to rein in its nuclear activities or face tougher sanctions...
You funny guys. This sounds hugh. And series.
PS: Not making fun at you but threats of sanctions.
Posted on 07/21/2008 4:30:12 AM PDT by WorthyNews
"Iran now has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations," Brown was expected to say."Just as we have led the work on three mandatory sanctions resolutions of the United Nations, the U.K. will continue to lead - with the U.S. and our European Union as partners - in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program," the excerpts said.
After talks in Geneva ended in a stalemate on Saturday, the six major powers gave Iran two weeks to answer calls to rein in its nuclear activities or face tougher sanctions.
(Excerpt) Read more at worthynews.com ...
When I spoke throughout the United States this past year, I pointed out the time line I'm watching. The key to when a strike very well could occur hinges on when the nuclear power plant in Bushehr is coming online. According to Russian nuclear agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko the reactor will be started this autumn. If this reactor in Iran is online and running...then Israel will not be able to destroy it without causing a huge fallout.
In 1981, when Begin destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq -- his reasoning to Ronald Reagan (according to Ronald Reagan Diaries) was the fact the reactor needed to be destroyed before they received plutonium from the French. Begin was extremely concerned of radiation being spread and the potential of it carrying into Baghdad.
When you understand that Israel wages war in a civilized manner against its enemies trying to minimize any friendly causalities -- then you understand its concern about causing a nuclear fallout by striking an operational nuclear power plant. So the key to when Israel will strike ... is how close are they to starting the reactor in Bushehr.
According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal says is enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. - Source: Global Security.
When a nation is birthed out of the holocaust...it truly understands the evil it faces -- while the world is just starting to get it.
Until next time...
This war's history of feint and feint again then suck them in and crush them is such that I am even a little optimistic that he will take care of this particular piece of unfinished business before he leaves office. I am even beginning to think that First Fallujah might have been such an operation. Back off "lose nerve" then draw the Sadrists and allies thickly into that city to be dealt with in a compact mass at a time of our choosing.
Looking at in hindsight even Basra went that way. The British kind of got "cold feet" and backed out, then came back a while later and not only took it back but finished off a large Sadr-Iranian force that had flooded into Basra while the Brits were biding outside. Perhaps the "surge" was not the correction of a situation that had been allowed to deteriorate at all but just the next step of the operation after a maximum number of AQ and Sadr/Iranians had been allowed to concentrate. Am I maybe right? or am I just trying to make a successful but haphazard operation look planned?
I would have more faith in the health of the Israeli will-to-resist/prevail if Olmert had lost his job after Lebanon. He is still there. He is still Olmert.
I think that you are mistaken about a few things:
-Wasn’t the 1981 Osirak bombing pretty widely condemned at the time, even by the US and the UN? See UNSC 487 for details.
-Don’t fool yourself. There is nothing “civilised” about the manner in which Israel engages its enemies. There cannot POSSIBLY be...It seems pretty obvious to most people that Israel wages war in whichever manner they feel is appropriate at the time. They have never had much of a choice in the matter.
-If Iran were to withdraw from the NNPT, they’d be complete and utter IDIOTS. The NNPT is what gives them the sovereign and inalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. They will not contravene the agreement because it protects THEIR interests, not OURS and so they will use it to justify whatever activities they wish.
This is not 1981, and Iran today is not the Iraq of three decades ago. Any attack would be disastrous for everyone involved - economically, diplomatically, militarily. An attack from Israel would turn EVERY Arab nation against the US - it would be seen as another part of the ongoing asymmetrical conflict and proxy war. Even Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates would not turn a blind eye if this happens. Sunni and Shi’ite would be united for the first time since the 1970s and THEIR sanctions would hurt us far worse than ours could hurt them...
I’m sure you’re mistaken...:
The “condemnation” was a fig leaf. There are many books and articles on the Reagan administration complementing Israel on a job well done.
Israel does NOT wage war in “whatever manner they feel appropriate at the time”.
In fact they are very restrained because the terrorist cowards hide behind women and children.
If you believe Iran is attempting urainium enrichment for peaceful purposes, your analytical skills are in serious question.
Yup! It’s important for the U.S. be the ones to nail Iran first, because of the consequences of Israel doing it.
But!....Iran must be nailed, because they will not willingly give up obtaining nuclear weapons, and we cannot allow them to achieve that objective.
You funny guys. This sounds hugh. And series.
PS: Not making fun at you but threats of sanctions.
You’re missing the point. The fact that the resolution was a “fig leaf” makes it MORE volatile, not less, in the eyes of the Arab world. That the USA has voted numerous times for various UNSC resolutions against Israel makes the USA just seem more interested in engaging in this ongoing proxy war, as far as the Arab/Persian ME goes.
As far as Israel engaging in combat in a “civilised manner,” you CANNOT be serious. A little more reading on the subject could be required. I don’t condemn them for it, however, I applaud them for being realistic enough to defend Israel with all their heart and brains AND ARMS. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to fight an asymmetrical war with one hand tied behind your back. Especially fighting an enemy as implacable and despicable as the Arab terrorists Hamas and Hizb’Allah. I’ve lived there (albeit 30 years ago) and seen it, first hand, so please do not patronise me by attempting to dispute what I have actually SEEN and KNOW to be true.
Again, you miss the point entirely. I certainly do not believe that Iran wants only a peaceful enrichment programme. When so many other options are open to them, it is impossible for any sane, rational person to believe this. Yet compliance is the veneer of respectability that they will continue to exploit - the dead horse they continually beat for the UN and IAEA while stalling for time and stalling again for the help they seem to keep receiving from overt enablers like China, Russia and Venezuela, as well as moral cowards like Europe and the Non-Aligned in the General ASSembly. While the wording of the NNPT (as well as other signatories’ non-compliance and others’ refusal to become signatories) gives them the INALIENABLE right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, they will continue to exploit the weakness of the West. Nobody actually believes them, but most are afraid to bend a priciple once agreed upon, for fear of the “slippery slope,” the non-compliant and the non-signatory.
It’s a pretty paradox, especially right now, when tensions seem to be “ratchetting up.” “Iran must be nailed,” but they cannot be nailed now, OR EVER, by Israel, from Israel or with the support of Israel, or everything immediately falls apart. It is the a US-UN sanctioned coalition that must act militarily against Iran, independently of Israel - but we all know that this will probably not happen soon. All other options must be seen to have been exhausted before acting militarily, as the eyes of an unfriendly world (and an unfriendly press!) are continually on the US and Israel.
I’m convinced that a sanctioned attack WILL happen before Iran has the ability to produce “weapons grade” nuclear fuel. Like Israel’s “civilised” manner of responding tactic for tactic, the world will see, in time, that it has no other choice, no other hope for eventual peace in the ME. It’s going to COST the West highest, in terms of economics, and Israel in terms of loss of life. Even if Israel is not involved (and She cannot be!), there will be attacks upon her sovereignty by desperate nations and terrorist organizations attempting to “blur” and “spin” the situation to their benefit.
Believe you me, when this time comes, Israel will respond, DEVASTATINGLY, regardless of whatever the L$M spin, to properly defend Herself. It is, after all, Her DUTY and RIGHT to do so.
Wasn’t the 1981 Osirak bombing pretty widely condemned at the time, even by the US and the UN? See UNSC 487 for details.In the Reagan diaries, the President wasn't consulted by Begin or the Israelis -- although the State Dept knew of the threat beforehand and consulted with the President. The Carter Admin. never informed Reagan of the situation - it wasn't until a week later that they found memos at the State Dept from the Carter Admin.
There is nothing “civilised” about the manner in which Israel engages its enemies.The civility I'm referring is to the fact that Israel doesn't target civilians unlike terrorists.
SSDD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.