America toppling Iran from ground up?

[Jon Lyrik]

Did anyone see on ABC the story on how America is waging a sort of secret underground war on Iran? Apparently they are also funding some sort of militant/terrorist organization near the Iranian-Pakistani border that's been responsible for some naughty stuff lately...I guess we haven't learned from Reagan's dealings in backwater countries.

[Vong]

The US cannot attack Iran militarily. It's a disaster waiting to happen, far worse than Vietnam and Iraq combined. The only thing the US can do is weaken Iran economically. This story (if it is true) does not surprise me at all. With a history of covert ops in foreign countries, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to consider American operatives in Iran attempting to create civil unrest.

I just can't imagine the irony of it all...for a country that (apprarently) despises terrorism, it sure does have a double standard to support terrorism abroad when it's in their favor...

Well, here's to another Iranian revolution...:o

[EVILxxx]

I thought terrorism was about perspective, one man's freedom fighter and all that jive. Iran gaining nuclear arms comes at the expense of the the whole world. UN nuclear watchdogs are having aneurysms over it. Clandestine operations are part of America's (and nearly all countries with the resources to carry them out) policy. If it stops Iran from becoming the big dog of the Middle east I say proceed.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
I guess we haven't learned from Reagan's dealings in backwater countries.


BUT OMG JON LYRIK WE HAD TO DO IT CUZ THEY WERE COMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

[Thrizzle]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/17171/2/TDS-Reza-Aslan.mov

I'm not sure how much of the interview is in this clip, but this is Reza Aslan talking about Iran on the Daily Show and it was one of the most imformative pieces on the country that i have ever seen. You can only get this stuff from PBS and the daily show (how sad is that); you simply cannot get this insight from the major networks.

[Vong]

Bush wants tougher sanctions on Iran (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070524/Iran_meetings_070524/20070524?hub=TopStories)

[Lynn7]

I think we should bomb them strategically. They are flaunting the fact that they want nukes and they have also made statements that they think Israel should be destroyed and they hate us so what else is there? Bomb the places the nukes are and none of this background intrigue.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think we should bomb them strategically. They are flaunting the fact that they want nukes and they have also made statements that they think Israel should be destroyed and they hate us so what else is there? Bomb the places the nukes are and none of this background intrigue.

First, replace "they" with Ahmadinejad...because he is the one calling the shots, with a large portion of Iran opposing his decisions.

Next, show some evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons before you start pointing missles at them. So far Iran has just enriched uranium and only recently announced that they have been able to produce a nuclear cycle. You are only claiming they have nuclear weapons because Bush said they are. Ahmadinejad, though crazy, doesn't have the military capability to produce a nuclear warhead. He has also said that building a nuke is not in his government's policy, and even if it was, it would be years before they would have something that can be considered a nuclear weapon. By then Ahmadinejad will have been elected out of office.

I swear, World War III will have been caused by people like you jumping the gun....

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Vong
First, replace "they" with Ahmadinejad...because he is the one calling the shots, with a large portion of Iran opposing his decisions.

Next, show some evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons before you start pointing missles at them. So far Iran has just enriched uranium and only recently announced that they have been able to produce a nuclear cycle. You are only claiming they have nuclear weapons because Bush said they are. Ahmadinejad, though crazy, doesn't have the military capability to produce a nuclear warhead. He has also said that building a nuke is not in his government's policy, and even if it was, it would be years before they would have something that can be considered a nuclear weapon. By then Ahmadinejad will have been elected out of office.

I swear, World War III will have been caused by people like you jumping the gun....


First replace "Ahmadinejad" with the Ayatollah, who is the real man who calls the shots (when those British officers were captured, guess who was the first guy the Iranian soldiers reported this to, and then guess who was the second) and who will most likely still be around long after Ahmadinejad is out of office.


I'm not saying fucking around with Iran for a third time is going to magically turn out better than the other two times, but I did need to correct your statement there.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

We really need to be smart about this. Making irrational decisions will come back to haunt us. Bombing them at this point will probably just fuck everything up. I'm not saying that we should leave war totally out of the picture, but if we make one wrong move with these guys then it could trigger something really fucking bad.

[Vong]

Originally posted by electriclite
First replace "Ahmadinejad" with the Ayatollah, who is the real man who calls the shots (when those British officers were captured, guess who was the first guy the Iranian soldiers reported this to, and then guess who was the second) and who will most likely still be around long after Ahmadinejad is out of office.

Khamenei is the Ayatollah, but Ahmadinejad calls the shots in the country with regards to foreign and domestic policy. The two work in hand issuing laws on the country, but each are seperate leaders taking care of their own seperate positions. It's Ahmadinejad speaking when he wants to attack Israel, not Khamenei. Only when he is about to attack Israel does the Ayatollah say yay or nay. Khamenei only approves the policy as long as it conforms to Islamic canon, since he is the source of it in Iran.

That being said, it's interesting to note that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons not long ago. For Ahmadinejad to produce nuclear weapons would go against Khamenei's rule and the dude would be in serious shit.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Vong


That being said, it's interesting to note that Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons not long ago. For Ahmadinejad to produce nuclear weapons would go against Khamenei's rule and the dude would be in serious shit.

Or it could be the perfect diversion.

[Vong]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Or it could be the perfect diversion.

Paranoid much?

If you haven't noticed, Muslims take their faith extremely seriously. To have the highest source of religious law and the president of Iran conspire together to deceive their population would be catastrophic to their country and faith from within, as well as reprecussions from the rest of the Middle East.

[EVILxxx]

Hey I'm just throwing it out there. I do know that there are innumerable Fatwas out there, and not all of them are followed.

[Lynn7]

I think it was on CNN's Reliable Soruces today that they were criticizing ABC for releasing this information. Someone said that it would be strange if the US was not involved in something behind the scenes to take care of the Iranian situation and it was not helpful of ABC to make this stuff known (unless there was something corrupt going on that needed to be revealed which was not the case).

[Cyclonus]

Okay, take a look at this article. I think it would be an excellent idea to at least try this suggestion.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6684761.stm


As Iran ignores another Security Council deadline to suspend the enrichment of uranium, the idea of allowing it to engage in limited enrichment under strict inspection is being more widely discussed.

This would be a "third way" solution between the continuation of sanctions, which have been ineffective in stopping Iran's activities, and a military attack, which would plunge the region into conflict and probably not be supported by some of the closest US allies.

So urgent is the situation becoming that there is talk in intelligence circles of mounting operations against Iran in which its purchases of nuclear and missile equipment on the black market (to which it has been forced by sanction to turn) would be sabotaged by the deliberate planting of defective material.

Such operations could, at best, simply slow Iran down, but the US network CBS says that some are already underway. ABC News reports in addition that President Bush has authorised the CIA to conduct what ABC calls "non-lethal covert action against Iran involving propaganda, disinformation and the manipulation of Iran's international banking transactions". These stories indicate that the US is not going to adopt the "third way".


Accept but limit

The concept of a negotiated agreement to accept but also to put limits on enrichment has gained ground with comments from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In an interview with the New York Times, he said: "We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich.

"From now, it's simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact."

Dr ElBaradei said: "The fact of the matter is that one of the purposes of suspension, keeping them from getting the knowledge, has been overtaken by events."

(Update: In a speech on Thursday, Mr ElBaradei sought to explain his remarks. He said that he wanted to prevent Iran from reaching industrial-scale production of enriched uranium.

He added that in his view, Iran was three to eight years from making a bomb, if that is what it chooses to do. Iran says it will not do so.)

His remarks about accepting some enrichment immediately led to complaints from the US and those countries most strongly supporting it - Britain, France (President Nicolas Sarkozy holding firm here) and Germany.


Current strategy

They reckon that it undermines the current approach, which is a combination of applying pressure through sanctions (aimed at stopping Iran from getting nuclear and missile technology) and offering help with the development of civilian nuclear energy, as long as enrichment is not part of that.

The British UN ambassador Sir Emyr Jones Parry told reporters in London recently that if Iran did not comply with UN demands, there would be more sanctions. "There will be more of the same - more people and more companies in Iran under sanctions," he said.

The issue is expected to be discussed at the G8 summit in Germany early next month.

Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear watcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said that the idea of an enrichment agreement was a "fallback position."

"If Iran gets enrichment technology, then the present strategy will have failed," he said. "However, if this strategy is seriously challenged, there will be tension between those whose impulse is to hold out for suspension and those who think there is a new reality.

"An agreement with Iran would have to limit its enrichment, perhaps to the number of centrifuges it has already installed, and there would have to be a strict system of inspections, with surprise visits. Such a system would have to go beyond the extra measures Iran agreed to some time ago but never ratified. The closest precedent would be what happened in Iraq where inspectors had the power to go where they wanted."

Iran says that it has no intention of building nuclear weapons but is simply exercising its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop fuel to a limited level for use in power stations.

The US and some Western countries argue that Iran does not need to make the fuel itself and that it wants to position itself, at least, to be able to enrich fuel to the higher level needed for a nuclear bomb.