Good points Nick,
But on you’re last comment don’t forget Iran’s proxy Hezbollah.
I would like to get into this more (including Chevan’s comments), but will wait until this evening after work.
Oh Nick has began;)
And who did say you the American focused on the “correct target” Nick?Mst. Bush and his Oil Company?
Is the porest and disasters Iraq was a correct target that today there perished more peoples thst diring the Saddam.
And oild price is already $90 for barrel;)Enought good for Bush’s bisness.
The “correct target” for whom?
And I didn’t say Putin was “a fool.” I just said he’s a fascist.
Although i dislike Putin coz he let the Jewish oligarhs rob the Russia and coz his social policy, but he at least not as much fascist as mst. Bush&Friends, who destroyed the whole foreign state coz its “leader did not support its ideals”.And to demonstrate “nothing says “don’t attack the US” more than the ruthless destruction of a any country”.
And he’s too busy killing off large segments of the population of Chechnya to bother in Iraq. So easy to win insurgencies when you can just conduct secret massacres and kill off any annoying journalists that report them…
Yea - its so easy to fight with “terrorism” dropping the Phosporic bombs on the cities and treating the local civils as a “uber-low-race” in Abu-Ghraib, right?
And what is look for your lovely “freedom TV”?
It’s easy not to look like “a fool” when you take cuntrol of the media…
He is not fool coz on what he is doing - not coz somebody say about him.He do not act like a fool.
Endeed could controlls only the TV, but not newspaper and internet my friend;)
BTW do you really think that in USA the TV is out of control and political censorship?
Or, well, never mind…
Well Putin is on the fishing - what is fanny?
At least he did not shot his attorney like the Dick Chainy on a hunting last year;)
Iran is years away from the Nukes, no matter what the French say. And they’ve had chemical weapons for decades now. So, if they’re such crazy irrational Jew-haters, why have they not fired chemical weapons at Israel already?
COz they are not so crazy to attack the Israel ( that has a Nukes) with a chemical wearpon;)
BTW even if they will produse the few a-charges - they will not attack the Israel too.
Coz this is pure suicide for Iran.
So Nick indeed the washington-israel anti-iran’s paranoia in nothing exept pure political demagogy that directed rather to domestic public.
The Iran is no more danger that the Pakistan and India that neitralize and selfcontrole each other.
Cheers.
US Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
By Mark Mazzetti
The New York Times
Monday 03 December 2007
Washington - A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to "World War III," and Vice President Dick Cheney promised "serious consequences" if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran's ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs."
"Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might - if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible - prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program," the estimate states.
The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. The report led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the N.I.E.'s conclusions turned out to be wrong. The estimate does say that Iran's ultimate goal is still to develop the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.
The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. "It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Hadley said. "It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."
"The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically - without the use of force - as the administration has been trying to do," Mr. Hadley said.
Last month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the international Atomic Energy Agency, had reported that Iran was operating 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges, capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.
But his report said that I.A.E.A. inspectors in Iran had been unable to determine whether the Iranian program sought only to generate electricity or also to build weapons.
The N.I.E. concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still "very unlikely" Iran could produce enough of the material by then.
Instead, today's report concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, "because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems."
The new assessment upends a judgment made about Iran's nuclear capabilities in 2005. At the time, intelligence agencies assessed with "high confidence" that Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons and concluded that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program.
Since then, officials said they have obtained new information leading them to conclude that international pressure, including tough economic sanctions, had been successful in bringing about a halt to Iran's secret program.
"We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren't misleading ourselves," said one senior intelligence official during a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In a separate statement accompanying the N.I.E., Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said that given the new conclusions, it was important to release the report publicly "to ensure that an accurate presentation is available."
[link](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html)Israeli analyst*suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni’s.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm
Then he’s f**king insane. Sunni’s are by far the more westernized, modernist grouping…
I think most Israelis actually believe in turning the Arab and Farsi worlds against the US…
That’s simply …fine:)
Now we saw as Washington can “wash the braines” with their anti-arabs propogand.The MAss media can make the scapegoat any one they wish form.
Since the 2003 they continiously inspired that “Tehrain dreams ONLY to destory Israel” , and now…suddenly , they has concluded … that thay even didn’t plan to get the a-bomb:)
Would these be the same intelligence agencies that said Iraq had weapons of mass distraction?
If so, stand by to be nuked by Iran.
:lol:
Actually, it wasn’t so much the intelligence agencies, it was the pressure for the politicians…
A lot of people in US intell resigned or later reported pressure to spin…
On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
updated 5:05 p.m. ET, Thurs., July. 3, 2008
WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.
Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.
“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.
He added pointedly, “we haven’t had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.
The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival’s willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.”
Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.
It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.
“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I’m convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”
Not ruling out use of military force
President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.
He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“From the United States’ perspective, the United States’ military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn’t mean we don’t have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”
And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”
Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that’s why I think it’s so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”
The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.
But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”
In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein’s regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.
An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.
Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they’re paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.
“The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”
In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.
But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Interesting. It seems that US military officers are subtly rebelling…