UN Security Council Finds Iran Is Violating The Nuclear Weapons Program Ban

[stockholmer]

Source: Haaretz via Zero Hedge

The good old Iraq playbook is being played to the dot, just less than a decade later, and now with Iraq neighbor off by just one letter: Iran. According to Haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-security-council-iran-violating-ban-on-nuclear-weapons-programs-1.383107 the UN Security council "denounced Iran's failure to abide by United Nations resolutions demanding an end to the possible weaponization of its nuclear program. The Denouncement comes after International Atomic Energy Agency submits a report claiming Iran continues to make advances in uranium enrichment beyond its needs for medical applications. The United States, Germany, France and Britain joined forces in exposing Tehran's advanced 20-per-cent uranium enrichment, which is considered military weapons grade. Tehran said its enrichment program was needed for medical and civilian uses. But the UN said Tehran has not been transparent and failed to cooperate with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which recently submitted a report that Iran continued to make advances in uranium enrichment beyond its needs for medical applications." Whether the US, pardon the UN, will follow up with ever escalating following directives that ultimately lead to nothing short of a land invasion is unknown for now, but if history tis any precedent, the answer is a resounding yes. Furthermore, today's decision should be taken in context with the major article in the WSJ "US Eyes Covert Plan to Counter Iran in Iraq" which does nothing but set the scene for what will inevitably follow in a few weeks or months. Expect a flare up in anti-Iran rhetoric in the next few days.

From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576547233284967482.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Military commanders and intelligence officers are pushing for greater authority to conduct covert operations to thwart Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

The move comes amid growing concern in the Obama administration about Iran's attempts in recent months to expand its influence in Iraq and the broader Middle East and what it says is Tehran's increased arms smuggling to its allies.

Compounding the urgency is the planned reduction in the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of the year, a development that many fear will open up the country to more influence from Iran, which also has a majority Shiite population.

snip

Read more: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/un-security-council-finds-iran-violating-nuclear-weapons-program-ban

---

War number 7 or 8?

Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, now the posibilty of Syria and Iran.


Iran and the Bomb (Seymour Hersh takes apart the arguments)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh

No Evidence of Iranian Weapons Program, Despite Rhetoric

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/arab-american-news-the/mi_8078/is_20110604/evidence-iranian-weapons-program-rhetoric/ai_n57685692/

---------------------------

The mind reels at the empiric brutishness.

[Bennyboy]

1. Good those troops in Iraq

are gonna need a place to go. Probably be cheaper to wage war than get all that stuff and personnel home. (Just kidding)

[hang a left]

oops

[hang a left]

2. read this earlier today over at zh

give it a minute your post will be moved to the I/P forum. Remember the source; it is Haaretz. Well at least your LBN OP.

Oh, to go back to the good ol' days when it was only Iraq that had those weapons of mass destruction.

[stockholmer]

3. just out curiosity,how does a UN security council meeting on Iran qualify for the Palestinian muck?

I mean, you can draw out tangential and multi-dimensional extrapolations but so far, no? Also, if an Israeli newspaper reported on tea baggery in Iowa, would that be deemed a 'Palestinian issue' as well?

:shrug:

[hang a left]

4. shows to go ya the UN is a farce

Only there to advance the agendas of the elites

[COLGATE4]

5. Further headline: "Water is found to be wet"

[leveymg]

6. 20 percent EU isn't close to being fissible material you can make an A-bomb with

Here we go again. Why am I getting nauseous riding on this merry-go-round machine?

[EvilMonsanto]

7. This is NOT being non-compliant

They are allowed to enrich uranium
They just aren't allowed to weaponize it

I should not that this is an Iran-Specific requisite

Until there is PROOF that they are weaponizing it it's not non-compliancy

[blank space]

8. This is a response to military budget cuts -

I do not know how many times I have to say this people - the response to threats of cuts to the budget of the military will be threats of a war, if those threats are not met with a reinstated budget then it will be war.


Let me be very clear about war with Iran - the united states has conducted military games against Iran more often than against any other nation (including China, the number one enemy), every SINGLE TIME America has lost those games, the only way the games ever come out in favor of the US is if massive shifts in the capacity of the Iranians is made - devastatingly this is what actually occurs and is included in reports. The mind boggles.

Any attack against Iran will result in massive wholesale devastation to the west - consider that Iraq was pummeling Iran for almost 8 years with everything America had - literally the most brutal war in the history of humanity outside the great wars - they used everything and anything - and didn't come close.

Iran will unleash furious hell in a way we can not imagine - oil will spike out to $300 a barrel over night, destroying world markets for everything, this will spark riots all over the world, economies will collapse and thats before the land war starts.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt will be involved immediately - there would be no choice. I think it would also take about 15 minutes for Saudi Arabia to disintegrate as well. Turkey would immediately remove itself from the field as the Kurds launched themselves into the battle.

It would be seriously messy.

I can foresee any attack on Iran as an all out attack on Islam - it would - without doubt be viewed in the most disasterous manner. Iraq had a brutal dictator in charge, Westerners may not understand this but Iran is the worlds only Islamic Republic (Pakistan aside - military state).

Basically an attack on Iran would be flat out suicide - the military KNOW THIS - so any attack on Iran would be treason. No other way of putting it, the ulterior motives would be so obvious that nothing short of revolution would occur in the West.

Iran is not, Iraq.

[AverageJoe90]

17. No, Iran is NOT the only Islamic 'Republic'.

So is Saudi Arabia. And what about the Taliban-run parts of Afghanistan?

[Vattel]

9. Obama has no interest in war with Iran.

[blank space]

11. What ?!!!!

Based on what ?

His construction of the largest CIA DRONE base ever built in Yemen ?
His construction of the largest airforce base ever built on earth in Afghanistan ?
More drone strikes against Pakistan in three months than in all of Bushs office ?

Covert secret war against Yemen rebels, Somalian, war against Libya, a transition of military to private corporate warfare in Iraq
disguised as an end to hostilities, seriously what the fuck mate ?

Obama is the worst war President in - well - ever.

[Vattel]

12. I don't deny that Obama has been very pro-war.

I just don't think he has any interest in war with Iran. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. If there were a serious revolution there, he might jump in and support the rebels. If Iran were actually making nuclear weapons, he might use force to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. But given the way things are right now in Iran, he would have to be freakin crazy to use war to seek regime change there or even to stop them from enriching uranium, and I don't think he's freakin crazy.

[TheMadMonk]

13. Whether or not HE is. SOMEONE, highly placed in the US decision...

...making loop most definitely is interested in conflict with Iran.

There have been too many attempts to "show Iran in it's true light" over the last several years and it's been both camps (D & R) doing it.

He is not freaking crazy, but he (and his Govt.) is almost certainly under the strong influence of people who are completely disconected from the reality occupied by you and I.

Apocolyptics, Dominionists, PNAC and the just plain greedy all have their own reasons for more conflict in the world AND each has their own reasons to believe that they can manage the situation to come out on top.

[Vattel]

14. Well, I hope you are wrong and fear that you are right

[AverageJoe90]

18. Well, the Iranian people ARE starting to wake up........

Perhaps democracy will come to Iran in a few years. But then again, if we have a Repub President in 2012 who botches everything like Bush did with Afghanistan, maybe not so soon.

[totodeinhere]

16. He is not the worst president ever by a long shot. But those things that you list are very

troubling. n/t

[happyslug]

10. The actual article clearly states that only MEMBERS of the Security Council made that statement

That is like saying a member of Congress said the US should invade the South Pole, it has NO legal significance.

Remember the FIVE Permanent Members of the Security Council each have a Veto, thus you need to have ALL FIVE Permanent Members to agree to ANYTHING for the Security Council to say that anyone is doing anything. All this article said was the US, Britain and France, three of the Five Permanent Members, agreed that Iran was violating the Agreement, but no mention of Russia or China, the other two PERMANENT members of the Security Council.

In simple terms, the Security Council did NOTHING for without the agreement of Russia AND China the Security Council can do NOTHING.

This is simple propaganda, nothing more and nothing less, implying Iran will be sanctioned by the Security Council. That will NOT occur unless China and Russia abandon Iran, and right now both countries are looking for something for themselves before they will agree (And that includes deals with Iran to make sure at least one of them do NOT agree).

[totodeinhere]

15. Not all wars are fought with UN Security Council authorization. Clinton's war in the

Balkans is a good example. They couldn't get Russia to go along with it on the Security Council so they just went ahead and fought the war anyway under the auspices of NATO, not the UN. We could see a repeat of history here. The UK, France and USA make a good start on a coalition that might fight this war Security Council authorization or not.