Article

2004-08-11 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-08-11 1:01:32 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Careful translation of the original Iranian document's Farsi yielded quite another message entirely, which contained only one actual demand:

"Bend over!"

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-11 02:03|| 2004-08-11 02:03|| Front Page Top

#2 Yet more evidence the mullahs are smoking some heavy shit...

Posted by Rafael 2004-08-11 02:23|| 2004-08-11 02:23|| Front Page Top

#3 I think that the US should guarantee to the EU that Israel won't be the country that nukes Iran.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-08-11 03:31|| 2004-08-11 03:31|| Front Page Top

#4 I think that the US should guarantee to the EU that Israel won't be the country that nukes Iran.

Heh, I can think of one really great way to ensure that.

Posted by AzCat 2004-08-11 03:42|| 2004-08-11 03:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Just goes to show they didn't learn anything from WW2. When you appese this is what one must expect.

Posted by FlameBait93268 2004-08-11 06:33|| 2004-08-11 06:33|| Front Page Top

#6 there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.
Well now, there's a shocker. I'm convinced that he will never condemn an Arab country for pursuing nukes, because #1 he's Muslim and #2 works for the UN.
A near perfect combination of complete incompetance and prejudice.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-08-11 08:35|| 2004-08-11 08:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Teheranâs request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly",..

Go ahead, EU guys. Kiss the mullah ass some more. Kiss it to your hearts' delight. If you're lucky, you might get something of value in return.

Maybe.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-11 10:04|| 2004-08-11 10:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Wow-what a news article. This is a stunning parting comment-not because we have any reason to doubt El-Baradei's leanings, but because of the danger his leanings put the West in: as time drags on with the international community debating how to respond (this has become the UN trademark) and trying hard to avoid confrontation with Iran, the Iranians may well have the time needed to bring their program to fruition:

However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-11 10:19|| 2004-08-11 10:19|| Front Page Top

#9 Wait a minute. David Sanger from the NYT says the Iran and North Korea problems are due to Bush's failed dipolomacy. 'member ?

Posted by Anonymous6043 2004-08-11 13:09|| 2004-08-11 13:09|| Front Page Top

#10 "The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond".

This is not true. In the Paris talks the Iranian "wish list" was rebuffed and Iran was given a 13th September deadline to answer open questions about its nuclear ambitions.

The European position is much closer to the U.S. than you may think right now. The case will probably go to the UNSC rather soon.

From what I know about the Paris talks Europe is not willing to accept Iranian nukes. Teheran may think it is safe right now but the mullahs are entering a mine field at this very moment.

Also secret diplomacy with Russia is under way.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 14:27|| 2004-08-11 14:27|| Front Page Top

#11 "In the Paris talks the Iranian "wish list" was rebuffed and Iran was given a 13th September deadline to answer open questions about its nuclear ambitions."
Thank Christ! (May God forgive my profanity.)
The Iranians scare the crap out of me and I still think they're being given too much time, but...
These Satanic dirtbags are every bit the nuke-rattling jihadi warmongers that Saddam was without the charm and the humor.

Posted by GreatestJeneration">GreatestJeneration 2004-08-11 14:35|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-11 14:35|| Front Page Top

#12 Iran is fooked and they know it , shame the Mullahs wanna drag down the civilian into the shite pit they have made for themselves . Eventually they will be surrounded on all 4 sides by folks who are sick of em , but as like iraq , its gonna take a steady 30 years or so to un-brainwash the poor fools who have been stuck in that country and the wishy washy brain tard liberal looney left outside of Iran
my advice to anyone is dont ever listen to a freak in a hat preaching ANY form of religion , eventually they end up as bitter as these guys .. Whats hard for these folks to comprehend is that religion sucks , is outdated , doesnt provide anything but oppression , blinkered vision with a spalsh of hatered against others who dont conform to said religion ..

Posted by Anonymous6044 2004-08-11 14:37|| 2004-08-11 14:37|| Front Page Top

#13 Iran is fooked and they know it , shame the Mullahs wanna drag down the civilian into the shite pit they have made for themselves . Eventually they will be surrounded on all 4 sides by folks who are sick of em , but as like iraq , its gonna take a steady 30 years or so to un-brainwash the poor fools who have been stuck in that country and the wishy washy brain tard liberal looney left outside of Iran
my advice to anyone is dont ever listen to a freak in a hat preaching ANY form of religion , eventually they end up as bitter as these guys .. Whats hard for these folks to comprehend is that religion sucks , is outdated , doesnt provide anything but oppression , blinkered vision with a spalsh of hatered against others who dont conform to said religion ..

Posted by Anonymous6044 2004-08-11 14:37|| 2004-08-11 14:37|| Front Page Top

#14 Thanks for the info, TGA. Still, what would the consequence from Paris likely be if Iran didn't answer the open questions about its nuclear ambitions, or better yet, if we got an "unacceptable" answer? No consequence. Is Paris suddenly going to rediscover principles (and cajones)?

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-11 14:43|| 2004-08-11 14:43|| Front Page Top

#15 Jules, the consequences will be that Europe re-aligns herself with the U.S. position.

This can mean a lot of things. Without the Russians an effective economic embargo is impossible, and even then Iran can still sell its oil to China below World market prices. We'll need a common transatlantic position to make an impact on those two countries. Iran is about to overplay its cards because it thinks Bush can do nothing before the elections (and then Kerry wins). This might be a fatal mistake.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet (this is a credible assessment of German intelligence which happens to be quite good about Iran).

My take: The mullahs cave in rather quickly (and hope for Kerry) or they'll face a military strike on the nuclear sites in THIS year.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 15:02|| 2004-08-11 15:02|| Front Page Top

#16 What do you think this means, TGA:
"...there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost..."?

Given the poor judgment of Europe in many matters over the last decade, I am highly skeptical of what a French, German, and Russian "re-alignment" to US positions would look like. My suspicion is that they would try to play the tough guy for our benefit, and redefine the meaning of "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" for the Iranians' benefit. While I am certainly expressing a minority opinion on this site, there are those like myself who feel the Europeans have no idea how their betrayal of us in the Iraq War has damaged their credibility and our alliance with them-even given the understanding that the US cannot stand alone in this world.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-11 15:33|| 2004-08-11 15:33|| Front Page Top

#17 TGA, while what you have posted is heartening with respect to Europe's position on this, there is no mention of actually taking Iran's facilities ~~out~~ off-line. The Iranians have consistently lied through their teeth and there is no pronouncement that ElBaradei can possibly make that any longer holds water for a thinking person. Iran cannot be left in possession of a single operating centrifuge ~~or missile launching pad~~.

What sort of pressure do you see being placed upon Russia? They are cheerfully hawking off advanced (and not so advanced) military hardware to China and North Korea without a backwards glance at their putative European allies. How will they be reined in as regards Iran? Slightly off topic, but how to rein in China, who remains one of the biggest threats of all?

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-11 15:58|| 2004-08-11 15:58|| Front Page Top

#18 Zenster, we'll see progress and setbacks in the next months. But something is different between Iraq 2002 and Iran 2004.

Europe didn't see Iraq as a threat. It's different with Iran.

To sum up the current positions:

Germany doesn't want Iranian nukes to reach Tel Aviv
France doesn't want Iranian nukes to reach Paris.

The pressure on Russia will be rather discreet. But Russia cannot afford to antagonize the U.S. AND Europe.

The Chinese may like cheap oil from an isolated Iran, but they they have no interest in Iranian nukes either. They also can't afford the Iranian oil flow to be interrupted (which will happen in a full blown conflict).

Of course they can't afford to lose their face either.

This REALLY is a case for quiet and efficient diplomacy.

There is a problem not mentioned yet: Kerry's position on Iran. If Kerry flipflops (and gets elected) the Europeans may look rather stupid.

So, regarding the European position in this issue, don't believe too many things you'll read in the media. The European powers that be take Iran far more seriously than you might believe by their statements. Those who look ahead see Iran (with mullahs) as a major challenge to European security.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 16:32|| 2004-08-11 16:32|| Front Page Top

#19 TGA, thank you very much for some solid analysis. If China is so dependent upon Iran's oil, it's all the more reason we need to depose the mullahs and thereby interdict any eastward flow of this vital resource.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-11 17:15|| 2004-08-11 17:15|| Front Page Top

#20 Zenster, one real obstacle are the Israeli nukes. Now we don't have to discuss that they are vital for Israel's defense and existence, but they do give the mullahs an argument to develop theirs. An argument that unfortunately is even bought by those who don't support the turbans.
That's why Vanunu really was the bigest traitor Israel ever had. Before Vanunu Israel could safely pretend that it had no nukes, or simply not comment, but of course the Arabs and Mullahs knew that Israel had them. Yet they could not bring them into play. An extremely frustrating position (for the Arabs). But ever since Vanunu's treason, Israel does no longer have that line of the defense and the turbans (and the LLL) can justify developing nukes and other WMD.

This creates a real problem in our common Iran policy. Military action against Iran because it develops nukes is not likely to be accepted by the Iranians. If the mullahs manage to play the "nationalist card", Iranians who might otherwise be inclined to celebrate the end of the Islamic Republic might be forced to "rally around the flag" and "defend" their country against the "invaders".

We must find ways to undermine this or an Iranian campaign could turn into a nightmare.

Destabilizing the regime wherever we can, exposing terrorist links etc sounds like a very good idea to me.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 19:04|| 2004-08-11 19:04|| Front Page Top

#21 TGA

One real obstacle is the domestic Anti-American peace lobbies that have been built up in Eurabia over the last several years, if not decades. I don't know Euro politics as well as you, obviously; but if they are democracies, I should think it would be a tough domestic sell to suddenly jump in bed with evil Uncle Sam when Iran has done nothing to anyone.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-08-11 21:26|| 2004-08-11 21:26|| Front Page Top

#22 TGA, it doesn't make sense to "understand" Iran making nukes to "protect" themselves against Israeli nukes, when Israel got the nukes to protect themselves first from hostile regimes--most of them their Islamic neighbors in the region like Iran!--who vowed to wipe out Israel.
You're close to Iran being that kid who throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan when he's there for killing his parents.
Leave Vanunu alone!
He didn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know.

Posted by GreatestJeneration">GreatestJeneration 2004-08-11 22:43|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-11 22:43|| Front Page Top

#23 Jen, you didn't understand my post at all. Please read it again.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 22:50|| 2004-08-11 22:50|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA, forgive me for being too simplistic, but one glaring fact remains:

Israel does not have the avowed intent of obliterating any other Arab nation. Iran has repeatedly announced it's goal of destroying Israel. Make Iran choke down Israeli recognition and a binding peace treaty if they want to have atom bombs. Since they would likely be incapable of doing so, a primary stumbling block would evolve permitting coalition forces to disarm them.

None of this really matters because Iran would still fund Hizbullah and other terrorist groups, thus providing adequate reason to go in and flatten their R&D facilities anyway. In the end, Israel will probably be obliged to act unilaterally and blow Iran's nuclear workshops to hell regardless.

It is beyond me how Iran is able to obtain the least respect from the global community. They have consistently operated in bad faith and been responsible for sponsoring the worst sort of terrorism. This needs to be laid at their doorstep in the form of being denied any opportunity to manufacture WMDs.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-11 22:51|| 2004-08-11 22:51|| Front Page Top

#25 I understood it just fine, TGA.
You're trying to say that because Vanunu admitted Israel has nukes, that hostile neighbors like Iran are justified in arming themselves in some imitiation of Mutally Assured Destruction policy...
Your logic is flawed.
Everyone knew Israel had nukes and why--Vanunu didn't tell anyone a thing and he was trying to get Mohammed El Baradei of the IAEA off his back.
(The US probably helped Israel get them.)
There's just nothing that will excuse the Iranians nuking up and if the EU-3 sanctions it, more fool they.

Posted by GreatestJeneration">GreatestJeneration 2004-08-11 23:07|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-11 23:07|| Front Page Top

#26 Zenster, I wasn't referring to a "justification" Iran could have in front of the global community. It's about the "justification" the mullahs can force their own people down the throat. (It's true that I read that "Iranian right of self defense crap" in German LLL publications, too)

If push comes to shove military action against Iran will be a lot more difficult if the Iranian "national pride" trumpets their wish to get rid of the mullahs.

There are a lot of Iranians who would really welcome an US intervention.

That's my point about the Israeli nukes. Not that Israel has them but that it has them publicly.

Besides that I'm not sure if Israel has the capacity to take out those nuclear workshops. They don't have the surprise element working for them like in Iraq. And the Iranians probably spread out the vital components of their nuclear programme. Maybe an Israeli attack could do some damage but the risks are high.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 23:17|| 2004-08-11 23:17|| Front Page Top

#27 OK Jen, read once more. And you do know who Vanunu was, right?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-11 23:21|| 2004-08-11 23:21|| Front Page Top

#28 Thank you again, TGA. Very enjoyable insights from your side of the pond. If Vanunu had signed secrecy agreements with the Israeli government prior to his going public, I'm surprised they didn't execute him for treason. He effectively toppled an extremely delicate balancing act of one against many in the Middle East.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-12 00:12|| 2004-08-12 00:12|| Front Page Top

10:01 jules 187
09:23 .com
08:42 Mr. Davis
08:14 .com
08:06 Mr. Davis
07:52 .com
07:35 Frendly Advice
01:16 ed
00:41 Super Hose
00:40 trailing wife
00:38 Phil Fraering
00:18 Seafarious
00:12 Zenster
00:01 NotMikeMoore
23:59 NotMikeMoore
23:28 Yank
23:21 trailing wife
23:21 True German Ally
23:17 True German Ally
23:13 Atomic Conspiracy
23:09 B
23:08 Korora
23:07 GreatestJeneration
23:06 Atomic Conspiracy