This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Iran: Oh, No; Not Again
Submitted by ChrisMartenson.com
Iran: Oh, No; Not Again
In each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, significant worries emerged that Western nations might attack Iran. Here again in 2012, similar concerns are once again at the surface.
Why revisit this topic again? Simply because if actions against Iran trigger a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's daily sea-borne oil passes, oil prices will spike, the world's teetering economy will slump, and the arrival of the next financial emergency will be hastened. Even if the strait remains open but Iran is blocked from being an oil exporter for a period of time, it bears mentioning that Iran is the third largest exporter of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran will deliver.
Let me back up. The US has already committed acts of war against Iran, though no formal declaration of war has yet been made. At least if Iran had violated US airspace with stealth drones and then signed into law the equivalent of the recent US bill that will freeze any and all financial institutions that deal with Iran out of US financial markets, we could be quite confident that these would be perceived as acts of war against the US by Iran.
And rightly so.
U.S. imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran
Dec 31, 2011
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama signed into law on Saturday a defense funding bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, while allowing for exemptions to avoid upsetting energy markets.
The sanctions target both private and government-controlled banks - including central banks - and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period, depending on the transactions, a senior Obama administration official said.
Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of U.S. financial markets.
(Source)
The impact of this law was quite pronounced and immediate, with the Iranian rial falling sharply against the dollar in the first few days after the bill was signed into law.
Iran's rial falls to record low on U.S. sanctions
Jan 3, 2012
Jan 3 (Reuters) - The Iranian rial fell to a record low against the dollar on Tuesday following U.S. President Barack Obama signing a bill on imposing fresh sanctions against the country's central bank.
The new U.S. sanctions, if fully implemented, could hamper the world's major oil producer's ability to sell oil on international markets.
The exchange rate hovered at 17,200 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar last month.
Some exchange offices in Tehran, when contacted by Reuters, said there was no trading taking place until further notice.
"The rate is changing every second ... we are not taking in any rials to change to dollar or any other foreign currency" said Hamid Bakhshi in central Tehran.
(Source)
That represents a more than 70% decline in just a month. Assuming that Iran trades its oil in dollars, this will not necessarily cripple its economy, but the specter of hyperinflation looms large whenever a currency falls by that much. With hyperinflation comes economic, social, and political instability, and these are, of course, precisely the aims of the US in imposing the sanctions. And of course, everything that Iran imports will become hideously expensive -- quite rapidly.
The US is deliberately poking and prodding Iran right now. Given the glacial pace of nuclear development, we must ask ourselves, why now?
The Story
As with most things today, there is a story created for public consumption that justifies waging war against Iran. The main narrative goes something like this: Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and this is intolerable, so it must be stopped.
In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report, long denied under the prior director's tenure (Mohamed ElBaradei), finally declaring that Iran was unequivocally trying to build a nuclear weapon:
U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work
November 8, 2011
United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.
The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. The findings, drawn from evidence of far greater scope and depth than the agency has previously made public, have already rekindled a debate among the Western allies and Israel about whether increased diplomatic pressure, sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop Iran’s program.
(Source)
I've not yet read the report, but I am concerned about the gap between the headlines I've seen that say Iran is building a nuclear bomb and carrying out "activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." For example, much has been recently made of the fact that Iran has enriched some uranium to the 20% grade, but there is a huge leap between that and the 90%+ grade needed for a nuclear device. Iran had told the world it needed the 20% grade for a medical reactor, and then created a fuel rod for that reactor. To say that enriching to the 20% grade is the same thing as trying to build a bomb is not accurate and possibly deceptive.
As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, Iran has every legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor, and Iran is claiming that all their current work is towards this end.
Maybe it is; maybe not. But even if a nuclear bomb is being pursued, there's nothing in the NPT that provides for military action to pre-emptively prevent any nation-state from carrying out such development work. In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action.
Also left out of the narrative is any explanation of why it was okay for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons or why North Korea is permitted to hold them.
The simple answer is because they don't have any oil. A quick view of the US military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist (nor were used by Iraq to threaten the US), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon:
If Iraq had a nuclear weapon in 2002, it is quite doubtful the US would have invaded -- a lesson that has not gone unnoticed.
While I am not a supporter of the current repressive theocratic regime in Iran, I strongly believe that it is up to the people of any nation to decide for themselves what sort of system they will choose to live under. The Arab Spring, as messy as it was, is vastly preferable to the blunt instrument of an externally driven war.
The Curiosity
The most curious thing about this story is the apparent lack of awareness among US officials about how the oil markets work. I know they know better, but the context-free repetitions in articles such as this next one almost literally drive me crazy:
Geithner to Seek China’s Support on Iran
Jan 9, 2012
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will urge Asia's two biggest economies to cut Iranian oil imports and seek to narrow differences with China on trade and currency disputes on a visit to Beijing and Tokyo this week.
(Source)
The idea that the world can just stop buying Iranian oil, as though it were the same thing as boycotting McDonald's and buying Burger King instead, is just ridiculous. The world oil markets are far too tight for that.
How is it that China is supposed to cut its Iranian oil imports, exactly? Oil is a fungible product. If China cuts its oil imports from Iran, it will simply have to buy the missing amount of oil from someplace else. The 2.6 million barrels a day that Iran exports cannot simply be instantly replaced at this time from other spare capacity elsewhere in the world. It doesn't exist at the moment. Where will it come from?
Perhaps Geithner is offering something behind the scenes, like providing China with extra petroleum from the US strategic reserve while events unfold (unlikely). But barring that, it is a remarkably naïve request as it stands and is curious on its own.
The Powder Keg
With the Persian Gulf being so small, and so many tense parties crammed into that tiny arena, the chance of some sort of mischief arising is quite high. One twitchy trigger finger -- such as the one that caused the USS Vincennes, thinking it was under attack by a jet fighter in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, to shoot down an Iranian passenger airliner -- and the hounds of war may be let loose.
And it's not just the US. Practically everybody who's anybody has naval assets positioned for whatever may happen next:
Western forces react to Iran's Strait of Hormuz threat
Jan 9, 2012
TEHRAN, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A buildup of Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is a reaction to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, military experts say.
U.S., Russian, French and British air and naval forces moved to the Syrian and Iranian coasts during the weekend, Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.
The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, causing France to respond by consigning an air defense destroyer to the waters off Tartus, DEBKAfile reported. Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, to the Mediterranean where it would take over from the HMCS Vancouver.
Meanwhile, Britain has dispatched a missile destroyer to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
And the U.S aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.
(Source)
With all those boats chugging around in those little bathtubs, and with various other forces that would definitely like to see a shooting war develop (a false flag attack is an option here), the risk is quite high of some form of incident that would trigger hostilities.
Of course, there are those in the war rooms of the various OECD countries who think they have a plan for the conduct of that war, but no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. The one thing we can count on is the war being messier, longer, and more expensive by at least a factor of two than whatever is currently occupying the minds of the war planners.
Iran's Responses
Of course, Iran has been none too happy over the years at being surrounded, poked, prodded, and now finally sanctioned for having done nothing more than cloak its nuclear program in the exact same sort of secrecy that has surrounded literally every other nation's nuclear programs, including Israel and Pakistan, Iran's notable nuclear neighbors.
And now, with the aid of enhanced missile technology obtained from China and Russia, Iran has a credible threat to make:
Iran Has Ability to Block Strait of Hormuz, U.S. General Dempsey Tells CBS
Jan 9, 2012
Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.
“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”
Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. “would take action and reopen” the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser.
(Source)
The admission here by the US military is that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz "for a period of time," which they do, is an extraordinary admission (even if it really is stating the obvious) by the US brass.
Anti-ship missile technology has come a long way, and an offensive missile is much cheaper than either a large ship or defensive measures. The Falklands war in the early 1980s taught me that the navy is an outmoded concept if the opponent is armed with semi-decent anti-ship missiles, and such devices have improved remarkably since then.
During the most recent Iranian war exercises, the US military test-fired (more of a demonstration, really) their Qader anti-ship cruise missile, which has a range of 200 km and can be fired from a small truck. To visualize the difficulty of defending against such a technology, just imagine how many hiding places for a small truck might exist within this 200 km radius green circle :
In order to neutralize the entire missile, full air superiority would have to be established and every mobile launcher found and destroyed.
Further, Iran has a number of submarines capable of firing a new breed of torpedo that can achieve speeds in excess of 200 knots. As far as I know, these are extraordinarily difficult to defend against, let alone evade.
Of course, China is paying close attention to the developments:
Iranian authorities reiterate threats to close Hormuz Strait if sanctions imposed on oil exports
Jan 8, 2012
TEHRAN, Jan. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iranian authorities reiterated threats to close Strait of Hormuz if Western countries impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, local media reported Sunday.
(Source)
Conclusion
Once again, regrettably and mysteriously, we find the developed world in lock-step in its eagerness to attack Iran. "Regrettably," because Iran has not threatened any other country, and war should never be used simply because the current art of diplomacy is inadequate. "Mysteriously," because this is a particularly horrible economic moment to go about risking much higher oil prices.
While we judge the risks of a war, either precipitated by legitimate escalation of frictions or by illegitimate actors seeking to cause the same, to be very high, it is our view that such a war will not go according to plan. Iran has many more powerful allies, namely Russia and China, than did the extraordinarily isolated Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq war.
Is it too waggish to suspect that certain Western political powers would love to be able to both divert attention from the crumbling economy and have a scapegoat upon which to blame the next leg of the financial downturn?
Regardless of such speculation, the risk to each of us and the economy in general from an attack on Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz is large enough to warrant your attention. Should oil spike in price, you can practically set an egg timer for the beginning of the next leg of the financial downturn.
In Part II: Are You Prepared for $200 Oil?, we explore what likely havoc the high oil prices from a major conflict with Iran will wreak on the financial markets and our petroleum-dependent lifestyle. We also detail specific steps prudent individuals should be taking right now, in advance of such a crisis, to position themselves defensively.
Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).
»
- 25803 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
price of oil is gonna increase significantly with or without bombing iran.
bombing iran buys us a boogyman
peak oil bitchez
turn your key mora, turn your key...
she's too tan
Thats all, the central banking cabal needs a good cover-up story again....time to make up mass BS and start a diversion war.
Like you would give a shit what the "price" of oil is when you earn millions while not being accountable to the public.
Any price rises just mean less resources will be used by the sheeple.
Problem solved.....
"Don't underestimate the power of the dark side."
You mean "OUR OIL BiTChEZ!" we got more than enuf. You want some? That'll be...ten gazillion..of those green paper things.
The US has a casus belli with Iran. After the act of war of taking hostages, we can move against Iran any time we want.
How do you feel about Iran taking revenge on the US and Britain for overthrowing their government in 1953 and installing a police state?
I think he chose the name "Teaser" for a reason.
Don't tease me, bro!
Iranians are nostalgic for the days of the shah. Nostalgic. Mosadeq was a socialist tool who tried to take nationalisation too far. That was a power grab too far, during a time of peril for freedom at the planetary scale, thanks to communist designs on the middle east and for warm water ports. The cold war was real, against a far more serious threat to freedom and commerce than posed by the uber-weak, subretarded islamofascist movement, everywhere digging itself a deeper hole for the infected people to die in, after living badly.
TBT or not TBT, with one hand digging in his soiled diaper, used the other to fling this crap:
You've copied and pasted this tripe already. Aren't you just one of wanklord's sock puppets?
Whoa, Deja-vu (There's a glitch in the Matrix...)
No, it's not copied and pasted. It's fresh, and it's true. The iranians are nostalgic for the time of the Shah, very largely, and those born after that time mostly hate the current regime, and regret the evolution from that not-perfect but getting-better-fast time, to what the country became: awful, terrible, shitty, no place to grow up, hopeless.
I thought they released those hostages? .... They did just sentence a Marine to death. Hmmmmmmmm. That's good enuf for me. Nuke 'em!
What?
Iran is a diversion from internal US problems. And the euro crisis. If it blows up it will accelerate the events leading to the death of pax americana in middle east as elsewhere. An economic and political model is now, in the context of a debt burdened, asymmetric world, at tipping point : the oil monopoly in peak oil phase and the impossible political construct around it : two rabid pillars of control sponsored by the USA , Zionist Israel and Wahhabist Saudi. It doesn't bode well for peace and equilibrium in region. As the values of these two pillars are not compatible with peace and social progress. So the finger pointing at Mollah regimes is not significant. They are all tarred with same brush of belligerent intolerance. Entrenched Islamist Arabs, and Zionists along with Mollah Iranians and Taliban Pak/Afghan. Its become a boiling cauldron created PRINCIPALLY under Dulles brothers, then Kissinger's subtle shuttle, since 60 years, by successive US administrations.
Black swan territory at magnitude 7 on Richter scale.
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually want to get a carrier or two sunk. What has always been the pretext to debase the currency? War.
I suppose losing a carrier group or two would significantly reduce Pentagon spending - and without having to go through Congress. Convenient.
To lose one carrier, Mr. O'bammy, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness.
A reasonable series of scenarios.
We have naval flotillas from several Western powers steaming -- at full ballistic readiness -- in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Persian Gulf. A material concentration of naval forces...
Recall the film, "The Bedford Incident" ...and the ending, when the Bedford's captain ( portrayed by Richard Widmark ), speaking as an aside on the ship's bridge, remarks, "If he fires one, we'll fire one."
-- To which, the nervous weapons officer, played by James MacArthur, responds, "Fire one !" ...and fires an ASROC anti-submarine missile, destroying the Soviet submarine the Bedford had been doggedly shadowing.
A fine Cold War era film as relevant today as it was in 1965.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/stillafool2/vlcsnap-349483.png
Book 'em Danno.
Look up "Seven Days in May" on wikipedia, as well...
Tarnished with a brush of intolerance?
It is very difficult to oppress the shit out of half your population with Thelma and Louise encroaching on every border.
But it sure is a hoot reading all the rationalizations of why the modern caveman should be let be.
Yeah, I know, taking out the local caveman is a speciality for some; poor ole Cheyennes n Apaches. Manifest destiny is breakfast prayer for some. Shoe on the other foot can hurt. Don't blame them for not turning the other cheek, when it comes.
Read some history and maybe the caveman theory will take a knock or two. "My race began there where yours became extinct" is a recurrent game.
No doubt!
Read some history, oppressing the crap out of half your population is a regressive society and ergo regressive to the entirety of the human race.
No matter how twisted yer sexual deviancy might be, there's probably more than one website that caters to it. Perhaps western "culture" is truly decadent. There is really ONLY ONE absolute: "All things MUST pass!" Free yer mind, yer @ss will follow.
I don't think you should get paid by the word for all of your posts if you keep repeating phrases.
You're talking about the land that created Scherezade, Leila and Majnu; so lets say that they did not participate in age of enlightenment and subsequent female emancipation. Doesn't make them cave men even though current knee jerk to US shenanigans of 1953 and subsequent trauma of Shah and Savak, bequeathed the Ayahtollah regime, which is carbon copy of Innocent III. Yes, they have regressed, under the impact of perverse, imperial modernity, just like in Innocent III days the Crusader/Byzantine menace colonised their lands partially. But then they came out top dogs, as victors, only to then be squashed by Mongols. Maybe we will see a new Safavid revival in Iran one day. It has all the ingredients to come out of this current hole. Unless the West bombs them back to the stone age, like they tried to do to Irak.
"TEHRAN, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Iran's currency has slid 20 percent against the dollar in the last week despite central bank intervention, and some Iranians concerned about the economy said on Tuesday that attempts to send text messages using the word "dollar" appeared to be blocked... On New Year's Eve, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law by far the toughest financial sanctions yet against Iran, which if fully implemented could make it impossible for most countries to pay for Iranian oil. The Islamic Republic responded to the growing international pressure by warning last week that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane for the Gulf's oil, if sanctions were imposed on its oil exports"
http://themeanoldinvestor.blogspot.com/2012/01/economic-war-on-iran.html
My waste and paste
Former Shell executive says signs point to $5 gas
Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm by Dan X. McGraw in Gasoline
The former president of Shell Oil Co. told Fuel Fix today that $5-a-gallon gas is inevitable unless the U.S. economy slows, forcing rising gasoline prices down.
John Hofmeister said gasoline prices are likely to rise to historical levels because of rising tensions with Iran, refineries closing in the northeast and ongoing fallout from the Gulf of Mexico moratorium.
“I predicted $5 gasoline by the end of 2012 two years ago,” said Hofmeister, who is the founder of the non-profit Citizens for Affordable Energy. “I see no reason to back down from that prediction. I hope I am wrong. All the factors are out there for a supply crunch.”
Hofmeister used to work at Shell, now he’s on a mission
Posted at: today.msnbc.msn.com, May 13, 2010
As president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister was known for being a straight shooter, willing to challenge his peers throughout the industry. Now, he’s a man on a mission, the founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, crisscrossing the country in a grassroots campaign to change the way we look at energy in this country. Read an excerpt from his book “Why We Hate the Oil Companies.”
Read the full article at:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37126277/ns/today-today_books/#ixzz0nulHVtyM
Hofmeister is one of few oil CEOs who talks at least rationally about Peak Oil, aware of it, not ready to embrace immediacy -- contrasted with some other oil CEOs who refuse to address it publicly in any way at all. Total's CEO is Peak Oil cognizant as well, and is even more focused than Hofmeister, calling it either immediate or places the Peak in the recent past. These guys understand the difference between Crude and All Liquids.
Iran's Peak was around 1980. They are down 2 million bpd from their peak. No one is going to attack them. They aren't going to attack anyone else . . . for the simple reason that the embargo on purchase of Iranian oil will fail. The EU is already handing out waivers for it. China, India and Japan will give it lip service, but will place their usual orders.
They have to. There is nowhere else to get that 2 mbpd, and they must have it or die.
< yes there should be a war
< no, leave them alone
S/D I would expect more from you! That is a loaded question/ NO?
'Leave them alone', thats right, because Iran is not the aggressor here at all theyve done nothing....Israel just has a stick in their ass and wants their neighbors wiped out.
My thoughts exactly, Dogmeister. Did Egypt have oil? Does Syria? For whatever reason, the Zionists have panicked and gone full retard. The one thing they can't handle is the chaos of the Arab street. Shit's getting real.
And Iran doesn't want certain of its neighbors wiped out, nor is actively helping its proxies in the area? Get your head out of your ass.
Iran doesn't have the ability to wipe out anybody. Why are you so afraid of a nation that can't hope to defend itself against Israel's 300 nuclear warheads let alone the military might of the United States?
Your fears are not rational. There must be something else bothering you. But please note that starting a war over nothing is not going to solve your personal problems.
Something Else is a great " Argument" Crockett! Let's discuss something else!
Nice work on that ( Pull- Hoser) Krugman, wanabe tenured ass hat, douche bag! Sunday opens are getting good!
Sheep Dog Thanks for the support. The quorum just needed an " Idea" , from a Red Neck! Thanks again.
shouldn't you be on your way to your bowling league game by now?
I'm waiting for your ( price) Fix on alligator meat? Lazy dayz?
"peace sign on the helmet" thing. I agree. We have philosophical issues to be resolved here as well. Excellent point!
I think Iran just wants us to help them with thier shortage of obsidian.
Sorry Chris but this "Iran is building a nuclear bomb" bullshit has been going on since 1979 and the "sources" for our "information" is always the same : Israel.
Here's a timeline of that history:
Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline Of Warnings Since 1979
By Scott Peterson
January 08, 2011 "CSM" -- Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.
For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.
And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.
MORE HERE:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30177.htm
As always...you must ask the question: Who benefits most from a US invasion of Iran. If the beneficiary is also the main provider of the "intelligence" justifying the invasion, the quality and integrity of that information must be questioned. THOROUGHLY!
Iran a nuclear threat? Im not scared or fooled by these fear mongers like Martensen, Im far more concerned about CIA and Mossad and the 'elite' central banker families, the real terrorists of the world.
Here is a fine example of "terrorism":
An Iranian news agency reports that a fourth Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was a professor specializing in petroleum engineering at a technical university and director of Natanz’s uranium enrichment facility. Mehr news agency said he was “deputy director of the commercial department of the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility.” He was killed by a bomb attached to the side of his car by two men on a motorcycle. My own confidential Israeli source confirms today’s murder was the work of the Mossad and MEK, as have been a number of previous operations I’ve reported here.
The killing took place at or near a Teheran university. The method recalls another series of assassinations that occurred of Fereidoun Abbassi Davani (who was seriously wounded) and his colleague Majid Shahriari (who was killed). Today’s killing occurred two years to the day after the assassination of another scientist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi.
Reuters also adds this:
An [Iranian ] official [said]…”The bomb was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and is the work of the Zionists (Israelis)” Fars quoted Deputy Governor Safarali Baratloo as saying.
Witnesses told Reuters they saw two people on the motorbike stick the bomb to the car.
Sounds like the Ayatollah has figured out a way to get rid of scientists who lean towards democracy while also strenghtening their grip on power. They kill their own peripheral nuclear scientists when their usefulness has expired.
Or it could b the Russians or the Chinese themselves doing it or the Americans or the Israelis or the Italians or the Afghans. Christ the web is so large it could be anyone who could benefit from Iran at war. That's a very, very large list.
Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Truth is usually simple. Lies are complex.
Those who could benefit from a full frontal lobotomy is a short list but you are on it.
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me. Da Dah!
So the rational belief is that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons?
That makes a TON of sense if one is an arabasslicker.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
There is no war in 2012 against Iran - this is all about the Irani elections in a few months. US/Israel wants a new regime and they are trying to ratchet up sanctions (and inflation) to hurt the ruling party. No war just good ole' fashioned saber-rattling
Such saber rattling increases the power of the anti-Western element in Iran. Now why is that a good strategy for the West to pursue?
"Now why is that a good strategy for the West to pursue?"
Very good question Crockett, I have often wondered myself. It is very possible a % of there timing is Ron Paul imho.
Iran already has nuclear weapons. This bullshit about them making their own needs to stop. For some reason the US has decided to help Iran raise capital by pushing up the price of oil- go figure.
The strait will be closed when Saudi Arabia says it will.
Chris, you need to hire an editor. Your bullshit is way to long for reading, or, do what I do, go to Las Vegas every 90 days and fuck the shit out every bitch that can fog a mirror. They don't follow you home and they don't give a shit how important you think you are. That will make you understand that nobody gives a shit and you can stop writing this bullshit.
Fuck you Ipods
Dominoes Pizza has Management Job for you. Lay off the pepperioni on " Breaks"!
I'm not convinced Iran has nukes, other than that you're spot on.
Pat Buchanan: Let Congress decide on war with Iran
“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” said Pentagon press secretary George Little. “He (Panetta) didn't say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”
Little added that U.N. inspectors remain in Iran and have access to its uranium stockpile, and should Iran attempt a “breakout” by diverting low-enriched uranium to a hidden facility to convert it to weapons grade, U.N. inspectors would instantly detect the diversion.
“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” said Little.
In short, the Pentagon does not believe Iran has made a decision to build atomic weapons, and the department is confident that, should it do so, the United States would have ample warning.
Little's definitive statement, “We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” coincides with the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, in December 2007.
In that report, the entire U.S. intelligence community stated unanimously, with “high confidence,” that Iran had given up its drive for an atom bomb back in 2003.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111227/OPINION02/712279995
"Let Congress decide on war with Iran"
What is this? The 1940s? LOL.
It feels more like the 1490s. Who's up for an auto-da-fé?
Is that the new electric car that GM is marketing in Spain ?
I am doubtful the "US military test-fired (more of a demonstration, really) their Qader anti-ship cruise missile"
"A quick view of the US military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist (nor were used by Iraq to threaten the US), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon:
If Iraq had a nuclear weapon in 2002, it is quite doubtful the US would have invaded -- a lesson that has not gone unnoticed."
Iran desires to survive, and they likely believe that developing a nuclear arsenal is the only way to do so. They may be right in their thinking.
The easiest way for them to hold the world hostage is to make a a bomb, put a remote on to it, lower it into their largest oil field.
One step closer, the bomb exploded and the oil becomes radioactive.
Really? Do you know how many atomic bombs have been detonated in the last century? Dozens and dozens, so Youd think everything would be ruined and radioactive today then? So why would 1 bomb hold the world hostage?
The higher " QUADRANT" of Nevada is a starting point?
The proven oil reserves in Iran are believed to be the 2nd largest on Earth. If someone detonated a nuclear warhead that vaporized the oil extracting infrastructure from one of their major oilfields, it would have an immediate and significant global economic impact. It would be "scorched earth policy" to the extreme.
That has something to do with this thread?
If Ron Paul wins, he wins. We will know for sure in a few months.
This thread is about the possibility of nukes in Iran. There are other threads to discuss the GOP primaries.
Actually, there were thousands detonated.
When and where, watch below.
IQ avg dropped 12 points during US testing.
Long term effects are quite noticeable in US infertility and numerous birth difficulties.
We all have been abused. Not held hostage. Fukushima is compounding the effect.
Consume the preventative and protective measures as it all adds up over your life and multiple generations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qRa1SZ6dc
Thanks for that link.
I see now that a war has been fought upon my country.
When I couldn't stand watching any more, I stopped the video -- and then noticed that I had chosen the month of my birth.
I think he means thereby rendering the oil fields radioactive. scorched earth insurance.
Pop goes the " Weasel" ! Sadam said so. <>
hahahaha...that was funny. Now I have a spilled drink to clean up.
I'm on your side " Chump 666".
No, the easiest way to hold the world hostage is to institute a worldwide fiat currency regime, use that regime to steal the wealth of an entire generation of humanity, and then say to the people of the Earth "Do as we bid you, or we shall close the banks and plunge the world into chaos, destitution, and despair."
Youre 'deeply confused' by the timing of all this Chris? Thats because you look at the big mural thru an economic electron microscope only.
I'm a bit confused too, though for a different reason. Thinking it would all be over quite quickly, I'd have thought they'd do it nearer the election.
The fact we're on the brink now suggests they're really going to go to town, maybe put boots on the ground and have a real, full blown war.
Krugman must be getting so wet.
How can the NWO be bought about if the OPEC is not bought to heel?
Besides we need a price spike so that TPTB can subsequently run the price back down below 50 again, there are profits waiting folks, don't let all this nostalgia about the sanctity of human life or the constitution cloud your judgement.
The financial rape will continue until morale improves......
Posted this the other day on a related article. Worth posting again.
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!
In the same period of time, Israel, a self-declared Jewish state, attacked Iraq in 1981, bombing the power station at Osirik, claiming it was a clandestine weapons factory. Subsequent examination of the ruins following the 2003 invasion proved Israel had lied. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. This led to the Massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. In February 2003 Israel staged incursions into Gaza and Nablus. In September 2007 Israel bombed Syria, again insisting they were destroying a clandestine weapons laboratory. Again there was no evidence to support Israel’s claims. In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon, killing 1200, mostly civilians, several UN observers, and littering the landscape with land mines on their way out. In February 2008 Israel again raided Gaza, killing over 100. HAMAS agreed to a cease fire and kept it for 6 months until November 4, when Israel again attacked without warning, killing 6 HAMAS members, and launching operation CAST LEAD. 1300 Gazans, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel lost 13 soldiers. Violations of international law included the use of White Phosphorus incendiary bombs against civilians and non-military targets. The United Nations investigated, but Israel refused to cooperate. In May 2010, Israel attacked an international aid flotilla bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza in international waters. 9 people were murdered including an American from New York.
In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d’Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Haiti (2010), etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, who is the danger to world peace?
Bull Shit!
what an eloquent and well thought response. congratulations.
Yen Cross is hard to beat when it come to thoughtful eloquence.
One normally has to go to a wrestling match to find people with his caliber of linguistic dexterity.
We are truly fortunate to have him here.
Oxymorons my " Business Intrest" Per the banksta. 40's style collection system! The History channel, is the accumulation channel!!!
Keep it up, is what I say.
Yup, fully agree: pure bull shit.
The listing of events is correct (although filtered important elements), the conclusion is false.
Coming from a ( non ) sophisticate, like your self? Complements Galore!
I'm perplexed? Non the less, good on ya.
Facts are stubborn things. And cconditioned, controlled herd mentality is even more stubborn.
I guess the decade long war with Iraq doesn't count?
Perhaps because it was Iraq that invaded Iran...ya think?
Don't confuse the warmongers with facts. It just makes them angry.
Do not tap the glass.
Iran is a country of peace loving saints.
Things like the state sponsored assassination plan of the Saudi ambassador in DC is always propaganda and of course Iran is not pursing nukes. Afterall I read it on ZH so it must be true.
Xk--I am mistaken but doesn't the USA have an assassination pollicy of it's own and has been used several times already?? Milestones
When a similar propaganda post is made denying the US' role in the violence and instability in the world, Ill point out all the assassination attempts made by it that I can remember in 5secs after reading the post.
In the meantime, we need more posts denying that Iran is even pursuing nukes.
that is some of the funniest shit on the entire internet, bar none.
Why are you attacking the US military and intelligence agencies? They say Iran has no bomb and no plan to build one. Where are you from and what are your allegiances?
HAHAHAHAHA BEAUTIFUL!
and you, Alien Imbecile and every other GEICO spokesman ball dangler want so desperately for everyone to actually believe that.
There you go again -- desperately trying to paint the American military as liars. Why do you hate the troops? Is it any wonder that you won't say what country you are from?
Pat Buchanan: Let Congress decide on war with Iran
“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” said Pentagon press secretary George Little. “He (Panetta) didn't say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”
Little added that U.N. inspectors remain in Iran and have access to its uranium stockpile, and should Iran attempt a “breakout” by diverting low-enriched uranium to a hidden facility to convert it to weapons grade, U.N. inspectors would instantly detect the diversion.
“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” said Little.
In short, the Pentagon does not believe Iran has made a decision to build atomic weapons, and the department is confident that, should it do so, the United States would have ample warning.
Little's definitive statement, “We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” coincides with the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, in December 2007.
In that report, the entire U.S. intelligence community stated unanimously, with “high confidence,” that Iran had given up its drive for an atom bomb back in 2003.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111227/OPINION02/712279995
Awesome material!
Really, really funny stuff. Made me LOL so hard I have to wipe the snot off the keyboard.
Please post more! Especially love the IRan does not even care about pursuing nukes stuff.
tyia
Exactly and the same folks said the sanctions were working in Iraq.
Food for oil was working great of course till the invasion and everyone found out exactly why France was so against the invasion.
If you hate the US military why should our boys die for your lies? Where are you from and who do you serve?
Of course not. The US is a country of peace loving saints.
Thanx for that Chupacabra. Please post again on some other related article.
And again.
...TEHRAN, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A buildup of Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is a reaction to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, military experts say.
U.S., Russian, French and British air and naval forces moved to the Syrian and Iranian coasts during the weekend, Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.
The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, causing France to respond by consigning an air defense destroyer to the waters off Tartus, DEBKAfile reported. Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, to the Mediterranean where it would take over from the HMCS Vancouver.
Meanwhile, Britain has dispatched a missile destroyer to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
Sounds like the Itranians don't even need guided missiles to hit something floating around in there.
Dang everybody decided to show up for the party.
Filipino Monkey!
"Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown"
Looks like Canuckistan is going all in. Strap on your helmets. boys.
Perfect target for the false flag operation. We'll have to go in to save our "ally". Doncha know.
Be careful guys. Posts like this draw out the real traitors. You'd all be better off saying something more like: bomb the fucking all holy fuck out of those backassward muslim terrorist sand niggers and let our precious jesus sort the bastards out!
Seriously. Take it from someone who recieved a visit from the ss and csis a few years back.
Why are you still posting shit then ???
I have better opsec now.
And Prairie Fire has nothing to do with that communist scum Ayers.
Was that part of the "deal" when they let you go?
The Schutzstaffel & The Civil Service Insurance Society?
You're a freaking idiot. Pray for our boys who died for nothing overseas and god will forgive you for calling real Americans traitors.
I suggest you read the bible and the constitution.
I love it when ordinary people are enabled to hand out Gods forgiveness. Delegation at its finest.
When you proclaim G--s omnipitence you destroy it. That which can be defined can be manulipated. Most of G--s folks do not really grasp what they "know"and what they presume. I am at best an agonistic; both the true believer and the absolute atheist proclaim to KNOW what they cannot PROVE. Milestones
When you proclaim G--s omnipitence you destroy it. That which can be defined can be manulipated. Most of G--s folks do not really grasp what they "know"and what they presume. I am at best an agonistic; both the true believer and the absolute atheist proclaim to KNOW what they cannot PROVE. Milestones
"Prairie Fire". Isn't that the title of Billy Ayers' commie manifesto? Why yes, yes it is.
Both Canadian and US security agents have one thing in common right now with everyone else.
Pensions and their futures are gone.
You are learning fast!
Karl
Bring the troops home already. If my son joined the military I would disown him.
A manly man can protect his home and be patriotic without having to go overseas in fatigues.
And when this goes down, there will be real terrorist attacks in western countries (or the government will stage some) and if you think the NDAA is bad, you ain't see nothing yet.
The time to move out has come.
Alas, there is no place to call home.
Since we(US) has are so supportive and friendly throughout the world. (sarc)
Time to plant a flag and stay alert.
Don't Tread on Me.
Really? And these terrorists will fly or come by boat with no control? (Mexician borders excepted). Milestones
While Unfortunate - the U.S. is going to screw around and step on the wrong toe one of these days - and in the process get what it so deserves. It is just unfortunate that many innocent young patriots who have bought into the bullshit story of patriotism are going to be the ones that pay the full price - as opposed to the criminal bastards who are always in a never ending search for a way to keep the military industrial complex profitable.
One other thing worth noting regarding that IAEA Report supposedly quoted in the New York Times. It would be more accurate to say "misquoted" in the NYT. Here's what is really in the report according to the Washington Post:
The claim that there is "a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear programme has a military objective" is misguided.
As Washington Post's Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9:
"But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb."
read more here:
The New York Times is Misleading the Public on Iran
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30187.htm
and who owns the New York Times?...
+1 alien. For the truth seeker, the information coming at one about an important matter must always be questioned for accuracy. Whether it be for the purpose of spinning the information to suit an agenda, or simply lazy reporting, truth oft seems to be a casualy of any war, including a war of words.
I will give you another example. A late draft of the 2012 NDDA bill actually had language inserted specifically exempting American Citizens from being indefinitely detained. Yet, that fact has not been generally diseminated. How do I know this? I read the actual legislation. Why has this not been reported on? Possibly because it does not fit the agenda of those who are against the detention provisions of the bill (which includes me btw in terms of being no on the bill).
For anyone curious, here is an excerpt of the bill:
Now naturally that does NOT mean that citizens have nothing to fear from a government circling the wagons agaisnt most any dissidence. We should be afraid. Very afraid. But the NDDA itself was declawed a bit and that has not been reported.
pakled, lemmi fix that for you.
By Jim Babka, Downsize DC
How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans
Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including American citizens, without the benefit of due process.
Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply to Americans.
Some were lying. Most were deceived.
Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the following scenario…
You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional group the Constitution League (CL).
One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond.
You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.
What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues, the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S. Government facility.
Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist group.
And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities.
* Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes!
* Can he (or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely in a military facility, without charges? Yes!
Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added}
Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans?
Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!
The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.
* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.
* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires.
SECTION 1021
Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct support?”
One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING.
These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.
They could be used against political opponents.
1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are…
1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info here)
SECTION 1022
1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much. http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill
This section is for your fellow CL members/plotters. Whereas, you got snatched up for “support” or “aid” to the plot, they actually carried out an attack, or as the section itself indicates…
“…participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Section 1022 requires the President to go with option #1 above — the other three options are off the table. In other words, no trial, either in a civilian court or military tribunal.
In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.
But this title is especially IRONIC, because it’s this section that includes the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists?”
The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,” domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.
And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted…
The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver on the basis that a person is an American citizen.
If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line would’ve been written like this…
Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited under this act.
See the difference? It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as opposed to a prohibition.
Now, do you realize Congress has given the Federal State the power to use military detention on its own citizens? And that they’ve made it possible to wage a war on peaceful activists, if they can just incite someone in your group to attempt something violent?
Don’t worry. It’s not like the FBI is busy infiltrating meetings, entrapping some dullard into a plot, equipping and financing his efforts, and then claiming credit for stopping another terrorist attack! Oh wait, that’s happened about 40 times since 9/11.
Thus, to complete our story, the angry man who showed up at the CL meeting might’ve work for the FBI. And he duped two idiots in your group, who put you and your fellow members in legal jeopardy.
This new law is that serious. President Obama has claimed he won’t use this power. All that needs to happen now is a provocative incident. Then, all bets are off. Since these nearly unlimited, un-constitutional powers are now law, this President, or a future one, will be able to kidnap and disappear Americans. It could very easily be open season for the police state.
Source: Constitutional lawyer, http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/01/07/ndaa-open-season-for-the-police-state/
Thank god Barry has a peace prize, or he would have attacked Canada already.
Why do you Idiots submit, and post strategies? STUPID IDIOTS!
Right. Send in the smart idiots.
"Because Iran has not threatened any other country" ... How many times does Ahmadinejad have to threaten 'total annihilation' before there is a threat?
Fucking idiot asshole. You think he's going to cower in a corner with all that american military power surrounding him?
Wow you must be personally invested in this for such strong language
And when has Iran promised 'total annihilation' except in retaliation?
"wiped off the face of the earth" ... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ... Pretty close to anniliation?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
Relax. He never said it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off...
Or are you one of those?
Jim...don't go and confuse him with facts. He's just parroting what CNNABCFOXNBCCNBC told him to say.
Remember: When stupidity is considered patriotic...it becomes unsafe to be intelligent.
FACCN
Just for shortification of it
Shhhhhh
It was just a bad translation.
and the crowd's response of Down with Israel and Down with America was misinterpreted as well.
The Iranian people actually love and adore the western world,
the guy who speaks for them posts that all the time so it must be true.
Yes, you would expect them to love Israel and America, what with our overthrowing their democratically elected leader, installing and propping up a vicious despot in his stead, sponsoring Iraq to attack them, shooting down their airliners, imposing blockades, killing their scientists...
What an unreasonable bunch of ingrates these cavemen are!
Big Jim ... I can go with the Arabic : " Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad) 's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)" .
"Must Vanish'" ... Is this not a threat?
referring to the zionist REGIME. not the entire population. like the nazi regime that it is modeled on, the zionism regime should be wiped off the map. this can only be a benefit to the world.
"Must Vanish'" ... Is this not a threat?
No, Bear, it's more like a prayer.
Best translation of the Farsi idiom "erase from the pages of days": This [......] regime should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
You can agree or disagree, but construing the quote as a threat to annihilate the country or its inhabitants is fanciful.