Iran issues stark warning on oil price

[shugah]

Iran issues stark warning on oil price
War of words over trade sanctions

Robert Tait in Tehran
Monday January 16, 2006
The Guardian

Iran stepped up its defiance of international pressure over its nuclear programme yesterday by warning of soaring oil prices if it is subjected to economic sanctions. As diplomats from the US, Europe, Russia, and China prepared to meet today in London to discuss referring Tehran to the UN security council, Iran's economy minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, said the country's position as the world's fourth-largest oil producer meant such action would have grave consequences.

"Any possible sanctions from the west could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the west expects," he told Iranian state radio.

In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a "scientific" conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth".

Mr Danesh-Jafari's comments echoed fears voiced by energy market analysts after crude oil prices last week rose above $64 (£36.50) a barrel as hopes faded of a diplomatic solution to the dispute.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1687387,00.html

[msongs]

1. the Iran president is a mirror image of GWBush ent he? nt

[David__77]

97. No.

Of the US and Iran, only one country has bases and troops ringing the world. Only one country is occupying another country and killing its people. Only one country pretends to be the world's enforcer for the established order. And we know this is not Iran. The president of Iran, regardless of what he says, cannot be like Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

99. and only one country has used nuclear weapons on cities

The USA!

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mcctatas]

2. So do they want the bushies to bomb them back to the stone age?!!

Nothing will get your ass nuked by this crooked administration quicker than threatening their precious oil supply...that's what cheney's artificial heart runs on don't ya know.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Iran will win the war

All they have to do is block off the Hormuz Straits and no more oil for the West. Iran also has long range mobile missiles which are far more accurate that the old SCUDS that Saddam use. They will sink some of our ships.

An attack on Iran will put our troops in Iraq in mortal danger from attack by the Shia majority.

If you think the war in Iraq is FUBAR, you just wait and see how seriously FUBAR things will get for us if we attack Iran.

On edit: satellite picture of Straits of Hormuz

[juliana24]

7. I agree. They have modern Solviet anti-ship missles, unlike Iraq.

Not that that would stop * or anything.

[flyarm]

16. sunburn missles...enough said..goggle them up!! n/t

[juliana24]

19. Those were the ones I meant but I couldnt recall thier designation.

Thanks.

[Pavulon]

33. Yeah ,Sunscreen is a killer

Rense loves them. Jane's defense, not so much. A 10 year old wonderweapon does not win wars. I'm pretty sure someone at the pentagon has taken the time to evaluate the weapon in the last decade. That is probably why most ships have missile based and gun based anti missile systems now.

Not saying we should bomb iran. However if we wanted to we could kill their air defense and ability to generate power with black jets in days. Leaving them with no air defense. Then smash their toys with 2000 sortie a day air raids. Bombing stops troop movement. They have no defense. Bombing suntan missiles in place at the choke point would pretty much stop that theory.

Iran is third world, they have no military mechanism to win an open war. They are happy running an insurgency in iraq. If they are patient they can expand their nutcase religious state to Iraq. If the shoot off to early they will get a response.

In reality the twelver freak president of Iran is just running his mouth. He wants his 12th imam and to get it he needs a bloody war. I say let Europe take care of the problem. They are in range of their nuclear missiles, not us.

[Tempest]

44. 10 year old missiles?

Must be part of that new math.

The latest version of the Sunburn missiles Iran possesses didn't go into production until the very late 1990s.


"They are happy running an insurgency in iraq."

Not according to the U.S. military in Iraq. And why would they want to run an insurgency for the Sunnis when their party the Shiites are in control? You are aware Iran are Shiites, right?


Your post is full of half-truths and distortions.

[Pavulon]

57. Links.

AN insurgency would not mean the insurgency.. Since there is no one insurgent group fighting there this statement is accurate.

I am quite aware of their religious persuasion(s).


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

The aircraft version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy.

http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/kh31.asp

The development of the Kh-31P began in 1977 with the first test launches taking place in 1982. The anti-radiation version of the missile was developed specially to counter the American Patriot air defense missile system. The passive radar seeker for the Kh-31P was designed by NPO Avtomatika and the ARGS-31 active radar seeker for the Kh-31A by NPO Leninets. The Kh-31P is targeted with the help of a Fantasmagoria ESM pod on the Su-24M, or with the internal SPO-32 Pastel RWR on later aircraft. The Kh-31P has a CEP of 5 to 7 meters, or 20 to 30 meters if the target radar is shut down before the missile reaches it.

The Kh-31A anti-ship version can destroy ships of up to 4,500t displacement. The combustion chamber of the missile's ramjet engine is filled by a solid-propellant rocket booster. After launch, the booster accelerates the missile to a speed of Mach 1.8, after which it is discarded and the liquid-propellant ramjet takes over, its four air intake holes opening up.

[wuushew]

71. Such missiles would be of limited use if Amerika struck first

While an impressive weapon, all weapons systems are limited by the nature of their targeting systems. You must see a ship on radar in order to know where to launch your weapons. Even using very tall towers to mount your radars the ability to see the horizon is at best tens of miles distant.

U.S. Navy carrier forces with orders from the dictator and chief would launch a variety of stand-off weapons from outside Iranian response range. As the layers of the defense onion are pealed back strike aircraft would progressively move deeper into Iranian territory.


The best results for the Sunburn or other weapon systems would be to pre-emptively attack the U.S. fleet as it is transiting the strait.

[leveymg]

113. You can see across the straits. All you need is binoculars on a hill..

The biggest anti-ship missiles are less than the length of a tractor trailer. Just back it up into a nearby cave and sit on top of the hill with a cell phone, and wait. The targets will come to them.

There's no such thing as a stealth aircraft carrier or supertanker.

[IndianaGreen]

131. and the shipping lanes are a lot narrower than the Straits

Iran can cause more damage to the US and to those dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we can cause to them. Iranians could launch a missile strike against the Saudi refining and shippint facilities, thus punishing America's lapdog in the region.

[Tempest]

73. You're describing a completely different missile

The designation for the Sunburn is SS-N-22.

Try again.

[Pavulon]

76. Built on the kh31

platform by russia, sold rights to china. Same missile.

We used it as a drone. Two stage system microturbine and solid fuel.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

[hogwyld]

101. Correct me if I'm wrong

But as a general rule, doesn't NATO designations of "N" usually mean nuclear?

[NickB79]

96. There are two main anti-missile systems on US warships

The Phalanx system and the RAM system. The Phalanx is the most widespread, using a multibarrel cannon to fire several thousand rounds per minute and create a "wall of bullets" that the missile flies into. It has been in service since the 1970's, and the Sunburn was designed specifically to defeat this defense by flying fast and low. By the time the system picks up the incoming missile and begins to target it, it is already too late for the Phalanx system to fire before impact.

The RAM system using a missile-to-missile based defense, but installation of these was only begun in late 2001. The RAM should be able to stop most Sunburn missiles, but is still relatively new. As of today, most US warships still rely on the inadequete Phalanx system for missile defense.

[Zynx]

127. You forgot AEGIS. That's the main line of defense.

The physics suck for either Phalanx or RAM stopping something like Sunburn, but AEGIS is designed to protect the entire carrier group out to hundreds of miles.

[hunter]

140. This toystore military mentality may be what kills us.

High technology is not magic. It hasn't won us Iraq, and it won't win us Iran.

To "win" the war you need people on the ground, and we don't have those people unless we start drafting them. If that happens all bloody hell is going to break loose here in the United States.

I suspect the Iranians know us better than we know ourselves, and that is why they play these games.

[Breeze54]

11. Crap........

"An attack on Iran will put our troops in Iraq
in mortal danger from attack by the Shia majority."

Thanks for killing my buzz....
and tonight was going so well....
My son emailed me from Iraq
and said there are rumors flying
that they might be "leaving"...
he didn't say to where though...
he doesn't know himself...
It better be the USA and NOT Iran!!!
If they leave at all...
Fuck!!!!
:grr:

[teryang]

20. I don't think Iran will be able to close the straits

...at least not for more than a short period of time. This would be the exact sort of conventional military problem the US Navy is designed to deal with, keeping choke points open. Iran's exports would be blocked by sea. Iran will interfere with exports and infrastructure of Persian Gulf neighbors.

Because a war with Iran is not practical with respect to a ground conflict, I would expect a protracted struggle, which would be completely unprecedented in terms of unconventional conflict, sustained bombing campaigns, restrictive rules of engagement and so on. In other words, it would be a nightmare.

The economic consequences of this conflict for our side will be extreme. At first it won't be understood as a new permanent way of life for us, the economy will be militarized, with distribution of strategic resources controlled by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Iran will have the support of China and Russia.

[Tempest]

30. They can close the straits and keep them closed

Disabling a couple of supertankers would do the job, and Iran has the missile batteries sitting above the straits to accomplish this.

Not to mention the Sunburn missiles Iran possesses, for which the U.S. can't defend against.

Attempts to remove the tankers could be stopped by random attacks on the area.

[Pavulon]

36. Defense against fixed pos

weapon.

5 - 50 F-117, B2, F-22 invisible jets
400 laser guided 2000lb bombs.
Low radar signature cruise missiles.

Apply to radar defense. Bomb missiles. Open door for conventional aircraft to bomb at will.

Will it happen no. But in the event of a real open war Iran will be on the tube for a while like saddam in 91 and the taliban on 02. That will be their response.

Again this is all pecker waggling.

[Tempest]

43. Not all are fixed positions

And there's the Sunburn missiles available which can be fired from anywhere in the country.

Did you think Iraq was also pecker waggling?

[Pavulon]

59. Nope

Iraq was obvious.

This is not. I can see more European involvement here. Europe is driving Iran.
After the kill all the jews conference this week Israel may decide to take a swing at them.
The bush cabal had its eyes on Iraq pre 9/11.

The sunburn is a surface to surface missile with limited range. It has to be able to TARGET a ship to hit it. So it can not be launched from anywhere.

Rense really talks up the sunburn. It is a ramjet missile built on a 10 year old platform.

Wonderweapons do not win wars.

[Tempest]

75. Sunburn targeting system

The Sunburn targeting system is radar and laser based, considered the most accurate methods in the world.

The fact you believe it is a ramjet missile speaks volumes on how little you really know about it.

[Pavulon]

79. Two stage

microturbine (like the tomahawk) and rocket, like most air to air missiles.

I am comfortable with the topic.

[flyarm]

121. you are 100% accurate!!..n/t

[leveymg]

112. I agree about the waggling.

Nobody seriously believes that a naval blockade of Iran would be anything but a catastrophic event -- either economic and/or military -- to the United States.

That's why it's not going to happen.

[hogwyld]

54. If they do that

Iran has won big time. If they close the straits, the entire global economy will perish, economic output will drop to 0, mass starvation because of inability to make fertilizers, or even get the food to market. Oh, and for the naysayers, what do you think jets run on? Not all of our ships are nuclear, and tanks and Humvees consume a lot of fuel. So in addition to cutting off 75% of global oil, you also cut off about 50% of global LNG (Liguid natural gas).

[oneighty]

52. North Korea

Closed off Wonsan Harbor in the Korean war with sea mines. An Admiral referred to the mines as 'gadgets'. The 'gadgets' shut us out of Wonsan for many days. Three minesweepers were lost.

I expect Iran has sea mines.

180

[Pavulon]

60. They do

and they used them in the late eighties. This was around the same time as the starke. My navy recall shooting their patrol boats. They were amazed that a 5" radar guided gun could hit a moving 30' boat at range.

Mines would be a more serious problem than fixed anti ship missiles.

This topic heats up every now and then but I would be surprised if any action was taken by either country.

[oneighty]

65. Tell me about sea mines

180

[Pavulon]

81. No real knowledge

Only what I read, which is only of use in these conversations.

I know a bit about anti personnel mines that rubbed off from others but nothing hands on about sea based mines.

I remember Iran mined to effect sea traffic in the 80's.

[oneighty]

90. I was a Mineman

EOD/SWD/DV in the navy years ago. Mines were quite sophisticated even then. I am not very familiar with modern mines. I though perhaps you might be.

Thanks

180

[Pavulon]

95. No

I drove HET trucks for the guard before and while I went to school. Later did clerical work for the guard. I met EOD guys there, never worked on any mines.

Not a bad job, payed for college and did not get deployed out side of the US. 10 years ago. My old unit is in Iraq working on projects now. Hurricane and flood cleanup was more my speed.

Edit grammar.

[leveymg]

115. Economic, military, political disaster for U.S., even if we "won"

Avoiding this one is a no-brainer. Advocating or leading us into such a certain disaster is treason, an impeachable offense.

[pokercat999]

21. Do you really think *ush would hesitate to use

nuclear weapons and do you think the world would do anything about it?

I get more cynical everyday but I just can't keep up.

[heidler1]

94. If * used nukes to flatten all or part of Iran, wouldn't that have a bad

effect on even entering the oil fields? How long? My guess is that nukes are out and insurgents destroying the oil pipe lines and what ever will be the main course of action like in Iraq. Bush created this mess and it would be nice if some how he had to clean it up, but IMO we need a new horse, mid stream or not.

[hogwyld]

102. Knowing these criminals

They have probably resurrected the old Neutron Bomb. Kill all the colored masses, and leave the building and infrastructure intact for the cabal to move right in.

[Charles19]

22. They are the winner of the U.S. Iraq war

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/21/iran/index_np.html

The result of the U.S. vs. Iraq war couldn't have been better for Iran if they had hand picked the outcome.

[Glidescube]

24. now way they will win

Our stuff is too advanced. An I am actually infavoe of attacking him with a UN resloution. IRAN is defennitly not IRAQ, becasue this time they are developeing WMDs!

[stepnw1f]

26. Surrrre they are... any proof... yet?

Let's see proof before we waste another $300 billion and 100,000+ bodies.

[PsychoDad]

27. Don't underestimate russian military technology.

Particularly a missile system that was designed to evade American ship anti-missile defenses. Remember the havoc the few exocets Argentina used against the British caused? Two ships sank iirc. The Sunburn is generations more advanced and Iran has a large number of them.

Don't put your faith in "advanced" systems... Look at Iraq, a country that had no military to speak of, and we still haven't won. Iran hasn't been de-clawed, and unlike Iraq, Iran isn't all plains, which is good for tank battles, it's mostly mountainous, even along the coasts... which also provides many places to hide your sunburn missiles.


Welcome to DU and Peace.

[Pavulon]

37. British had no missile defense on ships. (nt)

[PsychoDad]

39. They didn't, I didn't know that.

Seems to have been a major oversight. :silly:

But the USS Stark had anti-missle weaponry didn't it, and was still hit by an Iraqi exocet from 50 miles out that wasn't tracked by the Stark's radar. IIRC, the Stark was nearly cut in half wasn't it?


Peace.

[oneighty]

46. Stark was hit by two exocets

one of which lodged in the ships hull and did not go boom as designed. Navy EOD rendered the missile safe after a short debate with the ship's Captain. So it is related in the EOD community.

180

[Pavulon]

55. Correct, Link for other poster

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm

I did not link to Jane's and am afraid to copy and paste their stuff. I do not want to have them keep my money.

The starke treated the Iraqi jet like a friendly and never engaged its phalanx gun before it was hit.

So it did nothing to protect its self from attack.

[Tempest]

45. No missile defense?

That sounds completely implausible.

Please provide cites on the ships Britain used against Argentina and evidence they had no missile defense.

[Tempest]

31. Too advanced?

Hell, we can't even contain a bunch of low tech insurgents in Iraq and you think we would win in a country with a modernized military?

Too many people posting who are ignorant of Iran's defensive military capability.

[cosmicone]

114. Possible Freeper alert!!

Glidescube, are you sure you are not a rightwing nut? I have read your posts.

You are pro-life, pro-military, against impeaching Bush, pro attacking Iran, pro NRA, pro outsourcing. I wouldn't be surprised if you are pro-eavesdropping, pro-torture and pro-Guantánamo as well.

I am wondering what you're doing here.

[VirginiaDem]

66. Not to put a damper on your day but I'm betting that

signals have been sent from the US to Iran specifically regarding this issue. You're right to point out the key element the Strait plays in this equation but given our current leadership (and the logic of game theory), the US might very well make a behind-the-scenes promise that the closing of the Strait will result in a nuclear response.

I'm not saying I support that. I'm just taking a guess as to how this might be playing out.

[IndianaGreen]

70. Anything we do to Iran will blowback on our troops in Iraq

You have seen what the Suni resistance has done to our military. Imagine the pressures on our troops if the Shias were to retaliate on them for an attack on Iran.

[VirginiaDem]

80. You are surely right but that doesn't mean we won't do it. n/t

[Pavulon]

74. That is possible(nt)

[Dark]

145. Iran would lose initially.

There is no way that Iran can stand up to the might of our country. What would happen, though, is that we'd be facing the same crises in Iran that we're now facing in Iraq.

Invading Iran will only exacerbate the problem.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Sunburn Missles

These can break destroyers....an air attack will require Carrier's in the Gulf. Could be very ugly. And I'd pity the troops who'd be fighting a war with both Sunni's and Shia on at least 3 fronts....

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2439

Yet another reason to question the sanity of pResident "Bring 'em On".

[Pavulon]

35. 10 year old fixed weapon.

I say fixed because the air launch would be moot considering they would not get an airplane off the ground in an open war.

Wonder weapons do not win wars. Iran is stirring the pot with their kill the jews comments and nuclear fuck you to europe.

As a former soldier I pity the guys now, but in the event of an open theater war I pity the people on the receiving end of what we would be dishing out. The level of violence used would be astounding. Tools like artillery and CAS would be used in cities.

All this broken military stuff is wrong. We have resources all over the place, Japan and Europe have massive reserves. Iran has zero chance of winning an open war. Think 8th air force in europe.

Should we bomb Iran, no way. If they jump the gun they will be on the receiving end of a massive strike. God help them if they make a NBC strike.

In reality this is all biggus dickus bullshit. Their wacko leader is playing to his crowd.

Let Europe and Israel deal with it. They are the ones in range if their nuclear missiles not us.

[oneighty]

41. Iran has nuclear missiles?

Interesting.

Have you given this information to the CIA?

180

[Tempest]

48. Fish stories

Been some real whoppers being told.

[Pavulon]

53. Shahab 3

aka N. Korea's big dong ill (or whatever) missile..

That would be used to deliver a weapon. Can reach Europe. I assume that is why they are enriching beyond 50%. No reactor I am familiar with requires 90% enriched uranium to function.

[oneighty]

58. But they do not now

have a fission weapon? You did say they had nuclear missiles or did you mean nuclear powered missiles. That would be an eye opener.

BTW they will need better than the dong to carry a crude uranium bomb I bet.

180

[Pavulon]

61. correct.

I do not think they have a bomb. They may be able to slim down a weapon though, given time.

We were shooting them from cannons 50 years ago in nevada. I assume Iran has modern equipment to improve the design of existing weapons.

[oneighty]

63. You assume much

I fear. Explain "Slim down a weapon."

180

[Pavulon]

69. I am not a weapons designer

However I have an engineering (beyond driving a truck for an ANG engineering unit) background and can see ways to lighten a weapon using modern material for housing etc. I have little information (obviously) on how to design a lightweight nuclear physics package.

The b-61 has been around awhile and weighs less than half a ton. That package spit off to the w-86 ( if memory serves) well within the capabilities of a ballistic missile.

Truthfully I see Iran getting their weapon and a standoff with Israel ensuing.
China and Russia's main interest is their own.

The US and sino-russian companies will end up arming the opposing forces.

[oneighty]

83. Yes excellent

missile warheads light weight boosted fission weapons requiring plutonium, tritium/deuterium. I bet it is very hard to access those materials and that technology.

180

[Pavulon]

89. I do hope so.(nt)

[hogwyld]

105. Wasn't there a big stink a few years ago

About a bunch of laptops or hard drives stolen or missing at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs? Supposedly, Chinese espionage or something I read a while back. I'm sure China would have no problem sharing the information with the Mullahs in crushing the Great Satan.

[Pavulon]

117. Think they turned up

misplaced. China does not have an interest in its cash cow (US) being crushed. They have no interest in expensive oil. China will act in china's interest.

I believe this will calm down to a stalemate in the middle east with china and us arming both sides for a tidy profit.

Get some of our oil cost back in weapon sales.

[Pavulon]

62. Funny

Searching FAS with google to find out how much a b-61 weighs. The side bar has "would you like to purchase a B61" and "Look for Deals on B61". Somehow that strikes me as funny.

[Zynx]

126. We tested a gun-type uranium bomb that was 365 KG, 15 KT yield

This was the Atomic Annie round. Essentially Hiroshima yield in a much smaller package. The Shahab-3 could easily carry a weapon of this size or even a little larger - payload is 1000kg.

The Iranians would need to know what they were doing as regards nukes, however. Our original uranium bombs were far larger than that.

[leveymg]

108. Europe isn't the target.

[Tempest]

47. Once again, the Sunburn is NOT 10 years old

Unless you use fuzzy math.

And the U.S. is doing a bang up job of winning the war in Iraq, aren't they?

[Pavulon]

64. Links

Read the links. The russians had it at air shows in 1997. The chinese have been working on it for 6.

Based on the kh-31 platform.

Rense is not a good source for information.

[VirginiaDem]

68. I agree and would add that this situation is particularly tricky

because "their wacko leader" is not just playing to the crowd--he believes it. I remain convinced that he is truly, deeply anti-semitic and, as such, would relish the possibility of wiping Israel off the map. I know that realists and such would argue that he's playing politics or, even if he believes this crap, that he'd back down in the end. But when this kind of hardcore anti-semitism is involved, IMO, all bets are off vis-a-vis intentions.

[Old and In the Way]

78. Bush's Equal

2 Heads of Government, both believing in this Religious War and both having the willingness, maybe a desire to have a real regional war ignited.

Scray thought and maybe another reason why our Government-in-Exile is cranking up the case for impeachment.

[wrate]

124. The irony of this is that Iran's nuclear program is NOT under the control

of the president. It is the Ayatollah that controls the Nuclear program. I heard this on Euronews or Russia Today. This person (Iran's president whatever his name is) clearly stated it and said that taking this matter to the UN Security Council would change nothing since he has not control over it.

[dionysus]

130. ok paper rambo

quiet down tin soldier

on edit: silly REMF pogue

[Pavulon]

67. Boeing Project..

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

Interesting we used it as a target drone. Understand we used the base for the wUnderweapon as a test platform to design counter measures.

Change your perspective?

We have had 10 years to design around this weapon.


Jane's good, Rense bad.

[Old and In the Way]

84. Nor has their technology stood still.

The larger question is, do the Bushbots really want the Boy-King to ignite such a war with Iran who apparently has their own version of GWB in control?

The stakes are irrationally high. What motivates his decisions these days? Impeachment? A belief i his own infallibility? Delusional self-righteousness or a cynical scortched earth endgame to avoid his own criminal justice?

All it will take is someone to launch a missle strike on a tanker................

[Pavulon]

88. Agreed

That is a very valid question. I believe there will be a long term stalemate involving Iran.
I do not believe impeachment is a real threat to them. But their motivation is a mystery to me.

[leveymg]

110. This is why Iranian anti-shipping mssiles are a real threat

www.geocities.com/uksteve.geo/canal5.html

The geography favors the defender. There would have to be boots on the ground controlling 2500 square miles of Iranian territory around the Straits of Hormuz (from Lengeh to Jask) in order to provide a solid shield against anti-shipping attacks. Lots and lots of caves on the hills along the Iranian coastline in which to hide these truck-mounted missiles.

Are you ready for $10/gal. gas?

[Old and In the Way]

129. By my calculations, one of those missles travels 41 miles in 1 minute.

Anyway you slice it, we'll be risking our way of life if the neocons are allowed to pursue their delusion. We really should have impeached him when he declared his elective war on a country who was no threat to us.

[flyarm]

122. theuy can be moved around easily from what i have read! n/t

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Mr Danesh-Jafari isn't Dim Son. He's calculatedly doing everything...

...he possibly can to piss off the West. Everything. He's no Kim Jong-Il, who I believe is nearly crazy. He's doing all these things for a reason and the reaction he expects is the one he's getting.

PB

[tatertop]

10. It sure looks that way

[PsychoDad]

29. Reminds me of Soviet Russia

Considering the retoric and actions, the Iranians are playing a game of global chess...

Too bad it's against a chimp who hardly grasps the concept of "old maid".

[Tempest]

32. Jafari has something Jong-Il doesn't have

Oil and the means to stop the flow of it from the Middle East.

And with it, lots of leverage.

[VirginiaDem]

77. And the US knows that and will plan accordingly...

The US knows the importance of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. And the know the difficulty of keeping it open during a conventional war. And they know that Iran would probably rather keep the Strait open then face a nuclear response. See where I'm going with this? James Baker delivered a backchannel promise to Saddam during Gulf I that going chemical on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation. I wouldn't rule out that this type of threat had been made, thus providing us with a very real scenario for how this could go nuclear quickly.

[flyarm]

123. we have nothing to counteract sunburn missles..nothing!! n/t

[CAG]

4. And the 12 mpg SUV'ers will keep on telling Bushie to throw his

muscle around while they give conoco $90 to fill up their gas tank every 5 days.

They'll have to cut back on buying those "Support the troops" yellow magnets if they don't watch out. When our boys and girls are sent into Iran by Cheney and Halliburton, who'll step up to pay for those magnets then?

[Geo55]

6. And so it begins......who's gonna blink ?

Just wait 'til March when they, (Iran) , roll this puppy out.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[mediaman007]

8. The last time Bush* had a "showdown" it was with China over the

spy plane. He* talked tough, but in the end China got everything it wanted and sent the pieces back to us.

[anitar1]

18. China is backing Iran. China gets their oil from Iran.

a week or so ago China announced that they are going to euros. I read an interesting article in The Scotsman yesterday that said Bush/Blair are in a tight spot monetarily and troop wise. Scotsman says they will not be able to attack Iran because of China and Russia's support of that Iran.

[VirginiaDem]

82. or, conversely, China's interest in keeping the Strait of Hormuz

open and the world price of oil down being just as great as ours, they ultimately back down if they believe US threats against Iran will work.

[henslee]

13. That is a very important read. Thanks.

[Geo55]

17. You're welcome.........spread it around

It's the "real" elephant in the living room.

[joeunderdog]

125. From the National War College, Col. Gardiner’s conclusion from

a number of war game scenarios in Iran, “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.”

[Geo55]

128. And Captain E.J. Smith

should have slowed down the Titanic WAY before they hit that berg.

[HuffleClaw]

9. "In a provocative move..." ?

i'd hardly call that farce a 'provocative move'. if they want to make fools of themselves, let 'em. its just as farcical as bush administration 'findings' regarding climate change.

i'm surprised they aren't labelling the comments about oil prices as a THREAT.

[oblivious]

12. Iran's taking an interesting approach here, focusing on Israel.

They are NPT compliant, but know that won't stop the US and Europe from trying to refer them to the SC and perhaps even attacking.

So by focusing on the Holocaust scientific conference, they can make it seem to at least part of the world, if the US or Israel attacks, that since they were NPT compliant, the only reason for the sanctions or attack is the Holocaust conference - that the West doesn't want the Holocaust to be investigated.

So they can make Israel the reason for the attack, instead of the nuclear program. For a certain audience at home and in the neighbourhood, this may work. Fascinating watching it develop.

[VirginiaDem]

87. Or the leader is truly anti-semitic and the Holocaust

conference and their leader's promise to destroy Israel are two mutually compatible but separate events derived from their Head Whacko's beliefs. Then the whole thing becomes less "fascinating" and more frightening.

[oblivious]

100. Let's not exaggerate. He did not promise to destroy Israel.

He said Israel should be wiped off the map and renamed Palestine.

[hogwyld]

106. Last time I checked

Israel was perfectly able to defend itself. We don't need to be over there.

[IndianaGreen]

133. It's not our problem what someone thinks about the Holocaust

Denying the Holocaust is the height of ignorance, but it is no reason to start our own holocaust over it.

Even if Iran were to get nukes, which they are not, they will be used only as a deterrent. Everyone knows that Israel will wipe out any nation that launches WMDs against her. What is at play here has nothing to do with nukes, but with America's fears that Iran will switch to euros.

[VirginiaDem]

142. My point is that his Holocaust Denial is evidence

of potential irrationality vis-a-vis traditional deterrence theory. My point is most certainly not that we should start a nuclear war because he is a Holocaust Denier. I'm not sure how you got that from my original post.

I also understand that my position--that we cannot assume that an extremely anti-semitic Iranian leader would necessarily behave rationally in such a situation--is the minority in IR theory as well. But it's mine until demonstrated otherwise.

We now know for example via historian John Gaddis and others that Castro urged Khrushchev to use nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis, full well knowing what that would likely lead to. That should not have happened according to deterrence theory. I remember the time when liberals and leftists were skeptical of deterrence theory.

Rasfanjani once publicly addressed this issue, essentially saying (I'm working from memory here) that any Muslim nation that was destroyed in a retaliatory act by Israel would be something of a victory as Islam would still exist but Israel would be gone. I'm way too lazy right now to grab the quote but it was said during his rule on one of them there annual anti-Israel days. Of course an IR realist would argue that he was playing to his base.

As far as America's fears involving Iran switching to Euros, I'll take the much more parsimonious explanation--they don't want Iran to get nukes because the US would be effectively deterred as they find themselves in North Korea. The US really does believe the Iranians are moving toward nuclear capacity. The rest of the world seems to buy into it as well, much more so than they did the various pre-war Iraqi claims.


Edited for bad grammar and hyperbole.

[IndianaGreen]

143. Bush is the only one that is irrational

his little Jesus inside his head told him to invade Iraq and is now telling him to attack Iran. Bush should be committed to a mental institution before he gets us all killed.

They frightened us into war in Iraq, they are not about the frighten us into another war!

[VirginiaDem]

144. I disagree. The Iranian leader apparently believes that

the Holocaust is a fiction. That in and of itself does not prove irrationality but Holocaust denial is a key component of hardcore anti-semitism. He very well may believe any or all of the following:

That Jews murder non-Jewish children and use their blood in religious rituals.

That the world is run by an evil Jewish cabal.

That that Jewish cabal and any who serve it must be killed for the good of the world/Islam.

People who believe these things are not rational in any meaningful sense of the term. There is no reason to believe that world leaders who believe such inanity are rational.

His public statements regarding Israeli, Jews and the Holocaust form a disturbing pattern that suggest he very well may believe the above myths and others like it.

Here's where I see our common ground--this is a particularly dangerous problem that could easily spiral out of control because A) Iran really is a problem that has to be dealt with (not our common ground) and B) Bush is about the worst possible person to be in charge of dealing with it.

Essentially, I'm more pessimistic than you I suppose: replace Bush with Gore and we still have a very significant problem that has to be dealt with.

Guys like Iran's leader (I guess I should memorize his name if I'm going to keep pontificating on his irrationality) are not just minding their own business and they're not just going to go away.

[IndianaGreen]

146. Even if all of that were true, it is no reason to go to war

and slaughter tens of thousands of innocent Iranians, many of whom do not associate with Ahmadinejad's rejectionism of well-documented historical facts.

Historical and political issues behind Iranian president’s anti-Semitic campaign

By Justus Leicht and Stephan Steinberg
30 December 2005

In recent months, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly gone public with anti-Semitic declarations. He has described the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews during the Second World War as a “myth” concocted to justify the existence of Israel, refused to accept the claim that “Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews,” called for the state of Israel to be “wiped off the map” and demanded that Jews currently living in Israel be moved to Canada or Alaska.

Against the background of a growing social crisis and divisions within the ruling elite in Iran, Ahmadinejad’s remarks are aimed at dividing working people along national and religious lines, mobilising reactionary political elements, and diverting social tensions into chauvinist channels. It is the response of a tiny but enormously wealthy ruling elite seeking to maintain control of a society wracked by profound internal conflict.

Behind Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic remarks and his threats against Israel is a calculated attempt to create an atmosphere of siege, where any form of social or political opposition can be prosecuted as high treason and violently suppressed. Far from opposing imperialism and the oppressive policies of the Israeli government, Ahmadinejad’s outbursts are directed fundamentally against the Iranian working class.

In particular, they are a direct threat to the small community of Jews living in Iran, numbering some 30,000, whose origins go back to the sixth century B.C. With increasing frequency, the Iranian leadership has sought to mobilise anti-Jewish sentiment in order to obscure the political bankruptcy of the ruling clerical elite.

At the same time, Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic remarks play into the hands of the most reactionary forces worldwide. In America, President George W. Bush used the comments by the Iranian president to revive his claim that Iran was part of an “axis of evil,” together with Iraq and North Korea. The Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, responded with a veiled threat, declaring,“The combination of fanatical ideology, a warped sense of reality and nuclear weapons is one that nobody in the international community can accept.” According to an article in the British Sunday Times, Israel has developed detailed plans for an attack on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities by the end of March.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/iran-d30.shtml

[bpilgrim]

15. it has now become in the interest of china, russia to refer iran to the SC

since this will push iran decidedly into their camp.

no matter what move we make next we lost & is why the neoCONs see as their only possible hope is to gamble on war since peak oil demands that we secure the me oil to begin with.

china & russia would love to see us bleed to death early in the twilight of the oil age.

:nuke:

peace

[Glidescube]

23. That idiot does realise that

If he gets invades his oil will be for free. But then again I drive a hybrid and don't feel it much at the pump!

[NMDemDist2]

25. welcome to DU Glidescube

:hi:

[PsychoDad]

28. Is Iraqi oil free?

We invaded and so far Iraqi oil has cost us over 2000 American lives and many billions of dollars.. Not to mention that there is less flowing to us now than there was before the invasion and Saddam was removed.

I consider that very costly.

Peace

[opihimoimoi]

34. The Die has been cast....its in the air...soon America will own 2 Nations

with tons of oil reserves....or be destroyed in the attempt....

George is a gambler with only his name to lose.....

We Americans have much more on the line...our future.

[Sin]

38. At that point.

I think he has a little more to loose then just his name.
I wonder what Czar Nicholas II had going though his head when the blood thirsty mobs showed up for it.

[SidDithers]

40. Tons of oil reserves....

and lots of "blowed up" piplelines and oil infrastructure.

Sid

[amandabeech]

137. Yup! They blowed up real good! n/t

[Tempest]

50. We don't own Iraq

And we can't keep the oil flowing there.

Oil production in Iraq is at a fraction of pre-war levels.

Every time we get a refinery or pipeline up and running, the insurgency blows it up again.

[Old and In the Way]

139. Perhaps, that is by design.

Who benefits from Iraq's inability to pump their oil? Why, Saudia Arabia does. I suspect the best possible scenario, from a Bush-Saudi-Big Oil perspective, is to keep the Iraqi oil in the ground and maximize profits with the remaining Saudi oil. When that goes dry, we'll see the Iraqi fields come to life.

Odd that SA oil infrastructure has not seen attacks on its pipeline...

[hogwyld]

141. Watch out!

The brownshirts are not going to like you giving out their secrets. Might want to check your phone for taps, install a remote starter on your car. You're definitely playin' with fire when you mess the oilco profits!

[apple_ridge]

42. Possible scenario.

Does anybody have a link to an article from about a year and a half ago that gave a narrative of a possible scenario of a US attack on Iran? I remember it gave a great deal of detail on Iran's use of anti ship missiles and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.

[Tempest]

51. Check out Rense.com

I think I saw it there.

Here's a list of articles to choose from on the subject:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+%22us+attack%22+%22straits+of+hormuz%22

[apple_ridge]

56. Found it.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1349.htm

[Pavulon]

72. Rense

is a joke. Go to the library and read Jane's publications. They site information like the fact that boeing (then mcdonald-douglas) tested and has plans for the Sunburn platform.

We used it as a drone to test and design weapon systems.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

[sattahipdeep]

85. WHAT YOU CAN DO

The organizing committee for the Independent International Truth Commission
on the September 11, 2001 Events on July 24 set up a Monitoring Group to
attempt to apply prospectively, into the future, the lessons about terrorism that
had been learned from the intensive study of 9/11 and earlier cases. The IITC
Monitoring Group is accordingly checking the public affairs departments of the
official websites of NORAD, the Department of Defense and its subdivisions,
FEMA, Homeland Security, the British Ministry of Defense and Home Office,
NATO Headquarters, and similar sites in Russia, China and the OECD
countries generally. The goal is to identify in advance those drills, maneuvers
and exercises which lend themselves to cloaking acts of state sponsored
synthetic terrorism, and to expose and denounce in advance the dangers that
are thus identified. The cooperation of all persons of good will in this vital
work is actively requested; send emails to [e-mail]. This essay
would not have been possible without the first fruits of this monitoring activity.

Bush-Cheney Heading For Nuclear Rendevous At Desert One
http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+%22us+attack%22+%22straits+of+hormuz%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=30&sa=N

[Strelnikov_]

92. “Day One - The War With Iran”

Is this what you were thinking.

Day One - The War With Iran

http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm

. . .

At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later.

. . .

By 9:30 AM, gas stations on the US east coast began to raise their prices. Slowly at first and then altogether in a panic, the prices rose. $4 a gallon, and then $5 and then $6, the prices skyrocketed. Worried motorists, rushing from work, roared into the nearest gas station, radios blaring the latest reports of the pre-emptive attack on Iran. While fistfights broke out in gas stations everywhere, the third Middle Eastern war had begun.

. . .

President Bush looked shaken at 2 PM. The scroll below the TV screen reported Persian Gulf nations halting production of oil until the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, announced a freeze in oil deliveries to the US would begin immediately. Tony Blair offered to mediate peace negotiations, between the US and Israel and Iran, but was resoundingly rejected.

By 6 PM, Eastern Standard Time, gas prices had stabilized at just below $10 a gallon. A Citgo station in Texas, near Fort Sam Houston Army base, was firebombed. No one claimed responsibility. Terrorism was not ruled out.

And a movie opening that seems more prescient every day.

“My life fades, the vision dims, all that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams, this wasted land. But most of all, I remember the Road Warrior. The man we called Max.

To understand who he was you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel, and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel.

Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They had built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered, and stopped. Their leaders talked, and talked, and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear.

Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage, would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice.

And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed, men like Max, the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine he lost everything. He became a shell of a man, a burnt-out desolate man. A man haunted by the demons in his past. A man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again.”

Opening Dialogue, “The Road Warrior”, 1981

[ckramer]

120. What a story!

I think fighting with Iran will be very costly for us. Avoid this war as much as we can. WWIII will be started if this story was true.

[fasttense]

49. In a non-nuclear war, the US could win a war with Iran and their allies.

The problem is the US has a gutted military with no professional strategists. Rummy has taken out or neutered anyone who can plan and develop a true war strategy. He has kept only "Yes men" and they will go along with anything Rummy says. It would take a seriously careful plan and delicate political maneuvering to win a non-nuclear war with Iran. But the brush regime has no one that careful and capable because they have kicked out anyone who pointed out the truth. All we have left within our military is a bunch of neocon idiots who support only unproven Rummy philosophies.

We also don't have anyone in the political arena who can deal with this political hot-ball. Who are they going to send to negotiate? Even silly little Rice has shown no leadership skills or delicate political tactics. God forbid they send brush. He will just piss everyone off. The brush regime is like a bull in a china shop when it comes to international politics.

No, we are just going to stand around and complain about Iran and in the end make a huge mess out of it.

[IndianaGreen]

91. Just as we "won" the war in Iraq, right?

And the people leading us to war in Iran are the same people that did the same on Iraq.

[jseankil]

98. Wouldn't be like Iraq, EU states would be part of it.

Would be a whole different ball game.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

104. EU States will NOT be a part of it--The U.S. cannot ever "WIN" in this

Not any "new" Ball game-
They will not support invading and dividing up oil territory...under the WMD pretense-(fool me once..)
AND, if one American soldier dies because of the incompetent decisions
to "invade" a country made by the idiot Son and his staff
then we have "Lost"-
-we've lost life-
-not any "game"-

Loss of life is loss of promising futures of individuals-(both on "our team" and their "team")
-that is far more serious than any game could ever be-
If we want our "team" to win we should sit home on Sunday with the T.V. on.

Any disagreements can be settled in a civil and non-violent matter-
The only advantage of "Violent solution"(invasion)
is the possibility of absolute control of territory-_drool-Oil rich territory !!!-

The citizens of this country should bond together and oppose any conquests of territory proposed by this administration.
Subjecting our citizens and soldiers to danger for the short term possible financial gains of Corporate interests whose sole objective is that of "PROFIT"should NOT ever be an option for this current _Cheney/Bush Regime-

They got away with it once because of the 911 wave and think they can do it again-
If this current administration does invade again, I foresee major civil unrest, protest, riots, right here at home
All countries will likely oppose any offensive military action when non-military options exist (and they DO exist)-
...and if we EVER nuke anyone, there will be civil unrest throughout the world-count on it!

[IndianaGreen]

132. If we nuke anyone, we will be in jeopardy of being nuked

People throughout the world would be so horrified about the US using nukes that there will tremendous forces unleashed that will ultimately strike against the US, but not before our gas pumps run dry and our economy comes to a screeching halt.

War on Iran will become Bush's Operation Barbarossa.

[hogwyld]

138. How appropriate

considering his Hitler complex!

[VegasWolf]

86. A year from now we'll be happy to pay only $135 for a fillup! nt

[IndianaGreen]

93. Iran: A Bridge too Far?

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[HuffleClaw]

111. erm, the administration WANTS

a perpetual war. i'm wondering if they might find some way to claim that iran 'started the war'. they'd need something that would convince the public that a war was needed immediately. other than a domestic terror attack blamed on iran, i can't think of what would have the public screaming for war. i can't see china playing along with bush and boltons diplomatic games, so that means no security council resolutions.

[wordpix2]

147. * reason to public are nukes. But Iran about 5 yrs. away from having bomb

according to experts

[SKKY]

103. This has the potential to end absoutely horribly for everyone involved...

...Iran, at this particular moment, makes me very nervous.

[wordpix2]

148. New head of Iran makes me nervous, too. But hey, * makes everyone nervous

[leveymg]

107. Remember the old one about the shape of Polish Firing Squads?

\ 1 /
- 0 - EU-3 impose economic sanctions on Iran - move to limit oil exports.
/ 1 \

(With apologies to Poland)

[Eurobabe]

109. I heard somewhere last week that Iran is

going to start pricing oil (open a bourse?) using euros to price oil.

That'll leave a mark.

[VegasWolf]

116. No, they have being doing that the last couple of years while Bush's

massive deficits and tax cuts have been destroying the economy. OPEC's bias in euros has shifted to over 65% from a pure dollar base, and is growing rapidly each year. Meanwhile, Soros and Gates move their money into swiss francs. Who can blame them.

[ckramer]

118. This is one of the best threads I read today!

Kick!

[sarcasmo]

119. Kick and Nom for your pocket book.

[IndianaGreen]

136. The Guardian: Iran crisis talks expose west's split with China

Iran crisis talks expose west's split with China

· Europe seeks Tehran's referral to security council
· Major obstacles remain in row over nuclear weapons

Ewen MacAskill and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Tuesday January 17, 2006
The Guardian

Differences between the west and Russia and China were exposed yesterday during a meeting in London to discuss strategy for tackling the crisis over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

<snip>

But China, speaking before the London meeting, said resorting to the security council would "complicate the issue", citing Iran's threat to hit back by halting snap UN inspections at its atomic plants.

The Chinese foreign minister said "all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1688112,00.html