Spanning(en) rond Iran

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

UK FM: Attack on Iran has 'enormous downsides'

RAPHAEL SATTER, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — An attack on Iran would carry huge costs, Britain's foreign minister warned Saturday.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a newspaper interview that while Iran's suspected drive for atomic weapons could lead to a dangerous nuclear standoff in the Middle East, he favored more time to let diplomacy and economic pressure run its course.

Hague told the right-leaning The Daily Telegraph that striking at Iran's disputed nuclear program would have "enormous downsides."

"We are very clear to all concerned that we are not advocating military action," he said.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program are running high. Israel, the U.S., Britain and others suspect that the Islamic Republic is using the program as cover for the manufacture of atomic weapons and observers fear that a pre-emptive strike may be in the works. Recent attacks on Israeli diplomats in Thailand, Georgia and India have increased the pressure, with Israel accusing Iran of being behind the assaults.

Hague said that allowing Iran to proceed with its nuclear program unchecked would lead to a Cold War-style arms race in the Middle East, with neighboring countries rushing to match what Hague said would be an Iranian arsenal.

"And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilizing effects in the Middle East," he said. "That would be a disaster for world affairs."

Still, Hague endorsed European efforts to head off any nuclear weapons program through economic and diplomatic pressure.

"We support a twin-track strategy of sanctions and pressure and negotiations on the other hand," he said. "We are not favoring the idea of anybody attacking Iran at the moment."

Hague didn't spell out what the downsides to an attack would be, but former British ambassador to Tehran Richard Dalton told BBC television that they would likely include a drawn-out conflict, retaliatory strikes against U.S. facilities, terrorist attacks and serious disruption to world energy supplies.

"We couldn't assume that a strike would be over quickly," Dalton said Saturday. There would be large scale and long-lasting repercussions."


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/UK-FM-Attack-on-Iran-has-enormous-downsides-3341078.php#ixzz1mk8H8ayw

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Panetta: 'We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon'

February 17, 2012 

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that U.S. intelligence shows Iran is enriching uranium in a disputed nuclear program but that Tehran has not made a decision on whether to proceed with development of an atomic bomb.

Fears of a nuclear-armed Iran produced tough talk from Panetta and top intelligence officials, all of whom offered insights on the secretive regime in separate congressional hearings. Their testimony came amid increasing fears of a Mideast conflagration as Iran boasted of advances in producing nuclear fuel and threatened an oil embargo in retaliation for economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Israel has accused Iran of being behind recent attacks of its diplomats in Thailand, Georgia and India and has threatened military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

"We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Panetta told the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee. The Obama administration recently imposed sanctions on Iran's Central Bank, the latest round of penalties that have widespread support in Congress. The Treasury Department announced Thursday it was slapping sanctions on Iran's ministry of intelligence and security, asserting that it supports global terrorism, commits human rights abuses against Iranians and participates in ongoing repression in Syria.

Panetta and lawmakers insist the sanctions are working. But Israel is not unified on the issue. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the sanctions have not been effective; his defense minister and vice premier said the penalties have the Iranians panicking.

Despite the tough talk from Netanyahu, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess said they do not believe that Israel has decided to strike Iran.

"The agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict," Burgess said.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120217/NEWS07/202170339/Panetta-We-will-not-allow-Iran-to-develop-a-nuclear-weapon-?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Striking Iran's nuclear program is out of Israel's league

An attack on insane Iran is out of our league and could prove a tragedy for generations to come.
By Yoel Marcus

Our favorite duo, Bibi and Barak, operate like Sylvester Stallone's Rambo. Real macho men who win in every movie. Against his powerful enemies, Rambo sweats, gets a black eye or two, bleeds, but in the end he wins, to the appropriate background music. Rambo's weakness, at least early in his films, is that he doesn't seem to think ahead, even when he's bleeding after what happened to him. The viewers in the movie theater know that the blood is paint and in the end he'll be victorious.

Unlike a film, where the director decides on the script and happy end, we're living with lots of question marks. While the team that's called a government makes threats as Rambo does, it's not clear if it knows how the Iranian adventure will end. We're not the ones who can stop Iran's nuclear trance; all we can do is delay it, at the price of turning Israel into a target of Iranian revenge for generations to come.

Iran is endangering world peace, and by the very fact we think we have the power and option to take action against it, we're annoying the world. According to spokespeople for the U.S. administration, we're even endangering the world with our trigger-happy approach, as in a Western.

That's why when I read the passionate articles and politicians' battle cries calling on us to strike Iran, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. With all due respect to our exaggerated self-confidence, we're out of our league here. And it's no coincidence that the former Mossad chief and senior defense officials are warning our leaders against attacking Iran. Some of them are revealing that Iran has 200,000 long-range missiles, not to mention Syria's large arsenal of chemical weapons, which could fall into the hands of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

When you read those figures, it's clear that Israel must think twice before taking suicidal steps against Iran. Israel is showing a great degree of arrogance; after all, even America couldn't stop the manufacture of nuclear weapons in North Korea, India and Pakistan, regions that are combustible to the whole neighborhood. And America is walking on tiptoe when it comes to Iran, whose lethal influence in the regions of oil and extremist Islam is liable to undermine world peace.

Before Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak lead us to an irreversible military operation, the cabinet must ask questions that receive unequivocal answers before each member votes.

1. Are we capable of stopping Iran's nuclear program entirely, as we did in Iraq by bombing the nuclear reactor before it was completed? And can we do it even though Iran learned its lesson from that operation and has dispersed its facilities deep inside rocky ground all over the country, and even the Pentagon has announced that none of its bombs penetrate so deep?

2. Is it possible that the attack will only delay the development of the bomb and lead us into a long war with Iran?

3. Are we prepared to have Jewish organizations and Israeli embassies all over the world become revenge targets (as in Argentina )?

4. Do we understand the significance of having dozens of missiles launched daily on Tel Aviv by Iran and its allies, which will empty the city, end tourism and spark a flight from the country?

5. Is the government aware of the global worldwide economic damage that would be caused by a unilateral Israeli operation and the reaction by an insane Iran?

6. What price is Israel ready to pay in its relations with the United States after an attack without U.S. consent or coordination?

7. Until the final screw is turned in the Iranian bomb, not only Israel but the entire free world is in danger. If we want to be part of the sane and free world, we must strive to reach an agreement as soon as possible with the Palestinians, in coordination with the United States and Europe.

An attack on insane Iran is out of our league and could prove a tragedy for generations to come.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/striking-iran-s-nuclear-program-is-out-of-israel-s-league-1.413388

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran unlikely to abandon suspected nuclear weapons program: U.S. intelligence

Reuters Feb 17, 2012 – 1:06 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 17, 2012 1:12 AM ET
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies predict Iran will respond if attacked but is unlikely to start a conflict, and they believe Israel has not taken a decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites, a top U.S. intelligence official said Thursday.

With those comments, Lieutenant-General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, answered two key questions surrounding escalating tensions with Iran after the United States increased sanctions over its nuclear program.

Lt.-Gen. Burgess also said despite the ratcheting up of sanctions on Iran, the country's leaders are unlikely to abandon their suspected nuclear weapons program.

Iran responded to the new sanctions that target its central bank and oil exports by threatening to close a key oil shipping lane. There have also been concerns Israel might strike Iranian nuclear facilities and escalate tensions further.

The West suspects Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons, while Tehran says it is peaceful.

"Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz at least temporarily, and may launch missiles against United States forces and our allies in the region if it is attacked," Lt.-Gen. Burgess told a Senate armed services committee hearing.

"Iran could also attempt to employ terrorist surrogates worldwide. However, the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict."

Asked bluntly whether intelligence agencies believed Israel had made a decision to attack Iran, he replied, "To the best of our knowledge Israel has not decided to attack Iran."

On the sanctions, the defence intelligence chief said Iran was nowhere near giving up its nuclear aspirations.

"Iran today has the technical, scientific and industrial capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons. While international pressure against Iran has increased, including through sanctions, we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program," he said.

Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how on Wednesday, including new centrifuges that can enrich uranium much faster, a move that may hasten a drift toward confrontation with the West over its nuclear program.

U.S. intelligence agencies assess Iran's leaders have so far not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

"They are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time," James Clapper, director of national intelligence, said at the same hearing without providing details.

Mr. Clapper said U.S. and Israeli assessments generally are in agreement, and he was visiting Israel next week to discuss intelligence sharing.

The United States wants sanctions to pressure Iran into serious talks to curb its nuclear program.

While vowing no retreat from its atomic path, Tehran has also told world powers it wants to resume stalled talks quickly with "new initiatives" in hand.

© Thomson Reuters 2012

[VandeWiel]

Israelische propaganda om de eigen bewoners te laten zien wat er kan gebeuren wanneer Iran de bom zou hebben:

http://youtu.be/Xe7A8TUh1NU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7A8TUh1NU&feature=player_embedded

Enge filmpjes over de bom. Helaas zeer overtuigend gedaan. Dan zie je dat angst creëren een van de sterkste vormen van propaganda is.

Eigenlijk is het al meer dan 25 jaar geleden dat er protesten waren tegen "de bom". Als je dit soort filmpjes ziet is het eigenlijk vreemd dat we het op dit moment normaal vinden dat deze wapens er zijn.   

[Jah]

Israelische propaganda om de eigen bewoners te laten zien wat er kan gebeuren wanneer Iran de bom zou hebben:

http://youtu.be/Xe7A8TUh1NU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7A8TUh1NU&feature=player_embedded

[IPA NG]

Natuurlijk blijven de Duitsers achter Israel staan, al was het maar uit schuld gevoel. Ik vindt het alleen opvallend dat juist de Duitsers op dit moment in tijd komen met een dergelijk oproep (via het Pentagon), dus een gecoördineerde Amerikaans - Duitse (politieke) actie.

Alsof we aan de vooravond staan van een Israelische actie (eerder dan de veronderstellingen)

Dit... of de actie is niet bedoeld voor Israel maar simpelweg om de druk op Iran nog wat verder op te voeren.

Als ze echt druk willen uitoefenen zou men moeten dreigen geen enkele steun aan de Israëliërs te verlenen (of ze dat dan als het er op aan komt ook doen daargelaten). Dit versterkt juist hun zelfverzekerdheid ben ik bang.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Waarom?

De Duitsers zeggen zelf dat ze wat er ook gebeurt toch wel dogmatisch achter de Israëliërs blijven staan ook al schieten ze heel Iran plat, net als de rest van de NAVO landen overigens.

Natuurlijk blijven de Duitsers achter Israel staan, al was het maar uit schuld gevoel. Ik vindt het alleen opvallend dat juist de Duitsers op dit moment in tijd komen met een dergelijk oproep (via het Pentagon), dus een gecoördineerde Amerikaans - Duitse (politieke) actie.

Alsof we aan de vooravond staan van een Israelische actie (eerder dan de veronderstellingen)

Dit... of de actie is niet bedoeld voor Israel maar simpelweg om de druk op Iran nog wat verder op te voeren.

[IPA NG]

Waarom?

De Duitsers zeggen zelf dat ze wat er ook gebeurt toch wel dogmatisch achter de Israëliërs blijven staan ook al schieten ze heel Iran plat, net als de rest van de NAVO landen overigens.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

German Defense Chief Urges Israel To Hold-Off On Iran Strike

By Staff|2/16/2012 4:07 PM

German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizièr said Thursday that he hopes Israel refrains from carrying out unilateral military action against Iran.

"We have to use every opportunity for [a] peaceful solution," de Maizièr said through an interpreter from the Pentagon briefing room.

De Maizièr added that Germany will ultimately stand by Israel, but the specifics of this support remain to be seen.

http://www.talkradionews.com/world-news/2012/02/16/german-defense-chief-urges-israel-to-hold-off-on-iran-strike.html

Worden nu de Duitsers zelfs voor het Amerikaanse karretje gespannen? In dat geval moet de angst voor een aanstaande Israelische aanval haast wel gebaseerd zijn op een reëele verwachting.

Of toch maar weer een beetje extra druk op de ketel om de Isreali maar niet in de verleiding te laten komen?

[Lex]

Gefixt, nu kunnen jullie blij het CIDI achter me aan sturen

Nee, nog steeds niet gefixt. Er is nog steeds sprake van multiple en incorrect citeren.

Lex
Algeheel beheerder

[IPA NG]

Gefixt, nu kunnen jullie blij het CIDI achter me aan sturen .

[Lex]

Geachte leden,

Er staan hier een aantal postings, die niet te begrijpen/onleesbaar zijn door het feit dat het citeren niet op de correcte wijze gedaan wordt.
Kapt. Rob heeft daar onlangs ook op gewezen.
Vzke uw postings aan te passen.

Lex
Algeheel beheerder

[IPA NG]

Je bent een antisemiet of moslim ?, of allebei kan natuurlijk ook........

Anti-zionist en anti-islamist.

[Tanker]

jij kan niet wachten tot je weer met popcorn op de bank een oorlog kan volgen?

Eigenlijk lijkt mij dat absoluut niet verstandig omdat Obama ons er ongetwijfeld bij betrekt en dat het funest zou zijn voor onze economie.

Maar ik blijf erbij, Barak is een grote schurk die ik het dubbel en dwars gun. En het is niet politiek correct maar zionisten zijn gewoon allemaal zonder uitzondering schurken van het ergste soort. En nee ik verdedig geen theocratische regimes.

Je bent een antisemiet of moslim ?, of allebei kan natuurlijk ook........