posted September 18, 2007 03:18 AM              

“Prepare for War with Iran” Says France

France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has stated on French television and radio that the world needs to prepare for a war with Iran over its nuclear energy program. “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war,” he said.

Kouchner also stated that French companies have been advised not to undertake new work or contracts in Iran. France wants the EU to back new sanctions against Iran outside of the UN Security Council, despite the fact that Iran is enriching far less uranium than previously thought.

Since there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon, the French minister was reduced to talking in hypotheticals by saying that it would be a “real danger for the whole world” if Iran possessed a nuke. Reiterating France’s commitment to battle this unverifiable threat, Kouchner said that “we will not accept that the bomb is manufactured.” He hinted at military action, but insisted that such plans were far away. Sayed Mohammed Mirandi, a political analyst at Tehran University, said; “Most doubt that there will be any military conflict because the US is in enough trouble as it is in Iraq. The new French government seems to be taking the place of the former British government…acting as Bush’s poodle.”

As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear power. Because of this right, Iran has failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions ordering the state to suspend its uranium enrichment. Following Kouchner’s statement, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview, “Of course we will not step back. The West is talking about imposing sanctions on us, but they cannot do this.” Yet, just as with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the US and its allies are not concerned with what the opposing party is entitled to under international law – but what concessions that party will make to appease the world’s only superpower which has the leverage to enforce its own framework for debate.

The five permanent Security Council members, along with Germany, will be discussing a new draft for a UN resolution on the 21st of this month to impose sanctions on Iran. Kouchner’s comments come after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last month that diplomacy was the only alternative to “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” Sarkozy is taking a harder stance on Iran than his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, who correctly stated that Iran would still not be a threat, even if they did have a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Gates of the US maintains that “all options are on the table” in regards to Iran.

President Ahmadinejad will arrive in New York on the 24th to attend the United Nation’s 62nd General Assembly session. Ahmadinejad is expected to deliver a speech to the General Assembly and meet with other heads of state and Iranian-Americans during his two day visit. During last year’s session, the Iranian president slammed the US and Britain, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, for “committing crimes” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that the Security Council itself had no legal validation since it was composed of criminals. From New York, Ahmadinejad is expected to head to Venezuela to meet with America’s favorite leftist leader (as if we’ve ever known one we didn’t try to kill) Hugo Chavez.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad

posted September 18, 2007 03:38 AM            

Yeah, I wonder what state Iran would be in now if the CIA and the SIS hadn't gone in there and used false-flag terrorism and propaganda to overthrow the democratically elected, pro-US government. That was like in the 50's, right? Because then-Premier Mossadegh nationalized the oil industries, threatening American and British financial interests in the region. We (or the Eisenhower administration, at least) are directly responsible for any extremist government in power there today. We see fit to arm our ally, the repressive, dictatorial regime in Israel, with nuclear weapons, but use Iran's nuclear power program (it's been estimated they couldn't get a nuclear weapon in under a decade) as a pretense to go in with our already-overextended military (or, god-forbid, "tactical nuclear strikes")?

Insane. But I guess that's the benefit of dumbing down the education system and feeding the people bread and circuses for the past 50+ years; no one knows what the hell's going on anymore.

posted September 19, 2007 01:30 AM            

Let me see... Scaleboard SAS Missles, SA-3000 SAM batteries capable of both optic and Radar Guidance, Extremely good Air Support (including U.S's own F-14C Tomcats and the Russian Mig-31s) not to mention a very environment oriented infantry capable of Gurella tactics coupled with pretty decent tanks.

NATO... This ain't Serbia or Iraq.

And furthermore, seems like the more U.N. gets inside reports on Iran, the more it becomes clear that the Uranium enrichment project may just be a ploy.

quote:

---

December 6, 2004 NYTimes.com
Iran Hints It Sped Up Enriching Uranium as a Ploy

TEHRAN, Dec. 5 - Iranian officials have hinted in recent days that they sped up their enrichment of uranium in the past year to put Iran in a better position to negotiate with the West.

In a rare admission, Sirous Nasseri, a member of Iran's negotiating team with three European countries over its nuclear program, was quoted Sunday in the daily newspaper Shargh as saying that Iran had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle since last year, when it came under international pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment program.

"We are in a better negotiating position for political work than last year," the daily quoted him as saying.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told students at Ferdowssi University in Mashhad on Wednesday that the government of President Muhammad Khatami had, for the first time, allocated money and facilities to make "advanced centrifuges" for uranium enrichment, Shargh also reported.
Iran has taken the position that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, though it has pursued technology that could easily be converted to weapons production. The United States has accused Iran of secretly trying to make nuclear weapons and has urged its allies on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency, to send Iran's case to the Security Council.

The agency opted for a gentler approach and issued a mildly worded resolution after Iran agreed in talks with the three European nations - France, Germany and Britain - to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. In return Iran expects rewards, including economic benefits, political and security cooperation with Europe and help with nuclear technology.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman said Sunday that Iran was not obliged to allow United Nations inspectors to visit military sites said to be involved in secret nuclear weapons work, but that it was willing to discuss the issue, Agence France-Presse reported.

"It is not a matter of unlimited commitments and unlimited inspections," said the spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi. "We will act in accordance with" the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Despite statements by Iran's leaders that their nuclear program has wide public support, reaction among Iranians to the agreement to suspend nuclear activities has been muted.

Except for a protest outside the British Embassy in Tehran, for which about 200 members of a militia force were bused in, no noticeable protest has occurred.
Frustrated by more than two decades of isolation and eight years of war with Iraq, many Iranians indicate that they would rather avoid confrontation with other countries. They say their priorities are an improved economy and more political and social freedom.

"The government could spend the $12 billion it has spent over a nuclear program for development of the country," said Karim Bozorgmehr, 32, an English teacher. An analyst in Tehran, who had done surveys on the subject but who said he feared retaliation if his name was published, said a majority of people he approached viewed the government's nuclear ambition with skepticism, saying the government was seeking nuclear capacity as a deterrent and as a way to consolidate its power.

"The clerics want to get hold of the bomb to rule for another 50 years," said, Reza, 36, a civil servant, who, fearing retaliation, would agree to be identified by only his first name.

News of the United Nations agency's resolution last week helped Iran's economy, in which important sectors like real estate and the stock market had slumped over fears that the nuclear dispute could result in a military confrontation with Israel or the United States.

"People were in a wait-and-see situation," said Saeed Leylaz, a journalist and an analyst in Tehran. "The decline in the economy and the soaring unemployment led to discontent among people. Iranian society is not ready for any kind of confrontation, and this put pressure on the government to reach a deal with Europe."

Iran began its nuclear program before the Islamic revolution in 1979 with aid from the United States, Germany and France. But the world has been suspicious of the nuclear program of Iran's Islamic government.

---

posted September 19, 2007 11:08 AM              

quote:

---

Yeah, I wonder what state Iran would be in now if the CIA and the SIS hadn't gone in there and used false-flag terrorism and propaganda to overthrow the democratically elected, pro-US government. That was like in the 50's, right? Because then-Premier Mossadegh nationalized the oil industries, threatening American and British financial interests in the region.

---

Yes and add to that any number of other countries around the world, and lots in Latin America too. Because it was going to cut into some corporate profit margin. And yet, Americans wonder why people are unhappy with us...