Iran plans 10 new uranium enrichment sites in defiance of U.N.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 9 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 28 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 13 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
45 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
Will there be a war? if yes, will it get U.N. authorization? Praying for the peaceful solution and Obama name will not be associated with the word 'war' !
0
thepro
Let Israel go over
0
30061015
and I can see those fighter planes
0
adaydream
I've agreed with this statement for years, but Iran is pushing the envelope. Where does the world go from here? What sanctions will the UN endorse? Will Russia or China agree with sanctions?
I can see some Iranian neighbor doing something stupid and expect the US to protect them, also. < :-)
0
skipthesong
so the question remains, do we wait for something to happen to take action before it happens?
0
WilliB
Ah yes, Obamas appeasement of the muslim world is playing out splendidly, isn´t it.
0
nedinjapan
Iran Needs Regime Change. We need someone strong to do this. Maybe Bush was bad in speeches but he could do this. Obama doesn't seem to be in control of affairs, just a talker, and this is how the Iranian regime sees it and behaves. They believe Obama cannot do anything about it
0
numbskull
I don't like the situation. The Iranians have been poked and prodded by us as much have they have aimed to be an irritant. If they build against the U.N. resolution, I say let the Germans bomb the plants out, not the Americans and not the Israelis.
But this is not to say the Iranians have a monopoly on U.N. violations. The blue ribbon probably goes to Israel, and red to the U.S. You know America would ignore such a resolution too. So we must not over-react. Some will beg for a full scale war, but its just because they love war. All we need do is target the plants and go home.
0
sailwind
I sense another 'speech' is in order from this adminstration to Iran again, is in order show them we really mean business this time.
0
skipthesong
The UN will allow them to build their bombs. Let them and just hope they don't use it. If they use it, we can all go back to the UN and ask them to pass another sanction.
0
Foxie
Why should Iran, from the 2 most dangerous nations in the world, U.S. and Israel, be prohibited things that those countries take for granted. I have no fear in front of a Ahmedinejad, but before the above countries, which have drawn half of the world into their wars. Why are these loudmouths not scrapped their nuclear weapons potential? Right! Because they wouldn't hesitate in case of doubt for a second to use these weapons. The United States know this all too well.
Also, let's not forget about these threats here:
Poll: 66% of Israeli Jews back attack on Iran
A large majority of Israeli Jews support military action aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a survey sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.
According to the poll, co-sponsored by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, a large majority of those who support a move by the army said they would maintain their support even if the Obama administration opposed it.
0
ProfJuanColePhd
Iran's commitment to alternative fuel sources is commendable.
0
sabiwabi
In the 1980's, Iraq was an NPT member and the IAEA had testified that it had satisfied all the agency's safeguards. But that did not prevent Israel, who has always avoided joining the NPT, from destroying Iraq's facilities. And Israel was never punished for that attack.
So why should Iran, who was complying before members of the UNSC ganged up on it, continue to bow down to these puppet leaders.
Until Israel joins the NPT and allows inspections, Iran should be left alone to do what it is perfectly entitled to do under the NPT.
0
SuperLib
heheh amazing. Iran is providing cash and missiles to launch into Israel, and you want us to pause and think of the threat of an opinion poll. Hmmm....direct missile launches or opinion polls.....tough call on which is more threatening.
0
SuperLib
So sabi you've finally dropped your position that Iran is complying with the NPT? Your last post was exclusively about Israel. Usually you try to tell us that Iran is doing everything right, and then you launch into your usual attack on Israel. You skipped a step there so I thought I'd ask.
0
ashika1009
I suppose a really really really strongly worded letter of admonition will be sent this time.
That will really scare Iran into compliance.
If you believe that I have some real estate on Mars to sell you.
Someone must step forth from our neverland ranch world and stomp these nuclear facilities into the Inferno.
People of will wanted.
Neverland folks just buying Michael Jackson stuff. Need not apply.
0
sabiwabi
Iran was complying. But being a party of the NPT provides some rights and privileges, which were somehow taken away from them.
It seems complying with the NPT has nothing to do with whether you get attacked. Iraq complied fully with the NPT safeguards but still had its facilities destroyed. Israel refuses to join the NPT, builds nuclear weapons, commits war crimes and crimes against humanity but never gets UN sanctions. Iran was complying with the NPT and was still sanctioned. So why should Iran continue to comply.
Also, why was the UN so quick to sanction Iran for its nuclear program but has yet to sanction Israel.
I still do!
0
smithinjapan
Clearly the bombast, rhetoric, and threats of sanctions and what not haven't worked one iota. When are people going to learn that violence (be it words or actions) is simply met with violence? We will never survive as a species in the long wrong so long as people don't get this through their thick skulls.
All the calls for bombing raids or questions like, "Are we going to wait for something to happen," seem to neglect that the fact that if someone were to bomb Iran THEY would be starting a war, not 'responding' to it, and that they are not 'waiting for something to happen', they are CAUSING something to happen. Iran could likewise answer Skipthesong's question with, "Should WE wait for something to happen?" and they would be equally wrong as with skip's logic.
I can just see it, too: Israel nukes Iran, and Iran replies with the same, or some other form of attack. The Israelis and their supporters would say something like, "See?? It's a good thing we attacked them, no?" and would actually believe they were justified in doing so because of what happened AS A RESULT.
Is Iran pushing the envelope as adaydream says? Certainly. But other nations aren't doing anything to help prevent that -- they are pushing Iran into a corner. All the nonsense talk of bombing, etc. only makes matters worse. Pressure Iran into SERIOUS talks/negotiations, not threaten them.
0
ashika1009
Iran does not engage in serious negotiations and threatens the very survival of Israel. The West is also an official stated enemy of Iran says Iran. I am interested in what pressures you might urge at this point?
And, yes, bombing a clearly belligerent nation such as Iran and moreover confining those bombings to nuclear weapons facilities is quite the right response at this point.
You are free to live in your imaginary talk solves all world, while we realize that we really live in the real world where bad regimes do exist. Such as Nazi Germany.
And these regimes only become more dangerous as we follow your path of appeasement.
Time for the cold shower of reality.
Better than Iran striking first, which they will IF given the chance.
You want to give them that chance.
I don`t.
Besides, the war ALREADY started with 911 . . . .
Jeebus!
0
skipthesong
Iran could likewise answer Skipthesong's question with, "Should WE wait for something to happen?"" Well, answer the question then if you feel you know everything!
0
sabiwabi
Because the "West" continues to interfere with Iran. Leave Iran alone and the West will be Iran's friend.
So I guess you would have no problems with bombing a "nation" that is infinitely more belligerent than Iran AND has been building nuclear weapons for some time already.
I agree, that is why that "nation" that is infinitely more belligerent than Iran poses a great threat to world peace.
By whom?
0
victimcrat
Was it bombast rhetoric (you probably meant 'intimidating rhetoric') and threats of sanction that also made Iran's rulers assassinate citizens gathering peacefully to protest bogus election results???
Because from where I sit the same cowardly motives and twisted,hate-filled ideology determined the theocrats' actions in both cases.
0
LIBERTAS
For the gazillionth time: Iran, as a signatory to the NNPT, is perfectly within its rights to develop nuclear energy for power plants.
All inspections by the IAEA have indicated, categorically, that there are no missing nuclear materials in Iran, nor is the nuclear material being enriched to the level necessary for a weapon; only that which is necessary for a power station.
Iran has not started a war in over 200 years.
Israel, which has nuclear weapons (as stated by Olmert to the German media, and confirmed by former US President Jimmy Carter), refuses to sign the NNPT, or have their nuclear sites inspected by the IAEA.
The Symington Amendment in the USA states very clearly that any country developing or owning nuclear bombs cannot receive any US aid, financial or military.
The US has been in violation of that Amendment for years. Israel has nuclear weapons since 1967, but maintains a public posture of "nuclear ambiguity" which the US coyly accepts in order to keep forking over money and military aid.
There is NO Iranian Threat. There IS only an Israeli (and US) threat to the entire planet. Check, "The Samson Option." If they go, they take everyone with them. Feel better to be led by the idiots at CUFI, praying for an accelerated Armageddon.
We have seen that the Iranians have learned the lesson of both Iraq and the DPRK. Those with nukes get left alone. Those without get "liberated."
0
SuperLib
For the gazillionth time: Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, is required to show transparency with their nuclear activities so the IAEA can confirm that the use is strictly for peaceful purposes. And for the gazillionth time the IAEA has come out and said that Iran has refused to cooperate and for the gazillionth time the IAEA has said that this has raised doubts about how Iran is handling their nuclear activities.
0
SuperLib
You really are a textbook appeaser. The world has tried countless approaches with Iran, whether it be offering incentives, threatening with sanctions, going through Europe, going through Russia, using Bush's rhetoric, using Obama's messages, offering direct talks, offering group talks, etc. Iran hasn't budged one bit.
Now take off the JT blinders for a second and ignore those posters that you fixate on and think about the above. Telling us that the world has pushed Iran into a corner is the same as telling us that you have no balls whatsoever.
0
LIBERTAS
Funny how SuperLib always gets stuck on the first line of a posting. Iran has been transparent. The IAEA reports have said that. The inspectors have said that and the Iranians themselves have said that.
Read the key problem: Israel's lack of transparency, and they have started a war less than a year ago. America's lack of transparency and they too have started a war less than a year ago (in Pakistan,) on top of the three already ongoing. (Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.) Didn't hear about that one on Fox, did you?
Iran is threatening NOBODY. And, no, it never threated to wipe Israel off the map. Go and check the Farsi translation.
Now, for the gazillionth time, get your facts straight. Could it possibly be that everything you know about this issue is a lie? Well, it is.
0
SuperLib
Granted, I've had some whiskey tonight, but I'm pretty sure I understand this quotation from the article above....
"It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran’s nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed “serious concern” that Iran’s stonewalling of an agency probe means “the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program” cannot be excluded."
0
sailwind
Yup, pretty transparent they want want a nuke.
World pretty much gets that now.
0
Madverts
Well, at least this childish attitude could garner more support for a military strike on the regimes nuclear facilities.
0
LIBERTAS
The IAEA HAS declared many times that no nuclear material is missing. The inspectors have declared many times that no nuclear material has been redirected. 3% purity for power stations. 20% purity, all imported, for medical use. 98% purity for weapons grade integration is just not feasible with the technology they have, or will likely get their hands on under sanctions. Iran is not the nuclear rogue state in this region. That ominous title goes to Israel, which has no qualms about using it.
...could apply equally to France, Germany, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, the DPRK, the USA or even Brazil at this stage. One could just as easily have said "The possibility that America was led by a phsycopathological maniacal drunk for eight years" and be verifiably more accurate than this. Iran has shown me no reason to feel threatened by its nuclear programme. Until it does, it has my vote in favour.
0
sailwind
Actually Madverts that would be a waste of time. Iran so she says wants to have a complete fuel cycle for the still uncompleted Nuke plant called Bashir.
Pretty simple take away the car then you don't need the gas. B-52 raid on the Bashir plant, turn into rubble and then watch this regime whine about the needed keeping the underground plants for enrichment to fuel it.
That is the answer....Obama or the E.U up that for it.....No way.
0
LIBERTAS
My, my, how very Texan of you. That's the kind of Rumsfeldian thinking that got the US economy into the mess it's in in the first place. Take a second breath and ask, what happens the day after? Russia is highly invested in Bushehr, and China in Natanz, and both countries in the other plants. Do you think they're just gonna sit back, sip tea and say "Oh, dash it all. bad luck old chap!?"
Red Med and Bad Vlad have already agreed with Hu and Wang that they'll respond in kind to anyone who attacks those plants. War with Russia and China? Thought not. Bullies don't usually pick on the guys who can and will fight back.
0
Sarge
"B-52 raid on the Bashir plant"
The Israelis don't have B-52's. It'll more likely be an F-15 or an F-16.
0
sailwind
Yup..China is going to risk her investment in U.S T-bills that sustain her entire economy for Iran. Russia is going to get back her investment on Bushehr by concessions that the U.S has made to her right up to this point to try to get them on-board with supporting sanctions in the first place.
Yup....China and Russia will go to war if we took out Busherhr..... Not.
They're would sit back and enjoy the show but Obama doesn't get
0
sailwind
They're would sit back and enjoy the show but Obama doesn't get Adult foreign policy.
Sorry..typed to fast on my last sentence.
0
LIBERTAS
Again, it would seem that the unintended consequences of such an attack are, to quote the fearless leader, "misunderestimated."
Israel and America are playing poker. Iran, Russia and China are playing chess.
0
LIBERTAS
Fressh off the Iranian news pages as we type:
"Russia says it has every intention to complete and launch the Bushehr nuclear reactor in southeastern Iran 'without any further delay'.
In a joint Monday press conference with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Russia's Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said it is in the interest of both Tehran and Moscow to complete the Bushehr power plant as soon as possible.
He refrained from disclosing a specific date for the launch of the project, but said that initial tests at the plant were "quite satisfactory."
With regards to Western criticism over Russia's technical contributions in building the Bushehr plant, Shmatko said the project has become a "symbol of cooperation" between Iran and Russia.
"Nobody will ever dare to hurt that symbol," he explained."
I rest my case, your honor.
0
Foxie
Well if Putin allows that, then there is definitely nothing wrong with it. I can only trust him.
0
Madverts
Well, I rarely support military action, but it would seem damned near all avenues are exhausted.
This isn't some trumped up bollocks to advance a strategic global agenda nor corporate greed like the Iraq debacle.
The decision that has to be made is are we prepared for not only a well armed but a nuclear armed Islamic dictatorship that imprisons, beats and/or rapes any opposition to their regime - including foreign journalists?
It was Iran that should have had hundreds of thousands of troops massing at the border, not the basket-case in Iraq.
0
TheQuestion
Coming into this one a little late so let me get my facts straight.
LIBERTAS and sabi have already categorically praised and defended Iran and demonized Israel, good got that out of the way. Sarge has done his marginally entertaining little post. Couple different people are fed up with nothing being done and wouldn't shed a single crocodile tear if Iran had its facilities blown up. One or two are just out for blood. And smith continues to embrace diplomacy. Everything is as it should be.
My spin on it? Iran's the annoying kid in the back of the class who has no meaningful input so goes about its day cutting down others. You try talking to it, you try punishing it, you try threatening it, but nothing has worked so far. At this point the only two things that would make any tangible impact would be to destroy its facilities and see what comes of it or impose a full on embargo on the country, no food, no water, no medical supplies, no toys for the childrens, absolutely nothing. One option is unreasonable the other is impossible. The impasse continues.
0
SuperLib
Iran probably will get nukes, but it will be at a heavy cost. Other Middle Easterns with the exception of Syria will mostly view Iran as even more of a threat that it is today, pushing them to closer ties with the West. Sanactions will be put into place to cripple their economy. The majority of Iranians think their government is taking the wrong steps regarding the nuclear issue, so they'll have that to deal with as well at a time when a great number of Iranians hate their government over the elections issues. The Russian and Chinese will be forced to distance themselved from Iran. Israel will probably strengthen their containment of Hamas.
All for nukes that Iran can't use because of MAD.
0
adaydream
Well I'm not worried. They can't afford even half these sites. They are in debt like everybody else and they have to buy all their refined fuel from outside the country.
This is just rabble rousing. < :-)
0
bdiego
No surprise to anyone who's seen parents repeat "I'm warning you, this is the last warning!" over and over. Humanity has no hope if the nations of the world operate on this level.
As dangerous as it is for Iran to get nukes, they'll get them if that's what they want. You can't stop them, especially now when you've been busy invading countries that didn't have nukes on a deluded personal vendetta. That said, since both Republicans and Democrats are bent on being the world police (just in different scenarios) I'm sure they'll pout and stomp about this new development. In fact, they'll probably even think of something better than "This is the last warning". The problem is, it just won't be enough. It never will be.
The irony is, even though the nations of the world have every right to be concerned, it's their voicing of these concerned which has accelerated Iran's programs. They're not very good at this kind of critical thinking.
0
Noliving
And no one has said they can't, including the US, the US has never said they can't. The issue is whether or not they are developing a nuclear weapons program.
0
WilliB
And for the umpteenth gazillions time: As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran is subject to the restrictions of the NNPT, which include enrichment to weapons grade material.
Iran has violated the NNPT restrictions for years, and continued to lie about it.
I dont know how many times people want to run around this circle.
Fact is, Iran will now get its islamic bomb, and the Middle East will live in the shadow of Irans threat. And Obama, besides producing empty blustering, will do nothing about it it. To the contrary: He has already indicated that he will actually shoot down Israel´s jet, should Israel have the audacity to tray and take out the nuclear facilities of the genocidal mullah regime.
Nice times ahead, folks.
Back to top