Thread: Iran News and Editorials

Muslim Parliament of Great Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The muslims have been trying this since the 90's in an effort to get Western governments to let them "manage their own affairs", although it's really just a smokescreen-style pathetic attempt to create their own Islamic ghettos and ban things like pork products and alcohol.

No doubt the Jews want to do the same thing, what with Kosher and Islamic food preparation being banned in at least one European country on the grounds of animal cruelty.

PressTV - Leader urges UN to help create nuclear-free Middle East

"Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called on the United Nations to assume a more decisive role in creating a nuclear-free Middle East. During a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his accompanying delegation in Tehran on Wednesday, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to nuclear disarmament as the common concern for the entire humanity. He added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its stance on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, and the UN should make serious efforts to allay the concerns with regard to nuclear arms.”

The Leader warned about the continued attempts made by the United States and some world powers to equip Israel with more nuclear weapons, noting that the issue "constitutes an extreme danger for the region and the UN is expected to adopt measures in this respect.”

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader criticized the "defective structure" of the UN and regretted how "the world most bullying powers, who possess nuclear weapons and have used them before, have dominated the Security Council.”
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the US-engineered allegations against Iran's nuclear energy program and stated, “The Americans are fully aware that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and [they are] merely looking for a pretext.” The Leader condemned US and Israeli attempts to launch cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities and criticized the IAEA over its inaction with regard to such aggressive measures. Ayatollah Khamenei also censured United Nations for its inaction toward the US military threats against Iran, reminding that the world body "was expected to promptly counter the threat.”

Referring to the Syrian unrest, the Leader described the crisis as a “very bitter issue” which has been taking a heavy toll on the “innocent people of the country.” “Based on its religious teachings and beliefs, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to make every effort to solve the Syrian crisis,” the Leader added.
Ayatollah Khamenei deplored the arming of the Syrian insurgents by foreign elements and perpetuation of a “proxy war” against the Syrian government by certain countries as the major obstacle in the way of settling the Syrian crisis.

The UN secretary general, who is in Iran on a two-day visit to attend the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran, congratulated Iran on assuming the rotational presidency of the NAM and hailed Tehran’s key role in the region. He also expressed concern over Tehran’s nuclear issue and called on Tehran to offer more cooperation with the IAEA and the P5+1-- permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
"

More helpful steps to release the pressure of war in the middle east from Iran.

Good to see some calmness from one world power, armed with nuclear weapons, at least.

China opposes excessive pressure, new sanctions on Iran - Xinhua | English.news.cn

"UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20 (Xinhua) -- China is not in favor of putting excessive pressure or imposing new sanctions on Iran over Tehran's controversial nuclear program, a senior Chinese diplomat to the UN said here on Thursday. Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, made the statement at a Security Council meeting, where Colombia's UN Ambassador Nestor Osorio, also the chair of the 1737 Committee, reported the committee's latest work.

The 1737 Committee was established on UN Security Council Resolution 1737 adopted in 2006. The committee is tasked with monitoring a set of sanctions against Iran established by Resolution 1737 and subsequent Council resolutions.

The Iran nuclear issue bears on the authority of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and peace and stability in the Middle East, Wang noted. "China has always maintained that the relevant resolutions of the Security Council should be fully implemented, but sanctions are not the fundamental objective of resolutions," he said. "We are not in favor of putting excessive pressure or new sanctions against Iran. We are firmly against use or threat of use of force. "

According to Wang, China consistently stands for a peaceful settlement of the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation. "The parties concerned should continue to work on the principles of progressive development and mutual respect, advance the dialogue in pragmatic and steadfast manner, try by all means to find common ground and gradually find the solution to the Iran nuclear problem," Wang said. "This is not only in the common interests of all parties but also the wide expectation of the international community."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s Governing Board recently adopted a resolution on the nuclear program of Iran, which supports a proposal by the P5+1 group for a comprehensive and lasting solution based on dialogue. The P5+1 group consists of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany. "This is of positive significance to promoting cooperation between the IAEA and Iran, as well as maintaining and advancing dialogue process," Wang said.

China is willing to join the international community to expand diplomatic efforts, and is committed to dialogue and cooperation in order to play a constructive role in seeking a comprehensive, lasting and proper solution to the Iran nuclear issue, he added."

When do you beleive an Israeli politician made the following statements:

"The article is entitled "Bombs Away: A Suitable Case for Pre-Emption?". It warns of the threat posed by Iran's supposed programme to develop nuclear weapons. It notes that the Israeli prime minister has said that his country cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. The article declares that if sanctions are not successful in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, then Israel (inevitably supported by the US) has plans to launch a pre-emptive military attack against Iranian nuclear sites. Faced with a dire threat to its very existence, the state of Israel reserves the right to strike first. "

One would think last week, you will not be surprised that it was published in The Economist magazine in July 2007, more than five years ago.

"The fact is that Israeli governments are rightly worried about starting a new war in the Middle East whose final outcome nobody can definitely predict. In the end Israel can probably co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran, just as the US learned to live with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. After all, Israelis and Iranians have one thing in common: both groups dislike the Arabs.

The three principal actors - Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia - believe that curbing Iran's power, and possibly overthrowing the regime of the ayatollahs, will benefit their interests. Israel wants to preserve its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; America wants vengeance on the only non-nuclear armed state which has persistently defied its hegemonic power since 1979; and Saudi Arabia desperately wants to preserve its self-declared leadership of the Muslim world in the face of Iranian challenges. Will these three powers succeed in their aims?

If past precedent is anything to go by, they may be successful, at least in the short run. The traditional script for an Israeli or American attack on a Muslim country in the Middle East goes as follows. Israel/US is said to be provoked beyond endurance by the state and threatens military action. The target Muslim state blusters and makes wild threats about the destruction it will inflict on any attackers, a refrain taken up by its supporters around the world, who forecast world chaos if the country is attacked.

Israel/US launches a military assault on the country; its armed forces are quickly defeated; and the world does not collapse into chaos. Only if Israel or the US unwisely turns military victory into the occupation of Muslim territory does their success all too quickly turn to prolonged, expensive and bloody asymmetric warfare. Israel learned this in Arab lands after 1967 and in Lebanon after 1982; the US has had similar experiences in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq from 2003.

The Iranians will bluster and threaten the destruction of anybody who attacks them, while worldwide 'liberal' opinion will prophesy the end of civilization if war comes to the Middle East. Iran will be attacked and its armed forces swiftly crushed (so that oil prices do not soar to great heights for too long). If the United States is reckless, it may (as has been suggested) occupy Iran's Gulf coast, where most of the country's oil and gas reserves are located. No doubt some of the profits from American exploitation of Iran's energy resources would be put in a special fund to be released once a regime favorable to the US had been established in Tehran, but the Americans would find it difficult to present such exploitation as anything other than naked imperialist robbery.

If the Iranians can survive the initial attack and preserve the means to retaliate, then they may be able to sustain a prolonged war against their principal adversaries, certainly longer than the one month war recently forecast by an Israeli government minister. The longer the war goes on, the more likely that its effects will further damage an already weak world economy. Although missiles dropping on Tel Aviv or sinking American warships may give satisfaction to some Iranians, they are more likely to direct their retaliation against the weaker members of the anti-Iran coalition: Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states. If the Iranians destroy the oil and gas production, storage and loading facilities on the Gulf coasts of states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, it will not matter if the United States Navy keeps the Strait of Hormuz open for tanker traffic. Any tankers that get through will find nowhere to load cargoes of oil and gas.

The price of oil is currently around US$100 a barrel. If a war with Iran led to the doubling of that price, the US would soon find its European and Japanese allies begging for an end to the conflict. Should the price of oil go appreciably higher than $200 a barrel and remain at that level for more than a month or so, then the world economy would be in a major crisis."

Full article here: Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Iran needs to sink one of those US warships, just to send a nice message

I bet the US will not even retaliate,

Iran has the upper hand here, they needs to use it

The US has now made last weeks terrorists part of their's and Israel's posse.



How to kill the Haqqanis? Work with Iranian terrorists! | Russia & India Report

"Prima facie, the Barack Obama administration has probably done one of the stupidest things in the bizarre chronicle of United States – Iran relations when it reportedly decided last week to remove the virulently anti-Iranian regime group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq [MEK] from the State Department’s terrorism list. A formal announcement is expected coming Monday. The MEK has a bloody history of perpetrating terrorist acts against the Iranian regime. Although it is today a pale shadow of what it used to be in the 1980s and commands hardly any support within Iran, MEK evokes strong feelings in Tehran. One of the most revered figures in the pantheon of heroes of the Islamic revolution, Mohammad Beheshti, fell victim on June 28, 1981 along with more than 70 revolutionary figures in an MEK terrorist strike in Tehran. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who was present at the conclave narrowly escaped with debilitating injuries. So did former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The MEK plan was to decimate the entire Iranian revolutionary leadership at one stroke. This was at the height of the US-Iranian hostilities soon after the hostage crisis ended. The forces behind the MEK in planning that incident are not yet identified.

With this one move to rehabilitate the MEK, Washington has signalled that it isn’t interested in any meaningful negotiations with Iran. It is inconceivable that Tehran will easily overlook Obama’s provocative decision. (Curiously, the US decision coincides with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s arrival in New York to attend the UN General Assembly session.) Without doubt, Israel will be mighty thrilled. But what is surprising is that the US cannot have any sort of ideological or political affinities with the MEK. The MEK had Marxist leanings at one time; it also used to be “anti-imperialist” and “anti-Shah”; and, later it aligned with the Islamic revolution and finally it turned against the religious establishment and ended taking refuge under Saddam Hussein until the dictator’s rule ended in Iraq. Saddam provided sanctuaries to the MEK and used it as an instrument of policy to destabilize the Iranian regime.

With Saddam’s tragic departure, MEK ended up in American hands. Obama’s latest decision is part of a concerted western design to rehabilitate the MEK on the specious plea that it has become a toothless, harmless organisation anyway. Other European countries have also taken similar steps. This is double standard bordering on rank hypocrisy.

The heart of the matter is that the MEK works closely with the Israeli intelligence and has proved its usefulness by undertaking dangerous operations inside Iran, especially for subverting Iran’s nuclear program by assassinating nuclear scientists in that country. Iran has apprehended several MEK agents working for Israeli (and US) intelligence. Now, if the MEK continues to be listed as a terrorist organisation by the state department, CIA will be violating the law of the land by working with it. Also, Israel will be seen as collaborating with an organisation that has been listed as a terrorist organisation under American law and that has dire consequences, too. So, how to circumvent the law? That was the big question that Obama administration faced. The only expedient way is to remove the MEK from the terrorist list. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not only gifted politicians but also are lawyers trained in the best law school in the US (Yale). They know how to be on the right side of the law – although they may often not always be on the “right side of history”.

By the way, the recent induction of the Haqqani group into the US’ terrorist list is actually in the very same spirit of expediency to be on the right side of law. Since the Haqqanis are supposed to be holed up in North Waziristan and since they are now deemed “terrorists”, the drone attacks, which Obama personally clears, no more become the stuff of war crimes, which they otherwise could be, because the US and Pakistan are, technically speaking, not at war. The US law gives a free hand to Obama to go for terrorists anywhere on the planet in the supreme national security interests of the US. So, he can’t be seen as ordering the drone attacks to assassinate foreigners, which, by the way, is also prohibited under U.S. law.

Simply put, as a law-abiding civilised nation, the US cannot afford to do unlawful things. And, therefore, Haqqanis are “in”, and MEK is “out”. That makes things perfectly legal if the US assassinates the Haqqanis and consorts with the MEK terrorists."

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Iran needs to sink one of those US warships, just to send a nice message

The Iranian message to be sent is simple. To be delivered at the UN gathering this week in NY.

"We, the Iranians, will abide by the same commitments that the UN accepts from Israel. We will refuse to confirm or deny any possession of nuclear weapons. We, and other countries, will see any sanctions applied to us and not other countries as illegal.

We will also accept the same inspections as imposed on Israel with regards to our nuclear power electricity generating stations."