Iran Under Pressure

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

"On what basis do we all know that Iran is chasing a nuclea bomb?"

Lim, surely it's pretty much common sense on all out parts. Of course, Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Of course Iran has been sneaking missiles into Lebanon for decades. Of course Iran has been equipping Shia militias in Iraq with roadside bombs.
I understand there are a lot of folks over here in this country who are quite prepared to accept Iran is doing none of this - I guess I'm not one of them.
As for Iraq, again it was common sense. Iraq never had WMD - we all knew that. We saw it when a few paltry skuds were fired at Kuwait.
Iran, though, is not Iraq.
"then why the hell did your country and the USA invade Iraq?"
"Myself I was against the said invasion from day one. I don't know why they invaded but the invasion seems to have helped Iran.
If Israel does decide that it wants to act unilaterally - it can't, unless the Americans give them the nod."
Take it from me: France helped Israel develop its nuclear program and Israel also has a lot under its belt the U.S. knows nothing of. Israel isn't at all like England since Israel is a nuclear power in its own right and can launch missiles from its own guidance systems.
The U.K. cannot lauch a single missile without U.S. permission and operation of U.S. guidance systems because the U.K. chose simply to rely on the U.S. totally.
It was me that pointed this out to everyons some weeks ago.
However, seeing as the U.S. is Israel's main ally, you're right it has a lot of influence in these matters and Israel wouldn't likely attack those facilties in Iran without the U.S. knowing.
However, if Iran accepted Russia's offer and processed uranium in Russia, it would have all the nuclear energy it needed.


What?
"we all know Iran is chasing a nuclear bomb"

On what basis do we all know that Iran is chasing a nuclea bomb?
Todays newspapers report - as was the case in Iraq in 2002/2003 - that there is no evidence that Iran is developing military WMD.

And "we all knew Iraq never had those WMD"
If we all knew that Iraq had no WMD - then why the hell did your country and the USA invade Iraq?
And why, if "we all knew..." are people prepared to accept the same rethoric
being used in the case of Iran.




Israel isn't allowed to move unless it gets the say so from it's paymasters in the USA.
The USA control the Israeli access to heavy weapony and access to Israeli airspace.
If Israel does decide that it wants to act unilaterally - it can't, unless the Americans give them the nod.
The Israeli's are like your country - they have to ask permission to act.

That's why DeGaulle was very wise in making certain that French defence system remained independent.

Lim, surely it's pretty much common sense on all out parts. Of course, Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Of course Iran has been sneaking missiles into Lebanon for decades. Of course Iran has been equipping Shia militias in Iraq with roadside bombs.


Common sense?
It's common sense when making a case to provide evidence to support that case.

You don't know the intentions of Iran.
You don't know if Iran has developed nuclear weapons.
You don't know if Iran has the capability of delivering those nuclear weapons.

It would be common sense to try to establish the extent of these issues before arriving at any conclusions.



I understand there are a lot of folks over here in this country who are quite prepared to accept Iran is doing none of this - I guess I'm not one of them.


yeah we know what you atttidue is.




Take it from me: France helped Israel develop its nuclear program and Israel also has a lot under its belt the U.S. knows nothing of. Israel isn't at all like England since Israel is a nuclear power in its own right and can launch missiles from its own guidance systems.
.

...................Israel has the capability of launching a strike.
That's not in question.
What is in question is - who gives the authorisation.
That authorisation resides with the USA.
The US controls Israeli airspace - and it is they who have the final say as to what can and cannot be allowed to enter Israeli airspace.



However, if Iran accepted Russia's offer and processed uranium in Russia, it would have all the nuclear energy it needed.

Iran is entitled to enrich it's own uranium.

What?
Israel isn't allowed to move unless it gets the say so from it's paymasters in the USA.
The USA control the Israeli access to heavy weapony and access to Israeli airspace.
If Israel does decide that it wants to act unilaterally - it can't, unless the Americans give them the nod.
The Israeli's are like your country - they have to ask permission to act.

That's why DeGaulle was very wise in making certain that French defence system remained independent.Ummmm. I seem to remember Israel invading Southern Lebanon of few months ago "on their own" after a couple of soldiers were snatched by Hezbollah. Permission to act????? Keep spinning Lim. More like we didnt step in to stop them. The Israeli's are more than capable of handling themselves and they certainly arent trigger shy.

Ummmm. I seem to remember Israel invading Southern Lebanon of few months ago "on their own" after a couple of soldiers were snatched by Hezbollah. Permission to act????? Keep spinning Lim. More like we didnt step in to stop them. The Israeli's are more than capable of handling themselves and they certainly arent trigger shy.

Israel did invade Lebannon - with aquiesence of the USA.

Israel doesn't do anything before getting permission from USA.

Lim, surely it's pretty much common sense on all out parts. Of course, Iran seeks nuclear weapons.
This is not a given at all. Current estimates are that Iran's current population growth and economic growth will cause the consumption of all of Iran's petroleum output sometime between 2020 and 2025. Some estimates are even more dire than that. Iran needs nuclear energy.

Of course Iran has been sneaking missiles into Lebanon for decades. Of course Iran has been equipping Shia militias in Iraq with roadside bombs.
So what if Iran has been giving weapons to Hezbollah. Lebanon needs to defend itself from an aggressive, land hungry colonial power to its south. The vast majority of U.S. troop deaths from IEDs are due to Sunni insurgents. Most of this occurs in Anbar province. There has been zero evidence that the Iranian government has been arming rebel groups with IEDs. People have been smuggling things in that area for thousands of years. It's almost an honerable profession. So weapons coming across the Iranian border proves nothing about the involvement of the Iranian government.

And if Iran is arming the Shiites, so what? The U.S. has started a Sunnit-Shiite war and eventually all sides are going to supply weapons. This is not exactly rocket science.


It was me that pointed this out to everyons some weeks ago.
However, seeing as the U.S. is Israel's main ally, you're right it has a lot of influence in these matters and Israel wouldn't likely attack those facilties in Iran without the U.S. knowing.
There is a huge question of whether Israel could launch an effective strike. This is not bombing an experimental reactor in Iraq. It involves damaging industrial infrastructure, much of it is secret. The U.S. planners are currently thinking of using thousands of sorties to do the bombing. Israel is incapable of that number of attacks over that distance.

However, if Iran accepted Russia's offer and processed uranium in Russia, it would have all the nuclear energy it needed.
Why should it accept? The NPT guarantees peaceful use of nuclear energy as an inaliable right. The U.N.'s sanctions have no legal justification. The illegal actions of the U.N. show just how foolish it would be for Iran to source its nuclear fuel from the West. What happens when Iran's economy becomes dependent on nuclear energy and the U.N. decides to cut them off? The U.S. has waged economic war against Iran for thirty years. What happens when the U.S. uses its soft power to pressure Russia to curtail uranium shipments?

The issue of Iran's nuclear program is nothing but a ruse by evangelical bigots who think they are still living in the time of the crusades and want to make the Middle East safe for Israel to steal land. If the people who are griping about Iran are so concerned about a peaceful and stable Middle East they should start with giving some justice to the palestinians.

"The vast majority of U.S. troop deaths from IEDs are due to Sunni insurgents. "

My first point: Bush is, without a doubt, the stupidest, bungling excuse for a so-called war leader we've ever seen or are ever likely to see again. The questions begs to be raised again: Why in this world have the Americans' done Iran's job and removed the only buffer there was to Iranian expansion - Saddam Hussein and a strong Iraq?
I'm aware my views probably irritate Lim over Iran but I'm really not alone and possibly Lim isn't aware this view is actually shared by the Saudis and, likewise, the Saudis wouldn't be at all upset if someone knocked out Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Saudis are furious with Bush, perplexed and pretty much stunned any American leader would be dumb enough to send U.S. troops into Iraq to help Iran!!
So, now the Saudis are considering themselves going nuclear.
"So weapons coming across the Iranian border proves nothing about the involvement of the Iranian government."
My view is simple (probably shared by the Saudis again). Israel should take out those facilities. Israel needs to stop being guided by Bush as he's essentialy the one who destabilised the region and seems pretty clueless as a war leader (even dodged the draft anyway). As a tactician, he's also clueless. His war tactics have been shambolic and he never should have sent in ground troops (or even invaded Iraq in the first place).
"And if Iran is arming the Shiites, so what? The U.S. has started a Sunnit-Shiite war and eventually all sides are going to supply weapons. This is not exactly rocket science."
Exactly. The current U.S. leader doesn't have clue.
"The issue of Iran's nuclear program is nothing but a ruse by evangelical bigots who think they are still living in the time of the crusades and want to make the Middle East safe for Israel to steal land."
If you yourself feel comfortable over the prospect of Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, that's your choice and I figure you have the same right to your own view. However, this view isn't shared throughout the Arab World. Many Arabs are pretty mad the U.S. has made such a cock-up of foreign policy and can only conclude Bush is helping Iran for whatever reason.



This is not a given at all. Current estimates are that Iran's current population growth and economic growth will cause the consumption of all of Iran's petroleum output sometime between 2020 and 2025. Some estimates are even more dire than that. Iran needs nuclear energy.


So what if Iran has been giving weapons to Hezbollah. Lebanon needs to defend itself from an aggressive, land hungry colonial power to its south. The vast majority of U.S. troop deaths from IEDs are due to Sunni insurgents. Most of this occurs in Anbar province. There has been zero evidence that the Iranian government has been arming rebel groups with IEDs. People have been smuggling things in that area for thousands of years. It's almost an honerable profession. So weapons coming across the Iranian border proves nothing about the involvement of the Iranian government.

And if Iran is arming the Shiites, so what? The U.S. has started a Sunnit-Shiite war and eventually all sides are going to supply weapons. This is not exactly rocket science.


There is a huge question of whether Israel could launch an effective strike. This is not bombing an experimental reactor in Iraq. It involves damaging industrial infrastructure, much of it is secret. The U.S. planners are currently thinking of using thousands of sorties to do the bombing. Israel is incapable of that number of attacks over that distance.


Why should it accept? The NPT guarantees peaceful use of nuclear energy as an inaliable right. The U.N.'s sanctions have no legal justification. The illegal actions of the U.N. show just how foolish it would be for Iran to source its nuclear fuel from the West. What happens when Iran's economy becomes dependent on nuclear energy and the U.N. decides to cut them off? The U.S. has waged economic war against Iran for thirty years. What happens when the U.S. uses its soft power to pressure Russia to curtail uranium shipments?

The issue of Iran's nuclear program is nothing but a ruse by evangelical bigots who think they are still living in the time of the crusades and want to make the Middle East safe for Israel to steal land. If the people who are griping about Iran are so concerned about a peaceful and stable Middle East they should start with giving some justice to the palestinians.

Israel did invade Lebannon - with aquiesence of the USA.

Israel doesn't do anything before getting permission from USA.You got proof that Israel asked permission?

It may be a harsh pill to swallow, Lim, but the plain fact is Israel is an independent nuclear power with far more influence and clout than my country or your country.
True, Israel isn't not on a par with Russia but Melanie Phillips calculates Israel has sufficent firepower to wipe out the entire Middle East if pushed into a corner.
Israel is not Britain. Britain has no option but to cling to the U.S.'s coat tails because the U.S. totally controls any nuclear defence we're believed to have. However, Israel has weapons the U.S. knows nothing about and would be pretty much powerless to restrict. That's why the U.S. is in a panic over Iran. They probably figured out the Israelis won't hesitate to strike Iran first. They already stated they're totally confident they can destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure if they have to do so.

"For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an "independent nuclear" option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war."



Israel did invade Lebannon - with aquiesence of the USA.

Israel doesn't do anything before getting permission from USA.

"Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow."

Sometimes I think Wurm has a point, though. Bush has managed to upset just about everybody concerned, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Iraqis (and the Iranians are essentially spooked by all the troops on their borders).
Bush may well prove to be the cause of a possible conflict in the Middle East that may involve nuclear weapons because tensions are now so high due to his policies and interference.
Essentially that's what Putin was driving at. This new threat from Iran has been caused by Bush and his Iraq invasion that was based on a heap of lies and personal grudges.
Now it's left to Israel to try and decide how it can pull the Middle East out of this Shia domionation Bush has established in the region. As for Iran, the mullahs must be leaping up and down in joy they have an ally such as Bush.

[/QUOTE]

You got proof that Israel asked permission?

Yep.

Your country's State Department gives final authorisation for all access to Israeli airspace, including Israel's own access to it's own airspace.
All civilian and military access to Israeli airspace is conditionally approved firstly by the Israeli's and is then approved by your country's State Department.

My first point: Bush is, without a doubt, the stupidest, bungling excuse for a so-called war leader we've ever seen or are ever likely to see again. The questions begs to be raised again: Why in this world have the Americans' done Iran's job and removed the only buffer there was to Iranian expansion - Saddam Hussein and a strong Iraq?


Yes, Bush is an idiot.
Pure and simple.

With regard to Iran and Iraq in Saddam's reign : yes, they fought and 8 year war in which SH was provided with weapons/finance/logistical support by Ronald Reagan/Rumsfeld.

That 8 year war cost 1m lives.
After such a war - I believe that neither Iraq or Iran had designs about attacking each other.

Bush lied in order to start a conflict with Iraq and removed SH.
The gain for Iran is the removal of a man who waged war upon them.
However, that gain is completely wiped out by the fact that Iran now has it's greatest enemy (USA) next door to it, albeit a terribly bogged down enemy.
So Iran hasn't gained - what has transpired since March 2003 has made the world (Middle East) much more dangerous.



"
I'm aware my views probably irritate Lim over Iran but I'm really not alone and possibly Lim isn't aware this view is actually shared by the Saudis and, likewise, the Saudis wouldn't be at all upset if someone knocked out Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Saudis are furious with Bush, perplexed and pretty much stunned any American leader would be dumb enough to send U.S. troops into Iraq to help Iran!!
So, now the Saudis are considering themselves going nuclear.
.

Before wrapping yourself up totally - you conveniently forget that it was 19 Saudi's - steeped in the tradition of Wahabbism - who planned and carried out it's attack on American in 2001.

The Saudi's - like the rest of the Middle East - despise America.
There may be Sunni/Shia tensions in the Middle East - but let's be clear those divisions are minute compared to the antagonism which the Middle East holds for the USA (and for the rest of the West too).



My view is simple (probably shared by the Saudis again). Israel should take out those facilities. Israel needs to stop being guided by Bush as he's essentialy the one who destabilised the region and seems pretty clueless as a war leader (even dodged the draft anyway). As a tactician, he's also clueless. His war tactics have been shambolic and he never should have sent in ground troops (or even invaded Iraq in the first place).


Agree and disagree.

When the USA gives you (Israel) 85% of your total annual GDP, it (USA) dictates what you can and cannot do.
The fact of the matter is that Israel cannot act unilaterally unless the USA gives it the go-ahead.
Regardless of who occupies the White House.



If you yourself feel comfortable over the prospect of Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, that's your choice and I figure you have the same right to your own view. However, this view isn't shared throughout the Arab World. Many Arabs are pretty mad the U.S. has made such a cock-up of foreign policy and can only conclude Bush is helping Iran for whatever reason.

Nuclear proliferation - be it American/British/wherever - shouldn't make anyone comfortable.

And Bush isn't seeking to assist Iran.

The mind boggles. Surely somewhere in the recesses of the brain Bush keeps in a jar by the door he should understand what tends to happen when you interfere in the political evolution of a region?
Not only that but the tactics. To my mind the amount of casualties suffered in Iraq as well as wounded is a pretty dismal record for a supposed war leader.
So far the main winner has been Iran. Maybe the only reason Bush is now worried over Iran is on account of Israel since Israel certainly views Iran as far more of a threat than Saddam ever was with his skuds.
Basically I think if you don't know exactly what you're doing in these situations it pays to stay out.
Why Bush undermined the secular Bathist regime is beyond me. Under Saddam Christians, minority religions and women enjoyed relative peace. Now there is intolerance of Christians, Jews and Bush united the Shia across the entire Middle East.
I think he simply doesn't have a clue. I don't know how the Americans wound up with him or what possessed them to vote him into office.

Yes, Bush is an idiot.
Pure and simple.

With regard to Iran and Iraq in Saddam's reign : yes, they fought and 8 year war in which SH was provided with weapons/finance/logistical support by Ronald Reagan/Rumsfeld.

That 8 year war cost 1m lives.
After such a war - I believe that neither Iraq or Iran had designs about attacking each other.

Bush lied in order to start a conflict with Iraq and removed SH.
The gain for Iran is the removal of a man who waged war upon them.
However, that gain is completely wiped out by the fact that Iran now has it's greatest enemy (USA) next door to it, albeit a terribly bogged down enemy.
So Iran hasn't gained - what has transpired since March 2003 has made the world (Middle East) much more dangerous.





Before wrapping yourself up totally - you conveniently forget that it was 19 Saudi's - steeped in the tradition of Wahabbism - who planned and carried out it's attack on American in 2001.

The Saudi's - like the rest of the Middle East - despise America.
Teah there may be Sunni/Shia tensions in the Middle East - but let's be clear those divisions are minute compared to the antagonism which the Middle East holds for the USA (and possible the rest of the West too).




Agree and disagree.

When the USA gives you (Israel) 85% of your total annual GDP, it (USA) dictates what you can and cannot do.
The fact of the matter is that Israel cannot act unilaterally unless the USA gives it the go-ahead.
Regardless of who occupies the Wgite House.




Nuclear proliferation - be it American/British/wherever - shouldn't make anyone comfortable.

And Bush isn't seeking to assist Iran.

Under Saddam Christians, minority religions and women enjoyed relative peace.
Before you post simple mindedness, you should have checked out the families of the 5,000 Kurds Saddam killed in a single village. The Kurds enjoy peace.......

Yep.

Your country's State Department gives final authorisation for all access to Israeli airspace, including Israel's own access to it's own airspace.
All civilian and military access to Israeli airspace is conditionally approved firstly by the Israeli's and is then approved by your country's State Department.
Please provide a rational source for this. You accuse Carrera of not providing sources for his statements then you do the same. Of course you will probably just "edit" this post so you don't have to face someone challenging you.

Let's look at it logically. Saddam's regime was never a threat to your country or my country. Saddam certainly wasn't a threat to Israel post Desert Storm. True, Saddam was encouraging suicide bombings in Israel by funding families of the bombers but you have to ask the question does that justify the deaths of some 80 Iraqis a day, some 30,000 maimed American soldiers and now 3000 U.S. troops killed.
Added to that, Saddam spilled blood for your country and Europe in the Iran/Iraq war. He was a buffer against radical Islamic expansion in the Middle East and had far far more success preventing such radicalism than Bush since he presumed to take over.
Next point: Bush's so-called justice by hanging a 70 year old man under undignified conditions seemed to me to be a victory for the masked terrorists Bush apparently supports. At least, that's what I saw taking place - a band of masked Shia militia gloating over the murder of a Sunni (apparently on the basis of sectarian religious division).
I can't help but think Bush has done more to assist terrorists in the Middle East than even Bin Laden. His policies somehow leave me baffled.



Before you post simple mindedness, you should have checked out the families of the 5,000 Kurds Saddam killed in a single village. The Kurds enjoy peace.......

The situation seems dire. According to what I saw on the news last night it seems as if Junior is going to attack Iranian installations, given Iran has no intention of halting uranium enrichment.
The snag is, there will more than likely only be losers in such a war. My guess is Iran will respond my pouring thousands of ground troops into Iraq so Bush will more than likely be forced to call Americans up into active service. No way can Bush hope to win that kind of a war by nukes alone if Iranian soldiers saturate Iraq on the ground.
Plus, Bush screwed up big time by allowing Iranian and Iraqi troops to update and vastly improve their ground capacity in a guerilla war. He will have to take on the entire Shia militia within Iraq as well as the Iranians which promises to be one hell of a prolonged conflict.
So, it's hard to be optimistic. My guess is Israel will have problems, Iran will have trouble with the Kurds and (I kid you not) poor old Wurm could find himself dug into a trench side by side with Wolfix fighting the Iranian Guard on behalf of Bush.

Let's look at it logically.

Next point: Bush's so-called justice by hanging a 70 year old man under undignified conditions seemed to me to be a victory for the masked terrorists Bush apparently supports. Whatever happened to Saddam, and however undignifed it was, he deserved. He tortured people, He was a butcher of human rights.

Fact numero uno: Saddam killed nothing like as many Iraqis as Bush, no comparison. Bush can boast of a figure of some 70 Iraqi dead on a daily basis and literally hundreds of thousands of children.
That is, every day in Iraq 70 people die in the sectarian violence Bush caused.
Fact numero dos: Bush's supports Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet tortured and murdered Chilean citizens by the thousand and was an outright war criminal. Bush claims Pinochet is a good man and Saddam is a bad man. On what basis is Saddam bad and Pinochet good? Maybe ask the victims?
Fact numero tres: As a military tactician Bush is a failure, I'm afraid to say. His handling of the war he based his career on has been dismal. He failed to secure the borders, he didn't send in enough forces, he failed to even comprehend the lessons of Vietnam (that of nationalist uprising) and amazingly, he did Iran's job for Iran and handed them hegemony on a plate.
(Fact numero cuatro) The man should resign from office. In Europe he has zero respect and finally his own countrymen are beginning to waken up to the dunderhead they somehow elected (sorry!).
I'm sorry Wolf it's not you personally and nothing personal in my post. Nothing against American people either who were sadly duped. I just think too many people lost their lives in a foolhardy, reckless war.
Let's give Obama a shot at sorting the mess out.

Whatever happened to Saddam, and however undignifed it was, he deserved. He tortured people, He was a butcher of human rights.

...just out of curiosity, i must ask our knowledgeable republican hawks what they think of this report from the times: US Generals 'Will Quit' If Bush Orders Iran Attack (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece). does this make them soft on terrorism? are they now traitors under the sean hannity definition because their timidity is giving aid and comfort to a charter member of the "axis of evil"? doesn't this undercut cheney's pronouncement that all options are on the table?...

...oh, and wolfix, the kurds were in open rebellion against hussein at that time, waging a guerilla war against s. h.'s government. his actions against the kurds are by no means acceptable, but we (the u.s.) have allowed many other governments to suppress rebellions/revolutions with much sterner hands...