Iran Guard commander: ‘Nothing will remain’ of Israel if it attacks
Source: Associated Press
The top commander in Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that “nothing will remain” of Israel if it takes military action against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.
Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iran’s response to any attack will begin near the Israeli border. The Islamic Republic has close ties with militants in Gaza and Lebanon, both of which border Israel.
Iran has in the past made reference to the destruction of Israel but his comments at a Tehran news conference were unusually strongly worded and detailed.
<snip>
Gen. Jafari also told a news conference in Tehran Sunday that if it is attacked, Iran will no longer be committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under whose terms U.N. inspectors visit Iranian nuclear sites. He said however that this does not mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/iran-guard-commander-nothing-will-remain-of-israel-if-it-attacks/2012/09/16/58ebde98-ffe3-11e1-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html
Iran has been flagrantly violating the NPT anyway.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bananas
(27,509 posts)Iran Guard commander: Tehran’s missiles mean ‘nothing will remain’ of Israel if it attacks
By Associated Press,
<snip>
“Our response to Israel is clear: I think nothing will remain of Israel (should it attack Iran). Given Israel’s small land area and its vulnerability to a massive volume of Iran’s missiles, I don’t think any spot in Israel will remain safe,” he said.
<snip>
“The US military bases sprawled around Iran are considered a big vulnerability. Even the missile shields that they have set up, based on information we have, could only work for a few missiles but when exposed to a massive volume of missiles, the shields will lose their efficiency and will not work,” he said.
<snip>
“If a war breaks out where one side is Iran and the other side is the West and U.S., it’s natural that a problem should occur in the Strait of Hormuz. Export of energy will be harmed. It’s natural that this will happen,” he said.
<snip>
“If the world and international organizations fail to prevent such an attack, it’s natural that Iran’s commitments (to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) would naturally change and the situation would be different from the past. These are the risks and consequences that such an attack will bring about, and these matters would be a deterrent.”
<snip>
zellie
(437 posts)When Israel goes in , he better be 30 floors below ground .
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I don't think that's going to happen.
I think they should be more concerned about their own health and well-being.
Signed, twit
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is even contemplating such a war. The rest of the world is, and Netanyahu is viewed as the real threat to world peace with his constant blathering about war with Iran.
Iran is not Iraq and thankfully we have a president at the moment who appears to understand the sheer craziness of such a venture. This alone, his position on Iran, is likely to get him reelected.
The world is sick of these war mongers sending other people's children to die for their insanity.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)If I was Iran and knew I was going to be attacked. Whats the best way to strike back? Not get into a prolonged bloody battle thats a no-win. But to strike at the worlds oil supply and cut it throwing the world into chaos.
Sterling
(7,730 posts)
OnlinePoker
(5,719 posts)Over 500 commercial vessels were hit by missiles or mines but the oil still flowed.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Well, perhaps IF mines is ALL Iran has and IF they just roll over and give up immediately.
But what if - a much more likely scenario - they have supersonic anti-ship missiles dug into hidden bunkers all along their side of the Straights of Hormuz and able to hit any point within the Straights within less than one minute?
Even US carriers wouldn't be able to live on that waterway.
And then there are strikes against Saudi oil installations.
There are multiple critical facilities where a single hit would close down Saudi exports for a long time.
What price oil then?
It is delusional to imagine that anyone - and that includes the Israelis - would win from a middle east conflagration.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)that Russia would come to the defense of Iran. A real game changer there folks.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)they can't project power beyond their borders - their navy is decrepit and seldom goes to sea.
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)that bypasses the Straits? like up to Oman?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)In a peacetime environment, means increased efficiency. In a combat theater, it's a target of opportunity.
It's really not a matter of right or wrong.
It's the simple fact Iran could bring the world to it's knees with 30 to 40 (likely half that) well placed missile strikes, and Iran KNOWS it can.
Oil would cease to flow, from the destroyed Saudi refineries.
Iran, has a MODERN military. This isn't Iraq.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)Instead of talking like kids in grade school why not say something profound that could bring down tensions and might be considered sympathetic by the world public instead of antagonistic. If he said we'll end our nuclear aspirations if Israel ends theirs. A nuclear free Middle East might be seen as potential solution.
bananas
(27,509 posts)They've been trying for a while.
Last year, they were going to blockade the gulf until China told them not to.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Sounds like the rapist's defense: She was asking for it.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Which will happen every time.
You're dealing with politicians who have nutty bases to appease. (Sound familiar?)
Israel has a defensive army. If they attack anything as big as Iran, it would leave them naked at home.
HERE IS A CLUE: When Israel really strikes, THEY DON'T MENTION IT FIRST.
Every weekend, the same damn hysteria.
Sterling
(7,730 posts)That will be our job and probably only in the context of securing the Iranian side of the Hormuz.
http://www.facebook.com/StrategyTacticsPress
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)I'm highly skeptical.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by that, and I don't believe Iranian leaders are insane.
bananas
(27,509 posts)See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=42293
edit: might as well paste the relevant parts here:
<snip>
There are people in Iran who would profit from an attack, even though no one would admit it. In such a scenario, Iran will have the most legitimacy to develop nuclear weapons. The experience of other countries shows that going nuclear is followed by 10-15 years of isolation, and in the end everyone gets used to it, and life goes on. Secondly, as we all know, it strengthens the government and distracts public opinion from the political situation. War is always a unifying factor, and it helps to make people forget about economic hardship, as is the case with Israel.
<snip>
That’s the new Iranian strategy, in order to improve their standing at the negotiations. (Former President) Khatami thought of striking a deal with the Europeans at the time, but he was in for a disappointment. He froze the uranium enrichment program for two years unconditionally, a complete freeze as a confidence-building measure. And then, after that loss of time and money, the Europeans told him they wanted a permanent freeze. Khatami was humiliated, and was perceived as naïve in Iran. Following this big disappointment, they shifted to a different strategy of establishing facts on the ground.
<snip>
The nuclear program began with less than 200 centrifuges at one site, and today there are two facilities with more than 10,000 of them. We already have 5-6 tons of the lowest level enriched uranium, and around 150 kg of the higher level material. Therefore, they are no longer discussing 3.5 percent enrichment with the West, but 20 percent, which proves that their strategy was right, and facts on the ground do change your opening position when you negotiate. Today the negotiations cannot go back to zero per cent enrichment. There’s a new era. Even an attack will not eliminate the nuclear program, because in spite of the delays, we can always rebuild it.
<snip>
Where this leads to: they have enrichment facilities, delivery systems, and all the other elements needed to make nuclear weapons, and they realize their negotiating position will improve even further if they go ahead and build a few of them. Gradually they wind up like us with thousands of nuclear weapons we don't know how to get rid of.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)From your link:
Do you believe Iran has a military nuclear program?
If you’re asking me whether it will produce a nuclear bomb, I think not. On the one hand, it has reasons to do that, because it resides in a ‘tough neighbourhood’ overall. Its neighbours are nuclear Pakistan, nuclear Russia, Turkey which is under the NATO umbrella, and in the wider circle, Israel too is a nuclear power. So one can understand why Iran could have nuclear ambitions.
However, this contradicts Iran’s rational national interest, as I understand it, and as I understand the Iranian perception of it. Iran has always strived for hegemony in the Gulf region first, and only after that, possibly, for influence in the Middle East. That hasn’t changed. Once you have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf region, Iran will lose its strategic advantage over the rest of the states in the region, namely its superiority in terms of population size, territory, resources, industry, economic and scientific potential, etc. Such advantages are rendered useless in a nuclear arms race, if one will ensue. I also know that others think so, including some of the highest ranking officials. Take Pakistan, for example. They have nuclear weapons, but this doesn’t help them prevent American attacks inside their territory and constant violations of their sovereignty, in which thousands of Pakistanis have been killed. Have their nuclear weapons helped? No.
bananas
(27,509 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Iranians feel discriminated against. It’s provoking and humiliating, and the Iranians regard this as bullying. This sentiment unites the public, and it harks back to anti-colonial sentiments and the decades-old feeling that Iran is being persecuted. The regime has taken advantage of that, by coining the slogan “Nuclear energy is our inalienable right.”
bananas
(27,509 posts)There are several things wrong with that part of his analysis.
Regarding Pakistan: are they planning to give up their nuclear weapons, or are they planning to make more?
They're planning to make more, even though it has not been an very good deterrent at all.
Iran will still have an advantage in a nuclear arms race because of its size,
for example India is much larger than Pakistan,
India said they can absorb a first strike by Pakistan and still obliterate Pakistan.
The US only needs about 1,000 nukes for a deterrent, but Obama just announced we're going to upgrade 5,000 of them.
And he's the guy that won the Nobel Peace Prize for his commitment to nuclear disarmament.
These things take on a life of their own.
How did we wind up with Mutual Assured Destruction with Overkill?
Wasn't MAD without Overkill enough?
No, we needed to be able to destroy each other hundreds of times over.
How could any rational person follow that policy?
Yet both the US and USSR did.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from Netanyahu and his neocon war criminals in this country, and Fox and the lunatics they have on constantly pushing for such a war.
Iran has every right to respond to these provocations. The world at this point, is not on the side of the Neocons, we've seen the horrific results of their insane policies.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)expense of 300 million Americans who are stuck paying the bills of their reckless incompetence.
Why is that?
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Some of it is cultural. While it may seem like "kids in grade school" to those who have largely been raised in Western cultures, some of it clearly is posturing for their base supporters who live in the cultures they do. That is not to say that I also wish that BOTH sides would tone down the rhetoric.
It's not that they don't mean what they say, but there is still quite a long way between such rhetoric and similar action. In Western cultures, if we say something, action is likely imminent, which is why we in Western cultures tend to find OTT rhetoric very disturbing.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Not Iran.
Missycim
(950 posts)that's not a provocation.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Only one side is actually in possession of nuclear weapons right now - and that side refuses completely to let the IAEA in to inspect.
As a result, its moral standing is every bit as precarious as it claims that its physical situation is, viz. how it has treated this very courageous man for his act of conscience. http://www.peaceheroes.com/MordecaiVanunu/mvanunu.htm
Missycim
(950 posts)deep in a mountain? Besides Israel hasn't signed the NPT so there is nothing for the IAEA to do.
While Iran has....
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)gives it carte blanche?
Sorry, that just doesn't cut it with me - nor does it satisfy the rest of the world. It shouldn't satisfy you either. And if you're upset even a tad about Bradley Manning's treatment, you should be absolutely enraged about Vanunu's.
Besides, as has been pointed out many times, Iran may threaten and bluster and use its over-the-top saber-rattling rhetoric to great, if ill-advised, effect. BUT - and this is a BIG but - using a nuclear weapon on Israel would also wipe out Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese and carry radioactive fallout throughout the entire Arabian peninsula.
Think about it! Iran's current mouthpiece may sound crazy but TPTB there are not totally insane.
The best policy for proceeding throughout the area is to get ALL players around the table for meaningful negotiations. This simply will not happen without the seemingly balanced and fair intervention of a powerful third party/institution to arbitrate. If you check back in your history books even a bit, you'll see that during the "bad old days" of the Shah, Iran and Israel had very warm relations that benefited both societies economically. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations There is also a tiny minority of Iranian Jews who steadfastly refuse to immigrate to Israel.
Not that I wish for those "bad old days" to return, but all players, including Israel, have much more in common than not, including shared culture, history and traditions. And all of them have much more of those things in common with each other than they do with the US.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)isn't a reason to arm themselves to the teeth?
They saw what happened to Iraq, which didn't have nukes.
I have no use for the Iranian government, but just who is the aggressive party here?
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Seems like a huge double-standard.
bananas
(27,509 posts)When there is an external threat, or a war, people tend to rally around the government.
The Iranian government needs an external threat, or a war, to maintain the support of its citizens.
2009–2010 Iranian election protests
Casualties
36-72 killed
4,000 arrests
Protests following the 2009 Iranian presidential election against the disputed victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and in support of opposition candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi occurred in major cities in Iran and around the world[35] starting 13 June 2009. The protests were given several titles by their proponents including Green Revolution, Green Wave or Sea of Green, reflecting presidential candidate Mousavi's campaign color, and also Persian Awakening.[36] The creation of the Iranian Green Movement was developed during these protests. The events have also been nicknamed the "Twitter Revolution" because of the protesters' reliance on Twitter and other social-networking Internet sites to communicate with each other.[37] Islamic politician Ata'ollah Mohajerani blasted the election as "the end of the Islamic Republic".[38] In response to the protests, other groups rallied in Tehran to support Ahmadinejad.[39]
<snip>
Police and the Basij (a paramilitary group) suppressed both peaceful demonstrating and rioting by using batons, pepper spray, sticks and, in some cases, firearms. The Iranian government has confirmed the deaths of 36 people during the protests,[32] while unconfirmed reports by supporters of Mousavi allege that there have been 72 deaths (twice as many) in the three months following the disputed election.[47][48] Iranian authorities have closed universities in Tehran, blocked web sites, blocked cell phone transmissions and text messaging,[49] and banned rallies.[43]
Protests erupted again in February 2011, concurrent with the Arab Spring.
<snip>
Death of Neda Agha-Soltan
Footage of the death of Nedā Āghā-Soltān[11] (Persian: نِدا آقا سُلطان? - Nedā Āġā Soltān; January 23, 1983 – June 20, 2009) drew international attention after she was killed during the 2009 Iranian election protests.[12] Her death was captured on video by bystanders and broadcast over the Internet[13] and the video became a rallying point for the opposition.[13] It was described as "probably the most widely witnessed death in human history".[14]
Nedā ( ندا ) is a word used in Classic Persian and modern Persian[15] to mean "voice", "calling" (sometimes understood as a "divine message", but this is not the etymological sense of ندا ), and she has been referred to as the "voice of Iran".[16][17][18] Her death became iconic in the struggle of Iranian protesters against the disputed election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
<snip>
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)for their own future. They need our support not our bombs.
bananas
(27,509 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)With a 31% approval rating and a sagging economy. Kind of like Bush pre-Iraq.
adigal
(7,581 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... the Revolutionary Guards have said this like a million times.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Israel has consistently been the aggressor.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The Sinai Peninsula belongs to Egypt. Israel was occupying and building "settlements" on Egyptian land. Israel started the conflict.
Israel was also occupying and building "settlements" on stolen territory from other Arab neighbors.
You may try again.
Missycim
(950 posts)nt?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Amazing.
And "attack" is put in quotation marks.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Liberals are supposed to be a 'reality based community' that follows the Golden Rule. You are free to push your alternate reality for the benefit of an aggressively racist nation, but I don't have to buy it.
"alternate reality for the benefit of an aggressively racist nation..."
I understand where you are coming from now.
zellie
(437 posts)I too understand where he is coming from.
JudyM
(29,241 posts)zellie
(437 posts)That's some serious denial or ignoranance of the facts.
Some of your best friends, right?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)want to speak of this staring in 1948?
None are saints in this, and I mean the NONE part.
Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)It's pretty obvious that Israel would lose that war unless they used nukes, then it's all over for the whole region and probably the world.
Missycim
(950 posts)Naval or Airforce wise, Israel would wipe the floor with Iran. How would they fight otherwise? No way we'd allow them to get an army there.
Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Israel really can't do anything to Iran, except hope some missiles get through Iran's air defense. It would be a huge waste of money - and diplomatic currency, which you of course understand Israel is pretty short on - for no actual gain.
Understanding this, Israel isn't going to launch an attack. It would be a waste of resources for no discernible gain.
And over in Iran, the government leaders understand that Israel isn't going to attack, so they're doing the French Knight routine from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," as we see from this guard commander.
hack89
(39,171 posts)where do you think Hezbollah get their money, arms and military training?
Kindly Refrain
(423 posts)The U.S. and Iran have been fighting a war for decades.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Says who?
bananas
(27,509 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Maybe according to some hawk, but show me a link from them. All I found was a statement urging Iran to cooperate. Nothing about any "violation".
Face it. The ones to benefit the most if there is war with Iran are the Saudis.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Because nuclear weapons are so dangerous, the NPT isn't based on "innocent until proven guilty", it's based on "guilty unless proven innocent". When a country signs the NPT, in exchange for access to and assistance with peaceful nuclear technology, the country agrees to extensive and intrusive monitoring and inspections, and it agrees to cooperate with the IAEA and UNSC.
Here's the NPT:
The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties to the Treaty",
Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,
Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,
In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,
<snip>
Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,
Urging the cooperation of all States in the attainment of this objective,
<snip>
Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,
<snip>
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
<snip>
Here's the latest safeguard report:
AUGUST 2012
30, Thursday. Iran Safeguards Reports Circulated to IAEA Board. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano circulated his report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency's Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 10 September 2012. IAEA Board Report, 30 August 2012 (pdf)
That pdf is at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf
The Introduction explains "Iran’s obligation to cooperate fully with the IAEA":
1. This report of the Director General to the Board of Governors and, in parallel, to the Security
Council, is on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement1 and relevant provisions of
Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran).
2. The Security Council has affirmed that the steps required by the Board of Governors in its
resolutions2 are binding on Iran.3 The relevant provisions of the aforementioned Security Council
resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and are mandatory, in
accordance with the terms of those resolutions.4
3. By virtue of its Relationship Agreement with the United Nations,5 the Agency is required to
cooperate with the Security Council in the exercise of the Council’s responsibility for the maintenance
or restoration of international peace and security. All Member States of the United Nations agree to
accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council,6 and in this respect, to take actions which
are consistent with their obligations under the United Nations Charter.
4. This report addresses developments since the last report (GOV/2012/23, 25 May 2012), as well
as issues of longer standing. It focuses on those areas where Iran has not fully implemented its binding
obligations, as the full implementation of these obligations is needed to establish international
confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Here are the footnotes for that section:
1 The Agreement between Iran and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (INFCIRC/214), which entered into force on 15 May 1974.
2 The Board of Governors has adopted 11 resolutions in connection with the implementation of safeguards in Iran:
GOV/2003/69 (12 September 2003); GOV/2003/81 (26 November 2003); GOV/2004/21 (13 March 2004); GOV/2004/49
(18 June 2004); GOV/2004/79 (18 September 2004); GOV/2004/90 (29 November 2004); GOV/2005/64 (11 August 2005);
GOV/2005/77 (24 September 2005); GOV/2006/14 (4 February 2006); GOV/2009/82 (27 November 2009); and
GOV/2011/69 (18 November 2011).
3 In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council: affirmed, inter alia, that Iran shall, without further delay, take the steps
required by the Board in GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82; reaffirmed Iran’s obligation to cooperate fully with the IAEA on
all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian
nuclear programme; decided that Iran shall, without delay, comply fully and without qualification with its Safeguards
Agreement, including through the application of modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements; and called upon Iran to
act strictly in accordance with the provisions of its Additional Protocol and to ratify it promptly (operative paras 1–6).
4 The United Nations Security Council has adopted the following resolutions on Iran: 1696 (2006); 1737 (2006);
1747 (2007); 1803 (2008); 1835 (2008); and 1929 (2010).
5 The Agreement Governing the Relationship between the United Nations and the IAEA entered into force on
14 November 1957, following approval by the General Conference, upon recommendation of the Board of Governors, and
approval by the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is reproduced in INFCIRC/11 (30 October 1959), Part I.A.
6 The Charter of the United Nations, Article 25.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh, wait,...they're not as "scary" to white America.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)to declare a violation of the NPT. You don't and they haven't
bananas
(27,509 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)When they declare a treaty violation, it will be clear and in writing. The resolution will say "declared in violation"
Edit - Looks like they just passed one last Thursday but the text is not up yet. Still have not declared Iran in violation as far I can tell.
bananas
(27,509 posts)I asked, "How can you say that?"
He said, "Congress never formally declared war, therefore, there was no war."
Sounds like you're making the same kind of argument.
The IAEA always plays down these things,
like when they lied and said that Chernobyl only killed 4,000 people.
That wrong number is still quoted widely by newspapers and people who should know better..
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)First of all, it seemed like you had a lot of confidence in the IAEA before shown with documentation that it does not support your position. Now, suddenly, it's gone? But let's put that aside for a second.
I get your point but the law matters, as does the truth. This is more than just semantics.
The IAEA statute is a treaty drawn up and agreed to by 155 different countries. The Board of Governors, which drafts resolutions like the one you read, is an annually elected body of representatives from 35 countries. There are no Iranian representatives or Iranian allies on it currently. You seem to imply some bias, in favor of Iran, in the IAEA. I have to ask you what you base this on, given this knowledge?
Why does it work this way? To give the system some semblance of legitimacy. So no single country could just throw its weight around. So no single national leader, cable tv talking head, radio host, or internet poster could just make declarations not based on any facts or written law.
It's a fact that if not for the multinational nature of the IAEA, the NPT would have never been drafted. I support the NPT, by the way, if that's not clear. I don't think it goes far enough.
ps - This year's resolution just went up. Still no violations. Vote was 31-1, 3 abstentions.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-50.pdf
bananas
(27,509 posts)The IAEA bias is towards promoting nuclear energy.
The IAEA charter specifies that it is to promote nuclear energy.
The IAEA is practically a PR organization for nuclear energy.
It downplays and even lies about the problems.
The IAEA mandate is to promote this expensive dirty dangerous technology,
even on countries which can't afford it and don't need it.
The CEO of Exelon said nuclear won't be economically viable for the foreseeable future.
The CEO of Entergy said "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear plants.
And that's with all the new federal handouts from both Bush and Obama.
None of the major environmental organizations endorse nuclear energy for fighting global warming, and most of them are against it.
So why is the IAEA trying to foist this dangerous expensive dirty technology on countries which can't afford it?
Because that is what the IAEA was created to do.
It's bias is to promoting nuclear energy, even to countries which can't afford it and don't need it.
Back in 2009, the head of the IAEA said that Iran was "outside the law" in its nuclear activities:
IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear facility
Story Highlights
- IAEA claims Iran failed to disclose existence of second nuclear facility
- IAEA chief: No credible evidence Iran has ongoing weapons program
- International community fears Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons
- Iran has denied claims, says nuclear program would be used for peaceful purposes
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Iran broke international law by not disclosing sooner its recently revealed uranium enrichment site, the head of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency said.s an ongoing nuclear weapons program.
But the U.N. does not have credible evidence that Iran has an operational nuclear weapons program, Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.
"Iran has been on the wrong side of the law in so far as to inform the agency at an earlier date," ElBaradei told CNN's sister station in India, CNN-IBN. "Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that."
<snip>
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Just as the outcome of a trial depends on judge and jury, who's are actions are subject to the rule of law, declarations regarding this treaty depend on it's member states votes, subject to the text of the treaty. One cherry picked, out of context quote from a former official does not equal a legally binding resolution.
If you are going to quote ElBaradei, then keep in mind that he repeatedly stressed that the evidence pointed to non-weaponization of the Iranian program during his time in the IAEA. Something for which he was criticized by Condoleezza Rice. He also spoke against the idea of military action against Iran, calling people who are considering that option "new crazies" and comparing the situation to the run up to the Iraq war. He has stated that people have been "spinning and hyping the Iranian issue" and that it should stop.
I admire your persistence in trying to find evidence for your position, but you are not going find what you are looking for on the internet, because it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should reconsider it at this point?
bananas
(27,509 posts)Congress didn't declare war on Iraq, either, so according to you, there was no Iraq war, either.
If you want to make that pretense, then I have good news for you - there won't be war with Iran, because Congress won't declare war on Iran.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Adequacy of IAEA's Safeguards for Achieving Timely Detection
Paper Presented at NPEC/King’s College conference "After Iran: Safeguarding Peaceful Nuclear Energy" held in London, UK October 2-3, 2005.
Oct 01, 2005
AUTHOR: Thomas B. Cochran
<snip>
Since Article III.1 of the NPT stipulates that IAEA safeguards shall be followed, any violation of IAEA safeguards is a violation of Article III of the NPT, and therefore a violation of the treaty. Thus, when observers point out that the IAEA has no mandate to verify compliance with the NPT, but only compliance with IAEA safeguards agreements, this is at best misleading since failure to comply with an applicable IAEA safeguards agreement is a violation of the NPT.
<snip>
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)But the Western powers have reneged on their responsibility to provide access to and assistance with peaceful nuclear technology that Iran required. So they have forced Iran to develop it on its own.
Who can blame them.
bananas
(27,509 posts)including the continuing and expanding uranium enrichment activities...
IAEA approves resolution, urges Iran to comply "without delay" on nuclear issue
English.news.cn 2012-09-14 01:52:19
• The IAEA approved a resolution, expressing "serious concern" on Iran's disputed nuclear program.
• The IAEA said as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation.
• The resolution can only complicate the issue by politicizing it, said Iran's envoy to the IAEA.
VIENNA, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved on Thursday a resolution, expressing "serious concern" on Iran's disputed nuclear program.
The IAEA resolution urged Iran to comply fully with all of its obligations under the relevant Resolutions of the UN Security Council "without delay," including the application of the modified Code 3.1 and the implementation and prompt entry into force of the Additional Protocol.
The resolution said that Iran "continues to defy the requirements and obligations" contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council Resolutions, including the continuing and expanding uranium enrichment activities, in particular at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.
It said as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, the IAEA is unable to provide evidence that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
<snip>
zellie
(437 posts)The Islamist republic of Iran is not a virtuous paradise?
So they say FU to the world .... Who cares.
bananas
(27,509 posts)From the latest safeguard report at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf
D. Enrichment Related Activities
10. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has
not suspended its enrichment related activities in the declared facilities referred to below. All of these
activities are under Agency safeguards, and all of the nuclear material, installed cascades and the feed
and withdrawal stations at those facilities are subject to Agency containment and surveillance.12
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The IAEA has not found any evidence of militarization.
I know there are a LOT of people who simply can't stand the idea of Iran having a nuke and even if they managed to scape one together with their low yield uranium they couldn't use it. It would be a firecracker compared to what they'd get hit with in retaliation and they're not crazy despite claims to the contrary.
BTW: The whole "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" stuff is a lie. It was a quote taken out of context by people with an agenda.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Iran is not using proper safeguards and is in violation of the NPT.
The fact that the enrichment facilities are in underground military bunkers located on military bases is prima facie evidence of militarization.
They are also enriching way beyond their needs, this is also evidence of militarization.
You are confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Where do you expect them to keep it safe?
Why can't you admit the West is trying to justify an attack?
bananas
(27,509 posts)Here's an article about it from 2004:
S. Korea Nuclear Project Detailed
Work Called Near Weapons Grade
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page A24
As the Bush administration tries to ratchet up pressure on Iran, emerging details of clandestine nuclear work in South Korea indicate that the U.S. ally was more successful than Tehran in producing the key ingredient for a bomb and used deception to conceal the illegal activity from U.N. inspectors for years.
In interviews late last week, diplomats with knowledge of both covert programs disclosed that South Korean scientists enriched uranium to levels four times higher than did their counterparts in Iran. Seoul conducted those experiments, in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, two years before Iran did and kept them secret for nearly two years after Iran's came to light, said the diplomats, who would discuss the investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency only on the condition of anonymity.
<snip>
The IAEA, which has suspected South Korea of violating the nonproliferation treaty for six years, confronted the Seoul government last December. Several months later, diplomats said, South Korea began to acknowledge the work. Publicly, officials in Seoul said the experiments were one-time efforts by scientists working on their own.
But diplomats challenged those assertions and revealed over the weekend that the Seoul government officially and repeatedly blocked IAEA inspections months after the experiments in 2000 and told the IAEA false cover stories.
<snip>
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They don't have oil.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's time Iran gets the message.
There not going to block the SOHormuz.
And to return the favor to amanutjob , the world waits for a world without Iran.
(that's what he said about israel)
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)zellie
(437 posts)The war Iran will get by flipping the bird to the rest of the world.
Nothing personal but I'm glad you weren't president during WW2.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)until Pearl Harbor. Germany then declared war on us. Are did you forget how we got into fighting that war?
adigal
(7,581 posts)Iran is not Iraq, if Israel attacks them, we are all in for a works of hurting. They WiIL block the straits, gas will skyrocket, oil prices too, just as the cold weather is starting. It will be a disaster.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)OBLITERATE IRAN:
There's one big difference. The US and Israel are both war-mongering nations that have been threateneing an unprovoked attack, and Iran is not and has not. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari response was wrong, but it was provoked.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I wonder if they have some plan to address that.
zellie
(437 posts)they don't give a s**t.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)zellie
(437 posts)After the first few nukes land in tel aviv and Jerusalem , then maybe the world "might" give the ok for Israel to retaliate.
Actually a lot of the world couldn't give a rats ass about whether Israel was nuked.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Both governments are wrong in in both cases it will be their citizens at risk while their wealthy and powerful are safely out of the way with their families.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They don't say "nothing will remain" of Iran.
This Iranian official is saying "nothing will remain" of Israel.
What does that mean for the million plus Palestinians currently living there?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be safe. The only people I hear constantly urging this government to go to war with Iran are the same war criminals who got us into the disaster in Iraq and Netanyahu. When he shuts up and I hope the US Government will slap down any attempt to get this country into another disastrous neocon war. We've seen enough of that insanity.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That would also be a good way to avoid a war.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)Remember the world congratulating Gaddafi for ending his nuclear program? little did he know he was opening up his self for a NATO attack. The best think Iran can do is hurry up and develop his bomb. Anything short of that will result in their President getting dragged through the street, raped with a stick before getting killed.
Do what is best for your country and ignore the foreigners.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even better for the people of Iran would be for the Supreme Leader to step down and call for real free and fair open elections.
That would probably be the biggest step towards peace that the Iranian leadership could take.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)Iran is not the one looking for trouble and starting wars all over the place. After the overthrown of Mossadek(sp) by the CIA and British intell, the best thing they can do now is to secure their protection from outside invaders who are trying to get their hands on Iranian oil. You got to build a fence before you start furnishing the house and that is what I suggest they do first
Also having a nuclear source of energy will free up a lot more of their oil for export. Its a win win for then and a big loss for the would be invaders
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not looking for trouble? Why are they sending troops to help the Syrian regime? They certainly do seem keen on starting trouble here and there.
Of course, the worst "trouble" they are starting is the oppression of their own people - the lack of basic freedom, having an unelected dictator with absolute power calling all the shots, etc.
The biggest "win win" for them - them being the actual people of Iran - would be a real election.
They can free themselves of "Supreme Leaders" and have a truly representative government.
Then they could pursue nuclear sources of energy with the support of the international community and under the auspices of the IAEA.
Maintaining a dictatorship and sending arms and funding to prop up other "friendly" dictatorial regimes is not the way to go.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)Its not different from the US having the back of The Arabia gulf dictators. Their only ally in the ME is being attacked by Saudi/Qatar/Kuwaiti and now France and US funded Jihadist. If they do not help out an ally now, when are they ever going to do so?
Sending arms to prop up other friendly dictators? didn't Obama just sell Saudi Arabia billions of dollars in weapons? They are doing that which is in the best interest of Iran. You may to like it but they are trying very very hard not to end up like Saddam and Gaddafi and I do not blame them a bit for what they do
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They are birds of feather.
Thankfully, it looks like one dictatorship may be nearing the end of its reign.
If Iran is interested in a peaceful transition of power to the people and away from the theocracy, they would be wise to take steps now rather than wait for violence to befall them.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)The last time they achieved that goal of people rule, they were invaded. Now they have a quasi democratic govt that puts security of the state first before the wants of the people. Its not ideal condition most people would want for their nation, but at the same time, you cannot deny there is a good reason for mode of govt.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In their shoes, I would abdicate power immediately, call for elections, and beg for forgiveness.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)start getting rid of them. Instead we are being diverted by the focus on a country that DOES NOT HAVE THEM. Why is that?
The most dangerous threat to the world right now is the situation in Pakistan, which is a nuclear armed nation and very unstable. That region has, as Clinton said when he was President, come to the brink of a Nuclear war three times during his administration. Iran is no threat to us. They have not threatened the US and they do not have nukes.
It's clear what Netanyahu and his neocon cohorts here, Cheney, Ledeen who has been blogging away with more of his insane, literally mad push for war and the rest of the war mongers who tragically got us into the war in Iraq.
The Israeli people need to get rid of Netanyahu and elect someone who is rational because this individual is among the most hated in the world and he is doing great harm to Israel. Obama is correct here not to allow this Government to be pressured by someone who has been pushing for war as long as anyone can remember.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I do, however, feel that Iran could take steps to ameliorate the situation if they so chose.
It would be great if the Israeli people voted Netanyahu out and elected someone more rational in the near future.
It would also be good if Iran actually had real elections and did away with the whole "Supreme Leader" concept.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)either. All these countries need to be left alone to resolve their own problems. I have faith that the Iranian people will succeed in modernizing their Government themselves. But the constant threats of war is destructive to the efforts of the people there who want to reform their government. It forces them to support a government they do not like when their country is under threat from outside.
I cannot think of a worse possible way to prevent any reform from within than to threaten the entire country with a devastating war. I think that if the US had been threatened this way even with Bush in power, Americans would have united against that external threat no matter how they felt about the Bush administration.
If anything, these threats strengthen the current government of Iran forcing the reformers to defend their country, which means putting the outside threats ahead of any opposition to the current regime.
I have a feeling that the Iranian Government is not unhappy with these threats of war. They undermine the reformers and make them look unpatriotic if they continue their efforts while the country is in danger which is most likely losing support for them.
Anyhow, thank you for your comment. I agree with you also.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)By
Dan Collins
Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.
MORE...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml
elbloggoZY27
(283 posts)If any Country actually believes that their existence is at stake it has the right to defend itself. If Iran or any other Country wants to play or have Nuclear Weapons needs to watch the actual films of what happened to Hiroshima & Nagasaki in August 1945.
The greatest deterrent to Nuclear War is our ability to stop the unthinkable through all peace means available.
I am on no side of any sovereign Country or State that threatens any and I mean any Country in this World.
A famous scientist once said "I have looked into the Abyss and the Abyss looked back". I believe it was said after we tested a Hydrogen Bomb and it scared everybody in it's invention.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)Palestinian considered occupied lands. If Israel attacks Iran, I fear it will mean the actual physical destruction of the Israel people. I sure hope it doesn't come to this.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)are we now at MAD status?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hot air and verbal threats.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Israel may very well become the first nation wiped out by nukes. But it'll be followed closely by Iran.
Come on, the US is their ally. We built enough nukes to wipe out an empire that straddled continents. Continents, plural. Not a small part of one.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Once I was drunk as a monkey in some motel along a beach somewhere in Florida during Spring Break, when these guys from Alaska showed up. They were still wearing flannel and jeans, and were drinking whiskey and roaring like Vikings from their balcony nearby as I and my friends watched.
Finally, some other drunk guy from the motel across the street started shouting back, telling the Alaskans to shut the hell up.
So, the two parties traded vile insults for the better part of half an hour, with an occasional thrown object, until an exhausted cop showed up, hit both sides with a flashlight beam, and told them that if he had to come back, he'd haul them all in.
As the police car moved down the strip and quiet descended, one of the Alaskans leaned over the balcony. "Hey you, over there! Are you still there?" he called politely.
"Yeah," the other guy called back, "I'm here."
"Fuck you!"
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Go ahead, bomb the fuck out of each other, we will get with the UN and straighten out the mess when you are both done...
mainer
(12,022 posts)I'm not sure why this is a case of warmongering. Iran saw what happened to Libya. They want the ability to defend themselves.
Is Israel's saber rattling somehow OK just because it's Israel?
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)His multi ethnic state has a lot of potential for internal conflict, with the greatest dividing lines being between immigrants from North America and Europe and immigrants from the Middle East and Africa on one hand, and between Orthodox and secular Israelis on the other.
One way to keep them away from one another's throats is to have a common enemy. But it's an extremely risky approach, because unlike the Palestinians, who are relatively weak and disorganized and capable of inflicting only sporadic damage, Iran is a large, populous, ethnically unified nation with a 4,000-year history. (They fought the ancient Greeks and conquered the ancient states of Israel and Judea during Biblical times). Not only could they inflict some real damage on Israel but a "preventive" attack on Iran would provoke all the other Islamic nations in the area, especially those with Shiite populations.
The only smart thing for Obama to do would be to tell Netanyahu through back channels: "If you're dumb enough to pick a fight with Iran, you're on your own, Bud."
If Netanyahu thinks he has America's unconditional support, there's no telling what he'll do.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He's hoping for a Romney win, because Romney's a fucking idiot, and will send US troops to die in a third south asian land war, in the interests of a dipshit leader of a third-rate client state.
ann---
(1,933 posts)we will all wake up dead if Israel has their way on this one.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)planes or the next bush/cheney nutjobs, or worse, who decide to use military might and even nukes against us.
I'd expect the smallest country in the world to say the same thing against folks trying to drum up a war.
As to Iran trying to develop nukes, Iraq would not have been invaded if they had nukes (or chemical weapons for that matter).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You threaten to attack me if I don't do what you want ... And you are offended when I say, "hit me and you'd better bring your lunch cuz it's gonna be an all day job?"
Both Iran and Israel needs to tune it down cuz this ain't gonna end well for no one, including the U.S.
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)Just go in there, bomb the shit out of them, depose their government, and kill their leaders.........it worked for us
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)then Iran has the right to defend itself, likewise vice versa. 
Don't punch me in the face then expect me to say, "Thank you sir can I have another!" First strikers deserve everything they get.
ann---
(1,933 posts)of any nation that is threatened with being attacked by an aggressive nation for no reason. Israel won't worry since they want big brother USA to fight the war for them.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)I didn't know Iran was hiring.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)They have been remarkably restrained in light of the brinksmanship from Israel, and they have no capability wiping out Israel, none.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)but will react with overwhelming force if attacked.
We should remember that the longest war in the 20th century was fought between Iran and Iraq. Iran fought with human waves because they did not have enough ammunition and it led to more than a million dead.
To assume that this will be a short war over when the last plane returns is ignoring history. To consider anyone safe or think the Straits of Hormuz will remain inviolate is a fantasy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)to preserve their position there and in Lebanon.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)in its war on Drugs and Terrorism, drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, or our support for Terrorists in Iran?
It is in their national interest to aid and support Shia in Lebanon, or support an ally in Syria. The people they support are not nice folk, but neither are the dictators and mass murderers that the U.S. has historically protected.
Iran's policy is not to start a war, but they will fight if someone bombs their country.
Which is what we did after 9/11.
Israel is threatening war against Iran, and they should be aware that starting a war is not in their interest or the interest of their people. It will not be just Iran. Treaties with Egypt and Jordan are also in danger if Israel attacks. This could lead to a disastrous regional war, and will certainly damage any chance of peace in the middle-east and turn back the clock to the 60's before Egypt and Jordan made a separate peace under American approved dictatorial regimes.
