Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

most of America's problems are directly traceable to wackos who call everyone else a liberal.

What happened to the 85%?

Just because Beck, Hannity, et al are proven right

wait whaaat?

[Lamplighter]

Shall we start a pool on the date/time Israeli stealth's will leave a package on Iran's doorstep.

You Sir, have been warned.

Voice of America
Nov 19, 2011
US to Slap Isolated Iran With New Sanctions

The United States is getting ready to hit Iran with new, tougher sanctions,
with one top official saying Tehran now faces an "unprecedented" degree of isolation.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity late Friday,
said the sanctions could be unveiled as early as Monday and
would target Iran's petrochemical industry.
They said the new sanctions would seek to stop foreign companies
from investing in ventures like oil refineries.

The officials said foreign companies that violate the ban
would be cut off from access to the U.S. market,
and that European countries could introduce similar sanctions later next week.
<snip>
Iran has dismissed the IAEA report.
The country's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, said the measure will only strengthen
Iran's determination to continue its uranium enrichment activities

[classicman]

The country's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, said the measure will only strengthen Iran's determination to continue its uranium enrichment activities

Woopdie dooo! Like anything has really changed. Turn the place into a parking lot. Some people cannot be negotiated with.

(yes, I realize its an immediate emotional reaction)

[Griff]

Yeah, careful UG. If we pave the place, the more liberal minded die with the theocrats. I'd prefer we wait for the implosion of an untenable society.

[classicman]

lol

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Shall we start a pool on the date/time Israeli stealth's will leave a package on Iran's doorstep.

I usually go with 'not going to happen' since an Israeli attack on Iran has been predicted every 1 to 2 years since 2005, but the idea is becoming more and more mainstream (in discussion terms, not agreement terms). There was a recent boom in discussion of the probability and strategy behind an attack since the IAEA report came out.

If Israel does bomb Iran, I'm guessing it will be after US leaves Iraq since the Iraqis won't be able to detect Israeli planes illegally flying over their airspace (unless SA gives Israel permission).

[Lamplighter]

Yes, I too am usually not paranoid/conspiratorial about such things.
But it was an article several days ago, similar to the one below,
that came to my mind when I read the "new sanctions" article.

I remember thinking, why are they making this (Israeli refusal)
public ... unless something is in the works ?
Now, announcement of the new sanctions...

The Telegraph
Nov 19,2011
Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions

Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that
it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities,
raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer.

The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between
America's most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's hawkish
prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran's continuing progress
towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all
but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.
<snip>
"They [the Israelis] did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent,
but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission,
or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.

[piercehawkeye45]

That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.

The main reason why I believe Israel would not go through with an attack is that there is very little chance it will make their situation any better. But then again, I am feeling that Israel's pragmatism has been dwindling lately.

[Lamplighter]

It seems as long as Iran can keep the talking (diplomacy) going,
there is not sufficient motivation to react to threats of more UN sanctions.
But when Israel starts scurrying about it does get their attention.

Reuters
By Parisa Hafezi
Tue Nov 22, 2011
Iran misjudged West's resolve in nuclear standoff

It is unclear how Iran's hardline conservative leadership will act,
with hard calculation, national pride and Islamic outlook all part of the equation.
But senior officials have repeatedly hinted that diplomacy would be the first recourse.

"The regime is very worried about a military strike.
They have mishandled the issue and it is now very difficult for them to reach any kind of compromise,"
said a senior European diplomat in Tehran, who asked not to be named.
"Also they are worried about a spread of the Arab Spring (popular protests) into Iran
and cannot risk more economic pressure that can cause street protests."<snip>

However, a lack of stability in the Middle East, combined with Iran's
ability to stir up trouble in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
do weigh on Western policymakers' minds when contemplating
tougher action against Tehran, officials say.

"Their (Americans) hands are sufficiently tied down in the region ...
The American nation cannot tolerate another overseas military flashpoint,"
said an Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Iran can also draw comfort from the anti-sanctions posture of veto-wielding
Security Council members Russia and China, but by pursuing its confrontational stance
it may overplay its hand.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Yeah, careful UG. If we pave the place, the more liberal minded die with the theocrats. I'd prefer we wait for the implosion of an untenable society.

Why wait? Why should we not, say, help? Régime change can be successful... that's the lesson of the early twenty-first century.

What is it we can expect from the present Iranian government?
___ More of the same damn crap, plus undermining of democratic republics
___ Radical change and a Good Neighbor Policy

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.

The problem with that thinking is that a counter attack by Iran would draw the US in by a MOU. Signed in 1968 and re-signed by Clinton and Netanyhau in 1998.

[piercehawkeye45]

Maybe if Iran attacked Israel directly, which I doubt they would do. Their missile capability is extremely weak while Israel's (and the US's) is very strong. Iran would play to their strengths and use Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist/insurgency cells if they decided to respond along with other non-direct methods. The US wouldn't be drawn in with an MOU if that happened.

[TheMercenary]

Israel stirring up trouble? Maybe, maybe not. Turkey certainly is closer than Israel.....

A senior commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard says the country will target NATO's missile defense shield in Turkey if the U.S.¬ or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guards' aerospace division, is quoted by the semiofficial Mehr news agency as saying the warning is part of a new defense strategy to counter what it sees as an increase in threats from the U.S.¬ and Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-says-1.397862

[classicman]

Hmmm The first one I can buy was some sort of mistake or accident. Whatever.
But now another one?

A second Iranian nuclear facility has exploded,
as diplomatic tensions rise between the West and Tehran

AN IRANIAN nuclear facility has been hit by a huge explosion, the second such blast in a month, prompting speculation that Tehran's military and atomic sites are under attack.

Satellite imagery seen by The Times confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran.

The images clearly showed billowing smoke and destruction, negating Iranian claims yesterday that no such explosion had taken place. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was "no doubt" that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was "no accident".

The explosion at Iran's third-largest city came as satellite images emerged of the damage caused by one at a military base outside Tehran two weeks ago that killed about 30 members of the Revolutionary Guard, including General Hassan Moghaddam, the head of the Iranian missile defence program.

link

[Lamplighter]

Their subscription to Norton Anti-virus and Anti-spyware ran out.