Iran begins installing 6,000 new centrifuges

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Khomeiny has said that a long time ago, in a partisan rally.

You have to distinguish populist bull**** and pragmatic realism.

That is just too funny. Ridiculous, but funny!

Obviously, if the President is repeating it then it has some merit. Also, would you call Iran a responsible state when multiple levels of government are calling for a country to be wiped off the face of the map? And you are okay with them having nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
As for supporting guerillas, the solution is a negociated peace with the Palestinians. Israel withdraws to the 67 borders and they've got a deal.

And Hizbollah in Lebanon will just dissapear? They will stop trying to control the government there? Amazing! If only the rest of the world knew this?



You are awesome! Thanks for the comic relief.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Khomeiny has said that a long time ago, in a partisan rally.

You have to distinguish populist bull**** and pragmatic realism.

Does funding all the mentioned terrorist groups sounds like populist bull****? especially if it is done secretly and covertly, thus making it impossible to flaunt and get popular support?

Iran would never nuke, that's freaking obvious.

I tend to agree, though if Ahmedinihad's ilk get in power, then I won't be so sure.

As for supporting guerillas, the solution is a negociated peace with the Palestinians. Israel withdraws to the 67 borders and they've got a deal.

No it isn't.
Neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad are able to swallow Israel's existence as a long-term possibility. They have already numerously suggested a 10 / 20 year truce. But a long term reconciliation goes against their political (not just religious) ideology.

Hezbullah is a different story - where it is basically a direct Iranian pawn, orchestrated and controlled by Iranian leadership. Thus no 67' borders have any effect on them.

[LordShiva]

Regardless of who said it and when, teh idea that it is official state policy to have "sworn to destroy Israel" is silly, even more so when teh implication is that this is teh reason for their pursuing nuclear weapons.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by PLATO
1945: US develops "crude" nuclear weapon
1970: US has 11,000 nuclear warheads and ICBMs

2010: Iran develops "crude" nuclear weapon
2035: ????????

Originally posted by PLATO


That is just too funny. Ridiculous, but funny!

...



...



You are awesome! Thanks for the comic relief.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Agathon
1. Oil sells at the world market price. If Iran wanted to keep oil back to fire its own stations, then it would have to forgo selling it to others, which would probably earn it more money (especially with the price of oil these days). That would be irrational. Venezuela forgoes oil revenues in order to meet social goals. The Iranians have decided not to. There is nothing irrational about that. They have decided that they want the foreign goods they can get by trading the oil more than they want the oil for themselves.

Except Iran does heavily subsidize gasoline (which as stated before is massively imported). I recall an article that said the cost to motorists in Iran was about $0.10 a litre.

[Arrian]

LS

Regarding Iran, Oil and Nuclear power... while I've no doubt they want nuclear weapons, isn't oil mainly used for gasoline/jet fuel or put into consumer goods as opposed to being used as fuel in power plants (isn't that the role of coal?)? So how is having oil reserves somehow a reason not to build nuke power plants? That just doesn't compute for me.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Regarding Iran, Oil and Nuclear power... while I've no doubt they want nuclear weapons, isn't oil mainly used for gasoline/jet fuel or put into consumer goods as opposed to being used as fuel in power plants (isn't that the role of coal?)?

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

A fossil fuel power plant burns fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil to produce electricity.

[Dauphin]

It can fuel power plants, but it is an overly expensive way of producing electricity.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Regardless of who said it and when, teh idea that it is official state policy to have "sworn to destroy Israel" is silly, even more so when teh implication is that this is teh reason for their pursuing nuclear weapons.

duh
check it with the iranians dude

In December 2000, Ayatollah Khamene’i said that "Iran’s stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." In February 2001, Khamene’i stated that, "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zionist-entity.htm

Tehran, Iran, Oct. 30 – The editor-in-chief of Iran’s most influential daily lambasted the United States and European governments for criticising hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s diatribe against Israel and the West, while reaffirming that the “need to wipe off Israel from the map has been the defined policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the very beginning”.

“We declare explicitly that we will not be satisfied with anything less than the complete obliteration of the Zionist regime from the political map of the world”, Hassan Shariatmadari, a close confidant of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote in an editorial in Sunday’s edition of Kayhan.

“The honourable President has said nothing new about Israel that would justify all this political commotion”, the influential figure, who is a former general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, added.

“Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini repeatedly said that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ and this has been reiterated by all the top leaders of the Islamic Republic as a strategic goal and policy and all countries and international organisations are aware of the views of the Islamic Republic of Iran vis-à-vis the Zionist regime”, he wrote.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4217

[LordShiva]

By "wipe it off teh map" do you think they mean "blow it up" or something else?

There are several reasons to oppose an Iranian nuke, but to pretend that they include 1. concern for Israel's existence and 2. preventing Iran's mission of "exporting fundamentalist totalitarianism to other countries" () is silly.

[snoopy369]

I think they mean "militarily invade Israel and cause a regime change that allows the Palestinians to re-assert control over the territory, and simultaneously removing the Jewish residents of the area" ... what about you?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
By "wipe it off teh map" do you think they mean "blow it up" or something else?

There are several reasons to oppose an Iranian nuke, but to pretend that they include 1. concern for Israel's existence and 2. preventing Iran's mission of "exporting fundamentalist totalitarianism to other countries" () is silly.

Now this comment is more than just silly. It is plainly ridiculous.

The context being discussed was that Iran wanted Nuclear weapons to deter a western attack. Why would the west attack? For their oil? Of course not...if so then the Saudis would be trembling.

The only reason that the west would attack is if Iran posed a clear and immediate danger to either western interests or western allies.

Among other stated Iranian goals (also from the inception of The Islamic Republic of Iran) is the exportation of religious fundamentalist revolution. Hizbollah in Lebanon is a good example of the tactics they are using in Lebanon...Arming some insurgents in Iraq is another.

It is clear that an Iran, emboldened by the possesion of nuclear weapons, is a much more dangerous player in subverting other governments and continuing its stated goals of wiping Israel off the map or exporting revolution. It is not simply the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons that is the issue...it is the deterent effect they would also feel from merely possesing them.

*************

Another point as well that continues to be overlooked. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation treaty. This treaty provides ways to obtain nuclear power for peaceful uses...and many countries have taken advantage of it. Clearly the development of nuclear weapons is a grave violation of this treaty. Further, Iran is in violation of article 3 that says "Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". In addition, Iran is in violation of article 2 which states "Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture." wrt information received from both Pakistani underground sources and North Korea.

If Iran wants peaceful Nuclear energy, then they should hold to the precepts of the treaty they agreed to. Since they do not, one has to ask the question: Why?

Given the case I have laid out above, it is clearly not in anyones interest in having a nuclear weapons capable Iran with their current foriegn policy goals...except, of course, the Iranians.

As a matter of fact, I believe that a nuclear weapons capable Iran raises the possibility of conflict in the Middle East and would lead to destabilization of the region.

So, LS...call my post silly if you like, but it seems clear to me that only bad things happen if Iran gets Nukes.

Care to make a detailed case...or just want to keep saying "that's silly" to the facts?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think they mean "militarily invade Israel and cause a regime change that allows the Palestinians to re-assert control over the territory, and simultaneously removing the Jewish residents of the area" ... what about you?

I agree with this. I would also like to add that the invasion could just as easily be begun by proxy forces. As Iranian positions strengthen in the region then they will involve more and more proxy organizations falling under the Iranian umbrella. Clearly, gaining political control of Iraq would be of immense value to them in this type of fight (just thought I would throw that in there for good measure! )

[LordShiva]

Do you seriously think that Iran isn't worried about a potential US invasion, as far-fetched as it sounds to you and me? Apart from a brewing geopolitical struggle with Saudi Arabia/Egypt, that fear is probably teh biggest driving force behind their ambitions.

BTW, how many foreign countries has Iran "converted?" Which ones are even remote possibilities for theocratic Shi'ite governments?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Do you seriously think that Iran isn't worried about a potential US invasion, as far-fetched as it sounds to you and me? Apart from a brewing geopolitical struggle with Saudi Arabia/Egypt, that fear is probably teh biggest driving force behind their ambitions.

BTW, how many foreign countries has Iran "converted?" Which ones are even remote possibilities for theocratic Shi'ite governments?

To your first point I ask...Why would the US invade? Surely the Iranians have asked that question, don't you think? Contrary to the popular "U.s. is warmonger OMG!" statements that fly around the internet, the US would have to have a profound reason to invade...particularly with the current climate in the US. Now, if the Iranians calculate that there is a real threat of US invasion, then they must know that they are threatening a vital US interest or a US ally...and I mean a clear threat, not just the "wipe Israel off the map statement". Further, the closer they come to nuclear weapons, the more likely some form of US action becomes (although invasion would be a huge stretch of the possibilities). It is quite clear that the US currently has neither the will, desire, or even possibly the ability to conduct a full scale ground war in Iran. So what would Iran be planning that would cause a US invasion?

To your second point. I have not said that Iran has succesfully subverted any countries yet. Lebanon sure is close though and should the US leave Iraq, then that is a very real possibility as well. Iran, being a nation as opposed to a faction, is quite capable of taking a longer term view and setting longer term goals. Every action for the last 28 years has been leading toward their stated goals however.

In addition Azerbaijan has a large ****e population and has been a source of much turmoil. Finally, as late as March 28 there are reports from tribal regions of Pakistan of growing conflicts between Shiite and Sunni...wonder who is behind that?