Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

June 12, 2012
Iran Sends Another Message

Report: Iran designing nuclear submarine

Iran has begun to design its first nuclear submarine, the Islamic Republic's semiofficial news agency Fars reported on Tuesday.

The Fars report quotes deputy navy chief in charge of technical affairs, Rear Admiral Abbas Zamini, as saying that Iran has begun "initial stages" of designing the nuclear-powered craft.

Zamini added that Iran has developed "peaceful nuclear technology" and has both the capability and the right to build a submarine.

Translation:

Okay. So you are not willing to take up our offer to give up our 20% enriched fuel in exchange for taking back the unjust sanction you put upon us.

Let's review:

We asked for our NTP rights to peaceful nuclear energy but you said no and forbid the Germans to finish the paid-for reactor in Busheer.

We asked for IAEA support for our civil nuclear program but you said no and forbid the IAEA to help us.

We build a few centrifuges. We were willing to restrict the program to those. You said no and put up sanctions.

We build a lot of centrifuges.

We asked for 20% enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. You said no and put up more sanctions.

We made 20% fuel.

We asked to remove the sanctions for giving up that 20% fuel. You said no and you threaten even more sanctions.

We now up the ante.

Your nuclear submarines are running on 97% enriched Uranium. We will now also make such submarines. And those will require highly enriched Uranium. And we will make that ourselves. We will of course do all that under IAEA supervision. We will not divert any of it for non-peaceful use. We will thereby continue to be within our legitimate rights under the NPT and we will stick to the letter of that treaty.

So what are you gonna do now? Go to war and ruin your economy? Or will you finally sit down for honest negotiations? It's your choice.

—

For the U.S the negotiations strategy it's always coercive diplomacy.  For Iran the strategy is to accumulate and enhance its bargaining chips. This will add a big one. But is it big enough to make the U.S. change course?

Posted by b on June 12, 2012 at 14:53 UTC | Permalink
Comments

I wonder how Obama’s reelection campaign would go if Iran openly announces its making weapons grade uranium? Mittens should send them a thank you note next Nowruz.
That said, though, I don’t think western negotiators will be reasonable in Moscow and will instead try to pile on more sanctions. It’s what they did for North Korea and they didn’t even have an Israel lobby to push them. What it will do is show once and for all whether the “all options on the table” talk was bluff or serious. If Iran makes HEU and remains untouched, war talk will become laughable.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 12 2012 15:30 utc | 1

Add to the list that the “international community” knowingly allowed Germany to sell Israel a submarine that was nuclear capable.
And, Israel, true to form, made the announcement in a most provocative way.
Iran has now responded in kind.
Iran is considered a threat to the world. But in reality an Israeli submarine, armed with nukes, could be a threat to any community that rabid Zionists choose to label anti-Semitic.

Posted by: JohnH | Jun 12 2012 15:32 utc | 2

Yeah,nuclear blackmail all over the world.How any sane leader would let these psychopaths have this power is ludicrous.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 12 2012 15:44 utc | 3

Obviously,I meant the Israelis.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 12 2012 15:46 utc | 4

The leaders of the world seem required to belong to an inside party most of us dont know about or would dismiss if we did. Dont laugh. Before eyes roll and sneers erupt- it must be said that the entire road map of ME Arab overthrows are meant to establish the One World Gov; NWO as THEY relentlessly repeat themselves- operating off the Kabbalah masonic calender. The British Israelist policy is at the inner core of world events. But Tavistock’s main function is cultural engineering, so the military timeline must converge with 2012 cultural meme. Its up Jacobs Ladder to the top o’ the pyramid we go!
June 21 Prince William 30 birthday, King of England is always head of world masonry, Solstice and Sun Most High
June 24 Founding of first London Masonic lodge in 1717
June 24 St John Baptist Day, masonic patron saint
June 24,1983 Syria Pres Hafez Assad expells Yasser Arafat from Syria
June 24,2012 STUXNET Expiration date: after which the worm will refuse to execute. Israel signs Stuxnet nuclear power plant virus in code: Habib Elghanian was executed by a firing squad in Tehran on May 9, 1979 sending shock waves through the closely knit Iranian Jewish community. He was the first Jew and one of the first civilians to be executed by the new Islamic government.This prompted the mass exodus of the once 100,000 member strong Jewish community of Iran. Israel memorialized him by putting his execution date into the Stuxnet code that attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities – “19790509” – which was used as a marker to identify computers that should not be attacked by the virus. Israeli signature also contained in word “Myrtus”, a reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them. Another finding June 24, 2012 is the “kill date” after which the worm will refuse to execute.
June 24- July 15, 2012 War in the Sky: Uranus in Aries. Uranus father of Saturn, Saturn father of Jupiter. This alignment is the same Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus configuration as that of 1929 Stock Market Crash & American Revolution. Mass revolutions, atomic bombs according to CIA remote viewer Sean David Morton
…thats not counting the recent Queens Jubilee and Venus return.
Even Saddam named his Osiraq nuke reactor after Osiris…
Yes the Olympians are insane, but yes the calender is true.
Dont ban the messenger please.

Posted by: wasta | Jun 12 2012 15:48 utc | 5

Sure, 1%’ers like to be in secretive clubs and are known to be notoriously superstitious. And probably a lot of decisions are made with astrology, numerology, some other ‘ologies and ‘isms, and the church of Alaister Crowley.. If you’re into that sort of thing, you are bound to notice some patterns, and not by chance, the patterns are real, and they are there, because people align their decisions and lives, and others lives on them.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12 2012 16:12 utc | 6

b. you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. You provide the answer in your question:
“For the U.S the negotiations strategy it’s always coercive diplomacy. For Iran the strategy is to accumulate and enhance its bargaining chips. This will add a big one. But is it big enough to make the U.S. change course?
Nope.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Jun 12 2012 16:20 utc | 7

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12, 2012 12:12:33 PM | 6
I myself was among the scoffers who rolled eyes, until years later I kept stumbling across repeated motifs, uncomfortable, inexorable clues, irregularities and specific WTF data sets that kept compiling into one outcome- for those who were willing to see (which at that time I wasnt). Bizarre stuff, but there is just no way around it. Only string theory which adequately ties world power together. Its not just denial that keeps mankind avoiding the core of NWO template: it requires enormous amount of work and time.

Posted by: wasta | Jun 12 2012 16:45 utc | 8

JP Morgan said that “Millionaires order their decisions by financial charts. Billionaires use astrology charts.”
From the mouth of the beast.

Posted by: wasta | Jun 12 2012 16:48 utc | 9

This sub story is not very serious, especially the part about the enrichment at 97% when the world cannot agree to let Iran enrich at 20%. Subs can still operate at 20% but refueling has to happen much more frequently. Israel doesn’t have any nuclear subs but by arming them with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, they have become nuclear subs. Iran could easily do the same.

Posted by: www | Jun 12 2012 16:55 utc | 10

This is the superpower equivalent of: Come on, hit me.

Posted by: david | Jun 12 2012 18:52 utc | 11

I somewhat think this is funny… another nuclear sub to sink… (to join the 8 others) Iran has experience at small submarines… not big ones, it has experience at land based reactors (and not even very much at that)…
the idea of a non military sub, is a bit strange for a country in a recession…
But it is nice to hear from Iran again, I nearly forgot about them thanks to Syria…

Posted by: simon | Jun 12 2012 19:15 utc | 12

8 others… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines

Posted by: simon | Jun 12 2012 19:15 utc | 13

A friend who visited Plymouth Dockyards reported that he came across a sign that said “At the end of the next war, all ships will be submarines!” If the Iranians can build quiet nuclear attack subs (a big if) , they will be able to project real power anywhere in the world.

Posted by: blowback | Jun 12 2012 19:33 utc | 14

Without checking, I’m pretty sure they have enough university research expertise on hydrodynamics to pull that off. As for building a quiet reactor, steam-thingy, they’ll probably pull that off too. These guys are educated, they have little else to do.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12 2012 20:50 utc | 15

By guys, I include both men and women.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12 2012 20:51 utc | 16

Definitely a signal, since a nuclear sub in the Persian Gulf doesn’t make a lot of military sense.
Those things are BIG, and they are noisy, which might be fine in the depths of the Pacific Ocean but ain’t much good in shallow littoral waters.
So I suspect b is correct: the mere mention of designing these things is meant to be a bargaining chip.

Posted by: Johnboy | Jun 12 2012 22:05 utc | 17

Sounds like bluster, but I wouldn’t put it beyond Iranian capacities. They are a very intelligent people, certainly the equivalent of the West and the East. Not all the intelligence has departed with the exiles to Los Angeles.
As I reported in April, I was very impressed by the quantity of Iranian exports to Turkmenistan. This speaks of commercial activity outside the rule of the Ayatollahs.
I should think we are talking of a Chinese situation; an ideological regime which has decided to give rein to economic development.

Posted by: alexno | Jun 12 2012 22:55 utc | 18

There are several misconceptions in this piece. First off, Iran is not capable of building anything remotely as sophisticated as a submarine, let alone a nuclear submarine. Their current submarines are cast-offs from North Korea and are laughably weak. Their only nuclear power plant (which the West never threatened with military action) was built entirely by Russians and isn’t even properly operating years after it was supposed to be online.
If you follow events in Iran (as I do, having lived there all my youth), you’d know that there are very few areas of sophisticated technology that Iran has been able to succeed at without wholesale support by China/Russia/N Korea. Iranian made goods are invariably shoddy and low quality, whether they be consumer goods or dams built by various government entities. The government simply doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t enrich its own immediate supporters. The welfare of the people simply doesn’t matter to the government of Iran.
So, if the claim is that China/Russia/N Korea would give Iran a nuclear submarine, then I think the author has really jumped the shark. These powers are not about to give this kind of offensive capability to Iran, just as the Russians cancelled the sale of SA-300 anti-aircraft missiles under Western pressure. There is no need for the West to go to war with Iran. The unprecedented boycott of Iran’s oil sales has been extremely effective as oil prices plummet (despite predictions to the contrary) in changing the Iranian government’s calculation. There will be a lot of bark on their side, but they have very little bite left. For the first time in 30 years, time is not on the side of the Iranian government and they are beginning to realize it.
If you’re interested in actual reality-based coverage of Iran (instead of baseless conjecture), I recommend a very well researched blog at: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/category/ea-iran.

Posted by: A V | Jun 12 2012 23:48 utc | 19

Whether Iran actually builds nuclear subs is almost besides the point. The point is Iran is hinting that it’s prepared to escalate the confrontation with the west by producing heu. They could just keep stockpiling the stuff until whenever they aquire a nuclear sub.if that takes a while then I guess they will stockpile a lot of heu.
it’s hard to argue that “time is running out.” For Iran. Oil fell to 35$ in 2009 and even 10 in 1999. Somehow Iran managed to scrape by.
On the other hand Saudi Arabia needs to spend billions to keep it populace sweet and billions more to finance counter.revolutions elsewhere. Hard to do with cheap oil.
Add to that a Wester financial system at the edge of a cliff and I’m guessing the waiting game favors Iran.

Posted by: lysander | Jun 13 2012 0:25 utc | 20

@19 The Iranians will have no interest in being “given” a nuclear sub by anyone, unless it is a one-off gift so that they can work out how to reverse-engineer it and make their own.
I think it is obvious that Iran has learnt the lesson of both the Iran/Iraq war i.e. it doesn’t matter how sophisticated the foreign-built weapon is, once push comes to shove that weapon will soon be rendered useless for lack of spares and ammo.
Since the 1980’s the Iranians have followed a simple dictum: if they can’t make that weapon themselves then they won’t rely on it, and if they can’t make the spares and the ammo for it then they won’t even field it.
That ain’t hi-tech but, by the same token, that ain’t stupid because it means that
a) their weapons work, and
b) those weapons will keep on working.
Start a war with Iran and it could last for days, or it could lasst for years, but either way no amount of blockade, sanction, interdiction, etc., can stop those pesky Iranians from lockin’ ‘n’ loadin’ ‘n’ returning fire.
Kinda’ like Hezbollah on steroids, which should give any warmonger pause….

Posted by: Johnboy | Jun 13 2012 0:47 utc | 21

@20 Agreed. This gumpf about how the sanctions are really, really, really hurting Iran is so overstated that it’s almost laughable.
After all, Greece is also really, really, really hurting.
So is Spain.
So are any number of other countries.
Heck, even the USA is really, really, really hurting.
Economies do, indeed, hit a brick wall occasionally, and although the results are painful it ain’t as if the sky is going to fall down; economies recover and often are all the better for it.
The only different is that Iran has been smacked into that brick wall by the deliberate actions of “the west”, whereas in all those other examples the car crash was caused by the bone-headed, pig-ignorant stupidity and greed of the leadership (hah!) that makes up “the west”.
So if I were a betting man then I’d put money on the smart dudes to recover first which, so sorry, rather excludes the bone-headed, pig-ignorant, stupid and venal “leadership” that appears to make up “the west”.

Posted by: Johnboy | Jun 13 2012 0:56 utc | 22

Posted by: simon | Jun 12, 2012 3:15:32 PM | 13
our oceans are being made dumping grounds for all kinds of macho polluting technology

Posted by: brian | Jun 13 2012 3:13 utc | 23

>>>If you’re interested in actual reality-based coverage of Iran (instead of baseless conjecture), I recommend a very well researched blog at…>>>
AV #19, you must have been very very young when you lived in Iran because the Iran you described does not fit the picture we have been seeing of it and its vibrant population. As to your “Enduring America” blog, it claims it started 3 years ago with and for the Iranian elections and its evidently anti-Iranian regime and anti anything else under the sun that is not pro-American, so I can see which side of its toast is buttered and who is doing the buttering. You must have been distressed when the backward Iran brought down that American drone. I wouldn’t trust anybody that works with foreign governments to harm his country and fellow countrymen no matter how oppressive the regime there.

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 5:56 utc | 24

>>> On the other hand Saudi Arabia needs to spend billions to keep it populace sweet and billions more to finance counter.revolutions elsewhere. Hard to do with cheap oil.>>>
Lysander #20, notwithstanding AV’s drooling over Iran’s reduced oil income, dropping oil prices are hurting America’s allies even more. And it’s not just the Saudis that need the high oil numbers but also Iraq and the UAE that have set the breakeven mark at $80. The Saudis, as you noted, that pledged over $140 billion in social programs to keep the natives happy and docile, their breakeven is closer to $100 a barrel. From FT at the begining of this year:
“Saudi Arabia targets $100 crude price
By Javier Blas and Guy Chazan
Financial Times- Jan 12, 2012
Saudi Arabia is aiming to keep oil prices at about $100 a barrel, a third above its previous public target, in a sign that Riyadh needs higher oil revenues to sustain a big rise in public spending.
Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, on Monday for the first time said the world’s largest oil producer aimed to keep oil prices at the triple-digit level.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af13f09c-405f-11e1-9bce-00144feab49a.html#axzz1xeNZoiuV

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 6:16 utc | 25

India announced it will pay for Iranian oil in gold. Sounds like a brilliant windfall, esp as the world is dumping useless dollars as fast as Bernank can print them.

Posted by: wasta | Jun 13 2012 8:02 utc | 26

Does that make India next on the hit list?

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 8:20 utc | 27

wasta | Jun 12, 2012 12:48:32 PM | 9
You omitted insider trading and naked short-selling – the two non-superstitions essential to success in inadequately regulated stock markets. Even in the relatively well-regulated Oz stock market, “stockbrokers” are akin to facilitators of insider-trading.
i.e. they are privy to inside information upon which gamblers/investors can place bets based on educated guesses about the most likely outcome of an unannounced plan being contemplated by a listed company – if the plan is adopted.
Successful private, freelance, gamblers (day traders) win by keeping their data on individual companies up to date and watching stock prices 24/7 and acting as soon as one of their hunches shows signs of being correct. They also maintain an ability to cash in on short notice – mainly to pick up the small profits they are satisfied with as soon as they materialisee, but also to minimise the loss when they make a mistake. “Lucky” successful long-term gamblers are a media myth.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 13 2012 13:14 utc | 28

@ lysander 20, you have a point about the oil prices having been low in the past. What you’re not taking into account is that the people running the government at that time of low oil prices were a relatively competent bunch. Those people (and their supporters) have now been imprisoned/exiled/silenced, in favor of a completely corrupt and incompetent set of people unable to solve any major problem. That’s why the country has been reeling from hyperinflation and high unemployment even before the latest sanctions went into effect. Their time is indeed running out, which is why you’ll see them fold.
@Johnboy 22, I agree with some of your observations. The Iranian government has built a supply of arms, especially medium/long range missiles based on N Korean models. These weapons make it far less likely that anyone (including Israel) to stage an overt attack, as no one has a good defense against oncoming missiles. These weapons are far simpler to copy and manufacture, than a nuclear submarine.
@www 24: I was most recently in Iran about a year ago visiting my family, so unfortunately I wasn’t too young. I can see that you can’t handle nuance very well. So feel free to keep living in a fantasy world of your own echo chamber where Evil Western governments fight the Angelic governments of Russia/China/Syria/Iran. Some day when you grow up, you’ll realize that the world isn’t black and white and you won’t refuse to read scholarly blogs that say things that you don’t like.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 18:18 utc | 29

AV — the average living standards for Iranians has SIGNIFICANTLY improved under the current regime, so to say that they don’t care about the people is simply contrary to the facts.

Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 13 2012 18:51 utc | 30

@ Cyrus 30: Could you kindly provide documentation of this claim? Could you also provide the timeframe? Are you referring to the country’s oil income over some period, or just referring to some government minister making outlandish claims?

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 19:04 utc | 31

AV, I stand by my comment that anyone that roots for a foreign government against his own country no matter how oppressive has to be a scumbag. The memory of Libyan scumbags conspiring with NATO to bomb their own country and leaving 100,000 dead comes to mind and I hope you give it some thought the next time you root for the West to take out the ayatollahs. Syrian rebels asking for NATO to bomb Syria are scumbags too. If 100,000 died in Libya, you can imagine how many will die in Iran or in Syria. Go peddle your nuance and “scholarly blog” garbage at some Zionist site where it will be welcomed since they too want to bomb Iran. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially that you have family inside Iran that would suffer from the bombing. You are worse that I thought.

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 19:29 utc | 32

@www 32: All your name-calling doesn’t cover the fact that obviously you have a comprehension problem. I’ve never rooted for anyone bombing anyone. The discussion is about economic sanctions. The people opposing economic sanctions are the ones that increase the risk of military conflict. But again, I don’t expect you to be smart enough to understand that.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 19:50 utc | 33

Economic sanctions are used as a prelude to war now, as a softening up process. Economic sanctions pursued by the West are part of a One-Two punch. Along with the increased sanctions is the ever present threat of force. This game has become old and transparent.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 13 2012 20:11 utc | 34

AV, economic sanctions by Bill Clinton/Albright killed a million Iraqis, half of them childten under 5 because of malnutrition and diseases and these sanctions did not topple Saddam, they still had to do it by force. Economic sanctions against Iran will not hurt the ayatollahs but will seriously hurt the ordinary folks; that’s what economic sanctions usually do. Wishing economic sanctions on a country where you still have family is showing how much you are a twit.

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 20:20 utc | 35

@Copeland 34, yes, sometimes that’s the case. What is the alternative then? Should we just skip sanctions/negotiations and go straight to war, like the Isreali Likudniks want us to do?

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 20:20 utc | 36

@AV 36. No one is negotiating on the side that seeks the overthrow of Assad’s government. Those who are instigating and funding the overthrow have no intention to negotiate; and they only want the result they are aiming for. And this is the Syrian situation, the eve of destruction we are discussing; and it’s not an academic discussion about the general or hypothetical feasibility of sanctions. What alternatives might we propose when one party to the conflict is determined that their foreign-funded and assisted coup d’etat must succeed?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 13 2012 20:36 utc | 37

>>> @Copeland 34, yes, sometimes that’s the case. What is the alternative then? Should we just skip sanctions/negotiations and go straight to war, like the Isreali Likudniks want us to do?>>>
Still talking about going to war against Iran, you traitor? I suppose you have a huge picture of the shah in your home.

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 20:39 utc | 38

@Copeland 37: Sorry. I was talking about Iran. I agree with you on Syria where there is no real negotiation going on, since neither side really wants to negotiate. This is the situation I’m hoping we can avoid in the case of Iran.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 20:40 utc | 39

@www 38: You can keep talking. No one is paying attention to you. I’ll continue my conversation with people with basic etiquette and brain function.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 20:44 utc | 40

I don’t think Iran is safe; if the US/NATO clique can succeed in dismantling Syria. In the ongoing war against peace, the current war of aggression, one government after another is being knocked down.
All of us are being encouraged to draw up and declare for one side or another, according to religious confession, ideology. or nationalist urge; but what I fear is happening is that the Banksters, Wall Street and the Financial Oligarchs are trying to drive the world to the precipice of another Great War. And great destruction along with slaughter has proven before that it can spur enormous speculative opportunities.
It has been mentioned I think by other commenters. It’s the Military Keynesianism option, the last throw of the dice for scoundrels. The cloud that comes to mind is 1914. I know it’s a recurring image, that bloggers have meditated on before: that is to say, “The Guns of August” scenario.
I hope we are not going there.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 13 2012 21:15 utc | 41

@Copeland 41. Like you I hope we’re not going there either. There are certainly the cabal that makes huge money from wars. Let’s hope the people are smart enough to refuse to support policies and politicians who drum up “aggressive action” as the answer to any conflict. Syria is obviously an absolute nightmare. I doubt overt NATO action is imminent, but clearly NATO and the Russians are keeping both warring sides well stocked with ammunition. The ordinary people are caught between the two sides with their aspirations completely ignored. Syria is a good example that wars can start without a prelude of sanctions.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 21:27 utc | 42

“@www 38: You can keep talking. No one is paying attention to you. I’ll continue my conversation with people with basic etiquette and brain function.”
Actually I am and am in full agreement with every single word and line here from www.
I will further elaborate on this tomorrow.
Faramarz Fathi

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 13 2012 22:37 utc | 43

@Faramarz Fathi 43: Good for you. Dear wwww, you have one reader. Congrats.

Posted by: A V | Jun 13 2012 22:42 utc | 44

Faramarz sounds authentically Iranian, which is much more than what could be said about you, AV. I’m not writing for others as much as I’m trying to make an honest Iranian out of you. A couple of months back, I visited a permanent Iranian early Islamic art exhibition and it made me realize the richness of the Iranian culture. Now as I think of it, I wish that you too, Avi, would have the chance to see such a collection one day and realize what would happen to this culture with the sanctions or the bombings that you are contemplating against your own people. Unless of course you’re not even Iranian and here to peddle more misery on the Iranian people.

Posted by: www | Jun 13 2012 23:26 utc | 45

AV, you wrote: “Let’s hope the people are smart enough to refuse to support policies and politicians who drum up “aggressive action” as the answer to any conflict.”
Well AV, you are living proof that people are not smart enough. Certainly not you.
For someone to advocate economic sanctions as a means to coerce the Iranian government into giving up its rightful aspirations for peaceful nuclear energy productions, he or she must have little to no regard for the Iranian people.
Sanctions can be as deadly for the weaker members of Iran’s population as bombs would be. Do you think the countless Iraqi children who died at the hands of crass economic sanctions during the 90’s were thinking “wow, am I glad I am not killed by “aggressive action”? For all I can tell from your postings here you are an US empire shill displaying the same signs of moral decay as the country you seem to worship.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 14 2012 0:49 utc | 46

@Juan Moment 46: Yes, I advocate an economic boycott (reducing the oil income of the Iranian gov’t) as the least bad option. The current boycott has no resemblance to the Iraq sanctions. Countries can sell non-military goods to Iran. Russia is operating a nuclear power plant. Even US companies are selling wheat to Iran completely legally.
So, what do you advocate? War? Limited strikes? Insurgency? Sabotage? Or do you want Iran to stockpile a mountain of enriched uranium which would prompt the entire region to get into doing the same thing steadily increasing the risk of nuclear accidents in the region?

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 0:59 utc | 47

@34 “Economic sanctions are used as a prelude to war now, as a softening up process. Economic sanctions pursued by the West are part of a One-Two punch. Along with the increased sanctions is the ever present threat of force. This game has become old and transparent.”
Agreed. That has been the standard operating procedure of “the west” for at least the last two decades.
Note, however, that the “one” part of the punch works by weakening your opponent’s military before you deal it the “two” punch.
This has always been effective because the sanctions have always been dealt out to countries that buy all their weaponry from overseas and, therefore, a decade of sanctions is a very effective way of eroded their (foreign-made, remember?) weaponry due to lack of spares and ammo.
Note, however, that Iran MAKES ITS OWN WEAPONS, and even those weapons that it does buy from overseas are overhauled and refurbished in-house.
They learnt their lesson from the Iran/Iraq war i.e. they have made a conscious decision not to become reliant upon foreign-supplies for the maintainence and support of their weaponry.
So it doesn’t matter how long these sanctions are imposed, it ain’t gonna’ help in the “two-punch” part of that equation.
Hit ’em now or wait tens years makes no difference: either way you’ll be hitting an enemy that’s still fighting fit and as ready as it’ll ever be.
And that’s a daunting prospect, even for the USA.

Posted by: Johnboy | Jun 14 2012 1:31 utc | 48

Ok AV, think this through. When the Iranian government has less oil revenues, where will they cut expenses? Hmmm, in their military? Hardly. In their nuclear program? Possibly but only as a last resort. No, the first item on the list are the multi-billion dollar subsidies which for years have held down the price of essential goods such as fuel and food.
Prices for bare necessities are going through the roof and guess who is feeling the pinch the most? The poor and already under privileged parts of society, driven to further desperation, deteriorating health and an early death.
What is happening is economic warfare – against ordinary people who have done nothing wrong but having the misfortune to live in close proximity to genocidal Israel whilst having elected a government with enough spine to name a spade a spade when it comes to the injustice unfolding in Palestine. We can’t have that now, can we, and so the people of Iran get hammered with sanctions till they drop like flies.
Your argument that hey, they can still buy wheat, is true but mute. I am not sure if you can get your head around this, but whilst there might be wheat to buy, if its so expensive that more and more people can’t afford to buy it, there might as well be no wheat.
Whats your proposed end game anyhow? Kill the economy, starve the population, get them to start a bloody revolt and throw out their government so they can replace it with yet another Israel stooge or whatever the west dictates, just as long as they stop their sanctions and the Iranian people from dying?
Which brings me to your second paragraph.

“So, what do you advocate? War? Limited strikes? Insurgency? Sabotage? Or do you want Israel to stockpile a mountain of enriched uranium which would prompt the entire region to get into doing the same thing steadily increasing the risk of nuclear accidents in the region?

Hmm, hard to say. I reckon we should strangle their economy to death with all kinds of embargoes and sanctions, remove them from SWIFT so that they can’t do anymore international banking, fly spy drones 24/7 over their air space, every so often show them where the hammer hangs by blowing up a few of their academics and scientists, and should need be, have our warships shoot down a passenger jet off their coast, like we did with Iran some years back. Worked wonders with them.
And to finish up, my favorite quote from the above linked article:
“Personally, I will be very happy if the dependence of the economy on oil revenue is decreased,” said an Iranian oil official, who requested anonymity. “We can use the sanctions as an opportunity”.
Now that’s an Iranian speaking.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 14 2012 2:11 utc | 49

@Juan Moment 49: You make many good points that I agree with, but are missing some key facts. Yes, economic pressure does hit the poorest people first. What you’re missing is the fact that the bulk of the economic collapse that has lead to hyperinflation started long BEFORE the latest round of Western sanctions went into effect. They were started as part of the deliberate policy of the Iranian government to remove subsidies for staples 2 YEARS AGO. They are very proud of those policies even today. The Iranian government did this as it was raking in record oil revenue. Do you know what that means? It means they did NOT care what happened to their poor or middle class. They wanted to divert dollars into various corrupt activities to enrich a small circle of elite, as well as funding Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and now the teetering Syrian government. The government you’re defending consists of nothing but a band of thieves and murderers. The people of Iran know this which is whay they marched by the millions in the streets in 2009 when the election was stolen by the same government you’re defending.
The sanctions do make it worse for ordinary people, but they also make it harder for the same government to enrich itself. This is why there is massive infighting on a daily basis with factions accusing each other of multi-billion dollar graft.
As for some government official being happy about depending less on oil revenue, great. I’ve heard this brave talk for many years. The sanctions basically have the effect of lower oil prices. If people are suffering as a result, it’s primarily because the government has refused to invest in productive assets to diversify the economy. So if they result in investment in productive assets (instead of using the oil revenue to import everything from China and close domestic factories) then it’s a good thing. I mean if the government of Iran is happy with the sanctions, you should be too, right?
In any case, you again stated what you’re against and you have good reasoning. but you didn’t say what your solution would be to avoid a nuclear stockpile race in the mideast. Any ideas?

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 4:19 utc | 50

I don’t know if ypu consider Pakistan or India part of the middle east, but seems, the cat is out of the bag wether Iran goes for it or not.The real problem for USA is having Israel on their bacl afraid Iran is getting out of the backwaters, and taking their rightful place as a major player in the region. It has nothing to do with nukes.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 14 2012 5:45 utc | 51

AV,

They were started as part of the deliberate policy of the Iranian government to remove subsidies for staples 2 YEARS AGO.

Yeah man, the writing was on the wall two years ago. Blind Freddy could see that USrael and its fleet of poodles would eventually play the economic sanctions card, replaying the Iraq strategy of wringing any life out of the country before unleashing its Shock and Awe. If they would not have started to act back then, the economic disaster today would be even greater.

you didn’t say what your solution would be to avoid a nuclear stockpile race in the mideast. Any ideas?

Well, as I wrote above, lets start by worrying about the nuclear weapons already built and stock piled in the ME, say the ones Israel has pointed at every neighboring country. Once we dealt with those, then we move on to the imaginary nukes and the ones that may exist on some drawing board in some nuclear arms project facility. How does that sound to you?

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 14 2012 6:08 utc | 52

Juan #49, when you see “They wanted to divert dollars into various corrupt activities to enrich a small circle of elite, as well as funding Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and now the teetering Syrian government” it tells you that this caricature of a chronically intellectually constipated person that forgot to include “Khamass” in the litany is much closer to being an Israeli than an Iranian.

Posted by: www | Jun 14 2012 6:11 utc | 53

I doubt this person is from Iran, sound like an Israeli or Saudi-American troll.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 14 2012 6:24 utc | 54

@Juan Moment 52: You still didn’t answer my question with anything remotely realistic from where we are today. But I appreciate the conversation.
@Alexander 54: Discarding contrary opinions by stereotyping the person saying it only enlarges your blind spot. You can believe what you like if it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t make it true.

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 17:39 utc | 55

I guess it takes every kind. I’m no fan of neclear energy or veapons, but it’s not the place of Americans or Israelis to dictate what Iran can and can not do, not when both USA and Iran have agreed to the terms of the NPT, and Israel even hasn’t done as much. So as far as sanctions and war goes, there’s no nuclear reason to expose Iran to any of that. I am not too happy about human rights in Iran, but then again, neither am I happy with USA or Israelis track reckord in that department, doesn’t mean we should all embargo eachother.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 14 2012 17:48 utc | 56

AV:
“If you follow events in Iran (as I do, having lived there all my youth), you’d know that there are very few areas of sophisticated technology that Iran has been able to succeed at without wholesale support by China/Russia/N Korea. Iranian made goods are invariably shoddy and low quality, whether they be consumer goods or dams built by various government entities.” End of quote.
And the Motherland responds by saying thanks to you all expatriates who gave me the ultimate insult by renouncing your citizenships, going abroad, and making revolutionary advances in many fields in your newly adopted homes while more than Five million Tehranians are suffering from medical epidemic, air pollution, with serious health consequences and potentials to be passed to the next generation.
“The government simply doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t enrich its own immediate supporters. The welfare of the people simply doesn’t matter to the government of Iran.” End of quote.
If you like to see changes that would benefit ones who deserve why don’t you go to Iran and take a lead on the path towards those changes you would like to see taking place there no matter how lethal of a fate might await you rather than taking refuge behind the monitor like a coward, if I may say so, and bash, demean and lash at Iran.
The above does not mean I agree or disagree with the contents of your post here. However, I find it very peculiar of any expatriates who have never performed their personal, civil and national duties to be either complimenting or criticizing the Iranian government in the comfort of their new homes .
There is much more room for this debate to expand however my time does not allow me to be here anymore at this time but would not mind to engage in it further in future.
Faramarz Fathi
faramarzfathi@aol.com

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 14 2012 18:35 utc | 57

@Alexander 56: And I’m not a fan of US/Israeli track record in the Mideast either. The hypocrisy on Israeli nukes is there for all to see. The suffering of the Palestinians is obvious as well. All that doesn’t make the current Iranian gov’t the angels that many on this site make it to be. This isn’t Hollywood where the world is always good vs evil. Reality of the Mideast is that it’s usually evil v evil. The only good guys are the general populations who are usually caught in the crossfire of the evil powers contending over influence/money/territory. Criticizing just one side without looking at deeper layers is intellectually lazy. I don’t expect people who don’t follow Iranian internal politics the way I do, to easily understand the nuances which are very very complex. The reason I even said anything in this thread is that reality on the ground is not what the loudest voices on either side usually say.
Again, thanks for the conversation. I hope you keep an open mind as you read various sources.

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 18:48 utc | 58

RE:

Their current submarines are cast-offs from North Korea and are laughably weak.

The Iranian’s have 3 Russian built Kilo class diesel submarines – a little dated compared to the latest, but still very capable.
The Russian’s updated them about 5 years back, but couldn’t find out if they included Klub cruise missile capability in the upgrade.
They have also built indigenously some smaller, special forces style submarines of moderate capability, & the submarine arm have a reputation as solid professionals considering the limitations they operate under.
Regarding them building a nuclear submarine anytime soon, this is strictly a publicity stunt, most likely to bring attention to the German built Isreali subs, as a few people have pointed out.
While they are probably the only country in the middle east that have the institutional educational level to design one outside of Israel, even the likes of Japan would likely need close to decade to build anything close to the newer US & Russian nuclear subs.
Nuclear subs are one of the most difficult technologies to master, a whole array of technologies have to be mastered first.

Posted by: KenM | Jun 14 2012 20:43 utc | 59

AV, I simply don’t agree with your premise that action needs to be taken. Your list of options, “War? Limited strikes? Insurgency? Sabotage?” is based on the notion that Iran doesn’t have the same rights as Israel, India or Pakistan. Where do you get that idea from?
You wrote “the hypocrisy on Israeli nukes is there for all to see. The suffering of the Palestinians is obvious as well.”
There is your answer. In light of the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by nuclear armed Israel, who gives a damn if Iran is enriching uranium? Only people with a desire to distract from the main issue the ME faces. Is that you?
Its akin to the school yard bully sticking fellow students heads in the toilet, while the yard supervisor worries about another student cause he is reading a martial arts book. Deal with the school yard bully and you might find that others won’t need to prepare for a fight with the asshole.
So AV, to delineate our positions more clearly, please tell me why something must be done to stop Iran from enriching uranium?
What harm is there in Iran doing so, that is not harmful when other nations do it?

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 14 2012 22:48 utc | 60

@Juan Moment 60: “tell me why something must be done to stop Iran from enriching uranium? ”
Good question. I’ll tell you my reason, however, “the West” has other reasons. The stockpiles of uranium are dangerous. Let’s assume that the gov’t of Iran has no intention of building a nuclear bomb as they claim. We know that they do not have the ability to run, let alone build a nuclear power plant. The only (barely) operational one is built and mostly run by the Russians. The Russians have no reason to use uranium from any source other than their own overpriced stockpile. So the people of Iran will be sitting next to an ever-growing piles of uranium that have no peaceful use and (supposedly) no military use. Would you want your family living near such piles?
Furthermore, while you and I may believe the peaceful intentions of the Iranian gov’t, very few of its neighbors do. Saudi Arabia and others have threatened to start stockpiling uranium as well. So now we have a volatile region with multiple piles of enriched uranium sitting in silos that no one can use since they don’t have (or need) nuclear power plants. Yes, many countries have nuclear piles and plants, and many of the most advanced ones are phasing them out due to the inherent safety problems (Japan, Germany, etc.).
So, tell me why this is a good thing, or a thing the world should ignore.

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 23:28 utc | 61

@ Faramarz Fathi 57: I’d respond to your unhinged diatribe if it made any sense. Since you’re obviously intolerant of contrary opinion (and if you grew up in the Islamic Republic you’re instructed to be this way), I’ll let you carry on with your drivel.
Some day, if you grow up and have the ability to hold a civil conversation with something intelligent to say, I might answer it. In the meantime, feel free to talk w/ the other unhinged person on this thread: www.

Posted by: A V | Jun 14 2012 23:37 utc | 62

‘This isn’t Hollywood where the world is always good vs evil.’
US regime is almosty invariably evil. check history

Posted by: brian | Jun 15 2012 1:39 utc | 63

You make the argument that Iran’s insistence on producing enriched uranium is the cause for some of its neighbors to now also want to build up their reserves, acknowledging the domino effect Iran’s decision has on the region. But you refuse to discuss the fact that Iran is not the first domino in this chain.
If Saudi Arabia, concerned about Iran’s enrichment program, has warned to also start stock piling this stuff, then I expect you to be just as outraged at Saudi Arabia as you are with Iran.
Israel goes nuke > Iran goes nuke > Saudi Arabia goes nuke
If you don’t want Saudi Arabia to stockpile nukes, take out the first piece in this line. That would be a consequent argument.
If your real concern is indeed about the proliferation of harmful nuclear energy, why not bash China or the US, or any other nation with plans in the pipeline to build nuclear reactors.

So, tell me why this is a good thing, or a thing the world should ignore.

The world, the world, who is the world? The same people who oppress and kill Palestinians, bomb wedding parties in Afghanistan, or arm terrorist to cause a civil war in Syria? Think about it, why should I or you give a toss about what those devils think about Iran?

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 15 2012 2:15 utc | 64

@Juan Moment 64: I’m not as concerned about proliferation of nuclear energy as much as nuclear material that isn’t even destined to be used to create electricity. I’m outraged at Saudi Arabia for many reasons, but stockpiling enriched uranium isn’t one of them, simply because they aren’t doing it. I can ask you the same question. If you’re concerned about Israeli nuclear weapons, why aren’t you concerned about Pakistani or Indian nuclear weapons? If you’re against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, then why aren’t you against India’s occupation of Kashmere?
The fact is that there’s a lot to be outraged about in that region. There are a number of legitimate grievances all around. The question is whether we do something to stop the cycle, or just stand by as proliferation escalates and dangers to ordinary people continue to grow.
The world is a lot of people. It includes the US, but it also includes a raft of nonaligned countries that used to defend Iran in international bodies (such as South Africa) who have changed their minds as they have seen how the country has been overtaken by a cabal of thieves and murderers. If you don’t like the US position, then you might consider listening to the South Africans.

Posted by: A V | Jun 15 2012 5:11 utc | 65

“If you don’t like the US position, then you might consider listening to the South Africans.”
The history of mankind has not witnessed an imperial power with such vicious and inhuman foreign policies as of United States yet and unlikely to do so in future too. And this should be regarded the greatest shame in human race history too since it contradicts vastly with the American values that are quite so noble.
An opinion from someone who has nothing intelligent to say.
Faramarz Fathi

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 15 2012 19:48 utc | 66

@ Faramaz Fathi 66: At least this post was intelligible, if not intelligent (look up the difference in the dictionary). If you’re going to make sweeping generalizations covering all human history, you’re expected to at least know something about recent history of other Imperial powers. I suggest that you spend some time reading up on the history of Imperial Japan in China and Korea, Nazi Germany in Europe, or the Ottoman Empire in Armenia. The US is an average imperial power with a lot of blood on its hands. But if you actually learn about the history of other powers, you’ll see why your assertion on the US being singularly vicious is quite unintelligent. If you don’t want to spend any time educating yourself about history, then you should refrain from expressing opinions on things you don’t know anything about.

Posted by: AV | Jun 17 2012 4:31 utc | 67

One part of me says don’t feed the troll so I won’t bother to go through every decade of US history which shows that since North America was first invaded by whitefellas nearly 250 years ago, those whitefellas have been at war with someone somewhere. The moment they reached a calm with native americans, the white settlers turned on the englanders, when that finished they resumed killing indigenous people, sometimes they have even fought each other if they believed there was a dollar in it (as in “I reckon we’ll make more money settling the west with european migrants than African slaves”). Then they went after the Spanish, Mexicans, Colombians even Filipinos, no wonder Japan became concerned enough by 1930’s to suggest they should tone it down a bit. I doubt there has before been a country in the world that has never had a period of peace in the way the US hasn’t. esp considering it has been the aggressor in every case. Yes including the war in the Pacific 1942 to 1945.
What I find really tiresome about this ‘av’ troll is the way he does everything he can to avoid mentioning the elephant in the thread. That is Israel’s ownership of nuclear weapons, an ownership in total breach of IAEA resolutions and non-proliferation treaties. Yet he calls for action against Iran who has stuck to the letter of their Non-proliferation agreements.
Notice how this ignorant if verbose piece of pseudo Persian nastiness has been quick to throw the ad hominems at others before calling others out for that exact thing. Kinda reminds you of an israeli doesn’t it?
If this bloke ever lived in Iran (maybe his family took advantage of Iranian hospitality for a few centuries before they split to Israel where they now spit venom and threats at the hospitable people who gave them refuge for so long) he is a traitor, a quisling of the worst sort in the way he uses specious arguments based upon demonstrable & outright lies (allegations that Iran had breached non-proliferation treaties when it hadn’t – the famous purloined briefcase etc.) to advocate the use of violence against people he claims are his countrymen. Scum is what I consider such types to be. Quisling was the prancing Norwegian ponce who jumped into bed with the Nazis when they invaded and facilitated the death of whatever ‘untermensch’ he could harangue the population into giving up.
Quisling is an ideal word for anyone who advocates the use of violence against his own people in order to weasel up to someone more powerful.
The odds are high that if the lowlife responds to this it will be to (a) call me names about my cognitive skills or mental health (that has been his response to others who have pointed out his lack of ethics) and (b) ignore the Israel question apart from a vague generalisation.
I want him to do one of two things either present a cogent argument as to why Iran must be attacked about nukes it doesn’t have before Israel is attacked for nukes it does have or, if he won’t/can’t do that AV should piss off back to the murdering zionist scum he normally hangs with.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 17 2012 9:59 utc | 68

Nothing wrong with Faramarz Fathi’s sense of history; AV doesn’t like anyone saying something nice about Iran. You can tell what kind of guy AV is by the way he welcomes sanctions against a coutry where he still has relatives. Nice guy in the Israeli sense of the word.

Posted by: www | Jun 17 2012 11:30 utc | 69

A V post#62:
I totally understand.
Faramarz Fathi

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 17 2012 21:37 utc | 70

A V:
“But if you actually learn about the history of other powers, you’ll see why your assertion on the US being singularly vicious is quite unintelligent.”
I have.
I also learnt that none of those imperial powers either had or could have had so much blood on their hands during such a short period refering to how young the United States is.
Please don’t get offended if I don’t acknowledge you anymore here and elsewhere. I use these forums to debate and learn but not to impose or attack anyone.
Unfortunately you have nothing, except arrogance and ignorance, to offer and I respectfully pass on that.
Faramarz Fathi

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 17 2012 22:53 utc | 71

“But if you actually learn about the history of other powers, you’ll see why your assertion on the US being singularly vicious is quite unintelligent.”
I have.
I also learnt that none of those imperial powers either had or could have had so much blood on their hands during such a short period refering to how young the United States is.
Please don’t get offended if I don’t acknowledge you anymore here and elsewhere. I use these forums to debate and learn but not to impose or attack anyone.
Unfortunately you have nothing, except arrogance and ignorance, to offer and I respectfully pass on that.
Faramarz Fathi

Posted by: Faramarz Fathi | Jun 17 2012 22:58 utc | 72

10+ to Debs comment.
Faramarz, you gracefully extracted yourself from a conversation with someone on a high horse tangling red herrings, well done.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 18 2012 10:42 utc | 73

@Debs is dead, 68: Some of what you say is factual and agreeable to me. Some of it isn’t. For example, Israel has never signed the NPT, so it can’t be in violation of it. You can condemn them for not signing it (as I do) but again it’s better to have actual facts on your side if you’re going to make an argument.
But you seem to have other issues as well. You accuse me of ignoring Israel’s policies/actions, and advocating that “Iran must be attacked”. You must be mistaking my posts with someone else’s. Again having facts on your side would improve the credibility of your assertions. For your education, let me repeat that I support EU’s economic boycott of Iranian oil BECAUSE it reduces the chance of military action. I realize that this doesn’t fit in your black-and-white world view, but it’s there nevertheless.
As for your infantile name-calling, it only underscores the weakness of your own arguments. But go ahead and keep it up if it helps you cope.
@Faramarz Fathi 72: I certainly won’t get offended if you don’t acknowledge me. Good luck.

Posted by: AV | Jun 19 2012 20:38 utc | 74

Everybody “knows” that Israel has not nuclear bombs.
My question is : Germany, has any concealed nuclear bomb?.
and Sweden? and Switzterland?.

Posted by: curious | Jun 21 2012 11:26 utc | 75

Back to Main