Iran Launches Payload into Space

An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East: "It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty." From the article: Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space. It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence". In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket. But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."

Comments

So...

[daveschroeder]

"Iranian media" said this?

No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.

While they're at it, where's that cure for AIDS?

Excuse me if I'm not impressed by this posturing.

Re:So...

[Bob Gelumph]

Why is this such a big deal?
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.

Re:So...

[daveschroeder]

No, I'm not mixing anything up. Earlier this month, Iran claimed it had a cure for AIDS, with no proof (naturally).

But then, so had North Korea.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed this kind of behavior from Iran under Ahmadinejad.

Re:So...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?

Because the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, puts different restrictions on different countries. To wit, the US, Britain, and the other original nuclear powers must work to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles (which they are doing), and every other signatory must not undertake to obtain nuclear weapons.

What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?

Nuclear (power) research - good
space technology - good
possible nuclear weapons research - bad.
The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.

The U.S. has said...

You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article. This is a comment from a former British ambassador. If you look carefully, you may realize that no one else on the planet wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not just the US.

Re:So...

[daveschroeder]

You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article.

That doesn't matter. Iran knows that this kind of provocative behavior and claims such as this (even if they're false) will successfully shift the debate to the US, in effect, further shifting or solidifying opinion against the US among groups of people both inside and outside of the US, even though the US hasn't done anything at all, and indeed, the only "action" of any kind taken, by anyone, has been by Iran.

It's a really brilliant strategic move on Iran's part, actually. They can deflect attention from themselves, and shift the focus to what US reaction might or should be, even though the focus should remain on the fact that Iran shouldn't be allowed to proceed down this path, as has repeatedly been reiterated by UN and the rest of the international community. How long until revisionist history forgets that fact, and pretends it was "only the US" that had these feelings on Iran (which is ironic, since the US is probably one of the most silent nations on Iran right now, and has intentionally restricted any rhetoric on the Iran issue)?

Re:So...

[Yvanhoe]

Well, the international community protests when Iran gets a potentially dangerous technology and the same international community protests when U.S. behaves in a way that ignore human rights or international laws.

Why is that so ? Because there is a belief that it is easier to make US change its behavior than to make it drop its technologies. Currently it is believed to be easier to make Iran drop its technology than to change its international stance but this opinion could very well change in the near future.

Re:So...

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure it actually works the way you describe. Not all the time, anyway. Personally, I've been watching the Iranian bravado for the last year with increased interest, and I've gathered enough from it to conclude that they are indeed deliberately provoking the US - but my thought on that was that whatever military response the US might come up with, Iran did ask for it, clearly and repeatedly. I'd be fully on US side in this one (and I didn't like the mess in Iraq the tiniest bit). I know quite a few people who came to the same conclusions as well...

Re:So...

[lixee]

Because the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, puts different restrictions on different countries. To wit, the US, Britain, and the other original nuclear powers must work to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles (which they are doing), and every other signatory must not undertake to obtain nuclear weapons.

The US lost total credibility with regard to the NPT because of Israel's nuclear stockpile. Also, the five original nuclear powers didn't display much good faith when it comes to disarmament. They are getting rid of their old warheads and replacing them with updated more potent ones. By any interpretation, this is not what the NPT was intended for.

The NPT gives Iran the right to develop civil nuclear technology, and until proven otherwise, this is what they are doing.

Re:So...

[sumdumass]

Because Iran has publicly threatened allied countries. Iran has a mixxed bag on human rights (it is actualy one of the better in the area but not alway that way). Because Iran has attempted to make the bomb. Becuase Iran has supported terrorist groups currently in conflict with the US. Because Iran has performed terrorist acts itself. Because Iran is a threat to many countries at the moment.

As for the bomb. It has long been considered a bad thing to let other get it. It isn't because they need it to defend themselves or anything. It is more in the opinion that we know we won't use it unless it was used against us but we cannot be certain they won't.

As for the rest, Americas interactions that parralell Iran's have been done in the Best ofr the interest of the united states and it's allies. Even when later it was found to have little positive effects it was considered at the time to be the best thing to do. Unfortunatly, this isn't an ideal world and not everything done has the greatest outcomes and not everything done was the best choice of the time. Although it was thought to have been the best choice. And the people not directly influenced by the positive results only see the negtive results but the key here isn't the results at all, It is who interest the actions were supposed to benifit. Iran's interest as presented presently will be against the interest of the US and some of it's allies.

When you ask a question like that, You have to look at what can come from it, what it is likly to be used for and who it could effect. If it could effect you and it could damage your reletive's property and possibly lives, you tend to want them to stop doing it. Whatever "it" is. And unfortunatly, the intentions could be admirable, the outcome could be non threatening and we end up with something like chernobyl.

As for being the only country to use a nuke. At the time it was used, there wasn't a concept of the damges it caused. It wasn't until after theat we discovered how bad they were. All we knew was an invasion into mainland japan would reult in massive loss of life for the good guys. While the intent of the bomb was only to inflict those losses on the enemy and save the "goodguys" (and yes are the good guys in that war) We unleashed something that couldn't be hidden again. Hilter was trying to find "the bomb" too ubt was unsuccessfull.

So our only instance of using it, we found how bad it was and at the same time, we showed it was possible. This meant that anyone else working on it would have found it too eventualy. To take nukes off the table reagon made a decision that elimintated it's use for the vast majority of wars. Mutualy asured destruction (mad) means that If you use it, we use it and anything you would hope to gain from us will be lost in your lands and possibly more too. The fatal flaw here? the rogue state who doesn't want to invade someone. They want to see them completly destroyed as a clensing process simular to the final solution for the jews. Except countries like Iran have this concept imbeded in their religion wich ultimatly rules the lands. This religious clensing concept is most noticable in the goups labeled as terrorist and etream in the middle east areas.

Yes Iran is more of a therocracy then a democracy or dictatorship. The president of Iran can be overruled at any time by the supreme leader (rahbar) who is a high prist or whatever the muslum position is with the same eeffects. SO lets say that Iran has the bomb and a delivery system that can reach anywere on earth. Now lets say that the extream religios factions infiltrate the churches in Iran and make the whole killing everyone else idea more popular. Now lets sat the Ayatollah is assasinated and his replacment is a follower of this extream belief. Now you will get atomic cleansing of all that disagree's with their religion and they see any retaliation as a test from god to determine how loyal they are. This exact scenario is the reason we are having so much of a problem fighting terrorist. How do you defeate an nemy that see dieing for the cause as the cause winning? And this makes Iran particularly dangerous moreso then other who mihgt get the bomb.

Re:So...

[Martin Blank]

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and therefore not bound by its protocols. Further, the five major nuclear powers have generally lowered their nuclear stance, as the US has seen a general reduction in weapon counts since about 1965, and the Soviets peaked in 1985 or so; at that time, the US and USSR combined for a total of around 70,000 weapons, and this has declined to about 26,000 weapons, with further withdrawals scheduled. There is no prohibition in the NPT for replacing old warheads with newer ones, as the concept of MAD still stands. Generally speaking newer warheads are less powerful than older, anyway. It was not uncommon to see 1MT or larger yields on warheads in the early decades, and yet (except for China) the yields of nuclear warheads that have been cycled in have decreased to an average of somewhere around 300kT, with many of them settable to well below that. This is because the accuracy has increased dramatically making it less necessary to have that kind of power to ensure destruction of the target. The last new warhead to come online in the US was the W88 warhead used in the Trident II SLBM which debuted in 1988, and for Russia possibly the warhead on the Topol-M which debuted in the mid-1990s.

Iran has obligations under the NPT to open up its nuclear research program to international inspectors to allow them to confirm what Iran says is taking place, something that even the US and Russia do. Iran has refused to allow inspectors entry into several key facilities, and has refused to turn over information about them, violating their Safeguards agreement, according to the IAEA. Pakistan's refusal to make available A.Q. Khan -- known for stealing from other nations several plans critical for development of his own country's nuclear weapons -- for interviewing by the IAEA even after evidence came to light that he supplied at least some of Iran's nuclear technology has further heightened suspicions as to the nature of the program.

I do see some hope in that Iran's economy -- which Ahmadinejad promised to turn around -- has continued to further tank even as Ahmadinejad has poured what may be billions of dollars into the nuclear program which has done little more than raise tensions with the West even as employment problems worsen. Evidence of support issues within the elite ranks of the clerics has come to light, and it may well be that Ahmadinejad will last only one term (though that means we still have to put up with him for another 2.5 years).

Heh

[Dunbal]

Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region

      The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

Re:Heh

[lbrandy]

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, but it can. It can get much worse.

Re:Heh

[lixee]

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

I agree with the first part of your statement but saying that it couldn't get any worse is very naive. In fact, the recent deployment of an aircraft carrier in the Persian gulf and other allegations of Iraqi insurgents getting weapons from Iran show that the worst is yet to come.

Think about it. Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech. Washington turned down Teheran's 2003 offer to open negociations. The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place. Everything indicates an imminent attack.

On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The white house's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer. Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran's nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.

Mad world.

Re:Heh

[swelke]

It's brilliant on the part of Iran, I'll give it that. Continue aggressively pursuing your nuclear program and posturing with intent to provoke reactions, knowing full well the debate will be shifted to the US.

Not only that; they must have known darn well that Russia and China would never vote for particularly strong sanctions. Therefore, they knew they could get away with it for a certain amount of time. If this is confirmed, and if they can repeat (ie they didn't just buy a functional rocket from Russia or something), then they are in a much stronger position now than they were. The amount of fear that the idea of even a small, half-assed nuke dropping in their favorite city will put in the hearts of every American means no invasions for Iran any time soon.

That aside, the condition of the world oil market right now means that every oil importing country will think twice before annoying the Iranians too much with (sanctions/missile strikes/pick your provocation). It's widely suspected that no OPEC country has the capacity to increase production right now, so if somebody (Iran) decides to stop exporting for a few months, we'll all (Americans) be paying $5 a gallon for gas by June (worse in places with gas taxes high enough to provide a disincentive to SUVs). I don't know whether Bush can whip up enough fear among Americans to get them to stand for that.

Re:Heh

[Lumpy]

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

Oh Ye of little faith. There is a LOT more we can do to make things much worse. The flaming Idiot we have as a Vice president is calling for attacks on Iran. That most certainly would start the fast spiral into a world war.

Don't sell the USA short, we can destabilize the entire world in the next couple of years... And just wait for the next incompetent idiots we get in the white house after that!

Re:Heh

[Das Modell]

The land was stolen after WW2, declared a Jewish state and the Jews moved there. The babble has been proven wrong countless times, they have zero claim to the land and the Jews have more in common with Gypsies than they do any of the mid-east region.

Or so some people claim. The entire issue is so incredibly and mind-bogglingly convoluted that I've stopped caring. All I know is that Israel deserves the land, while the Palestinians do not.

Re:Heh

[swelke]

Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negotiating with them about that thing.

In other words, the administration doesn't want to negotiate with Iran, but they also don't want average dumb Americans to realize that. Americans hear "We'll negotiate as soon as (blah blah blah)", but most Americans don't know enough backstory to realize that the (blah blah blah) is an unreasonable precondition to negotiating.

Re:Heh

[ScentCone]

allegations of Iraqi insurgents getting weapons from Iran

So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history. Obviously, when Saddam attacked Iran, he certainly didn't do anything to make Iran less inclined to establish regular covert (and not so covert) forrays into that country to erode the Sunni-ness of the place.

Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech

Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world. They openly and proudly finance and support organizations that do seek to destabilize the middle east and throw it back into a medieval environment. They did and do still speak in terms of wiping Israel off the map. So, that makes them more like Canada, maybe? If you had to name a couple of countries most on the "evil" list, in terms of trafficking in weapons and daily support for Really Bad People, Iran and North Korea definitely are at the top, especially in the context of extremist Islamic militancy.

The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.

Do you not even WATCH press coverage of Europe? The US has been bending over backwards to allow Europe, the UN, and the IAEA to do what the EU has been insisting they be allowed to do: talk this to death, and use sanctions to make Iran somehow magically not want to have nuclear weapons while at the same time talking up the pending demise of its most hated regional enemy. The people establishing the "impossible situation" are the whole of the UN security council. European big-wigs are the ones standing up and saying the same things: this can't be allowed, sanctions will be needed, etc. Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?

Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.

So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?

The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.

How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it? The point is that they (Iran) are unwilling, as expected, to demonstrate any interest whatsoever actually not producing nukes. Why even bother sitting through pointless and empty negotiations if the very first step - which includes them doing something to show they even have an interest - is something they're already saying they won't do? It just saves everyone a lot of time. There doesn't need to be any negotiation because they don't intend to carry them out or abide by them anyway. It's hardly a mystery. Do you really wonder if the same guy that says he's just cured AIDS is going to negotiate in good faith to give up something he's already said he'll never give up... and says those things in the context of his promises to see the US and her allies destroyed?

Re:Heh

[baldass_newbie]

The land was stolen after WW2, declared a Jewish state and the Jews moved there. The babble has been proven wrong countless times, they have zero claim to the land and the Jews have more in common with Gypsies than they do any of the mid-east region.

You need a history lesson. Google 'Sykes-Picot' and the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Jews bought the land for pennies an acre. The local Arab inhabitants (Ottoman subjects nicknamed 'Palestinian' because this was supposedly the Biblical land of 'Philistine') thought the land worthless.
After the kibbutz es started reaping the harvest, and the hydroelectric brought power...then the so-called 'Palestinians' realized the inherent value of the land and wanted it back. Of course, the Jews who bought it and worked to transform the land thought this utter bullshit.
So the 'Palestinians' (again, a nickname, not a real culture) agreed to the Egyptian and Jordanian overtures to ally with them an invade Israel. They tried twice and lost horribly both times.
That's right, they started wars and lost them...hence the 'occupied territories'.
What's curious is that the Jordanians and Egyptians won't give the 'Palestinian' refugees harbor, but keep them in camps and have done so for almost 50 years.
What does that tell you about these backstabbing, culture less, savages?

And I have to read idiots like you who got their history from the back of a matchbook or some anti-US/anti-Israel history prof or news reporter.
Read up and come back when you have a clue.

Confusion?

[Renfield Spiffioso]

Reuters, amoungst others, is reporting this is a sub-orbital Research rocket, not a space missile.

Re:Confusion?

[Frosty Piss]

We can't very well hold back every nation on the Earth for fear that they'll use their new found power to attack us.

But it just so happens that Iran is *in fact* on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances these two are connected? Very good. These rockets *could* be used by Iran to lob scientific and communications satellites into space, but what are the chances that instead, they will first be used for nuke missiles? Be realistic, now.

If Iran chooses to use a nuclear weapon on another country, they'll reap the consequences.

And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

Re:Confusion?

[abionnnn]

Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

I'm going to have to disagree. It may very well escalate into a nuclear war amongst superpowers, but a single nuclear bomb (likely to be dropped on Iran by the US, considering their own rhetoric) on a non-superpower may illicit a large conventional response on key infrastructure. Or a limited nuclear retaliation.

Either way, a small nuclear attack will definitely not signal the end of the human race. You would need a large first strike which illicit a second strike and so on for that to occur. That would never happen due to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Nuclear doomsday scenarios are so overrated.

Re:Confusion?

[swelke]

Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

Not necessarily. I'm not saying nuclear war is good, but if there were a nuclear exchange that didn't involve either th US or former Soviet Union, it's quite possible (not certain, but possible) that it wouldn't escalate to a full scale nuclear world war. We might all survive and just get cancer from the fallout.

And even the rather scary folks in charge of Iran know this. If they start a nuclear war, at the very least Iran will get blasted with several hundred megatons. That's not what they want (I think). They'd much rather have a long range nuke to hold over the heads of their enemies.

What this does do, however, is to give Iran a certain amount of credibility as a leader among Islamic countries. Don't think that's a small thing. Right now, the apparently most powerful Islamic country is Saudi Arabia, who are arm-in-arm with the Bush administration (when they feel like it). If Iran appears to be militarily on par with the western powers (which is how every anti-western media outlet will spin it) that will really change the dynamic of the whole region (and Islamic countries outside the region). I don't know what the result of THAT will be, but I don't think I'll like it.

Re:Confusion?

[Sibko]

And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race. The U.S. alone has conducted 1,054 nuclear tests according to this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests

We're not grotesque super-mutants, [Yet. ;P] so I'd find it difficult to believe that any kind of nuclear attack performed by Iran would actually cause some kind of global catastrophe, as you propose. Certainly, Iran has nowhere near enough nuclear weapons and the necessary technologies to kill even one percent of Earth's population. Even a massive full scale nuclear war between superpowers would have a hard time wiping all of us humans off the planet.

Am I worried that Iran might nuke someone? No. That'd be suicide for them. What would they have to gain? A giant radioactive hole where their country used to be? What I am, is overjoyed to see yet another nation joining the space club. The more the merrier in my eyes, things have kinda stalled since those lunar landings.

Re:Confusion?

[PHPfanboy]

I live in Israel, I know people who are involved in both our strategic missile defence projects and other defence projects. Much as you might like to fantasize that we are animals and are going to destroy the world, it's not actually true. They are normal, professional and smart individuals, just like you.

The Samson Option link you have provided says nothing about triggering a world war or attacking Europe and Russia. Seymour Hersh is not taken seriously by anyone who really knows. As you are such an expert you will know that 1 nuclear missile hitting us will basically mean lights out, so there's not much follow-up potential.

If we are more dangerous than Iran why haven't we flaunted, sold, demonstrated or even used our nuclear weapons? How exactly are we more dangerous?

Anyway, keep up with the demonization and vilification, keeps me focused on why I moved here.

Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS.

[brxndxn]

Iran cured AIDS, but the evil US is preventing the world from getting the cure.

Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.

It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.

Re:Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS.

[swelke]

The US media lies by omission (skipping the WTO riots, for example) or by putting a carefully selected spin on certain stories. The shape of the spin and omission are determined by some glaring biases, such as the "cheap-to-cover" bias and the "because our major shareholder said so" bias (see Fox News on that second one). The only time they seem to lie by stating facts that aren't true is when some credible source (the Bush administration talking about WMD's before the Iraq invasion, for example) states that fact.

State-run media in many places (I don't know much about that in Iran) can tell both kinds of lies freely. They don't expect to always be believed, and most people in countries where only state-run media is available will tell you that, but the fact is that most people actually do believe a large fraction of what they hear from such sources, and it shapes their world view.

Then again, I'm sure my worldview is largely shaped by the corporate media. Dang.

It was Iran..

[slashmojo]

They did claim recently to have a cure for aids..

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=851114 0239

Re: It was Iran..

[Black Parrot]

> TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

One could ask what they've been smoking, but I think the press release gives it away.

I dunno...

[FatSean]

Probably because Iran has supported coups in other nations...no...US does that too..

Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...

Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...

I guess you're right!

Re:I dunno...

[shutdown -p now]

Probably because Iran has openly stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map should it ever have the means to do so. I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy, but I don't recall them ever making such statements.

Not to mention that Iran is widely known to fund and train terroristic organisations. Not the kind Bush scared everyone when he needed excuse for Iraq, but the real guys - Hezbollah, Hamas... how'd you feel about one or both of those getting an ICBM with a nuclear warhead at their disposal?

Re:I dunno...

[FatSean]

I don't give a shit about one pissant ME country wanting to destroy another pissant ME country. I don't want my nation to right the world's wrongs. I guess if you care for being the world's policeman, this is a good argument. Me, I'm pretty isolationist...if Iran attacks Israel, THEN we can get involved. Otherwise, this is like 'thoughtcrime'.

Iran funds and trains terrorists? You mean like Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist in the 1980s who was going to take down the soviet-sponsored Afghan gov't?

If Hezbollah or Hamas got an ICBM that could reach the USA, then I'd be concerned. But they don't. They can't even reach Europe right now. I know those two groups have no love for the USA, but they are hardly Al-Quieda! They have more regional goals.

I just don't buy into the fear-mongering.

Re:I dunno...

[Martin Blank]

Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan of his own accord, taking millions of his own cash with him to fund his private side of the war against the Soviets. He was well-known for not only eschewing all aid from the West -- sometimes reacting violently to the suggestion of taking assistance from the CIA -- but also for executing any Western person found unexpectedly near his camps. Journalist Robert Fisk has reported all of this on several occasions, including the first time when he interviewed him and was warned about how he should act in bin Laden's presence.

There were a lot of groups active against the Soviets, and not all of them were allied. To group them all together shows a serious misunderstanding of the complexities of that war.

Re:I dunno...

[shutdown -p now]

Barking dog does not bite. It just wants you to keep a safe distance.

If the dog barks at me frantically, I never know if it's going to bite me when I turn my back to it. I'm not going to take the risk.

If you keep approaching with a big club, things will inevitably turn ugly.

Indeed, they do, for the dog. The trick is to get a really big club.

Re:I dunno...

[bendodge]

They already HAVE attacked Israel (think gov-funded Hezbollah rockets). Your ignorance is precisely what makes such a mess of the issue.

Iran is very, very close to "the bomb", or may already have it. US military intelligence has the exact locations of numerous nuclear facilities, which is why the Stennis aircraft carrier group was just moved withing striking distance.

Let's see:

plainly stated genocide -check
intolerant idealism -check
racist -check
sworn enemy of neighbor(s) -check
willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check Don't ignore Hitler until it's too late, people.

Re:I dunno...

[ArcherB]

You mean like Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist in the 1980s who was going to take down the soviet-sponsored Afghan gov't?


If you implying that the US supported Bin Laden in the '80's? The I would have to imply that you are wrong.

True, the US did support the Moujahadin in the 80's, or at least we helped them knock down a few Russian helicoptors, but we did not support Al Qaeda nor Bin Laden. The people we supported were the same groups that helped us overthrow the Taliban.

Or, would you have had us sit by silently while the Russians slaughtered Afghanis by the thousands?

If Hezbollah or Hamas got an ICBM that could reach the USA, then I'd be concerned. But they don't. They can't even reach Europe right now.

Uh, if Iran just sent a satellite into orbit, then Hezbollah has the ability to strike anywhere in the world. All Iran has to do is conveniently leave the control room unguarded one day and... oops, someone launched something.

More likely, these groups won't need an ICBM. All they would need to do is make a phone call to someone in the US and tell them how they are going to smuggle the bomb in, what their orders are and how to carry them out. (You know, since we can't listen in on the phone call and all)

Re:I dunno...

[drgonzo59]

I don't give a shit about one pissant ME country wanting to destroy another pissant ME country.

but then you say

...if Iran attacks Israel, THEN we can get involved.

Why get involved then if Israel is just another pissant ME country? You don't want to be the world's policeman but then you want to be the world policeman. You have to get your act straight.

Let's assume that you want to be the world's policeman:
Then it is a million times easier to police by _preventing_ the problems. Don't act when the countries already burned themselves to the ground, but stop them from getting the nukes in the first place. Your analogy between thoughcrimes when applied to humans vs. when applied to countries is not valid. In case of a country intelligence can be used to determine what the country is 'thinking'.

Let's assume that you don't want to be the world's policeman:
Then you should not giving a shit whatever happens in ME anyway. Israel gets wiped out - ok. Isreal wipes out the whole ME with nukes - also ok. Only when the nukes start flying towards US you retaliate.

So pick one of the two...

Re:I dunno...

[toddestan]

Probably because Iran has openly stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map should it ever have the means to do so. I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy, but I don't recall them ever making such statements.

On the other hand, the US has declared Iran to be part of the "Axis of Evil". While it's not clear exactly what that means, one of the three countries in the Axis of Evil has been invaded by the US and its government toppled.

Re:I dunno...

[ultranova]

Iran is very, very close to "the bomb", or may already have it. US military intelligence has the exact locations of numerous nuclear facilities, which is why the Stennis aircraft carrier group was just moved withing striking distance.

And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.

But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.

Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...

Re:I dunno...

[CmdrGravy]

I believe it was the US who also promised Pakistan that unless Pakistan was very helpful towards the US and its war on terror and war in Afghanistan that Pakistan would be "bombed back to the stone-age". Perhaps you could attempt to explain what that might have meant and how it's different from what Iran have said ?

Re:I dunno...

[ghoul]

plainly stated genocide -check I Agree Native American genocide
intolerant idealism -check I agree Creationism, Christian Fundamentalism
racist -check Do I need to even say anything. America invented modern racism
sworn enemy of neighbor(s) -check Invaded Canada ,Panama, Granada and Mexico in the past Sworn enemy of Cuba Sure I agree
willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check Iraq and cold war anyone? Who the hell cares if the Russian peasants worked for a capitalist elite or for a communist elite but no we have to have billions of dollars of missiles for our megalomaniac goals

So sure dont ignore Hitler but dont elect him too but gosh you rednecks went ahead and elected him twice. Will you please go out into the woods and shoot yourself now or are you just as shameless as the Chritian right?

Re:I dunno...

[Dr Caleb]

I speak some Farsi. Would you like me to translate what he actually said?

Firstly, the Farsi word for 'map' ("nagsheh") was never used. Nor was the word 'Isreal'. A more literal translation of one passage would be "Jerusalem must/will vanish from the pages of time".

Another passage means: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,". The difference between Isralies and Zionists is left as an excercise to the student. Hint: It's the same difference as between 'Americans' and 'Neo-Conservatives'.

If you speak some Farsi, feel free to visit the original speech, and read it for yourself:

http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches /1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

Re:I dunno...

[meringuoid]

willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check

That's the bit I don't agree with. Iran would like to be rid of Israel, I believe that, but I don't believe the Iranian leadership are insane enough to launch a nuclear first strike even if they could, and I'm not aware that there's anything like the same cult of loyalty to the leadership that we find in North Korea. Open war with Israel or with the United States would mean total ruin for Iran, and the government and the people both know it. Much of the population consists of veterans of the long and horrible war with Iraq. I don't think anyone there wants that again.

Iran's playing a dangerous game here, but I'm not thinking in War On Terror terms about them. I'm thinking in Cold War terms. They're playing the same games the Russians used to - backing factions in unstable regions who are ideologically compatible. This isn't Islamic extremism, this is good political sense. I'm nowhere near as worried about Iran as I am about North Korea, because I believe the Iranians are sane and rational.

Re:I dunno...

[Kadin2048]

I don't believe the Iranian leadership are insane enough to launch a nuclear first strike even if they could

See, that's where I'm unconvinced. I don't think anyone really knows what's going on in the heads of the people in charge there. If starting a war with Israel is the best way of maintaining their grip on power, then I think they're going to do it, even if it means utter ruin in the longer run.

People don't necessarily act rationally: it's like a poker game. Once people have pushed enough into the pot, they're committed. It would make sense for them to just step back and cut their losses, but instead they just push it further and further. I don't think the Iranian senior leadership will necessarily take that step back, until the missiles are headed to their targets and a few million people are about to meet their respective deities.

Iran can't win against Israel; I don't think anyone rationally disputes that. (Iran and Israel can certainly both lose, but not win.) However, to admit that would be A Fate Worse Than Death for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, and I'm not sure that they won't turn the whole country into one big Martyrdom Operation, if it saves them face personally.

Re:I dunno...

[shutdown -p now]

plainly stated genocide -check I Agree Native American genocide

We're not talking of a century ago. We're talking of today.

intolerant idealism -check I agree Creationism, Christian Fundamentalism

Last I checked, atheists were not imprisoned in the US, nor is homosexuality a crime which carries a death sentence by hanging. Whereas Iran... for those too lazy to read the article, I'll just link some of the pics. They're quite telling in and of themselves. Here is the one of a woman lashed for writing an article critical of the present situation with women's right in Iran. Here is another lashing, with reason unknown; but the guy in the pic is clearly a teenager. If you're thinking this is anywhere near the US, you're insane.

racist -check Do I need to even say anything. America invented modern racism

The US has been openly anti-racist in its policies for the last 50 years. In Iran, being a Jew is essentially a crime in and of itself.

sworn enemy of neighbor(s) -check Invaded Canada ,Panama, Granada and Mexico in the past Sworn enemy of Cuba Sure I agree

Just about the only point that makes sense. US is certainly more aggressive as a country than quite a few others. During the Cold War, though, this was more understandable. But it's all much worse when someone has an ideology to back the military strength - something which the US has been lacking recently, and which Iran very much has: "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check Iraq and cold war anyone?

I certainly don't see how Iraq did anything even close to "sacrificing the entire nation". For that matter, neither did the Cold War, but there would be a good reason for that there should it ever been needed.

So sure dont ignore Hitler but dont elect him too but gosh you rednecks went ahead and elected him twice. Will you please go out into the woods and shoot yourself now or are you just as shameless as the Chritian right?

Bush bad... Bush bad... Bush bad...

Will you fucking stop being obsessed with the Shrub, who's gonna be kicked out of the Whitehouse in a year anyway, and focus on some other, no less deserving figures?

Re:I dunno...

[MightyMartian]

Um, how many American soldiers have died in Iraq? Seems to me that the US has, in fact, made it easier for terrorists to attack them, by bringing all those targets... I mean soldiers to an arena that's a little easier for them to get to.

Let's remember here that the reason 9-11 happened was because of intelligence failings. Bush's solution, which was essentially to manufacture evidence about Iraq, thus embroiling the US in a war which, after being won, has spiraled the country into a civil war. Oh, and let's not even talk about Afghanistan, you know, that place where bin Laden actually was.

The US's flexing of its muscle has demonstrated one thing, that the hyperpower notion which was being trotted out after the fall of the USSR, is completely invalid. A pack of loonies, at least some of which who are puppets of Iran, are keeping a huge chunk of the US military at bay. You admonish someone else to read history. Well here's a tip. Go and read about how a bunch of guerillas managed to keep the Napoleonic forces in Spain at bay.

Re:I dunno...

[Sj0]

That's right! "WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. THEY'RE A LITTLE NORTH, A LITTLE SOUTH, A LITTLE EAST, AND A LITTLE WEST OF BAGHDAD."

Oh. Right. I forgot, it was these guys. Maybe the Americans should stick to something they're good at, like.....Running up massive debts?

Re:I dunno...

[Master of Transhuman]

Uhm, Israel does NOT have a "UN Mandate."

In fact, in 1947, the UN set up a commission to determine whether the UN had the authority to partition the PALESTINIAN MANDATE (which is what you appear to be referring to) - and concluded that it was illegal for the UN to partition PALESTINE into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state.

Which the UN Security Council then ignored and went ahead and did it anyway because the British basically said, "We wash our hands of the whole thing" - because the Zionists were killing British soldiers and civilians by TERRORISM.

Whereupon the Zionists provoked a war with the Arab countries, and proceeded to drive out 700,000 Palestinians and seize their lands - which have never been returned, nor have the Palestinians driven out been allowed to return.

Not to mention that Israel has IGNORED all but one of the NUMEROUS subsequent UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands captured in the 1967 war - and numerous other aggressions against the Palestinians.

The UN should revisit its 1947 partitioning plan, and require the original PALESTINIAN MANDATE to be enforced. "Israel" should be renamed "Palestine", all Palestinian lands should be returned to the Palestinians (where legally feasible and records exist proving ownership), and the Israeli state should be dissolved. All Israeli nuclear weapons should be eliminated, the Israeli military disarmed, and anybody who wants to leave the now-Palestinian-majority country should be allowed to leave with compensation for personal and business expense.

The binational (single) state solution is the only workable solution to the Middle East problem. And if that results is mass emigration of Israelis to other countries - well, if they hadn't been aggressively trying to expand two thousand years ago - until they ran into the Romans who were really GOOD at that sort of thing - they wouldn't have been driven out in the first place. And BEING driven out was the best thing that ever happened to Judaism, since it meant it would never die out and is now worldwide.

Judaism's worst defeat was in fact Zionism's best goal - the safety of Jews. And the Holocaust doesn't change that historical fact.

And in any event, Christianity was responsible for the persecution of Jews in the first place - based on the nonsense that Jesus Christ was anything other than a good Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion - let alone one that would persecute his own people for his death for two thousand years after...

Chimpanzees.

Re:I dunno...

[Arker]

There's a really big difference between the two phrases. More than one, actually.

"Israel" could refer to the entire state, or its citizens. It can be interpreted in genocidal terms. What was actually said, however, was the occupying regime - a very different thing.

And for the verbal portion, "wipe off the map" is an English term that carries a rather violent connotation, again it can even imply genocide. The actual Farsi phrase used has no such connotation, it's more equivelent to the English phrase 'this too shall pass.'

So the bad translation wasn't 'tomeytoe tomahtoe' as you try to paint it, and it wasn't just a bad translation either. It was deliberately misleading. Reading the 'translation' that's been plastered all over our media, you hear violent, possibly genocidal threats against a nation. Read the original, or a decent translation, instead, and what you find is merely disapproval of a particular government, and faith that justice will eventually prevail over it.

Re:I dunno...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

More likely, these groups won't need an ICBM. All they would need to do is make a phone call to someone in the US and tell them how they are going to smuggle the bomb in, what their orders are and how to carry them out. (You know, since we can't listen in on the phone call and all)

You know, this is such a shit argument. Wiretaps are, and have always been, legal in the US. The government can even wiretap for a limited period in a time-sensitive situation, before a warrant has been granted.

Circumventing the law and the system that was in place has nothing to do with national security. If the President believes that the law is too restrictive, he can appeal to Congress to amend it. That is his ONLY recourse - the President does not get to decide which laws he obeys.

The FISA was passed to protect us from government corruption. You can argue about whether it is too restrictive, but claiming that we "can't listen in on the phone call" is dishonest.

You wouldn't be so sure if Hillary were using a bogus legal argument to disregard the law. Strengthening presidential power only seems like a good idea when you like the person in charge. The ability of a single individual - or small group of individuals - to determine who should and should not be spied upon, in secret and without oversight - is a dangerous thing.

And, yes, the Democrats are absolutely guilty for doing this as well.

is there a treaty which says they shouldn't?

[fantomas]

Serious question. Is there an international treaty that says they don't have the right to attempt to get a satellite up into space?

Mind you I think we need to wait for independent confirmation, could just be political bluffing. The Iranian government knows that if they can get something into orbit and a successful nuclear weapons test done then the USA will back away from hawkish talk of using 'whatever means necessary' and suddenly become all friendly and overlook any issues to get round a table and trade for future oil supplies.

We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep / president's country retreat if they feel they need to.

Re:is there a treaty which says they shouldn't?

[tkrotchko]

It only went 90 miles high, and didn't have the ability to go into orbit.

Even if you accept what Iran says at face value, this was a ballistic missile test. It had nothing to do with space exploration.

In what is that a danger?

[kkkalf]

Why is Iran's technological advancements systematically tagged as a danger to the rest of the world?

> if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty

Sir Richard Dalton's declaration is nothing more than propaganda. Basically he is saying that IF those rockets were armed with nuclear heads, then it would be a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. So Iran's space program is in nothing a breach to any treaty. Then why would it be tagged as dangerous to us western countries?

Re:In what is that a danger?

[HateBreeder]

I guess you don't know much about iran.

Iran is perhaps the most extreme fundamentalist muslim nation in the world.

They're leader preaches for hate of everything non-muslim, and for the destruction of the western society.

Perhaps you should read some of the latest speeches from Ahmadinijad and about iran:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-200705067 7%2C00.html&cid=0
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/international/index .ssf?/base/international-36/117096206117070.xml&st orylist=international
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35552.html
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat= Politics&loid=8.0.384504986&par=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXL2HKEOGw&mode=re lated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wkF3Pkup5g&mode=re lated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRkQMv-3R2k&mode=re lated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6q2h1lKOF0&mode=re lated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMak6VnH4U&mode=re lated&search=

and many many more... just open your eyes and realize who you're talking about.

Re:In what is that a danger?

[dotoole]

Quite true. What people fail to realise that the real power in Iran is not Achmadinejad, but the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei is the commander in chief of the Iranian military, has the sole power to declare war and is directly in command of Iran's nuclear program.

Re:In what is that a danger?

[lixee]

They're leader preaches for hate of everything non-muslim, and for the destruction of the western society.

This post brought to you by the self-proclaimed HATE BREEDER!

Seriously though, nobody likes the regime in Teheran, but they sure seem a lot less beligerent than the one in War-shington. Unless the US stops meddling with other countries' for their selfish buck-driven interests, gives up veto-ing every single resolution concerning Israel and agrees to implement partition plans approved by the international community, radicalism and extremism is likely to foster. Oh, and did I mention the majority of Americans wants their government to give up Veto power and stop agressing other countries. So much for democracy...

Re:In what is that a danger?

[infolib]

Iran is perhaps the most extreme fundamentalist muslim nation in the world.

OTOH, don't take that to mean that Iranians are some of the most extreme fundamentalist muslims in the world - in fact many of them resent Islam for the heavy-handed version of it they've been exposed to. I recognize that the ones I've met in Europe don't represent the conservative rural population, but it's a very mixed picture. I'm actually not sure they're more religious than Americans on an individual level. With so many of them having experienced the backsides of theocracy I see plenty of hope for a democratic Iran in my lifetime.

Here, let's look at international reaction

[daveschroeder]

This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.

You might want to read this. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.

International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07

IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)

On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report

This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.

IRAN

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:

"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report

"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report

Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:

"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report

MIDDLE EAST

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:

It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report

RUSSIA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:

The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report

EUROPE

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:

"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:

"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:

"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:

Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report

ASIA

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxi

Re:Here, let's look at international reaction

[Solol]

Please next time also include the full text of the UN Charter when you refer to it. It makes life a bit easier for those of us still using browsers without support for this new hyperlink thingy.

Space space spacity space

[Legion303]

"Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying: 'The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.'"

This report brought to you by the Iranian TV department of redundancy department in Iran, via TV reporting.

I'm not satisfied either

[MarkusQ]

The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.

Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them, that's for sure.

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. [...] "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.

--MarkusQ

Re:But don't worry

[lxt518052]

Man, can you please stop viewing the world in black and white only for a second?

It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...

Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.

Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-

Re: What we really need to worry about..

[Black Parrot]

> *SOMEONE* always fills a power vacuum.

Yep. And now the Neocons are whining because Iran is filling the power vacuum that we created by knocking off Iraq's government.

For some reason they think the cure is to knock off Iraq's government too.

Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS

[mrops]

If you look at the news source for that claim that Iran is supposed to have made, its quite clear its a political game of chess. ynetnews is a a political newspaper for Israel, its in their best interest to portray Iran as some dumb country under the rule of Ahmedenijad.

However this current news in sync with recent events happening in Iran. And yes the region will be destabalized, the question is will it be for the good or for the ad. IRaq war destabalized the region, was it for the good or for the bad. Further, whats more important is will this destabalization be for the good of the Iranian people or not.

I think the answer is that destabalization will benefit Iran in the long but is a blow to percevied control of west and its allies in that region. Technological breakthroughs are always bebeficial to a country in the long run as they do not have to rely on bread crums thrown at them by those on power. India proved that by going nuclear in the 70s itself. I was tough to live in India during the 80s because of those sanctions, BUT because of those sanctions India learned to be self sufficient, damn US turned back a cargo ship full of rice when India did its first tests in the 70s, people went hungry, today India is oneof the largest exporter of rice. We wouldnt have Basmati rice if it wasnt fo rthose nuclear tests.

So I say go Iran, just dont make those damn nukes.

Wrong

[daveschroeder]

Ok, then here it is from the Fars News Agency, Iran's supposedly "independent" news agency:

Iran Introduces AIDS Cure

And here's one from the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's state news agency:

Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS

That good enough for you, or do you want to keep thinking it's a propaganda game against innocent little Iran?

Iran is the threat?

[MrSteveSD]

So Iran, a country with no nuclear weapons at all, is the threat? There is no evidence of a weapons program, only vague allegations. Why are we so focused on Iran when it is the existing nuclear powers that present the real nuclear threat. None of the nuclear powers have any intention of disarming, which they are required to due under article VI of the NPT. And I mean fully disarm, not get rid of a few missiles as a token gesture.

The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 based on the flimsy excuse that the Soviet Union non longer existed, when we all knew Russia was effectively taking over in that role. Now the US is actively pursuing an ABM system and the Russians are getting quite twitchy about it. This presents much more of a nuclear threat than Iran's civilian nuclear program. Why are the media not continually harassing the US over the issue and accusing them of threatening world peace?

Clearly the US sets the news agenda, so perhaps the relative silence over the ABM threat is not surprising (even if it should be). If it is taboo to talk about the existing nuclear powers as the real threat, what about Saudi Arabia? There have been a number of independent reports over several years which claim Saudi Arabia is pursuing a secret nuclear program with Pakistan. Why is this being ignored. Could it possibly be because they are an ally?

The US owns space

[gilesjuk]

Or so it would like to think.

The US miltary always reserves the right to shoot down any satellites it thinks would threaten its security. Plus when the EU wanted to setup Galileo their alternative to GPS, the US wanted a code to be able to shut it down etc..

Re:The US owns space

[rcs1000]

Hang on.

All countries defend their interests. All countries reserve the rights to things (although most are less brazen at actually doing them than the US). China just demonsrated it has the ability to shoot down a satellite in space; both Russia and the US have done so in the past. No country unilaterally bars itself from future actions, or at least not without a clear benefit.

So; the US is just like any other country. Only slightly bigger and a little bit more scary.

Why don't we overhype the news some more!!!

[Assassin bug]

It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth. That's just above the Karman Line. And it's important to note that bragging in the Middle East is often like the threat-display behavior of elephants -- lots of posturing. Recent memory should provide some guidance and experience here!!

Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Sad Adam]

AIDS in Iran is mainly caused by injecting drug use of heroin. Most of the heroin driving this injecting drug use comes from Afghanistan. The amount of heroin has been increasing dramatically since the US led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. According to the UNODC, opiate production there increased by 60% in 2005-6 alone.

Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote:

"Several factors helped catalyze change and explain Iran's current progressive (HIV prevention) policies: (i) the important role NGOs and civil society played in advocacy and implementation of successful programs that reached vulnerable groups; (ii) the close cooperation and common understanding between the Ministry of Health, the prison department health authorities, and the judiciary authorities and other stakeholders, on drug treatment and HIV/AIDS, leading to increased government support for implementation of evidence-based harm reduction policies; and, (iii) informed advocacy among senior policy-makers paving the way for adoption of harm reduction measures in early 2000. A national harm reduction committee has been established with representatives from various ministries, academic centers and NGOs.

Harm reduction programs are now implemented by both government and non-governmental facilities. A program recognized as a best practice, is the triangular clinic which integrates services for treatment and prevention of STIs, injecting drug use and HIV/AIDS.17 These clinics are set up in prisons and by NGOs to effectively reach IDU communities. A unique model for comprehensive harm reduction is being implemented by the Persepolis NGO. It provides needle exchange, methadone maintenance treatment, general medical care, and referral for voluntary counseling and testing. It runs drop in centers for street-based IDUs as part of a continuum of care, and services extend to the provision of food, clothes and other basic needs."

(HIV/AIDS Prevention among Injecting Drug Users: Learning from Harm Reduction in Iran, World Bank 2006) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAREGTOPHIVA IDS/Resources/LancetHarmReductionIran.pdf

Google for harm reduction and HIV in the US. Judge for yourself where HIV prevention is more effective.

I guess the lesson is this: there is active propaganda campaign being waged by the US and its allies against Iran at the moment. As in the case of the USSR, everything is being painted black. Laughing at "cures for AIDS" is part of this propaganda campaign.

Judging by HIV prevention evidence at least, it is pretty clear where religious fundamentalist nutsos are doing the damage.

Re:Sheesh...

[miletus]

I don't see that much difference between the Iranian and Israeli state. Both are "representative" theocracies (in Israel, Arabs have little representation, and in the occuppied territories, they are essentially subhuman). In Iran, Jews and Christians are relatively unmolested; in Israel, non-Jews have very limited rights (e.g. to own or buy land). Both states censor their media, although the Israeli press is much more critical and the Iranian state much more heavy-handed. Both states are essentially capitalist.

In the last 60 years, the Israeli state has launched many wars and invasions of its neighbors unilaterally; Iran has not waged a war of aggression in over 200.

Essentially, the only meaningful difference is that Israel is an extension of American global hegemony, and Iran is resisting it.

Re:Not on the US

[rhakka]

When was the last time two nuclear armed antagonists engaged in truly large scale ground conflict?

That's no more likely than nuking each other.. because if one starts losing badly enough, they enter the "nothing left to lose" phase of desparation. No one will risk that. That's why China will never invade america, or vice versa. That's why Pakistan and India are not engaged in full-out war. It's why Israel still exists at all.. either because of their own, or our own nuclear arsenal.

As far as I'm concerned... and it seems Iran probably feels this way as well... Nukes are peacekeepers rivalled by nothing else. You simply cannot push around a nuclear power to the point of breaking. It's probably done more for regional stability in Europe, for instance, than anything else including democractic reform.. which, if memory serves, occurred in germany BEFORE WWII, and did not stop a massive conflagration there.

Nothing more than relatively low-level conflicts are possible between two nuclear powers. Invasion or decimation of one side or the other is no longer an option once they have an "end game" weapon.

That said, I would expect the current state of conflict between Israel and Iran to continue if Iran had nukes. If Iran, say, smuggled a nuke into israel to wipe it out in a surprise attack, it knows damn well that would result in a nuclear exchange with america they are simply not capable of "winning", which would wreck any chance Iran has at being top dog in the middle east, which is what they are really shooting for. America may not be able to invade Iran and hold it, but it is certainly capable of an utterly devastating retaliatory strike, and if a nuclear weapon went off in Israel, it would be able to do so with the moral high ground in the world political theatre. Condemning Israel in its conflict with Palestine is one thing, but NO nuclear power is going to stand for a little guy (relatively) taking such extreme disregard for their nuclear arsenal.

So you admit it!

[FatSean]

The USA does all the things that Iran is doing...but we still use Iran's actions as a reason for invasion. Gotcha.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Puff of Logic]

Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote: Wait a minute. You're saying that one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet is a "known Islamist sympathiser"? I rather thought that the Lancet was known more for being a rigorously peer-reviewed journal than a pawn of Islamic fundamentalism. Did I miss something, or just misunderstand your sentence here?

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[ShieldW0lf]

He was being sarcastic. He's trying to say that the dangerous religous fundimentalists are in the US. And of course, he's right.

I think this is good. I think having nukes in Iran would do great things for peace in the middle east.

What Ahmadinejad REALLY said

[Robber Baron]

Probably because Iran has openly stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map No they didn't. You're just parroting propaganda used to make a case for invasion. I bet you believed that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Nigeria too.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say?

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." ..which when translated means"

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

Source

So how in hell did your post get modded "insightful"? Slashdot isn't turning into Free Republic, is it?

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Puff of Logic]

Ah, thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious. That'll teach me to post anything before my daily dose of caffeine has kicked in!

With respect to your point, I'm torn with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions. There has been a lot of jumping up and down about Iran's nuclear program *might* lead to weapons and *might* destabilise the Middle East even more. That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use. The crux of the issue seems to be Iran's assertion that it's simply trying build a power source versus the U.S. position that Iran is clearly planning to turn Israel into a glass parking lot.

The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies. Although I of course acknowledge that fear-based policies existed long before the U.S. troubles with Middle Eastern societies, I really believe that the most terrible and far-reaching consequence of the September 11th attack was the conversion of the U.S. into an almost entirely fear-driven nation. Rationality in policy really seems to have been set aside and I fear that the situation in Iran will be the latest evidence of that.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Sj0]

Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.

If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!

History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[ChameleonDave]

Ahmadinejad has made his views on Israel crystal-clear

Indeed Iran's position is clear, but Americans and Israelis have done their best to muddy the waters. Ahmadinejad has stated quite correctly that the Zionist regime should end, and this is reported in the West as saying that Israel and all Jews should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly confirmed Iran's support for the Arab League's position on Israel-Palestine, that calls for peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. This is not generally reported.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[ShieldW0lf]

Secular jews are some of the smartest, funniest and most loyal friends I've got, and anyone who judges their people by their race should be condemned for it.

Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.

They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.

The Prince of Persia is right.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Lord Ender]

Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote:

Wait a minute. You're saying that one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet is a "known Islamist sympathiser"? I rather thought that the Lancet was known more for being a rigorously peer-reviewed journal than a pawn of Islamic fundamentalism. Did I miss something, or just misunderstand your sentence here?

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle! I've heard about a mental condition in which people are entirely unable to recognize sarcasm. It seems you and three mods all suffer from this terrible disease.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Master of Transhuman]

You needn't be "torn" with regard to Iran's nuclear program.

As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?

That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.

Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.

As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.

This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.

More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.

I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.

None.

Nada.

EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.

EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.

Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.

No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.

There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.

Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.

The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)

And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Without the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney - which simply is not possible given a reasonable time frame - it can't be stopped.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[DavidTC]

That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use.

Iran, unlike Iraq, is not the loser in any recent war and has no requirement not to develop whatever the hell nuclear weapons it wants. ;)

Yes, it's signed the non-proliferation treaty, under which it's limited to civilian uses, but it can exit that at any time with a three month window, and it's not in violation until it actually start building nukes. Here, I'll quote 'Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.'

And even then there's no actual penalty for breaking the treaty except that you get kicked out. Which means...well, the only advantage of being in the club is that nuclear powers are legally required to sell you cheap nuclear devices for no-weapon use, such as blasting mountains and stuff.

Anyway, Iran's not like Iraq, which had signed a surrender agreement that included not building WMDs. Even if Iran came flat out and said 'We're making nuclear weapons, bitch, what are you going to do about it?', it's not actually engaged in any illegal behavior.

Listen to Iran

[CustomDesigned]

The crux of the issue seems to be Iran's assertion that it's simply trying build a power source versus the U.S. position that Iran is clearly planning to turn Israel into a glass parking lot.

Those are both Iranian positions. Ahmadinejad has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" - a "glass parking lot" is an obvious way to do so. I am amazed by how so many people pretend to "respect" Jihadists, but refuse to believe what they say.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[DavidTC]

Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, you lunatic. The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei(1) runs Iran, and he's repeatedly said relations with Israel should be normalized and has supported the Arab League's quite sane position on Israel and Palestine. He's also said that any use of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with Islam.

But keep drinking the Kool-Aide, buddy.

1) It's not damn rocket science, his title is 'Supreme Leader'.

Humanity is insane.

[niktemadur]

First and foremost, I am categorically not a fan of US foreign policy, as it is myopic, petty and/or inhumane more often than not.

That said, the iranian government has, in succession:
1. Threatened to destroy a nation.
2. Turned itself into a global focus point for nuclear rethoric and chest-thumping.
3. Declared the triumphant launch of an ICBM equivalent.

WTF are they thinking? It's almost as if they're screaming at Cheney-Bush Inc: "Lookee here, fuck us up! We'll give you excuses to do it!"
Can't they keep their zipper closed until there's hope for dialogue in 2009, once the jug-eared goon squatting in the White House moseys on back to his ranch in Texas or Paraguay or wherever?
Are they itching to have their country and population brutally victimized? Then again, remember how they used children as suicide soldiers during their war with Iraq back in the eighties.
Are they itching for an excuse to turn off their oil spigot, generating a global economic crisis, enriching the texan oil robber barons in the process? Remember that whenever there's a crisis of this sort, Chevron, Texaco and Shell invariably end up reporting their highest quarterly earnings in history.

As the cherry on the putrid cake, both sides in this fiasco play the religious card, the impending fulfillment of prophecy as some sort of implicit fact and key policy element.

All the world is threatened to get caught in the crossfire. Just another in-your-face scenario that reiterates the urgent need for alternative energy sources, as decentralized as humanly possible.

Fundamentalist regimes.

[jotaeleemeese]

I think you wanted to say Saudi Arabia but somehow got things muddled.

Oh wait, they are US allies.

Er, never mind.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[no reason to be here]

As much as I am given to letting my imagination fly with such Doomsday scenarios, I don't think this one will be able to pan out quite this way.

1. Bushco finally, I think, realizes that the war in Iraq is unwinnable. I don't even think they would try this crap.
2. Israel, I think, knows better than to strike first. They have very tenuous hold on western sympathies; a first strike against Iran with as little or less evidence than the US had for invading Iraq will hurt relationships with US, Britain, etc. Israel already getting chastised by the current administration for recent actions being too over-the-top.
3. Even if they did try, there are enough Americans pissed off about the current war that there would be massive protests; bigger than the anti-Vietnam protests of the 60s; the kind that could "hurry-up" an impeachment proceeding. When you have most republicans running fast from the Iraq war and the President, a move to spread that war to Iran would make the prospect of President Pelosi seem like a blessing.
4. Significant numbers of top level military brass are at odds with the way that Bushco has handled Iraq. We could just see the armed forces refuse to follow the order to attack.

The real danger lies, I think, in Bushco staging an elaborate Gleiwitz incident type of operation that makes Iran look like an immediate, credible threat, in which case, they could, with only minor political backlash, re-institute the draft, and get the 300,000 men in Iraq that they needed to begin with, plus the addition 200,000 to 400,000 (minimum) that they would need to successfully invade Iran. Unfortunately, with the rhetoric coming out of the Bushco Corporate HQ, it seems like that might be exactly what they're planning.

Second-guessing Iran's intentions

[Archtech]

I just don't understand it. For months, every media outlet I see or hear has been telling me, over and over, how dangerous Iran is, how it is working to acquire nuclear weapons, and how its having rocket capability makes everything still worse.

Yet I can't, for the life of me, see any facts to back up these assertions. It's beginning to feel as if Chicken Little has taken over the US and UK governments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has scrupulously observed its provisions. (Relatively easy, when you don't have any nuclear weapons). It says that it wants to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that it does not intend to build any nuclear weapons.

So our governments declare (with no evidence whatsoever that I can see) that the Iranians are lying, and that they are working on a nuclear weapons program. Therefore the UN must pass resolutions telling them to stop enrichment, and if they don't the USA will do what it usually does to countries that don't knuckle under and obey its instructions.

How does this stack up with Pakistan, which acquired nuclear weapons and has a stack of them ready to use? Or Israel, which AFAIK has not signed the NNP Treaty and has ignored more UN resolutions than I've had pizzas, and yet is assumed to have a stock of nuclear weapons ready to use? Or, come to that, with the USA and UK which plan to continue enhancing their nuclear weapons capability, in spite of their obligation under the NNP Treaty to work towards getting rid of it?

As the Iranians point out, their country has not attacked any other nation for at least 300 years - at which time it was under the control of foreign rulers anyway. How can it profit them laboriously to construct a paltry few crude, low-yield nuclear weapons, when the USA is ready to hit them with the full thermonuclear force it prepared for a war with the USSR?

I know which scares me more - the medium-sized nation with a track record of peaceful behaviour and no WMDs, or the big nation with tens of thousands of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, massive stocks of biological and chemical weapons, a defence budget about the size of the rest of the world's combined, and a record of attacking close to 2 dozen other nations since 1945, at the cost of 4 million or more lives.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[SkunkPussy]

I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but Mr AC - you are an imbecile if you cannot see that we are going through a repeat of what happened a few years ago.

* GWB is talking up how Iran might soon have nuclear weapons. c.f. Saddam's fabled WMDs.

* Dodgy evidence is appearing (this laptop which contains plans for a nuclear device ENTIRELY IN ENGLISH with no notes in farsi!) c.f. dodgy stories about Saddam trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger which subsequently turned out to be BS.

* He is drawing different conclusions from intelligence than his own intelligence agencies (for example saying that the Iranian government is providing weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq)

* Troops are moving to the gulf despite no war having (yet) been declared. c.f. Iraq buildup.