Iran - Impact in the Middle East

[coolhand]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364500273&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[coolhand]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091221_iranian_incursion_context

[nnuut]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364500273&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The time may be here for Israel to do their thing? Is it time to jump on to the Lilly Pad?:eek: 7739

[JOVARN]

I know its a little out of my league but if it were me, and I was releasing information as described in the article; I would Dee Dee Mau my buttock to the USA spill my guts and live happily ever after in an undisclosed location bought and paid for by the taxpayers of the USA. If the article is true and I'm not saying its aint the informers have nothing to loose as they will be bombed into extension if they stay.
This article reads like what got us into Iraq with the WMD scare that big Dick Cheney contrived for any number of self serving reasons.

[coolhand]

The time may be here for Israel to do their thing? Is it time to jump on to the Lilly Pad?:eek:

I can't use this kind of speculative information in making trading decisions. However, since we've been rising since the March lows this situation (if proven accurate or even close to accurate) could provide the excuse to drop the markets.

[coolhand]

I am finding very little mainstream news drawing attention to a potentially explosive situation in Iran tomorrow. There have been demonstrations in the past week as a result of the death of Iranian cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was sympathetic to demonstrators after the election debacle. These protests are expected to escalate tomorrow on the Shiite religious holiday Ashura (Dec. 27).

Hezbollah has been deployed by the Iranians to help quell the potential unrest, but it is not going to be isolated to Tehran. It is anticipated that 20 cities are planning protests, which is a much more challenging task for the Iranian security apparatus to control. Also, there may be support for the demostrations within the security apparatus itself. The internal politics of the Iranian heirarchy is not without its factions either. There is always a possibility of a coup or transfer of power should the scales tip one way or another.

There hasn't been much in the way of political fallout affecting the markets in some time, but this has the potential to cause some serious repercussions in the event things don't go well for those currently in power.

[coolhand]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR03OG0.html

[coolhand]

Establishing a game plan...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114663&sectionid=351020202

[coolhand]

Live blog with video from Iran...

http://www.dailyniteowl.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/12/27/live-blogging-ashura-protests-in-iran/

[James48843]

Now 15 dead overnight in Iranian demonstratons:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6969422.ece


7754

[James48843]

Remember Neda

Caution- graphic pictures.
Wf0-gzQ9U8M

[James48843]

Yesterday in Tehran:

Caution- extremely graphic violence contained in this quest for freedom:


koZD0xPw-2g

3wr_nXmk4g0

[James48843]

The President talks about the Iranian demonstrations. Good for him. About time.

[Birchtree]

It's time for the dissidents to arm and shoot back. Release the MEK from Iraqi sanctuary and they will gladly step up and kill a few revolutionary guards and other militia.

[phil]

Let's not be overcome by our own propaganda. Whether liberal or conservative, the mullahs will still be in charge in Iran. Yes, there is violence, but there's violence in LA and Paris. Yes, it is political in nature, but it's not a revolution. The conservatives in Iran are currently under a great deal of stress internally, but it only takes a small shift to move people to an external threat. Look for the government to start arresting foreigners next. Sigh.

Also, be careful what you wish. Particularly in this region.

[coolhand]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,669317,00.html

[Silverbird]

There is no "wish" here, there is only the reality of the situation. For us to believe we've made this happen, for good or for ill, is the ultimate in vanity. What we have here is a illegitimate Government trying to wrap itself in a religious garment that looks suspiciously like a gold-plated military uniform. It can only work (sort of) in a very isolated country like North Korea. Iran's population is too well educated, too aware, and too connected to outside information to be lulled by the official explantation.

Of course the current regime is trying to get the West involved, playing their nasty little game of nuclear poker. They want to blame everything on us. But they went in with their eyes open - it is their pride that dooms them. As for Israel, they will act, as Israel thinks necessary, contrary to popular belief in the Middle East, they are their own country and do as countries do. As for us, last time we tried to punt things our way, we put the wrong guy in power, and we are so far spread that we would have to move our assets from somewhere else. It's not like we have an unlimited number of military personnel. Plus, this is an internal test in Iran. Not our fight, to try again in vanity to punt in our direction.

[Scrappy]

Iran Accuses West of Instigating Violent Protests

Talk is cheap............Couldn't Obama just go to Iran and apologize.

[Silverbird]

They are accusing Britain more than us - they just called in the UK ambassador. No good reason to go over there. Just let them stew.

[Birchtree]

I'm surprised that phil hasn't offered a history lesson on the MEK. This is their opportunity.

[phil]

No thanks to the MEK bait. I had my fill after Chalabi of listening to people tell us that they were the man, that they knew what was going on, that they would be in charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

He successfully fooled all the neocons. Too bad for us. It started to get really obvious. No wonder we got screwed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/opinion/bay-of-goats.html?pagewanted=1

One diplomat from the region grimly cited an old Punjabi saying: ''It's very bad when grandma marries a crook, but it is even worse when she divorces the crook.''

[phil]

Actually, Chalabi didn't REALLY fool all the neocons. They just had an agenda to fulfill. Chalabi......fit into what their world view was. After a while, it just became ridiculous.

Foreign policy by wishful thinking just gets a little weird sometimes, especially when people want to be fooled.

[coolhand]

A little background on the MEK.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/

[phil]

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm

Another proscribed foreign terrorist organization. Heaven forbid! Marxists! They also assisted SH in the 1991 crackdown on Shi'ites. I certainly hope we're not supporting some Marxist takeover? Oh yeah, I take it seriously when a group kills our people. Really seriously.

Description: Formed in the 1960s by the college-educated children of Iranian merchants, the MEK sought to counter what it perceived as excessive Western influence in the Shah's regime. Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group. Its history is studded with anti-Western activity, and, most recently, attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad.

Activities: Worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence. During the 1970s the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran and killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. Supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 conducted attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. Recent attacks in Iran include three explosions in Tehran in June 1998 that killed three persons and the assassination of Asadollah Lajevardi, the former director of the Evin Prison. Strength: Several thousand fighters based in Iraq with an extensive overseas support structure. Most of the fighters are organized in the MEK's National Liberation Army (NLA).

[phil]

Yep. Crackdowns, and externalizing the threat. They have enough fertile ground to plant that seed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

[Show-me]

A little background on the MEK.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/


Damn, I thought it was Methyl Ethyl Keaton. Used a lot in the USMC.

[James48843]

Two items of note today.


1. Neda Soltan is named Times of London Person of the Year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6967927.ece


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00663/Neda_663960a.jpg



and

2. this video, from the Green StudentsVoice4Iran, mostly of the events of the past year in review inside Iran


TTAp9Qy3drg

[Buster]

Two items of note today.


1. Neda Soltan is named Times of London Person of the Year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6967927.ece


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00663/Neda_663960a.jpg



and

2. this video, from the Green StudentsVoice4Iran, mostly of the events of the past year in review inside Iran


TTAp9Qy3drg

Just a matter of time before the Evil Iranian Government will be overthrown...even the police are starting to side with the Green movement...They are looking to the US to see if we support them..I do..I believe we have a strong Ali in the making with a NEW IRAN

[phil]

The Mullahs will still be in charge in Iran, whatever comes next. Iran has over 95% literacy for both men and women...this was done AFTER the revolution. These guys aren't a bunch of yahoos. They're educated, and they've always controlled the agenda after the Shah was kicked out. Finally, they have some really tough guys working for them. Think of the Catholic church in the 16th century.....but with a lot more guile.

Most of the Iranians won't forget that the Shah was just a US puppet.

[coolhand]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89ceed12-f4aa-11de-9cba-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

[coolhand]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126222013953111071.html?mod=article-outset-box

[phil]

I read the article. Yes, they're punishing students for activism. That's plain to see. However, we're really not much different in our approach. The students are provided a free government education, as long as they toe the political line.

We're not so very different. Not in my experience. Our only difference is.....we have the opportunity to change it every 2 years, or 4 years for the executive.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126222013953111071.html?mod=article-outset-box

[Silverbird]

Heh, we aren't so different? I don't think so! We don't have a quasi-religious government, a special military government (Revolutionary Guard), and a President with a power base that is trying, and possibly can, make him President for Life.

Hyperbole does not a fact make. There may be three branches of the US Government but they are not the same as the ones in Iran.

[phil]

I don't believe that President Ahmadinejad is as powerful an entity inside Iran as you think. He's not pulling the strings, the Mullahs are, particularly the Guardian Council.

Whether he becomes President for life or not is largely irrelevant, because he's irrelevant.

Yeah, there was probably some issues with the last election. We can just have Katherine Harris go certify it. Then there'll be no questions.

About our own institutions:

The executive branch holds most of the power in the US. Congress basically have emasculated themselves over the years. See Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq War. Our SC has changed from activism to simple jurisprudence since about 15 years ago.

Congress has the right to "ask questions". They only fail to ask the right questions.

[Silverbird]

I don't think so, ask about the Health Care bill, the Climate Change bill, the Executive can say whatever they want but it's the Legislature that gets to pass the laws - and add whatever fun and games they want to it. Oh, and the Exec can say whatever he wants about "Open government", the Legislature can and will make deals and forget the Open stuff - they don't post on Recovery.gov. :cheesy:

The Judiciary has a mixed record on independence, but they go against the Administration of the time as often as not.

Viet Nam was the last war with a Draft, things have changed.

Ahmadinejad has spoken against the Clergy on more than one occaision, the Mullahs don't all like him, but he has the support of the military.

[phil]

I respectfully disagree, but we each have our own opinion. I believe that the Congress had the most precious power in the world which they willingly gave away, the power to commit US forces in a foreign war. They did it for political expediency. They didn't want to know the truth. They chose not to make a hard decision, to listen to the evidence.

They failed. Now they can put all the responsibility on the Executive. That's wrong too.

What a lot of people are finally figuring out is that we really really need Iran to do what we need to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we see such pressure on Iran these days. With friends like Pakistan...

[Silverbird]

Er...we need Iran like a hole in the head. The only good thing about that government is they are very clear about their views and don't bandy about. Rather like their ally Russia. I'd rather have Pakistan, though I disagree that they are a friend - traditionally we are closer to India, and I don't even see India as an especially friendly government.

[phil]

There's an old saying: South Asia is a zero sum game. Whatever you do for Pakistan is against India, whatever you do for India is against Pakistan.

Amb. Holbrooke has PakAf, but it's beyond any solution without bringing India and Iran in the equation. Afghanistan really isn't a country, as far as I can tell, not in how we see what a nation should be. It's a collection of interest groups and tribes that have little faith and loyalty to the central government. That's how their neighbors can influence them so easily. There's no civil society, no center. That was all destroyed 20 years ago.

We've only seen Afghanistan from the Pakistan eyeglasses....for over 30 years now. We have to make Iran part of the answer at some point. The solutions have always involved Pakistan. Look where that got us.

Did you know that over 90% of the books in Dari are actually produced in Iran? Strangely, we always saw the Iranians as the moderates, as opposed to the Taliban, who were busy burning books, destroying art. The Deobandi school is very restrictive.

This is all just stuff. Do I have any answer? Not really. Then again, sometimes answers don't exist. The current idea is to arm up and create an Afghan army, then leave. That might work. It's AN answer, and it gets us out. We won't be hemmhoraging money any more.

[coolhand]

http://www.mindfood.com/at-2783654-iran-mobilises-troops-ahead-of-rally.seo

[James48843]

Iranian opposition leader posts on his Facebook account this photo and message:


7818
Mir Hossein Mousavi:"It is interesting that in some of these footages, people were seeing their brothers behind the faces of the oppressive police and Basij forces and in that critical situation and on that deafening and hateful day (Bloody Ashura, Dec 27th) they were trying to protect them from any harm. If the state-run television and radio had the slightest bit of fairness, in order to calm the atmosphere and bring people closer together, it would have shown a little of these scenes."




Link: http://www.facebook.com/mousavi?ref=search&sid=1272256275.229945374..1#/mousavi?v=wall&ref=search

Mousavi calls for laws to provide free and fair elections, for a free press in Iran, for the right to demonstrate, for the release of political prisoners, and to hold the current government of Iran accountable:

Link: http://www.facebook.com/mousavi?ref=search&sid=1272256275.229945374..1#/note.php?note_id=231350482605&id=45061919453&ref=mf

[James48843]

It's going to be interesting to see how the Iranian government reacts.

Non-Violence is the message being pushed now by the opposition. Hard thing to imagine in that nation.

I find the facebook thing amazing. Technology and social networking-so the whole world can watch as another country struggles to find a way forward. Who would have thought we would have ring-side seats to watch such a struggle?

[phil]

I have no doubt there'll be unrest. The Guardian Council may change the face of some of their members. We'll see. Either way, I believe they'll still be in charge. They'll probably just externalize the threat, as always.
There WAS a more liberal regime in Iran previously. I hope that they return, but I don't vote in their elections.

This posting was from 2006. However, nothing changes.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2006/12/22/part-of-flynt-everetts-op-ed/

[phil]

http://english.aljazeera.net/ is the Al-Jazeera network. They're probably the most trusted news service in the Middle East, supplanting CNN and BBC both. Most of the people in the region think that our administration just got a bye during the last 8 years, not covering stories that needed to be covered. This is one reason we're losing the war in the region. Most people know that we have lied to them. Loss of confidence.

http://www.iranonline.com/Newsroom/

contains current information on current news, but the Iran government links were broken for me, anyway.

AJ was also kicked out of Iran, and several other countries in the region for criticizing authoritarian regimes, though I believe they're back in Iran now (correct me if I'm wrong). They have a great deal of journalistic integrity. Pardon the expression, but they're considered to be truly "fair and balanced" by so many people in the Middle East.

[coolhand]

http://english.aljazeera.net/ is the Al-Jazeera network. They're probably the most trusted news service in the Middle East, supplanting CNN and BBC both. Most of the people in the region think that our administration just got a bye during the last 8 years, not covering stories that needed to be covered. This is one reason we're losing the war in the region. Most people know that we have lied to them. Loss of confidence.

http://www.iranonline.com/Newsroom/

contains current information on current news, but the Iran government links were broken for me, anyway.

AJ was also kicked out of Iran, and several other countries in the region for criticizing authoritarian regimes, though I believe they're back in Iran now (correct me if I'm wrong). They have a great deal of journalistic integrity. Pardon the expression, but they're considered to be truly "fair and balanced" by so many people in the Middle East.

Indeed, they have come a long way. But the people in the region didn't believe thier own governments either, not just the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

"It is widely believed internationally that inhabitants of the Arab world are given limited information by their governments and media, and that what is conveyed is biased towards the governments' views.[6] Many people see Al Jazeera as a more trustworthy source of information than government and foreign channels. Some scholars and commentators use the notion of contextual objectivity,[7] which highlights the tension between objectivity and audience appeal, to describe the station's controversial yet popular news approach.[8] As a result, it is probably the most watched news channel in the Middle East. Increasingly, Al Jazeera's exclusive interviews and other footage are being rebroadcast in American, British, and other western media outlets such as CNN and the BBC. In January 2003, the BBC announced that it had signed an agreement with Al Jazeera for sharing facilities and information, including news footage.[9] Al Jazeera is now considered by some to be a fairly mainstream media network, though more controversial than most."

[phil]

:laugh:

Agreed. And the BBC actually has some journalistic integrity.....unlike us.

[phil]

I really wonder what they were reporting at NYSE that was so terrible. Was there something there?

Not staying on message? Would that be....speaking the truth?

Also, WE'RE the ones who STILL censor Abu-Ghraib.

From Wikipedia:

In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq), the U.S. Pentagon hired the Rendon Group (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Rendon_Group) to target and possibly punish Al Jazeera reporters who did not stay on message. When Al Jazeera went on to do reporting featuring very graphic footage from inside Iraq, US officials decried Al Jazeera as anti-American and as inciting violence. This sentiment was widely echoed throughout the US media and population, and is an example of censorship in the United States.
On Monday, 24 March 2003, shortly after the start of the invasion, two Al Jazeera reporters covering the New York Stock Exchange (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/New_York_Stock_Exchange) had their credentials revoked. The New York Stock Exchange (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/New_York_Stock_Exchange) banned Al Jazeera (as well as several other news organizations whose identities were not revealed) from its trading floor indefinitely. NYSE spokesman Ray Pellechia claimed "security reasons" and that the exchange had decided to give access only to networks that focus "on responsible business coverage". He denied the revocation has anything to do with the network's Iraq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Iraq) war coverage. The move was quickly mirrored by Nasdaq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Nasdaq) stock market officials

[phil]

So....what happened? Well, for some bizarre reason, Iran made an extreme right turn after this. This would be Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the time. By the way, Ahmadinejad cut his political teeth combatting MEK.

I guess this must be a part of our previous concept of a full employment economy, where we go around the world and create enemies, then create gummint jobs to combat these enemies. Sounds like an enormous waste of taxpayer resources. Oops, too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/BBC) Newsnight (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Newsnight), January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/State_Department), yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Hezbollah) and greater transparency in its nuclear program (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) in return for lifting sanctions (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US-Iran_relations#Commercial_relations) and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Mujahedeen-e_Khalq), an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

[Steadygain]

Iran made an extreme right turn after this.

I hope their seatbelts were snug and secure and that they slowed down for the turn. Our brothers and sisters in Iran are a beautiful people.

Ahmadinejad

He has a trait I've noticed in many other 'leaders'. It seems that power itself is somewhat corrupting. That the higher a person raises the more they are focused on the others with wealth and control and the more the common people are somehow forgotten.

It honestly seems like we would have a better word than 'leader' as a leader would surely most represent the interests of the general population and not limit himself (herself) to the few that keep him (her) in power.

[coolhand]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tehran_is_about_to_blow_where_obama_tDQY4FVfatPoAA lohnFFIM

[phil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3Bfox0k4g&feature=related

Limiting dissemination of criticism.

[nnuut]

http://www.newamerica.net/ This guy is speaking for/at The New America Foundation, so I went to this site just to check it out! Not my side of the fence!

[phil]

Yep. He was still speaking the truth. It's not his opinion, but what happened. I think he's telling the truth.

[phil]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/BBC) Newsnight (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Newsnight), January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/State_Department), yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Hezbollah) and greater transparency in its nuclear program (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) in return for lifting sanctions (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US-Iran_relations#Commercial_relations) and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Mujahedeen-e_Khalq), an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

[Scrappy]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/BBC) Newsnight (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Newsnight), January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/State_Department), yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Hezbollah) and greater transparency in its nuclear program (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) in return for lifting sanctions (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US-Iran_relations#Commercial_relations) and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Mujahedeen-e_Khalq), an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

Bow, apologize, point missiles........

President Obama said he's "bent over backwards" to engage Iran in "constructive" dialogue and the U.S. will push the United Nations to sanction the country. Iran told nuclear inspectors on Wednesday that it will begin higher-grade uranium enrichment within days, Reuters reported.

"That indicates to us that despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for, for civilian use that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "That is not acceptable to the international community.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran, and called the move "disappointing." He said Tehran is violating a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is refusing to sign off on an IAEA-brokered deal that would allow Tehran to be supplied with nuclear fuel for its medical reactor in exchange for its low-enriched uranium (LEU).
"I have never seen an administration reach out in as principled and comprehensive a way as President Obama has done," Gates said in a press conference Tuesday in Ankara, Turkey. "The response has been quite disappointing."
Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
FAIR & BALANCED

[phil]

Yes. Iran is violating the NPT, which they have signed previously. I take our own treaty obligations very seriously....like...say, the Geneva Protocols. After Iran took over our embassy in 1979, they also violated a treaty.

Regrettably, our image has been tarnished horribly. Ahmeninajad is a product of our failure to reach out when we had the chance. I'd say this is part of a very complicated dance, very stylized, sort of like Kabuki. We'll see what he unveils on the 11th.

Simultaneously, there're supposed to be opposition demonstrations on the same day around the country. Being marginalized politically may create a sense of desperation internally. I'm not nervous, but would like to wait until the 12th. I hope that it's something that will change our relationship with Iran. I'm sure that a hard-liner could do it. Nixon and China.


Bow, apologize, point missiles........

President Obama said he's "bent over backwards" to engage Iran in "constructive" dialogue and the U.S. will push the United Nations to sanction the country. Iran told nuclear inspectors on Wednesday that it will begin higher-grade uranium enrichment within days, Reuters reported.

"That indicates to us that despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for, for civilian use that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "That is not acceptable to the international community.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran, and called the move "disappointing." He said Tehran is violating a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is refusing to sign off on an IAEA-brokered deal that would allow Tehran to be supplied with nuclear fuel for its medical reactor in exchange for its low-enriched uranium (LEU).
"I have never seen an administration reach out in as principled and comprehensive a way as President Obama has done," Gates said in a press conference Tuesday in Ankara, Turkey. "The response has been quite disappointing."
Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
FAIR & BALANCED

[Viva_La_Migra]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/BBC) Newsnight (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Newsnight), January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/State_Department), yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Hezbollah) and greater transparency in its nuclear program (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) in return for lifting sanctions (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US-Iran_relations#Commercial_relations) and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Mujahedeen-e_Khalq), an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.
And if you're gullible enough to believe that they would actually do all of these things, I got a nice, big, red bridge in California to sell you!:nuts:

[WorkFE]

Being marginalized politically may create a sense of desperation internally. I'm not nervous, but would like to wait until the 12th. I hope that it's something that will change our relationship with Iran. I'm sure that a hard-liner could do it. Nixon and China.

It is a dream Phil, a big one, but I like the way you're thinking.

[Warrenlm]

Heard a panel discussion last night that believed the USG has now accepted the fact that Iran will have a nuclear weapon capability, despite the Biden speech. It's hard to believe that Israel will accept it also and moreover think that the talk on sanctions will have any effect. The Israeli government seems to have been quiet recently on the subject. If Israel were successful in a strike or sabotage move that could at least delay Iran's progress, it seems to me that the area governments would not do more than surface responses to appease their masses and the biggest effect on the West would be short term oil flow disruption if Iran temporarily closed the Strait. That would mean the market climb would continue despite such an event?

[James48843]

If Israel were successful in a strike or sabotage move that could at least delay Iran's progress, it seems to me that the area governments would not do more than surface responses to appease their masses and the biggest effect on the West would be short term oil flow disruption if Iran temporarily closed the Strait. That would mean the market climb would continue despite such an event?


That is a very big risk in that assumption, don't cha think?

You are playing "what if", and then asking if the market will climb if that is the outcome.

It seems our intellegence still isn't really keen on understanding how Middle Eastern countries will react- Our track record isn't really all that great on that score, is it?

We didn't see the fall of the Sha of Iran in advance.

We didn't see Saddam's invasion of Kuwait coming.

We didn't predict several of the West Bank/Gaza issues that came to pass over the last two decades.

We didn't see a lot of things there- and now we don't have a whole lot to go on when studying the leadership of Iran.

Close down the straight of Hormuz? Maybe.

Or Iran could go further- with a lot of other reactions that would not be pretty. Could send fighters to attack US troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, of course. that COULD be the reaction of Isreal attacks.

Or any of a number of other possibilities I could think of. Invasion of Iraq. Or a provocation on the Black Sea. Or sinking of American ships in the Gulf. Or attacking Arab neighbors.

All within the realm of current capabilities.


You never know what we may get if that happened.

[Warrenlm]

So your thinking is that regional war is more likely than grousing and containment with a flurry of fluff?

[WorkFE]

Or Iran could go further- with a lot of other reactions that would not be pretty. Could send fighters to attack US troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, of course. that COULD be the reaction of Isreal attacks.
Or any of a number of other possibilities I could think of. Invasion of Iraq. Or a provocation on the Black Sea. Or sinking of American ships in the Gulf. Or attacking Arab neighbors.

Not because of political wrangling, serious provacation only plus they would need the go ahead of heavy weights China or Russia. If not the outcome would not be pretty for Iran.


All within the realm of current capabilities.

Capabilities they would like to still have at the end of the day. As of today I don't see it. Their neighbors are already nervous.

[James48843]

So your thinking is that regional war is more likely than grousing and containment with a flurry of fluff?

Not sure.

See, that's the thing.

With something as unpredictable as "What will Iran's reaction, or, for that matter, the reaction of all the other countries in the region be, if Israel does a major, massive strike against Iran?" - then counting on a fincancial market reaction to such a scenario is dangerous.

If something like an Israeli major strike happened, would I bet my entire retirement fund that the markets will be calm, and not tank? Not sure I want to make that bet.

More likely than not? Now you are asking me to quantify the likehood. I can't do that- it's far outside my area of expertise.

All I am saying is that there is a whole, wide range of possible outcomes in a case like that- so banking on only the Straits of Hormuz being blocked, and banking that the other countries in the region will object to the Straits of Hormuz being blocked, is a very risky gamble.

Just remember- Iran could block those Straits for years- Saudi Arabia will find another way to get oil out. SOME, not all, of the other countries COULD find ways to get oil out.

And of course, they could all just sit back, keep their valuable oil in the ground, and wait for the price of oil to go ballistic. Provided they all have sufficient cash-on-hand- a war in that region wouldn't really adversely affect them.

Heck- it could even jack the price of oil up so high they get double their money on half the amount of shipments.

That's all I am saying.

A big realm of possibilities to keep in mind.

[coolhand]

Looks like they are laying the groundwork for possible future military action.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=auDTZ6.879ZE

Iran has provided weapons and as much as $200 million a year to help the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah re-arm itself to levels beyond those in 2006, when the group waged a war with Israel, the Pentagon said.