IraN

[masamuneehs]

Well, here we have it. You all know how the war in Iraq went down. US says Iraq was developing weapons, probably with the intent on using them against the US or selling them to terrorists. Troop deployment, bargains with Turkey to launch two-front attack, the initial attack, quick US progress into the core of Baghdad, the seige of Baghdad, "major US military operations in Iraq have ended", continual terrorist/suicide attacks, Bush lands on an aircraft carrier, "Mission Accomplished", continual casualties and kidnappings, first Iraqi elections.

But, um, well, there weren't any WMDs in Iraq (that we've found yet...)

However, N instead of Q might make a big difference. First, shall we get acquainted with it for those who don't know?

Wiki's info on Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
CIA Facebook Profile - Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)

So what's the big stinking deal?

In 2005 the former president of Iran resigned, after serving the maximum two-term period. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, another former president lost against "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad the mayor of Tehran, Iran's capital. Ahmadinezhad was very popular, despite only getting 19% of the popular vote (integrity of the elections has not been acknowledged by many foreign bodies and NGOs), and steamrolled to a 69% victory in the second and final round of the election.

Info on Current Iranian President, including political agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad)

Ok, to the pressing point: Iran has had a 'nuclear' program for some years now, which has always been supported by both China and Russia, two memebers on the UN Security Council. For the longest time the UN and IAEA have done 'snap' inspections and investigations at Iran's key plants and research houses, ensuring that the program was strictly for 'energy' purposes, not developing weapons.

But Ahmadinezhad has seen a great change in Iran's stance on nuclear research. He has said that Iran has a right to 'self-defense' development of nuclear arms, in addition to the rights to enrich uranium and other radioactive elements in pursuit of a nuclear program. Problem is that enriching uranium for power plants can quickly be accelerated into creating weapons grade material.

Iran (if you didn't bother to read the info on it) is an Islamic nation, incorporating mores from the Qur'an into their laws. If you don't know who the Shah, Ayatollah Khamenei are, or what the year 1979 means, you should probably read up more on Iran, or go back and hide in your little sheltered hole. Let's just say that Iran isn't the most popular nation in the world, and has always been somewhat feared for its religious infusion into politics.

To bring this issue up to speed, here is an article from today:
Iranian Foreign Minister: Iran has retaliated against foreign nuclear demands (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/05/afx2500957.html)

"The door is still open to negotiation" -BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682536.stm)

There's plenty of Google News coverage available on the web, so feel free to read up. I figured we can have a nice little chat on the forums to see what people think about this. I might add a poll later too.

My opinion: I don't know what to think yet. I still haven't learned enough about the the new Iranian president, for one. He could just be playing hardball, knowing that the US military is already spread thin and that China and Russia will probably bail them out of any UN trouble with their seats on the Security Council. They might just be trying to make a point that nuclear arms can't be kept to the 'old powers'. If they are actually developing weapons for war, that I have no idea.

As for possible reactions/retaliations to Iran's rejection of international resolutions... I have one theory, and it involves sabotage, but I do truly hope that diplomacy is stuck to as the only means in this dispute.

[el_boss]

What I really don't about all this is that the countries that are opposing this the most are the ones that themselves have nuclear weapons or the capability to have them. What message does that send? "Nukes are really bad you are not allowed to have them... What this? We're just keeping these in case we'll have to end existence as we know it".

For some reason this quote comes to mind.

"The world doesn't believe that you're fightin' for freedom
'cause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demon" - excerpt from The 4th Branch (http://www.lyrics007.com/Immortal%20Technique%20Lyrics/The%204th%20Branch%20Lyrics.html) by Immortal Technique

Essentially it was America that made Iraq and Iran what they are now. And now that these countries don't follow orders anymore they are trying to fix things again. Iraq has already been taken care of, so that leaves Iran. Well I don't know exactly what America's stance is on this, but I get the feeling that they wouldn't mind moving in if it gets to that point.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: el_boss
"The world doesn't believe that you're fightin' for freedom
'cause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demon" - excerpt from The 4th Branch (http://www.lyrics007.com/Immortal%20Technique%20Lyrics/The%204th%20Branch%20Lyrics.html) by Immortal Technique

Essentially it was America that made Iraq and Iran what they are now. And now that these countries don't follow orders anymore they are trying to fix things again. Iraq has already been taken care of, so that leaves Iran. Well I don't know exactly what America's stance is on this, but I get the feeling that they wouldn't mind moving in if it gets to that point.

I assume you are speaking about "Operation Ajax" 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) when you say that the US 'made Iran what they are now'. I don't really think its correct to say that the any foreign nation created the state of Iran. While Ajax and the fallout of the revolution against the Shah hinged greatly on U.S. and British interference, the modern Iranian state is based on one man:

Ayatollah Khomeini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini)

The entire modern nation of Iran is his brainchild. Yes, yes it was a reaction to the U.S.-backed Shah and the oppressive monarchy. But you can't expect people who had NOTHING to do with that event to take the blame. Most Americans weren't even out of grade school when the Shah was put into power. I'm not saying we should try to shirk the responsibility of our nation's past actions, but people saying "America should get what they deserve" are dead wrong.

However, I do agree that many of the nations with nuclear arms have held a double-standard in judging the rest of the world. Namely, "We have lots of them, but you can't have even one." No nation can be self-reliant and able to protect itself without spanning the gap between nuclear and non-nuclear military force. In the end every nation that seeks such weapons purely for means of defense have every right to have them.

[Xollence]

Even North Korea? Obviously the countries that do have nukes want to keep their advantage over the countries that don't. Why give your enemies a chance to build up their strength? Besides unstable countries shouldn't have nukes, just look at Russia.

[el_boss]

@masamuneehs: I'm not saying "America should get what they deserve". I'm merely implying that the Americans are making the same mistakes all over again.

I have always been under the impression (though I don't remember the source) that the shah did something that america didn't approve of or didn't do something that they wanted. It might have had something to do with trade, money, resources or something of that nature. Leading to america having a hand in bringing down the shah and putting Khomeini in power. This might just be a misconseption I have formed from hearing stories from my relatives, but I'm pretty sure I have seen a swedish documentary on this subject.

Anyway what I was referring to mainly was that, america has in some way been involved alot of the events that have come to form the middle east. For example, putting Saddam Hussein in power, supporting Iraq in it's war against Iran. Then the whole gulf war incident. The campaign against the talibans in Afghanistan aka the war on terrorism. And the retaliation against Iraq.

You seem to be well read on this subject and you are more than welcome to rectify any statements you find incorrect. I am more than willing to learn.

[Carnage]

Would we have enough money to into Iran if we had to? Aren't we like, in debt $2,000,000,000,000?

[Splash!]

Originally posted by: el_boss
What I really don't about all this is that the countries that are opposing this the most are the ones that themselves have nuclear weapons or the capability to have them. What message does that send? "Nukes are really bad you are not allowed to have them... What this? We're just keeping these in case we'll have to end existence as we know it".

For some reason this quote comes to mind.

"The world doesn't believe that you're fightin' for freedom
'cause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demon" - excerpt from The 4th Branch (http://www.lyrics007.com/Immortal%20Technique%20Lyrics/The%204th%20Branch%20Lyrics.html) by Immortal Technique

Essentially it was America that made Iraq and Iran what they are now. And now that these countries don't follow orders anymore they are trying to fix things again. Iraq has already been taken care of, so that leaves Iran. Well I don't know exactly what America's stance is on this, but I get the feeling that they wouldn't mind moving in if it gets to that point.

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran??? Isn't there something called minding your own business?
In any case, i can't help but wonder that there is a conspiracy theory going on when something like this surfaces.
And yes i totally agree with you , el boss

[Assassin]

Im no where as learned as some of you guys on thie iran issue, but personally i think every country has the right to defend itsself, and nuclear weapons are just the next technological step.

Much like the US and the west in general is concerned that Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons, and that they might use it against us (us being the west), Iran has THE SAME concern. Only difference is, from thier point of view, we already have the weapons and are bossing them around, so to them we are the ones who are a threat. You can't blame them in a situation like this to not try to ensure thier security and thier way of life.

In all honesty, though im no expert on nuclear physics (cue Kitkat), im fairly certain its only a few small steps going from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons. If a country has nuclear reactors, they'll soon have nuclear weapons. So to say that you'll allow them to build reactors, as long as they dont do weapons research is sorta stupid. In that situation you have to constantly watch them to make sure they dont go building weapons, and i have a sneaking suspicion thats what the US really wants. If iran builds nuclear reactors, the US and Britian will be constantly doing "inspections" for the sake of world peace, and well, im sure we all know what happened with the inspectors in Iraq (ie: Richard Butler).

All in all, i think what we need to do is not keep nations from doing research they have the right to do, but instead focus on creating a situaion where we dont have to WORRY about them using that research in a harmful way. If Iran or anyother nation doesn't have a reason to be scared of the US, then they wont have a reason to attack us. Despite what the media will have you believe, no one is crazy/stupid enough to start a nuclear war simply because they have the capability.

[Carnage]

Just a question. Do you think if we spent the same amount of money that we did for Iraq on finding a defense against Nuclear weapons, would we find a defense?

[Kraco]

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

But things like that never happen in the real life. Money isn't allocated like that. So, the actual answer would be no, even if theoretical was yes. And didn't Reagan spend billions in the Star Wars program? Did that money actually go into research, even though it hardly produced anything? On the other hand it needs to be remembered that wars are the only optimal places for testing new weapon systems. It's ruthless to say wars would be fought because of that, though.

Personally I think with Iran there's just going to be years of endless talks, employing lots of diplomats and various heads of states. Iran is much more stable country than Iraq was, and a war would be thus more costly. And much harder to justify. Well, Iran doesn't necessarily have that many friends, and so Tomahawk strikes to strategic locations could be possible even without a declaration of war, but that's also a somewhat remote possibility right now.

[Xollence]

Kraco: Well my friend in the army told me a few years back that Iran is on the top 5 list of countries the USA is prepared to attack. So I think the USA will use this nuclear situation as an excuse to do just that.

[Kraco]

Yeah. No doubt it is, but since it's the army's job to design possible scenarios, it doesn't actually mean anything even though it makes perfect sense. They would need to have plans for an offensive against Iran, should times become even more tough, but it's the politicians who decide between war and peace in the democratic countries. And we all know it's impossible to know what is happening in the heads of the politicians now, not to mention a year in the future (although it often seems nothing at all).

[KitKat]

Originally posted by: Assassin
In all honesty, though im no expert on nuclear physics (cue Kitkat), im fairly certain its only a few small steps going from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons. If a country has nuclear reactors, they'll soon have nuclear weapons. So to say that you'll allow them to build reactors, as long as they dont do weapons research is sorta stupid. In that situation you have to constantly watch them to make sure they dont go building weapons, and i have a sneaking suspicion thats what the US really wants. If iran builds nuclear reactors, the US and Britian will be constantly doing "inspections" for the sake of world peace, and well, im sure we all know what happened with the inspectors in Iraq (ie: Richard Butler).
Hehe, well, I wasn't really clear on this issue myself since my focus is semiconductors and not nuclear. However, I brought the question to some of my nuclear profs and I'm back to share this knowledge with you all i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Apparently, just having nuclear reactors isn't really very risky. There's not too much you can do with a nuclear reactor besides generate power. The danger is in the enrichment facilities. You see, the majority of the reactors in the world right now are pressurized water reactors, and they can't run on just regular uranium. They need enriched fuel, or else it won't be radioactive enough to sustain the reaction (keep in mind, this doesn't apply if you have a CANDU reactor, which doesn't need enriched fuel, but can run on pretty much anything).

The controversy here is not about nuclear reactors. Building them isn't really much of a security issue. It's the enrichment facilities that are the problem. It's really quite easy to use your reactor fuel enrichment facility to make material for your nuclear weapons. Incredibly easy. So, the issue with Iran is not only do they want to have their own enrichment facilities, but they don't want to have inspectors coming into those facilities. This sounds a tad suspicious to me.

[Assassin]

Well then it seem to me the easy solution is to give everyone a CANDU reactor. Canada to the rescue!

If the CANDU reactors dont need enriched uranium, then there isn't a problem at all. Even if they only provide 1/3 the power of a non-CANDU reactor, im sure thats significantly more then what Iran is currently capable of.

Alas, i fear my brilliant solution to achieve world peace will not be taken into consideration by the powers that be.

[masamuneehs]

Update.

While Iran's nuclear ambitions are not going to be discussed in the U.N. until next month some of the main players in the crisis are making their agendas known.

Condaleeza Rice outlined a plan, costing $75 million, that would use media channels to communicate with Iranians. The plan would also provide funding to several organizations that support democracy in Iraq. Does this fall under deliberate acts aimed at regime change? I don't know, but I'd say it comes pretty close.

Rice outlines U.S. plan for dealing with Iran (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/16/MNGJRH9JFI1.DTL)

And Russia, who along with China have a good relationship with Iran, issued a warning to the U.S. about using force against Iran. Russia's plan to have uranium enriched in Russia, where it could be monitored and ensured that it wouldn't become weapons-grade, was rejected a few days ago by Iran. But it still remains one of the most viable options on the negotiation table.

Russia warns U.S. on using force agains Iran (http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/02/16/ap2532379.html)
The warning is a very light one...

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Assassin
Well then it seem to me the easy solution is to give everyone a CANDU reactor. Canada to the rescue!

If the CANDU reactors dont need enriched uranium, then there isn't a problem at all. Even if they only provide 1/3 the power of a non-CANDU reactor, im sure thats significantly more then what Iran is currently capable of.

Alas, i fear my brilliant solution to achieve world peace will not be taken into consideration by the powers that be.

I was thinking the same thing you were. But then if it was all that simple we wouldn't be in this situation, would we? Either it must be hard to make this CANDU reactor, or the fact is Iran want Nuclear weapons. I personally and obviously think its the latter.

[KitKat]

Originally posted by: God#2
Either it must be hard to make this CANDU reactor, or the fact is Iran want Nuclear weapons. I personally and obviously think its the latter.

Well, from what I understand, the biggest tradeoff between CANDU and PWR's is that CANDU has a higher startup cost, but lower operating costs. So it'll cost you more to build, but you'll get back that money in savings over the reactor's lifetime. This can discourage people who don't have that much money to invest at the beginning of the project. They're both pretty good reactor designs, but the reason most people have PWR's instead of CANDU's is that the US out-marketed and out-sold Canada in the world reactor market.

[Darknodin]

What I find interesting is, a war is not in either countries' (USA and Iran) interest. On the other hand, there are also a myriad of (already filthy rich) people who might profit from this (like it happened for Iraq) and those people have much more power than the majority, making the situation much more delicate than it should be

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Darknodin
What I find interesting is, a war is not in either countries' (USA and Iran) interest. On the other hand, there are also a myriad of (already filthy rich) people who might profit from this (like it happened for Iraq) and those people have much more power than the majority, making the situation much more delicate than it should be

That probably happens alot.

[masamuneehs]

Originally posted by: God#2


Originally posted by: Darknodin
What I find interesting is, a war is not in either countries' (USA and Iran) interest. On the other hand, there are also a myriad of (already filthy rich) people who might profit from this (like it happened for Iraq) and those people have much more power than the majority, making the situation much more delicate than it should be

That probably happens alot.

Care to provide any examples? Any proof? Any support for your statement?

Your sweeping, one line statements are beginning to wear my patience thin. I'm beginning to think I should just start ignoring the majority of your posts. However, because you obviously have a strong motivation to make conversation and at least feign interest in the subject matter I think it best that someone try to teach you how to do so without making a fool of yourself.

Facts are your allies. You say 'it happens alot', you should be able to call up at least three examples, and at least one of them should have occurred in recent history.

Read up before you speak up. The newspapers are your friends. Don't trust editorials. Online news is fast, up to date and easy to access, but it often lacks depth. Make sure you read reliable sources and try to avoid sources that seem biased(or have a history of bias) or riddled with poor translation.

I look forward to your next post i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Sorry for going slightly off-topic, but I was just hoping to step this discussion (and hopefully others) to a higher standard.

I think alot can be explained by using a Constructivist viewpoint on this issue. Both the US and Iran have constructed identities that naturally put them at odds over this issue.

President Bush and the post 9/11 administration have (re)created the identity of the US as "sheriff".
We have the Cougar Magnum (the military power),
we have the badge (self labeled as the protectors of democracy and freedom),
we have the spurs ($, lean power, to 'spur' other nations to act as we desire),
we have the 10-gallon hat (the ridiculously over-large reputation that everyone in town recognizes),
we have the tough guy attitude (see almost any speech from Bush),
we have the deputies (UK, Israel etc.),
we have the jail (Gitmo, bases and embassies spanning the globe)

The sheriff takes care of the criminals (terrorists, Saddam). Preventing others from accumulating too much power, especially if they have an antagonistic relationship with the US, is 'in the sheriff's interest'. Promoting the system of justice and law that the sheriff has created is also 'in the sheriff's interest'.

Iran. Iran's constructed character is not so clear. This has alot to do with the fact that their Prime Minster is fairly new in office. It can be said that he is constructing his (and Iran's) identity anew at this very moment.

In this context (and to continue the metaphor), we can view Iran's identity as 'the Indian'.
The Indian does not believe he should be under the sheriff's juristiction. His people have had the land for much longer than the sheriff has been around.
The Indian also lives outside of 'the sheriff's boomtown' (capitalist market), claiming his own laws.
The Indian is surrounded and influenced by others of his tribe (very roughly, because obviously the 'tribe' anaology is a poor one when it comes to linking nations: Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians)
The Indian's culture and law is based on his religion (Islam)
The Indian has a bow and arrow and hatchet (inferior weaponry against the sheriff's magnum)
The Indian dresses in traditional garb (tied to Islam. Iran tries to keep up the appearance of one faithful to the faith and the ancient culture it came from)
The Indian wears face paint in times of war (and this is really what I believe Iran is doing. They are trying to scare their opponents with harsh rhetoric)
The Indian feels he has a greater entitlement to the land than the sheriff can ever have. After all, his people have been there forever.

Here's the conflict in these constructed identities:
Iran wants more power so it doesn't need to be bossed around by the sheriff anymore.
The US knows that its greatest edge over the Indian is having better firepower.
Iran claims it seeks power in nonaggressive/nonviolent (energy) forms.
The US claims that nobody can be sure that the Indian will keep his word.
Iran says 'trust us'. And turns away the 'spies' of the sheriff (the IAEA).
The US says 'we can't trust you because you won't let us monitor you and you won't listen to us'.

Now its just at a deadlock.

And when/if Iran announces that it has a RIGHT to develop nuclear WEAPONS.... well, then the nature of the conflict changes (at least on the part of Iran's rationalization).

[Kraco]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
The Indian dresses in traditional garb (tied to Islam. Iran tries to keep up the appearance of one faithful to the faith and the ancient culture it came from)

Very nice and quite fitting analogues in general, but I think this particular one is biased. Despite the fact the western style suit, shirt and tie is commonly worn all over the world, it's still a traditional European garb, in a certain sense. To be reasonable, for others than the Europeans and Americans (European descendants) it should be a decision to wear something else, when they choose the western style "business suit". So, it's very truthful to say that the Indians wear traditional suit and the Sheriff wears a traditional suit as well. Both according to their own traditions.

[Darknodin]

I won't quote that huge post but here is my take.

It is actually a very good example. My problem is I don't see what the US gains in being the sheriff (its easier to discern Iran though). Getting nuclear weapons would actually be a good thing for Iran. BUT I personally think that a leader should do what is good for the population and NOT the country. usually, its the same, but not in this case. the worst is, the WWII style nationalism that is reappearing makes people agree with making a country more powerful even if it means, in the long run, destruction.
Problem is like this... when you lift weights and get beefier, someone does something bad to you, the easiest solution is to beat the crap out of that person. regardless of the slight. Only, there is also the situation where you lift weights, think you are strong, try to fight someone and get your ass handed out to you. Or, there is a big guy stronger than you, you know it so you get your friends to beat him up. Or this big guy is so powerful that he pisses off people by simply existing. so you not only get your friends, but people you don't even know to beat him up.
Same can happen with countries (hopefully won't).

[Carnage]

I meant more that people are manipulated throughout history and often rich men with great power have usually gained the most out of wars.

@masamuneehs: thanks for the tipi/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Here are some examples:

1.) We went to war in Iraq. Now why would we make as much a big deal out of them having plans for nuclear weapons when other countries already have them (i.e. North Korea). There was probably some motavation including money (oil perhaps). I mean why would we choose to fight against Sadam first? Other countries already have nuclear weapons. Theres probably something in it for the heads of the government. And I mean its very easy to manipulate the people of this country. I mean their so naiive (im generalizing, of course not everyone is naiive). All you have to say is that they're badguys and already you have a bunch of southerners supporting the war.

2.) In the Mexican American war rich southern plantation owners wanted to gain land to gain more states and representatives in congress. Therefor they would have more power and would have been more able to support slavery. And only the rich white plantation owners would benefit from this. Even President Polk framed the mexicans to make them look like the badguys to get support for the war.

3.) A funny thing actually . Emperor Constatine used manipulation to end a war. What he did was, to since he was afraid of the rising christians, he joined the Roman religion and Christianity. Poeisedon's trident became the devils fork, *whoops, have to go. I'll continue this later*

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: God#2


3.) A funny thing actually . Emperor Constatine used manipulation to end a war. What he did was, to since he was afraid of the rising christians, he joined the Roman religion and Christianity. Poeisedon's trident became the devils fork, *whoops, have to go. I'll continue this later*

You didn't have time to elaborate but... it wasn't to end a war per say, but to prevent it (and keep the empire together). Christianity was an easy religion to follow and could more easily become a pan-imperial religion (which the Roman religion wasn't). A similar thing happened in China when the emperor adopted Buddhism (i think it was during the Jin dynasty, not sure). A state religion is very good for cementing an empire, and is similar in that regard to having a unique language.

[Carnage]

Thx Darknodin for clearing that up.Anyway the emperor created a council. Whats funny is that he gave this council the task of making the decision of whether or not Jesus would be seen as divine in the new gospel ( Im getting all this information from the Da Vinci code, which my teacher told me that this information is true). Now that so many people think Jesus was a holy son of god, they worship the bible to the point where they will favor it over science and believe in anyhting the church says. You can find these people many books, in the biblical belt, and many places in Europe. But its not only the christians. The heads of terrorist organizations use god as well to manipulate people to join and cause more death and destruction. My point is that people are easily manipulated and I wouldnt be suprised if many wars were secretly fought for the benefit of a few already rich people.

[masamuneehs]

EDIT: New development that apparently confirms the stories that Iran has rejected the offer from Russia.

Iran fins Russian nuclear comprimise unacceptable (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=93134965-9a5a-4d9c-8d81-175fb62a1741&k=72165)

I find the citation, from an unidentified Iranian diplomat to be the most important:
An Iranian diplomat cited by the Vremya Novostei daily said Iran wanted Russia to produce large-scale enriched uranium for the country, but needed a domestic uranium enrichment program to create "the basis for independence in the nuclear sphere." The diplomat also was not identified.

'independence in the nuclear sphere'. As far as I see that includes rejecting monitoring/control regulations by any international body (the UN). If that is the real plan Iran has (and I believe they have just as much right as any other rational nation to develop nuclear capability) then expect this issue to be dragged out for a very long time.

Older:
Over the past two days Iran and Russia have been trying to work out a deal that might be internationally accepted as a comprimise on Iran's development of nuclear capability.

The reports coming out of those meetings are quite confusing and sometimes contradictory.

Let's start with good news first, shall we?
This one is from Xinhua, and I have a hard time believing government endorsed press from China, but because China and Russia have somewhat 'teamed up' on the Iran issue, and because the two nations have pretty good relations, I'm tempted to believe the Chinese might have heard something first that hasn't yet reached others.

Iran reaches rough agreement with Russia (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/21/content_4208675.htm)

Not so positive news (Washington Post)
Hopes fade of deal with Russia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022100191.html)

Nebulous news:
Russia press: Iran Diplomat says talks with EU will build off Russia dialogue (http://en.rian.ru/world/20060221/43675704.html)
IndiaTimes - Talks to Continue (http://news.google.it/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=43fb6c2bea88738e&ei=tQv7Q_nbArXaFaaGzKwD&url= http%3A//timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1422845.cms&cid=0)
Brief US Coverage (http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-21-voa6.cfm)

[masamuneehs]

http://english.people.com.cn/2...ng20060308_248759.html (http://english.people.com.cn/200603/08/eng20060308_248759.html)

US weighs in on the Iran issue. Basically the US wants Iran to not pursue ANY nuclear programs... see my metaphor above...

[rockmanj]

i just think its kind of humorous that the US is telling another country what they can and cannot do on their own land. The administration has a lot of balls to say that

[masamuneehs]

Well, here's the latest on the situation:
The Ayatollah (the Supereme head of state for life and leader of the Iranian Revolution) has weighed in on the issue. Technically, his word is iron law for Iran, so unless he changes his mind this is their final stance on the issue.

This comes after several days of bargaining and tender proposals for comprimise, often headed by Russia.

Iranian Leader in Nuclear Hardline (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=385092006)
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, insisted that Tehran's nuclear fuel programme is "irreversible" and any retreat would endanger the country's independence.

Also, the current conservative Prime Minister of Iran gave a defiant speech, asking the people of the world to listen to the voice of Iranians who chanted: "Nuclear energy is our absolute right."
Iranian PM Pledges Resistance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4804694.stm)

Things are going to get even uglier at this rate... Remember what I said way back when this first started: watch for sabotage if Iran doesn't fall in line with the other nations' demands...

[gr3atfull]

USA has no right to attack Iran in the futur( we all know the USA is going to attack it). Rather than telling Iran what to do, the US should help Iran to build a nuclear plant in a safe way. So like that, we wont have a new "Tchernobyl"(sp?).

Edit:

Iran has joined 'club of nuclear countries': Ahmadinejad
Last Updated Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:48:02 EDT
CBC News

Iran has enriched uranium for the first time, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday about the critical step in developing a nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad insisted that his country does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he said in a nationally televised speech.

Ahmadinejad said the "laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants."

The United States and some European countries have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But Tehran has said its nuclear program is only to generate electricity.

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday Iran "relies on the sublime beliefs that lie within the Iranian and Islamic culture. Our nation does not get its strength from nuclear arsenals."

Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the nuclear chief, said Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas. That gas is pumped into centrifuges for enrichment.

Despite the important step, Iran's announcement does not mean it is immediately capable of running a reactor or developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran has so far succeeded only in enriching uranium to a level needed for fuel on a research scale.

The enrichment process can take years to produce a gas rich enough in uranium-235 that it can be used to power a nuclear reactor or produce a bomb.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/11/iran-nuclear060411.html

[masamuneehs]

Necroposting because this is some fucked up shit...

Active CIA Terror Cells Operate Inside Iran (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13487)

Iran's Parliament Speaker: US Supporting Terrorist (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_21360.shtml)

Canadian coverage of the same (http://mwcnews.net/content/view/13711&Itemid=1)

Not surprisingly, there's no US news coverage of this whatsoever. Everybody is still focused on that insignificant British hostage crisis. This is quite expected, since Bush has claimed multiple times that such clandestine operations would be a part of the US goal of "Shaping the Choices of Countries at Strategic Crossroads" (the exact language used in the military's Defense Report, which dictates the overall direction of US military operations for the next 4 years). But to get caught like this...

[Assassin]

And yet somehow, its the iranians who're the threat to the world? Depsite all the coverups, all the wars, all the massacares, all the support of terrorist regimes, AND being the only country to have used nuclear weapons in the past, its still everyone else who would be a threat to the world and to freedom itself.

I can't believe the enitre US government hasn't been tried for war crimes. its fucking ridiculous.

Whats really scary is that, if these are the secrets that managed to leak out, think of whats still going on behind closed doors.

[DB_Hunter]

Although its always unsettling when you come across stories like this, you shouldn't be surprised that America is involved in terrorist activities. It needs these comparativley small operations to take place so that its wider colonial adventures in the world can occur. These sort of operations have been a vital part of US foreign policy since ages.

You have America as the main criminal, and then you get states like Pakistan who have effectivley been made nothing more than prostitutes by the tyrant rulers who lead them. Its support for rulers like these that breeds hatred for America amongst Muslims in the world.

Its a pity that a population as large as that of America is being brainwashed so easily by the gangsters and thugs who rule it against the Muslim world. Personally I don't think the situation will change in America from any internal forces, but rather an external influence is needed.

[Yukimura]

It's stuff like this that made me give up on a belief in absolute 'Justice' and things like that. It's much easier and realistic to just throw in behind a side and hope that they prevail over everyone else. That's what I see with this kind of thing. Conventional wisdom would call it hypocrisy to publicly bemoan the use of terrorist tactics to change people's ways, while supporting the use of those same tactics to change the ways of others.

The way I see it, the meaning of the word terrorism requires at least two parties, the actors and the target. And the word terrorism can only be applied by the target to the acts taken by the actors, any other use just doesn't make sense. If you grabbed a bunch of these CIA operatives they would never believe they were sponsoring terrorism, because by (my) definition no one can actually willfully commit acts of terrorism, they just commit acts against a target, and the target may deem those acts terrorism. When I applied this to the American 'War on Terror' it became the 'War on Terror (against America and her allies)'. This fit very well with what seems to be the goal...to stop any actions that might be taken that might be labeled as terrorism by the people of America. In the same way it is reasonable that Iran sees the CIA funding and aiding enemies of the Iranian government (which has been going on as far back as WWII) as supporting terrorism. But my definition, which probably isn't that far from the current administrations definition, that doesn't mean the American government is hypocritical for taking these actions, since, to America, nothing done by America can be considered 'terrorism (against America)'.

Now, this strategy can only be made to fit with the public if people could be made to stop believing in things like absolute right and wrong. If you think that there are some things that are simply wrong no matter the circumstances and you put 'terrorism' in that category then you have to be angry at pretty much anything but talk, because, from an 'absolute' perspective, taking action against a country to get that country to do what its government doesn't want is just terrorism.

Obviously this will never happen and plenty of people will disagree, which is why I think we should either pack up and go home staying out of everyone's business no matter what (including any and all genocidal despots), or just scorch the Earth until everyone that disagrees with us is dead.

[KitKat]

I can't believe the enitre US government hasn't been tried for war crimes. its fucking ridiculous.
There's an international court for war crimes. Unsurprisingly, the US isn't accepting of an independent body having authority to put them on trial. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/warcrimes/icc2.html)

[rockmanj]

Oh yea, i read all about that..It's a joke though, since the US is so pompus, they just shrug it off...i dont think the word "accountablity" exists in the lexicon of the rulers of this fair nation.