INTRIGUE IN IRAN: U.S./Israel Murder Iranian Nuclear Scientist...

[Mr. President]

Iran needs to understand that the world powers will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon. Also, there is no evidence that places responsibility on Israel or The United States for the killing of this scientist. Maybe Iran did it to try and gather world sympathy. Yeah because there is just as much evidence supporting that theory!

 

[toomuchtime_]

"The U.S. Congress in December passed a defense authorization bill that included provisions intended to bring down the Central Bank of Iran.

"Although President Obama expressed reservations, he signed it into law. This latest U.S. sanctions package is openly intended to deprive Iran of its oil revenues.

"By prohibiting other countries from dealing with Iran's banks, it is intended to prevent Iran from selling its oil. That is the equivalent of an act of war -- a financial blockade of Iran's oil ports that would deprive Iran of more than half its budgetary revenues."

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Since Bubba launched his election year (1995) sanctions against Iran's oil industry, Iran has progressed from not a single centrifuge turning to today's 8000+ centrifuges spinning out a substantial stock of low-enriched uranium.

"This is the very definition of a failed policy."

Indeed, it would have been much better if the sanctions could have been ratcheted up more quickly or if we had bombed out Iran's nuclear program years earlier, but there was never sufficient international support for crippling sanctions before and there was not enough domestic support for military action, however, the good news is that if Obama implements the current sanctions, they will be crippling, likely destabilizing the Iranian government and perhaps bringing about regime change, and there is now sufficient domestic support for military actions if Iran is foolish enough to give even the slightest provocation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran needs to understand that the world powers will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon. Also, there is no evidence that places responsibility on Israel or The United States for the killing of this scientist. Maybe Iran did it to try and gather world sympathy. Yeah because there is just as much evidence supporting that theory!

Or it could have been done by the various Arab nations that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons program or by Iranian dissidents who have been denied access to the political process but who oppose the current regime of terrorists and assassins and who want improved relations with the west or by the Kurds in norther Iraq whose villages are regularly shelled by Iran or by the Arabs in southern Iran who complain that they are discriminated against and oppressed by the regime or by the Sunni terrorist groups in Pakistan who have regularly attacked and assassinated Iranians in the government or the Revolutionary Guard.

 

[georgephillip]

Iran needs to understand that the world powers will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon. Also, there is no evidence that places responsibility on Israel or The United States for the killing of this scientist. Maybe Iran did it to try and gather world sympathy. Yeah because there is just as much evidence supporting that theory!

Or it could have been done by the various Arab nations that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons program or by Iranian dissidents who have been denied access to the political process but who oppose the current regime of terrorists and assassins and who want improved relations with the west or by the Kurds in norther Iraq whose villages are regularly shelled by Iran or by the Arabs in southern Iran who complain that they are discriminated against and oppressed by the regime or by the Sunni terrorist groups in Pakistan who have regularly attacked and assassinated Iranians in the government or the Revolutionary Guard.

Or it could have been done by Jundallah at the behest of Israel with payment provided by US taxpayers.

"Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents.

"According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a 'false flag' operation."

False Flag - By Mark Perry | Foreign Policy

 

[georgephillip]

"The U.S. Congress in December passed a defense authorization bill that included provisions intended to bring down the Central Bank of Iran.

"Although President Obama expressed reservations, he signed it into law. This latest U.S. sanctions package is openly intended to deprive Iran of its oil revenues.

"By prohibiting other countries from dealing with Iran's banks, it is intended to prevent Iran from selling its oil. That is the equivalent of an act of war -- a financial blockade of Iran's oil ports that would deprive Iran of more than half its budgetary revenues."

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Since Bubba launched his election year (1995) sanctions against Iran's oil industry, Iran has progressed from not a single centrifuge turning to today's 8000+ centrifuges spinning out a substantial stock of low-enriched uranium.

"This is the very definition of a failed policy."

Indeed, it would have been much better if the sanctions could have been ratcheted up more quickly or if we had bombed out Iran's nuclear program years earlier, but there was never sufficient international support for crippling sanctions before and there was not enough domestic support for military action, however, the good news is that if Obama implements the current sanctions, they will be crippling, likely destabilizing the Iranian government and perhaps bringing about regime change, and there is now sufficient domestic support for military actions if Iran is foolish enough to give even the slightest provocation.

"The past several weeks have seen a sharp increase in the three-decade war of words between the United States and Iran. Iran has held maneuvers in the critical Strait of Hormuz, combined with threats to interrupt commerce there.

"The United States has lost its third drone over Iran, and unnamed parties are conducting an unprecedented covert campaign of cyberwar and assassinations inside Iran. Iran says it has broken up a U.S. spy ring and has condemned a U.S. citizen to death."

If Iran had just lost its third drone over Texas, would that qualify as good news or bad?

What possible threat (with or without nuclear weapons) does Iran pose to the US homeland?
More or less than Saddam Hussein?

The international support for crippling sanctions you mentioned has more to do with the slow-motion meltdown of the global economy than any legitimate fear of "mad mullahs." Whenever economies crash, elites start pounding the drums for wars they seldom die in.

Time to drop a daisy cutter on Wall Street?

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

America has every right to fear "mad mullahs".

Any who doubt it mentally feeble, academically ignorant, morally insane, or malignantly motivated.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"The U.S. Congress in December passed a defense authorization bill that included provisions intended to bring down the Central Bank of Iran.

"Although President Obama expressed reservations, he signed it into law. This latest U.S. sanctions package is openly intended to deprive Iran of its oil revenues.

"By prohibiting other countries from dealing with Iran's banks, it is intended to prevent Iran from selling its oil. That is the equivalent of an act of war -- a financial blockade of Iran's oil ports that would deprive Iran of more than half its budgetary revenues."

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Since Bubba launched his election year (1995) sanctions against Iran's oil industry, Iran has progressed from not a single centrifuge turning to today's 8000+ centrifuges spinning out a substantial stock of low-enriched uranium.

"This is the very definition of a failed policy."

Indeed, it would have been much better if the sanctions could have been ratcheted up more quickly or if we had bombed out Iran's nuclear program years earlier, but there was never sufficient international support for crippling sanctions before and there was not enough domestic support for military action, however, the good news is that if Obama implements the current sanctions, they will be crippling, likely destabilizing the Iranian government and perhaps bringing about regime change, and there is now sufficient domestic support for military actions if Iran is foolish enough to give even the slightest provocation.

"The past several weeks have seen a sharp increase in the three-decade war of words between the United States and Iran. Iran has held maneuvers in the critical Strait of Hormuz, combined with threats to interrupt commerce there.

"The United States has lost its third drone over Iran, and unnamed parties are conducting an unprecedented covert campaign of cyberwar and assassinations inside Iran. Iran says it has broken up a U.S. spy ring and has condemned a U.S. citizen to death."

If Iran had just lost its third drone over Texas, would that qualify as good news or bad?

What possible threat (with or without nuclear weapons) does Iran pose to the US homeland?
More or less than Saddam Hussein?

The international support for crippling sanctions you mentioned has more to do with the slow-motion meltdown of the global economy than any legitimate fear of "mad mullahs." Whenever economies crash, elites start pounding the drums for wars they seldom die in.

Time to drop a daisy cutter on Wall Street?

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran needs to understand that the world powers will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon. Also, there is no evidence that places responsibility on Israel or The United States for the killing of this scientist. Maybe Iran did it to try and gather world sympathy. Yeah because there is just as much evidence supporting that theory!

Or it could have been done by the various Arab nations that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons program or by Iranian dissidents who have been denied access to the political process but who oppose the current regime of terrorists and assassins and who want improved relations with the west or by the Kurds in norther Iraq whose villages are regularly shelled by Iran or by the Arabs in southern Iran who complain that they are discriminated against and oppressed by the regime or by the Sunni terrorist groups in Pakistan who have regularly attacked and assassinated Iranians in the government or the Revolutionary Guard.

Or it could have been done by Jundallah at the behest of Israel with payment provided by US taxpayers.

"Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents.

"According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a 'false flag' operation."

False Flag - By Mark Perry | Foreign Policy

There is just no way to know.

 

[georgephillip]

Indeed, it would have been much better if the sanctions could have been ratcheted up more quickly or if we had bombed out Iran's nuclear program years earlier, but there was never sufficient international support for crippling sanctions before and there was not enough domestic support for military action, however, the good news is that if Obama implements the current sanctions, they will be crippling, likely destabilizing the Iranian government and perhaps bringing about regime change, and there is now sufficient domestic support for military actions if Iran is foolish enough to give even the slightest provocation.

"The past several weeks have seen a sharp increase in the three-decade war of words between the United States and Iran. Iran has held maneuvers in the critical Strait of Hormuz, combined with threats to interrupt commerce there.

"The United States has lost its third drone over Iran, and unnamed parties are conducting an unprecedented covert campaign of cyberwar and assassinations inside Iran. Iran says it has broken up a U.S. spy ring and has condemned a U.S. citizen to death."

If Iran had just lost its third drone over Texas, would that qualify as good news or bad?

What possible threat (with or without nuclear weapons) does Iran pose to the US homeland?
More or less than Saddam Hussein?

The international support for crippling sanctions you mentioned has more to do with the slow-motion meltdown of the global economy than any legitimate fear of "mad mullahs." Whenever economies crash, elites start pounding the drums for wars they seldom die in.

Time to drop a daisy cutter on Wall Street?

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

If Iran currently possessed the same number of nuclear warheads as Israel (or the late Soviet Union), is it logical crippling sanctions would be on the table? How is it the US and Western Europe survived a Cold War involving tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on both sides, yet Iran poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it?

 

[toomuchtime_]

"The past several weeks have seen a sharp increase in the three-decade war of words between the United States and Iran. Iran has held maneuvers in the critical Strait of Hormuz, combined with threats to interrupt commerce there.

"The United States has lost its third drone over Iran, and unnamed parties are conducting an unprecedented covert campaign of cyberwar and assassinations inside Iran. Iran says it has broken up a U.S. spy ring and has condemned a U.S. citizen to death."

If Iran had just lost its third drone over Texas, would that qualify as good news or bad?

What possible threat (with or without nuclear weapons) does Iran pose to the US homeland?
More or less than Saddam Hussein?

The international support for crippling sanctions you mentioned has more to do with the slow-motion meltdown of the global economy than any legitimate fear of "mad mullahs." Whenever economies crash, elites start pounding the drums for wars they seldom die in.

Time to drop a daisy cutter on Wall Street?

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

If Iran currently possessed the same number of nuclear warheads as Israel (or the late Soviet Union), is it logical crippling sanctions would be on the table? How is it the US and Western Europe survived a Cold War involving tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on both sides, yet Iran poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it?

Crippling sanctions are intended to prevent Iran from putting nuclear warheads on its Shahab 6 and Shahab 7 missiles and becoming a nuclear threat to the US and western Europe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The past several weeks have seen a sharp increase in the three-decade war of words between the United States and Iran. Iran has held maneuvers in the critical Strait of Hormuz, combined with threats to interrupt commerce there.

"The United States has lost its third drone over Iran, and unnamed parties are conducting an unprecedented covert campaign of cyberwar and assassinations inside Iran. Iran says it has broken up a U.S. spy ring and has condemned a U.S. citizen to death."

If Iran had just lost its third drone over Texas, would that qualify as good news or bad?

What possible threat (with or without nuclear weapons) does Iran pose to the US homeland?
More or less than Saddam Hussein?

The international support for crippling sanctions you mentioned has more to do with the slow-motion meltdown of the global economy than any legitimate fear of "mad mullahs." Whenever economies crash, elites start pounding the drums for wars they seldom die in.

Time to drop a daisy cutter on Wall Street?

Iran, U.S. need a crisis exit ramp - CNN.com

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

If Iran currently possessed the same number of nuclear warheads as Israel (or the late Soviet Union), is it logical crippling sanctions would be on the table? How is it the US and Western Europe survived a Cold War involving tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on both sides, yet Iran poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it?

Because the leaders of Iran are guided by religious zealots, who for a secular logic they have not the slightest need. They want to punish Israel and the land for the Jewish curse they believed has cursed the land unless the land is purged by fire. Several nukes would fulfill that desire nicely.

 

[georgephillip]

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

If Iran currently possessed the same number of nuclear warheads as Israel (or the late Soviet Union), is it logical crippling sanctions would be on the table? How is it the US and Western Europe survived a Cold War involving tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on both sides, yet Iran poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it?

Crippling sanctions are intended to prevent Iran from putting nuclear warheads on its Shahab 6 and Shahab 7 missiles and becoming a nuclear threat to the US and western Europe.

Israel and the US are currently nuclear threats to Iran which is the only one of the three countries supporting a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. It seems more likely crippling sanctions are designed to have the same effect of Iran's central bank as US interventions had on the central banks of Iraq and Libya; the New World Order has its sights set on Iran next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iran has no fear if it would state unequivocally that it respects Israel's right to exist within defensible borders, and if Iran vows to defend Israel against aggressors.

 

[dilloduck]

Crippling sanctions convinced Japan that bombing Pearl Harbor was a good idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A derivative analogy, but one that makes one think.

 

[georgephillip]

Iran presents a much greater threat to the US and western Europe than Saddam did in part because Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, despite tremendous opposition and condemnation of the action by most of the western world, and also because Iran has been hard at work developing its Shahab 6 missile that is capable f delivering a nuclear warhead to any city in western Europe and is currently developing its Shahab 7 missile that will be able to hit any city on the US east coast and several hundreds of miles inland with a nuclear warhead. Iran already had its Shahab 3 missile which was capable of hitting any target in Israel, so an intent to threaten western Europe and the US with nuclear armed missiles is the only logical reason to develop the Shahab 6 or Shahab 7 missiles.

The crippling sanctions are a rational response to the obvious threat Iran's long range missiles and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons present to western Europe and the US.

If Iran currently possessed the same number of nuclear warheads as Israel (or the late Soviet Union), is it logical crippling sanctions would be on the table? How is it the US and Western Europe survived a Cold War involving tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on both sides, yet Iran poses an existential threat to civilization as we know it?

Because the leaders of Iran are guided by religious zealots, who for a secular logic they have not the slightest need. They want to punish Israel and the land for the Jewish curse they believed has cursed the land unless the land is purged by fire. Several nukes would fulfill that desire nicely.

It's more likely the richest 0.1 of Iranians, including many high ranking military officers, control whatever madness the mullahs may have in mind. The rich are seldom suicidal in any country.

What's considerably more clear is how the US has been gearing up for the total destruction of Iran, with bombers and missiles ready to destroy 10,000 Iranian targets in a matter of hours. The firepower has quadrupled since 2003 and it's been accelerating since Obama took office.

The only existential threat this country is facing is on Wall Street and in the Pentagon.

 

[dilloduck]

A derivative analogy, but one that makes one think.

We got brains--may as well play with em.

 

[Sunni Man]

Iran has no fear if it would state unequivocally that it respects Israel's right to exist within defensible borders, and if Iran vows to defend Israel against aggressors.

LOL, like that's ever going to happen!!

 

[georgephillip]

Iran has no fear if it would state unequivocally that it respects Israel's right to exist within defensible borders, and if Iran vows to defend Israel against aggressors.

When has Israel ever declared its borders?
The answer is never since that makes it much easier to steal your neighbors' land and water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iran has no fear if it would state unequivocally that it respects Israel's right to exist within defensible borders, and if Iran vows to defend Israel against aggressors.

LOL, like that's ever going to happen!!

Like Iran is not going to end in nuclear hellfire and flame if it ever uses the weapon. Fact, bud.