| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran unexpectedly surfaces hidden nuclear stockpile |
| 2010-02-28 |
| Iran has left international weapons inspectors stunned over the past two weeks as it suddenly moved virtually all of its underground nuclear fuel stockpile to an above-ground plant, and now the international community is struggling to determine what the country might be planning. Administration officials and international experts, according to the New York Times, are considering numerous possibilities. It could be, some say, that the country simply ran out of space for its underground stockpile. But others warn that the Iranian government, which orchestrated a brutal crackdown of demonstrators after last year's presidential elections, may have more nefarious intentions: The strangest of the speculations -- but the one that is being talked about most -- is that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is inviting an attack to unify the country after eight months of street demonstrations that have pitted millions of Iranians against their government. As one senior European diplomat noted Thursday, an Israeli military strike might be the "best thing" for Iran's leadership, because it would bring Iranians together against a national enemy. As one senior adviser to Mr. Obama said late last year, "We've got a near-perfect record of being wrong about these guys for 30 years." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 Trying to minimize the effect of a tectonic plate jiggie...? |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2010-02-28 16:30 |
| #3 Can you spell ambush, at the tactical and strategic level? 1. How do we know if this is all of the material, or a mix used to dupe whatever morons the IAEA has onsite? 2. What Air Defense systems (ADA) have been moved onsite, proximate, and along likely air corridors of approach? Can you spell Chinese and Russian systems, and dare I say it, operators? 3. Because it now on the surface, and I suspect proximate to civilian population centers, now the US planners have to look at collateral damage and the risks of condoning/allowing a strike that allows radioactive contamination that will last for a long, long time. 4. The attack will prompt immediate reactions worldwide, but aside from the meaningless frothy muzzies on CNN, Hezbollah attacks from Lebannon, Syria goes for the Golan again, Gaza erupts, Jordan and Egprt get colder to cooperation with Isreal, Turkey gets much colder, Iraq destabilizes, and Iran gets tom play the brave victim card, and then, amazingly, finds more material and proudly annouces the bomb anyway, with victim card credentials arguing that they need it to keep the nasty Joooos away, and the West dumbly nods as Oblahblah Hussein makes speeches. What part of this equation is bad for Iran or it's nuclear and regional power goals? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2010-02-28 14:08 |
| #2 So what does Iran have to back this up? Sounds like a bluff. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-02-28 13:38 |
| #1 Are the ones scared that Iran is "trying to provoke an attack", the same imbeciles who are afraid that if the US has anti-missile defenses that it will "provoke" other countries to throw missiles at us? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-02-28 09:33 |