This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gulf States Endorse "Military Option" Against Iran
The latest development in the neverending saga of Iran, comes via the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) which states that according to the Gulf states, the military option may be the best option to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, as the contra-Iran (no pun intended) axis is now complete. The article also reflected "the Gulf states' growing tension and concern regarding Iran's nuclear program, and mentioned their proximity to the Bushehr reactor." What is scary is that the straw man of military intervention is pretty much presented as a fait accompli, and alternatives to military intervention are not even considered as an option. The timing could not be worse: as we highlighted earlier, John Bolton believes that there is ticking clock (through the 21st) after which the option of "striking" Iran with manageable casualties becomes negligible. And lastly, and certainly not making matters any easier, was the earlier revaluation by AFP, that Iran is preparing to unveil an array of weapons next week. An impartial reader would be forgiven if left with the impression that at this point a military operation is all but granted. Yet, keeping an eye out on spot oil, indicates that the realistic chance of an incursion is still negligible, at least as judged by oil prices. We believe that is still one of the best advance warnings indicators of a geopolitical shift. Unfortunately, if the oil market is in any way comparable to stocks in its predictive ability, it just may be that oil is, for once, a reactionary indicator instead of forward looking, in which case it will be useless as a predictive force.
From MEMRI:
An editorial in the Saudi daily Al-Madina, published in the wake of announcements in Iran and Russia regarding the imminent activation of the nuclear reactor in Bushehr, took a hard line vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear program, claiming that the military option may be the best way to deal with it. The article reflected the Gulf states' growing tension and concern regarding Iran's nuclear program, and mentioned their proximity to the Bushehr reactor.Following are excerpts from the editorial:[1]
"Tehran's [August 13, 2010] announcement, confirmed by Russia, that an Iranian nuclear reactor would be inaugurated this month in Bushehr, on the Arabian Gulf coast, and that it would be equipped with fuel and would operate as a nuclear facility, is an indication that the region is now entering a new phase.
"In taking this action, Tehran is ignoring all the advice, warnings, and requests to halt its nuclear program, or at the very least to try to continue it under clear and open international inspection that would guarantee that it does not have a military facet. If [Tehran] insists upon going ahead [with the program] without the agreement of the international community, it will bring embarrassment and suspicion upon every [country] that supported [Iran's] right to peaceful nuclear energy.
"More importantly, by means of this action, Tehran is moving its conflict with the international community into high gear, and [in this case] some may consider the military option to be the best solution. [Delaying recourse to this option] may lead to a point where it is impossible to implement it – if Tehran manages to produce a nuclear bomb of its own.
"What is of concern is [the fact] that the Bushehr reactor is closer to several Gulf capitals than to the Iranian capital itself, as well as the fact that it is very near the crucial oil routes which pass through the Arabian Gulf – placing the neighboring countries in great danger, both in the event of an attack and in the event of radioactive leakage. Moreover, [the Bushehr reactor] may become the site where Tehran will develop its nuclear weapons, which it may use to impose demands or exert pressure on the region. This is a suspicion that Iran has not managed to refute to date.
"If Tehran is interested in the success of its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, and if it wants to make progress in order to ensure prosperity for its people, it must maximize its cooperation with the IAEA. The IAEA, for its part, must display a little flexibility with Tehran, since... equipping the reactor with nuclear fuel is the point of no return. When this happens, the Bushehr reactor will become a facility for nuclear energy.
"All parties must be judicious in confronting the new situation, and must make sure that the inauguration of Bushehr is not a preamble to disturbances or tremors in the region."
Endnote:[1] Al-Madina (Saudi Arabia), August 15, 2010.
And confirming that Iran will not take any incursion lightly, is the following from AFP:
Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday that Iran will unveil next week an array of weapons, including missiles, speedboats and a long range drone, the ISNA news agency reported.
Two missiles, Qiam (Rising) and the third generation Fateh 110 (Conqueror) would be tested next week when Iran marks the annual government week, Vahidi said in reference to the Iranian week which starts on Saturday.
Iran will also unveil the long-range drone, Karar, he said using the nickname of revered Shiite Imam Ali.
On Sunday Iran launches its annual government week which runs until August 30 and is an occasion to showcase Tehran's achievements.
Iran has previously paraded a version of Fateh 110 which has a travel range of 150 to 200 kilometres (90 to 125 miles), but the range of the surface-to-surface Qiam missile was not reported by ISNA on Tuesday.
Vahidi said production lines of two missile-carrying speedboats, Seraj (Lamp) and Zolfaqar (named after Imam Ali's sword) would also be opened next week.
Vahidi said the unveiling of these weapons indicate that "sanctions have had no impact on us, but made us more experienced and self-sufficient."
Iranian officials regularly boast about the Islamic republic's military capabilities and Vahidi's announcements come at a time when local officials have been warning against any attack on the Islamic republic.
Tehran's archfoes, the United States and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran to stop its controversial nuclear programme.
Last week a top commander from the Revolutionary Guards said Iran will mass produce replicas of the Bladerunner 51, often described as the world's fastest boat, and equip them with weapons to be deployed in the Gulf.
Also on August 8, Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tonnes, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.
h/t Keith
»
- 12560 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
This highly suspicious story does lead one to investigate its source. As Pogo would say, “Lo and bee hole.”
MEMRI’s main projects include: THE JIHAD & TERRORISM PROJECT AND THE ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENTION PROJECT.
Professor Menahem Milson, who has taught Arabic literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel since October 1963, is chairman of the Board of Advisors of The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Edit: My list of members of MEMRI’s Board of Advisors has been removed: see Cognitive above whose flashing fingers were four minutes faster than mine. :-)
You snooze, you loose. :>)
In fact, it matters not who's first as long as the info gets out there. But I was a bit shocked when I saw the list. A classic example of public myth keepers pushing propaganda and effecting mind control. The fact that the name of the organization and where its "story" was released leads one to believe one thing when in fact it's war mongering propaganda coming from the heart of the American beast is enlightening. The average Joe has no idea how manipulated their personal "opinion" really is.
For the most part, we "believe" what we're led to believe unless we pull back the curtain. But for the average Joe, that's just too difficult. Rather than push back against the constant barrage of propaganda and public myth making, it's so much easier to roll over and accept the mind control.
Gulf states? yeah right.
MEMRI’s headquarter is located in Washington, DC
say no more.
From Informed Comment:
Despite being willing to stop in at an occasional cocktail party, President Obama could not care less what the Neoconservatives say, want or do. Few have been appointed from their ranks to high and influential positions in the Obama administration, in contrast to W.’s, where they held the 8 key positions that allowed them to help push the US into a decade of rampaging wars. The American public, having been tricked by their fallacious arguments and cynical propaganda into the Iraq War, does not want to hear from them. They no longer get much television time. Their main project of today, an aggressive war on Iran, is a non-starter with the current White House, its generals, intelligence officials, and most importantly with a public already unemployed, beggared and indebted to the tune of $13 trillion, in part because of the Neocons earlier mad adventures– a public that has also lost over 4000 dead and tens of thousands wounded and permanently disabled warriors over a pack of Neocon lies.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-reduce-b...
Those bastard Israelis. They control the U.S. foreign policy AND the Saudi foreign policy too!
How do they do this shit?
Must be smarter than both. But at least we know it is all their doing, so we know who to blame.
Because we are very informed individuals, not deluded by propaganda or anything.
“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction… They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”
-- Binyamin Netanyahu
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july232010/netanyahu-deceives-jc.php
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/cook190710.html
++
Oh my poor country.
How long do you think Mecca and Medina would last if a nuclear war broke out in the Middle East?
Yawn.... Next!
What a coincidence that right now we have a big 'ole Mosque incident right next to Ground Zero where those piece o' sheet Mooslims blew up our towers. Nothing like reminding the American public why we hate those damn bastard Mooslims right before we drop some big ole' bombs on them.
Motherfucker NN, it's you who blew up your towers!
You, world damned CRIMINALS!
The world hates American war mongers! Go die in Iran!
The irony is that you get more junks on this site for properly analyzing gold than you do for hating America.
Edit: doubleposted
I frown with disgust at Desgust. Many people never managed to surf the intertubes without a properly working sarcasm detector.
Anyway, I think your post is quite insightful. I don't think the mosque section of the planned interfaith center was conceived as a false flag-like attack, but the incident itself clearly was, an organised overreaction of the MSM sourced from neocon rags, thinktanks and talking heads, made to look like as-if-grassroots, all the while New Yorkers were fine with their moderate muslim brothers and sisters, who also suffered from 9/11 along with their fellow citizens.
But who's surprised when the MSM jumps at an opportunity to market an Emmanuel Goldstein, especially when it can be so useful in the current geopolitical situation?
++ 10000
I think they are gaging just how stupidly Americans will fall for the next false flag attack..
I think the actual gaging was done prior to 9/11 and we were rewarded with 9/11. Once again, the mind of the severely in denial beast is being primed to think a certain way after certain "events" just sort of "happen".
Cause, effect, solution. Hegelian Dialect. Ain't it wonderful?
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Indeed.. The point I was making was, are we the same as pre 9/11 ??
There is much more opposition to mainstream spoonfed consensus today than 9 years ago.
I fear it may not be enough though.
The comments on the subject of Iran and enriched uranium have been all over the place on this board recently. It might be useful to keep a few points in mind:
1. The public conversation has been about a way to keep Iran's uranium enrichment program constrained to providing fuel for nuclear power plants.
2. Given Point 1, and given that Iran's claim that uranium enrichment was only for the purpose of generating nuclear power, the future existance of nuclear power plants in Iran has been expected by the international community for some time now.
3. Given Point 2, we can assume that the international community, and specifically Israel, the UAE, England, Iran, and the U.S. were not caught by surprise by Russia's decision to supply fuel to Irans nuclear power plant.
4. Nuclear power plants do not automatically equal nuclear bombs.
5. Given Points 3 & 4, calls for someone to bomb Iran's nuclear power plant before the fuel from Russia is loaded seem strange and out of place. If Iran complied with the demands of the international community and enriched uranium only enough to fuel a nuclear power plant, would we then bomb the power plants just before Iran load the fuel it produced itself? I think the self-evident answer is no - so why does it make sense to call for bombing the nuclear power plant now just because Russia provided the fuel?
6. The question is still whether to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The question of whether to allow Iran to have nuclear power plants has already been answered as yes by the international community, so long as Iran confines its uranium enrichment efforts to providing fuel for these plants.
7. Given Point 6, nobody needs to bomb anyone by this coming weekend. The international community will continue it's discussion of whether they want to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and how to keep Iran from developing such weapons if that is what they decide to do. The international community needs to make up its mind sometime soon, but certainly not by this coming weekend.
8. Destroying Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons is not the same thing as invading Iran to destroy the government. Presumably the West can do either one alone without doing the other. Comments on this board don't seem to make that distinction.
9. Given Points 5 & 7, I wonder what the true objective is of all the talk about the need to take out Iran's nuclear power plant before the fuel from Russia is loaded. The true objective cannot be to deny nuclear power plants to Iran, since the international community has already decided to allow Iran to have them under certain conditions.
10. If Russia successfully loads the fuel and brings Iran's nuclear power plant online, Russia presumably will be held accountable for Iran's future nuclear behavior.
"4. Nuclear power plants do not automatically equal nuclear bombs."
One of the natural byproducts of nuclear fissioning of Uranium is Plutonium. The expended fuel rods can be "reprocessed" and the Plutonium extracted.
Did I mention that Plutonium is good stuff to make a nuclear device (bomb) from?
The best way to handle this situation is to control the supply of fuel to the reactor. If they have to run longer on the same load, then towards the end they will be burning the Plutonium. Of course beta-effective changes and the fission rate will also be affected (but still very controllable). If they have to run in coastdown mode for six months, most of the easily extracted Pu will have been burnt.
Nice summary. Russia is supplying the fuel under the condition that Iran returns the spent fuel rods. So while Iran conceivably could turn the power plant rods into nuclear weapons, Russia is dedicated to seeing that this doesn't happen. Which is why I said that nuclear power plants do not automatically equal nuclear bombs. And the international community seems to have decided that this is an acceptable risk - allowing Iran to have nuclear power plants so long as the expended fuel rods are properly monitored and disposed of. Seems to me that is kind of like eating puffer fish, but I'm not the one who has to make the decision.
"7. Given Point 6, nobody needs to bomb anyone by this coming weekend. The international community will continue it's discussion of whether they want to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and how to keep Iran from developing such weapons if that is what they decide to do. The international community needs to make up its mind sometime soon, but certainly not by this coming weekend."
I'm confused about a few of your points...
A) is there actually an "International Community" or is this a figment of your imagination ?
B) If the IC does exist, Do they live together on a Commune ?
C) Does this supposed "International Community" have a "Mind", and if so is it a hive mind ?
D) who are "They", or is they actually a "Hive Queen"
(Bonus) where is Ender Wiggins when you need him ?
Edgar Winters??
IC is a programming variable. Let IC = "All the countries who have signed off on the sanctions against Iran". The IC variable saves time on having to type the same country names over and over.
garbage in = garbage out
Far away from here, Speaking for the Dead...
I think the most important point is 10. Russia has a great deal to lose once they have a nuclear complex active within Iran.
I would suggest the proper time to destroy the complex is after it becomes active, not before. Once the system is active and manned, you target the command & control nodes and take it all out. The loss of technicians & leadership plus the realization that Russia could not defend Iranian interests within Iran will create cascading problems. This subsequent chaos would be food for thought in the Middle East... events would be focused on how to get along.
I do not suspect the Russians have any desire to protect Iran. Iran is going to walk the plank alone. Russia will look after Russian interests.
Canuck,
Yeah, but AFTER their loaded, and online, the country would be screwed, and MANY innocent Iranians will die.( Which must not be allowed).
So, if your going to do it, do it before your Irradiate the countryside.
The Int Community, (LOL what a joke).........They are as powerful and carry so much weight they are Eunichs.
We cannot trust them,they are powerless, nor can we trust Iran.
And Russia,(like you or me), cannot be held responsible for Irans uses's of the spent rods..........
The time to take out your enemy, is before they are stronger than you.
I would suggest the proper time to destroy the complex is after it becomes active, not before.
Which brings me back to my Point 5 above. I truely do not get the point about there being a proper time to destroy nuclear power plants in Iran. As long as the Iran talk has been going on, it has been assumed that there would be nuclear power plants in Iran - so long as Iran met the conditions laid down by the international community. In that context, I see no proper time to destroy the nuclear power plants. If Iran violates the conditions laid down by the IC, it makes more sense that we would destroy the enrichment facilities. But I'm also thinking that the clue we need to destroy the enrichment facilities might be the fact that Iran used the spent fuel from the power plants to make a few nuclear bombs. So - as I said before - the whole process of allowing Iran to even have functioning nuclear power plants seems to be the equivalent of eating puffer fish. You know they can kill you if you eat them, but you hope they won't.
This isn't going to be a problem until the fiber is cut.
So far with this 8 years of threatening Iran, the upshot is that Iranian drones crashed into the reactor , So they blew up the head of their drone program, and they shot down one of their own planes.
So far , so good. If they keep this up they may just nuke themselves and save everyone the trouble.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Nice work, bro. ++++
I wonder if the crash damaged the cover of the reactor - tiny cracks for interesting things to seep through.
zen0,
You got it,one must never leave a child unattended, or allow them to play with matches either.
Bad Shit happens.
As Lennon Hendrix alluded - War is Peace.
Gulf states?
Damn those Texans, Lousianans, Alabamans, Mississippians and Floridians! They are just scrappin' for a fight, huh?
Southerners provide the fodder for most U.S. wars. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson after Sherman showed them who was Daddy.
Without question the most stupid comment on this thread.
Southerners provide the fodder for most U.S. wars. I can think of one?
BTW, is your avatar a man or a woman?
;Without question the most stupid comment on this thread.'
Stick around.. She will top that one soon enough..
I thought her avatar was a goat?.. :)
send shelby and sessions !!!!!! dirt bags !!!!!
Maybe you would like to compare casualty lists?
I didn't think so...LOL.
"Maybe you would like to compare casualty lists?"
Yeah, that is one part of history that is conveniently left out, isn't it? I think that some research had shown that the predominantly rural southerners had more experience with firearms - and that in itself led to an advantage in combat. The mostly conscripted forces of the northeast had to learn the basic firearms drill while on march to the south.
I wonder how often this one little tidbit is overlooked? Everyone I know here in rural Central Texas is either an avid hunter or trap shooter.
"The mostly conscripted forces of the northeast had to learn the basic firearms drill while on march to the south."
By the end of the war the South was capturing Union soldiers who could not even speak English. Immigrants, given promises of citizenship for a term of service...many paid the ultimate price, if they drilled well, they were put up front, single file. Another fact of the war not taught.
They didn't call Grant "Butcher" for nothing...he commanded like all the general's of the North, they had a numerical superiority and a larger Navy that blockaded the South preventing re-supply...thus Andersonville, when Grant refused prisoner exchange.
And the slaughter and misery was immense.
Don't even get me started on Reconstruction. A very dark chapter in our nations past not only on a humanitarian level but on just about every level.
At that point in time of this nation, the states right to voluntary membership in the this country ceased. You could not get out. You were a captive of the machine if you stayed.
Kinda like the Cosa Nostra...hey Guido, you want I should rough em up a little?...LOL.
Many did get out if they could. To England, France, Cuba, Mexico etc.
Our family has letters from a certain sergeant from that era (under Gen.A.P.Hill)...we know what happened. They are some riveting reading.
"Many did get out if they could. To England, France, Cuba, Mexico etc."
Yes, there was a great diaspora of U.S. Expats during that time - many even found new lives in South America - taught them ranching and larger scale farming.
There are close to 2 million Iranians living in Iraq and the Gulf states. The Iranians also have huge investments in Iraq and the UAE. If a few of the UAE ruling class decide to aid in the attack of their very large neighbor they will have signed their death warrants.
The second that Israel drops a nuke on anyone will trigger implementing the bug out plans many Israelis have. Millions of Israelis hold foreign passports. Any attack will see a flood of Israelis at air and sea ports begging to get out. Foreign investment will go to zero and Israeli banks will be destroyed by people emptying their accounts. Israel is dependant on immigration to stave off demographic changes. A few million Jews bugging out of Israel back to Russia, Australia, France or the US will be the beginning of the end.
Do you see this same scenario happening if Israel drops conventional bombs rather than nukes?
Don't forget the huge gas discovery off the coast of Israel. I doubt Israel will do anything to jeapordize the harvesting of that find.
Ana,
Israel is not dropping Nukes on ANYONE........
Bunker Busters.............
As far as the 2 Million Iranians, living elsewhere, how many are in love with their home countries leadership?.
Seem I remember a couple of very large marches, and demonstrations recently.
Because they LOVE their lives, and their leaders, and the Patriarchal Islamofascist dictators that murder them with aplomb,rule them with a rod of iron.
I don't think so.
The only question I have is, after things really start to heat up, how long will the American military put up with their dithering, incompetent commander-in-chief before they toss him down an elevator shaft and then go handle the situation?
Any attempt by the US to retake control of Iran will force China to protect it's #1 oil and gas investment. Iran is also becoming a major market for Chinese goods and services.
I have known some pretty tough and smart Arabs in my day. I can tell you that they all hate the Persians, Turks and Palestinians. I would not be surprised if the Saudi's and Kuwati's didn't take out the reactor. By the way they don't listen to the Grand Mufti Obama.
I want to elucidate that I'm rather amused by the Insane Clown Posse that spills out of the little funny car when Iran or Israel is mentioned on Zero Hedge.
I used to have a pop up book with Silly Little Clowns
hmmm, Insane Clown Posse = Silly Little Clowns
which is worse better, an ICP or SLC's ?
Which clowns do you prefer, the one's with the sad faces who say "Do we need another pointless, costly war?" or the smiley faced clowns who giggle, "kill, kill, kill?"
Neither, all Clowns are scary, as they have no brains.
Frank Sinatra send in the clowns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJvUCDP9u0I
Crockett,
You should recognize that the Sad and Giggly faces aren't real, that they're painted on to hide the Clowns true faces/feelings ?
Aether
Some poster on ZH accused me the other day of just that. Hiding my true feelings by not admitting my true opinion that all aid to Israel ought to be cut off. I said Huh? Of course all aid to Israel ought to be ended immeadiately. Better yet, it all should be paid back.
On this topic, the topic of Israel and Iran, I assure you my true feeling is that nobody should bomb anybody. And if it does happen, whoever did it first committed a crime, Aether.
It seems to me one of the “kill, kill, kill” types, John Bolton, is making a rather odd display of himself making the rounds from Fox News to Hannity and to the almost endless line of Israeli pals on the Big Government/Big War conservative radio and columnist circuit.
What’s up with this better-attack-now-or-it’s-too-late rush to war? Are the American Zionists now going to take Likud into their own hands, almost demanding an attack? Unlike their effective demonization of Saddam Hussein with a resultant death count to date of 1.3 million Iraqis, the Kristols, the Podhoretzs, the Boltons and all the rest have not yet succeeded in getting the “international community” ready to smash another sovereign country. Instead, the clown performance of Bolton seems to have aroused the complete attention of the world, not to Iran’s "duplicity," but to Netanyahu’s itchy trigger finger.
The fact that Bolton was at one time actually a represenative of the United States of America to the United Nations, a body somewhat dedicated to a world without war, shows the depravity of America’s political leadership. Can you imagine Adlai Stevenson or Daniel Patrick Moynihan traveling around saying if Israel doesn’t bomb Iran within the week, it will be too late? I can’t.
I follow you on everything you said here except the part about Bibi's itchy trigger finger. If we get to the middle of next week and Iran has not been attacked, will that imply that perhaps Bibi's trigger finger is not quite so itchy?
The fact that Bolton was at one time actually a represenative of the United States of America to the United Nations, a body somewhat dedicated to a world without war, shows the depravity of America’s political leadership.
Well said JR.
... And Richard re. itchy fingers. It will mean that amazingly, he made the right decision. I would consider that a positive development.
Hold it, don't commence the attack yet, there are still a few Israelis out there that don't own S&P puts...
...oh, ok, We are done ? Great. Give them the go ahead...
Down the MEMRI hole.
... And there is nothing more disgusting than an Arab oil pig..
Let them all destruct each other and I really doubt any of Bolton's relatives, apst or present was ever in a live combat situation. The guy is the ulitmate pussy of a destructive neocon. Fuck him, what a whore.
Hmmm... Bolton, Bolton, Bolton.
Let's see if I remember correctly... is he the guy with the gayest moustache in the 'international community' - the one who looks like a cartoon character whose name I can never remember (who was contemporaneous with Mr Magoo)?
if it's THAT John Bolton, isn't that the same John Bolton who encouraged his wife to have sex with other men, so long as he could watch... and did her violence when she refused?
I am scraping the most scum-crusted depths of my mighty brain on this - because I'm too lazy to think up the proper search term to use on teh Googlering machine. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Cheerio
GT
1973 ... all over again
US on nuclear alert ends the skirmish, Russia backs down ... again .... pussies
Looks like the " Make Love not War " pussies are back on this board
cite:"In taking this action, Tehran is ignoring all the advice, warnings, and requests to halt its nuclear program, or at the very least to try to continue it under clear and open international inspection that would guarantee that it does not have a military facet. If [Tehran] insists upon going ahead [with the program] without the agreement of the international community, it will bring embarrassment and suspicion upon every [country] that supported [Iran's] right to peaceful nuclear energy"
This is a mantra repeated again and again following Goebbel's principle of repeating a lie often enough until it becomes an indisputable truth.
Iran complied so far to the letter to all AIEA requests. When Turkey Brazil and Russia reached an agreement about water enrichment it was Mrs. Clinton who said no way because it would make further sanctions impossible thus making clear that the goal was to impose further sanction exhacerbating the situation instead to try to find a way to find a solution.
This administration, or whoever tells this administration what to do, has a very clear agenda and a roadmap where a peaceful solution to this problem is not contemplated, other, than Iran keeling down begging pardon for thinking so far as to making an autonomous policy.
Please look at how many countries in the region did Iran attack in the last 200 years, but it is considered a rogue state. Pakistan, a real liberal democracy, as everybody knows, beside being a nuclear power, is holding amicable relationship to the other nuclear power India for decades now settling amicably all disputes over Kashmir, isn't it?
Iraq, another true democracy, tried for a decade to topple Iran in a WWI like war on behalf of the USA. All Arabian Emirates, each one an example of liberal secular democracy itself, are just too little or too lazy otherwise they had all too gladly jumped on the throat of Iran, but I cannot see Iran seeking any real trouble in the region.
Then you say that Iran supports Hezbollas and seeks destruction of Israel (as well as Syria does): beside that crazy Ahmadinejad being translated on very questionable ways, this might be true, but I see no problem for IDF in dealing with the threat posed by some extremists firing little more than big fireworks across a wall. so what is the real issue? Why should Iran not be allowed to have acces to nuclear technology, but Pakistan and India yes? Does it still hurt that much that Iranians toppled the Shiah back then? Is it just about a vendetta in Spaghetti-western like fashion?
MEMRI, like DEBKA, is a lie factory in the Zionist Military-Industrial-Financial-Media-Congressional Complex.
Trust this crew, regret and rue.
They cry peace, peace; and there will be no peace.
They would let the little guy next door get beat up and think the bully won't be at their door next.
"I'm the toughest guy around. I'll kill'im if he comes for me."
That's right. But in the ensueing scuffle, you son is killed.
All Israel asks is the tools to do the job.
Conflating Iraq and Afghanistan is either a clever trick by inveterate Israel-haters or the baying of their dupes.
Either way you erode our homeland security.
You eighth-grade five star generals make me sick.
The venom and bile you spray in you rants will go back down your own throats soon enough.
Jerusalem is the apple of God's eye and the Jews are his chosen people.
You Israel haters are in for quite a surprise.
Repent.
Israel will not be destroyed.
Lovely.
Nothing I love more than the "my gods dick is bigger than your gods dick" argument
Wrong. They are both talking about the same dick. More appropriate would be "God likes my mother better than your mother".
francismarion:
1. The Bible speaks of the New Jerusalem coming down from the heavens at the end of time. It also speaks of everything being destroyed and rebuilt in this context. Why a New Jerusalem if the current Jerusalem is the apple of God's eye.
2. The Jews are God's chosen people. Chosen for what? The Bible says that God sent the final sacrifice through that people, so we can assume that the Jews were the chosen ones to be the conduit for God's final sacrifice. But the Bible further says that the Jews rejected God's final sacrifice and so God rejected them and turned to the Gentiles (describing this process is basically what the New Testament is all about). Within this context, how are the Jews still God's chosen people? And given that the final sacrifice has already been delivered through them, what would they still be chosen for?
3. As a side-issue to Points 1 & 2 - some (both Jew and Gentile) believe that God is going to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem at some future point, and sacrifice will once again be offered there. Given that God has already delivered to us the final sacrifice, why would he then rebuild the temple so that additional sacrifices can be offered? Since Jews don't believe the final sacrifice has been given, I can understand why they would buy into this idea. But why do Christians, who supposedly believe that God has already given us the final sacrifice, buy into it?
For me, these are not rhetorical questions. If you have answers, I'd like to know what they are.
Amen, RichardP. In all my studies this is most succinct and direct explanation of the Biblical covenants of the sacrifice that God made for mankind. Thank you: I will keep it as a reference.
If God, through his Son, opened up Paradise equally to all, Gentiles and Jews--“anyone who believes in me will live, even though he dies” — then how is it that the chosen are going to get better seats? IOW, is there going to be just a mezzanine section in Paradise for the Gentiles (with possibly a seat on the front row of the mezzanine for Hagee?) and the Jews get orchestra section seating?
Eternal being is in him and proceeds from him. IOW, we are one--Jews and Gentiles--with him.
Thanks for the kinds words JR.
... we are one--Jews and Gentiles--with him.
That's what the New Testament says. So what part does chosen ones play in that? My sense is that the chosen status ceased once the final sacrifice was delivered. But that is my opinion. I am not a theologian.
One final point since we are in the ballpark. I'm often asked: christians and muslims believe in the same God. Won't they both go to heaven? Hebrews 9:22 states that, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin (depending on transalation). The sinner comes to God and asks for forgiveness. God responds, I'd like to, but I need a sacrifice. Where is your shed blood? The muslim points to the bleeding stripes they have made on their backs during the haj, or otherwise. The christian points to the cross. God accepts only one of those sacrifices as sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. But that viewpoint is based on the christian Bible. And if you don't believe in the christian Bible ...
Yes. Neither the majority of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah (the Jews), nor the descendants of Abraham and Hagar (those of the Arab nations), accept the new covenant as the fulfillment of prophecy in the Christ, the Messiah.
Yet, all genealogical records kept to establish the lineage of the Messiah through the line of David ceased when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Thus, the extensive genealogy which Matthew begins to fix Jesus’ identify—the 14 generations from Abraham to David, the 14 generations from David to the Babylonian Captivity, the 14 generations from the Babylonian captivity to Jesus Christ—ended shortly after the birth of Christ.
Then, of course, there are, from what I can decipher, the mistaken beliefs by many Christians, some who put Jews before Jesus, others who would put an intercessor before Jesus—and all the rest.
All of which seem to me enigmas only God can, in the end, resolve. I’ve always been impressed, however, by God’s care of Hagar and her son Ishmael when Abraham sent them away into the desert with only a bit of food and some water.
“When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, ‘I cannot watch the boy die.’ And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.
“God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her: ‘What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’
“Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.
“God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer…” Genesis 21:15-20
And, interesting, that one of Ishmael’s daughters married Esau, Jacob’s brother and also Isaac’s favorite who sold his birthright to Jacob…
All of this to say (and I am no theologian, either), would that all in the Middle East could be brothers and live in PEACE.
P.S. Thanks for the dialogue. It was a privilege with someone of your knowledge.