow up right first.... and then doing the missile thing which would require and you have to be quite clear about this concept - it would require Iran to test missiles which can reach Israel right? No problem now we can reach Israel and finally make good on that wipe it off the map overmilked rhetoric - and then what? Blow Israel up? Really??? In what world does that ever make sense?? We're not talking about a loony dictatorship here ya know that don't you? Nor is it considered one by any expert anywhere. Iran going for nukes directly at any point now is suicide for the regime - 100% black and white suicide. It would go against every pattern of behavior from that regime in its history. It would be so irrational as to be just about impossible especially when you consider the line drawn clearly in the sand now which IS that Israel and the US will blow up Iran's facilities and other things IF there is a 'break-out' effort identified. That threat is in stone now it's done and accepted. We see a test come up on the seismographs and large missiles fueling up on pads and so forth its game over man. Boom boom boom the Stealth B2's and Raptors and drones and Lancers and cruise missiles and aircraft carriers and dolphin subs will all fire all at once like a new years eve display. And waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before that point it will be blatantly and ridiculously obvious that Iran is going directly for the bomb - at which point it will essentially be closing its window on the world - literally pulling the blinds on the worlds economy, forget oil, forget business, forget bank accounts, forget trade of any sort - UN resolutions will fly out of NYC like a printing press banning any and all relations by anyone anywhere with Iran for any reason at all. Done Iran finished. Regime finished. All of the things involved in actually really in reality going 'for the bomb'... leaving the IAEA, making the thing, doing the tests and all the other things is 100% regime suicide. And in the context of a p1ssed off youthful educated Iranian population suffering in poor economic conditions and with a backdrop of an Arab spring barely out of round 1 - do you really think the Iranian supreme Bearded one and his mates are so fuking loopey crazy mental irrational fools???? I'm sorry I just don't get how we can just vaguely skim over all of that and still say 'ah yeah Iran is going for the bomb... sure ya know they are like... makes perfect sense... they're just lyin about everything so they can do it on the sly (like that's possible in any dimension) and then sure they'll just like blow up Israel or somethin or merica even - ya know just like lash a few missiles over at merica n all... ya know the way these bleedin mad arabs are like'. I personally think it's all a bit mental. I know the suspicions of the IAEA, I know the bad media and neutral media I've read literally everything and listened to everyone. Nobody knows jack ****in sh1t apart from that they should be allowed do the civil power thing, let us give them the 20% if they really think cancer patients are worth caring for and let the IAEA in to have a browse around and give us some peace of mind that yez are not bleedin mental, give us some extra protocol stuff (which they did offer before) and bobs your uncle! sorted. Tjhe US is making a balls of the negotiation JUST AS MUCH as these sneaky Iranians (like Larijani and his bro... very smart, uber sneaky, but not mental) are.

Why do you think these negotiations are falling apart all the time so many times over so many years?

Conspiracy heads say well the US really wants this and that and it's all about power and nothing to do with Iranian nukes.

Ignorant patriots say, well ya know.. the usual crap about Iran wanting nukes to blow Israel up etc etc snore next please

And the media ... is just the media... it's business they gotta say all types of sh1t about Iran almost every feckin day selling newpapers and ads on TV - there's been fuk all new to come out in this thing in years yet there's a bloody Op Ed in every major paper concerning this Iran thing almost daily. That's their job. To constantly bombard us with crapola and rehash the same sh1t over and over and over again.

The main think tanks all did reports/white papers on the 'red line' issue... the 'strike option' they basically all come out and say the same thing.

Hitting Iran with strikes of any scale now makes little or now sense and is irrational in and of itself as an action creating greater opportunity for chaotic events which may cause more harm then an Iran with nukes would anyway... download them read them that's what they all say - from Brookings to the CFR to even the lunatic EX-Neocons (who are sneaking back into the spotlight again under a cloak of neo-Realism in a world with a growing China boogey man) at the AEI so Obama doesn't want to do the strikes and never ever did... that's all bluster and shapes to appease - well - us really us idiots really and the Israeli hawks - not all Israeli's just the hyper ones.. hell half Bibi's military staff and every ex-Mossad guy in Israel came out and appeared on CNN or in some Op Ed warning vociferously against the 'strike option' like they were talking a suicidal drunken Uncle off a roof top. So the strikes thing was pure crap.... fueled and dramatized by a media... a crappy ignorant over exaggerating poor quality media.. surprise surfukingprise.... hell the media would've drooled over strikes if they were greenlighted - HD images of Raptors banking off carriers and match of the day level graphics packages.

The Red Line crap??? well very simply we were told X and then Y and then this date and then that date and then Bibi did his unholy embrrassment show and tell routine in the US with his white card with the bomb on it and got out his big red pen and drew a line and the spent a week nuthugging his lobby and the republican party using football analogies like 'we're at the 10 yard line blah blah fuking blah.." and none of it was based on one single semblance of reality.... none of it.. not a single word. Pure unadulterated CRAP.

And again Obama played it quite well (jesus I sound like fan and I'm not believe me) - he just took his own position and put some of his joint chief dudes on the media sunday circuit for a couple weeks to spread the word that a)America knew what was what and wouldn't take stupid smirking Bibi's word for it, god I hate that dude and his stupid face : )... and b) America don't want no Iran with nukes and won't lettem do it so chill out world we're on it - was the general message. The highest ranked military guy at the time appeared one Sunday while Bibi was spreading his crap - and this military dude appeared on GPS with Freed Zakaria and stated 100% clearly in literally single syllable words that Iran was nowhere next nor NEAR the bomb - couldn't even see it in the distant distance and that he had literally no intention of ever doing the strikes ... that the strikes was a bullsh1t option for duchebags like Bibi - he literally took all credibility away from every media article, news piece, fearmongering NYT writer, Bibi, the entire Israel Lobby and anyone up to that point which had supported the strike option or had made unfounded statements about dates of red lines etc etc.. and I remember watching it a couple of times and watching his body language as he kept repeating the phrase 'we view the Iranians as rational" over and over and thinking

'you know what? He's not worried about a nuclear Iran - not one single bit and not because he's representin, because he actually is NOT worried, at all.... and if THIS guy isn't worried then what the fuk are the rest of us worried about?'

Iran ain't going for nukes I'm tellin ya now... yes they hate the US (leadership that is) Yes the US hates them, YES they don't trust the US and YES they play games and 'play' everyone off everyone, newsflash - so does the ****in USA (leadership that is) The Iranians WILL win this thing. They'll get their civil power, they'll get their 20% probably externally form Brazil or some sh1t and the IAEA will eventually act as a bit more like uncompromised organization it is supposed to be acting like and Israel will continue to move slightly more left of whatever you call that position one atom in from the rightest side of the universe. And some day Iran won't be run by an Islamic pope-tership and finally get to that amazing thing we like to celebrate so often 'Democracy' ... I just hope they don't ask for refund when they get it coz hell knows America's great democracy allowed the Israeli lobby to create massive groundswell for the 'strike' option and that sh1t was crazeeeeeeeeeeee!

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I never said the media was acting as one.

I just said the media (and when I use the phrase 'the media' I am clearly referring to the general media and the general effct of said general media) has been sh1t on the Iran thing because they started out presenting the 'threat' and then gradually moved on to assuming the threat and now the whole ****in world thinks Iran is right now 100% going for the bomb....

Sorry I respectfully disagree - I haven't read much sensationalism about Iran except from Fox and the usual conservative channels in the US, the odd tabloid (looking at you here Daily Mail) and of course virtually everything in Israel.

Obama has publically stated he doesn't believe Iran has a bomb and he has also publically stated that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power.

It's not like they have been slapped with the pariah state label, they have most definitely worked hard to achieve it, especially in the last four years. The world is getting exasperated with the clenched fist and nationalist rhetoric, so if they want to play hardball, the int. community is responding in kind. The Chinese won't let the major powers do a damn thing about a dictator butchering his own people in the same region, but they've passed 6 or 7 sets of sanctions on Iran - that's impressive to say the least.

Franticfrank

The point was raised already that the nuclear situation in Iran and North Korea are not related. I beg to disagree. Attention constantly focuses on Iran and a survey shows 63% of Americans would support a military strike on Iran, far more than any other nation...just 27% of Chinese people would support a military solution. Despite this, look at what's happening with North Korea. They have nuclear weapons and are actively threatening Seoul and the United States.

It even reached the point where ballistic missile trajectories were visible in photographs of Kim Jong Un meeting his generals. Of course North Korea is believed to lack the technology to send a missile to Los Angeles but surely their threats and technological progress are far more cause for concern than Iran? The Iranians never threatened the United States directly, in stark contrast with North Korea who possess the weapons and have made consistant threats. Why Tehran and not Pyongyang?

Be like Nutella

very interested to see how this AP story turns out. Seems like they're busted once and for all now I mean the UN top nuke guys apparently said it so... I retract my whole argument it seems Iran is going for the bomb after all

AP: "The U.N's top nuclear official expressed concern Tuesday that Iran may be secretly continuing work on nuclear weapons while his agency is tied up in protracted negotiations with the country on restarting an investigation into past suspected research and development of such arms. The comments by International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano are bound to resonate with Israel and Western nations, which assert Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capacity even though it insists its atomic activities are transparent and peaceful...

'We do not know for sure, but we have information indicating that Iran was engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices in the past and now,' he told The Associated Press in what appeared to be his most specific assertion that such activities are continuing into the present.