Question: Why doesn't Iran allow inspectors to see if Iranians' claims are true that its nuclear program is for legitimate, peaceful purposes? It seems like they should know that if they don't do this, they are almost certain to see their nuclear facilities destroyed. There is no way the West and Israel can allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Obama himself has said this. True, he wants to use diplomacy first, but if that doesn't work, he has let it be known that a military strike will be on the table as a last resort. Surely they must realize this.


Iran stages war games, rejects nuclear demand
By Parisa Hafezi


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran started war games on Monday and its president rejected a demand by major powers that it stop enriching uranium as "illegitimate," showing no sign of backing down in a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.


Missile units of the elite Revolutionary Guards' naval and air forces began war games, Iranian news agencies said, hours after the U.S. Navy said it had begun exercises in the Gulf.

Speculation about an attack on the world's fourth biggest oil exporter over its nuclear program rose after a report last month said Israel had practiced such a strike. Fears of military confrontation helped send world oil prices to record highs.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday his country would not stop enriching uranium, work which Tehran says is aimed at generating power but which the West fears may be part of a covert nuclear weapons program.

It was Ahmadinejad's first comment on the dispute since Iran delivered its response on Friday to a package of incentives offered by world powers seeking to curb its nuclear activities. Details of the response were not made public.

"They offer to hold talks but at the same time they threaten us and say we should accept their illegitimate demand to halt (enrichment work)," Ahmadinejad told reporters in Malaysia, where he was attending a summit of eight developing countries.

"They want us to abandon our right (to nuclear technology)," the president said.

By contrast, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke during the weekend of a "new environment" for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program.

The United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany demand that Iran suspend its enrichment work before formal talks can start on their revised package of incentives, which includes help to develop a civilian nuclear program.

Tehran has repeatedly refused to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants, or, if refined much more, can provide material for nuclear weapons.

The offer of trade and other incentives proposed by the world powers was presented last month by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

Iran has put forward its own bundle of proposals aimed at resolving the dispute and has said it was encouraged by common points between the two separate packages.

MIXED SIGNALS

So far the Iranian government's formal response to the latest offer has not been made public and there have been mixed signals in statements by its senior officials.

Senior officials from world powers held a conference call on Monday to discuss Iran's response, the State Department said.

"We are consulting with our partners in the P5+1 (permanent five U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) on issues related to that response and what we might hear and what we have heard thus far," a spokesman said of the conference call.

The goals of Iran's war games included raising combat readiness and the capability of missile units. Exercises started a few hours ago, the Fars and Mehr news agencies said, without giving details on where the maneuvers were taking place.

The Guards often hold maneuvers in the Gulf.

The Revolutionary Guards' head said in remarks published in late June that Tehran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked.

The U.S. Navy last week vowed that Iran would not be allowed to block the Gulf waterway which carries crude from the world's largest oil exporting region.

The U.S. Navy on Monday said two U.S. vessels were taking part in its exercise alongside a British warship and one from Bahrain, a Gulf Arab ally which hosts the Fifth Fleet.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that harsh U.S. rhetoric toward Iran appeared to be contributing to the surge in oil prices and that a calmer approach might help soothe the markets.

"There are some geopolitical issues that affect the price of oil," he added. "So for us to ratchet down the rhetoric when it comes to Iran, for example, and engage in tough, principled diplomacy, as I've called for, might calm the markets down."

Before news of the Iranian war games, oil dropped over $4 a barrel Monday on profit taking and signals that Iran could be more flexible in negotiations over its nuclear program.

U.S. crude settled at $141.37 a barrel, down $3.92 and below Friday's low of $143.22. Brent crude settled at $141.87 a barrel, down $2.55.

Don't really know, but according to Stephen Kinzer, he is trying to antagonize the U.S. or, more likely, Israel to attack his country in order to gain more support from his own people, who generally like the U.S.

As I recall .... another ruler tried defying the International Community by doing this. But, he is no longer around.

I have read in reliable sources that he has some rather strange belief that there must be a terrible catastrophe in order for the Messiah to come. Some are saying that he actually wants to provoke an attack. Crazy if that is true. He has to see that that can sometimes backfire very badly. I would hope he doesn't think this way.

Apparently Ahmadinejad has some fairly nutty beliefs too.

I thought liberals were known for their tolerance, pardner.

Oh, I don't know. He called Bush a mad man, so he can't be too crazy. LOL

Point: Carolaa and one for the Liberals...

Actually the post tells us more about Carolaa than it does President Bush. I don't think that kind of comment is helpful in a healthy exchange of ideas nor is the situation with Iran something light that should be joked about. Iran is very much a threat to Israel and perhaps to Europe. Any major conflict over there may increase fuel to the point where we Americans will be rationing gasoline. Not a good thought for anyone. It is a time for prayer. God be with us all.

What is your basis for that statement?

I follow the news and get the news from various sources. I even have get the Iranian news channel on my satellite.

I listen to a variety of news too, but you didn't say what your basis is for your statement.

I would be interested to know exactly what my post tells you about me?

Personally, I think the Bush administration is incredibly arrogant, thumbing its nose at Congress, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the American people, the rest of the world, its own federal agencies, etc. So, yes, I do get quite a chuckle when a leader of a small country stands up to him. Sorry if you can't see the humor in that picture.

A good understanding of history teaches us that President Bush isn't alone in how he fights with Congress or challenges the constitutionality of various laws. The American system of checks and balances purposely sets up the branches of government to be in opposition. When they fight with each other we see the system working.

For many years objectiveness was the stated goal of the American news media. When I was in college just 15 years ago it was still being taught in my Mass Communications class. This changed as many conservatives made the argument that the mainstream media had a liberal bias and thus started the alternative media. The conservative alternative media, consisting mostly of talk radio, internet blogs and magazines, caused a reaction on the part of liberals to come out with their own alternative media. The result is that we now have extreme political figures (aka ideologues) like Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore that many Americans trust for factual information.

Ideologues put out what are known as "talking points." Whenever we hear people repeating the talking points of one side's extremism it tells us who that person is listening to. One example of a talking points is "drilling won't get us out of this." One liberal ideologue came up with this saying, the rest picked it up and they repeat it within their alternate media until they have their viewers and listeners repeating it. Conservative ideologues do the same thing.



There are about 200 countries in the world. Only 17 are larger than Iran. It is about the size of Alaska or the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined. It has a population of 70 million. It is rich in oil and natural gas (ranking 2nd in the world) and occupies a geographical location ideal for exporting to Europe, the far east and Australia. In 1979 and 1980 the US was unable to get back 52 hostage held by them for over one year. Its military has nearly 550,000 trained active duty troops and 350,000 reserve troops. Apart from that they have a volunteer militia with 90,000 full-time members and 11 million members. It has an army, air force and navy. Its GDP in 2007 was $206 billion. Its economy is considered semi-developed (as opposed to "developing"). It has a growing service section and the construction of dams is increasing their agricultural sector dramatically. It is a beautiful country rated among the 10 most touristic countries. They have a strong manufacturing sector which includes biotechnology, nanotechnology and pharmaceuticals industry. It is a mistake to write Iran off as some "small country."

I think one of the Bush Administration's biggest blunders is not getting Iran to the negotiating table and getting some sort of diplomacy started. I understand no person and no administration is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes and every administration makes mistakes. I wouldn't expect any administration to admit their mistakes while still in office. That would be irresponsible. It will be interesting to see how the next administration handles the situation with Iran.

So, it sounds like you're saying that my post is simply saying that I listen to a lot of liberal media.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the above quote.

Why do you think it would be irresponsible for an administration to admit their mistakes? Actually, I don't even care if they admit their mistakes or not, but when they continue to persist on a course that isn't working or is just a bad idea, or when they continue to defend an action that was clearly a mistake, it gets really annoying.

When we are at war, to admit mistakes is to give our enemies fuel for their fire. Bad idea. Invading Iraq was responsible given the information the Bush Administration had. Leaving Donald Rumsfeild at his post as long as they did was a mistake. The surge was a change in strategy that seems to have worked so well we are now talking about pulling out of Iraq sooner than anyone could have imagined.

Iran is another issue. They are a big player and know it. Israel wants to attack them. Bush has decided the US will not attack them while he is in office but may allow Israel to do so if there is more evidence against Iran. An attack on Iran will be bad for the energy market. It would be best if we could somehow get Iran to the diplomatic table.

So is it a bad idea to admit mistakes only about a war that we are in?

And why does Israel want to attack Iran? I don't get it.

Why does Israel want to attack Iran???

According to the news reports over the past few years Iran has been threatening Israel with total extinction. Perhaps,,,, (this is just a wild guess) Maybe,,,, just possibly,,, Israel doesn't want to be totally annihilated. I am not sure but that could be why they want to attack Iran.

There's a fair bit of escalation going on here, too though: Iran feels like it has to act tough because it feels that it is under threat from Israel, backed by the US. After all, it is not Iran that is actively planning to attack Israel, it is Israel that has plans to attack Iran. From Iran's perspective, Israel is about to attack its peaceful nuclear power program.

Just putting oneself in the others' shoes for a moment is usually sufficient to find a perfectly human explanation for the actions and statements of people - but it's a simple act of empathy that seems to escape us so many times.

Sure, Ahmadinejad is guilty of intemperate rhetoric for domestic consumption that then gets reported internationally, but the fact remains that only one side in this conflict is actively preparing for war, and it isn't Iran.

Well we don't know what Iran is doing. Testing their missiles is being construed by some as preparing for war. Given the nervousness ofthe world community over Iran's nuclear program, why don't the abandon their enrichment program and simple agree to purchase the nuclear fuel needed for power plants from other countries like Brazil did for some time?

That's exactly what I thought. They want to do a "preemptive" strike. Wonder where they learned that from.

Oh, I remember now. They learned it from their biggest ally. The same ally who taught them how to use fear mongering by throwing the word "terrorist" around.

Isn't it the job of a prudent government to be prepared to defend itself? Shouldn't Iran be preparing to defend itself if Israel is preparing to attack it?


Because that's economic standover tactics that are completely unfair and against the doctrines of free trade? How is it appropriate for other countries to dictate that a country cannot produce something it needs itself but must buy it internationally? Imperialism of the highest order.

Sometimes I start to feel like a history teacher on this site. In 1981 Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facilities. 1981. 27 years ago. That was a few years before the US invaded Iraq. So if anyone wants to insinuate that Israel learned to preemptive strike from the US they might wish to read a little more history on the subject.

Iran has openly stated they desire to annihilate Israel. Is Israel to wait until a nuclear missile is launched at them before they defend themselves? Is that what liberals are suggesting?

It appears that is what Israel is doing.



Because Iran has been threatening Israel with annihilation. If Australia was enriching uranium for nuclear power do we think anyone would be concerned?

Attack is not defense. Iran does not have a nuclear capability - US intelligence reports clearly say so - and is years away from getting one. There is zero grounds for any attack on Iran. Words are not grounds for attack.

No-one is suggesting Israel should wait until it is attacked. But there is no attack planned or pending. Therefore if it attacks itself, it is not acting in defense but in aggression.

The Bush Administration has told Israel that they (Israel) would have to produce more evidence before they (Bush Administration) would support an attack. So as of right now, the Bush Administration is saying there is not enough evidence to allow Israel to attack Iran.

The Bush administration has also said they will support their allies and that there shouldn't be any confusion about that. I'm confused.