12 Responses to UN’s IAEA Report to ‘Suggest’ Iran Nuclear Weapons Work

1. Larue-Clique Member Since LibbyGate November 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm 1

   Interesting CT . .

   I was of the impression that IAEA has been a voice of sanity WRT Iran nuke capability, WRT false memes of Iraqi WD’s.

   When did this image I have of IAEA change?

   They have LONG been the target of Hasbara like media and were CERTAINLY targeted in the gin up to the Iraqi Invasion.

   When did they become the bad guys? I missed that, somehow, it would seem . . . . ????

   Reply
2. CTuttle November 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm 2

   In response to Larue-Clique Member Since LibbyGate @ 1

   The IAEA has been credible before, but, the US, Israel, the UK have been active in stacking the IAEA’s current board with sycophants…! Ever since El Baradei was pushed out of the door…! Google Olli Hennigen for a taste of the stacking…!

   Reply
3. quanto November 5th, 2011 at 8:22 pm 3

   Also with the new NIE report here that no one will be able to see (“Several sources said they are being told there will be no declassified version of the new NIE, and that only those cleared to read the full 2007 NIE (pdf) will be able to see the new version.”) but were made to believe it’s damning against Iran.

   One thing I haven’t seen is any statements from China or Russia.
   I can’t see them just sitting idly by while the US continues it’s imperialistic resource grab.

   Found this one cartoon that sums it all up.

   Reply
4. CTuttle November 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm 4

   In response to quanto @ 3

   Mahalo, quanto for that link…! Our ranking Dim bulb Dem…

   “Nobody had been paying attention to the older NIE. A few people on the outside focused on it because they didn’t want us to go down the sanctions route but neither the administration nor the Congress paid it much attention,” Berman said. “I thought the NIE estimate then was a faulty one because it focused on some aspects of weaponization — even as Iran was continuing to enrich.”

   “For a year and a half the administration has been convinced that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon. That’s what they whole sanctions push is based on,” Berman said. “There can be no serious doubt that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapons capability.”

   To 20% you d*ckhead…! *gah*

   Reply
5. openhope November 5th, 2011 at 9:46 pm 5

   Thank you in advance, CTuttle.
   Coming back in an hour to give your post it’s due.
   I’m feeling very nervous that the fucking Dangerous Psychotic Money finger is on the button. That, or there’s a ponzi scheme on this level of Fear that I don’t know about.
   Fuck, and people are dissing the Black Bloc for wearing masks!!!!
   Masks happen.

   Reply
6. CTuttle November 5th, 2011 at 10:44 pm 6

   In response to quanto @ 3

   I would also add that your cartoon link has some awesome links too…! Great job, quanto…!

   Reply
7. funkygal November 6th, 2011 at 2:37 am 7

   There is a massive uprising of the 99% in Israel against neoliberal policies. So Bibi might attack Iran (common sense? what common sense?) to divert attention and suppress the revolt at home. That is a possibility.

   Reply
8. shergald November 6th, 2011 at 5:24 am 8

   Here is Juan Cole on the political outlook secondary to anyone, the US or Israel, bombing Iran, apart from its insanity.

   ….Netanyahu and Barak are bluffing, and have been using opposition from their security establishment as a convenient explanation for why they do not go beyond threats and innuendo.
   A key consideration is that it is difficult to believe that Israel would dare launch such an attack without a green light from the Obama administration. Israel will need the US to resupply arms and spare parts if hostilities spiral out of control, and would like help with signals and other intelligence. An angered Obama could drag his feet on such help.

   No such green light will be forthcoming while US troops are withdrawing from Iraq, because they will be especially vulnerable to attack at the hands of radical Shiites. Muqtada al-Sadr would likely relaunch his Mahdi Army for this purpose, and everyone in Washington knows this. Obama would not want convoys hit as they headed toward the Kuwaiti border. So the whole thing is out of the question until at least January.

   Even after US troops are out of Iraq, the US will want to try to keep as much influence in Baghdad as it can. The Obama administration almost certainly realizes that an Israeli attack on Iran would willy-nilly push Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki into the arms of Tehran. Even the US embassy in Baghdad would be vulnerable to massive attack, especially once the troops are out. Al-Maliki supported Lebanon’s Hizbullah against Israel during the 2006 war, and would certainly adopt the same position in the event of another conflict, kicked off by a bombing of the Natanz facility. Al-Maliki’s Da’wa Islamiya or Islamic Call Party was partially responsible for the formation of Hizbullah in Lebanon in 1984.

   Moreover, Iran can still make a lot of trouble for the US in Afghanistan, which Obama also wants to begin wrapping up, with a planned 30,000 troop reduction in the first half of 2012.

   An Israeli attack on Iran would kill what is left of the Arab Spring. Syrians would be forced to rally behind Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian allies. Likely in Yemen as well, Ali Abdullah Saleh would use the attack to silence his opposition.

   A budding Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut axis would be brought to fruition and strengthened, creating a problem for the US from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean.

   Such an Israeli attack would certainly give the Muslim Brotherhood a fillip in the parliamentary elections, which the US would see as undesirable.

   An Israeli attack on Iran would artificially put up the price of petroleum significantly for as long as hostilities continued, which in turn could push the US economy into a second dip recession and kill Obama’s chances of reelection.

   Obama disapproves of adventurism. He was difficult to convince on the Libya War, and wants to be able to campaign on a calming Middle East, not one in flames. President Dwight Eisenhower was furious about the Israeli, British and French attack on Egypt in late October 1956 because it happened days before election day and made him look weak and not in control on foreign policy. For the same reason, Obama would be angered by an attack on Iran now that election season has begun.

   So my own analysis suggests that there will be no American green light for Israeli adventurism regarding Iran.

   http://www.juancole.com/

   Reply
9. shergald November 6th, 2011 at 5:28 am 9

   Another opinion from Gush Shalom: Uri Avnery’s.

   “Hold me back!”

   EVERYBODY KNOWS the scene from school: a small boy quarrels with a bigger boy. “Hold me back!” he shouts to his comrades, “Before I break his bones!”

   Our government seems to be behaving in this way. Every day, via all channels, it shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran.

   Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb. We cannot allow this. So we shall bomb them to smithereens.

   Binyamin Netanyahu says so in every one of his countless speeches, including his opening speech at the winter session of the Knesset. Ditto Ehud Barak. Every self-respecting commentator (has anyone ever seen a non-self-respecting one?) writes about it. The media amplify the sound and the fury.

   “Haaretz” splashed its front page with pictures of the seven most important ministers (the “security septet”) showing three in favor of the attack, four against.

   A GERMAN proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.” Same goes for wars.

   Nuclear affairs are subject to very strict military censorship. Very very strict indeed.

   Yet the censor seems to be smiling benignly. Let the boys, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense (the censor’s ultimate boss) play their games.

   The respected former long-serving chief of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, has publicly warned against the attack, describing it as “the most stupid idea” he has ever heard”. He explained that he considers it his duty to warn against it, in view of the plans of Netanyahu and Barak.

   On Wednesday, there was a veritable deluge of leaks. Israel tested a missile that can deliver a nuclear bomb more then 5000 km away, beyond you-know-where. And our Air Force has just completed exercises in Sardinia, at a distance larger than you-know-where. And on Thursday, the Home Front Command held training exercises all over Greater Tel Aviv, with sirens screaming away. All this seems to indicate that the whole hullabaloo is a ploy. Perhaps to frighten and deter the Iranians. Perhaps to push the Americans into more extreme actions. Perhaps coordinated with the Americans in advance. (British sources, too, leaked that the Royal Navy is training to support an American attack on Iran.)

   It is an old Israeli tactic to act as if we are going crazy (“The boss has gone mad” is a routine cry in our markets, to suggest that the fruit vendor is selling at a loss.) We shall not listen to the US any more. We shall just bomb and bomb and bomb.

   Well, let’s be serious for a moment.

   ISRAEL WILL not attack Iran. Period.

   Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn’t I add at least “probably” or “almost certainly”?

   No, I won’t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran.

   Since the 1956 Suez adventure, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an ultimatum that stopped the action, Israel has never undertaken any significant military operation without obtaining American consent in advance.

   The US is Israel’s only dependable supporter in the world (besides, perhaps, Fiji, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.) To destroy this relationship means cutting our lifeline. To do that, you have to be more than just a little crazy. You have to be raving mad.

   Furthermore, Israel cannot fight a war without unlimited American support, because our planes and our bombs come from the US. During a war, we need supplies, spare parts, many sorts of equipment. During the Yom Kippur war, Henry Kissinger had an “air train” supplying us around the clock. And that war would probably look like a picnic compared to a war with Iran.

   LET’S LOOK at the map. That, by the way, is always recommended before starting any war.

   The first feature that strikes the eye is the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which every third barrel of the worlds seaborne oil supplies flow. Almost the entire output of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq and Iran has to run the gauntlet through this narrow sea lane.

   “Narrow” is an understatement. The entire width of this waterway is some 35 km (or 20 miles). That’s about the distance from Gaza to Beer Sheva, which was crossed last week by the primitive rockets of the Islamic Jihad.

   When the first Israeli plane enters Iranian airspace, the strait will be closed. The Iranian navy has plenty of missile boats, but they will not be needed. Land-based missiles are enough.

   The world is already teetering on the verge of an abyss. Little Greece is threatening to fall and take major chunks of the world economy with her. The elimination of almost a fifth of the industrial nations’ supply of oil would lead to a catastrophe hard even to imagine.

   To open the strait by force would require a major military operation (including “putting boots on the ground”) that would overshadow all the US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can the US afford that? Can NATO? Israel itself is not in the same league.

   BUT ISRAEL would be very much involved in the action, if only on the receiving end.

   In a rare show of unity, all of Israel’s service chiefs, including the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet, are publicly opposing the whole idea. We can only guess why.

   I don’t know whether the operation is possible at all. Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts – such as they are – only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results.

   Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel – not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. We have no adequate defense for our towns. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive.

   Suddenly, the media are full of stories about our three submarines, soon to grow to five, or even six, if the Germans are understanding and generous. It is openly said that these give us the capabilities of a nuclear “second strike”, if Iran uses its (still non-existent) nuclear warheads against us. But the Iranians may also use chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.

   Then there is the political price. There are a lot of tensions in the Islamic world. Iran is far from popular in many parts of it. But an Israeli assault on a major Muslim country would instantly unite Sunnis and Shiites, from Egypt and Turkey to Pakistan and beyond. Israel could become a villa in a burning jungle.

   BUT THE talk about the war serves many purposes, including domestic, political ones.

   Last Saturday, the social protest movement sprang to life again. After a pause of two months, a mass of people assembled in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square. This was quite remarkable, because on that very day rockets were falling on the towns near the Gaza Strip. Until now, in such a situation demonstrations have always been canceled. Security problems trump everything else. Not this time.

   Also, many people believed that the euphoria of the Gilad Shalit festival had wiped the protest from the public mind. It didn’t.

   By the way, something remarkable has happened: the media, after siding with the protest movement for months, have had a change of heart. Suddenly all of them, including Haaretz, are sticking knives in its back. As if by order, all newspapers wrote the next day that “more than 20,000″ took part. Well I was there, and I do have some idea of these things. There were at least 100,000 people there, most of them young. I could hardly move.

   The protest has not spent itself, as the media assert. Far from it. But what better means for taking people’s minds off social justice than talk of the “existential danger”?

   Moreover, the reforms demanded by the protesters would need money. In view of the worldwide financial crisis, the government strenuously objects to increasing the state budget, for fear of damaging our credit rating.

   So where could the money come from? There are only three plausible sources: the settlements (who would dare?), the Orthodox (ditto!) and the huge military budget.

   But on the eve of the most crucial war in our history, who would touch the armed forces? We need every shekel to buy more planes, more bombs, more submarines. Schools and hospitals must, alas, wait.

   So God bless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Where would we be without him?

   By permission.

   http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1320356430/

   Reply
10. bluebutterfly November 6th, 2011 at 5:30 am 10

    “It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the “appropriate Congressional committees” (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.”

    To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/us-iran-israel_b_1074058.html?ref=israel

    Reply
11. shergald November 6th, 2011 at 5:35 am 11

    In response to shergald @ 9

    Who cannot agree with Avnery. The issue of Iranian nuclear weapons has gone too far. Iran now has the capability of retaliation against Israel should Israel or even the US attack it, and create havoc in the Middle East oil supply. $8 gasoline would finish Obama’s reelection campaign. Leon Panneta, Secretary of Defense, has also stated categorically that the US will not attack Iran.

    What more does anyone need to know?

    Reply
12. onjunokjn November 6th, 2011 at 5:48 am 12

    Welcome to————— http://www.clothes6.us ———————————-
    All kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..
    —————have some cheap things …———————

    ————————— free shipping!
    If you think our website is good,you can put this website to collect bookmarks or other places, easy to find …

    Reply