Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why Iran will lead to World War 3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why Iran will lead to World War 3
    Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 09:19

Why Iran will lead to World War 3 

"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News 

by Mike Whitney 

08/08/05 "ICH"
-- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war. 

Sound familiar? 

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple. 

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack. 

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran." 

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground. 

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake. 

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace. 

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself. 

No way. 

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members 
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process. 

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal? 

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda. 

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts. 

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that. 

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is in their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt. 

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war. 

Isn't that so? 

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future. 

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict. 

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain. 

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists. 

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence. 

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails. 

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Translate this page

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9706.htm
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 10:35
USA will get into war with Iran and Syria, and finally, the final step of their project, they will enter Turkey. If they dare to come here, they'll have to face the consequences...
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 11:03

GeoStrategic Reality 101:

The U.S. and Turkey are allies.  Enlighten us all on what the purpose of that might be.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 11:06
+ Turkey has no oil that they are giving India and china rights over.

Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 11:13

Well, I dont see any reason for attacking Turkey, Infact USA is  one of our best ally. We benefited this alliance much.

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 12:11

Allies for now. International relationships are based on benefits. If their benefits turn against us one day (it will), then no allyhood will remain.

Turkey has huge amounts of oil in the southeast, we also have the richest Bor mines and lots of underground treasure that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but we cant use them. USA will need them soon.

Anyway, that's a very informative article, thanks for sharing Zagros...



Edited by Oguzoglu
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 12:29
Yes, So one day  we can attack usa.
Back to Top
Artaxiad View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
  Quote Artaxiad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 12:45

Isn't the US trying to use Azerbaijan as a base to attack from the north?

Turkey didn't let the Americans use its' land to attack Iraq from the north. I don't think it will let them use its' land for Iran either.

Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 12:53

I think this is alarmist.  Think for a minute, the US army is stretched to the breaking point already.  Not even just Iraq alone has popular support anymore, people are increasingly skeptical about what the government says and there is simply no troops reserves left.

The US isnt going to be launching a full scale invasion of any other country for a long time.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 13:03

Perhaps it is somewhat Tobodai, but Iran has today resumed its uranium enrichment process, a move that will likely see it referred to the UN security council and which may prompt Israel to use its recently supplied American toys.  This will no doubt spur Iran into reaction against America and Israel.

-----

Originally posted by Artaxiad

Isn't the US trying to use Azerbaijan as a base to attack from the north?

Turkey didn't let the Americans use its' land to attack Iraq from the north. I don't think it will let them use its' land for Iran either.

Iran has warned Azerbaijan that such complicity would have dire consequences.

-----

I don't believe Turkey (with its current government) will ever be in the sights of America, that is unless Israel has some dire water shortage and Turkey becomes part of the "promised land".

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 13:05
Turkey has granted Airspace rights to the Israeli Airforce.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 13:06

Yeah, wishful Israel hoping to get the Land of Hittites...

They'll have to wait another million years for that until a meteor hits our country...

Back to Top
baracuda View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 722
  Quote baracuda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 13:11
Actually for Turkey it would be strategically more wise, to side with Iran and Syria in case of a US attack on them well it would be WW3 but then again it could mean the end of US in the middle east..

Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 13:31

For once again, as i read US information about Iran nuclear weapon programme isnt any better than it was about Iraq. There is no incontrovertible evidence that Iran has nuclear capabilities but from time to time there are rather ambiguous reports and they come from similar sources to those that led the US into Iraq.

From what i remember Iran hasnt invaded any country for the past 50 years, whereas we cant say the same for our good US. In fact, the case was actually the other way around with Iran. During recent history Iran was invaded  by Iraq, with support of course of US.

I love also the case of Israel having nuclear weapons. A nation founded also on religious conviction and its long time policy of nuclear ambiguity, is sanctioned by the US abd continues to irritate Islamic countries. As far as i know Israel is not a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and has never formally acknowledged a nuclear programme but the justification for having them, is for defensive purposes. 

I doubt even for defensive purposes that weapons are in good hands in Israel. A country which occupies territory in violation of international law, has violated UN resolutions and has as head of state someone who is being accused of war crimes, can hardly be called a righteous state. In case in future we have an Israeli-Iran war or even a Israel-Arab war, Israel can easily decide to release a nuclear winter therefore it doesnt matter at all whether it did so for defensive or offensive purposes.

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 14:23

I think that since the problem is with the E.U., that Iran turned down the agreement(apeasement), the E.U./U.N. can and should take action in some form, does not have to neccesarily be military action, against Iran. You gentlemen talk of the United States perhaps attacking, but I believe the E.U. can itself handle the problem, for once..

Also, if Turkey sided with Iran and Syria, this could make them have bad relations with the E.U., if the E.U. decides to stand against the Iranian government.

Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 14:23
With or without nuclear weapons, Iran as the major sponsor of international terrorism is the biggest threat to world stability.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 14:29

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

With or without nuclear weapons, Iran as the major sponsor of international terrorism is the biggest threat to world stability.

So the Iranian says to as well! Sir, have you actually witnessed any training or supplying of terrorists from the government, or are they granted freedom to train in Iran? Iran is not known for international terrorism though, but I do not doubt that they would have terrorrists.

Back to Top
baracuda View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 722
  Quote baracuda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 15:00
Yep they at least sponsor and aren't the terrorist - must be the worst US joke ever..


By the way, Iran has something like a couple of thousand students studying Nuclear, Thermal, Heat Power, Physics Engineering and various other relative subjects in various Russian cities, I could easily put that number to be well over 10-20K

Edited by baracuda
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 15:15

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

With or without nuclear weapons, Iran as the major sponsor of international terrorism is the biggest threat to world stability.

No America is with its endless thirst for resources.

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 15:56
Agreed.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.