Iran Sanctions

[spare_change]

Europe faces tough choices on Iran

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 27, 2007
LONDON -- With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?

European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned.

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism.

The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran.

But many European analysts said Friday that it would be difficult to hope to engage Tehran in negotiations while attempting to isolate groups such as the Revolutionary Guard, from whose ranks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his colleagues have emerged.

Cornering Iran's military hard-liners could diminish the government's willingness to negotiate and is unlikely to produce the hoped-for wedge between the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian public, many Europeans fear.

European leaders feel compelled to support those in the Bush administration who favor sanctions over military threats, yet are concerned about jeopardizing their own lucrative business ties to Iran.

Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations.

Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Russia's position was clear Friday: "Why aggravate the situation now, why push [Iran] into a blind alley, threaten it with sanctions or hostilities?" said President Vladimir V. Putin, who a day earlier described the new U.S. sanctions as "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."

Britain, which has come out strongly endorsing both the unilateral U.S. steps and the idea of a third round of United Nations sanctions if Iran does not comply with international demands, is pushing for strong EU action.

But the U.S. should not get impatient if the Europeans take their time in order to achieve a consensus, especially since Europe has already imposed an arms embargo on Iran, a British official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The EU haven't exactly been sitting and not delivering anything on this. Yes, it has been a slow process, but that's the way the EU works, on the basis of consensus," the official said.

Now, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for independent EU action on sanctions to back up President Bush, European leaders are looking at various measures. They include banning travel and restricting visas for some Iranian officials, freezing assets and levying penalties that would target key players in Iran's nuclear program.

"You've got to hit them where it hurts, which is obviously what the Americans decided to do. So now is the time to bring the EU's quite significant pressure to bear on Iran, and look at practical measures," the British official said.

European leaders say an EU decision could be made within the next few weeks, with the possibility of another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council if the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, does not report full cooperation from Iran before then.

Bringing on board nations such as Germany and Italy, which together had more than $7 billion in exports to Iran last year, will be difficult. Berlin already saw Russia pick up the contracts German companies abandoned for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station; now, European companies fear that Russia and China will move in if the EU imposes sanctions outside a U.N. framework.

There are signs, however, that both Germany and Italy are prepared to back whatever consensus is reached within the EU.

One factor is Germany's desire to make sure sanctions have a chance to work, as a means of discouraging the alternative prospect of military action, said Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations in a phone interview from Berlin.

"If you have too weak sanctions, or if you don't agree to them, you might play into the hands of those in Washington who want to seek a military solution, the Cheney faction," Riecke said, referring to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "So to support the supporters of a diplomatic solution, you had better support sanctions."

Italy so far has taken a wait-and-see approach, preferring no increase in sanctions, but unprepared to buck a European tide.

It seems unlikely that France's Sarkozy will be successful in prevailing on his European partners to adopt tough unilateral sanctions, said Franco Pavoncello, president of John Cabot University in Rome, in a telephone interview. Many feel "that maybe this is not the proper time to push the Iranians into a corner."

"But should Europe go along with America," Pavoncello said, "you won't have Italy producing a lonely voice and saying no."

[p.J]

mmmmm! Can I PM you my answer? Safer that way! :)

[spare_change]

mmmmm! Can I PM you my answer? Safer that way! :)


LOL --- just post and duck !

[p.J]

LOL --- just post and duck !

Quack!

[Cotties]

Sanctions...might slow them down, might isolate them, might do as much as it did in Iraq........all I can think about is this is one nation that whipped Iraq, the Russians and the U.S combined. Also when they used their mayters to clear land mines for the tanks to cross desert to fight Iraq this just reminds me these are some tough and crazy Persian cookies...

[laidback]

Last year the Iranians attacked an American unit on patrol along the Iranian-Iraq border. The Iranians had attempted to capture the patrol like they would later succeed in doing to the British sailors earlier this year. The American patrol waxed the Iranians with both their own weapons and on-call air support. There has not been an attack on an American patrol since.

[p.a]

Europe faces tough choices on Iran

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 27, 2007
LONDON -- With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?

European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned.

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism.

The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran.

But many European analysts said Friday that it would be difficult to hope to engage Tehran in negotiations while attempting to isolate groups such as the Revolutionary Guard, from whose ranks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his colleagues have emerged.

Cornering Iran's military hard-liners could diminish the government's willingness to negotiate and is unlikely to produce the hoped-for wedge between the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian public, many Europeans fear.

European leaders feel compelled to support those in the Bush administration who favor sanctions over military threats, yet are concerned about jeopardizing their own lucrative business ties to Iran.

Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations.

Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Russia's position was clear Friday: "Why aggravate the situation now, why push [Iran] into a blind alley, threaten it with sanctions or hostilities?" said President Vladimir V. Putin, who a day earlier described the new U.S. sanctions as "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."

Britain, which has come out strongly endorsing both the unilateral U.S. steps and the idea of a third round of United Nations sanctions if Iran does not comply with international demands, is pushing for strong EU action.

But the U.S. should not get impatient if the Europeans take their time in order to achieve a consensus, especially since Europe has already imposed an arms embargo on Iran, a British official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The EU haven't exactly been sitting and not delivering anything on this. Yes, it has been a slow process, but that's the way the EU works, on the basis of consensus," the official said.

Now, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for independent EU action on sanctions to back up President Bush, European leaders are looking at various measures. They include banning travel and restricting visas for some Iranian officials, freezing assets and levying penalties that would target key players in Iran's nuclear program.

"You've got to hit them where it hurts, which is obviously what the Americans decided to do. So now is the time to bring the EU's quite significant pressure to bear on Iran, and look at practical measures," the British official said.

European leaders say an EU decision could be made within the next few weeks, with the possibility of another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council if the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, does not report full cooperation from Iran before then.

Bringing on board nations such as Germany and Italy, which together had more than $7 billion in exports to Iran last year, will be difficult. Berlin already saw Russia pick up the contracts German companies abandoned for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station; now, European companies fear that Russia and China will move in if the EU imposes sanctions outside a U.N. framework.

There are signs, however, that both Germany and Italy are prepared to back whatever consensus is reached within the EU.

One factor is Germany's desire to make sure sanctions have a chance to work, as a means of discouraging the alternative prospect of military action, said Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations in a phone interview from Berlin.

"If you have too weak sanctions, or if you don't agree to them, you might play into the hands of those in Washington who want to seek a military solution, the Cheney faction," Riecke said, referring to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "So to support the supporters of a diplomatic solution, you had better support sanctions."

Italy so far has taken a wait-and-see approach, preferring no increase in sanctions, but unprepared to buck a European tide.

It seems unlikely that France's Sarkozy will be successful in prevailing on his European partners to adopt tough unilateral sanctions, said Franco Pavoncello, president of John Cabot University in Rome, in a telephone interview. Many feel "that maybe this is not the proper time to push the Iranians into a corner."

"But should Europe go along with America," Pavoncello said, "you won't have Italy producing a lonely voice and saying no."

Even if the EU were to follow suit with the US, wouldn't this be an economic wind fall for China and Russia? Wouldn't this have a destabilizing affect in the Middle East? And let us not forget potential threats ( Argentina, Pakistan ). It's bad and getting worse.

[spare_change]

Even if the EU were to follow suit with the US, wouldn't this be an economic wind fall for China and Russia? Wouldn't this have a destabilizing affect in the Middle East? And let us not forget potential threats ( Argentina, Pakistan ). It's bad and getting worse.



Hmmm --- I can see how this might be a political windfall for China and Russia (both have shown a tendency to circumvent sanctions - okay, cheat - for political gain), but I'm not sure it is financially significant, though certainly, there would be some money to be made. Or, am I missing your point?

Destabilizing effect in the Middle East? In what respect? Maybe, that's the secondary point.

[tt]

Sanctions are better than trying to fight a country with over One Million (1,000,000) men in uniform. But the steady drum beat for war continues.

[spare_change]

Sanctions are better than trying to fight a country with over One Million (1,000,000) men in uniform. But the steady drum beat for war continues.


Sanctions are better ONLY if they work ...

[p.a]

Hmmm --- I can see how this might be a political windfall for China and Russia (both have shown a tendency to circumvent sanctions - okay, cheat - for political gain), but I'm not sure it is financially significant, though certainly, there would be some money to be made. Or, am I missing your point?

Destabilizing effect in the Middle East? In what respect? Maybe, that's the secondary point.

China and Russia increasing there relationship with Iran creates a responsibilty to protect there interest both financially and militarily. Too many super powers in the same place is not a good thing.

[spare_change]

There is already a military and financial relationship between Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia is the prime supplier of military armament to Iran, as well as most of the nuclear development technology. I think I remember reading that China was providing medium range missiles to Iran, but don't quote me on that one.

[tt]

There is already a military and financial relationship between Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia is the prime supplier of military armament to Iran, as well as most of the nuclear development technology. I think I remember reading that China was providing medium range missiles to Iran, but don't quote me on that one.

Iran has received missles from both China and North Korea. From the former Soviet Union the Iranians have gotten more technical based assistance, and Iran also purchased two (02) Tango Class Diesel Subs. There are also grain deals and other contracts. I believe the Iranian Air Force purchased some Migs as well.

[p.a]

There is already a military and financial relationship between Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia is the prime supplier of military armament to Iran, as well as most of the nuclear development technology. I think I remember reading that China was providing medium range missiles to Iran, but don't quote me on that one.

I didn't know that. I was under the impression that Iran manufatured there own weapons. But like you, don't quote me.

[Iwantutowantme]

I tend to look at the overall picture of the events in the middle east. First of all the US (corporate elite, not US citizens) are there to control the oil and protect the dollar. Iraq was going to sell their oil for Euros only once the sanctions against Sadam's Iraq was lifted....thus came the Iraq war that Bush spearheaded by the manufactured 911 so called terorist attack. Now it is obvious that Iran is next, because they also are threatening to sell their oil for Euros only. The dollar is falling like a rock in value at present. The threat of a nuclear Iran is not the reason the US (corporate elite) are going after Iran. It's the protection of the dollar and the Iranian oil..........so simple yet...so many are decieved by the obvious... ***Oh yes....there is a definite world war III plan in place that will enhance the control of the world by the very rich and influencial familes of the world. Kripto

[oldandnaked]

I tend to look at the overall picture of the events in the middle east. First of all the US (corporate elite, not US citizens) are there to control the oil and protect the dollar. Iraq was going to sell their oil for Euros only once the sanctions against Sadam's Iraq was lifted....thus came the Iraq war that Bush spearheaded by the manufactured 911 so called terorist attack. Now it is obvious that Iran is next, because they also are threatening to sell their oil for Euros only. The dollar is falling like a rock in value at present. The threat of a nuclear Iran is not the reason the US (corporate elite) are going after Iran. It's the protection of the dollar and the Iranian oil..........so simple yet...so many are decieved by the obvious... ***Oh yes....there is a definite world war III plan in place that will enhance the control of the world by the very rich and influencial familes of the world. Kripto

I've made it quite clear here in past posts that I'm no fan of the Bush administration or the war in Iraq but you Sir take it to another level. I agree that oil was a consideration in starting the war but the rest of you're comments in my opinion come from some "bizarro conspiricy land". If I interpret you correctly, you are suggestioning the 911 attacks were "manufactured" by our own government. I don't know what you're smoking but I definitely want some.

[Iwantutowantme]

I've made it quite clear here in past posts that I'm no fan of the Bush administration or the war in Iraq but you Sir take it to another level. I agree that oil was a consideration in starting the war but the rest of you're comments in my opinion come from some "bizarro conspiricy land". If I interpret you correctly, you are suggestioning the 911 attacks were "manufactured" by our own government. I don't know what you're smoking but I definitely want some.

I dont smoke, but certainly would love to share some of my insight with you, one on one sometime. If you think a plane hit the Pentegon you are pretty naive and if you think that the plane that crashed in Penn.. was not shot down you have to restudy the facts. If you think that the towers fell without a little help other than the planes you are not thinking logically. If you think the "stand down" order given by Cheney and the military, didnt help the 'terorists' complete their mission then perhaps you are like alot of 'believing' Americans. Bush might as well serve another term. He's stomped over the contitution and has left his foot imprint on it. There is no law, but his law (in his eyes). The whole government was not involved, thats obvious because Bush was at school teaching some kids how to hide from what he knew what was going to happen ..(behind them. ) I doubt if alot of the members in congress knew about the planned attack because the democrats were not allowed into any meetings with the republicans. If you think that not inspecting any of the tons of debrie from the towers is not covering something up then perhaps you should smoke. Have you looked at the One dollar bill lately......that is since the 1930s. The pyramid with the all seeing eye is a bit hard to miss........so some research on the pyramid and let me know what you find out............. regards,,,kripto..

[spare_change]

I'm speechless.



(Well, maybe not)

[oldandnaked]

I'm speechless.



(Well, maybe not)

Come on Spare, one of the few times you and I agree on something defending the Bush administration and you go silent on me. Tell this guy what you really think.

[Cotties]

kRYPTO I THINK YOU ARE INSIGHTFULL AND HAVE NOTHING BUT PRAISE...i'VE BEEN RESEARCHING AREA 51...THE MORE YOU SEARCH THE MORE YOU FIND THEY "MASONS AND THE LIKE" COVER UP..


tELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS...i'M OVERSEAS AND "THEY' BLOCK ALOT OF SITES SO OUTSIDERS CAN'T SEE IN..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81345/Alien-Photo-Area-51
I dont smoke, but certainly would love to share some of my insight with you, one on one sometime. If you think a plane hit the Pentegon you are pretty naive and if you think that the plane that crashed in Penn.. was not shot down you have to restudy the facts. If you think that the towers fell without a little help other than the planes you are not thinking logically. If you think the "stand down" order given by Cheney and the military, didnt help the 'terorists' complete their mission then perhaps you are like alot of 'believing' Americans. Bush might as well serve another term. He's stomped over the contitution and has left his foot imprint on it. There is no law, but his law (in his eyes). The whole government was not involved, thats obvious because Bush was at school teaching some kids how to hide from what he knew what was going to happen ..(behind them. ) I doubt if alot of the members in congress knew about the planned attack because the democrats were not allowed into any meetings with the republicans. If you think that not inspecting any of the tons of debrie from the towers is not covering something up then perhaps you should smoke. Have you looked at the One dollar bill lately......that is since the 1930s. The pyramid with the all seeing eye is a bit hard to miss........so some research on the pyramid and let me know what you find out............. regards,,,kripto..

[oldandnaked]

I dont smoke, but certainly would love to share some of my insight with you, one on one sometime. If you think a plane hit the Pentegon you are pretty naive and if you think that the plane that crashed in Penn.. was not shot down you have to restudy the facts. If you think that the towers fell without a little help other than the planes you are not thinking logically. If you think the "stand down" order given by Cheney and the military, didnt help the 'terorists' complete their mission then perhaps you are like alot of 'believing' Americans. Bush might as well serve another term. He's stomped over the contitution and has left his foot imprint on it. There is no law, but his law (in his eyes). The whole government was not involved, thats obvious because Bush was at school teaching some kids how to hide from what he knew what was going to happen ..(behind them. ) I doubt if alot of the members in congress knew about the planned attack because the democrats were not allowed into any meetings with the republicans. If you think that not inspecting any of the tons of debrie from the towers is not covering something up then perhaps you should smoke. Have you looked at the One dollar bill lately......that is since the 1930s. The pyramid with the all seeing eye is a bit hard to miss........so some research on the pyramid and let me know what you find out............. regards,,,kripto..

A couple of questions: If the Democrats weren't informed about the "planned attack" by the Republicans then how do you explain the previous attack on the Towers during the Clinton Administration?

If the Pentagon really wasn't struck by an aircraft then was the news media in on this conspiracy as well? We all remember vividly the images of the smoking and flaming wreckage aired on all the channels and printed in all the papers.

[Cotties]

Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) has reached a key target of 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=), President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, vowing to ignore UN resolutions calling for a halt to Tehran's sensitive nuclear work.



"We have now reached 3,000 machines," a defiant Ahmadinejad told a rally in the northeastern city of Birjand.



Scientists say that in ideal conditions 3,000 centrifuges can make enough highly enriched uranium in a year's time for an atom bomb.

The hardline president also said that Iran "could not care less" about UN Security Council resolutions (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear drive.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in August that Iran had 12 cascades of 164 centrifuges (1,968) running simultaneously to enrich uranium and that 656 others were either under construction or being tested.

The centrifuges are located at an underground nuclear facility at Natanz in central Iran.



Iran has so far defied international calls to suspend enrichment, the process by which nuclear fuel (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) is made, as well as -- in highly purified forms -- the core of an atomic bomb.



Speaking at the rally, Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would continue ignoring UN Security Council resolutions imposing two rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

"Some people say implement the resolutions but we say the resolutions are based on a wrong report," he told the rally.

"Iran will not give any credit to these resolutions."

"They should know that the Iranian nation could not care less about the sanctions," Ahmadinejad said, adding that the Iranian people "will not retreat an iota from any of their rights, especially nuclear rights."

Iran denies Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) under the guise of its civilian nuclear programme, and says it only wants to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes.





The sanctions target Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, but the United States which is spearheading international efforts to thwart Iran's atomic work has imposed a set of unilateral sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear defiance and alleged support of terrorism.

Washington has blacklisted Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard corps and its Qods force, accused of arming and training insurgents in Iraq.

It has also blacklisted major Iranian banks and successfully encouraged virtually all major European banks into cutting business with the Islamic republic.

However, Iran's status as the world's fourth oil exporter and OPEC's second largest means it cannot allow itself to become detached from the world economy (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=).



Iran and the IAEA agreed on a timetable in August for Tehran to provide answers to outstanding questions over its nuclear programme.

The IAEA has been probing Iran's programme for the past four years but has so far failed to conclude whether it is peaceful or not.



The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog is poised to publish a new report this month on Iran's cooperation in providing answers, which is to serve as a key part of further discussions at the UN on whether to impose a third round of sanctions.



EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is also due to report to major world powers before mid-November on Iran's willingness to give up uranium enrichment in exchange for political and trade incentives.

Security Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, back the drive for a third UN Security Council resolution and vote on Iran, unless upcoming reports showed "a positive outcome".



Although Washington insists it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with Iran it has never ruled out a military option with President George W. Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) raising the prospect of "nuclear holocaust (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" and "World War III (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" if Iran acquires atomic weapons.

Iranian leaders have vowed a crushing response to any aggression, while hinting at a disruption in the flow of oil supplies (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) through the strategic Gulf waters.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071107104151.merm9uf6&show_article=1

[spare_change]

Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) has reached a key target of 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=), President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, vowing to ignore UN resolutions calling for a halt to Tehran's sensitive nuclear work.

.......

Although Washington insists it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with Iran it has never ruled out a military option with President George W. Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) raising the prospect of "nuclear holocaust (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" and "World War III (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" if Iran acquires atomic weapons.

Iranian leaders have vowed a crushing response to any aggression, while hinting at a disruption in the flow of oil supplies (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) through the strategic Gulf waters.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071107104151.merm9uf6&show_article=1

So, I presume we can all agree that, IF Iran were so inclined, they could be armed with a nuclear weapon within a year.

Further, as testified on this thread, they have medium range missile capability (1000-3000 km) which puts several US allies within range. If the missile were placed on the northern border of Iran, it would reach Berlin, Istanbul, Tel Aviv, etc.

We can also agree that Iran is a consistent supporter of terrorism worldwide, with particular support to Al Qaeda and the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Lastly, we can agree that Iran leadership has vowed death to all non-Muslims, with particular emphasis on the US and its allies, and continued terrorist support in Iraq.

Any other questions?

[Iwantutowantme]

Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) has reached a key target of 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=), President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, vowing to ignore UN resolutions calling for a halt to Tehran's sensitive nuclear work.



"We have now reached 3,000 machines," a defiant Ahmadinejad told a rally in the northeastern city of Birjand.



Scientists say that in ideal conditions 3,000 centrifuges can make enough highly enriched uranium in a year's time for an atom bomb.

The hardline president also said that Iran "could not care less" about UN Security Council resolutions (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear drive.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in August that Iran had 12 cascades of 164 centrifuges (1,968) running simultaneously to enrich uranium and that 656 others were either under construction or being tested.

The centrifuges are located at an underground nuclear facility at Natanz in central Iran.



Iran has so far defied international calls to suspend enrichment, the process by which nuclear fuel (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) is made, as well as -- in highly purified forms -- the core of an atomic bomb.



Speaking at the rally, Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would continue ignoring UN Security Council resolutions imposing two rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

"Some people say implement the resolutions but we say the resolutions are based on a wrong report," he told the rally.

"Iran will not give any credit to these resolutions."

"They should know that the Iranian nation could not care less about the sanctions," Ahmadinejad said, adding that the Iranian people "will not retreat an iota from any of their rights, especially nuclear rights."

Iran denies Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) under the guise of its civilian nuclear programme, and says it only wants to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes.





The sanctions target Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, but the United States which is spearheading international efforts to thwart Iran's atomic work has imposed a set of unilateral sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear defiance and alleged support of terrorism.

Washington has blacklisted Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard corps and its Qods force, accused of arming and training insurgents in Iraq.

It has also blacklisted major Iranian banks and successfully encouraged virtually all major European banks into cutting business with the Islamic republic.

However, Iran's status as the world's fourth oil exporter and OPEC's second largest means it cannot allow itself to become detached from the world economy (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=).



Iran and the IAEA agreed on a timetable in August for Tehran to provide answers to outstanding questions over its nuclear programme.

The IAEA has been probing Iran's programme for the past four years but has so far failed to conclude whether it is peaceful or not.



The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog is poised to publish a new report this month on Iran's cooperation in providing answers, which is to serve as a key part of further discussions at the UN on whether to impose a third round of sanctions.



EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is also due to report to major world powers before mid-November on Iran's willingness to give up uranium enrichment in exchange for political and trade incentives.

Security Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, back the drive for a third UN Security Council resolution and vote on Iran, unless upcoming reports showed "a positive outcome".



Although Washington insists it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff with Iran it has never ruled out a military option with President George W. Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) raising the prospect of "nuclear holocaust (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" and "World War III (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=)" if Iran acquires atomic weapons.

Iranian leaders have vowed a crushing response to any aggression, while hinting at a disruption in the flow of oil supplies (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=) through the strategic Gulf waters.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071107104151.merm9uf6&show_article=1
************************************************** **********************
Ahhhhhh not to worry cotty........all things are being watched via,, satelite and targets have already been chosen and are about to be locked in.

Thanks for the picture of your alien son.....hope you have a bit more hair than he does......however I think you should move him to a more secure location. Area 51 is obsolete now. Put him in your basement where it is cool. I do have a cure for you and your buddy 'loose' though.......I have diagonsed you both with a rare case of 'tunnel vision'. I have a cure for it though ;) Dont forget my advice about WWIII. Regards....Kripto... WBS !!

[mrdiscreet]

I can agree that the latest National Intelligence Estimate places nuclear capacity for Iran 10 years out and that none of the Bush administration's "crisis" warmongering statements are backed by US intelligence agency support.

I can also agree that US intelligence reports that Irani youth are heavily sympathetic to Western values, unless we drive this next Irani generation to hate us.

I can agree that the Bush administration has rejected the professional intelligence on Iran because it prefers a "regime change" foreign policy toward Iran, otherwise known as a war of aggression.

I can agree that more insurgents in Irag are funded by the Saudis than by Iran.

I can agree that instead of inventing unnecessary foreign wars over control of oil, perhaps we should focus our available military resources on the nukes Pakistan now has.

I can agree that no one should have the arrogance to presume to tell others what they should agree to.

[spare_change]

Obfuscation, thy name is mrdiscreet

[mrdiscreet]

Ignorance, thy name is Spare. I'll try to use grammar school level vocabulary in the future.

It was so much more fun when you would reply on the merits, instead of "whatever". Out of Wheaties?

[MCat]

Boys....we should play nice remember.....

[mrdiscreet]

Aw shucks, if you ask with such a nice avatar, how can I refuse?

[Iwantutowantme]

kRYPTO I THINK YOU ARE INSIGHTFULL AND HAVE NOTHING BUT PRAISE...i'VE BEEN RESEARCHING AREA 51...THE MORE YOU SEARCH THE MORE YOU FIND THEY "MASONS AND THE LIKE" COVER UP..


tELL ME WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS...i'M OVERSEAS AND "THEY' BLOCK ALOT OF SITES SO OUTSIDERS CAN'T SEE IN..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81345/Alien-Photo-Area-51
************************************************** **
thanks again for your sons picture, or is it your daughter? no matter, cotty. I am more interested in the geneology of your ancestors. Monkeys, donkeys or turkeys.........?? while you are over seas please visit sadams gravsite and take of pic of it too and post it on here, or even the great wall of china would be nice.........love to see that too...kiddo... (have you left home yet? )

kind regards...Kripto..

[spare_change]

Ignorance, thy name is Spare. I'll try to use grammar school level vocabulary in the future.

It was so much more fun when you would reply on the merits, instead of "whatever". Out of Wheaties?


No -- got plenty of wheaties -- but I've come to realize the futility of attempting discussion with those who are close-minded, those who substitute personal attack for facts, those who refuse to consider potential alternatives and weight the merits, and those who are so whacked out on conspiracy theories that they can hardly put together a coherent sentence.

So -- no more arguments from me -- I will post what I believe to be pertinent articles, but I will not be drawn into inanity. Frankly, it was getting boring anyway.

Been a long, long time since I've been called ignorant -- 3rd grade, I think.

[mrdiscreet]

No -- got plenty of wheaties -- but I've come to realize the futility of attempting discussion with those who are close-minded, those who substitute personal attack for facts, those who refuse to consider potential alternatives and weight the merits, and those who are so whacked out on conspiracy theories that they can hardly put together a coherent sentence.

So -- no more arguments from me -- I will post what I believe to be pertinent articles, but I will not be drawn into inanity. Frankly, it was getting boring anyway.

Been a long, long time since I've been called ignorant -- 3rd grade, I think.

Yes, National Intelligence Estimates -- prepared by the highest level intelligence professionals across agencies for the President -- which refute your claims must be inane.

[tt]

I can agree that the latest National Intelligence Estimate places nuclear capacity for Iran 10 years out and that none of the Bush administration's "crisis" warmongering statements are backed by US intelligence agency support.

I can also agree that US intelligence reports that Irani youth are heavily sympathetic to Western values, unless we drive this next Irani generation to hate us.

I can agree that the Bush administration has rejected the professional intelligence on Iran because it prefers a "regime change" foreign policy toward Iran, otherwise known as a war of aggression.

I can agree that more insurgents in Irag are funded by the Saudis than by Iran.

I can agree that instead of inventing unnecessary foreign wars over control of oil, perhaps we should focus our available military resources on the nukes Pakistan now has.

I can agree that no one should have the arrogance to presume to tell others what they should agree to.

Even when faced with an an overwhelming body of evidence that proves that Iran is NOT anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon, spare, and in true rerpublic style, denies truth. It is easier to believe the lie I guess. spare is a member in good standing of the republic party. And they all love it when they are lied to.

[Cotties]

come on ya dancin clown...I threw a coin in your hat...you owe us a dance********************************************* *******
thanks again for your sons picture, or is it your daughter? no matter, cotty. I am more interested in the geneology of your ancestors. Monkeys, donkeys or turkeys.........?? while you are over seas please visit sadams gravsite and take of pic of it too and post it on here, or even the great wall of china would be nice.........love to see that too...kiddo... (have you left home yet? )

kind regards...Kripto....damn you saw straight through my trap...I'm shocked...there really is a limit to your gullibility


since you are still brewing on something I posted over a week ago perhaps I should say sorry...perhaps

[Cotties]

I think and they are just thoughts...that when the balance of nuclear power in the middle east balances out a bit there will be some real problems. Being much worse than they are are now. If its 10 or 20 years it needs to be slowed down. Israel has had the trump card to play so has been able to fend off its never ending threats of destruction it receives so often from its neighbours. European nations and the U.S have agreed to place sanctions in a bid to encourage Iran to head in a more cautious manner..I really do doubt though that Russia and China will ever allow the U.S to invade so I wouldn't so much call it war mongering as much as I would call it preventative action to the inevitable.I can agree that the latest National Intelligence Estimate places nuclear capacity for Iran 10 years out and that none of the Bush administration's "crisis" warmongering statements are backed by US intelligence agency support.

I can also agree that US intelligence reports that Irani youth are heavily sympathetic to Western values, unless we drive this next Irani generation to hate us.

I can agree that the Bush administration has rejected the professional intelligence on Iran because it prefers a "regime change" foreign policy toward Iran, otherwise known as a war of aggression.

I can agree that more insurgents in Irag are funded by the Saudis than by Iran.

I can agree that instead of inventing unnecessary foreign wars over control of oil, perhaps we should focus our available military resources on the nukes Pakistan now has.

I can agree that no one should have the arrogance to presume to tell others what they should agree to.

[Iwantutowantme]

Even when faced with an an overwhelming body of evidence that proves that Iran is NOT anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon, spare, and in true rerpublic style, denies truth. It is easier to believe the lie I guess. spare is a member in good standing of the republic party. And they all love it when they are lied to.

Republicans spend Billions of dollars annually to cover up or hide the truth.

[spare_change]

Absolutely fucking amazing --- is it in the water, or what?

[mrdiscreet]

[error in posting]

[mrdiscreet]

I think and they are just thoughts...that when the balance of nuclear power in the middle east balances out a bit there will be some real problems. Being much worse than they are are now. If its 10 or 20 years it needs to be slowed down. Israel has had the trump card to play so has been able to fend off its never ending threats of destruction it receives so often from its neighbours. European nations and the U.S have agreed to place sanctions in a bid to encourage Iran to head in a more cautious manner..I really do doubt though that Russia and China will ever allow the U.S to invade so I wouldn't so much call it war mongering as much as I would call it preventative action to the inevitable.

Interesting international perspective; now where is our alien perspective?

[p.a]

The rhetoric from George Bush and Condi Rice on Iran has been nothing short of provacative. Warmongering is but another way to say what they have been doing the past 3 years. Mostly to appease the Republican base. I doubt very seriously the Iranian government take Bush and Rice spewings as the gospel. As some have stated, China and Russia would hardly be a non-participant aligned with Iran.
However this type of diplomacy from the Whitehouse does make some of our allies nervous.

[spare_change]

Republicans spend Billions of dollars annually to cover up or hide the truth.



Mama, I tried -- I really tried.

1) What information do you have that the Republicans have paid billions of dollars to cover up?
2) What proof do you have that it was a cover--up?
3) If they paid all that money, how were you able to get this information?

[spare_change]

The rhetoric from George Bush and Condi Rice on Iran has been nothing short of provacative. Warmongering is but another way to say what they have been doing the past 3 years. Mostly to appease the Republican base. I doubt very seriously the Iranian government take Bush and Rice spewings as the gospel. As some have stated, China and Russia would hardly be a non-participant aligned with Iran.
However this type of diplomacy from the Whitehouse does make some of our allies nervous.

Mama, I tried -- I really tried.

Where do you draw the line between "provocative" and "tough" talk? What is the difference between "warmongering" and stating our "bottom line"?

Given current circumstances, because after all, that's what matters, what would you propose to do differently?

[p.a]

Absolutely fucking amazing --- is it in the water, or what?

No. It is in the perception. People eventually get tired of lies, half truths, and read my lips politics. We work harder, earn less, pay more, and we want to know why. Our sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq for reasons that keep changing with no end in sight and we want to know why. It is not a personal attack on you but rather the politics of the nation. There is uncertainty and a greater division in this country since probably the civil war. Politicians from both parties are so corrupted by money and power that you can't tell one from the other any more.

Is it in the water? Could be. Or could it be the season of our discontent?

[spare_change]

No. It is in the perception. People eventually get tired of lies, half truths, and read my lips politics. We work harder, earn less, pay more, and we want to know why. Our sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq for reasons that keep changing with no end in sight and we want to know why. It is not a personal attack on you but rather the politics of the nation. There is uncertainty and a greater division in this country since probably the civil war. Politicians from both parties are so corrupted by money and power that you can't tell one from the other any more.

Is it in the water? Could be. Or could it be the season of our discontent?

Perception is, in fact, the key --- and, perception, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We all judge things based on our own knowledge, biases, and misconceptions. It is only through unbiased, knowledgeable, and reasoned investigation that we can arrive at the truth.

Most people, however, can't be troubled to find out the truth -- they won't be bothered. It's easier to just spout what they hear, what pours forth from their tv, and what the sound byte du jour might be.

The original goal of this forum was to provide a place where people could come, discuss the issues, add to each other's knowledge base, and then form each of us could form and intelligent and reasoned position on the subject at hand. Instead, people bring their biases and misinformation, trumpeting it as if it is written in stone, and when challenged with FACTS that might disrupt their comfortable little scenario, turn to personal attacks and ridicule. It is not an accident that there are only a half dozen people that post on these political subjects. Most people don't want to be held up to ridicule and name calling.

You ask fair questions - ones that deserve reasoned investigation, and ones that can be answered. But, they can be answered only if those who might have dissenting opinions are allowed to bring THEIR facts to the discussion, and both are willing to accept that there might be something out there that they don't know, and that "something" could change their view of the subject at hand. I'm not convinced that can happen here.

[p.a]

Mama, I tried -- I really tried.

Where do you draw the line between "provocative" and "tough" talk? What is the difference between "warmongering" and stating our "bottom line"?

Given current circumstances, because after all, that's what matters, what would you propose to do differently?

I draw the line when rhetoric becomes wolf tickets. Thats an expression that means you talk tough but it means absolutely nothing.

What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union.

Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations and lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it. Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them.

And if warmongering is our bottom line then we have become what we claim to be fighting.

Mama I keep trying. When I give up I will have failed.

[spare_change]

I draw the line when rhetoric becomes wolf tickets. Thats an expression that means you talk tough but it means absolutely nothing.

What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union.

Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations and lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it. Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them.

And if warmongering is our bottom line then we have become what we claim to be fighting.

Mama I keep trying. When I give up I will have failed.

Let's see if I got it --

1) Concede that Iran has, or will soon have, the "the potential to one day be able to destroy the world".

2) Stop talking tough, and allow them to get that capability.

3) Ignore the fact that they have vowed to destroy us and our allies.

4) Talk to them about the things we have in common -- like our wish for world peace, our willingness to live and let live, and their wish to conquer the world, and to kill all those who don't agree with their religion.

5) Stress the point that "when you get the bomb, if you blow us up, we will blow you up", and abdicate the strategic advantage we have today that "we can blow them up, and they can't blow us up."

Did I summarize your approach correctly?

[Iwantutowantme]

come on ya dancin clown...I threw a coin in your hat...you owe us a dance..damn you saw straight through my trap...I'm shocked...there really is a limit to your gullibility


since you are still brewing on something I posted over a week ago perhaps I should say sorry...perhaps

second thought...maybe you shouldnt leave home. Youre not ready to be on your own. Its not nice to ridicule your elders. You need to learn that before you get your first car and appartment. Stay out of bars is also good advise. I think your mommy should cut you off your computer time a bit. I could teach you how to dance though. At least you would know something worth while. regards....american vet.

[p.a]

Perception is, in fact, the key --- and, perception, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We all judge things based on our own knowledge, biases, and misconceptions. It is only through unbiased, knowledgeable, and reasoned investigation that we can arrive at the truth.

Most people, however, can't be troubled to find out the truth -- they won't be bothered. It's easier to just spout what they hear, what pours forth from their TV, and what the sound byte Du hour might be.

The original goal of this forum was to provide a place where people could come, discuss the issues, add to each other's knowledge base, and then form each of us could form and intelligent and reasoned position on the subject at hand. Instead, people bring their biases and misinformation, trumpeting it as if it is written in stone, and when challenged with FACTS that might disrupt their comfortable little scenario, turn to personal attacks and ridicule. It is not an accident that there are only a half dozen people that post on these political subjects. Most people don't want to be held up to ridicule and name calling.

You ask fair questions - ones that deserve reasoned investigation, and ones that can be answered. But, they can be answered only if those who might have dissenting opinions are allowed to bring THEIR facts to the discussion, and both are willing to accept that there might be something out there that they don't know, and that "something" could change their view of the subject at hand. I'm not convinced that can happen here.

On this issue we both agree. Name calling should have no place in a debate.

Nor making assumptions about ones political beliefs, and participation.

Another reason why others do not get involved in the debates could be that they don't do political nor religious threads.

One thing I do know is that if nothing else we should have mutual respect for each other whether we agree or not.

Where ever any participant gets there facts be it TV, radio, or airport wash rooms in Minnesota, there needs to be respect for there right to post it here. Let those who only read and not post decide what they think is factual information. Thats what a free society is suppose to do. No one mans views has Carte Blanche in this kind of forum.

An open mind? A person once sent me an instant message on yahoo messenger once asking if I had an open mind. I checked there profile and found out ( he ) was a black gay midget. Now asking me to have an open mind instantly makes me a skeptic.

[p.a]

Let's see if I got it --

1) Concede that Iran has, or will soon have, the "the potential to one day be able to destroy the world".

2) Stop talking tough, and allow them to get that capability.

3) Ignore the fact that they have vowed to destroy us and our allies.

4) Talk to them about the things we have in common -- like our wish for world peace, our willingness to live and let live, and their wish to conquer the world, and to kill all those who don't agree with their religion.

5) Stress the point that "when you get the bomb, if you blow us up, we will blow you up", and abdicate the strategic advantage we have today that "we can blow them up, and they can't blow us up."

Did I summarize your approach correctly?

Another thing we probably should not do is take what someone says out of context. If you have not heard me say it before, I will say it again. I mean what I say and I say what I mean pretty good without the benefit of translation.

This is what I said:
"I draw the line when rhetoric becomes wolf tickets. Thats an expression that means you talk tough but it means absolutely nothing.

What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union.

Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations and lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it. Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them.

And if warmongering is our bottom line then we have become what we claim to be fighting.

Mama I keep trying. When I give up I will have failed."

Pretty straight forward I think.

Iran's president like our own is no stranger to political rhetoric. In fact I'm told that his country men aren't to happy with his wolf tickets either. And another fact that should be of interest to those who favor the democratic process. Iran elects there politcal leaders to. So there's a good chance that Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not be the guy we will be talking to in the near future. You see there is hope.

[spare_change]

Pretty straight forward I think.

Iran's president like our own is no stranger to political rhetoric. In fact I'm told that his country men aren't to happy with his wolf tickets either. And another fact that should be of interest to those who favor the democratic process. Iran elects there politcal leaders to. So there's a good chance that Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not be the guy we will be talking to in the near future. You see there is hope.

I truly wasn't trying to take your comments out of context -- I was trying to get to the root of your recommendations, to remove rhetoric and opinion, and get down to the nuts and bolts of your proposal.

What have I missed or misinterpreted?

[Cotties]

free dance lessons..I'll take them...looks like I'm back in ya good bookssecond thought...maybe you shouldnt leave home. Youre not ready to be on your own. Its not nice to ridicule your elders. You need to learn that before you get your first car and appartment. Stay out of bars is also good advise. I think your mommy should cut you off your computer time a bit. I could teach you how to dance though. At least you would know something worth while. regards....american vet.

[p.a]

I truly wasn't trying to take your comments out of context -- I was trying to get to the root of your recommendations, to remove rhetoric and opinion, and get down to the nuts and bolts of your proposal.

What have I missed or misinterpreted?

No rhetoric. What you got is the nuts and bolts.

[spare_change]

No rhetoric. What you got is the nuts and bolts.

So, then, my summary was correct?

[Iwantutowantme]

free dance lessons..I'll take them...looks like I'm back in ya good books

For sure Cotty....no hard feelings. Just got through giving 4 hours of dance lessons. If you can walk you can dance. But you have to know your right from your left.........can you handle that? Lessons are always free. Oh yess,, Iran sanctions was the topic. We cant do anything about it, so why worry. Whats the point??

[Cotties]

Here is an article but more so a site I found interesting reading

It's the Iran Daily

Bolton: Powell Pushed Iran Policy Shift
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11--Former Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to change US policy on Iran, aligning with European allies to offer ’carrots’ to Tehran to end its nuclear program instead of pressing for sanctions, says John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations.
His distress at watching Powell bend to the British, French and Germans was compounded when he saw Condoleezza Rice ’wobble’ on the Iran sanctions issue just a few months into her new job as secretary of state, Bolton says in his memoir released Tuesday.
In an interview on Friday with AP, Bolton said specific ’carrots’ were discussed “at great length“. They were “mostly economic access for Iran to enhanced technologies and things like that“.
Among his many criticisms in the book, “Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad,“ Bolton says President Bush’s foreign policy has been left “in something like free fall“.
“I think because of the four-plus years of failed European diplomacy, our options are very constrained,“ Bolton said.
“I think it’s down basically to two. One is regime change and the other as a last resort would be the targeted use of military force against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.“
In the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections, with Bush running for a second term against Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the administration was pushing for sanctions against Tehran to halt its nuclear activities, while European allies were pushing for diplomacy, Bolton says.
Juan Cole, a Middle East history professor at the University of Michigan, expressed dismay at Bolton’s claim, saying a secretary of state always has to have leeway in diplomatic negotiations.
“Powell considered options that Bolton considered off the table,“ Cole said. “Bolton was an underling.“


I actually found this article more interesting
Non-Oil Exports Up

TEHRAN, Nov. 11--Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari announced that non-oil exports have increased.Addressing a gathering themed “Production for Exports“ at Sharif University of Technology on Sunday, Davoud Danesh-Jafari said, “Non-oil exports stood at $3.8 billion in 2000-1 while it reached $16.3 billion in 2006-7,“ Fars News Agency reported.
He emphasized that increasing revenues from oil and non-oil exports is effective for promulgating the culture of production for exports within the society.
“Production for exports is different from production for domestic purposes. One of the most important issues in exports is increasing productivity and competitiveness for reducing the final price of products,“ he said.
The minister noted that one way for promoting exports is by navigating free trade zones toward non-oil exports.
“Moreover, services must increase and taxes as well as customs duties should be lowered so that the final price of goods in free trade zones declines compared to that on the mainland. At present, free trade zones have transformed into bases for exports due to administrative problems while producers are only contemplating on governmental support,“ he said.
Referring to the fact that the country needs foreign investments for advancement, Danesh-Jafari said, “Today, all countries need foreign as well as domestic investments. And many production units need to import their raw material directly without dealing with middlemen.“

http://www.iran-daily.com/1386/2988/html/

[Cotties]

another interesting paper

http://www.irannewsdaily.com/home.asp?home=true

[p.a]

So, then, my summary was correct?

No sir, your summary was totally incorrect because you changed the elements of my post. When you take a statement and add or subtract elements of it, it is no longer factual pertaining to the premise of that statement. Therefore it has been taken out of context.

Why don't you try taking my statements at face value without all the hyperbole.
As you have said, if you want to debate certain or all aspects of what I have stated then lets do that but don't try to put words in my mouth or manipulate my statments. Politicians do that which makes me view them as dishonest people.

[spare_change]

No sir, your summary was totally incorrect because you changed the elements of my post. When you take a statement and add or subtract elements of it, it is no longer factual pertaining to the premise of that statement. Therefore it has been taken out of context.

Why don't you try taking my statements at face value without all the hyperbole.
As you have said, if you want to debate certain or all aspects of what I have stated then lets do that but don't try to put words in my mouth or manipulate my statments. Politicians do that which makes me view them as dishonest people.

Whoa, chief -- back the truck up!

I wasn't trying to change your post ... I was trying to get to the essence of it.

You said "What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union."

I interpreted that to mean "1) Concede that Iran has, or will soon have, the "the potential to one day be able to destroy the world".

You said "Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them. "

I interpreted it to mean, "2) Stop talking tough, and allow them to get that capability."

You said "Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations"

I interpreted that to mean "3) Ignore the fact that they have vowed to destroy us and our allies."

You said "lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. "

I interpreted that to mean "4) Talk to them about the things we have in common -- like our wish for world peace, our willingness to live and let live, and their wish to conquer the world, and to kill all those who don't agree with their religion."

You said, "We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it."

I interpreted that to mean "5) Stress the point that "when you get the bomb, if you blow us up, we will blow you up", and abdicate the strategic advantage we have today that "we can blow them up, and they can't blow us up."

Please tell me on which points I have misunderstood your approach. I am truly not trying to misstate your position -- I'm trying to better understand it.

----------

I believe, however, that your approach is flawed because it based on one underlying principle. You assume that logic and common sense can prevail. We care if we are attacked because, when its over, we are dead. They, on the other hand, only have a goal of being the last one standing, and all those who have died have gone to heaven, martyrs for the great cause.

To presume that religious ideologues are, at heart, pragmatic and realistic, is a dangerous assumption to make. Our own Christian history provides ample proof of that.

[p.a]

Whoa, chief -- back the truck up!

I wasn't trying to change your post ... I was trying to get to the essence of it.

You said "What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union."

I interpreted that to mean "1) Concede that Iran has, or will soon have, the "the potential to one day be able to destroy the world".

You said "Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them. "

I interpreted it to mean, "2) Stop talking tough, and allow them to get that capability."

You said "Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations"

I interpreted that to mean "3) Ignore the fact that they have vowed to destroy us and our allies."

You said "lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. "

I interpreted that to mean "4) Talk to them about the things we have in common -- like our wish for world peace, our willingness to live and let live, and their wish to conquer the world, and to kill all those who don't agree with their religion."

You said, "We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it."

I interpreted that to mean "5) Stress the point that "when you get the bomb, if you blow us up, we will blow you up", and abdicate the strategic advantage we have today that "we can blow them up, and they can't blow us up."

Please tell me on which points I have misunderstood your approach. I am truly not trying to misstate your position -- I'm trying to better understand it.

----------

I believe, however, that your approach is flawed because it based on one underlying principle. You assume that logic and common sense can prevail. We care if we are attacked because, when its over, we are dead. They, on the other hand, only have a goal of being the last one standing, and all those who have died have gone to heaven, martyrs for the great cause.

To presume that religious ideologues are, at heart, pragmatic and realistic, is a dangerous assumption to make. Our own Christian history provides ample proof of that.

I see. Oh well I can't change your way of thinking or how you interpret things. And my approach is not flawed. It has the benefit of having been tried successfully once before.

My approach is not flawed. My position is very simple. If you could look beyond your poltics you could see it and you would not need to interpret what I have said in plan english.

[spare_change]

I see. Oh well I can't change your way of thinking or how you interpret things. And my approach is not flawed. It has the benefit of having been tried successfully once before.

My approach is not flawed. My position is very simple. If you could look beyond your poltics you could see it and you would not need to interpret what I have said in plan english.

Ok -- I will accept that I am not seeing what you are trying to say. Please go further in depth so I can better understand your approach.

[p.a]

Ok -- I will accept that I am not seeing what you are trying to say. Please go further in depth so I can better understand your approach.

Sorry Spare. I have went as far as my abilities can go. I'm not a master of spin-ology so I can't relate to you in no other way other than plan English.

I'm sorry you don't understand I truly am. And that really scares me.

[spare_change]

Sorry Spare. I have went as far as my abilities can go. I'm not a master of spin-ology so I can't relate to you in no other way other than plan English.

I'm sorry you don't understand I truly am. And that really scares me.

I'm sorry that you don't have any more depth to your approach. I hoped there was something there to hang our hat on -- but it seems not.

Frankly, this is typical of the liberal Democrat political speak ... a lot of nice words, all filled with emotion, but no substance, and no action. So, to make up for your lack of depth, you accuse me of not understanding. When I acknowledge that I don't understand what you're saying, you don't know any other way to say it.

I really felt that if you could give more explanation, we might find a middle ground agreeable to all. Sadly, it seems not to be so --

[Iwantutowantme]

I'm sorry that you don't have any more depth to your approach. I hoped there was something there to hang our hat on -- but it seems not.

Frankly, this is typical of the liberal Democrat political speak ... a lot of nice words, all filled with emotion, but no substance, and no action. So, to make up for your lack of depth, you accuse me of not understanding. When I acknowledge that I don't understand what you're saying, you don't know any other way to say it.

I really felt that if you could give more explanation, we might find a middle ground agreeable to all. Sadly, it seems not to be so --

*********** spoken like a true republican.

Life sucks, then you die.....author unknown

Iran has oil. If Iran didnt, the US wouldnt be CONCERNED about a nuclear threat. Wonder how much oil India and Pakistan has? Maybe thats why they have been alowed to have nukes. Since they are enemies, perhaps it is logical for them to bomb each other some day, who knows. Spin, Spin, Spin. The US is ready to lock and load on Iranian targets. Just waiting for the right time. Sanctions are just a waste of time.

Are you preparing for the next Republican's Great Depression? Buy gold, silver, and alot of food and/or sources of food. Pay your house off. spin it...loose.....:)

[spare_change]

*********** spoken like a true republican.

Life sucks, then you die.....author unknown

Iran has oil. If Iran didnt, the US wouldnt be CONCERNED about a nuclear threat. Wonder how much oil India and Pakistan has? Maybe thats why they have been alowed to have nukes. Since they are enemies, perhaps it is logical for them to bomb each other some day, who knows. Spin, Spin, Spin. The US is ready to lock and load on Iranian targets. Just waiting for the right time. Sanctions are just a waste of time.

Are you preparing for the next Republican's Great Depression? Buy gold, silver, and alot of food and/or sources of food. Pay your house off. spin it...loose.....:)


I always try to respond to intelligent dissenting posts.

Yours didn't qualify.

[Iwantutowantme]

Just consider the source...... not a good approach.....no nuts and bolts.. Kripto

[p.a]

I'm sorry that you don't have any more depth to your approach. I hoped there was something there to hang our hat on -- but it seems not.

Frankly, this is typical of the liberal Democrat political speak ... a lot of nice words, all filled with emotion, but no substance, and no action. So, to make up for your lack of depth, you accuse me of not understanding. When I acknowledge that I don't understand what you're saying, you don't know any other way to say it.

I really felt that if you could give more explanation, we might find a middle ground agreeable to all. Sadly, it seems not to be so --

Ha! I knew this was the place you were going to. You had no intention of wanting to understand regardless of what I said. Your intention was not to understand the message but to discredit the messenger. Unfortunately you've only succeeded in discrediting yourself with me. That probably means nothing to you and thats fine. I'm not mad at ya.

So call me what you will, your good at that. Not much else I'm affraid.
:55 :55 :55

[p.a]

Just consider the source...... not a good approach.....no nuts and bolts.. Kripto

Dont waste your time Iwant...It's a loss cause..I tried and he turned on me to.

[spare_change]

Ha! I knew this was the place you were going to. You had no intention of wanting to understand regardless of what I said. Your intention was not to understand the message but to discredit the messenger. Unfortunately you've only succeeded in discrediting yourself with me. That probably means nothing to you and thats fine. I'm not mad at ya.

So call me what you will, your good at that. Not much else I'm affraid.
:55 :55 :55


Huh?

I ask you three separate times to explain or qualify your approach, and I don't want to understand? I try to figure it out, and you give me the same tired rhetoric without explanation, and I don't want to understand?

Give me a break. I'm beginning to believe that meaningful dialog with the left is impossible. They don't have anything to say.

[p.a]

Huh?

I ask you three separate times to explain or qualify your approach, and I don't want to understand? I try to figure it out, and you give me the same tired rhetoric without explanation, and I don't want to understand?

Give me a break. I'm beginning to believe that meaningful dialog with the left is impossible. They don't have anything to say.

Oh on the contrary I have plenty to say. A high school freshman could understand what I wrote and your ( I'm assuming ) a 60 year old educated ex military, ( from what I gather reading your other post ) you needed no special ( INTERPRETATIONS ). The only thing you were trying to figure out was how to turn my post into a political rant.
I take my time and edit everything I post here in order to not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I'm not a left wing liberal democrat. I'm an independent somewhere in the middle with liberal tendencies like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and the greatest liberal of all Jesus Christ. I like that company.

Meaningful dialog can only exist when there is and effort to see the other guys point of view of which you have not done. Your only point of view is to slander mine which you have done to everyone here who has disagreed with you. You offer no opposing view, just more negative name calling rhetoric. Not once have I called you a right wing republican or anything else. Not once have I attacked you. In fact on one post about economics I gave you kudos on your abilities in that area because I knew I was lacking. And instead of holding you to task about this subject that I lacked knowledge of by continuing to ask you for more ( DEPTH ), I went and educated myself in order to better understand your point of view.
That my friend is wanting to reach common ground. You don't have to agree with me or even like me but at least be man enough to say so without this political left wing conspiracy crap.

So you give me a break.

Oh and one other thing, I'm not going away so you can be assured I will be around. Independents don't run from fights.

I will be waiting for your next conspiracy rant so I can debunk that. This is good practice for my other debate sites.

[spare_change]

Oh on the contrary I have plenty to say. A high school freshman could understand what I wrote and your ( I'm assuming ) a 60 year old educated ex military, ( from what I gather reading your other post ) you needed no special ( INTERPRETATIONS ). The only thing you were trying to figure out was how to turn my post into a political rant.
I take my time and edit everything I post here in order to not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I'm not a left wing liberal democrat. I'm an independent somewhere in the middle with liberal tendencies like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and the greatest liberal of all Jesus Christ. I like that company.

Meaningful dialog can only exist when there is and effort to see the other guys point of view of which you have not done. Your only point of view is to slander mine which you have done to everyone here who has disagreed with you. You offer no opposing view, just more negative name calling rhetoric. Not once have I called you a right wing republican or anything else. Not once have I attacked you. In fact on one post about economics I gave you kudos on your abilities in that area because I knew I was lacking. And instead of holding you to task about this subject that I lacked knowledge of by continuing to ask you for more ( DEPTH ), I went and educated myself in order to better understand your point of view.
That my friend is wanting to reach common ground. You don't have to agree with me or even like me but at least be man enough to say so without this political left wing conspiracy crap.

So you give me a break.

Oh and one other thing, I'm not going away so you can be assured I will be around. Independents don't run from fights.

I will be waiting for your next conspiracy rant so I can debunk that. This is good practice for my other debate sites.


You know -- you can't even keep your targets straight. I am NOT the conspiracy nut.

I have continuously tried to engage you in discussion of your approach, but you keep saying you have said it all -- if you don't want to discuss it, just carve it in stone and leave it on the doorstep. Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.

Have a nice day.

[subtlehands]

John Bolton is a very dangerous man!

[p.a]

You know -- you can't even keep your targets straight. I am NOT the conspiracy nut.

I have continuously tried to engage you in discussion of your approach, but you keep saying you have said it all -- if you don't want to discuss it, just carve it in stone and leave it on the doorstep. Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.

Have a nice day.

You Know, you may be correct. I thought my own personal view would be enough and for most normal people it would be. But you operate outside the norm and I do lack the ability to articulate for your special sensibilities.

I was not targeting you. I was merely replying to this statement by you " Frankly, this is typical of the liberal Democrat political speak ... a lot of nice words, all filled with emotion, but no substance, and no action."

I am willing to discuss whatever at any time and all I can do is repeat what I have said already on the subject. Maybe just maybe repetition will cause a little to seep in and you will finally get it. Like learning a new language.
So here goes.

Originally Posted by peteraskme
I draw the line when rhetoric becomes wolf tickets. Thats an expression that means you talk tough but it means absolutely nothing.

What I would propose is to first stop the tough talk cowboy diplomacy rhetoric because it don't work. Start treating Iran as a foreign power with the potential to one day be able to destroy the world as well as we can and then stress the point of mutual assured destruction like we did with the now defunct Soviet Union.

Remove the subject of Israel and it's existence from any part of the negotiations and lets just talk about what we have in common, what we can give each other. We negotiated an uneasy peace with the Soviet Union even though they occupied half of Germany. The same can be done with Iran if we are earnest about it. Like Pakistan and India, Iran will probably have nukes if they really want them.


Now if you take it slow, a bit at a time, it gets much easier.
You have a nice day :55

[p.a]

Oh and I really was not referring to you as a conspiracy nut. But if you INTERPRETED that then I do apologise. Calling people names is your realm of discussion not mine.

[Iwantutowantme]

John Bolton is a very dangerous man!


Interesting post. If Mr. Bolton is so dangerous, why did president Bush send him to the UN while the US congress was at recess, even though congress voted not to, prior to the congressional recess?. I wonder who TOLD Bush to do that. He certainly couldnt do that ( let alone alot of other things)...on his own. Thanks for bringing that up..........Kripto...

[Iwantutowantme]

You know -- you can't even keep your targets straight. I am NOT the conspiracy nut.

I have continuously tried to engage you in discussion of your approach, but you keep saying you have said it all -- if you don't want to discuss it, just carve it in stone and leave it on the doorstep. Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.

Have a nice day.

****************************

Whats wrong with being a conspiracy nut? Especially since conspiracies are (and I will whisper this) taking place inside and out of the US government all the time. There is almost NO loyalty left to be found inside the US government. The majority of this administration and congress are simply out for themselves (also the global coroporate elite)and could care less about serving the tax paying people until it is election time. With China,Japan, and Europe essentially owning ABOUT everything in the US, including toll roads, we have literally been sold out (sometimes given out)and bought out to foreign countries. It wont matter what kind of discussions (arguments) you have about the trivial problems that we cant do anything about, because we are about to be taken as slaves in the coming new world order that has been materializing for a very long time. Now that is a conspiracy of the THIRD kind.....lol..........thanks for listening.... I know,, I know...no nut and bolts...and no approach to anything...... Kripto.....am vet (I do appreciate your sincerity though)

[mrdiscreet]

November 13, 2007 06:59 PM EST | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png
WASHINGTON — National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said Tuesday he would resign if administration officials mischaracterized or "cherry-picked" intelligence to support their own political agenda.

"If it were cherry-picked in an inappropriate way, then for me, that's a professional obligation to object, and I would submit my resignation," McConnell told reporters.

Bush administration officials have been accused of selectively releasing intelligence that supported the case for an invasion of Iraq prior to the war.

McConnell also said a new national intelligence estimate on Iran should be complete in about a month, but its key findings will not be released publicly. He says doing so could alert Iran to its intelligence vulnerabilities.

The NIE will outline the evidence and consensus judgment of the intelligence agencies on the threat posed by Iran. It was due last spring but was delayed by an influx of new information that raised new questions, said McConnell, the nation's top intelligence official.

"Our objective is to present the clinical evidence and let it stand on its own merits," he said. "And then the second part is we'll provide our assessment. That is what we are wrestling through now."

McConnell said the intelligence community learned from its flawed 2002 national intelligence estimate about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and is applying new discipline in its creation of the Iran NIE.

"When I go back and look at it, I think we the community, the nation and the nation's leadership probably would have been better served if we had been insistent, absolutely insistent upon a higher level of integrity with regard to what does the clinical evidence say, long before we get to what we think about it," he said.

"We are a much better community analytically. We learned those lessons of October 2002 very, very well. And the quality of the output is much better in my view," he said.

McConnell also said he would attempt to prosecute anyone who leaked classified information, including findings from the Iran NIE.

The intelligence agencies have not attempted to prosecute for such leaks thus far because they fear a trial would reveal even more classified information. That is no longer a deterrent, McConnell said.

"That's an issue we just have to be willing to accept. So we will go down that path if we have to. And I intend to be very aggressive about it," he said. "I will make every effort that I can to prosecute them."

Interesting that McConnell felt he needed to warn in advance against Cheney cherry-picking Iran intelligence: McConnell was appointed as more sympathetic to Bush admin agendas after Negroponte reportedly was booted because he wouldn't shape the new Iran NIE to Cheney's liking.

It seems clear the full NIE will not be fuel for Cheney's Iran warmongering.

[mrdiscreet]

David Lindorff article

Now comes word from the respected newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, that analysts are starting to factor a U.S. attack on Iran into their thinking. As the newspaper put it in an article published today reporting on the recently concluded meeting of the leaders of OPEC nations:

"The 13-nation cartel once controlled prices often by just talking about pumping more or less oil. But now its leaders say booming world demand -- largely from India and China -- and concern over a possible U.S. attack on Iran are driving prices."

The article also quotes oil industry analyst Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, UAE, who says, "...there's very little they [the OPEC leaders] can do if there's an attack on Iran or something of that nature. In that case, prices will double, perhaps go to $300 a barrel."

It may be that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his generals, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the leaders of many of America's Fortune 500 companies are opposed to an attack on Iran, knowing that it will be a military disaster and that it would cause a global economic collapse, but the U.S. today is being led by two insane and desperate men who may not care what any of those people think. With their domestic and international policies in ruins and their legacy a disaster, they may have decided to double up on their bet and just throw everything in with an air assault on Iran.

Keep watching those oil prices. If they start really bumping up from their current level, hold on to your Constitution -- and get the hell out of dollars -- because they're both going down.

[mrdiscreet]

U.S. Navy steps up fuel deliveries to Gulf forces
23 Nov 2007 11:07:33 GMT
Source: Reuters





By Stefano Ambrogi LONDON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. military has stepped up chartering of tankers and requests for extra fuel in the U.S. Central Command area, which includes the Gulf, shipping and oil industry sources say. A Gulf oil industry source said the charters suggested there would be high naval activity, possibly including a demonstration to Iran that the U.S. Navy will protect the Strait of Hormuz oil shipping route during tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme. The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) has tendered for four tankers in November to move at least one million barrels of jet and ship fuel between Gulf ports, from Asia to the Gulf and to the Diego Garcia base, tenders seen by Reuters show. It usually tenders for one or two tankers a month to supply Gulf operations, which include missions in Iraq. The MSC, asked for comment, confirmed the tenders and said there was nothing abnormal about current requirements in the Gulf, where it has a large military presence and which is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. A fifth hire request was recently cancelled, it said. Fuels specified to be moved between Gulf ports include JP5, high flashpoint jet fuel, used to power F18 fighters aboard aircraft carriers. "They have been very active," said a ship industry source, familiar with the MSC tender process, who asked not to be named. "Out of the multiple charter requirements they issue, they usually do maybe one or two (tankers) a month in the Gulf. They were quiet over the summer months," he said. MORE ACTIVITY The U.S. regularly carries out naval exercises in the region, moving aircraft carrier strike groups in and out of the Gulf to counter what it says are provocative military manoeuvres by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz and to reassure its Gulf allies. Iran, which denies Western charges that its nuclear power programme aims to produce arms, has threatened to disrupt oil flows through the Strait if attacked. According to U.S. figures, oil flowing through the Strait, at the entrance to the Gulf along Iran's coastline, accounts for roughly 40 percent of all globally traded oil supplies. Only last week the navy conducted an exercise to counter potential mine-laying by an unnamed foe in Gulf waters. At the same time the Enterprise aircraft carrier strike group concluded a three-day exercise in anti-submarine warfare skills. The source in the Gulf, with 50 years of experience in the oil industry, said the charters were indicative of extra U.S. military requirements for fuels. "Bahrain, for example, has confirmed that there are additional volumes being requested by the U.S. Defense Energy Support Center, including JP5," the Gulf source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. One of the largest commercial tanker hires is on a time-charter basis, the length of time a ship is sought, stipulating a period of 90 days to carry a range of fuels between locations in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The time charter, which begins in early December and allows for multiple journeys in Gulf waters, is to carry a minimum of 310,000 barrels of jet and marine fuel, some of it JP5. "What's most interesting is the time-charter in the Gulf. It's a big ship and here we have a commitment for a lot of movement of fuels, backwards and forwards down to the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman," the Gulf source said. "This confirms there is going to be a lot of activity, possibly a serious demonstration to Iran that the military means to protect the Hormuz Strait," he said. He pointed out that Saudi Arabia had already promised U.S. forces long-term fuel supplies this year, known as term tenders. In February, oil industry sources told Reuters Riyadh had raised the amount of jet fuel earmarked for the military from 1.5 million barrels last year to close to eight million in 2007. FUEL CHARTERS Apart from the time charter, MSC has also tendered for commercial tankers to move 235,000 barrels of marine diesel from South Korea to Jebel Ali and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates and 310,000 barrels of JA1 jet fuel from Bahrain to Mesaieed in Qatar. Both tankers are required in November. A separate requirement is for a tanker to move 147,000 barrels of ship fuel from Singapore to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, close to the Gulf and Arabian Sea. MSC has ships stationed there, known as Maritime Prepositioning Squadron Two, used to support combat operations. In the past the United States has used the British Indian Ocean territory for long-range bombing raids on Iraq and Afghanistan. Fuel movements have provided advance clues of U.S. intentions. MSC, the defense department's transport arm, supplies U.S. forces with its own large fleet of ships, but significantly increases the use of merchant shipping to carry armour and fuels prior to a major exercise and during a war.

[Iwantutowantme]

David Lindorff article

Now comes word from the respected newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, that analysts are starting to factor a U.S. attack on Iran into their thinking. As the newspaper put it in an article published today reporting on the recently concluded meeting of the leaders of OPEC nations:

"The 13-nation cartel once controlled prices often by just talking about pumping more or less oil. But now its leaders say booming world demand -- largely from India and China -- and concern over a possible U.S. attack on Iran are driving prices."

The article also quotes oil industry analyst Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, UAE, who says, "...there's very little they [the OPEC leaders] can do if there's an attack on Iran or something of that nature. In that case, prices will double, perhaps go to $300 a barrel."

It may be that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his generals, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the leaders of many of America's Fortune 500 companies are opposed to an attack on Iran, knowing that it will be a military disaster and that it would cause a global economic collapse, but the U.S. today is being led by two insane and desperate men who may not care what any of those people think. With their domestic and international policies in ruins and their legacy a disaster, they may have decided to double up on their bet and just throw everything in with an air assault on Iran.

Keep watching those oil prices. If they start really bumping up from their current level, hold on to your Constitution -- and get the hell out of dollars -- because they're both going down.


The Constitution is almost null and void now..and the oil prices are already skyrocketing.....however if the price of oil doesnt reach the levels of Bush and the 'button pushers' desires, then a war in Iran is inevitable. You can take that to the bank.........but then would there even be a reason for banks? Hold onto your guns...and store food....:).......it could be a bumpy ride.

[Cotties]

Iran News
Putin underlines political solution of Iran nuclear issue
Russia's President Vladimir Putin underlined political solution of Iran's nuclear issue. According to Russia's Presidential Office report on Wednesday, President Putin in a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Moscow said, "I believe regional conflicts, including Iran's nuclear program and Kosovo issue cannot be solved through force." Putin underlined the necessity of using non-military and peaceful means in carrying out international missions. He added, "Russia will never deviate from democratic route and will observe human rights and other freedoms."

Iran News
Chinese official: Iran's nuclear dossier should be solved through talks

Visiting China's Communication Minister and a member of Chinese Communist Party Li-Hoon Tai Haven in a meeting with Secretary General of Islamic Coalition Party Mohammad Nabi Habibi underlined that Iran's nuclear dossier should be solved through talks. In the meeting, the Chinese minister said, "Exchanging views between Chinese Communist Party and Iranian political parties, especially Islamic Coalition Party, is so important." Habibi, for his part, by referring to the history of ties between the two parties said, "In the Asian Parties Meeting, we should work together and push the meeting towards establishment of Asian Parties Union."
Nov 29, 2007, 14:15

and thridly

Iran News
IAEA sealing Russian nuclear fuel bound for Iran
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are set on Thursday to finish sealing uranium fuel that Russia intends to send to Iran's first atomic power station, a Russian nuclear official said. Completion of the task will be a major step Russia needs if it is to ship the uranium to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station. Once sealed, Russia could swiftly ship the fuel. "The IAEA team is concluding its work at the plant today," the spokesman said, referring to the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrate Plant where the fuel is stored.
Nov 29, 2007, 13:54

I can't see how force will be an option..

But as for some of you guys annoyed by having to pay higher prices for oil...it's inevitble..the U.S has some of the cheapest fuel prices in the world and consumes so much of it...can you really blame your leaders or is it the car companies and the general consumer who is to blame...hell I don't know

[spare_change]

But as for some of you guys annoyed by having to pay higher prices for oil...it's inevitble..the U.S has some of the cheapest fuel prices in the world and consumes so much of it...can you really blame your leaders or is it the car companies and the general consumer who is to blame...hell I don't know

Actually, that's not true -- inherently, we pay the same price for foreign oil that your country does (there are some variations based on who pays for the shipping). According to http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm, our average price since 1947 has been $21.05/barrel, whereas the world average has been $21.66 for the same period. We supplement it with domestic oil -- which brings the price down. But, most importantly, we don't tax the hell out of it -- as other countries do.

[mrdiscreet]

Scott Ritter (former USMC Intelligence Officer, chief UN arm's inspector 1991-1998):


As far as why [the US has not yet attacked Iran], there's any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region. Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran's nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps. The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.

Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.

They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.

'''


But there's nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that's occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.

[mrdiscreet]

An Old Face Resurfaces

The Bush administration has offered the former World Bank president a new public service position.

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK

Dec 10, 2007 Issue Don't ever say the Bush administration doesn't take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Paul+Wolfowitz) resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank—amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend—he's in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Condoleezza+Rice) has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Iraq) War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

Wolfowitz, now a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, will replace former senator Fred Thompson, who quit over the summer to run for president. Although officials declined to say how Rice came to choose him, Wolfowitz began his government career in the 1970s in the State Department as an arms-control expert; he forged a relationship with Rice during the 2000 presidential campaign, when they both served as top foreign-policy advisers to the then candidate Bush. But his selection has raised more than a few eyebrows within State because he'll be providing advice on some of the same issues that critics say the administration got spectacularly wrong when Wolfowitz was pushing the case for the Iraq War at the Pentagon. (One of the department sources called the appointment "amazing.") At least Wolfowitz, who did not return calls seeking comment, will have like-minded company: other panel members include Robert Joseph, the former National Security Council official in charge of Iraq WMD intelligence, and ex-CIA director James Woolsey, both strong allies during the Iraq debate.

The sources said Wolfowitz has already accepted Rice's offer to fill the part-time position, though it won't be announced until the completion of a standard check for conflicts of interest. But he won't have to worry about any complaints from pesky Democrats. The position doesn't require Senate confirmation.

[spare_change]

Scott Ritter (former USMC Intelligence Officer, chief UN arm's inspector 1991-1998):


As far as why [the US has not yet attacked Iran], there's any number of reasons. One, the Bush administration has not been able to stabilize Iraq to the level they would like to see prior to expanding military operations in the region. Two, the international community has not rallied around the cause of Iran's nuclear program representing a casus belli to the extent that the Bush administration would like. They were hopeful that there would be more action from the [United Nations] Security Council. It took a long time to get the issue shifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters to the Security Council. And even when it got shifted to the Security Council, the Council took very timid steps, not decisive steps. The Bush administration sort of tied its hands at that point in time. I think you are seeing increasing frustration today at the slow pace.

Also, the need to redefine the Iranian threat away from exclusively being focused on nuclear activity, because now you have the difficulty of both the IAEA saying there is no nuclear weapons program and the CIA saying pretty much the same thing. So the Bush administration needs to redefine the Iranian threat, which they have been doing successfully, casting Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror, getting the Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command a terrorist organization, and creating a perception amongst the American people, courtesy of a compliant media, that talks about the reason why things are going bad in Iraq is primarily because of Iranian intervention.

They have been working very hard to get back on track. I still believe that we are seeing convergence here. The Bush administration is moving very aggressively toward military action with Iran.

'''


But there's nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that's occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.

The only thing critical about April is that it is the beginning of the third quarter of the fiscal year, and the point at which all budgeted government funds must be allocated to a program, or is subject to redistribution. Conversion of heavy bombers, which has been in the budget for the last 6 years, is a frequent and popular "holding" program, which means the money will probably be reallocated. Once again, much ado about nothing.

[tt]

According to the new National Intelligence Estimate, Iran quit it's nuclear weapons program in '03. Who would have thought Bush might use false and or mis-leading information to start a war?

[mrdiscreet]

I can agree that the latest National Intelligence Estimate places nuclear capacity for Iran 10 years out and that none of the Bush administration's "crisis" warmongering statements are backed by US intelligence agency support.

I can agree that the Bush administration has rejected the professional intelligence on Iran because it prefers a "regime change" foreign policy toward Iran, otherwise known as a war of aggression.

With the new NIE released, when will we see the US press report that (1) Cheney suppressed the report for the past year and (2) Bush knew Iran was not an imminent nuclear threat when he traveled to the Middle East and, as ourt sitting President, threw out the terms "armageddon" and "WWIII"? Never.

Someone was obfuscating, but not me. Here's a hint: the initials are GOP.

[PunkyBob]

According to the new National Intelligence Estimate, Iran quit it's nuclear weapons program in '03. Who would have thought Bush might use false and or mis-leading information to start a war?

Really??? Jeez, what a surprise.

[mrdiscreet]

$1B In Military Equipment Missing In Iraq
Exclusive: Report Shows Vehicles, Machine Guns And More Meant For Iraqi Forces Unaccounted For
(CBS) This story was written and reported by Laura Strickler of the CBS News Investigative Unit.

Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.

Does this mean the US is the top supplier of weapons to Iraqi insurgents killing our own soldiers, and that we need to drop a tactical nuke on ourselves?

How about we just get the hell out instead.

[Cotties]

US Begins Talks With Allies on Iran (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23546.shtml)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began talks with European and Russian officials Thursday to urge greater international pressure on Iran to halt uranium enrichment and come clean about its past and present nuclear programs. Just days after a new U.S. intelligence estimate contradicted years of assertions that Iran is secretly pursuing atomic weapons, Rice was stressing the Bush administration's case for continued isolation of the Iranian regime with NATO allies and Russia, its former Cold War foe.
Dec 6, 2007, 11:20

Iran News
Iran nuclear report divides reporters
World media reaction to the US intelligence report suggesting that Iran had suspended any nuclear weapons programme is divided. ....US President George Bush stands alone in the United States in warning against the Iranian nuclear danger while the US intelligence reports stress the opposite. So where does he get his information and evaluations. It is noteworthy that Israel is the only country in the world that stands with Bush and stresses the Iranian nuclear danger. So is this a coincidence, or do they have common reasons to heat up the front with Iran? [ Learn More (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7130553.stm) ]
Dec 6, 2007, 11:13

Iran News
Russia rejects US pre-2003 claim (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23540.shtml)
Russia has no evidence that IR of Iran had a programme to develop nuclear weapons prior to 2003, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying Wednesday, contradicting the position of a US intelligence report published this week. "We have no information that such a project existed before 2003, although American colleagues stated that the situation was exactly that," Lavrov said, Interfax reported.
Dec 5, 2007, 20:49

Iran News
Putin urges Iran to freeze uranium enrichment program - Lavrov (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23529.shtml)
"Meeting with Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mr. Jalili, President Vladimir Putin once again urged the Iranian leadership to take a most serious approach toward the calls and demands contained in decisions by the IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council resolutions, which imply full cooperation with the IAEA on the issues that are still not fully clarified and which include a call for suspending uranium enrichment, as this should provide the opportunity for immediately starting negotiations on the entire range of issues concerning both the international community and Iran," he said.
Dec 5, 2007, 14:41

Iran News
Iran's allies expect less pressure over Tehran's nuclear program
In Tehran, the message was starkly different. Ahmadinejad said triumphantly that when the U.S. intelligence report released Monday found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it amounted to "a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers." The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, had yet a different take. He said the report offered Tehran a "window of opportunity" to resolve the crisis, Bloomberg News reported from Bras�lia. [ Learn More (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/africa/intel.php) ]
Dec 5, 2007, 14:37

Iran News
Israeli 'made-up myth & exaggeration' against Iran continues (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23525.shtml)
Israel said Tuesday that it remained convinced that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and that it had probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in the fall of 2003. The defense minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the American assessment of "moderate confidence" that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program by mid-2007 and that the end to the program "represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program." He suggested that Israel would not rest in its efforts to stop Iran's activities.
Dec 5, 2007, 14:26

Iran News
Bush tells Iran to come clean over nukes (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23524.shtml)
Two days after a US intelligence report stated Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the US President George W Bush is calling on Tehran to come clean about it. Mr Bush says the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge its past nuclear program and he wants to Tehran to release details of it. He also says he is confident Britain, France, Germany and Russia understand that international pressure must continue on Iran. "These countries understand that the Iranian nuclear issue is a problem and continues to be a problem that must be addressed by the international community," he said.
Dec 5, 2007, 14:24

Iran News
Iran declares victory after U.S. nuclear report (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23523.shtml)
Iran's president declared victory over the United States on Wednesday and the head of a U.N. watchdog said Iran had been "somewhat vindicated" by a U.S. report that it halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. U.S. President George W. Bush called for Tehran to "come clean" on its nuclear activities and stop its enrichment of uranium which can potentially be used to make atomic bombs. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would press ahead with its nuclear program which the Islamic Republic says has only peaceful civilian aims. "Today, the Iranian nation is victorious but you (the United States) are empty-handed," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech to a rally in the western Iranian city of Ilam.
Dec 5, 2007, 14:21

All articles taken from Iranian news online

[Cotties]

Disappointed after failing to make their case on Iran and influence the outcome of the United States's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released this week, Intelligence will present its hard core evidence on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program on Sunday to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during a rare visit he will be making to Israel.

Admiral Michael Mullen will land in Israel Sunday morning for a 24-hour visit that will include a one-on-one meeting with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

According to a Time magazine article published Wednesday, Mullen is a member of the Pentagon's "anti-war [with Iran] group" that includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, current commander of the US Central Command.

In a recent press briefing in Washington, however, Mullen took a hard-line approach, refusing to rule out the possibility that military force will be used to stop Iran's race towards nuclear power.

"I would never take the military option off the table," Mullen told reporters, although he stressed that his remark did not mean that force would be used. Diplomacy, he added, was very important. Mullen's visit to Israel will be exactly a week after the publication of the NIE report that claimed Iran had frozen its nuclear military program in 2003 and has yet to restart it. During his visit, Military Intelligence plans to present him with Israel's evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons.



"The report clearly shows that we did not succeed in making our case over the past year in the run-up to this report," a defense official said Thursday. "Mullen's visit is an opportunity to try and fix that."

In addition to Iran, Ashkenazi and his staff will also discuss with Mullen America's commitment for Israel to retain its qualitative edge in the face of the sale of advanced JDAM missiles to Saudi Arabia.

In the past, Israel had asked the Pentagon to permit the sale of the F-22 fifth-generation stealth fighter jet - also known as the Raptor - but the request was rejected. Mullen will be met by an honor guard at the Kirya Military Headquarters in Tel Aviv and will sit through a day of presentations by IDF generals, including Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin and OC IDF Planning Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan.

Israel post .com

[spare_change]

The NIE on Iran’s nuclear program

The U.S. intelligence community on Monday released the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, finding that although Iran did have a nuclear-weapons program in the past, it was halted in 2003, not long after the U.S. offensive in Iraq commenced. Coincidence? Readers might have come away from the various newspaper and Internet articles believing that the problem of Iran’s nuclear program has ended (it hasn’t) and that Iran is now in the clear as far as the U.S. and the UN Security Council are concerned (it isn’t). This conclusion immediately drew calls, especially from President Bush’s detractors, for the U.S. to change its Iran policy, which has been to isolate Tehran and push for international sanctions. For their part, the Bush administration said they planned to maintain the current policy and demanded that Tehran detail its previous weapons program, but there is growing concern that the NIE will indeed weaken resolve to deal with Iran.

Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, naturally called the report a “victory” for Iran, which continues to enrich uranium (how is that not related to nuclear-weapons development?), while not allowing international access to its nuclear sites. Furthermore, Israel rejected the NIE, contending that Iran has resumed its weapons program with the intention of building a nuclear bomb.

As noted before, once Iran masters centrifuge enrichment, it is a small and simple step to go from five-percent enriched to 95-percent enriched, the only difference being the greater time required to produce a given amount of 95-percent-enriched uranium. Iran could amass low-enriched uranium—perfectly legal within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty—until it has a stockpile sufficient to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for several warheads. At the same time, Iran could resume covert weapons development, or acquire a warhead design from abroad. China has special relevance in this scenario. Once enough low-enriched uranium is on hand, Iran could either circumvent international monitoring or withdraw from the NPT altogether and rush to produce weapons-grade uranium.

This “breakout” capability will remain a threat as long as Iran continues to obstruct the IAEA in its efforts to monitor Iran’s nuclear program. This has always been at the heart of the dispute between Iran and the UN. Note that we didn’t say “between Iran and the United States.” Almost entirely absent from the media reports is the fact that the U.S. is not alone in confronting Iran’s nuclear program, no matter how much The New York Times (“A Blow To Bush’s Iran Policy”) might wish it were so. The other permanent members of the UN Security Council—Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as Germany—all at some point in the last four years have supported the effort to coerce Iran into NPT compliance.

We do not make light of the NIE’s judgment. It is indeed a highly significant finding, based on newly acquired intelligence. But intelligence is always an art involving known unknowns (we know that we don’t have certain information) and unknown unknowns (we don’t know that an issue exists at all). Given how much we have learned in the last seven years regarding what we didn’t know about Iran’s nuclear program, how much might we not know today? Keep your eyes on this issue in the coming weeks as the Left asserts that Iran is no longer a problem.

[mrdiscreet]

Intelligence Failures. Craig Unger. Huffingtonpost.


Intelligence failures, intelligence failures. The United States spends more than $40 billion a year on intelligence, but, gosh darn it, we just can't seem to get it right. The latest fiasco, of course, concerns the now infamous National Intelligence Estimate about Iran which concludes that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program more than four years ago.


Let me suggest, however, that the real problem is not repeated intelligence failures, as conventional wisdom has it. In fact, I believe we have the opposite problem -- namely, intelligence successes. By that I mean successful disinformation operations, black propaganda operations that have promoted falsehoods for decades in an extraordinarily successful series of attempts to mislead the American people and shape U.S. foreign policy to serve neo-conservative ideological ends.

One can trace such operations back to 1976, when a number of young neoconservatives, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, helped assemble a group of hawkish anti-Communist foreign policymakers to put together intelligence showing that that the "liberal" CIA had dangerously underestimated the Soviet threat. Even though U.S.-Soviet relations had thawed considerably thanks to détente, Team B, as the group became known, thought that the Soviets wanted to wipe out America, so it created a report showing a Soviet Union hell bent on world domination. It had no factual evidence to back up its assertion that the Soviets had a top secret non-acoustic antisubmarine system. Nevertheless, it concluded that the Soviets had probably "deployed some operational non-acoustic systems and will deploy more in the next few years." The absence of evidence, it reasoned, merely proved how secretive the Soviets were!

Similarly, in the early '80s, neo-con firebrand Michael Ledeen falsely blamed the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II on the KGB. In a 1987 article in The Nation, Italian intelligence operative Francesco Pazienza said that Ledeen "was the person responsible for dreaming up the 'Bulgarian connection' behind the plot to kill the Pope." Again, a disinformation scam heated up the Cold War.

More recently, of course, there were the Niger documents, the forgeries that said Saddam agreed to buy 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the Republic of Niger. Astoundingly, as I report in my new book, The Fall of the House of Bush, on at least 13 different occasions Western authorities discredited the information in the Niger documents, yet they still found their way into President Bush's 2003 "State of the Union" address as a casus belli to start a war against Iraq. No fewer than nine former intelligence and military analysts who have served in the C.I.A., the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.), and the Pentagon told me on the record that they believed that the Niger documents were part of a covert operation to deliberately mislead the American public and start a war with Iraq.

All of which brings us to U.S. policy with Iran -- and a narrative that by now should be all too familiar, but that somehow still escapes the attention of the mainstream press. In December 2001, secret back channel meetings took place in Rome between Michael Ledeen and Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer and con man. Members of the Mujahideen e-Khalq, or MEK, an urban-guerrilla group of Iranian dissidents that practices a peculiar brand of revolutionary Marxism, reportedly attended, suggesting that a rogue group of neo-cons had notions about trying to implement regime change in Iran. In August 2006, House intelligence committee chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) released a congressional report which overstated both the number and range of Iran's missiles and neglected to mention that the International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence of weapons production or activity. And, of course, there have been countless reports that an Iranian nuclear weapon was imminent.

Last week, however, with the release of the Iran NIE, intelligence professionals from the CIA and analysts from the State Department finally triumphed over the neo-con ideologues for change. As a result, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, a hard-liner if ever there was one, is now screaming that the NIE may be a product of "disinformation" from Iran and that someone "is pursuing a policy agenda."

It is fair to say that many unanswered questions remain about Iran's intentions. But if history is any guide, John Bolton has it exactly backwards.

John Bolton, GOP hack, complaining about intelligence being cooked for policy agendas. Now that's truly the cat with the canary.