Here we go. From the Arab newspaper in London, Iran's plans. What do we think about this development, if it rings true? Well, I don't like any of this too much.  Are things becoming any clearer about the Enemy?  Do we have any?  You know who "we" are, don't you?

Susan

Iran's Secret Plan if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"
Thursday 27 April 2006
Asharq Al-Awsat Exclusive

By Ali Nouri Zadeh

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Eight fundamentalist Islamist organizations have received large sums of money in the last month from the Iranian intelligence services, as part of a project to strike U.S military and economic installations across the Middle East Asharq Al-Awsat has learned.

The plan, which also includes the carrying out of suicide operations targeting US and British interests in the region, as well as their Arab and Muslim allies, in case Iran is attacked, was drawn up by a number of experts guerilla warfare and terrorist operations, and was revealed by a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff headed by the veterinary doctor Hassan Firouzabadi,

The source added that the forces of the Revolutionary Guards’ al Quds Brigades, under Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani is responsible for coordinating and providing logistical support for the groups taking part in the execution of the plan, codenamed al Qiyamah the Islamic word for "Judgment Day".

The plan includes three steps, which Asharq al Awsat has examined in earlier reports. The source gave more details about how the plan will be implemented. He said, “Most of Iran’s visitors in the last four months, including the leaders of revolutionary groups in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the heads of Hezbollah cells in the Persian Gulf and Europe and North America were asked, when they met with the Iranian intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei and his aides: are you ready to defend the Islamic revolution and vilayat e faqih? If you agree to take part in the great jihad, what would you need to be ready for the great fight?

Amongst the leaders who visited were the head of one of the Iraqi armed group who was very clear and honest. He said his men would transform Iraq into a hell for the Americans if Iran were attacked.

The source also said that the military training camps of the Guards were opened for the fighters of the Mehdi army in Iran to receive the necessary training. Iran had also increased its financial assistance to Moqtada al Sadr to more than 20 million dollars.

The same applied to Islamic Jihad in Palestine which has received large sums of money, large quantities of arms and military training for its cadres in Isfahan, including street fighting methods.

As for the Lebanese Hezbollah, several loads of arms have been sent to; they include rockets, explosives, and guided missiles. Hezbollah's arsenal includes more than 10 thousand rockets short-range rockets and missiles including Fajr, Nour, Arash, Hadid.

An estimated 80 members underwent private training last year on how to carry out suicide operations from the air (through the use of kite planes) and undersea operations using submarines.

While denying that Hamas had joined the list of organizations ready to help Iran in its likely war with the U.S, the source indicated that the external success of the movement, which enjoys considerable Iranian support both financial and military, was strengthened following the latest visit by its leaders to Tehran. This was translated in the Palestinian masses’ support for Iran, against Israel and the United States .

According to Iran, the latest military plan includes:

1- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq , as soon as nuclear installations are hit.

2- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States .

3- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq .

4- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel .

According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries.

What about the last stage in the plan?

Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This does not surprise me, defence plans are entirely rational and should not be viewed as ' ha we knew it all along, they have malicious intent, we want peace and security, they are bad, we are good, our stance is vindicated.' If Iran is attacked of course they will fight back, the same as every other nation state. If they didn't have a contingency plan in place for a US attack they would be very stupid and questions would be asked of their leadership.

In my opinion, given the rhetoric coming out of both countries lately, the road the US and Iranian leaders are on will only lead to political and economic disaster unless power drunk politicians take a reality check and address this climate of mistrust like the fukking grown ups they ought to be. All this machismo proves a very good feminist argument, that war will always be a feature of a world society dominated by males.

 One related question - Why has the US leadership agreed to lift restrictions with India even though it has the bomb and rejects the non-proliferation treaty? Does this not add to a nuclear free for all climate?

1. Not surprised Iran has drawn up such a plan of retaliation. They've been training, coordinating and funding Islamic terrorism for years.

2. Reaffirms my belief that we supported regime change in the wrong country. 

3. Not much we can do now, except give our troops the best support possible, prepare our emergency services for the worst case scenario, inform the public of what to do in case of a major terrorist attack and hope our leaders are one step ahead of the game. (yikes!)

4.  Bring it on.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Because they are the largest democracy in the world and Bush wants to maintain an equilibrium in the Indian sub-continent, especially with new best buddies Pakistan. As far as I see it, the 'rules'  only apply to enemies.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Iranian people are your enemy? Is that what you are saying?

BTW Iran has not broken any 'rules.' They aren't operating outside the NPT you know.

No, you misunderstand me, they are the Bush regime's enemies. Axis of Evil? Actually I have family in Iran.

I was trying to say (maybe not very well) that there have always been one set of rules for friendly nations and one set of rules for others.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

This isn't really that difficult to understand -- the differences between India and Iran anyway. Xray correctly noted India is the world's largest democracy. That's a short sentence. But it means a lot. Couple that with the fact that India does not routinely run of its official mouth threatening to wipe countries off the face of the planet.

It's also true that most of the world was far from overjoyed with India and Pakistan nukes, but those genies are out of the bottle. A country that aspires toward nuclear bombs at this point in history is not going to be looked on favorably even if it were some pacific state like Luxembourg. But when Iran is the candidate, there are few countries who see that advancement as a good thing. That includes most other countries in the Middle East who don't like the upset in the balance of power in THEIR region.

Any notion that Iran is NOT developing its nuclear program with weapon intents, is laughable as well, as evidenced by the accompanying threats.

Ray, saying Iran is the enemy of the Bush "regime" understates the reality a wee bit, don't you think? There must be more than just the Bush "regime" who view the Iranian "regime" as a threat, right? John Kerry, for example? Bill Clinton? Hillary?

I'm pretty sure it's a generally accepted bipartisan premise that:

1. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man

2. He's under the control of Islamist mullahs who really run the country

3. A nuclear bomb in their hands is more than a little threatening to the stability of the entire world.

Yes, yes, yes, as always, IF someone other than Bush were President at this moment, no doubt they'd use different language in the public discourse over Iran. But language aside, I don't believe there is a US president-to-be who would differ from the central tenet that it is not in the world's or the United States' best interest that Iran goes nuclear.

LetsRoque, a question like "Iranian people are your enemy?" must have been rhetorical device otherwise I can't see how xray's post would have led you to that interpretation. But I'll answer that question too. NO. In fact, it seems to me that most Americans are very hopeful about the future of Iran and that is BECAUSE of the Iranian people. Here in southern California there's a sizable Iranian population who are likewise displeased over the idea of a nuclear Iran. I'm certain they don't consider the "Iranian people their enemy."

However, there is an ideological battle raging within the Middle East, totally apart from that which the US and/or the UK have contributed to with the war in Iraq. And that battle is about issues such as...

secular government

ridding the region of despotic rulers

reining in Islamic extremists

expanding women's rights

growing international economies

...issues, that when resolved, would bring the Middle East into the 21st century. This is particulary true in Iran where there is a strong oil-driven economy, a youthful population, Internet access and a highly educated populous.

You may have a reflex, if given a choice to believe one or the other, to favor the integrity of the Iranian government over the US. But be careful what you wish for and whose word you accept as the gospel. Below there is a link to some Iranian blogs from the land you confidently claim is "breaking no rules" with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. I suppose if you were to take the word of Ahmadinejad at face value, you could be persuaded to believe this. And if you took his word, well then, what is the whole world in such a tizzy over? Gotta be George Bush and his cronies, with their persistant saber rattling, who are getting those peaceable mullahs all lathered up. But IF you took that part of his word, mustn't you also be required to believe him when he details his plans for Israel? The next logical question it would seem to me, must be, how does a non-nuclear Iran wipe a nuclear Israel off the face of the map? Ah, it does get baffling.

There's valuable insight starting from this point with Iranian blogs: http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/

Or watch the subtitled translated television programming and read articles from Iran via my favorite website: http://www.memri.org/ This link is extremely educational and allows you to eliminate that pesky knee-jerk, anti-American, university professorial, ivory tower, academese interpretation of the Iranian reality. Hear it/read it first hand from primary sources in Iran. MEMRI's home page begins with 5 or 6 of the most current translations but you can single out a country such as Iran, go back in the archives, and read or watch material from the past few years.

Like I said, it's pretty simple. But the solutions are damned difficult and who among us would want the task of sorting it all out and making decisions???

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

By 'Bush regime's enemies' I was merely referring to the famous, post 911 Axis of Evil speech. Iran was clearly targetted as an enemy to be dealt with at some point in the future.

And just to totally clear things up - I'm sure the current Iranian regime would be considered hostile by many other countries too, not just the US or UK.

Phew! Glad we got that sorted.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

Well, that's what I thought you meant but just for the multitudes who may not know the backstory, clarification is always good. 

I always harken back to 2003 when picking up a new mailbox from Encino BBQ and Fireplace, where the owner, Bob, is an Armenian from Iran.  We always talk world affairs and on that day we were discussing the war in Iraq.  He said to me, Bush picked the wrong country with a four letter name beginning with "I."  

These days I keep visualizing that statement someone else made -- maybe Charles Krauthammer -- about international politics being like a giant Calder mobile.  Touch something over here and several things over there are set into motion. It's all interrelated.  The motion never really stops.  There are temporary solutions, times with less shaking than others, but it never really stands still.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I don't like Ahmadinejad as much as the next man but it is ultimatley better to reform from within rather than impose regime change from the top (we all know what that means and what happened last time that strategy was followed). Imo the right strategy is to support the reformists in Iran and let the UN take the lead in nuclear matters. And before I hear a lot of teeheeing at the UN, please keep the 35000 odd Iraqi civilian dead in mind. Unilateralism didn't exactly win the argument there. Oops the wrong country was invaded won't wash with those people's families.

Quote - This link is extremely educational and allows you to eliminate that pesky knee-jerk, anti-American, university professorial, ivory tower, academese interpretation of the Iranian reality. Hear it/read it first hand from primary sources in Iran.

How arrogant and rude. I'm not anti-american at all. I'm anti-war and anti-right wing but not anti-american. There's a big difference. It is widely accepted that the one issue that unites Iran is the right to nuclear technology. I don't need to read blogs of your choice to know whats going on inside Iran.

What can I do? In my effort to NOT be "rude and arrogant" -- an unfortuante inborn trait for us right-wingers, whom you are "anti-" -- I thought I had fashioned my post with a pretty friendly tone. Oh well. I tried. 

Yes, there is such a language as university academese though it was NOT what I was suggesting YOU were speaking. There wasn't enough heft to what you wrote for me to make that determination.  I was only making a more generalized statement about the slant that comes from Academia, something I've stated here before and something I'm quite familiar with. Geez, I could write a book on that subject!

You say that you are not anti-American, but anti-war AND anti-right wing. Those two categories are rather vast and within our population of 300,000,000 there are a substantial number of Americans who fit the bill. So perhaps you are only anti-half-of-America?  That's a fine distinction but I'll buy it. Anti-war is rather all encompassing, but okay. If you say so. Anti-all wars? A Pacifist?

Blogs of my choice? There were several links within the Iranian blog, but fine again.  Ignore them.

The other, MEMRI, is one I always recommend both here on the Gazette and in my "real" life. People of all political stripes have found it interesting to read and/or watch oh say, Bahraini TV interview with an apostate female writer, or an interview with Osama bin Laden's spiritual advisor, or to watch Zarqawi's full half-hour rant. Usually, if you see these things at all, it is a minimal 30 seconds or so. If you weren't already aware of MEMRI's existence, I thought it was a good one to know about. Hey, I'm a "sharer." MEMRI does not propound a particular view but it gives you a window into the Middle East that is otherwise unattainable unless you speak Arabic and Farsi and regularly travel through the region. It is not an insult to suggest that you might find something of value within.

MEMRI includes articles and videos that are sometimes very heartening along with those that are startling in their venom toward the West and Jews. But, the main point is they are unfiltered primary sources and that is the difference between simply propoganda from the left or the right. You won't ever find me posting a link to "Right Wing News" or any other partisan website. 

If you would like to share some of your sources on Iranian information, I'm game to checking them out. I read all that comes across my radar screen and I'm not persnickety about who provides the link.  I'd happily read it and judge the source afterward.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Serious business, so I think you should run for office, Susan!  You need some power behind those mighty words.  (I'd vote for you if I lived in California.)

Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole -- DL

now this is good news:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14424 

we can only hope it's true. If any country in the world that is ripe for changed created from the inside that would be Iran.

My biggest concern about attacking Iran is the backlash the attacking country may receive even from opposition groups. We aren't talking about an Iraqi backlash, like we saw, but probably something that would echo down the ages and be much worse in the long run.  Talk about making enemies - that would be it. We need operatives on the ground and moving in and out of there to help stimulate change from within, and if it wasn't for some laws passed during the 90s this would be a lot easier to do than what it is right now. A drastic internal change in Iran would be an amazing thing.

Jordan .

These are some very fine detailed photographs that the Israelis have taken from space. I think their publication on an Arabic news outlet is intriquing. Makes you wonder what kind of imagery they have from Iran, hmmmmm?

Susan

This from Asharq Alawsat news:

New Israeli Spy Satellite Sends First Images
Monday 01 May 2006

Jerusalem, AP - Israel is receiving the first high-quality images from a spy satellite designed to track Iran's nuclear program.

Photos from the satellite published in Israeli newspapers Sunday show vivid images of a dam in Syria and helicopters in Sudan.

The satellite can make out things a little over two-feet long on the ground. An Israeli official says it can also see things as far as 310 miles on either side of its path, meaning it can shoot pictures of the same spot often as it passes over.

Its main job is to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear program at a time when Tehran is refusing to comply with international demands to halt work that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons.

An official involved with the project declines to say whether the satellite has picked up any images from Iran yet.

1. This image dated Friday April 28, 2006 and provided by the Eros B Israeli spy satellite shows a high-quality image showing the Tabaqah Dam in Syria.

2. This Israeli spy satellite D3 Eros B1 image isreported to show a civil port on the Black Sea.

3. This image dated provided by the Eros B Israeli spy satellite shows a high-quality image showing the Kassala Airport in the southern Sudan.

1.                                                         2.                                                                 3.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I agree with you Raymond.  I am thankful we never made that move to Italy much as I love the place.  It would make me very queasy to be a European these days. 

Some Europeans are of the mind that whichever state appears to be the underdog is the one worthy of support. 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I wouldn't quite say I'm a pacifist. Some wars are just. Pre-emptive war is very hard to justify, in fact quite the opposite as Iraq has shown all too vividly. I would classify myself as a centrist. Not every thing is left and right, black and white Susan. Life is not that simple. In general, I would lean to the right on economic matters and to the left on political ones. You could say I'm a well balanced individual - a chip on both shoulders

 Quote - Some Europeans are of the mind that whichever state appears to be the underdog is the one worthy of support. 

Some Americans are of the mind that because they are the largest, most powerful state in the world, that they are the most righteous and know what is best for everybody else. Hegemony or survival anyone? 

I do not apologise for supporting the underdog, there's alot to be said for equity, balance and stability in the world. In terms of my own nationality, I'm glad Ireland has generally remained neutral internationally (well, arguably up until the Iraq war when we allowed US planes to land and re-fuel at shannon airport) as it has enough problems of its own without imposing on others' affairs.  In terms of my geographical area,  I live in a part of Ireland than is under British rule so I only feel queasy when I turn on the news and see the effect of political ideology *supposedly* in my name.

I'm mystified how this response would be an apt follow-up to anything I've written on this thread, LetsRoque. But you must have your reasons.

Some Americans are of the mind that because they are the largest and most powerful state in the world, that they are the most righteous and know what is best for everybody else.

I do not apologise for supporting the underdog, there's alot to be said for equity, balance and stability in the world.

Sometimes there is a place for supporting the underdog. I do that myself with horse races, boxing matches and independent films. But not for the mere virtue of the fact that something is an underdog. Some underdogs choose their destiny. Though usually, it is more complex than that. It's a process of weighing all the known pros and cons and choosing up sides based on the one which falls closest to your own criteria.

Equity? Not sure how that is achieved. Balance and stability in the world? Not familiar with that state of affairs. When did that happen?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Quote - 'I'm mystified how this response would be an apt follow-up to anything I've written on this thread, LetsRoque. But you must have your reasons'

That was in response to your extrapolation that since i'm anti-right wing, i'm anti-republican and thus anti half of America. That was not what I meant, maybe I should have expressed myself better. Over here when we say 'right-wing' we mean political views at the extreme right end of the political spectrum.

Quote - 'I cannot think of another nation that would invade a country to rid it of a dictator and spend that occupying nation's blood and money on rebuilding the infrastructure, building schools, providing health care to even the enemy combatants while striving to reach that day when we leave their nation behind, hopefully a better place.'

Was it widely reported in the US that the Bremer administration 'lost' $100bn dollars of oil reserves, set aside for the post war reconstruction of Iraq? Was it widely reported that most of this capital ended up in US bank accounts? And what about the guy in the highest office of the pentagon, still in office even though he has been fingered by many people across the board for being the reason why the reconstruction of Iraq is going so badly wrong? Why can't incompetence be dealt with?

I do not question the ordinary American's desire to see a peaceful post war Iraq - how could they not? Its the warped view of right and wrong and blatent hypocrisy of the current administration that gets me. Many of those in George Jnrs team held prominent positions in George snrs and Reagans administrations which helped prop up Mr Hussein and supported him throughout the Iran-Iraq war. Once he disobeyed orders THEN he was a bad guy. In order to get rid of him, tens of thousands of people had to die in an illegal war. Same with OBL, he was once a policy tool of previous administrations. The current administration's projected altruism would be alot more believable and palatable once mistakes are admitted, people are held accountable, and noticeable changes are made in foreign policy.

It is a common refrain though, this "I don't hate Americans I just hate this administration." I suppose even bin Laden could make that statement. Maybe there really isn't such a thing as anti-Americanism if that statement is true. But I think the terminology is more or less useful. Or to convert it to Al Qaeda, can you or anyone fairly say they are "anti-Al Qaeda?" You don't hear nearly so often, "I am anti-terrorists, anti-Al Qaeda, anti-Islamo-Fascism. Or would it have to be a qualified "I only hate the violent ones."

I suppose you're right. I would like to reduce some situations to their essence though I like to think of it more as Charcoal versus Tan though, rather than Black and White. Still the choice is not difficult and I have no deliberating necessary such as -- "Well, bin Laden did buy soccer balls for that madrassa while Bush bombed that tribal wedding in Afghanistan killing women and children. Hmmm."

At a certain point, even those who have long resisted making judgements out of the uncomfortable sense that such behavior is distasteful -- "stereotyping" or _____(fill in the blank)___aphobic -- are going to be forced into taking sides. There will be an American President other than Bush. Had it been Kerry, I really don't think the situation in Iraq would be drastically different today. Yes, I will be backing the US as the current leader of the free world in spite of any shortcomings.

Fact is people in the US are concerned, worried, tense, uneasy and all that, as are people around the world these days. I see evidence of this in all that I read and hear. It's nice to have one small group on whom to attribute all the blame, but I just think it is highly unrealistic.

The rest of your post -- I'd love to discuss, but I've got something else I look forward to almost as much and I have to run. 9:30 root canal appointment!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Enjoy that root canal Susan, and oh yes, there are plenty of people who are right of Bush. :) I know I am but not by much.

Oh and the good news - this post wasn't a novel. 

Jordan .

I told you Jordan. You write too many of those. Maybe Susan can give you some tips since she's trimmed a few paragraphs off of hers

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Something tells me Pahlavi, the Younger, is at least as out of touch from Iranian consciousness as Ahmed, the Exile, Chalabi was with Iraqi's.

Susan

PS Photo of the Day is the book cover of "Iran Today" a sympathetic telling of the Iranian Islamic Republic's history equating the fine qualities of each of these "Stars of the Third World Revolt against Imperialism" -- Ayatollah Khomeini, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Nasser.  Who could argue with that? I'm torn between two songs as I mull over the implications:

"Gimme That Old Time Imperialism"

or

"Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves"

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 

More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran
May 12 11:09 AM US/Eastern  

By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria

The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the traces match others established to have come from abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.

Iran's refusal to give up enrichment ambitions has led to involvement by the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions but remains split on how firmly to pressure Tehran.

Key U.N. Security Council members agreed Tuesday to postpone a resolution that would have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to re-evaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Iran's hard-line president said Friday that his country was not afraid of possible U.S. military action over its enrichment program, but added that he thought any such strikes were very unlikely. Washington has said it favors a diplomatic end to the dispute, but it hasn't ruled out military force.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also told a local TV station that Iran would cooperate with the Security Council if it makes a decision on the escalating standoff as long as the world body acts "in line with international rules."

The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan.

The origin of the samples now under perusal created some concern in that regard.

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian. The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site. (Like we can trust "them," right?)

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35- nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question.

Ahmadinejad's remarks on possible U.S. military action were made in Jakarta during a discussion with Indonesian Islamic leaders.

Asked whether his country was prepared to face an attack by the United States, he said "that is very unlikely because they know the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strong country."

"They are trying to frighten our country by waging a propaganda campaign using strong words. The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," he said to applause from the audience. (I love that language where all you have to do to translate is reverse the words. "We are trying to frighten their country by waging a propaganda campaign using strongs words.  The people of the US and the country are not afraid of them." is one way it might translate.)

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I happen to love this guy, Niall Ferguson. (Thank you, UK, for yet another addition to the US and A!) I think my favorite line in this piece is the one highlighted in red. It seems an apt description of what we're witnessing. WBUH = pretty funny too.

Susan

Niall Ferguson: The Cold Wars are coming

The U.S.-Soviet nuclear rivalry was scary enough. Now imagine a world with multiple atomic antagonists.
Los Angeles Times
May 15, 2006

Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, pessimists have been asking themselves when the next Cold War will begin — and who the new enemy will be. But what if it's Cold Wars, plural, and enemies, plural?

A world with one potential nuclear conflict was scary enough. It would be a whole lot scarier if in the future there were multiple nuclear rivalries — four or more regional Cold Wars — each with the potential to end in devastating missile exchanges.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what the future may hold.

Why does it suddenly seem so hard to stop Iran from going nuclear? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is behaving with such recklessness that it ought to be easy. In October, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". It is, he told cheering Indonesian students last week, a "tyrannical regime that one day will be destroyed." Simultaneously, Ahmadinejad has trumpeted Iran's "right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions, barely disguising his country's intention to move from energy into weaponry.

Yet the West — what's left of it — seems paralyzed, watching Ahmadinejad with the same appalled fascination that a large and docile cow might regard a rearing cobra.

It is, of course, always dangerous to draw analogies with the 1930s. Too many bad decisions have been made over the years on the basis of facile parallels — between Hitler and Nasser, between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Still, in one respect, Ahmadinejad really has taken a leaf out of the Führer's book. He has discovered the counterintuitive truth that it works to talk aggressively before you have acquired weapons of mass destruction.

The key is that weak opponents are unnerved when they fear they are dealing with a madman. In this respect, the long and nutty letter sent by Ahmadinejad to President Bush last week was exemplary, with its repeated references to "the prophet ... Jesus Christ (PBUH)" (Peace Be Upon Him).

Four years ago, George W. Bush would have trash-canned such drivel with a snort of "WBUH" (War Be Upon Him). But those days are gone. Bush is now almost as unpopular as Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter at the nadirs of their political fortunes. Not only is domestic support lacking for any preemptive action against Tehran, international support is close to nonexistent.

In short, it seems highly probable that nothing will be done this year, next year or the year after to stop Iran's nuclear program. Sure, maybe a miracle will happen and the Iranian people will get rid of the madman and the mullahs. But I'm not holding my breath.

Fast forward to 2016. What does the world look like? One plausible scenario is that it will be a world of multiple mini-Cold Wars, with nuclear powers eyeball to eyeball in nearly every region. To some extent, that's already true. In Asia, there's a Cold War between India and Pakistan, though thankfully they seem to have entered a period of detente.

Japan could quickly acquire nuclear weapons if it felt insufficiently protected by the U.S. against China. South Korea might do the same if it lost faith in American protection. And might a decoupled Europe start to build up the Anglo-French nuclear capability as a response to energy blackmail from Russia? The key Cold War, however, would be the one in the Middle East, with Israel on one side and Iran on the other.

There are those who say that such a world could still be a peaceful world. The acquisition of nuclear weapons can make a rogue regime reasonable, they argue, because — that old line from "Spider-Man" — "with great power comes great responsibility." In a recent lecture at Harvard, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and nuclear theorist Thomas Schelling argued that three things had prevented nuclear weapons from being used in anger over the last 60 years: the nonproliferation treaty, the informal taboo on their use and the fear of retaliation. Nuclear weapons give their possessors influence, Schelling concluded, precisely through not being used.

Yet there is no guarantee that this logic will continue to apply in a world of multiple Cold Wars.

For one thing, the world enjoyed 60 years without nuclear war partly out of sheer good luck, as any student of the Cuban missile crisis knows. In a world of multiple Cold Wars, the risks of miscalculations are proportionally multiplied.

For another, Ahmadinejad does not look like a man who bothers about (Western) taboos or fears (Israeli) retaliation. On the contrary, he is a devotee of the hidden Twelfth Imam, who Shiites believe will return to Earth as the Mahdi (Messiah) for a final showdown with the forces of evil. Among the members of the Mahdi's entourage will be none other than Jesus Christ. After that, it'll be the End of Days.

When Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations last year, this is how he concluded: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

To a millenarian, mutually assured destruction is just another word for the long-awaited Apocalypse. And that, in essence, is why we don't want Iran to have the Bomb. Are we doomed to grasp this only when the mushroom clouds are rising over Tel Aviv and Tehran?

 

  And he's CUTE too!

 Niall Ferguson is Professor of History at Harvard University, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford.

 His latest book, "Colossus", was published by the Penguin Press. In 2003, The Penguin Press and Basic Books (New York) published his internationally acclaimed "Empire", which was accompanied by a six-part British television series. Other works include the award-winning "House of Rothschild" (two volumes), "The Pity of War" and "The Cash Nexus:Money and Power in The Modern World, 1700-2000." Ferguson was the editor of the pioneering "Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals."

 A prolific commentator on contemporary history, he divides his time between the United Kingdom and the United States.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin