News Iran's nukes: posturing and playground politics.

[drankin]

No history of aggression? Isn't their sponsorship of the terrorist group Hezbollah pretty much universally accepted? And what about all those comments about the destruction of Israel and denial of the Holocaust (although the latter is not an aggressive statement)?

Iran may not have invaded a country like we in the US have, but I don't think that means they have no history of aggression.

Weren't they responsible for some hostage crisis back in the Carter years?

 

[GTdan]

I think so. Some people were held for over a year. Not to mention the recent capture and suspicious treatment of British sailors.

I would hardy say they have no history of aggression. Another point to add: Even though they were working with the IAEA, they stopped allowing UN inspectors into facilities, which is a violation of the NPT I believe. This is also suspicious. If it is all for peaceful purposes, why the secrecy?

 

[devil-fire]

No history of aggression? Isn't their sponsorship of the terrorist group Hezbollah pretty much universally accepted? And what about all those comments about the destruction of Israel and denial of the Holocaust (although the latter is not an aggressive statement)?

Iran may not have invaded a country like we in the US have, but I don't think that means they have no history of aggression.

im not sure if this still counts. several countries have supported, encouraged or sponsored fairly significant human rights abusers while they themselves have had no direct participation, and have held little responsibility for the actions. has hezbollah actually shown violent aggression against states other then israel anyway?

 

[denverdoc]

I would tend to concur that Iran has not been an agressor in the last couple of centuries, and would actually pick nits with characterizing Hezbollah a terrorist organization. It's a very mixed bag and now is a recognized political faction. It has tried to divorce itself of paramilitary operations, and while treated and considered as de facto terrorists by western press, the truth is more subtle I believe. Maybe someone from the ME can comment.

 

[russ_watters]

You can be both a political organization and a terrorist organization at the same time, since, of course, the whole point of terrorism is to achieve a political goal. So the two categorizations are independent of each other. What determines whether a group is a terrorist group is the actions they take. Hezbollah may be changing their stripes of late, but historically, they most certainly do qualify as a terrorist organization. The leader essentially used the definition of the word in a speech in 1994:

In June 2002, shortly after the Israeli government launched Operation Defensive Shield, Nasrallah gave a speech in which he defended and praised suicide bombings of Israeli targets by members of Palestinian groups for "creating a deterrence and equalizing fear."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Stance_on_what_is_a_legitimate_military_target

Iran sponsors a wide variety of Islamic terrorists and is openly hostile to the west (as their recent actions toward the UK show). That's kinda the whole reason people are concerned about them getting a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the word "aggressor" doesn't apply, since they pay other to do the aggression, but the word "hostile" most certainly does apply.

 

[denverdoc]

In my mind Israel are the original ME terrorists and agressors and just as the colonies in the revolutionary war, resorted to what was considered out of bounds tactics, what we would now consider guerilla warfare, is the only choice their enemies have as negotiations go nowhere and the US vetos time and time any condemnation. What they did most recently in Lebanon v Hezbollah and the people of lebanon was criminal in the extreme.

Consider for exampler in response to your other remark what's happened in Ireland. It may start out as anarchistic, but over time and in the process of gaining political savvy, and recognition of a legitimate viewpoint, which otherwise may go unnoticed, tactics. diplomacy, means and ends all change.

 

[GTdan]

im not sure if this still counts. several countries have supported, encouraged or sponsored fairly significant human rights abusers while they themselves have had no direct participation, and have held little responsibility for the actions. has hezbollah actually shown violent aggression against states other then israel anyway?

No, I don't think so. But just because it is only Israel doesn't mean it doesn't count. And to add: The hatred between many Islamic nations and Israel runs deep. IMO, this is a big deciding factor on whether or not Iran should be doing what they are doing. They still can't seem to get over the fact that Israel exists. I don't know about you but I think it's a bit dangerous when a political leader admits publicly that a neighboring nation shouldn't exist.

In my mind Israel are the original ME terrorists and agressors and just as the colonies in the revolutionary war, resorted to what was considered out of bounds tactics, what we would now consider guerilla warfare, is the only choice their enemies have as negotiations go nowhere and the US vetos time and time any condemnation. What they did most recently in Lebanon v Hezbollah and the people of lebanon was criminal in the extreme.

Consider for exampler in response to your other remark what's happened in Ireland. It may start out as anarchistic, but over time and in the process of gaining political savvy, and recognition of a legitimate viewpoint, which otherwise may go unnoticed, tactics. diplomacy, means and ends all change.

Well, if we are going to talk about original terrorists, we have to go way back to figure who owned that land first. I don't think the issue is who is the "original" terrorist. If we keep thinking about the past offenses, there will never be peace. About what happened in Lebanon: If you were in charge would you have allowed Hezbollah to continue firing rockets into your towns and abandoned those kidnapped soldiers? It really sucks when there are civilian casualties but it's inevitable when your enemy hides among them.

 

[denverdoc]

No it doesn't have to be. Its not unlike a bank robbery or car chase where police action puts more people at risk, first via their own actions and the flight that ensues. Israel acted in a atrocious fashion and the leaders have been severely reprimanded. First it told the civilians to get out of Dodge, then it put blockades on egress, and then it blamed Hezbollah for the collateral casualties that had no ability to move, and implied they were hiding in the skirts of woman, about the ultimate insult in the ME.

 

[devil-fire]

No, I don't think so. But just because it is only Israel doesn't mean it doesn't count. And to add: The hatred between many Islamic nations and Israel runs deep. IMO, this is a big deciding factor on whether or not Iran should be doing what they are doing. They still can't seem to get over the fact that Israel exists. I don't know about you but I think it's a bit dangerous when a political leader admits publicly that a neighboring nation shouldn't exist.

would this legitimize the americans, instead of israelis, bombing the iranian nuclear program though? seems like a little bit of a stretch to think of the americans protecting an ally by bombing a country without hostilities directed at america because that country has supported an organization that has attacked an ally of america.

mind you such an attack would have to be fairly high on the collateral damage when you consider these are facilities with radioactive materials close to urban areas.

 

[GTdan]

No it doesn't have to be. Its not unlike a bank robbery or car chase where police action puts more people at risk, first via their own actions and the flight that ensues. Israel acted in a atrocious fashion and the leaders have been severely reprimanded. First it told the civilians to get out of Dodge, then it put blockades on egress, and then it blamed Hezbollah for the collateral casualties that had no ability to move, and implied they were hiding in the skirts of woman, about the ultimate insult in the ME.

A bank robbery or car chase is on a much smaller scale than the conflict between the IDF and Hezbollah. The latter is much more difficult. More hostile force with more civilians = more risk = more loss of life.

And though I disagree with you, I won't argue on whether the civilians could actually leave or not because I wasn't there. But we all know that leaflets were dropped prior to bombing in every area that was going to be bombed and frankly, it's not like Hezbollah was ordering their "army" to go fight the IDF. The IDF had to search them out among civilians and hidden bunkers underground to fight them. At many points, they had to go building to building. IMO, they were hiding in the skirts of women and the insult is well deserved.

would this legitimize the americans, instead of israelis, bombing the iranian nuclear program though? seems like a little bit of a stretch to think of the americans protecting an ally by bombing a country without hostilities directed at america because that country has supported an organization that has attacked an ally of america.

mind you such an attack would have to be fairly high on the collateral damage when you consider these are facilities with radioactive materials close to urban areas.

I won't go so far as to say it legitimizes bombing the program. Although they do have hostilities toward America and are possibly funding and training insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. But it legitimizes the sanctions the UN has placed on them.

Tactical strikes on another country for preventing future attacks is a tricky issue. I don't want to support it. But neither do I like the idea of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

 

[Astronuc]

Iran enrichment 'in early stages'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6549185.stm

Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran had not reached the industrial scale of uranium enrichment it claimed recently.

Mr ElBaradei said Iran had only hundreds of centrifuges for enriching uranium, not the thousands that would be needed for industrial production.

Tehran says its nuclear programme is peaceful, but the West fears it wants to build atomic bombs.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said international concern over Iran's nuclear programme was based on its motives, rather than its current capability.

"Iran is still just at the beginning stages in setting up its Natanz enrichment facility. The talk of building a facility with 50,000 centrifuges is just at the beginning, and it is currently only in the hundreds," Mr ElBaradei said.

Meanwhile -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AgzS5wM1xUUxf98CLZFhphgUewgF

Ahmad Fayyazbakhsh, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization in charge of power plants, said the plants would be light-water reactors, each with the capacity to generate up to 1,600 megawatts of electricity.

Each plant would cost up to $1.7 billion and take up to 11 years to construct, he told reporters during a news conference at his office.

The country has been locked in a bitter funding dispute with Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant near the southern city of Bushehr.

Russia delayed the launch of the plant, which had been set for September, and refused to ship uranium fuel for the reactor last month as earlier planned, citing Iran's payment arrears. Iranian officials denied any payment delays under the $1 billion contract, and accused Russia of caving into Western pressure.

Iran is already building a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor in Arak, central Iran, based on domestic technology. It is also preparing to build a 360-megawatt nuclear power plant in Darkhovin, in southwestern Iran.

This raises a significant proliferation issue and concerns about future actions or international reactions.

 

[Futobingoro]

I think a lot of people are deceiving themselves in thinking that the conflict in the Middle East is just a Palestinian-Israeli issue.

Beirut, for instance, illustrates a frequently overlooked aspect of the Holy Land. The city is built atop Ottoman, Arab, Roman, Greek, Assyrian and Phoenician ruins, and the city's name actually comes from the Phoenician word "Bêrūt," which means "the wells."

Many other cities and peoples throughout the area probably also have a similar history.

Mohammed, for example, issued a fatwa which demanded the "protection of the Assyrian people of Mesopotamia." The Assyrians' presence in Mesopotamia predated that of the Muslim Arabs, and respectful co-existence existed for some time. The Ottoman empire, however, went against the fatwa and conquered the Assyrians in 1847. The future of an Assyrian state fell into confusion after the collapse of the Ottoman empire in WWI. In 1932, the Assyrians demanded their own state within the territory of Iraq, only to have the request denied. Many suffered death or banishment. Alas, the Assyrians today number fewer than two million and have no territory to their name, in spite of once presiding over an empire encompassing Mesopotamia and the Holy Land.

So how can one complain of oppression when the ruins of vanquished civilizations lie underfoot? The so-called "oppressed" people have killed a lot of people to make it to where they are today. When was the last time you heard of an Assyrian group asking for territory within Arab-speaking countries?

The history is very complex, with many overlapping claims from different eras.