Options limited in Iran stand-off

[TheMercenary]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20060...uch_2006-09-05

[TheMercenary]

2:1: Overt Air Strike by the United States or Israel by March 31, 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/bombing-iran

[TheMercenary]

Related anti-war positions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/not-insane

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imj8YFMfZvI

[TheMercenary]

Youtube is blocked by my work filters. I can rarely see it.

Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.

I get off work in the am, I will check it out at home. Thanks.

[TheMercenary]

For those who have not read the history of Khan here are the links. They are really long articles.

How A. Q. Khan made Pakistan a nuclear power—and showed that the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq-khan


First Pakistan's A.Q. Khan showed that any country could have made a nuclear bomb. Then he showed—not once but three times—why the nuclear trade will never be shut down
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan

Other souces on Khan's role in nuclear proliferation are readily avaliable on the web from a number of sources. I prefer The Atlantic because of thier history of award winning in depth reporting that has been recognized as having a balanced view of the issues reported.

[TheMercenary]

A good summary of the current situation concerning the spread of nuclear technology

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/re...liferation.pdf

Nothing better illustrates how,
so-called, peaceful nuclear technology can be used for military purposes than the activities of
the Khan network. Abdul Qaadeer Khan was able to build a global nuclear information
network and business which had access to supposedly secret uranium enrichment technology.
Using a mixture of legal and illegal transactions involving businesses all over the world,
ultracentrifuge enrichment technology was exported to Libya, North Korea and Iran. (5) Iran,
for example, despite being a signatory to the NPT, established a uranium enrichment
programme without informing the IAEA. So existing controls, legal arrangements and
guidelines failed to stop the export of sensitive nuclear technology.

To be fair the article does state:
Not every country with a nuclear weapons programme is a Party to the NPT. Israel, Pakistan
and India are all known to possess nuclear weapons, but none is Party to the Treaty. All three
have demonstrated the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Yet, astonishingly,
US President George Bush has recently agreed to help India with its nuclear energy
programme, undermining the very principle upon which the treaty is supposed to be based –
that assistance with the development of nuclear energy is available only to those who say they
will eschew nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT
encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa,
Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT
to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. If India can get help anyway, why bother
agreeing to do without nuclear weapons? Former US President, Jimmy Carter, called the deal
“just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation”. (9

[Cyclefrance]

Iranians release British sailors
---------------------------
Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.

He joked to one: "How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?"

The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf with dark pink shirt.

An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."

Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."

Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.

He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.

He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake."

The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".

The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC's Francis Harrison in Tehran.

She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.

Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable".

"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.

[Sundae]

Thank goodness for that.
Just sabre rattling in the end.

[TheMercenary]

Another article from the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1766&ito=1490

[Sundae]

Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...

I noticed that. So we are not alone.

[Sundae]

Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.