Netanyahu says Iran will not get hands on nukes

[Adsos Letter]

The Associated Press
Sat, Jan 31, 2009 (12:30 p.m.)

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's leading candidate for prime minister, said Saturday that Iran "will not be armed with a nuclear weapon."

In an interview with Israel's Channel 2 TV, Netanyahu said if elected prime minister his first mission will be to thwart the Iranian nuclear threat. Netanyahu, the current opposition leader and head of the hardline Likud party, called Iran the greatest danger to Israel and to all humanity.

When asked if stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions included a military strike, he replied: "It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true."

Iran has denied it is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful uses. It also denies it is engaged in terrorism, instead accusing Israel of terrorist policies against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, which were occupied by Israel after the 1967 Mideast War.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/31/netanyahu-says-iran-will-not-get-hands-on-nukes/

[LakeSamish706]

1. Given the current situation with Israel vs. Gaza statements like this will...

very likely be the beginning of World War 3. Both Russia and China will no doubt stand with Iran and who knows where that will lead. It seems that China may have favored a US Bush Administration and may very well pull away from the US if something like this would happen.

[Jefferson23]

2. I doubt there is anyone left on earth that doubts Netanyahu when he says

he will include everything that is necessary to make this statement come true.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Iran is not Gaza. Iran will strike back in kind, and it won't be Sderot!

Bibi is blowing hot air for the upcoming elections. I've always seen Bibi as a demagogue and an opportunist, but not as an idiot. Attacking Iran will be bad for Israel, and the US won't be there to help.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. After 8 years of Bush I can't agree with that logic

Sometimes these right wingers are just blowing hot air when they say they will bomb stuff. Other times they really mean it.

[madrchsod]

4. the whack jobs in iran and israel that created the mess

and now their citizens will pay the price...

[Megahurtz]

106. So what did Iran actually DO?

Oh yeah, that's right. Nothing.

[PDJane]

5. There is absolutely no proof that Iran is working on nukes.........

None. It is entitled to nukes for peaceful purposes and has signed the non-proliferation treaty, which Israel has not.

Let me say that one more time for good measure. Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. Israel does have nukes.

That's simply hypocrisy.

Netanyahu should be charged with war crimes.

[LakeSamish706]

6. But something else that should be mentioned.... Israel is no more entitled to nukes than...

Iran is, and yet they have them. There are a number of countries that have Nukes that are not sanctioned to have them, ie: Pakistan, Israel, China and a host of others, but they all have them. So who are the Israelis to say that Iran should not have them?

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Familiarize yourself with the NPT.

[LakeSamish706]

9. I could do that, but I will just say this.... No one should have Nukes IMO....

One other thing, I bet the US is not even in compliance with the NPT under a GW Bush Presidency.... Just a guess, but under his Administration they never renewed any other treaties, so why NPT?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Whether no one should or shouldn't have nukes is irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, review the NPT.

[Idealism]

41. I believe under the Proxmire Amendment to the NPT

It states that no country is allowed to give military aid assistance to a country that has not signed the NPT.

I may have the name of this provision incorrect, but I am fairly certain of the condition. The US violates this with their military aid to Israel, for sure.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. You would be incorrect.

[Idealism]

86. Do you know what I am referring to?

[Behind the Aegis]

87. Supposedly this statement:

"It states that no country is allowed to give military aid assistance to a country that has not signed the NPT."


Proxmire Amendment has to do with the FDA.

[Idealism]

88. I may have gotten the name wrong

But there is a law, proposed and named after Senator Proxmire, that said US military aid was not to be given to any country that is not a signatory on the NPT, I am fairly certain.

[Behind the Aegis]

89. I couldn't locate anything of the sort.

I tried all kinds of configurations. Perhaps, you were just wrong.

Edit: spelling error

[Idealism]

90. If you can't find it on the internet, it's not a law?

Glenn and Symington Amendments both had to do with the non-proliferation. Senator Proxmire added clauses and expanded the Symington Amendment, although not officially named the "Proxmire Amendment"

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_01-02/rhchart

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998/s980706-sanctions.htm

In 1978, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, which I coauthored, was enacted. It provided for carrots on nuclear cooperation for countries that adhered to certain nonproliferation principles, and it provided the stick of sanctions--cutoffs of nuclear cooperation for countries engaged in dangerous nuclear activities related to bomb making, including nuclear detonations. The Presidential waiver was provided within that legislation. A year earlier than that--in 1977--I authored an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act that provided for cutoffs of economic and military assistance to countries that received or exploded a nuclear device, or were engaged in--and this is important--either the import or export of dangerous nuclear technologies involving plutonium production and separation--either import or export, either way, whether the country was supplying the stuff or receiving it.

I provided a Presidential waiver in this case also. This legislation, along with the so-called Symington amendment on nuclear enrichment technology transfers, resulted in a cutoff of economic and military assistance for Pakistan in 1979. While the Glenn amendment could have been waived, the Presidential waiver attached to the Symington amendment was impossible to exercise; only congressional action could remove the Symington sanction. Then we came to Afghanistan. After the Afghanistan war erupted--which coincided almost very similar in time to the installation of a new administration--the Reagan administration decided they could not provide military assistance to the mujahedin in Afghanistan without lifting the ban on assistance to Pakistan. The reason was that the material had to flow to Afghanistan through Pakistan. We could hardly get them to transport material through the Pakistani border area and across their territory to Afghanistan if we had sanctions on against Pakistan. So there was a waiver.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. So, you can't back up your claim and you make up strawmen?

You were wrong.

[Idealism]

92. Post #88: "I may have the name wrong"

The clauses are correct, and I said the name might be wrong, but because it outside of your supposed omnipotence you choose to attack me for "making up strawmen?"

Sorry buddy, you lose.

[Behind the Aegis]

93. "Sorry buddy, you lose" Wrong, again!

"It states that no country is allowed to give military aid assistance to a country that has not signed the NPT."

That is your ORIGINAL claim. NOTHING you have provided has substansiated that claim.

[Idealism]

94. I won't do your research for you

I provided you where to find the law and the clauses of it, but being militantly ignorant of things you don't agree with is your choice.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. And you seemingly can't defend your own position,

You claimed something, threw out some things that were in the same vein, but still didn't prove your point and you refuse to concede because you can't stand a "zionist" actually could be correct.

[Idealism]

96. Whoa slow down there

Have I ever once called you a "zionist?" No, it is you grasping at strawmen.

The claim I made stands, it is true, it just happens to be buried inside some obscure Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act. This point is moot, ultimately, as the U.S. violates their own laws quite often with impunity.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. You didn't substantiate your claim. You moved goalposts then claimed victory.

I read your links over and over and there is nothing I saw that is remotely like :"It states that no country is allowed to give military aid assistance to a country that has not signed the NPT." You were INCORRECT!

[Idealism]

98. .

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=423

[Behind the Aegis]

99. And still nothing.

Sorry, propaganda from the WRMEA is as useless as your tired attempts to prove yourself correct. At least the mystery of how you "got the wrong name of the amendment" has been solved. You are still incorrect.

"The Proxmire amendment bans military assistance to any government that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Israel refuses to do." It is not the "Proxmire amendment" and it solely refers to CUBA.

"The Proxmire Amendment was passed in 1976 to prevent FDA from limiting the potency of a vitamin or mineral supplement based on either food misbranding charges or on the grounds that the supplement would be a drug if it exceeded the level of potency that FDA considered to be rational or useful. The amendment was passed in direct response to an FDA rulemaking effort and it seemed to signal Congressional intent that supplement-type products not be regulated without indication. of real danger to health." source

[Idealism]

101. Show me this, please

It is not the "Proxmire amendment" and it solely refers to CUBA.

There is a law on the books regarding Pakistan regarding what I was saying in definite terms, is that what you are thinking of?

[Behind the Aegis]

102. You have confused yourself.

"It is not the "Proxmire amendment" and it solely refers to CUBA." That is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&dbname=107_cong_senate_committee_prints&docid=f:70363.wais (it will take awhile to load it is a 800 page document).

There is a law on the books regarding Pakistan regarding what I was saying in definite terms, is that what you are thinking of?" That is the Pressler Amendment and it is what you are thinking of and trying to apply it to Israel, though it ONLY applies to Pakistan.

[cboy4]

104. HAHAHAHAHA

You wiped the floor with that person.

How embarrassing for them.

[LakeSamish706]

10. This is an interesting find......

"Israel has not acknowledged it possesses nuclear weapons, but the country is believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles that can hit targets 900 miles away in Iran and southwestern Russia. Israel has never signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and has never publicly conducted a nuclear test."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12050/

[IndianaGreen]

11. At least one nuclear test was conducted in then apartheid South Africa

One of our Vela spy satellites picked it up back in 1979, and the media got wind of it. The Pentagon issued a press release a few days later saying that our satellite spotted a giant lightning bolt. A more recent cover story (relatively speaking) was that it was an exclusively South African show. No mention is made of the close military and strategic ties that Israel and apartheid South Africa had at the time.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/03.pdf

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Interesting, but irrelevant. NPT, look into it.

[azurnoir]

14. Ya dude we get it

Israel gets a free pass on its nukes because it did not sign an international treaty, however Iran gets its feet held to the fire because the treaty was signed by a now long deposed government that America put artificially in place after murdering the elected leader of the government of Iran

[Behind the Aegis]

16. No, you don't get it, dude.

Your ignorant posts demonstrate that fact.

[LakeSamish706]

17. Thats bullshit...... Your posts are the ones that are ignorant.... Israel does not have....

any more authority than does Iran to posses Nukes.. and if the US would quit supplying Israel with weapons, then we might have a level playing field here. Israel at this point is destined to start WW3 IMHO....

I will say that I do not agree with Hamas dumping rockets into Israel and should be held accountable for that.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. No, YOUR ignorance is now on display.

I will say this for the last time: NPT!

"Israel at this point is destined to start WW3 IMHO.... :tinfoilhat:

[Hugabear]

38. Why don't you state your point already? Enough of the fucking one-liners.

Others have already pointed out that Israel never signed the NPT, whereas one of Iran's previous governments signed it. Hence it would seem that Israel feels that it is entitled to its nukes, while it wants to force Iran to "play by the rules".

Sorry, but you can't just keep spouting "WPT" like a parrot without offering up anything else of substance, and expect people not to attack you. If you want to engage in a debate, you better bring something to a table.

[bemildred]

40. If you don't say much, it's harder to attack what you said.

It's like internet judo, see? And if your goal is to prevent discussion, you don't have to worry about having an argument or point of view to express. Plus, it's a lot less work. Anything that wastes other peoples time without wasting yours is good.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. Recognize some of your own handiwork, no?

[bemildred]

81. Absolutely.

Just trying to share what I know with the less informed.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Get a grip.

While you are at it, try not to use straw. "Hence it would seem that Israel feels that it is entitled to its nukes, while it wants to force Iran to "play by the rules"."

"and expect people not to attack you." Read the rules.

[Hugabear]

49. You're the one who keeps replying with one-liners

Someone lays out their position, and you simply reply with "NPT", not even attempting to engage in any sort of serious dialog or debate.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Sometimes, one-line is all you need.

[azurnoir]

18. Well really then explain where I was wrong ma'am n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Well, ma'am, all you have to do is read the NPT.

IT really is that simple. I know you have an aversion to facts, but the facts are Israel is not a signatory and Iran is. There are different standards. It may suck, but Iran is free to withdraw.

[azurnoir]

21. The withdrawal would not be retroactive

and if you read the NPT you would know that, but as I knew you can refute so you obfuscate

[Behind the Aegis]

37. And, in your predictible form...

...when in a corner, make up a new position, declare yourself the winner, and the other person "confused."

[azurnoir]

50. Ah yeah ok whatever

someones in a corner and he put himself there :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

52. I thought you were female?

[azurnoir]

56. I am I was writing about you

so once again where was I wrong you're going to have to go back a few posts but if want to further make a fool of yourself be my guest

[Behind the Aegis]

57. So, you admit you are confused? Interesting.

[azurnoir]

58. Are you ,a lonely guy or what?

the only thing that confuses me is why you pursue this

[Behind the Aegis]

59. Not at all lonely. Are you looking for a date? Sorry, you aren't remotely my type....

...for a number of reasons.

[azurnoir]

60. LOL gee ya think not ? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

61. For real! You ain't it.

[azurnoir]

62. well i am pretty sure I do not have it

besides there would just be so many obstacles to overcome our political differences and thats just the beginnings of the problems.........:evilgrin:

[Behind the Aegis]

63. Political, among others.

There is a reason I have the avatar I do.

[azurnoir]

64. well duh n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

65. You seem to miss the point often, so had to be sure.

[azurnoir]

66. good lord

my lonely guy question was as an in general human being did you really think otherwise

[Behind the Aegis]

69. I assumed you were fishing for a much needed date.

"like attracts like." Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me, I have no desire (nor desperation) to cure your loneliness. Given your intellectually lazy and incomplete posts, I surmised your posts were an emotionally-stunted attempt at flirting.

Then again, I could just be proving a point I have made a number of times, including once in this thread.

[azurnoir]

83. You are pitiable n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

85. Funny, I was thinking the same of you.

Try e*harmony.

[oberliner]

7. The UN found Iran to not be in compliance with the NPT which it signed

See UN Security Council Resolution 1737

[henank]

26. Considering they are "not working on nukes"

they sure are acting suspiciously. Even El Baradei says so.
Come clean on your nukes says El Baradei

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=6330">IAEA unable to verify that Iran is NOT working on nukes.

If all is sweetness and light and puppies and rainbows in sunny Iran, why don't the Ayatollahs open up their nuclear program to proper inspection? What are they hiding?

In fact you are being totally naive if not completely disingenuous and possibly even lying. Anything but tell the truth - because that might (GASP!) give credence to Israel's complaints.

Does. Not. Compute.

[PDJane]

36. If Iran is acting suspiciously,

Who could blame them? The only way to survive the US and Israel is to have nukes.

On the other hand, Iran is still a signatory to the NPT, and Israel is not, nor does Israel show any signs of wishing to join the international community.

That tells me more than Iran's suspicious behaviour.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Ambiguity doesn't inherenlty mean they are working on nukes

It means they are being ambiguous about it. Sometimes states are ambiguous about nuclear development so that they can give off the image that they have nuclear weapons without actually having to pay for them. The deterrent effects of this can be very advantageous for states actually.

This was actually most likely the case with Saddam and Iraq. He had no Weapons of Mass Destruction whatsoever yet if his neighbors or the Kurds knew that, they might have been tempted to challenge his power.

[bemildred]

100. No Evidence Iran Building Nuclear Weapons : Mohamed ElBaradei

10/28/07 "AP" -- -- WASHINGTON: The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18636.htm

[azurnoir]

15. If Israel wants to attack Iran it is Israels business

my guess is Israel will not because Iran can strike back that is unless Israel decides to nuke Iran even then there are those here who will defend Israels actions

[Ronnie Roach]

22. Nethamyahu is a putz!

This כלב חולה is a disgrace to the Jewish people! If Israel votes this כלב חולה in, they mine as well vote for Bush to parliament! Likudist neo-con suck ass!!!!! This is not hate speech! This is the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5Vun18Siw

[henank]

24. Netanyahu represents the Jewish people???

I thought he represented a political party in Israel. Pardon me if I'm wrong.

And are we really allowed to post Hebrew on DU? I never knew that. You see, the poster to whom I am replying, who is so graciously calling Netanyahu a "sick dog" in Hebrew, obviously does not have the courage of his/her convictions or he/she would have said itin English.

I could also very well say "it takes one to know one".

[azurnoir]

27. Well thanks for the translation if nothing else n/t

[Megahurtz]

107. LOL! n/t

[Ronnie Roach]

42. Netanyahu does NOT represent the Jewish people !

But he represents capos of the Jewish right wing.
Zionism was originally an left wing concept but it got hi-jacked by
right wing ideologues such as Paul Wolfiwitz, Richard Pearl and Irvin Kristol
who are flunkies of the goy ruling class. You ought read the works of Moeses Hess.
As far my comments about a sick dog, this message board is very particular about, "Speech code" which is the fancy way of saying: CENSORSHIP! I have a few choice phrases for net tin yahooo!
Let's say he is a bother truckering bass soul!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shaktimaan]

47. You need to read a history book,

and learn some fucking manners while you are at it.

Comments like "flunkies of the goy ruling class" have no place here, nor are they representative of reality. If you bothered to read anything about Wolfowitz's ideology you would learn that his many of beliefs stem from the desire to neutralize the kind of totalitarianism and fascism that led to the holocaust. He is far from being anyone's flunky. And while his plans may have been ill-conceived and poorly executed, his intentions seem to have been honorable.

As for Zionism being a "left wing concept", you clearly don't know much about Zionism, if that's what you really think. Zionism is a big tent ideology that has always had proponents from all points of the spectrum. Look up Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Menacham Begin or Avraham Stern if you don't believe me. There has always been a struggle within Zionism between the hardline right wing elements and the more socialist minded lefties.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Sunlight (and Lithos or UGRR) got him.

[Shaktimaan]

55. Oh. He's gone? That was fast.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Why does it matter if Wolfowitz's intentions are honorable?

Hell everybody thinks their intentions are honorable. What matters is that Netanyahu, Wolfowitz, and other Neoconservative ideologues have already greatly destabilized the Middle East with the Iraq War (which they still think was a good idea) and left to their own devices there's no reason to believe that they won't continue to destabilize it even further. That doesn't benefit Israel, the United States, or anybody else. Whether or not these people are nice guys or have good intentions doesn't matter one damn bit. What matters is that they are extremely dangerous when they wield power. Electing neocons is a great way to get people killed, end of story.

[LeftishBrit]

73. While I agree that Netanyahu is very dangerous...

he had nothing to do with the Iraq war, beyond supporting it after it happened. He is dangerous because of his extremist attitudes to Palestine, and because he might choose to attack Iran. It's the American RW-ers who were obsessed with Iraq. (And our own lovely Tony Blair, of course.)

I agree that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'; and that many (not all) dangerous right-wingers are well-intentioned people who honestly believe that what they're doing is right. I think this was true of both Thatcher and Blair.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Netanyahu is backed heavily by the American neocons

Sure he had nothing personally to do with the Iraq War but the people who did will have a patron in Israel's head of government if he is elected.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Because it shows that he was acting...

according to his own beliefs and not because he is "a flunky of the goy ruling class."

[scarletwoman]

23. I think that a nuclear armed Iran would be one of the best things that could happen in that region.

The slaughter in Gaza is what happens when there's no balance of power.

A nuclear armed Iran would focus people's minds and sober them up to good effect, imho.

sw

[henank]

25. That proposition is madness

Iran is not amenable to the MAD doctrine. See here for example (scroll down to almost the end).

There are those who think that Muslims would never use such weapons against Israel because innocent Muslims would be killed as well, but Saddam Hussein did not hesitate to use poison gas on his own people. During the war in Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah did not worry that rocketing cities with large Arab populations such as Haifa and Nazareth would kill non-Jews (and 24 of the 52 Israeli casualties were non-Jews). Muslims murder each other every day in post-Saddam Iraq. And Iran fought a ten-year war with Iraq in which as many as one million Muslims were killed. Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani explicitly said he wasn’t concerned about fallout from an attack on Israel. “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession,” he said “the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” As even one Iranian commentator noted, Rafsanjani apparently wasn’t concerned that “the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of the Palestinian population as well.”

[Adsos Letter]

30. If Rafsanjani thinks that ...

"application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world” he isn't thinking clearly about the degree of response Israel would likely commit to the "application of an atomic bomb" by Iran...I am guessing that Israel's response (or proactive strike, if it believed an attack was about to occur) would do much more than "damages in the Muslim world;” I would guess it would mean the end of Iran as any form of a modern, functioning society.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I disagree. I think that the Iranian rulers are quite fond of their own skins

And whatever Rafsanjani's rhetoric (not unlike hawkish American and Russian rhetoric during the Cold War), they would be unlikely to drop a nuclear bomb which would almost certainly result in massive retaliation from the USA, even if Israel were rendered unable to retaliate; as well as the nuclear fallout throughout the region.

There would, however, be a real danger of terrorist groups getting hold of the nukes - I already worry about this in Pakistan - and such groups do not always value their own lives when pursuing their 'cause'. Also, the more nukes are around, the more risk of their being set off accidentally. For all these reasons, it would very bad for Iran to have nukes. In fact I wish there were no nukes anywhere!

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in August 2005

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Grand Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in August 2005. Even if other mullahs or ayatollahs would disagree or make a contrary declaration - Ayatollah Khamanei's decision would over ride them and would be the final word in matters of the Iranian state and to any Shiite believers within Ayatollah Khamenei's domain which would include almost all Iranian Shiites.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#cite_note-irna-61

*click on reference # 61.

"Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.

The full text of the statement is as follows:

"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.

The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.

"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.

"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system."

[Idealism]

43. You are wasting your breath

They are as ignorant of foreign cultures as the United States was in Iraq. "Fatwa" means nothing to them, much less how in Shia Islamic law a fatwa is absolute and binding by a high prophet (such as the Supreme Leader).

They want to keep focusing on what Mahmoud has said, without realizing that he will be voted out of power next fall.

Edit: They also forget that Mahmoud isn't the Commander-In-Chief, and is little more than a figurehead.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. trust me, the Arab world would find no comfort in a nuclear armed Iran

and I am putting it mildly.

Still no one in the Arab world wants to see any military strike on Iran by anyone, because they recognize the consequences however much Iran is feared and to be honest, loathed.

The Israeli military simply does not have enough long range bombers capable of flying approximately one thousand miles and successfully attacking Iran's massive array of North Korean style deep earth, heavily fortified bunkers in a manner capable of significantly degrading Iran's nuclear program and their military.

Furthermore an attack would require flying over Iraqi airspace when no democratically elected government in Iraq would ever, ever allow that. Talk of an awkward position that would the United State in.

The United States would find itself trapped into intervening given that Iran would retaliate against the U.S. presence in the Gulf. For the U.S. to continue such an attack and to make the attack at least technically successful, this would require forcing the Gulf states into granting rights to air space and facilities. Thus making the Gulf states and their oil fields, refineries, infrastructure and transport network targets of devastating Iranian retaliation. Although Iran does not have particularly sophisticated weaponry, they do have a vast array of relatively unsophisticated medium range missiles positioned in hostile and unapproachable terrain and quite capable of causing enormous and crippling damage very rapidly and choking off the Straits of Hormuz.

Even more importantly, any attack by either the United States or Israel on Iran would have a catastrophic effect on the world's oil supply thus sending oil prices into the stratosphere way beyond anything currently imaginable thus making the current global economic collapse lead inevitably into a massive worldwide depression of catastrophic proportions.

Would Israel really want to be seen in the eyes of the world as the ones who caused the worse global depression and economic collapse in modern history, to say nothing of a protracted and probably unsuccessful war with absolutely massive carnage and destruction? I do not think even Benjamin Netanyahu is that mad. At least I hope not.

Here is an interesting July 2008 article from salon. com:

"Both the U.S. and its European allies know that the negative fallout from a war could be immense. Its effect on the world oil supply would be catastrophic. Iran's perennial threats to close the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in the event that it is attacked have to be taken especially seriously when oil supplies are as tight as they are now. Some 40 percent of the world's petroleum flows through that choke point, and any significant interruption of supply under today's conditions could send prices skyrocketing so far as to threaten the world with another Great Depression. In short, Iran is far more powerful when petroleum is $127 a barrel than when it is $25 a barrel, and that power makes it more prudent to negotiate with it than to rattle sabers. The opening to Iran was not a victory of the realists, but of realism. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/index.html?source=newsletter

.

[scarletwoman]

46. "Would Israel really want to be seen in the eyes of the world as the ones who caused

the worse global depression and economic collapse in modern history, to say nothing of a protracted and probably unsuccessful war with absolutely massive carnage and destruction?

I don't know. They don't seem to have much of a problem with committing slow motion ethnic cleansing. I really can't speculate on where they might decide to draw the line. Especially with right wing paranoid warmongers like Netanyahu running their government. Voting has consequences.

As for the "Arab world", they could use a bit of sobering up, as well. Why should massively corrupt and oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt be coddled and catered to? I don't see much downside with making them "uncomfortable".

I don't understand why there's this knee-jerk assumption that if Iran acquires nukes they'll use them. The only nuclear armed country that has actually ever used them is US, the USA. Everyone else has them as supposed deterrance. Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed neighbors -- why shouldn't they have the same deterrant capabilities? Why shouldn't they be in a position to say, "Okay, you want to fuck with us? Are you REALLY SURE you want to fuck with us?"

Iran isn't suicidal, they just want to make sure no one fucks with them. Seems like a completely rational aspiration to me.

sw

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. I agree that from the stand point of the Iranian regime - acquiring nuclear weapons

would be as rational as any other states desire to maintain or acquire nuclear weapons - as they say, "even paranoids do have real enemies", and undoubtedly, Iran does indeed have some very real enemies.

And I also agree that even if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, it would be unlikely to use them - but it would of course greatly increase their military clout in the Middle East and rattle nerves among the populace of all their neighboring countries, especially the populace of the neighboring Arab countries.

It is not only the autocratic regimes of the Middle East that fear and loathe the Iranian state. It is also the vast majority of ordinary people. Still in spite of long histories of mutual fear and loathing, most of the Arab gulf states are now maintaining a reasonably friendly relationship with Iran - which includes a great deal of economic ties, several flights daily back and forth between Gulf state cities and Iranian cities - and in the case of the United Arab Emirates, a large population of Iranian expatriates repatriating their higher Gulf states salaries back to their families in Iran. Needless to say, the Gulf Arab states and other Arab states have no desire for war with Iran, but their is a great deal of fear that still persist among ordinary people that would greatly be exacerbated by Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. It could quite possibly even set off a regional arms race.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. I've actually read that the Arab peoples are also becoming more sympathetic toward Iran

And that especially given US actions in the Middle East, public opinion in the Arab Gulf States shows that the majority aren't afraid of a nuclear Iran. And while the Arab Gulf regimes do fear a nuclear Iran, they aren't doing a whole lot to stop it because their peoples are becoming sympathetic toward Iran and secondly because they assume that the United States will take care of the problem anyway.

Which is a serious problem for non-proliferation advocates. The US needs the Arab Gulf states to be firmly committed to stopping Iran's nuclear program if they are going to be successful.

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. unwilling to support a war against Iran: YES!! sympathetic toward Iran: NO!!

In that way it is similar toward the attitude toward Iraq in the lead up to the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Shiite versus Sunni and Arab versus Persian ancient rivalries are just as strong if not stronger than ancient quarrels that might confound the Israel/Palestine issue. In fact this is one of the reasons I am confident that peace between Israel and the Arab and Muslim world is more than possible. Shiite versus Sunni, and Persian versus Arab suspicions and sometimes recriminations are just as deep and profound, if not more so, then Arab versus Israeli or Jew versus Muslim suspicions and recriminations. Yet, recognizing the consequences of open conflict as well as the benefit of trade and relationships based on mutual interest have made the guns fall silent and a desire for a working and peaceful coexistence.

There is now a great deal of contact between Iran and the Gulf states; joint commercial and business adventures, flights several times a day between Gulf state cities and Iran and a large number of expatriates and living and doing business in each others countries.

There would be no support from the populace for a strike on Iran as this would inevitably draw the Gulf states directly into the line of fire from Iranian retaliation. In just the past few years, the Gulf states have experienced as a result of sky-high oil prices an absolutely massive level of development. I was in Bahrain just a month ago - first time in about ten years - Bahrain's skyline has gone from looking like a typical Middle Eastern city - to looking like an ultra-modern North American city, just within the past five years. First time I visited Dubai was in 1989. One could have pretty much walked around the whole town in those days. Now, it is as massive and ultra-modern as an number of great North American cities. There is no way the people of the Gulf states would support a military action that has the potential for ruining everything. It would be technically and logistically infeasible to carry out a massive attack on Iran that is capable of downgrading any nuclear program or degrading their military capabilities without the cooperation of the Arab Gulf states. There is no way such cooperation would be willingly granted for such an attack.

Still a nuclear armed Iran would not at all be welcomed.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Yet Hamas is still funded by Iran

Probably not to the extent that Iran funds Hezbollah or that Syria funds Hamas, but Iran is still giving aid to Sunni militants. I read an article that quotes a Hamas leader saying that there's a lot of conflict among Hamas about what to think of Iran. On the one hand they are Shia. On the other hand, unlike the Arab states, they haven't "sold out the Palestinians to the Zionists".

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Sunni and Shiite rivalry is strong enough that Iran is not going to be helping Al Qaeda anytime soon as the neocons wish we would believe. But I do think it would be unwise to assume that Iran is not willing to cooperate with any Sunni extremist groups or vice versa.

[oberliner]

34. You are in favor of nuclear proliferation?

That seems surprising.

[azurnoir]

39. Do you approve of Israel's nuclear proliferation?

regardless of whether or not Israel signed the NPT it is still proliferation

[LeftishBrit]

74. I don't approve of anyone's nuclear proliferation..

but I don't think we can solve it by yet more nuclear proliferation.

"Now Luxembourg is next to go,
And who knows, maybe Monaco?
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next?'

(Tom Lehrer, 1964)

[scarletwoman]

45. I'd much prefer no nukes at all. But until everyone who already has nukes agrees to get rid of them

I'll go with geostrategic balance of power.

As I said, I think it would go a long way toward sobering people up.

sw

[Hippo_Tron]

76. An Islamic Fundamentalist regime with the leverage of nuclear weapons is not a good thing

Mind you I'm not one of those people that think Iran is suicidal and would nuke Israel. But I also don't like shifting the balance of power to a regime that is lead by religious fanatics is a good idea. When Iran gets a more secular government then I might be persuaded that them having nuclear weapons would be good for the balance of power.

Saddam Hussein was the best thing that happened to the balance of power in that region. He was a check on the Sunni religious fanatics to the west of him and a check on the Shia religious fanatics to the east of him. Out of all the possible countries we could have invaded in the Middle East, Iraq had to be the worse possible choice.

[Behind the Aegis]

77. You think it would be 'suicidal' for Iran to nuke Iran?

In what way?

"Saddam Hussein was the best thing that happened to the balance of power in that region." And that is just sad, on so many levels.

[LeftishBrit]

80. I think it would be suicidal on several levels...

(I assume you mean for Iran to nuke Israel, as it would obviously be suicidal for it to nuke itself!)

(1) Israel has nukes and if still capable of doing so, would retaliate.

(2) The USA has more nukes than anyone, regards Iran as an enemy at the best of times, and, if Israel cannot/does not retaliate, would probably nuke Iran itself. Goodbye Iran, and possibly goodbye world.

(3) The nuclear fallout would have devastating effects in the region; might spread to Iran; and certainly affect some of its supposed allies. The Palestinians would certainly be destroyed. Of course, Iran may not care too much about them -they're just a useful excuse and sometimes a pawn. But there would be chaos throughout the region, and the leaders of Iran would probably be deposed.

As regards Saddam: though an evil dictator, his relatively secular regime probably WAS a good thing for the balance of power in the region (which is not saying it was good in any other way!) And that, no doubt, is why many American leaders kept propping him up and protecting him. His hostility to Iran may have been the biggest factor here.

[Shaktimaan]

79. a balance of power between who?

You're focusing on Gaza. But don't forget what happened in Lebanon either. That shows exactly what can happen when you have a large wealthy state financing a terrorist shadow-government within someone else's sovereign state. We won't see any battle between Iran and Israel. But there will be war, just like there was during the cold war. And just like the cold war, these battles will be fought using proxies, such as Lebanon or Hamas.

Iraq was Iran's foil. Now that Iraq is not fulfilling that role Iran has no regional check at all. And Israel would not be able to fulfill that role.

A nuclear armed Iran would mean an Iran with essentially unchecked power in an unusually weak middle east. Not to mention the fact that it is never considered a good idea to allow a fundamentalist dictatorship that supports region-destabilizing terrorism to obtain nuclear weapons.

The only possible benefit that I can see would be if it forced some of the smaller Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. But I don't think that's likely anyway.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. U.S. Intellegence Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work in 2003

"But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html

[henank]

32. In that case what do they need 6000 more centrifuges for?

Iran installing 6,000 centrifuges (datelined July 2008)

The workhorse of Iran’s enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that surpasses the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336089.stm|Iran installing new centrifuges] (datelined April 2008)

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. the U.S. intelligence services are confident that Iran stopped weapons development in 2003

This is the opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

What would be the motive for the centrifuges? I don't know; a bargaining chip perhaps? A demonstration of technical and scientific prowess?, a desire to keep their options open? A civilian application, even?

I certainly don't have the technical expertise that all 16 world leading intelligence agencies would have.

But if all 16 agencies are for some reason wrong, short of total war, there is no military solution to the matter. Military strikes against multiple heavily fortified - deep earth bunkers would be vastly insufficient for significantly degrading such a project.

[bemildred]

103. Time Running Out For Attack On Iran: Israeli Expert

Israel has a year in which to attack Iran's nuclear facilities preemptively, an Israeli legislator and weapons expert said Wednesday.

Israeli forces could pull off successful strikes independently, Isaac Ben-Israel said, though these would only delay, rather than end, Iran's progress toward atomic weaponry.

---

However Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, said this week Iran would face technical and political hurdles if it sought to build nuclear arms and there was "ample time" to deal with the issue.

"Even if I go by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence, the estimations (are)... we're still talking about two to five years from now" for Iran to have nuclear weapons capacity, he said.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212205425.shtml

[Megahurtz]

105. Fuck Israel.

Seriously Fuck Them. :mad:
Get rid of your own Nuclear Weapons first you violent and genocidal Warmongering hypocrites! :argh:
Before you accuse someone else who's just sitting their minding their own damn business! Just like YOU should!!!:rant: