Likud members: Bomb Iran
In conference organized Saturday night by Minister Yisrael Katz, 400 Likud members vote to 'bomb nuclear reactor before it is too late'; party's central committee expected to convene Sunday to approve change in constitution initiated by Likud Chairman NetanyahuAbout 400 Likud members, who took part Saturday evening in a conference organized by Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz in the town of Hod Hasharon, voted by a large majority to "bomb Iran's nuclear reactor before it is too late," in the words of Likud member and Ra'anana Deputy Mayor Uzi Cohen.
According to Cohen, "we have been following the Iranians for a long time now, but the defense establishment chiefs issue warnings without doing anything."
"We must act as (former Prime Minister Menachem) Begin did when he bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor," he said.
Source : Here
I wonder how Israel would feel if the Arabs were to decide to bomb their nuclear reactor ?
The IAEA has said the jury is out on Iran's intentions and any attempt to attack Israel would certainly bring total annihilation from the west. Iran (like Israel) surely has a right to defend itself and the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that Iran has signed (and Israel has not) allows them the legal right to pursue nuclear energy .
What if Eygpt or Saudi or Turkey decide to pursue their lawful right to nuclear power , will Israel attack them too ? Not one country apart from Israel is questioning Iran's right to have nuclear power . But will anyone pressure Israel into following the rule of law itself and signing the NPT , of course not . For it is one rule for the Arabs and another rule for the rest of us.
posted by _H_ at 3:44 am
14 Comments:
Just one question, when was the last time you heard the leader of Israel threaten to wipe Iran off the map?
I think that the one thing that continues to amaze me is that people will want to ignore statements from the Iranian President which he means quite literally. I don't see on your list of statements his statement re: wiping Israel off the map which he said three times at least in public.
Further, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have no need for Nuclear technology for several reasons but the main one is that they are not looking to gain nuclear arms because they are protected by the nuclear arms of the US and its military (Egypt gets double indemnity since Europe sees the Suez Canal as a mega important factor in their economics for the ability to import and export goods and energy resources).
It would be interesting to imagine that Iran simply wants it for energy purposes, but only the truly blind would imagine that a nation sitting on top of some of the worlds largest oil and natural gas deposits needs nuclear energy for lighting up its own population.
The truth of the matter is that it wants it for the purpose of building nuclear weapons technology. It needs it because they need to secure their hegemony over the region (when I say region, I don't mean simply the Middle East, but including Central Asian nations which are leaning towards capitalist free markets and full democracy). It needs to secure this hegemony because it's economy is largely dependent on its energy exports. The revenue of these energy exports is controlled by "supply and demand" economics. As a member of OPEC, where Saudi Arabia, a western leaning nation, exports the largest amount of oil and thus impacts the price of oil (and wields the most power in OPEC). This impact of pricing effects Iran's economy and causes its economy to fluctuate.
With nuclear hegemony, it hopes to at least offset, if not directly negate, the protection Saudi Arabia (and the gulf states, also large exporters) enjoy and thus gives it more bargaining power at the table when decisions are made about increasing or decreasing production (in fact, Iran would be happy for certain nations to decrease their production since it would drive up oil prices and provide them with the revenue it can't get from other exports of minerals, ores and other goods).
It also seeks to employ similar tactics against the central Asian states, once Russian republics, which export a large amount of oil and natural gas in their own rights. Further, many European nations, along with the US, have oil and gas production agreements with these Central Asian nations and have nominal protection through the expansion of NATO partnership programs which Iran sees as a threat and rightly assumes their nuclear ability within the region and directly in their faces will have greater impact on the regional politics and economy than a distant protector.
Russia is willing to help them arm for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, with the continual democratization and westward leaning Central Asian Nations right across the Caucuses and Caspian sea (One of Russia's largest energy producing sectors) and compacts between these nations and their western allies that also insures the steady supply of oil and natural gas (including the increased output to offset increased demands and keep the prices down) impacts Russia's economic security since their major revenue and GDP growth is directly related to (by about 80%) the increase in oil and natural gas prices over the last three years.
Without this increase, Russia would be a completely failed state (which is also why Russia has re-nationalized many of its energy companies since it believes it needs to control all of the revenue to survive).
Further, by becoming Iran's partner, not only does it have a second hand to help control the Caucus and Caspian Sea nations, but it can also influence Iran within the OPEC construct which, with nuclear weapons, gives them a mighty controlling power over output and production which keeps the oil and gas prices up which helps both the Russian and Iranian economy by keeping the price up.
This is not simply a question of "rights" under the non-proliferation treaty although, if you are going to talk about them then you should point out that Iran's refusal to make their nuclear processes transparent to insure "non-proliferation" of nukes makes them outside of their treaty obligations.
Last, if one wants to discuss who is most likely to use a nuclear weapon against their enemies, real or perceived, I'd bet odds on it's Iran at least 2 to 1 over Israel since Israel is protected by the US and several treaties (with Egypt by the way and Saudi Arabia if you didn't know which is why they are less likely to complain if these nations considered nuclear technology for energy as opposed to Iran).
You can't simply ignore the president of Iran talking about wiping countries off the map and then say they have the "right" to nuclear energy without adhering to ALL of the non-proliferation treaty they signed.
It's kind of naive, don't you think?
PS...did you know that Iran was Russia's number one trade partner for non-energy exports (Russia to Iran?).
One final thought, so, while you are pointing out the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and, from the rest of your blog, the supposed dangers to liberty that the US and the war on "terror" (I prefer to call it the war on Islamists), you fail to note one of the most important factors in the Iranian nuclear construct which is that, with nuclear weapons (like the old USSR), it is likely that Iran can and will continue to oppress, torture and kill its own people in quite illiberal methods for quite illiberal reasons (another reason it wants nuclear weapons since it will force western democracy movements from without to stop supporting overtly their internal democracy movement and thus keep the illiberal oppressive leaders in power for decades to come).
so, I take it that's okay with you as long as it's Iranians doing it to Iranians?
Just wanted to get clarification.
"[T]he one thing that continues to amaze me is" people who show up here calling others naive and such and making accusations without evidence. For the love of God, do you have no respect for our time?
Ignore statements from Iran? Hello? Thanks for bothering to check the archives before shooting your mouth off.
As for Iran's nuclear energy, of which you seem to be trying to prove you know little, in 1957, the U.S. helped the Shah get enriched uranium for civilian power plants. In 1974, the Iranian government under the Shah began constructing two reactors at Bushehr with West German help.
After the Islamic revolution the Ayatollah halted construction of these plants on the grounds that they were "un-Islamic." However, the U.S. puppet state of Iraq attacked Iran causing great damage to oil production facilities hindering its energy supply. [Read that twice if it didn't sink in.] Iran then continued to aquire equipment to produce nuclear fuel.
In 1995, President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani inked a deal with Russia to fininsh the two reactors at Bushehr and to build a centrifuge plant and a research reactor. Russia agreed to take back the plutonium-containing spent fuel from the reactors.
As for countries desiring hegemony over the region, one only need look at your country which not only explicitly stated those desires in internal documents, it has spent the last 50 years doing just trying to fulfill them.
Next, on the relationship past and present between Russia and Iran, you demonstrate again that you have not looked at this site. Not even one week ago, I posted on this, and it seems I must again. From Dilip Hiro's The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide:
"On 1 October 1927 the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Guarantee and Neutrality with Iran. The signatories agreed to refrain from aggression against each other and to remain neutral in the event of aggression by a third country. 'Each of the contracting parties agrees to take no part... in political alliances or agreements directed against the safety of the territory or territorial waters of the contracting party or against the integrity, independence or sovereignty,' stated Article 3. The same applied to economic boycotts or blockades organised by third parties."
As for Iran's democratic movements, the student movement was doing very, very well until Dubya shot his mouth off about the "axis of evil" and put Iran on a list of nations it would target with nukes. This had the predictable and predicted effect of giving fuel to the hardliners in Iran to crush any dissent (hard to miss as the same thing occured in the U.S. with respect to dissent after 9/11).
Just one question(looks like a big one), when was the last time you heard the leader of Israel threaten to wipe Iran off the map? I havnt but when did Israel start pre anouncing any of their wars , you see israel has started wars where , Iran does not have a history of starting any conflicts in recent history , Infact during a number of Israels recent wars Iran could have joined the fray and they made the choice not too ,
I think that the one thing that continues to amaze me is that people will want to ignore statements from the Iranian President which he means quite literally. I don't see on your list of statements his statement re: wiping Israel off the map which he said three times at least in public. I infact did post on it of you cared to look Here though how you are so sure of this man to take him literally on this subject but refuse point black to take his word when he says that nuclear weapons are un Islamic amd he does not desire them ,
Further, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have no need for Nuclear technology for several reasons but the main one is that they are not looking to gain nuclear arms because they are protected by the nuclear arms of the US and its military (Egypt gets double indemnity since Europe sees the Suez Canal as a mega important factor in their economics for the ability to import and export goods and energy resources). ah i see , your combining nuclear power with nuclear weapons almost every country signed up to the NPT is trying to get nuclear power in one form or another thats a wonderful part of the treaty you see you allow isnpections and in return the world allows you to pursue nuclear power , including reactors (as this article is about) the Saudi arabia and Egypt already have nuclear prrograms , almost all countries do , the point is not wether Iran has a nuclear program , 190 of the 191 member states of the UN agree that Iran is allowed a nuclear program , the point is Iran trying to make a BOMB and that you dont know i can assure you mohamed alberi di and the IAEA are the only people to trust and they say the jury is out ,
It would be interesting to imagine that Iran simply wants it for energy purposes, but only the truly blind would imagine that a nation sitting on top of some of the worlds largest oil and natural gas deposits needs nuclear energy for lighting up its own population. have you not studied economics , they can sell a higher percentage of their oil if they generate their power using fusion , it means they can export almost all their oil and the profits are possibly billions , maybe we are just blind to economics
The truth of the matter is that it wants it for the purpose of building nuclear weapons technology. then you should not be telling me you should be on the phone to the IAEA , they are inspecting and they dont know but you do , hmmm were you one of those people that told me saddam had big bad weapons too ? the problem is that you do not know this .but you continue to build your house on it the next three paragrahs seem to give me your take on why Iran is behaving in the way that you percieve they are doing , but you dont tell me who you are , what your position is within the Iranain leadership ? or if not what credible sources you bring to proove your point that Iran IS building a bomb ,, you seem so certain you just want me to come along with you for the ride , if you wish to make such predictions please supply sources (credible), you can not attack a country over speculation ,that behavour created the slaughter in Iraq and let me be clear I respect Israel right to existence but i also respect Irans rights under an international law .
This is not simply a question of "rights" under the non-proliferation treaty although, if you are going to talk about them then you should point out that Iran's refusal to make their nuclear processes transparent to insure "non-proliferation" of nukes makes them outside of their treaty obligations. ( if they were outside there treaty obligations then the IAEA would report them as such to the UN security council , it has not been done , hence they are not outside)
Last, if one wants to discuss who is most likely to use a nuclear weapon against their enemies, real or perceived, I'd bet odds on it's Iran at least 2 to 1 over Israel since Israel is protected by the US and several treaties (with Egypt by the way and Saudi Arabia if you didn't know which is why they are less likely to complain if these nations considered nuclear technology for energy as opposed to Iran). more speculation without any base , only two nuclear bombs have ever been used in anger and both were used by the United states , look at the recent history of Iran , sure you can link them with terrorism , *but not half as much as you can link the CIA and MOSSAD* but on a pure military front they have not started a war with anyone , the US will be the next country to use a nuke (again) they already planned for it Here
You can't simply ignore the president of Iran talking about wiping countries off the map and then say they have the "right" to nuclear energy without adhering to ALL of the non-proliferation treaty they signed. I never implied they should , somehow you have percieved a belief i do not hold , i strongly do not want Iran to gain the bomb and i have total faith in the IAEA to make the right choices , Inspections must be carried out to the letter and any concerns put before the security council , I also beleive that Israel (at the same time) should sign the NPT and disarm
One final thought, so, while you are pointing out the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons again you have left my article and jumped into your opionion ... i do not believe Iran has a right to nuclear weapons , i beleive they have a right to self generated nuclear power , there is a big difference , just ask the people of Hiroshima
and, from the rest of your blog, the supposed dangers to liberty that the US and the war on "terror" (I prefer to call it the war on Islamists), funny I tend to call people who use such words Islamophobes , xenophobe just doesnt seem strong enough
you fail to note one of the most important factors in the Iranian nuclear construct which is that, with nuclear weapons (like the old USSR), it is likely that Iran can and will continue to oppress, torture and kill its own people in quite illiberal methods for quite illiberal reasons (another reason it wants nuclear weapons since it will force western democracy movements from without to stop supporting overtly their internal democracy movement and thus keep the illiberal oppressive leaders in power for decades to come). ( you mean just like they do in the US , oh , no .. sorry , we dont call it kidnap and torture we call it extraordinary rendition” then we torture people in the same prisons that saddam tortured people in , then we let the shia have a go at torturing the sunni , yea we are a great example
so, I take it that's okay with you as long as it's Iranians doing it to Iranians? again the great mystic has given you the wrong answer but such is life
Just wanted to get clarification. hope i have helped thanks for your (question)
Ah Djeb , that was quick , glad to see you back safe and sound
since when did Israel decide to announce "pre-emptive strikes"??? Doesnt that sort of negate the whole surprise thing? Wouldnt that make it pretty hard to fly their air craft into Iranian airspace without falling down to earth in a bunch of different pieces?
I think this is another shot by Israel to try and get the EU-3 and US to be their "muscle". I would be shocked to find out that they are announcing their plans to commit a surprise attack.
But, since we have the debate police on hand, I better hurry and state that this is just suposition on my part.
The guy in Iran is a nut job, if he gets nukes he will use them.
I really, really don't understand your confusion, g. The U.S. announced just that before attacking and invading Iraq. And surprised to find out that they would plan to carry out a surprise attack? Ever heard of Osirak?
And you,"j," you know this because...?
Djeb, we announced our full scale invasion. You dont normally announce a surgical air strike. It would be the same as JFK announcing to Cuba and the world that he planned the overfly for recon of the Ruskie missiles.
It doesnt work that way, you SHOULD know better.
But I guess that kind of "planning" and "strategy" isnt something they cover in liberal arts.
or english/grammer
A full scale invasion that was billed as...? If you answered "pre-emptive strike," you are correct.
BTW, tell me more about my education background. You're 100% wrong so far, so it should be entertaining to see what you can invent next.
Oh good lord, I have no idea DJEB. Hell you may have graduated from the Zimbigiee School of Buisness/Agriculture for all I know. The comment was meant as a jab at the things that obviously seem important to you, and the things that you lack in your reasoning. It wasnt supposed to be an actual account of your resume.
DJEB, you cant hide landing 3 Amphibs full of Marines complete with 3 air wings, two armored regiments, and all the support structure for it. EVERYONE knew we were comming. But guess what... the date was still secret.
Now, like I said, we were comming with everything for a full out assault. This would include SAM supression, followed by selective C&C strikes, then a full ground assault enforced with air.
What Israel is talking about is flying a couple of jets in with bombs. They wouldnt get far if Iran was waiting for them retard.
dont you think Iran would already be waiting for them G ?
you seem to assume that aslong as nobody tells them , Iran will be suprised by this sudden attack on their reactor ?
no country on earth would fail to react to foreign fighter jets entering their airspace G , I dont doubt the Iranians have already practised how to respond
I understand your reasoning on covert action , but flying into Iran and bombing a reactor is hardly covert
on the personal insult ' retard ' please dont , call the comment retarded if ' you ' believe it is , but not the poster
Oh, I'm sorry. That "bullshit statement" was another "figurative measure." Again though, if you have found some fault in my reasoning, point it out with logic. You will find that I will respond to that much better that "impressionist theories."
On the preemptive strike, I'm only repeating what was said by the Bush Admin itself. As for Israel, I again ask ever heard of Osirak?
On the insult, I don't expect much from you, but insluting the developmentally impared to try to get at me? Grow up.
What's wrong, kat? I thought you wanted a reply. The least you can do is come here an apologise for making false accusations.
Post a Comment
<< Home