Iran a Pressing Issue?

[delldude]

Interesting timeline of imminent threats......


Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.
For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.
And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

UN Agency Says Iran Probably Building Atomic Weapon
Tags:

IRAN

The United Nations’ nuclear agency reluctantly has reported that Iran appears to be working on an atomic weapon of mass destruction.

Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is being quoted in international media as saying his agency has indications of Iran secretly continuing to work on nuclear weapons both “in the past, and now.”

1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.

1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.

1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.

1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.

2001: The Israeli Minister of Defence claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.

2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.

2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away.

2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010.

2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon.

2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon.

2011: IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months.

2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016.

Fool me once...

http://www.csmonitor...arnings-1979-84

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Interesting timeline of imminent threats......


Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.
For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.
And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

http://www.csmonitor...arnings-1979-84

dell,
You'll appreciate THIS,

It's not too often that I clip-out an article from a newspaper, but I did just that.

"IT" was printed in (of ALL NEWSPAPERS) my local FASCIST R A G, the Manchester Union Leader, and authored by..one Mr Patrick Buchanan. In it They (the UL + PB ) proudly state that IRAN IS NO threat, and that if uncle RONNIE (Reagan) were still around, he'd LAUGH at IRAN being a Nuke Threat.
Furthermore "PAT" states that the reason the BOO-HOO JEWS are always crying about IRAN, ....IS.....because ..THEY want ..US to take them out, so they don't have to do it !

Still Furthermore, it make one wonder that if Israel was in Imminent Danger from Iran, that THEY would have 'acted' LONG Ago.

 

[snapthis]

More pressing:

What Impression Does One That Posts In All Caps Leave On You?

by Scott
2013/03/18 04:46:28
I'm Dealing with a Lunatic...
I'm Dealing with an Idiot Who Doesn't Know Where the Cap Lock Key is Located...
I'm Dealing with the Town Cryer...

I suppose it shouldn't bother me, but I can't help picturing a raving lunatic pounding away on his/her keyboard. Virtually everyone recognizes capitalized, computer text as shouting. How does someone, who posts in all caps, emphasize anything? It's all yelling.

http://m.sodahead.com/fun/what-impression-does-one-that-posts-in-all-caps-leave-on-you/question-3587217/

Email Etiquette Tip - DON'T SHOUT!

If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting.

For those of us who spend a lot of time hanging out in cyberspace, messages written in all capital letters are reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in which one person is shouting every word while others are speaking at a normal volume.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/do-not-use-all-capitals.html

 

[KCFlyer]

More pressing:

What Impression Does One That Posts In All Caps Leave On You?

by Scott
2013/03/18 04:46:28
I'm Dealing with a Lunatic...
I'm Dealing with an Idiot Who Doesn't Know Where the Cap Lock Key is Located...
I'm Dealing with the Town Cryer...

I suppose it shouldn't bother me, but I can't help picturing a raving lunatic pounding away on his/her keyboard. Virtually everyone recognizes capitalized, computer text as shouting. How does someone, who posts in all caps, emphasize anything? It's all yelling.

http://m.sodahead.co...estion-3587217/

Email Etiquette Tip - DON'T SHOUT!

If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting.

For those of us who spend a lot of time hanging out in cyberspace, messages written in all capital letters are reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in which one person is shouting every word while others are speaking at a normal volume.

http://www.hoax-slay...l-capitals.html

He didn't post in all caps. He posted certain words in all caps to make a point. Can you see the difference?

 

[snapthis]

He didn't post in all caps. He posted certain words in all caps to make a point. Can you see the difference?

I see your point, KC and you used no caps to point it out. I responded with two so I see the difference.

 

[delldude]

More pressing:

What Impression Does One That Posts In All Caps Leave On You?

by Scott
2013/03/18 04:46:28
I'm Dealing with a Lunatic...
I'm Dealing with an Idiot Who Doesn't Know Where the Cap Lock Key is Located...
I'm Dealing with the Town Cryer...

I suppose it shouldn't bother me, but I can't help picturing a raving lunatic pounding away on his/her keyboard. Virtually everyone recognizes capitalized, computer text as shouting. How does someone, who posts in all caps, emphasize anything? It's all yelling.

http://m.sodahead.co...estion-3587217/

Email Etiquette Tip - DON'T SHOUT!

If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting.

For those of us who spend a lot of time hanging out in cyberspace, messages written in all capital letters are reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in which one person is shouting every word while others are speaking at a normal volume.

http://www.hoax-slay...l-capitals.html

Ain't seen nothing yet.........

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

snapthis,
Try these words on for size, because they ALL fit me.

1. Vocal
2. Arrogant
3. Intelligent
and
4. BRUTALLY... H O N E S T !!!

Brother,
It IS..what it IS !

Oh, and as far as etiquette is concerned, I got Etiquette..Right..HERE,......'Swinging' !

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Accord Reached With Iran to Halt Nuclear Program - NY Times

"It was the first time in nearly a decade, American officials said, that an international agreement had been reached to halt much of Iran’s nuclear program and roll some elements of it back.

The aim of the accord, which is to last six months, is to give international negotiators time to pursue a more comprehensive pact that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes...

...Iran, which has long resisted international monitoring efforts and built clandestine nuclear facilities, agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent, a level that would be sufficient for energy production but that would require further enrichment for bomb-making. To make good on that pledge, Iran will dismantle links between networks of centrifuges.

Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a short hop from weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes. Iran agreed that it would not install any new centrifuges, start up any that are not already operating or build new enrichment facilities.

The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.

The accord was a disappointment for Israel, which had urged the United States to pursue a stronger agreement that would lead to a complete end to Iran’s enrichment program. But Iran made it clear that continuing enrichment was a prerequisite for any agreement.

The United States did not accept Iran’s claim that it had a “right to enrich” under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But American officials signaled last week that they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree on how the proliferation treaty should be interpreted, while Tehran continued to enrich.

In return for the initial agreement, the United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks...

...Two former American national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, recently sent a letter to key American lawmakers endorsing the administration’s approach. “The apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities needs to be tested to insure it cannot rapidly build a nuclear weapon,” they wrote.

But some experts, including a former official who has worked on the Iranian issue for the White House, said it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, they said, any initial six-month agreement is more likely to be followed by a series of partial agreements that constrain Iran’s nuclear activities but do not definitively solve the nuclear issues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&rref&hpw

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

And in other news:

The Republican Minority Whip, US Senator John Cornyn (TX) on Twitter shortly after the deal was announced:

✔ @JohnCornyn

"Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care"

Amazing. I love some of the re-tweets in the article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/john-cornyn-iran-deal-obamacare-100294.html?hp=l3

 

[delldude]

Accord Reached With Iran to Halt Nuclear Program - NY Times

"It was the first time in nearly a decade, American officials said, that an international agreement had been reached to halt much of Iran’s nuclear program and roll some elements of it back.

The aim of the accord, which is to last six months, is to give international negotiators time to pursue a more comprehensive pact that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes...

...Iran, which has long resisted international monitoring efforts and built clandestine nuclear facilities, agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent, a level that would be sufficient for energy production but that would require further enrichment for bomb-making. To make good on that pledge, Iran will dismantle links between networks of centrifuges.

Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a short hop from weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes. Iran agreed that it would not install any new centrifuges, start up any that are not already operating or build new enrichment facilities.

The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.

The accord was a disappointment for Israel, which had urged the United States to pursue a stronger agreement that would lead to a complete end to Iran’s enrichment program. But Iran made it clear that continuing enrichment was a prerequisite for any agreement.

The United States did not accept Iran’s claim that it had a “right to enrich” under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But American officials signaled last week that they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree on how the proliferation treaty should be interpreted, while Tehran continued to enrich.

In return for the initial agreement, the United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks...

...Two former American national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, recently sent a letter to key American lawmakers endorsing the administration’s approach. “The apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities needs to be tested to insure it cannot rapidly build a nuclear weapon,” they wrote.

But some experts, including a former official who has worked on the Iranian issue for the White House, said it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, they said, any initial six-month agreement is more likely to be followed by a series of partial agreements that constrain Iran’s nuclear activities but do not definitively solve the nuclear issues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&rref&hpw

 

 
al-Taqiyya:
deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.
 
It seems our President and his advisors are clueless as to the desires, doctrines, and distinctives of Islam.

 
John Cornyn is right.

 

[Dog Wonder]

It seems our President and his advisors are clueless as to the desires, doctrines, and distinctives of Islam.

He must be behind on his Koran reading.

 

[xUT]

Iran's leaders call nuclear deal a success

 

TEHRAN — Iran’s leadership Sunday hailed the interim nuclear deal brokered in Geneva between Iranian envoys and representatives of the United States and five other world powers.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thanked President Hassan Rouhani and his negotiating team in a message that called the Geneva talks a "success," a crucial sign of support from the nation's ultimate arbiter of national security issues.
The Iranian president, meantime, gave a nationally televised address labeling the agreement a breakthrough that could eventually help eliminate the vise of international sanctions, which have put a stranglehold on Iran’s economy in recent years.
The accord, Rouhani said, “marks a starting point for a new experience for the Iranian nation,” and a global recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power.
 

 

'Historic mistake': Israelis, Republicans condemn Iran nuclear deal

 

"What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement. It was a historic mistake," Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a cabinet meeting Sunday morning. "Today the world become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards getting the most dangerous weapon in the world." 
The agreement between Iran and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia aims to halt the progress of the Iranian nuclear program and rolls back key parts of it. 
Struck with great speed given a history of failed negotiations, it also comes less than three months after Iran's new President Hassan Rouhani promised, in an interview with NBC News, to dramatically alter Iran’s relationship with the world.
 

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal: An Ally Frets About American Retreat

Mr. Obama's recent Hamlet act on Syria surprised and infuriated Riyadh. After the worst chemical-weapons atrocity of the war, the American leader heeded long-standing calls for military intervention, then hedged by asking for congressional approval, then nixed airstrikes in favor of a disarmament pact with Syria's Bashar Assad. The civil war continued—with Assad and his Iranian allies lately taking the upper hand. Mr. Alwaleed says of Mr. Obama: "He blinked."
Then came the autumn outreach to Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, leading to this week's negotiations in Geneva on Iran's nuclear program. Another "impression" from the prince: President Obama's falling popularity explains his "overeagerness" for an agreement made "very fast to at least put one issue in foreign policy aside" because "he's wounded now across the board." The Saudis view the Shiite theocracy in Tehran as the biggest threat to the Sunni Arab world.
 

 
My My,

 

[delldude]

And in other news:

The Republican Minority Whip, US Senator John Cornyn (TX) on Twitter shortly after the deal was announced:

✔ @JohnCornyn

"Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care"

Amazing. I love some of the re-tweets in the article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/john-cornyn-iran-deal-obamacare-100294.html?hp=l3

 
I guess you missed the story last week where Obama had the left MSM wonks in for a wag the dog session so Obamacare can go away?

 

[southwind]

snapthis,
Try these words on for size, because they ALL fit me.

1. Vocal
2. Arrogant
3. Intelligent
and
4. BRUTALLY... H O N E S T !!!

Brother,
It IS..what it IS !

Oh, and as far as etiquette is concerned, I got Etiquette..Right..HERE,......'Swinging' !

And here's some more that fit you!

1. Dimwit
2. Beligerent
3. Bigot
and
4. BRUTALLY.... IGNORANT !!!

It IS what it IS !

 

[delldude]

 
I guess you missed the story last week where Obama had the left MSM wonks in for a wag the dog session so Obamacare can go away?

 

 
For the Obama administration, which is reeling from the chaotic rollout of its healthcare reform and whose credibility has taken a battering with allies and foes from the wavering over Syria, even this interim deal with Iran represents a substantial diplomatic achievement. At a time when its ability to lead internationally is widely questioned, the negotiations are the result of years of pressure from the US which has marshalled tough international sanctions on Iran while maintaining a military threat that only the Pentagon can muster. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a32fcda-5530-11e3-a321-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2ldQC6g00