Atomic Monitor Signals Concern Over Iran’s Work

[Homyrrh]

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin))
May 27, 2008
Atomic Monitor Signals Concern Over Iran’s Work
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
PARIS — The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

Part of the agency’s case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons. “There are certain parts of their nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role,” said one senior official close to the agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic constraints. He added, “We want to understand why.”


The atomic energy agency’s report highlights the amount of work still to be done before definitive conclusions about the nature of the program can be made, a task that the official associated with the agency said would require months.

Iran’s nuclear program has long been a flashpoint, with critics fearing that suggestions that Iran is developing weapons could embolden factions within the administration who have been pushing for a confrontation with Iran.

Iran has dismissed the documents as “forged” or “fabricated,” claimed that its experiments and projects had nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program and refused to provide documentation and access to its scientists to support its claims.

The report also makes the allegation that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges that are operating faster and more efficiently, the product of robust research and development that have not been fully disclosed to the agency.

That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium — which can be used to make electricity or to produce bombs — faster than expected at the same time as it a replaces its older generation of less reliable centrifuges. Some of the centrifuge components have been produced by Iran’s military, said the report, prepared by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the agency, which is the United Nations nuclear monitor.

The report makes no effort to disguise the agency’s frustration with Iran’s lack of openness. It describes, for example, Iran’s installation of new centrifuges, known as the IR-2 and IR-3 (for Iranian second and third generations) and other modifications at its site at Natanz, as “significant, and as such should have been communicated to the agency.”

The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.

The report does not say how much enriched uranium the Iranians are now producing, but the official connected to the agency said that since December, it was slightly less than 150 kilograms, or 330 pounds, about double the amount they were producing during the same period about 18 months ago.

“The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. “The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I’ve never seen it laid out quite like this.”

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the atomic energy agency, however, said that the report vindicated Iran’s nuclear activities. It “is another document that shows Iran’s entire nuclear activities are peaceful,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted him as saying.

A National Intelligence Estimate published in December by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran suspended its work on a weapons design in late 2003, apparently in response to mounting international pressure. That report added that it was uncertain whether the weapons work had resumed. It concluded that work continued on Iran’s missiles and uranium enrichment, the two other steps that would be necessary for Iran either to build and launch a weapon or to announce that it is able to construct one quickly.

The Bush administration, in its waning days, seems powerless to modify Iran’s behavior. The question seems to have been pushed to the future with the forceful disagreements in recent days between the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, and Senator Barack Obama, contending for the Democratic nomination, over whether an American president should negotiate with Iran’s leadership.

Still, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, announced in Brussels on Monday that he would go to Iran soon — possibly “within the month” — to present a new offer of political, technological, security and trade rewards for Iran if it halts its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. Solana will travel with senior foreign ministry officials from five of the six countries involved in the initiative — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — but not the United States, which has refused to hold talks with Iran. The incentives, agreed on by the six countries in London this month but still not made public, repackaged and clarified an incentives package presented to Iran in 2006.

Iran rejected it at the time, saying that relinquishing its uranium enrichment program was non-negotiable. After the London meeting this month, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said the new package should not cross Iran’s “red line” — shorthand for its uranium-enrichment program.

On May 13, Iran responded with its own package of proposals, calling for new international talks on political, economic and security issues, including its nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The proposal, made in a letter from Mr. Mottaki to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, includes the creation of international fuel production facilities in Iran and other countries — a longstanding goal of Iran — as well as improved supervision of Iran’s nuclear program by the atomic energy agency, which is based in Vienna.

Over the years, the United States and France have led the way in opposing the idea of a fuel-production facility in Iran, contending that it would allow Iranian experts to master the complex process of enriching uranium and to use that knowledge in a secret bomb-making project.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment program is devoted solely to producing fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.

The report, which was released on Monday to the agency’s 35-country board of directors and the United Nations Security Council, will be formally discussed by the board next week.



Fuck.

[electriclite]

Fun times ahead!!


(drops head on desk)

[Homyrrh]

Fun times ahead!!


(drops head on desk)
Way I see it, ignorant or otherwise, if the UN, the same institution that found no nuclear evidence in Hussein's Iraq, is openly and blatantly expressing "serious concern" about Iran, then there's definitely a justification for a profound worry towards the nation.

[Vong]

Great, another "oh noes! Iran is gettin' teh bombz0rs!" thread...

You guys have far more reason to be worried about global warming than anything Iran does. They are a toothless tiger decades behind the capabilites of having a fully functional nuclear weapon.

[Homyrrh]

Great, another "oh noes! Iran is gettin' teh bombz0rs!" thread...

You guys have far more reason to be worried about global warming than anything Iran does. They are a toothless tiger decades behind the capabilites of having a fully functional nuclear weapon.
I.E.---

No worry at all?

[Homyrrh]

Great, another "oh noes! Iran is gettin' teh bombz0rs!" thread...

You guys have far more reason to be worried about global warming than anything Iran does. They are a toothless tiger decades behind the capabilites of having a fully functional nuclear weapon.
Thinking about it, you're ultimately right. Like animals with fire...

But my concern was that the UN, that holier than thou, feed the babies and forget the bombs group that it is, is acknowledging a high level of threat not usually given to msot situations.

[Moviefan1234]

I'm more worried about nations whose nuclear arsenal doesn't fall apart upon launch. Vong put it well, there's a lot more things that give me concern than the possibility of Iran's nukes.

[Homyrrh]

I'm more worried about nations whose nuclear arsenal doesn't fall apart upon launch. Vong put it well, there's a lot more things that give me concern than the possibility of Iran's nukes.
Well, at least let's all hope so...

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The perfect solution to the Iran problem would be to shut up and just resume keeping a watchful eye over them. Ever since 9/11 we've been so afraid of our vulnerability, but what we fail to realize is that even if they did attack us we could totally obliterate them in return.

Iran will always be a problem for us. There will always be problematic countries out there that we will just have to learn to deal with. North Korea is an Orwellian nightmare, and they actually have nuclear weapons, but why aren't we making such noise about them? Because the New York Philharmonic went over there and came back in one piece?

[SpoonMan999]

Iran is a big deal because they constantly have conflict with one of our biggest allies, Israel, and if they have nukes then Israel doesn't stand much of a chance. So, we're backing Israel in trying to stop them from gaining these weapons and averting a much larger crisis than a war with one nation.

[electriclite]

I'm not so much worried about the nukes as the religious fervor that would inspire their usage.

Its one thing to deal with the old Soviet Union or N. Korea, because what they in the end want(ed) was power. Can't have power if your dead. So they approach their goal with a modicum of caution.

With Iran that's not necessarily their motive. I mean when the president is literally a patsy of a religious bigotted zealot who feels he wins either way if he lives or dies as long as Israel gets nuked and fulfills some sort of religious prophecy, that's cause to be a little more than concerned.

[MadsenOMC]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0522chapmanmay22,1,7170206.column
chicagotribune.com
Mythmaking for the next war

Steve Chapman

May 22, 2008

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had some 45,000 nuclear warheads. At the moment, Iran has none. But when Barack Obama said the obvious—that Iran does not pose the sort of threat the Soviet Union did— John McCain reacted as though his rival had offered to trade Ft. Knox for a sack of magic beans.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment," exclaimed McCain. "These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess."

But if Iran is the Soviet Union, I'm Shaquille O'Neal. There is nothing reckless in soberly distinguishing large threats from small ones, and there is something foolhardy in grossly exaggerating the strength of your enemies.

As military powers go, Iran is a pipsqueak. It has no nuclear weapons. It has a pitiful air force. Its navy is really just a coast guard. It spends less on defense than Singapore or Sweden. Our military budget is 145 times bigger than Iran's.

By contrast, the Soviets had far more nuclear weapons than we did, a blue-water navy, formidable air power and ground forces that dwarfed ours. In a conventional war, it was anything but certain that we could prevail, and in a nuclear exchange, it was clear they could destroy us.

Iran is a very modest adversary. Of course, even a Chihuahua can bite. The U.S. government claims Iran has provided arms and training to Iraqi insurgents—never mind that it is allied with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But it's worthwhile to remember that even bad regimes sometimes have understandable motivations. The United States helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and provided aid to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. If Iran sees an interest in bleeding the U.S. military, that is likely a defensive response to the presence of an avowed enemy on its border rather than a sign of aggressive intent.

Its actions in Iraq, however, are supposedly the least of the menace. McCain and many others are convinced that Iran will soon get nuclear weapons and proceed to use them.

The first claim overlooks the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate, issued last year, which concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The NIE also said, "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs."

Even if Iran were to acquire atomic bombs, there is no reason to think it would use them or turn them over to terrorists. McCain, however, insists that Iran has "a commitment to Israel's destruction," and appears to think its leaders cannot be contained because of their religious fanaticism.

But as University of Michigan Middle East scholar Juan Cole has explained, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never vowed to "wipe Israel off the map"—an oft-quoted phrase that Cole says is a mistranslation of the milder words he used. In fact, he says, "Ahmadinejad has never threatened Israel with physical aggression," however much he would welcome its collapse.

Even if the Iranians would like to destroy Israel, they face a powerful disincentive: the prospect of radioactive incineration. The Tehran government has been intimidated by less. Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg writes in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy magazine: "Iran agreed to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq once Iraqi missiles began falling on Tehran. The ayatollahs were willing to sacrifice soldiers—but not to pay a higher price." Even fanatics have their limits.

Nor would Iran be so irrational as to give nukes to a terrorist group. That would be the worst of both worlds—giving up control of those weapons, while inviting annihilation the moment they are put to use.

But there is no reasoning with McCain and his allies, who yearn for the simple clarity of the Cold War. If we don't have an enemy on the mammoth scale of the Soviet Union, they will take a pint-sized one, inflate it beyond recognition and pretend that military confrontation is the only way to deal with it.

That was how we got into the war in Iraq and how, under a McCain presidency, we are liable to end up in a war in Iran. If he's looking for reckless judgment, he should look in the mirror.

[SpoonMan999]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0522chapmanmay22,1,7170206.column
chicagotribune.com
Mythmaking for the next war

Steve Chapman

May 22, 2008

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had some 45,000 nuclear warheads. At the moment, Iran has none. But when Barack Obama said the obvious—that Iran does not pose the sort of threat the Soviet Union did— John McCain reacted as though his rival had offered to trade Ft. Knox for a sack of magic beans.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment," exclaimed McCain. "These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess."

But if Iran is the Soviet Union, I'm Shaquille O'Neal. There is nothing reckless in soberly distinguishing large threats from small ones, and there is something foolhardy in grossly exaggerating the strength of your enemies.

As military powers go, Iran is a pipsqueak. It has no nuclear weapons. It has a pitiful air force. Its navy is really just a coast guard. It spends less on defense than Singapore or Sweden. Our military budget is 145 times bigger than Iran's.

By contrast, the Soviets had far more nuclear weapons than we did, a blue-water navy, formidable air power and ground forces that dwarfed ours. In a conventional war, it was anything but certain that we could prevail, and in a nuclear exchange, it was clear they could destroy us.

Iran is a very modest adversary. Of course, even a Chihuahua can bite. The U.S. government claims Iran has provided arms and training to Iraqi insurgents—never mind that it is allied with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But it's worthwhile to remember that even bad regimes sometimes have understandable motivations. The United States helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and provided aid to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. If Iran sees an interest in bleeding the U.S. military, that is likely a defensive response to the presence of an avowed enemy on its border rather than a sign of aggressive intent.

Its actions in Iraq, however, are supposedly the least of the menace. McCain and many others are convinced that Iran will soon get nuclear weapons and proceed to use them.

The first claim overlooks the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate, issued last year, which concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The NIE also said, "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs."

Even if Iran were to acquire atomic bombs, there is no reason to think it would use them or turn them over to terrorists. McCain, however, insists that Iran has "a commitment to Israel's destruction," and appears to think its leaders cannot be contained because of their religious fanaticism.

But as University of Michigan Middle East scholar Juan Cole has explained, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never vowed to "wipe Israel off the map"—an oft-quoted phrase that Cole says is a mistranslation of the milder words he used. In fact, he says, "Ahmadinejad has never threatened Israel with physical aggression," however much he would welcome its collapse.

Even if the Iranians would like to destroy Israel, they face a powerful disincentive: the prospect of radioactive incineration. The Tehran government has been intimidated by less. Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg writes in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy magazine: "Iran agreed to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq once Iraqi missiles began falling on Tehran. The ayatollahs were willing to sacrifice soldiers—but not to pay a higher price." Even fanatics have their limits.

Nor would Iran be so irrational as to give nukes to a terrorist group. That would be the worst of both worlds—giving up control of those weapons, while inviting annihilation the moment they are put to use.

But there is no reasoning with McCain and his allies, who yearn for the simple clarity of the Cold War. If we don't have an enemy on the mammoth scale of the Soviet Union, they will take a pint-sized one, inflate it beyond recognition and pretend that military confrontation is the only way to deal with it.

That was how we got into the war in Iraq and how, under a McCain presidency, we are liable to end up in a war in Iran. If he's looking for reckless judgment, he should look in the mirror.

He's right, you can't just shrug off Iran the way Obama is. They may never have as many weapons as the Soviet's did but does that make them a smaller threat? If that's what you believe then I pray you never run for and win the presidency. Iran may never be a super power but with the right tools they'll attack a country, like Israel for instance, just because they disagree. The Soviet Union at least had intelligent leaders who knew they shouldn't engage in all out war, as the World War that had just ended showed them, it's just a bad idea.

Iran on the other hand does not have this kind of leadership or mentality, I mean in government not it's people, they see it as an oppertunity to take out some infidels. And if they get bombed for it then oh well, they'll go to heaven and get their virgins.

[Homyrrh]

Hah, 'blue-water' navy, that's pretty clever.

Anyway, as our military strenth is, by spending, "145 times bigger" than Iran's, what' ths trouble in monitoring the situation? It's a nominal comittment tokeeping tabs; it's not like the Cold War where they could've relocated Langley to within the city confines of Moscow and been justifed.

McCain was truly being a little sensationalist, and Obama seems a little out of his league.

Just be careful referencing opinionated source material.

[MadsenOMC]

Just be careful referencing opinionated source material.

Is that directed towards me? If so I really don't need anyone telling me what to reference. And isn't every source opinionated in some way?

[QUENTIN]

I always have been and continue to be far more concerned about the constant threat coming from the country with the world's largest nuclear arsenal, which just happens to be the only country ever awful enough to actually use the damned things. "Oh no, some other country could have nuclear weapons in six years!" We've got a shitload right now and we still haven't found any reasonable leaders that will refuse to use them. Objectively, we are far and away the biggest and most serious nuclear threat in the world. So who the fuck are we to go around saying who can and can't have nuclear weapons?

[MadsenOMC]

He's right, you can't just shrug off Iran the way Obama is. They may never have as many weapons as the Soviet's did but does that make them a smaller threat? If that's what you believe then I pray you never run for and win the presidency. Iran may never be a super power but with the right tools they'll attack a country, like Israel for instance, just because they disagree. The Soviet Union at least had intelligent leaders who knew they shouldn't engage in all out war, as the World War that had just ended showed them, it's just a bad idea.

Iran on the other hand does not have this kind of leadership or mentality, I mean in government not it's people, they see it as an oppertunity to take out some infidels. And if they get bombed for it then oh well, they'll go to heaven and get their virgins.

The article is critical of McCain's approach, and it argues that yes, Iran is a much smaller threat than the Soviet Union.

[Homyrrh]

Is that directed towards me? If so I really don't need anyone telling me what to reference. And isn't every source opinionated in some way?
Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill, hombre. I was just saying you should make note that it's a OpEd piece instead of a report. Yeah, like the other thread's clearly made light of, all news is bias, but some people don't immediately realize as much. Trying to give you a helpful hint.

As for nukes, Quentin, and this is an entirely different topic, I'm entirely convicted that the use of not one, but both, nuclear weapons were justified in WWII. Again, don't want to get too tangential, but it's unfair to call Truman and his administration "awful enough" after analyzing the entire situation, specifically the even greater potential loss of lives on either side (especially American...) if we were to invade mainland Japan. The stubborness of the Japanese Empire following the Hiroshima drop, refusing to surrender at the inevitable cost of thousands more, was in itself ultimately genocidal. If I wrong someone, and they chop my left arm off because I don't apologize, why would I not try to save my right? (weak analogy, but you get the point...)

Yes, we have been the premier nuclear power for a goood time; we were developing a nuclear arsenal in the 1930s and dropping in the 1940s. Iran may one day have working atomic ordnance in the 2010s...nearly 80 tech-booming years later.

The fear with Iraq, IRan, NK, etc. and their respective prospects for owning nuclear weapons is their "understood" intent to use it on American soil. Every nation has an agenda, whether it be the belief that American wages war for oil, or Iran for jihad, etc., but Americans used to feeling untouchable for decades at the least now have reason to begin to worry.

[SpoonMan999]

The article is critical of McCain's approach, and it argues that yes, Iran is a much smaller threat than the Soviet Union.

It argues that in their opinion, you say it like it's fact. In my opinion Iran would be much more irresponsible with such weapons.

Again, don't want to get too tangential, but it's unfair to call Truman and his administration "awful enough" after analyzing the entire situation, specifically the even greater potential loss of lives on either side (especially American...) if we were to invade mainland Japan.

To quote one of the greatest generals this country ever had:

The object of war is not to die for one's country...it's to make the other bastard die for his.

[MadsenOMC]

It argues that in their opinion, you say it like it's fact. In my opinion Iran would be much more irresponsible with such weapons.

How would Iran be more irresponsible? At least he backs up his opinion, and he's not the only one to say that Iran is a whole lot of bark and not much bite.

That quote is idiotic. Tough talk is easy.

[SpoonMan999]

How can I back up my feeling? Based on what the current leader of Iran has said in public about the US and how he feels about Israel, not to mention refusing to acknowledge the holocaust, I feel there's nothing we should put beneath this idiot. We should be keeping an eye on him and if Israel makes a move to stop them from getting nuclear technology then I think we should back them up.

[MadsenOMC]

A lot of people don't acknowledge the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad is a big talker, but that doesn't mean he would start dropping nukes IF Iran ever possessed any. Like I said, he's a lot of bark and little bite.

[Homyrrh]

Without link, I point everyone toward the interesting developments in Iran.

Ahmadinejad's rival was jsut elected speaker yesterday. Saw it in the NY Times.

[MadsenOMC]

So maybe the Iranian people are tiring of his bluster and tough talk?

[Homyrrh]

Honestly, I'm not sure enough, but the article focused on this new speaker's openness to the US and other western nations. The articles mentioned it was a "good" development for the US.

I'll try to find the link later; I'm out to lunch ;)

[MadsenOMC]

Is this it?

May 29, 2008
Rival to Iran’s President Is Elected Speaker
By NAZILA FATHI and GRAHAM BOWLEY

TEHRAN — A rival to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by an overwhelming majority as speaker of the Iranian Parliament on Wednesday, a strong signal of growing impatience with the president’s economic policies and a possible sign of a political shift in the country.

The new speaker, Ali Larijani, who resigned as the country’s nuclear negotiator in October over differences with Mr. Ahmadinejad, is a conservative and an ardent advocate of Iran’s nuclear program, but is seen as more pragmatic in his approach and perhaps willing to engage in diplomacy with the West.

The post of speaker is normally a powerful one in Iranian politics, and Mr. Larijani’s elevation also suggests that the new Parliament will be much more likely than the last one to challenge Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is up for re-election in June 2009.

In his first speech as speaker, Mr. Larijani, who won by a vote of 232 to 31, said one of Parliament’s top priorities would be to strengthen the economy. His lopsided victory appeared to be a rebuke of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has faced growing dissatisfaction over grinding inflation and fresh memories of rolling blackouts last winter that left people without electricity and heat for hours at a time — even as the nation’s oil revenues were soaring.

The economic problems have apparently deepened tensions between Mr. Ahmadinejad and the religious establishment he ultimately answers to, in what seems to be a collective rethinking of his stewardship.

Despite his differences with Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Larijani is far from a moderate. In the same speech to Parliament, Mr. Larijani strongly criticized a report published this week by the International Atomic Energy Agency that had raised concerns about what it called Iran’s research into the development of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Larijani warned that if the agency “continues its attitude, the Parliament will set limits on cooperation.”

In Washington, a senior administration official said that the real decision-maker in Iran was still Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme religious leader.

“Unfortunately, the election of Mr. Larijani as parliamentary speaker is simply a continuation of the existing regime,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the issue. “Whether he and Ahmadinejad get along is irrelevant. He’s still fully supportive of all of their policies with which we disagree.”

Mr. Larijani, who has also been a culture minister and head of the state-run broadcasting operations, has emerged as a powerful politician in recent years, running against Mr. Ahmadinejad for president in 2005. He was a critic of the country’s nuclear policies under the reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, and opposed the decision to suspend uranium enrichment. Yet his position moderated after he became the nuclear negotiator in 2005 and tried to press back against Mr. Ahmadinejad’s radical approach, which had left Iran increasingly isolated.

He is considered close to Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final word on state matters. Mr. Larijani remained Ayatollah Khamenei’s representative at the Supreme National Security Council despite his October resignation.

Analysts said that Mr. Larijani’s victory could not have been possible without the support of the ayatollah and that Mr. Larijani might serve as a balancing force against Mr. Ahmadinejad’s radical policies.

“His election is a very important sign that suggests change,” said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst in Tehran. “His election would not have been possible without the consent of the leader and this shows that Mr. Ahmadinejad is losing his support.”

And in what appeared to be a direct reference to the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad and support for the new Parliament, Ayatollah Khamenei said in a message on Tuesday that “the government should abide by the laws passed by the Parliament.”

The ayatollah intervened in January after the former speaker, Gholmali Hadad Adel, had complained in a letter to him that the president had refused to put a bill into effect.

As speaker, Mr. Hadad Adel tried to curb any criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and came across as a weak leader. He failed to win the vote of the conservatives at a meeting before to the inauguration of Parliament this week.

The speaker of Parliament controls its budget and exerts great influence over members and how they vote. He also has the authority to take part in meetings with the president and the head of the judiciary.

Yet bills that are passed must be approved by the Guardian Council, a body of clerics and jurists, before they can become laws. The council, which also vets candidates for office, blocked much of Mr. Khatami’s reform agenda, for example.

Given Mr. Larijani’s credentials, he is considered much less likely to face that sort of resistance from the conservative clerics who dominate the council. There are many power centers in Iran, and it is also possible that Ayatollah Khamenei may have approved his selection as a way of balancing them.

Even though Mr. Larijani’s election underscored mounting concern over domestic policies, the atomic energy agency report was still very much on the minds of Iran’s leaders, as shown by the remarks in his speech.

In unusually blunt and detailed language, the agency said on Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

[Mopar Fanatic]

Not worried about Iran.

If any military power in history, such as Iran, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Napoleon's France, Ottoman empire, Mongol empire, Rome, etc., were in the position in which the US is today, i.e. - sole superpower with the world's most powerful military and enough WMDs to wipe out mankind, then none of us humanitarians would be talking about it on the internet chat rooms or through flag burning, street protests, and newspaper editorials. Instead, we'd be slaving away at said superpower's coal mines or hunting for rats to eat in the burned out ruins of our nuked cities. We should thank whatever pagan gods we are worshiping that there is someone to police the world, because there are quite a few folks out there who would love to smash the red button with their fists and nuke the Earth out of orbit. But that only makes America the most benevolent military superpower as far as the rest of the world is concerned and just barley at that, since having a world full of small democratic or pseudo-democratic countries with a free market is in its best economic interests.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

How can I back up my feeling? Based on what the current leader of Iran has said in public about the US and how he feels about Israel, not to mention refusing to acknowledge the holocaust, I feel there's nothing we should put beneath this idiot. We should be keeping an eye on him and if Israel makes a move to stop them from getting nuclear technology then I think we should back them up.

Then let's just leave it at that. Here is my problem with the Iran debacle: we're getting so worked up about it that we're already making the rest of the world quite uncomfortable. Unlike Iran, everyone knows what we're capable of, even if we're more inclined to use our weapons only for "good." So many people who want war with Iran have had a lot of time to express their views, so it's already viewed by most of the world that this is something a good percentage of us want.

The idea of going to war with Iran, as of this moment, is just as irrational as the idea that we should ignore whatever they're doing. At this point, we don't even know if Ahmadinejad is really crazy or just really stupid (I think he's a good bit of both). The main thing we should be concerned about is if they're aiding insurgents in Iraq, which seems like a bigger deal than nuclear weapons that haven't even been created yet.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, Madsen, that's it. Thanks.

[Scarfather]

My favorite thing about this new cycle of war mongering is the "but what about Israel!" card.

In such a tight region as the Middle-East, NO country is going to nuke any other country. The fallout would fuck up the entire region.

[SpoonMan999]

Then let's just leave it at that. Here is my problem with the Iran debacle: we're getting so worked up about it that we're already making the rest of the world quite uncomfortable. Unlike Iran, everyone knows what we're capable of, even if we're more inclined to use our weapons only for "good." So many people who want war with Iran have had a lot of time to express their views, so it's already viewed by most of the world that this is something a good percentage of us want.

The idea of going to war with Iran, as of this moment, is just as irrational as the idea that we should ignore whatever they're doing. At this point, we don't even know if Ahmadinejad is really crazy or just really stupid (I think he's a good bit of both). The main thing we should be concerned about is if they're aiding insurgents in Iraq, which seems like a bigger deal than nuclear weapons that haven't even been created yet.

I never said we should just run in and invade. In my last post I stated that we should monitor them and go in IF Israel makes a move.

[Homyrrh]

My favorite thing about this new cycle of war mongering is the "but what about Israel!" card.

In such a tight region as the Middle-East, NO country is going to nuke any other country. The fallout would fuck up the entire region.
BUT, they're religious fundamentalists. As certain terrorist extremists flew hijacked planes on suicide missions into civilian targets, why would they begin to care about their own lives now? Isn't this the hesitation to drop nuclear weapons? Human life?

[SpoonMan999]

BUT, they're religious fundamentalists. As certain terrorist extremists flew hijacked planes on suicide missions into civilian targets, why would they begin to care about their own lives now? Isn't this the hesitation to drop nuclear weapons? Human life?

My concern exactly.

[boombche_stum]

Iran is a big deal because they constantly have conflict with one of our biggest allies, Israel, and if they have nukes then Israel doesn't stand much of a chance. So, we're backing Israel in trying to stop them from gaining these weapons and averting a much larger crisis than a war with one nation.

Iran also isn't stupid. Isreal has been nuclear for ages now, they have hundreds of Warheads stockpiled. Even IF Iran is going Nuclear, it's going to take anywhere from 5 to 15 years for them to get the type of technology they need to extract plutonium at weapons grade and even then, do you honestly think they would launch an attack WITHOUT an enormous stockpile? Launching one nuke without any possibility for launching a retaliatory strike just isn't good strategy.

[boombche_stum]

How can I back up my feeling? Based on what the current leader of Iran has said in public about the US and how he feels about Israel, not to mention refusing to acknowledge the holocaust, I feel there's nothing we should put beneath this idiot. We should be keeping an eye on him and if Israel makes a move to stop them from getting nuclear technology then I think we should back them up.

Unfortunately you're not looking at the hierarchy there. Ahmadinejad has no real power in that country and never has. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is the Supreme Leader in Iran and must give the final word on all matters concerning Iran. Plus, as stated already in this thread... Ahmandinejad is a very unpopular figure in Iran and has been for some time.

[boombche_stum]

BUT, they're religious fundamentalists. As certain terrorist extremists flew hijacked planes on suicide missions into civilian targets, why would they begin to care about their own lives now? Isn't this the hesitation to drop nuclear weapons? Human life?

For one I seriously doubt Khomeini has the ambition to use nukes. The potential fallout from that scenario doesn't favor Iran or any of its interests.

And secondly, most Iranian citizens are actually more moderate than the Media would have you believe. Upon first look.. yeah, their Government doesn't really represent the vast majority of them in terms political views, but neither does America's Government to be honest (More Americans claim centrist than far left or right).

[Homyrrh]

For one I seriously doubt Khomeini has the ambition to use nukes. The potential fallout from that scenario doesn't favor Iran or any of its interests.

And secondly, most Iranian citizens are actually more moderate than the Media would have you believe. Upon first look.. yeah, their Government doesn't really represent the vast majority of them in terms political views, but neither does America's Government to be honest (More Americans claim centrist than far left or right).
Regarding the latter, I'd definitely get that, and understand/agree with the analogy, but these much less extremist civilians do not make the decisions.

Ultimately, a nuclear attack is very unlikely, especially as of now, but I think the biggest hindrance is the technological shortcomings present in Iran more than their unwillingness.

[MadsenOMC]

Thursday, May. 29, 2008
Are Ahmadinejad's Days Numbered?
By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

Ali Larijani projected a presidential bearing as he accepted his election as speaker of Iran's parliament on Wednesday — a vote that boded ill for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Larijani, a high-profile arch-rival of the president, addressed global themes in his address to the opening session of the Majlis, dressing down the International Atomic Energy Agency and praising Hizballah. Despite the tough talk that was welcomed by some of the legislators with shouts of "God is Great!" and "Death to America!" Larijani received a congratulatory call from European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana — an old negotiating partner. While Iran's insistence on its right to enrich uranium unites all major factions in the country, Larijani represents a more pragmatic approach to handling the issue, aimed at finding agreement with the West and avoiding confrontation.

Larijani's stunning return to center stage in Iranian politics makes two things clear: President Ahmadinejad's hold on power is slipping badly, and next year's Iranian presidential election race is now wide open. Winning 232 votes after persuading an Ahmadinejad ally, former Speaker Gholamali Haddad-Adel, to step aside, Larijani is poised to make the position a dynamic power center in Iranian politics, and perhaps even a personal launch pad for challenging Ahmadinejad's bid for a second term of office.

"You're going to see Larijani as a very active and confident speaker," a Tehran analyst told TIME. His comeback has underscored the increasing fragility of Ahmadinejad's authority in the country; less than a year ago, the president had effectively forced Larijani out of his senior post as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Iran's top nuclear negotiator.

Ahmadinejad's defeat in the Majlis is the latest sign of the ferment within Iran's ruling conservative coalition, which dominates the legislature. Larijani engineered two impressive political victories, first to win a seat in the 290-member assembly, and then to oust a sitting speaker. Prominent politicians and clerical figures have begun distancing themselves from Ahmadinejad and rallying around Larijani. The shift reflects the fact that Ahmadinejad has alienated many in his own conservative camp with an arrogant personal style and erratic economic and foreign policies. While he still enjoys solid popular support, many Iranians bitterly complain that inflation and unemployment have left the economy in a shambles despite record oil revenues. Says commentator Azar Mansuri: "The gap between rich and poor has become wider. Criticism of the government is growing by the day."

Larijani, despite his opening-day rhetoric against the IAEA, is widely viewed as the standard-bearer within the conservative establishment for pragmatism in domestic and foreign affairs. Besides serving in security posts, he is a former minister of culture and headed Iranian state television for a decade. A vital point of difference is that while Ahmadinejad has taken a provocative stance in the now-suspended negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, Larijani believes Iran's interests are better served with a constructive dialogue aimed at building Western confidence that Iran's uranium-enrichment activities will not be diverted into the construction of nuclear weapons. Interviewed on Iranian TV's Outlook One program two weeks ago, Larijani reiterated that "everyone should try to start the negotiations" to resolve the dispute over Iran's program.

Despite the groundswell of support, some Iranian insiders believe that Larijani will ultimately prefer to remain as parliament speaker rather than risk losing to Ahmadinejad in the '09 race. "He may see that he has little chance of being elected president, and that it's better to exercise influence as the head of one of the branches of government," a Tehran analyst told TIME. More an intellectual than a politician — he wrote a doctoral thesis on German philosophy — Larijani finished near the bottom in the 2005 multi-candidate election that brought Ahmadinejad to power.

Even then, his comeback proves there is deep discontent within conservative circles over Ahmadinejad's leadership, and raises the likelihood that the incumbent will be strongly challenged by another leading conservative presidential candidate. Among those contenders may be the popular mayor of Tehran, Mohammed-Baqer Qalibaf, who has criticized Ahmadinejad's belligerent foreign policy statements and mishandling of the Iranian economy. Ahmadinejad seems to recognize the shifting winds; he let it be known that he, too, preferred his bitter rival Larijani over Haddad-Adel in the speaker contest.

Because Larijani's political comback certainly had the blessing of Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei — who wields executive power in Iran — an analyst in Tehran told TIME it signals that Khamenei, the ultimate arbiter in Iranian politics may be prepared to sanction challenges to Ahmadinejad's re-election next year. Whether or not Larijani becomes a presidential candidate, he is likely to use his high-profile post as parliamentary speaker to question Ahmadinejad's policies and offer alternatives. That, along with Khamenei's ambivalence about Ahmadinejad's political future, could weaken the incumbent's authority and prepare the ground for his defeat at the polls next summer.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810456,00.html

[boombche_stum]

Regarding the latter, I'd definitely get that, and understand/agree with the analogy, but these much less extremist civilians do not make the decisions.

Ultimately, a nuclear attack is very unlikely, especially as of now, but I think the biggest hindrance is the technological shortcomings present in Iran more than their unwillingness.

I'm going to have to disgaree with that statement. Khomeini has said several times since he became Supreme Leader of Iran that he would not use nukes in any situation because it is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Qu'Ran.

Hell, to be perfectly honest I still don't know 100% (Nor does anyone else) that Iran is extracting Plutonium for anything other than alternative energy source (Something we told Iran to do in the 60's after installing the Shah). So the idea that they are heading indefinitely toward a Nuclear Weapons program is a little too assuming right now IMO. Either way though, I seriously doubt if they are gathering resoucres for a weapons program that they would use them as some sort of first strike option, they've never done anything of the sort before so what makes people believe they would do it now?