More Iran rhetoric, this time from Cheney

[Fash]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071021/D8SDS4RG1.html

LEESBURG, Va. (AP) - The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."

If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.

Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."

Cheney said the ultimate goal of the Iranian leadership is to establish itself as the hegemonic force in the Middle East and undermine a free Shiite-majority Iraq as a rival for influence in the Muslim world.

Iran's government seeks "to keep Iraq in a state of weakness to ensure Baghdad does not pose a threat to Tehran," Cheney said.

While he was critical of that government and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he offered praise and words of solidarity to the Iranian people. Iran "is a place of unlimited potential ... and it has the right to be free of tyranny," Cheney said.

Cheney accused of Iran of having a direct role in the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and said the government has "solidified its grip on the country" since coming to power in 1979.

The U.S. and some allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and have demanded it halt uranium enrichment, an important step in the production of atomic weapons. Oil-rich Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity.

At a news conference Wednesday, Bush suggested that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, it could lead to a new world war.

"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

Bush's spokeswoman later said the president was making not making any war plans but rather "a rhetorical point."

Also, on Thursday, the top officer in the U.S. military said the U.S. has the resources to attack Iran if needed despite the strains of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said striking Iran is a last resort, and the focus now on diplomacy to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions, but "there is more than enough reserve to respond" militarily if need be.

The Bush administration's intentions toward Iran have been the subject of debate in Congress.

Last month the Senate approved a resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said he feared the measure could be interpreted as authorizing a military strike in Iran, calling it Cheney's "fondest pipe dream."

It really has been ramping up in the past couple weeks... back and forth.

It's sounding a lot like the lead up to Iraq. I've considered for a while that we'd be attacking Iran before Bush is out, but now I'm starting to believe it.

[Mawafu]

I doubt we would attack Iran because more than likely Russia would jump in at that point. I don't see this administration being quite crazy enough to stir up a nuclear country.

[Siji]

Let's hope you're right.

Though my nervous is huge.

[Ashur]

I'm skeptical of any military strikes (by the US) on Iran. You saw what happened with North Korea when "all our options were on the table", right? They made a nuclear weapon.

My prediction: Israel blows the shit out of several sites in Iran, everyone in the UN gets their panties in a bunch, but does nothing because a. that's what they're good at doing and b. When the US and Russia disagree - it's deadlock. Then Iran gets nukes anyway from Paki scientists.

Then we learn to live with a nuclear Iran, who claims they weren't working on them until we "forced thier hand with threats".

[Fash]

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 7120071023

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not negotiate with anyone about its right to nuclear technology, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, hours before talks aimed at defusing an atomic row with the West were to start in Rome.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb, a charge Tehran denies, insisting it only wants to master atomic technology so it can make electricity and save its huge oil and gas reserves for export.

"We are in favor of talks but we will not negotiate with anyone about our right to nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Iranian state television during his trip to Armenia, which ended on Tuesday.

"The party which should set conditions is Iran not the other party," he was quoted as saying.

In comments carried by the Fars News Agency, the president also repeated Iran's position that it would not suspend uranium enrichment, the key demand of the U.N. Security Council.

"They said that if Iran suspends its activities, they will hold talks with us. But they don't know that the Iranian nation is in favor of negotiations but will not negotiate over its rights at all ... Iran will not retreat one iota," he said.

The United Nations has demanded Iran suspend enrichment work because it can be used both for making fuel for power plants or, if Iran wanted, material for warheads. Two rounds of sanctions have been imposed on Iran for rejecting the demand.

Iran's new nuclear negotiator and ally of Ahmadinejad, Saeed Jalili, arrived in Rome on Tuesday to meet European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is representing world powers in meetings aimed at resolving the standoff.

Analysts have said Jalili's appointment might signal a hardening of Tehran's position over its nuclear plans. Iranian officials have insisted the change in negotiator does not mean a change of policy.

He's even more adamant about achieving their nuclear desires than we are about stopping him... I don't see how else this can play out... either we bomb them to infinity or Ashur is right and we have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. His refusal to 'budge one iota' is not good, though... Why even bother negotiating then?

[Boogahz]

I see no problem with any country wanting to exercise their "right" to the technology to provide nuclear power to it's people. The problem is the jump from power to weapons. Saying no to weapons limits what is available for civilian power, and, from what I have heard, these limits are what he is protesting. He sees it as not "truly" giving them access to the technology. Who knows how it will all play out though...

[Fash]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Iran's nuclear program and alleged backing of terrorism represent "perhaps the single greatest challenge" to US national security, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.

"We are very concerned that the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world," she said at a hearing in Congress.

After recent bellicose US remarks, including President George W. Bush's warning that a nuclear-armed Iran evoked the threat of "World War III," Rice said that Washington remained committed to talks to end Iran's atomic drive.

"We are, with our international partners, continuing to pursue a two-track approach on the nuclear issue," she told the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee, giving testimony about US policy on the Middle East.

Rice noted that along with talks steered by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Washington and its EU partners were working on tougher UN sanctions against Iran given its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.

Beyond the diplomacy, she said, Bush was determined to pursue "Iranian actors that are harming our troops (in Iraq) and innocent Iraqis."

[Fash]

new sanctions today:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States imposed stiff sanctions against Iran on Thursday, targeting two Iranian military groups and a number of Iranian banks and people it accuses of backing nuclear proliferation and terror-related activities.

"What this means is that no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "In addition, any assets that these designees have under U.S. jurisdiction will be immediately frozen."

Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made the announcement in a brief appearance before reporters on Thursday morning.

Rice accused Iran of "pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon; building dangerous ballistic missiles; supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories; and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

"Many of the Iranian regime's most destabilizing policies are carried out by two of its agencies: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, and the Quds force, an arm of the IRGC," she said.

She said the sanctions were being imposed "because of the Revolutionary Guard's support for proliferation and the Quds force support for terrorism."

The United States also designated three Iranian state-owned banks for sanctions, two of them "for their involvement in proliferation activities" and the other "as a terrorist financier," Rice said.

"Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists," Paulson said. "Iran's banks aid this conduct using a range of deceptive financial practices intended to evade even the most stringent risk management controls."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps, he said, "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that, if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business" with the corps.

"We call on responsible banks and companies around the world to terminate any business with Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, Bank Saderat, and all companies and entities" of the corps, Paulson said.

Previous sanctions imposed by the United States have been tied to Iran's nuclear program. The United States has been working with other world powers to halt what they believe is Iran's intent to develop a nuclear arsenal. Iran says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful reasons.

The Quds Force is blamed by the U.S. military for training and arming Shiite militias in Iraq and smuggling highly lethal explosives into Iraq, where they are used to attack coalition forces. Iran denies the charge.

"If the Iranian government fulfills its international obligation to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activity, I will join my British, French, Russian, Chinese and German colleagues, and I will meet with my Iranian counterpart any time, anywhere," Rice said. "We will be open to the discussion of any issue. But if Iran's rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime."

Last month, representatives of world powers announced that unless a November report shows a "positive outcome" of talks with Iran about its uranium enrichment program, they will move ahead with plans for a resolution imposing additional sanctions on the country.

The U.N. Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium and has imposed limited sanctions on Tehran for refusing to comply. The European Union is weighing its own unilateral sanctions.

[Wulfran]

The sanctions won't stick because Putin will use his veto on the UN Security Council. He's pissed off at the US over the whole missile defence shit and Iran is a way to hit back.

[Ashur]

I think these are US sanctions, not UN sanctions, Wulfran.

Putin can't veto that (and it actually spells more opportunity for Russia if they want to get further in bed finacially with the Iranians).

Edit: ...unless you meant the whole "UN is considering" shit at the end, but yeah, we know Russia and China will shoot them down the same way the US does with all the "Naughty Isreal!" ones. Security Council vetoes 4tw!)

[Fash]

Romney open to Iran 'Bombardment'

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

The former Massachusetts governor's comments came as the Bush administration announced new sanctions designed to isolate the government in Tehran. Romney applauded the move, while several Democratic presidential contenders spoke out against it—and used it as an opportunity to criticize front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: "I learned a clear lesson from the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002: If you give this president an inch, he will take a mile and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson."

Clinton voted last month for legislation sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, the only Democratic senator running for president who did so. Edwards and other critics say the measure could pave the way toward American military action there.

In a statement Thursday, presidential rival Chris Dodd echoed Edwards' argument.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran," Dodd said.

Romney, who has been advocating a hard line against Iran throughout his presidential campaign, said military action would be necessary if severe economic and diplomatic sanctions don't convince Iranian leaders to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian government contends its program is aimed toward providing nuclear power.

"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us," Romney told a crowd of doctors and nurses during a question period that followed a health care speech.

He added: "That's an option that's on the table. And it's is not something which we'll spell out specifically. I really can't lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options from blockade to bombardment of some kind. And that's something we very much have to keep on the table, and we will ready ourselves to be able to take, because, frankly, I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."

Last year, while still governor, Romney refused to provide a security escort or any state services in support of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who visited Massachusetts to speak at Harvard University.

In January, Romney traveled to a security conference in Israel, where he called for economic sanctions against Iran similar to those against South Africa during its apartheid period.

Subsequently, he has called for indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for saying "Israel's Zionist regime should be wiped off the map." Romney suggested using the U.N.'s Genocide Convention against the leader on charges of inciting genocide.

In September, he also chastised Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus, and railed against the Iranian leader after he asked to visit ground zero.

[Nick]

Mitt Romney is a silly billy.

offtopic but great - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj9j-u6_nj4

[Fash]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's leadership boasts it is safe from U.S. military action, saying Washington knows an attack would find no world support and send oil prices skyrocketing. That confidence is buoying the government in its standoff with the West, despite new sanctions.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, on Friday dismissed the U.S. announcement a day earlier of new sanctions, saying "Washington will isolate itself" with the measures.

"They have imposed sanctions on us for 28 years. The new sanctions are just in the same direction," Jalili said as he returned from talks with European officials in Germany and Italy, according to the state news agency IRNA.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is taking a hard line in the confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, apparently confident Washington's main pressure tools—sanctions and the threat of military action—are ineffective.

It could be a risky bet. Ahmadinejad's main vulnerability is domestic: rising criticism from a public angry over the country's poor economy and from politicians disillusioned by what they call his mismanagement. Even some conservatives have expressed fears Ahmadinejad is pushing Iran into future trouble over the nuclear issue.

Further sanctions, even unilateral ones from the U.S., could hurt the economy more by further isolating it from international finance—and Iranians were already expressing worries over the new measures.

Ahmadinejad, who faces elections in 2009, knows "jobless and poor people will not vote for him if his policies bring them more difficulties," said Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a political science professor at Tehran's Azad University.

But he believes "unilateral economic sanctions by Washington are not strong enough (to hurt Iran) due to Iran's widespread economic relations with the world."

Suzanne Maloney, an expert on Iran at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said that while sanctions have put pressure on the regime, oil prices have dampened their effect.

"Yes, life becomes more expensive, but right now they have a fairly considerable cushion," she said, adding that sanctions might force the government to become more fiscally responsible.

"A flush Iran has been an irresponsible Iran. Most of their economic problems have been caused by having too much cash on their hands," she said. In the face of new sanctions, "it's not unthinkable that they'll take more responsible measures at home that will cut some of the internal pressure."

Recent U.S. statements have deepened Iranians' fears of attack. Last week, President Bush warned that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III," and Vice President Dick Cheney vowed Sunday that the U.S. and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, saying its program aims only to produce electricity.

After the U.S. sanctions announcement, a string of Iranian military officials came forward to insist America will not attack Iran, citing the strain on the U.S. military from the Iraq war and worries over high oil prices. But they vowed harsh reaction if the U.S. does attack. In the past, Iranian officials have spoken of retaliating with attacks on Israel and U.S. bases in the region and with a shutoff of oil from the Gulf.

A top adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—former Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi—said the U.S. knows military action would send oil prices soaring.

"Without any war, the price of oil has nearly reached $100 a barrel, so if a firecracker goes off in the Persian Gulf, the price will reach more than $200," he told students Thursday, according to IRNA.

Iran overlooks the Hormuz Strait at the narrow mouth of the Gulf, through which a fifth of the world's oil supplies pass.

The current Guards commander, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said threats of U.S. attack are "just exaggerations," warning, "We will reply to any strike with an even more decisive strike."

And Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi said the probability of American attack is "very small."

"America knows well that while it can start such an attack, how it ends will not be in Washington's hands, and such an attack will lead to America's collapse," he told journalists during in Kuwait on Thursday, IRNA said.

The new U.S. sanctions ban dealings with a host of companies connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, an elite force that has extensive business holdings in oil, construction and other sectors. The ban bars American companies from working with them, but also puts pressure on international firms and banks not to deal with them as well.

Iran is counting on international support from Russia and China to prevent harsher U.N. sanctions. The U.N. has imposed two rounds of limited sanctions for Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. But Moscow and Beijing are resisting U.S. calls for a third round and have come out against military action—though both have urged Iran to comply with U.N. demands for a halt in uranium enrichment.

China warned Friday the new unilateral sanctions by the United States could increase tensions over Iran's nuclear program. "Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," the Foreign Ministry said.

U.S. military action would also likely silence the domestic opposition to Ahmadinejad as people rally around the government. The head of the largest pro-reform party, Mohsen Mirdamadi, has warned a U.S. attack would set back chances for reform and democracy in Iran by decades.

On Friday, Mirdamadi said his party would stand against any American threat. "We cannot neglect defending the country's independence and integrity even for a while," he told a gathering of his Islamic Iran Participation Front.

Still, many Iranians—facing increasing prices for housing and basic foodstuffs—are expressing fear over where the government is taking the country.

"I am sure the Iranian government does not seek war. And I am sure they will abide by international demands at the last minute," said Mirza Kazemi, a 70-year-old retired oil worker.

Reza Hosseini, owner of a metal shop, criticized the government's focus on hotspots in the Middle East, where Iran is accused of backing militant groups.

"I cannot understand why our government insists on irrelevant issues such as Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon," he said. "We have too many problems in our country."

[Xyun]

This whole issue is a fucking charade. Iran will get its nukes one way or the other and we have to somehow learn to live with it. Despite that, any country who detonates a nuclear weapon on another country or even provides a terrorist with a nuclear weapon will either be annihilated (Iran) or start WWIII (U.S. or China). I'm all for the proliferation of these things but I think it is atrocious for any nation with a giant stockpile of them to tell others they are not allowed to have them. In fact, nuclear weapons have proven to be the single most effective deterrent to war. It somehow always comes down to Metallica lyrics...

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war

[Fash]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... _10_30.asp
Pentagon seeks huge new bunker-buster for Iran

WASHINGTON — The Democrat-controlled Congress is examining a request to develop a new bomb designed for a U.S. air strike on Iran.

The Bush administration wants $88 million for the production of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. The 30,000-pound conventional bomb, meant for deployment by the B-2 aircraft, would be the most powerful bunker-buster ever designed.

Analysts agree that MOP was designed to destroy Iranian and North Korean underground facilities, such as Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant. The bomb was said to be able to penetrate more than 65 meters of earth.

"It'll go through it like a hot knife through butter," John Pike, a leading U.S. weapons analyst, said.

The administration did not explain the use of MOP. A White House statement cited "an urgent operational need from theater commanders" in its funding request to modify B-2s to carry MOP.

"We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster," Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat, said. "They've been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq."

MOP has been developed by Boeing, which completed the first test of the bunker-buster in March 2007. Two months later, Northrop Grumman, won a $2.5 million contract from the U.S. Air Force to modify the B-2 to carry the new weapon.

"We need to have this as a conventional weapon," Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat and a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said. "It adds to our deterrent."

"I would characterize it as routine," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. "The focus that we all have is on using diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions to persuade the Iranian government that they are isolated, they need to alter their policies and ambitions."

The Democratic-led Congress has been divided over whether to fund U.S. military preparations for any war with Iran. Most of the Democratic leadership has warned that a U.S. air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would result in a major war in the Middle East ahead of the U.S. elections in November 2008.

65 meters like a knife through butter?... Thats 213 feet into the earth before detonation... Wow! Is there any research done into the effects this type of deep explosion has upon tectonic activity?

[Arborealus]

Richter TNT for Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield (approximate)

-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado (total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn., NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, Japan Quake, 1995; Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center,
OR Earth's daily receipt of solar energy)

So basically a very localized 5.0 on the richter scale. The wave forms are very different though especially since this would be shaped charges pushing the energy straight down through 65 meters instead of laterally.

Ermmm actually lookin up the MOPs specs it has only 6k pounds of explosives 30K is the total weight of the device so almost certainly < 2.0 but the displacement again would be straight down and up...not much laterally.

Ok last edit...the MOP is using 6k lbs of H6...so multiply the TNT value by 1.35...still low 2's on the richter scale...

[Siji]

9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center

Interesting info. Didn't even know they had a measurement for cracking the earth in half.

[Arborealus]

9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center

Interesting info. Didn't even know they had a measurement for cracking the earth in half.

I'm sure that is an approximate value

[Ashur]

Just a theory until proven. I demand an asterisk!!

[Fash]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull
Top IDF Intel officer: Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2009

Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2009, the Head of Military Intelligence's Research Division, Brig. -Gen. Yossi Baidatz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday.

"Iran's conservative sect is gaining power. The Iranian regime is faced with internal issues, but there is no threat to its existence or stability. Assuming it faces no difficulties, the worst case scenario is Iran obtaining nuclear arms by 2009."

On the Lebanese front, Baidatz said Hizbullah was learning how to cope with UNIFIL forces, and was gaining strength.

Hizbullah recently held a large-scale exercise south of the Litani River that included thousands of gunmen, under the personal supervision of the organization's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.

Baidatz said that the reason for the exercise was twofold. "Firstly, to show it is not intimidated by IDF exercises and secondly, to display its power as an internal message to Lebanon."

Baidatz also mentioned Syrian developments. "There is still tension with Syria, but there has been a decline in its level in recent weeks. Syria continues to strengthen its firepower. It is equipping its forces with Russian anti-aircraft weaponry and is preparing to receive Russian air defense systems."

He added that Syria was continuing its cooperation with Hizbullah and that weapons from Iran were still being deployed across Lebanon, including the area south of the Litani River.

[Fash]

US fears Israeli strike against Iran over latest nuclear claim
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 827787.ece

A claim by President Ahmadinejad that Iran has 3,000 working uranium-enriching centrifuges sent a tremor across the world yesterday amid fears that Israel would respond by bombing the country’s nuclear facilities.

Military sources in Washington said that the existence of such a large number could be a “tipping point”, triggering an Israeli air strike. The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a “different matter”. Amid the international uproar, British MPs who were to have toured the nuclear facility were backing out of their Iran trip.

Even before President Ahmadinejad’s announcement, a US defence official told The Times yesterday: “Israel could do something when they get to around 3,000 working centrifuges. The Pentagon is minded to wait a little longer.” US experts say 3,000 machines running for long periods could make enough enriched uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.

Israel responded by serving notice that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. “Talks never did, and never will, stop rockets,” said Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister, after talks with the security cabinet.

The US and Western allies believe that Iran is using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover for weapon development. Tehran says that it merely wants to generate electricity.

Concern about Israel’s intentions has been heightened by its recent air strike on a suspected nuclear plant in Syria. In 1981 Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi nuclear reactor, and as the sole — if undeclared — nuclear power in the region, it now considers Iran the most serious threat to its security. Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

Efraim Inbar, of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, said that the figure of 3,000 centrifuges would signal the ability of Israel’s arch-foe to produce the nuclear material needed for a warhead. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we do something if the international community leaves us alone,” he said. “I think we [Israel] are preparing for it. For Israel this is a critical technological moment.”

Tehran says it plans to expand its enrichment programme to up to 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz in central Iran, which would amount to industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

Mr Ahmadinejad, speaking yesterday at a rally, said that UN sanctions had failed to halt uranium enrichment. “The world must know that this nation will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights . . . if they think they can get concessions from this nation, they are badly mistaken,” he said. He has in the past claimed that Iran succeeded in installing the 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility but yesterday’s speech was the first time he had said all of them were now operational.

The International Atomic Energy Authority recently put the figure at closer to 2,000, with another 650 being tested. The IAEA said yesterday: “We will be publishing a report next week. We will not make any comment about this until then.” Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to report on Iran’s willingness to give up uranium enrichment in exchange for political and trade incentives.

In London, at least five members of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee were refusing to take part in the planned trip to Iran, arguing that it would hand the regime a propaganda coup. The visit, to begin on Sunday, would be the first by a select committee since 15 British Service personnel were held in March. That incident and evidence that the regime is supporting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq and planning to build a nuclear bomb has strained relations with Britain.

About eight MPs, from all three main parties, are still planning to spend four days in Iran next week.

Eric Illsley, a Labour MP who is one of those to have pulled out, said: “I really don’t fancy having pictures of me next to an Iranian nuclear facility beamed around the world.”

— Intelligence agencies have begun to vet all foreign postgraduates applying to study sensitive scientific subjects in Britain. The aim is to prevent Iranian students getting expertise in fields related to producing weapons of mass destruction. Sixty Iranians have been refused university places this year.

If Israel takes care of it... I think we're still going to get hit for it.

[Ashur]

I don't think we "fear" it some much as we "expect" it.