Thread: Iran News and Editorials

I have the result here if anyone wants it:

Beardy twats: 290
Sensible party: 0

IF only the civilised west could get the same appetite for democracy.

Yes, if only the House of Lords gets to approve whether or not anyone can stand for Parliament.

I think Mossad a preparing the final course in "Guess who's coming to AmadDinnerjad

I think you will find the "power", you know the guy who makes all the decisions in Iran, won the election.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I think you will find the "power", you know the guy who makes all the decisions in Iran, won the election.

I would like you to elaborate please.

But read the recent threads defining "Ayatollah" first.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on whether or not you considered that a free and fair election. The concept appears to wildly escape you.

here is an article which puts some more meat on th bone for the crusader coalition to chew over and possibly respond in manner which doesn't include sanctions, missiles and bombs.

Asia Times Online :: Obama gets Iran right, finally

"The results of Friday's election for Iran's parliament, the Majlis, generate a political climate in Tehran that augurs well for the commencement of talks over the nuclear issue. The US administration senses this. The big issue is whether President Barack Obama can carry the United States' two key allies - Saudi Arabia and Israel - in the quest of finding a "permanent" solution to the US-Iran standoff.

Yet this has been a season of fables. Iranian politics arouses great curiosity, and election time becomes a carnival of fables. Four years ago Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was usurping political power and the country was becoming a military dictatorship. This year's hot pick (so far) is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dispatching President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to political exile and the Majlis is their arena of contestation. It's all forgotten how Khamenei fought off single-handedly the reformists' challenge in 2009 and preserved Ahmedinejad's presidency.

True, Iran's politics, like politics anywhere, is complex. The Shi'ite religious establishment is known in history as fractious. Party politics as is known in Western liberal democracies does not exist in Iran. But factions and cliques and interest groups realign incessantly, and that gives much verve to Iranian politics.

Friday's election has been no exception. An added factor is how the newly elected Majlis will affect the country's power structure - and what impact that will have on policies - at a juncture when Iran is at crossroads against the backdrop of the epochal upheaval in the region.

From the results, the composition of the Majlis may shift in a direction that can have positive fallout for regional security. The factions and cliques that can be called "conservative" - in the Iranian context - bonded together as "Principalists" and fought the election as an identifiable grouping, and they have done exceedingly well.

The Principalists comprise clerics and non-clerics who formed a "united front". What brought them together is their conservative political outlook as regards the ideology of the Iranian revolution and the absolute centrality of velayat-e faqih - Shi'ite government.

Permanent solution
The dominance of Principalists in the Majlis will make the overall power structure far more cohesive than at any time in the past decade and a half. But the paramount role of the supreme leader was never in doubt, and that institution didn't need strengthening by the Majlis. What cannot be overlooked either is that the authority of the president and the effectiveness of his executive power always depended on his ability to work within the system.

The Principalists significantly strengthen the power structure. As far as Iran's interlocutors are concerned, they will probably hear a more unified voice. All in all, therefore, what matters to the international community is that Tehran is getting its act together as it approaches the negotiating table on the nuclear issue.

The West almost reflexively runs down Iran's elections. However, Obama perceives the shift in the locus of power in Tehran and the consolidation of authority as a window of opportunity.

It wasn't lost on Obama that in the run-up to the Majlis elections, Iran's supreme leader made a hugely significant statement with regard to the nuclear issue. While addressing a gathering of Iranian nuclear scientists, Khamenei said:
The purpose of the uproar they [the West] cause is to stop us. They know that we are not after nuclear weapons. They already know this. I do not have any doubts that in the countries that are opposed to us, the organizations in charge of decision-making are fully aware that we are not after nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not at all beneficial to us. Moreover, from an ideological and [velayat-e] faqih perspective, we consider developing nuclear weapons as unlawful. We consider using such weapons as a big sin. We also believe that keeping such weapons is futile and dangerous, and we will never go after them. They know this, but they stress the issue in order to stop our movement.
Thus, after mulling over Khamenei's pledge for a full fortnight, Obama decided to acknowledge it. That became a key salience of his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly last week.

Obama underlined that he was looking for a "permanent" solution to the Iran nuclear issue, "as opposed to temporarily". He then pointed out that a permanent solution was possible only if Iran were "self-interested". In a brilliant use of double negative that would be the envy of any Persian speaker, Obama added:
They [Iranians] are sensitive to the opinions of the people and they are troubled by the isolation that they're experiencing ... They are able to take decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective. So if they're presented with options ... then there's no guarantee that they can't make a better decision.
Obama admitted that the US would have to make some sort of a deal, and that's feasible because he thinks the Iranian leaders are at bottom rational actors. On the other hand, Obama thought a military strike against Iran would be a needless "distraction".

Because, as he put it, "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us [Washington] having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt."

Having 'Israel's back'
So an incumbent president in the White House is probably getting Iran right, finally. However, the problem for Obama is going to arise from two quarters. One is Saudi Arabia, whose regional priority at the moment does not lie in US-Iran engagement but is on forcing a regime change in Damascus through a Western/US intervention, which it hopes would drive a spear straight into the heart of Iran's standing as a regional power and weaken the cause of Shi'ite empowerment (including in Saudi Arabia itself).

The dramatic "walkout" by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal from the "Friends of Syria" meeting in Tunis last week shows up the straws in the wind. But having said that, the Saudis also understand very well that what Khamenei has probably achieved is that the sort of factionalism that threw Iranian policies (and negotiators) into disarray in the most recent years - including on the nuclear issue - isn't repeated.

Conceivably, a cohesive power structure in Tehran suits the Saudis, too. The point is, Tehran is going to have to make some difficult decisions in the period ahead, and it should be strong and resilient enough to show flexibility.

Obama's main problem lies elsewhere. He has to tackle the Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama has a tough customer in Netanyahu, although the media hype that "Bibi" would be the arbiter of Obama's re-election bid is stretching the point too far.

The "Netanyahu problem" is compounded by the fact that 2012 is an election year in the US and, as Obama derisively suggested, "You have a set of political actors [in US politics] who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish-American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy."

But Obama's political instinct is right. The fact is, he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and they didn't vote on his Israel policy alone. Again, in Israel itself, the majority opinion militates against any form of conflict with Iran.

This is where Obama's message counts during the interview with Goldberg - his forceful statement that the US "has Israel's back", and his consistently pro-Israel posture throughout the interview.

Not surprisingly, Obama also utilized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) forum on Sunday to make unequivocal pledges of solidarity with Israel. He made it "my commitment" - not US commitment. "When the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

But then he came back to the point - namely, Washington's current strategy of sanctions against Iran is working and he isn't done with diplomacy: "I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed."

At the end of it all, there was no mistaking what Obama intended as his lasting message to the AIPAC audience: "Already there is too much loose talk of war." "

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Hampsha

If there is a war with Iran can we make it 'The west against the rest' We can wipe out Iran and Israel as well as north korea, china, burma, pakistan, all the other stans, venezuela, mexico(what the hell), Russia, Greece, Spain, Nigeria (gotta put an end to those scammers), all those other places in Africa where rapists and people that cut of hands live are and Switzerland (they deserve it) along with a few other areas where facists have settled in the western world like that strip from Texas to the Atlantic in the states.

let's make it simpler and nuke America and England, everyone in the world fucking hate them

What? In a country where the phrase 'pu dee ungrit' is a compliment?

And the USA? Noam Chomsky, George Carlin, Jon Stewart, Mickey Mouse, all bad? You really need to get off that Sweeping Generalisation horse. As perhaps do I when I just viewed a Bangkok Post poll asking 'Who do you believe over Iran versus the West's intention of Iran's growing nuclear capabilities [sic]' and saw an overwhelming majority of, presumably, expats, favouring, despite all evidence of the West's malfeasance over, predominantly the oil rich countries er, Middle East, believing the West's lies, yet again, thus confirming my longstandingly held view that the majority of 'expats' are rabidly right wing assholes.

It's The Governments, Stupid.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

How quickly everyone forgets the media froth and jerk-off of just a few years ago. This is a build up of Israel and their bought-and-paid-for American pols and bureaucrats preparing the ground work for a move against Iran - just as surely as the Arab Spring was an engineered Zionist Winter implemented by Uncle Sam-berg.

I exclude you from my previous comments. If I've left anyone else out, I apologise, but can't be arsed to wade through the OP's long winded/highlighted quotes.

The results of Friday's election for Iran's parliament, the Majlis, generate a political climate in Tehran that augurs well for the commencement of talks over the nuclear issue.

So not one candidate for Iran's parliament can even stand without the approval of the Guardian council, ensuring that the same bunch of Shi'a diehards have been elected and NOTHING has changed.

How does that signal any chance in Iran's stance?

Oh I forgot, you're quoting from one of your nutcase websites.

Iran to allow IAEA visit Parchin military site: ISNA | Reuters

" Iran said it will give the U.N. nuclear watchdog access to its Parchin military complex, ISNA news agency reported on Tuesday, a site where the agency believes Tehran pursued high explosives research relevant to nuclear weapons.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report last year said that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, to conduct explosives tests that are "strong indicators" of efforts to develop an atom bomb.

The IAEA requested access to Parchin during high-level talks in Tehran in February, but the Iranian side did not grant it.

"...Parchin is a military site and accessing it is a time-consuming process, therefore visits cannot be allowed frequently ... We will allow the IAEA to visit it one more time," Iran's diplomatic mission in Vienna said in a statement, according to ISNA."

continues....

The Iranians "allow" yet another inspection of one of their military sites. Will the Israelis duplicate this offer?

Israeli minister demands air, sea blockade on Iran - Xinhua | English.news.cn

"JERUSALEM, March 6 (Xinhua) -- An Israeli cabinet minister on Tuesday called on placing Iran under an air and sea blockade if Tehran does not stop its presumed drive for nuclear arms.

"The time has come for the United States to place a clear ultimatum and deadline before Iran, and say that 'if Iran does not stop its drive for nuclear weapons by such and such a date, an air and sea blockade must be imposed,'" Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said Tuesday in an interview with Israel Radio.

"We appreciate the cooperation between the U.S. and us and the sanctions that have been imposed, but we expect to hear clearer statements," Steinitz said.

"Four years ago, United States President Barack Obama said 'all options are on the table,' and the time has come to change the text," according to Steinitz, who concluded that "we're close to the point of no return, and the U.S. must stop Iran's nuclear weaponization for the sake of the entire world."

The remarks came a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told some 13,000 pro-Israel supporters at the annual American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, that "Israel has waited for sanctions to work, and for diplomacy to work; None of us can afford to wait much longer.""

Continues......

The Israelis "demand" yet more illegal help from it's poodles.


The cry of wolf has been the same for a number of years now.

EU's Ashton accepts Iranian offer to resume nuclear talks - Xinhua | English.news.cn

"BRUSSELS, March 6 (Xinhua) -- European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Tuesday she had accepted an Iranian offer to discuss Tehran's disputed nuclear program.

"I have offered to resume talks with Iran on the nuclear issue," Ashton said in a statement, referring to Iran's offer in Feburary to resume talks with global powers."

Talks rather than the Israelis demand for war is a positive step.

The Iranian version of the latest IAEA meeting held recently in Iran. It alleges that the IAEA did not follow agreed procedures and was being directed to create the outcome.

Will the IAEA release, to the public, their rebuttal?

Fars News Agency :: Iran Releases Statement to Remind IAEA of Cooperation Agreements

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's permanent mission at the IAEA in a statement released at a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna on Tuesday reminded the International Atomic Energy Agency that the two sides had endorsed an agreement to deal with issues of difference, including the UN nuclear agency's access to Iran's Parchin military site, in an orderly manner and based on a work plan.

A look at the statement, which contains all items of the agreement signed by Iran and the IAEA, discloses that the UN agency had accepted to raise the issue of access to Parchin military site after several steps are taken by the two sides, meaning that the IAEA's sudden demand from Iran to allow its team of negotiators - and not inspectors - who were in Tehran last month, to visit Parchin was in complete violation of the above agreement and only meant to serve as an excuse for negative media propaganda against Iran.

Yet, the Iranian mission adds in the statement that it allows the IAEA to visit Parchin to show its good faith, but of course this permission would be issued once and for all and under the terms stated in the two sides' agreement, reminding that the site has already been visited by IAEA inspectors twice.

What follows is the full text of Iran's statement released to the IAEA Board of Governors:

Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA
Short Glance on Realities on the Ground
on
Two Rounds of Talks between Iran & IAEA
Board of Governors 5 March 2012


Background:
Pursuant to high level political negotiation, a Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) was agreed between Iran and the IAEA on 27 August 2007 for clarification of past outstanding issues. As the result of Iran's proactive cooperation six issues were resolved by 2008 and reported by the former Director General to the Board of Governors.

In spite of the fact that the IAEA did not fulfill its obligations, including delivery of the documents on "Alleged Studies" to Iran, Iran did submit to the Agency its assessment in a 117-page document. The Work Plan was therefore concluded but the Agency, contrary to the Work Plan, has not declared it.

However, once again Iran made a historical concession by inviting the Agency's team on 30 October, 2011 to pay a visit to Iran for the purpose of resolving issues and putting an end to a seemingly endless process.

A- First Meetings (29-31 January 2012)
Iran and the Agency's team composed of senior officials had intensive discussions on how to deal with the issues and identified main pillars. The Agency and Iran exchanged their drafts of text on structured approach and modality for subsequent elaborations.

B- Intercessional Meetings (15-17 February 2012)
In order to facilitate the 2nd round of talks in Tehran, three meetings were held in Vienna where the following understandings were reached:

- The process would be Topic by Topic approach and the interrelated technical issues be categorized in one Topic in order to facilitate intensive, effective and conclusive approach.

- The Agency stated that all remaining issues are exclusively in the GOV/2011/65, which will be given in priority list of Topics/Clusters in the 2nd draft of modality.

- In this context the items such as detonator development, high explosive initiation, and hydrodynamic experiment that was originally proposed by the Agency to be as Topic-2, was agreed to be included in the first Topic. Therefore, the Topic-1 consists of 5 issues.

- It was agreed that the Agency will deliver documents which indicates if the alleged activities on each Topic are conducted by Iran.

- It was agreed that the text of the modality be concluded and agreed upon firstly and then based on this agreed modality the Topic by Topic approach be implemented.

- It was agreed that the Agency will prepare its questions on the Topic-1 (5 issues) and provide them to Iran in the subsequent meeting (20-21 February), in order to pave the way for effective implementation.

- Iran agreed to the Agency's request to provide the initial declaration on the Annex of the Director General's report (GOV/2011/65) in the subsequent meeting (20-21 February).

- It was also agreed that although the Agency provides its questions on Topic-1, but the request for access to Parchin be postponed after the BOG's March meeting, in accordance with the Topic by Topic approach.

- Iran offered and declared its readiness in line with the demonstration of good faith based on proactive cooperation, to take practical steps including granting access on two issues in Topic-1 namely detonator development and high explosive initiation.

C- Second Meetings (20-21 February 2012)
Based on the proposed text of modality by the Agency, following steps were sequentially foreseen:

1- Agreement on the modality.

2- Iran provides its initial declaration on the Annex of report GOV/2011/65.

3- The Agency provides all questions on Topic-1 (5 issues) and delivers documents that indicate that alleged activities are conducted by Iran.

4- Iran will answer to the Agency's questions.

5- The Agency will review and analyze the answers and will discuss with Iran about all actions to be taken on Topic-1 (5 issues).

6- The Agency will request implementation of action(s) on one issue of Topic-1, in accordance with Topic by Topic approach.

In spite of the agreement in Vienna (B above) and even contrary to the Agency's text as mentioned above, the Agency's team, based on DG instruction, requested access to Parchin.

It should be recalled that Parchin has been visited by the Agency twice in 2005 when the former Deputy Director-General announced that the issue was concluded and will be part of history and the former Director General reported to the Board of Governors. Considering the fact that it is a military site, granting access is a time consuming process and cannot be permitted repeatedly. In the light of this background and principle the Agency was requested to combine all related issues such as hydrodynamic experiments, and then once more, access would be granted. The process could be obviously started when the agreement on modality is reached.

In spite of the fact that the modality was not concluded, but Iran in line with the demonstration of good faith based on proactive cooperation decided to submit its initial declaration on the Annex of the DG's report. This was one of the actions envisaged in the draft modality provided by the Agency.

The Agency was not prepared to deliver all questions on the Topic-1 (5 related issues) but it only did on Parchin and foreign expert. The Agency neither did provide any document nor did provide any clarification on these questions.

Iran reoffered its readiness to take practical steps including granting access on two issues in Topic-1 namely detonator development and high explosive initiation to resolve the two issues, but the Agency team did not accept the offer due to instruction of the DG to return back to Vienna.

Both sides however had intensive discussion on modality for the work on allegations, agreements were reached on many parts, but due to the planned team return to Vienna and time constraint, the text was not concluded.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has already made its decision to work with the Agency in a professional manner to resolve outstanding allegations in order to prove the world public that its nuclear activities are exclusively for peaceful purposes.

All Member States are therefore expected to support the process and to refrain from any measures which undermine the conducive environment desperately needed to pursue a successful conclusion. "

That's a long winded way of saying "Please don't bomb the shit out of us", right?

Israel

Israel’s Huff and Puff Game

"The air is full of dire warnings of an impending Israeli attack on Iran. Prophets of doom declare themselves full of forebodings and point fearfully to the meeting in the White House between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as crucial in making the decisions that will lead to peace or war.

Many Israeli and western commentators adopt a tone so portentous about this meeting that parody is difficult. For instance, Ari Shavit writes in Haaretz that “next Monday, in the White House, the man from Washington and the man from Jerusalem will look into each other’s eyes. Each will see the abyss in the other’s pupils.” Mr Shavit does not reveal what lies at the bottom of this ocular cavity, but he sternly warns the American and Israeli leaders that if they don’t work together “they will bring disasters on their nations.”

Wars in the Middle East commonly come as a surprise aimed at catching the enemy napping or, at least, with little preliminary warning. This was true of the Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, and even NATO’s air assault on Muammar Gaddafi’s tanks as they advanced on Benghazi a year ago. Where the build-up has been slow, as in America’s wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003, it is because the US was certain of victory.

The highly-publicized impending Israeli air strikes on Iran are different from these previous conflicts in several respects: They are extremely unlikely to achieve their declared aim, which is to end permanently Iranian capacity to build a nuclear bomb. A bevy of former Israeli intelligence and army chiefs along with senior serving American officials are at one in saying this cannot be done. An Israeli attack is, if anything, likely to decide Iran to build a nuclear device, a decision which, it is generally admitted on all sides, it has not yet made.

The Israeli assault will not only come as no surprise, but it will be one of the most heavily advertized events in the world in recent years. Promoters of Hollywood blockbusters must look with envy at the pre-publicity for this war. The Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barack makes bloodcurdling threats. The US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta even put a date on the attack, saying to journalists that there is a “strong likelihood” of an Israeli air assault this spring. The New York Times reverently quotes Israeli officials as saying that Israel might attack Iran without informing the US. Well-advertised Israeli air training exercises take place over the Mediterranean. The Hollywood analogy is apt because there is something very stagy about these oft-repeated threats, though the international media happily takes them at face value.

There is a persistent misjudgement that mars much of the commentary on the relations between Israel, Iran and the US. This is to do with the size and the military capacity of the antagonists. Taking its threats at face value, Israel is saying that it will fly its planes to Iran and destroy widely dispersed and heavily protected Iranian nuclear facilities. But this is the same air force that in 1996 and 2006, though supported by artillery and facing no anti-aircraft defenses, failed to defeat a few thousand Hezbollah guerrillas dug into bunkers a few miles from Israel’s northern border. Two years later, the bombardment of tiny undefended Gaza succeeded in killing some 1,300 civilians, but failed to eliminate the Hamas leadership.

Israel is at its more influential when threatening war than when it is actually fighting one. The last time Israel conclusively won a war was forty years ago in 1973, and then only after serious setbacks. Its prolonged incursion into Lebanon brought only humiliation and failure."

Continues......

Well we all know what Obama thinks of Netenyahu, don't we?

so again Iran was right and the west is exposed as a bunch of hypocrites with the world media machine to manipulate the mass opinions

Originally Posted by Butterfly

so again Iran was right and the west is exposed as a bunch of hypocrites with the world media machine to manipulate the mass opinions

What the fuck are you on about?

Netenyahu, who is a recognised gibbering headcase like yourself, has been babbling on like a retard, and the rest of the world is saying that negotiations are better than bombs.

The article actually says it in black and white (well white and blue on my screen):

Israel is at its more influential when threatening war than when it is actually fighting one.

Signs of U.S.-Iranian Truce

March 8, 2012 | 1234 GMT
Print
Text Size


SAJAD SAFARI/AFP/Getty Images
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran


Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a March 8 speech responded favorably to recent comments by U.S. President Barack Obama emphasizing the need for a diplomatic -- as opposed to military -- solution with Iran. Khamenei said Obama's statement was "an exit from delusion" and a "wise word," Iranian state news agency IRNA reported.
By continuing to advocate a diplomatic approach, Obama has risked the domestic political fallout of being seen as soft on Iran. However, his carefully phrased message appears to have made an impression on the Iranian leadership at a crucial geopolitical juncture.
Over the past week, there has been a great deal of bluster in the international media over a potential military strike against Iran. The most common narrative has portrayed Israel as having no choice but to strike Iran imminently and independently if the United States continues to stall while Iran comes dangerously close to achieving nuclear weapons capability. This narrative has resonated with the audience of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the ardently pro-Israel lobby that hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at its annual conference this past week, and opposition contenders in the U.S. presidential race have frequently used it to condemn the Obama administration's foreign policy toward Iran.
Despite the political pressures he was facing at home over the question of U.S. support for Israel against Iran, Obama was exceedingly cautious in responding to the war rhetoric. While maintaining that the military option remained viable, he said in a March 4 speech that "now is not the time for bluster," and that "loose talk of war" only works to Iran's advantage by driving up oil prices, providing it with more revenue to develop its nuclear program. Indeed, Khamenei has even recently articulated that the strength of Iran's foreign policy is that it has to do very little to disturb the oil markets and can rely simply on "threats against threats" to maintain its advantage over its adversaries. Obama also reiterated that more time is needed to allow pressure to sink in from the sanctions effort, and he stressed that a diplomatic path is the most appropriate way forward.
The two leaders' recent speeches come after a quiet U.S. attempt to restart backchannel negotiations with Iran in early January with a letter from Obama requesting direct talks with Tehran. Shortly thereafter, the United States announced it would delay joint military exercises with Israel, and Iran, in turn, indefinitely postponed exercises in the Strait of Hormuz.
Khamenei's positive reaction to Obama's statements over the past week represents another likely indicator that Iran is interested in negotiating with the United States. The Supreme leader's statements come as Iran prepares to re-enter negotiations over its nuclear program with the P-5+1 group in Turkey in April. Neither side appears ready for a strategic accommodation, but as Iran tries to regain room to maneuver from sanctions and Obama tries to lower military tensions as he seeks re-election, there are signs of a fragile truce.

US 'offered Israel new arms to delay Iran attack'

By AFP | AFP – 20 hours ago



The United States offered Israel advanced weaponry in return for it committing not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities this year, Israeli daily Maariv reported on Thursday.
Citing unnamed Western diplomats and intelligence sources, the report said that during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, the US administration offered to supply Israel with advanced bunker-busting bombs and long-range refuelling planes.
In return, Israel would agree to put off a possible attack on Iran till 2013, after the US elections in November.
Israel and much of the international community fear Iran's nuclear programme masks a weapons drive, a charge Tehran denies, and it was top of the agenda at talks between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama in Washington this week.
The United States and Israel are at odds over just how immediate the Iranian threat is. Netanyahu said on Monday that sanctions against Iran have not worked, and "none of us can afford to wait much longer."
A key difference between Washington and Israel has emerged on the timeline available for a military strike against Iran, with the Jewish state warning that the weaponry available to it gives it a shorter window for action.
In response, the report said, the US administration offered to give Israel weapons and material that could extend its window to act against Iran.
In particular, it would offer bunker-busting bombs more powerful than those currently possessed by Israel, which would allow the Jewish state to target Iranian facilities even under solid rock.
Earlier this week, the Ynet website reported said that Israel Military Industries (IMI), one of the country's leading weapons manufacturers, had upgraded its MPR-500 guided missiles, turning them into "bunker busters" capable of penetrating double-reinforced concrete walls and floors 200mm thick.
But figures from a poll published on Thursday showed that almost six out of 10 Israelis -- or 58 percent -- were against the idea of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities without US backing.
The same poll, published by Haaretz newspaper, also found that over half of the respondents trusted Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak to handle the Iran issue.
The Maariv report comes shortly after world powers known as the P5+1 -- five UN Security Council members plus Germany -- offered to resume long-stalled talks with Tehran over its contested nuclear programme.
Israel has cautiously welcomed the talks, but warned it must be prepared for the potential failure of any new dialogue with Iran.

Dream on buddy, Israel and the crusader coalition only believe in the power of the gun and terrorism, not international treaties and diplomacy.

Fars News Agency :: Envoy Views Israeli War Rhetoric against Iran as "Violation of Int'l Law"

"Envoy Views Israeli War Rhetoric against Iran as "Violation of Int'l Law"
TEHRAN (FNA)- Any attack or threat of attack on nuclear installations will be violation of international laws, a senior Iranian diplomat said, and lashed out at Israeli growing war rhetoric and threats against Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

"According to the Resolution 533 in 1990, any attack or threat of attack on [Iran's] nuclear institutions or facilities is a violation of the United Nations Charter, the IAEA's statute and international law," Iran's residing Representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asqar Soltaniyeh told Press TV on the sidelines of a meeting of the agency's Board of Governors in Vienna on Thursday. "

Excellent news let's hope they make some headway.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012151679

"TEHRAN (FNA)- The Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) announced that they are prepared to resume their talks with Iran.

In a statement on Thursday, the six world powers expressed their readiness to resume multifaceted talks with Iran.

"We call on Iran to enter, without preconditions, into a sustained process of serious dialogue, which will produce concrete results," the statement said.

The group also expressed the hope that the upcoming talks would contain "serious discussions on concrete confidence building measures."

In the latest developments regarding talks between Iran and six world powers, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in a letter to Iran's chief negotiator Saeed Jalili called for the resumption of negotiations between Iran and the Group 5+1.

Ashton's letter on Tuesday said that the two sides only had to set a date and a venue for the talks. "

The NAM group, 137 world countries, has backed Iran's policy of developing it's peaceful Nuclear industry.



"TEHRAN (FNA)- The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) reiterated its strong support for Iran's inalienable right of access and use of the peaceful nuclear technology, and underlined diplomacy and dialogue without any preconditions as the means to solve Iran's nuclear issue.

Egypt's envoy to IAEA read out NAM's statement in support of Iran's nuclear program at IAEA Board of Governors. "

The text of the letter is available at

Fars News Agency :: NAM Urges Diplomacy Over Iran's N. Issue

^ Even I'd agree with that statement. And Saudi Arabia has loads of nuclear power plants planned as well.

But it doesn't mention what the NAM think of Iran making nuclear fucking bombs now, does it?

And if you haven't worked out that that's the issue yet, you're a dumber fucking idiot than I thought.