Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
Still waiting for the other ship you referenced. Wow, got a link? Wait, I don't believe in facts! Its my predetermined thoughts, minus thought, contemplation and work to determine, what might be really going on. Yo? you smoke pot?
Why don't you educate me oh wise Professor Chickenhawk?
Well you see there you go with your childish ways...
Me - no service - chickenhawk Tom Cotton - service - "I am warrior hear me roar"
Listen to him. Tom Cotton, hero of Afghanistan. Hear him, question his Commander in Chief. Listen to him as he hates. Listen to his words, His bluster. Twitter is the norm. As a veteran, one would think that war, hate, the sacrifice of what was a defense of our ideals would mean something. Apparently not.
Why don't you educate me oh wise Professor Chickenhawk?
Well you see there you go with your childish ways...
Me - no service - chickenhawk Tom Cotton - service - "I am warrior hear me roar"
Listen to him. Tom Cotton, hero of Afghanistan. Hear him, question his Commander in Chief. Listen to him as he hates. Listen to his words, His bluster. Twitter is the norm. As a veteran, one would think that war, hate, the sacrifice of what was a defense of our ideals would mean something. Apparently not.
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
As I've stated in the past, 10 year plans are complete horse pucky. Can anyone remember a single promise that a politician made 10 years ago?
Halifax, you make a good point that they only need a few years to accomplish a nuclear weapon development. If we sign this deal, they can put up a smokescreen for a few years as their economy recovers and the solidify their power while not complying.
Does anyone remember Hans Blix dealing with the Iraq smokescreen? Signing this deal could lead to war. We need to hold strong to get them to end the program.
We should be offering energy trades to end their nuclear program instead of letting them proceed as planned.
You're why I keep reading this forum. Rational thought. So, Hans Blix? Yea, he basically had it right. He reported on it. Iraq had complied with the UN resolutions, except, except, they , the Iraqis didn't announce or "submit." they played the game of allusion of strength, In the end, what did we get? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Was Hans Blix wrong in his assessments? Or reporting to the UN?
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time. Facts are funny things.
Iran's seizure of the Maersk Tigris is the second time in a week it has harassed transiting vessels under U.S. protection in the Strait of Hormuz.
A senior defense official at the Pentagon said that on Friday, the Maersk Kensington, a U.S.-flagged cargo vessel, was intercepted by four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy patrol craft.
Some think hydrogen fuel is bullsh*t. And they're right, but not in the way they think.
Promoted by Toyota
"In the incident, the [Iranian] patrol craft at one point encircled the Maersk Kensington, and eventually followed the ship as it continued on its course. The [Iranian] units eventually withdrew from the area," the official said. Iran's harassment of ships in the Strait follows its attempt last week to send a convoy of vessels to Yemen, which was eventually turned away after the arrival of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.
The incident with the Kensington, however, differs from Tuesday's seizure of the Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged vessel. The Marshall Islands is a protectorate of the U.S., and dependent upon the U.S. for its defense and security.
In Tuesday's incident with the Tigris, Iranian patrol craft ordered the cargo ship — as it was transiting through a portion of the Strait controlled by Iran, but where international sea treaties have created a safe passage route — to stop its movement and turn the ship further into Iranian waters. When the shipmaster refused, the patrol craft fired warning shots across the Tigris' bow. The vessel then complied, and was boarded by Iranian forces.
Since the incident at approximately 4 a.m. Eastern time Tuesday, the Tigris has not appeared to leave the area it was last reported, near Larak, an Iranian-owned island in the Strait.
The U.S. Navy said it did not have updates on the Maersk Tigris, except that the U.S. destroyer USS Farragut is close by and monitoring the situation.
In the Maersk Kensington's case, that ship did not request assistance from U.S. Naval forces during the incident and U.S. forces were not present or involved. The Kensington's master subsequently reported the incident to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.
In the Maersk Tigris case, the shipmaster sent out a distress call to which the USS Farragut responded.
The Pentagon said U.S. Naval Forces Central Command is now communicating with the U.S. shipping industry on how vessels should respond to any further encounters that they perceive to be threatening, and how to report requesting assistance from the Navy.
The Navy said it will respond to any threat to U.S.-flagged ships transiting the sea lanes in the region.
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
Still waiting for the other ship you referenced. Wow, got a link? Wait, I don't believe in facts! Its my predetermined thoughts, minus thought, contemplation and work to determine, what might be really going on. Yo? you smoke pot?
That took me two seconds. It is amazing how you continue to epically fail yet still return.
As far as the pot...used to smoke a ton...probably more then everyone on these boards combined...now down to once in a blue moon.
Professor Chickenhawk, I wonder for what is your motivation? Why wage the hate and the war and the depravity? Why? Is it Afghanistan you wish to tame. Syria? Jordan? Israel to be free? Libya with a modern, free capitalistic democracy? What is it? Market share? Or freedom, as you so righteously inhale? Or is it fear that creeps into your soul?
I've never been to Iran, but it is my understanding they have almost unlimited access to the giant burning orb in the sky. We should be discussing trading solar panel technology to offset what they would gain in nuclear technology. That makes sense if Iran's true intention is energy independence.
All liberals should be doing back-flips for such a proposal. The left freaks out on proposed U.S. Nuclear plant expansion. And the left wants more U.S. solar power. And we could use U.S. manpower to build and send such solar panels instead of pumping it into the F-35 program.
Iran achieves energy independence. We create more jobs.
It's a win / win scenario.
Yet an option I've yet heard to be discussed.
Jason P, finally a voice in the wilderness. And I'm with you, except, except., Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House in 1981. Now imagine if the oil industry didn't shoot that shit down? Imagine if the US invested, developed and exported the technology we developed. Imagine. But no, China owns it now, Exxon/Mobile wont stand for it and the Koch Brothers, Adelson, et. al. are going to allow solar? You're smoking. And you want Iran to surrender their "investment" their ace in the hole for something we, the US, never believed in? I mean I'm with you, I wish it could be, and it should. But, but, but, look at what would prevent it, Haliburton, Exxon, every freaking fossil fuel burning business around.
Hmm, "life span of the sun" versus "known, anticipated or suspected oil deposits, inclusive of fracking, water waste and all" What the fuck is wrong with us?
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time. Facts are funny things.
"In the incident, the [Iranian] patrol craft at one point encircled the Maersk Kensington, and eventually followed the ship as it continued on its course. The [Iranian] units eventually withdrew from the area," the official said.
Guess that defines, "seizure?" Another ship, plural. multiple, guess those Iranians have to be stopped? Ronny and Bonzo always said, "nuke 'em 'till they glow."
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time. Facts are funny things.
"In the incident, the [Iranian] patrol craft at one point encircled the Maersk Kensington, and eventually followed the ship as it continued on its course. The [Iranian] units eventually withdrew from the area," the official said.
Guess that defines, "seizure?" Another ship, plural. multiple, guess those Iranians have to be stopped? Ronny and Bonzo always said, "nuke 'em 'till they glow."
Oh. So encircling and harrassing isn't enough for you to count as a "seizure". See how this works is one week Iran encircles a ship and tests for a response. When they see no response the next week they push a little further and seize a ship. This is Iran being intentionally belligerent and the US has correctly responded by sending the navy to protect the Marshall Islands and the shipping lanes. Does that mean go to war? Again no. What it means is that you should stop being naive during these negotiations.
Funny, you use the plural of ships. They didn't seize ships. They escorted a ship to an Iranian port. Any word from the Canadian navy on said seized ship? Why hasn't the Canadian navy liberated said ship?
I used the plural because it happened a few weeks ago as well. Do some research. Or don't.
I love this. So if I say its happened, and you don't research it, it must be true? FUCK YOU! Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are so alive and if you're not catching it, shame on you!
Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time. Facts are funny things.
"In the incident, the [Iranian] patrol craft at one point encircled the Maersk Kensington, and eventually followed the ship as it continued on its course. The [Iranian] units eventually withdrew from the area," the official said.
Guess that defines, "seizure?" Another ship, plural. multiple, guess those Iranians have to be stopped? Ronny and Bonzo always said, "nuke 'em 'till they glow."
Oh. So encircling and harrassing isn't enough for you to count as a "seizure". See how this works is one week Iran encircles a ship and tests for a response. When they see no response the next week they push a little further and seize a ship. This is Iran being intentionally belligerent and the US has correctly responded by sending the navy to protect the Marshall Islands and the shipping lanes. Does that mean go to war? Again no. What it means is that you should stop being naive during these negotiations.
I'm with you on this one, BS. A country that is seeking a legitimized nuclear program ought not to be acting so antagonistically when the aggression is so unfounded (i.e. circling ships at the borders of Iranian waters, on the international side), and the decision of said legitimacy is out of their hands. It almost feels like an attempt to have America spearhead a withdrawal from the condoning of an Iranian nuclear program, so that the Western world can be blamed for the continued illegitimacy of the program (which, with enough antagonistic behaviour, Obama will view as an obligation on America's behalf).
I personally don't believe Iran has a death wish (something which, a country in Iran's position would need to actually launch a nuclear weapon against one of its two main rivals), but I don't think naivety has any place surrounding nuclear programs. This being said, I think one would be naive to suspect that the Obama administration hasn't recognized this as well, and considered all possible outcomes of this deal thoroughly.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Do you guys actually think if Iran seized a U.S. cargo ship or anything remotely like that, that they'd sit and do nothing? We're talking about a country drooling at the thought of a war with Iran because our #1 ally has a hard on to drop bombs on another Arab country. Do honestly think they'd sit and do nothing like they are now? Come on, let's be real here. Not fantasy island
Do you guys actually think if Iran seized a U.S. cargo ship or anything remotely like that, that they'd sit and do nothing? We're talking about a country drooling at the thought of a war with Iran because our #1 ally has a hard on to drop bombs on another Arab country. Do honestly think they'd sit and do nothing like they are now? Come on, let's be real here. Not fantasy island
Nart, I think intent needs to be defined to assuage concerns on this topic. Clarification is needed on whether or not this was a seizure of a ship, or whether the ship was within Iranian waters.
Within Iranian waters, a short detainment of said ship would be understandable.
If it was indeed a seizure, the reasons I can think of would involve testing limits and gauging what will result in international retaliation as a form of provocation of aggression, or anarchistic behaviour for anarchistic behaviour's sake (unlikely, but some here might believe that to be the case).
America and Iran are both gorillas pounding their chests, and I fear that one will pounce and these conversations on nuclear checks and balances will dissipate.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Do you guys actually think if Iran seized a U.S. cargo ship or anything remotely like that, that they'd sit and do nothing? We're talking about a country drooling at the thought of a war with Iran because our #1 ally has a hard on to drop bombs on another Arab country. Do honestly think they'd sit and do nothing like they are now? Come on, let's be real here. Not fantasy island
Nart, I think intent needs to be defined to assuage concerns on this topic. Clarification is needed on whether or not this was a seizure of a ship, or whether the ship was within Iranian waters.
Within Iranian waters, a short detainment of said ship would be understandable.
If it was indeed a seizure, the reasons I can think of would involve testing limits and gauging what will result in international retaliation as a form of provocation of aggression, or anarchistic behaviour for anarchistic behaviour's sake (unlikely, but some here might believe that to be the case).
America and Iran are both gorillas pounding their chests, and I fear that one will pounce and these conversations on nuclear checks and balances will dissipate.
Thought about this prior to this post but would say gorilla and chimp pounding their chests.
Think we forget that Iran is in the weaker position hence reason for their decisions and actions.
As to threat, I have no concern Iran is a threat to me, my family or really the US.
Also on treaty I'll go back to isolation doesn't work. Never has. The more trade and cross cultural encounters we have the better. The more rich Iranians come to the US and Europe the better.
Do you guys actually think if Iran seized a U.S. cargo ship or anything remotely like that, that they'd sit and do nothing? We're talking about a country drooling at the thought of a war with Iran because our #1 ally has a hard on to drop bombs on another Arab country. Do honestly think they'd sit and do nothing like they are now? Come on, let's be real here. Not fantasy island
Nart, I think intent needs to be defined to assuage concerns on this topic. Clarification is needed on whether or not this was a seizure of a ship, or whether the ship was within Iranian waters.
Within Iranian waters, a short detainment of said ship would be understandable.
If it was indeed a seizure, the reasons I can think of would involve testing limits and gauging what will result in international retaliation as a form of provocation of aggression, or anarchistic behaviour for anarchistic behaviour's sake (unlikely, but some here might believe that to be the case).
America and Iran are both gorillas pounding their chests, and I fear that one will pounce and these conversations on nuclear checks and balances will dissipate.
Thought about this prior to this post but would say gorilla and chimp pounding their chests.
Think we forget that Iran is in the weaker position hence reason for their decisions and actions.
As to threat, I have no concern Iran is a threat to me, my family or really the US.
Also on treaty I'll go back to isolation doesn't work. Never has. The more trade and cross cultural encounters we have the better. The more rich Iranians come to the US and Europe the better.
War mongering is silly.
Agree with you on all of this - and you're right that the USA have the higher ground in this scenario.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Read through the article to get an articulated statement from the Iranians regarding where the deal stands. Its hardly dead and the naval actions are hardly the result of rogue Revolutionary Guards. Zarif wouldn't say what he said if he didn't have the blessing of the Ayatollha.
What's more egregious, circling ships in the Straight of Hormuz and escorting a ship to port because of a "legal" dispute or shooting down a passenger jet in recognized civilian airspace?
Zarif called the agreement taking shape between Iran and the six world powers known collectively as the P5+1 "a good agreement."
"It's not a perfect agreement," he acknowledged. "It's not perfect for us, it's not perfect for the United States, it's not perfect for our European Union partners."
"But," he said, "it's the best we can get. It's the best anybody can get, and it's balanced in my view."
Zarif made these comments while in the U.S. for a ministerial conference at the United Nations on nuclear proliferation issues. The foreign minister also met Monday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of that conference to discuss the next steps in the nuclear negotiations.
"There will be meetings this week in New York at the expert level among the P5+1 members, the EU and Iran," a State Department official confirmed to CNN, "taking advantage of the presence of many of these experts in NY for the [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty] review conference."
"We don't have any other upcoming travel or meetings to announce today," the official added, "but you can expect that we will have a robust schedule of negotiations between now and June 30th."
The P5+1 and Iran reached a framework political understanding earlier this month in Lausanne, Switzerland, but significant obstacles remain in their efforts to reach a full agreement by the end of June.
In particular, the two sides have differing demands on the pace of sanctions relief and access for international nuclear inspectors.
Also at issue is whether sanctions against Iran can be quickly reinstated with a so-called "snapback" provision if Iran is found to be in violation of the deal's terms.
READ: Rubio, Kirk: No nuclear deal unless Iran releases reporter
The final agreement will include this provision, Zarif said, but it's a measure that works both ways.
"We didn't do this in order to simply snap back," he said. "But we have a reciprocal procedure -- unfortunately because of the mutual lack of confidence that exists -- so that if each side believes that the other side is not living up to its commitment, it can, after completing certain procedures, revert back."
The provision, Zarif said, is beneficial for Iran because the U.S. has violated previous obligations to Iran under a provisional agreement by instituting new unilateral sanctions.
The U.S. has put new unilateral sanctions in place on Iranian officials since signing the provisional document. America, though, doesn't consider these a violation but rather enforcement of sanctions that are still in place.
"If people are worried about snapback, they should be worried about the U.S. violating is obligation, and us snapping back," he warned.
On April 21, Iran and six world powers resumed the final phase of nuclear talks after a preliminary framework deal reached earlier this month. Iran and the P5+1 countries — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — are expected to reach a final accord by the end of June.
Yet hawks in Washington and Israel continue to oppose the negotiations. They argue that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon or even remain within sprinting distance of acquiring one. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, they claim, and would likely provoke a nuclear arms race in the troubled Middle East. Others have suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran may even precipitate World War III, pushing the world closer to a nuclear winter.
Most of these fears are simply unfounded. In fact, even if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon and managed to obtain one, it would not be able to carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States.
No ballistic missile option
Iran’s primary challenge in targeting the U.S. or Israel would be geographic. Roughly 1,100 miles separate the Islamic Republic from Israel’s borders. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which maintain joint missile-defense pacts with Israel, occupy much of the intervening space. This means that a missile from Iran could easily be intercepted by one of these countries before it reaches Israel.
Even if this first line of defense failed, Israel has three complementary missile defense systems that are among the most sophisticated in the world. Israel has the strongest military in the region and has recently quadrupled its air force’s striking power, which would allow the country to quickly intercept incoming projectiles.
Moreover, launching a surprise attack would be extraordinarily difficult, given Israel’s superior intelligence capabilities, which are focused almost entirely on Iran — not to mention its unprecedented cooperation with the United States.
Israel also has other geographical advantages: It would be nearly impossible for Iran to strike Israel without killing large numbers of Palestinians in the process. Iran has been one of the most vocal and consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause. Thus it is unthinkable that Tehran would carry out a nuclear strike, which could annihilate the Palestinian territories. Nuclear fallout from such a strike could prove devastating to southern Lebanon and western Syria, causing immense harm to two of Iran’s key regional allies, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime.
A strike on the United States would be even less plausible. To reach the U.S., an Iranian missile would have to deliver a nuclear payload more than 6,000 miles. The capacity of Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missiles is nowhere near this range, and it won’t be for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the missile would have to make it through the network that protects Israel, cross the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic, all without being detected or intercepted by NATO, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, U.S. satellites and Washington’s robust missile defense systems.
Clearly, any attempted nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S. is certain to fail. In fact, it would amount to suicide for Tehran. The regional and international response would be immediate, more or less unanimous and overwhelming in scale: The Islamic Republic would not survive.
The majority of the American public supports a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing – rather than enabling – Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Hawks contend that, even if it lacked the capacity to attack Israel or the U.S., Iran could provide highly enriched nuclear material to terrorist groups to be incorporated into a devastating dirty bomb that could be deployed against the U.S. or Israel. But this scenario is unlikely for a number of reasons.
For one, Iran’s regional allies — including Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen’s Houthis —are primarily nationalistic and rarely operate outside their home countries or their perceived national interests. Moreover, none of these groups have a demonstrated intent or capability to attack the U.S. mainland. This is in part why U.S. intelligence recently removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats.
Moreover, dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction. A radiological dispersion device does not have much more explosive power than a conventional weapon. Moreover, the relatively small amounts of nuclear material emitted in the process are unlikely to pose a severe immediate or long-term health risk to the public.
Therefore, even if Iran’s proxies obtained nuclear material and decided to carry out a radiological attack in Israel or the United States, the effect would hardly be catastrophic. The consequences for Iran, on the other hand, would be.
No deterrence
The logic behind nuclear deterrence is that a country will be hesitant to carry out an attack against an adversary that possesses nuclear weapons, lest it use weapons of mass destruction in reprisal. However, given that Iran cannot carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States under any conceivable circumstances, nuclear weapons would do little to deter Israel or the U.S. from attacking Tehran.
On the contrary, if in violation of its international commitments, Iran makes concrete steps toward developing and testing a nuclear weapon or manages to obtain one, that could be used as sufficient justification for a military intervention to disarm and possibly dismantle the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s procurement of a nuclear weapon would result in its becoming a pariah state like North Korea, with increased isolation. This is in stark contrast to the military, economic, geopolitical and ideological superpower it is poised to become if fully integrated into the international community. Hence Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is right to suggest that nuclear weapons hold no strategic value for Tehran.
Most nuclear nonproliferation and foreign policy experts, as well as the majority of the American public, support a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing — rather than enabling, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those presenting apocalyptic visions of nuclear-armed Iran are not independent ballistics experts. Instead, they are ideologues or parties who are aligned with one of Iran’s geopolitical adversaries or cynical politicians who want to exploit the Iranian bogeyman in the service of their domestic political agendas. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would hardly be the end of the world.
Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.
If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.
If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.
No. Not exactly my opinion. I read that article and I am very familiar with that line of thought. Yes it does contain logic but again as I always say this whole disagreement comes down to what one thinks Iranian intentions are. I don't necessarily think that Iran is looking for global dominance of Islam or has an apocalyptic vision but I also don't think based on their past behavior that anyone can 100% rule it out. In my eyes the regime (again not the average citizen or average muslim) has been a belligerent actor on the world stage since the revolution. They are without a doubt sponsors of terror and they without a doubt do seek regional hegemony. That doesn't mean we need to bomb them or go to war but it does require us to be very wary of their actions and to be forward thinking on how this might affect western interests. Also when I...me personally....speak of western interests it is only in terms of long term peace and stability. I don't make a buck off oil but the spread of democracy and security which was once a very JFK Democrat style of foreign policy means something too me. I really believe that "history hasn't ended". There are bad actors on the world stage who are not interested in our respect for dialogue and negotiation. I believe Iran is one of those bad actors and no one should doubt that nuclear technology will eventually be followed by missile technology. Allowing this to proceed poses great risk.
Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.
If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.
No. Not exactly my opinion. I read that article and I am very familiar with that line of thought. Yes it does contain logic but again as I always say this whole disagreement comes down to what one thinks Iranian intentions are. I don't necessarily think that Iran is looking for global dominance of Islam or has an apocalyptic vision but I also don't think based on their past behavior that anyone can 100% rule it out. In my eyes the regime (again not the average citizen or average muslim) has been a belligerent actor on the world stage since the revolution. They are without a doubt sponsors of terror and they without a doubt do seek regional hegemony. That doesn't mean we need to bomb them or go to war but it does require us to be very wary of their actions and to be forward thinking on how this might affect western interests. Also when I...me personally....speak of western interests it is only in terms of long term peace and stability. I don't make a buck off oil but the spread of democracy and security which was once a very JFK Democrat style of foreign policy means something too me. I really believe that "history hasn't ended". There are bad actors on the world stage who are not interested in our respect for dialogue and negotiation. I believe Iran is one of those bad actors and no one should doubt that nuclear technology will eventually be followed by missile technology. Allowing this to proceed poses great risk.
Ya terrorists, Iran, the same Iran doing our dirty work against IS. You've never been there yet think to know everything about them or what they stand for. For everything you say against them, it can be leveled against the U.S. or any other western country. Matter of fact, a country not far from them who has a lot to lose with them having any kind of civilized life outside of just Iran. Oddly enough, that same country has actually killed MORE innocent civilians in just this past year alone then Iran. Yet they're NOT a terrorist state. And yet you have no issue with them murdering innocent children. And I don't want to hear anyone say this has nothing to do with Israel because it has EVERYTHING to do with Israel. Just look at our own policy makers scrambling to derail this treaty in who's favor, oh ya, Israel. Why not let people just live and let live? Enough sabor rattling, enough of the stupid bullshit senators and congressman running to the aid of Israel. Start worrying about our own country for a change. Israel will be alright.
Few experts expect Iran to cross Obama’s red line by shutting the strait — an act that could cause global economic mayhem. Nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass through the waterway, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which calls it “the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint.”
No, but everything you've raised to illustrate the threat that Iran is, actually points to how they are in fact the weaker adversary here and any action they were to take would ultimately work in their least interest. If they really wanted to close the Straight of Hormuz, they could have done it already and easily so. They're not going to do it. Enough with the scare tactics already.
Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.
I don't think that's so tinfoil at all.
Well....I agree with H2tM that shutting down the straight would be a desperate measure. Disruption of shipping lanes in the straight has been the go-to fear mongering claim in the region forever.... I don't think they're anywhere near doing that at this point. But things change quickly...the tinfoil comes into play in wondering if SA and the US know something we don't - something that will make Iran desperate in a hurry.
Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.
I don't think that's so tinfoil at all.
Well....I agree with H2tM that shutting down the straight would be a desperate measure. Disruption of shipping lanes in the straight has been the go-to fear mongering claim in the region forever.... I don't think they're anywhere near doing that at this point. But things change quickly...the tinfoil comes into play in wondering if SA and the US know something we don't - something that will make Iran desperate in a hurry.
SA is definitely driving down oil prices to hurt Iran but the bigger question is whether the US and SA are even on the same page anymore?
Comments
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563734
That took me two seconds. It is amazing how you continue to epically fail yet still return.
As far as the pot...used to smoke a ton...probably more then everyone on these boards combined...now down to once in a blue moon.
Fuck Tom Cotton.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Facts are funny things.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Here's the link again in case you missed it the first time. Facts are funny things.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Iran's seizure of the Maersk Tigris is the second time in a week it has harassed transiting vessels under U.S. protection in the Strait of Hormuz.
A senior defense official at the Pentagon said that on Friday, the Maersk Kensington, a U.S.-flagged cargo vessel, was intercepted by four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy patrol craft.
Some think hydrogen fuel is bullsh*t. And they're right, but not in the way they think.
Promoted by Toyota
"In the incident, the [Iranian] patrol craft at one point encircled the Maersk Kensington, and eventually followed the ship as it continued on its course. The [Iranian] units eventually withdrew from the area," the official said.
Iran's harassment of ships in the Strait follows its attempt last week to send a convoy of vessels to Yemen, which was eventually turned away after the arrival of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.
The incident with the Kensington, however, differs from Tuesday's seizure of the Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged vessel. The Marshall Islands is a protectorate of the U.S., and dependent upon the U.S. for its defense and security.
In Tuesday's incident with the Tigris, Iranian patrol craft ordered the cargo ship — as it was transiting through a portion of the Strait controlled by Iran, but where international sea treaties have created a safe passage route — to stop its movement and turn the ship further into Iranian waters. When the shipmaster refused, the patrol craft fired warning shots across the Tigris' bow. The vessel then complied, and was boarded by Iranian forces.
Since the incident at approximately 4 a.m. Eastern time Tuesday, the Tigris has not appeared to leave the area it was last reported, near Larak, an Iranian-owned island in the Strait.
The U.S. Navy said it did not have updates on the Maersk Tigris, except that the U.S. destroyer USS Farragut is close by and monitoring the situation.
In the Maersk Kensington's case, that ship did not request assistance from U.S. Naval forces during the incident and U.S. forces were not present or involved. The Kensington's master subsequently reported the incident to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.
In the Maersk Tigris case, the shipmaster sent out a distress call to which the USS Farragut responded.
The Pentagon said U.S. Naval Forces Central Command is now communicating with the U.S. shipping industry on how vessels should respond to any further encounters that they perceive to be threatening, and how to report requesting assistance from the Navy.
The Navy said it will respond to any threat to U.S.-flagged ships transiting the sea lanes in the region.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hmm, "life span of the sun" versus "known, anticipated or suspected oil deposits, inclusive of fracking, water waste and all" What the fuck is wrong with us?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Guess that defines, "seizure?" Another ship, plural. multiple, guess those Iranians have to be stopped? Ronny and Bonzo always said, "nuke 'em 'till they glow."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I personally don't believe Iran has a death wish (something which, a country in Iran's position would need to actually launch a nuclear weapon against one of its two main rivals), but I don't think naivety has any place surrounding nuclear programs. This being said, I think one would be naive to suspect that the Obama administration hasn't recognized this as well, and considered all possible outcomes of this deal thoroughly.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Within Iranian waters, a short detainment of said ship would be understandable.
If it was indeed a seizure, the reasons I can think of would involve testing limits and gauging what will result in international retaliation as a form of provocation of aggression, or anarchistic behaviour for anarchistic behaviour's sake (unlikely, but some here might believe that to be the case).
America and Iran are both gorillas pounding their chests, and I fear that one will pounce and these conversations on nuclear checks and balances will dissipate.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Think we forget that Iran is in the weaker position hence reason for their decisions and actions.
As to threat, I have no concern Iran is a threat to me, my family or really the US.
Also on treaty I'll go back to isolation doesn't work. Never has. The more trade and cross cultural encounters we have the better. The more rich Iranians come to the US and Europe the better.
War mongering is silly.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/iran-mohammad-zarif-ships/index.html
Read through the article to get an articulated statement from the Iranians regarding where the deal stands. Its hardly dead and the naval actions are hardly the result of rogue Revolutionary Guards. Zarif wouldn't say what he said if he didn't have the blessing of the Ayatollha.
What's more egregious, circling ships in the Straight of Hormuz and escorting a ship to port because of a "legal" dispute or shooting down a passenger jet in recognized civilian airspace?
Zarif called the agreement taking shape between Iran and the six world powers known collectively as the P5+1 "a good agreement."
"It's not a perfect agreement," he acknowledged. "It's not perfect for us, it's not perfect for the United States, it's not perfect for our European Union partners."
"But," he said, "it's the best we can get. It's the best anybody can get, and it's balanced in my view."
Zarif made these comments while in the U.S. for a ministerial conference at the United Nations on nuclear proliferation issues. The foreign minister also met Monday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of that conference to discuss the next steps in the nuclear negotiations.
"There will be meetings this week in New York at the expert level among the P5+1 members, the EU and Iran," a State Department official confirmed to CNN, "taking advantage of the presence of many of these experts in NY for the [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty] review conference."
"We don't have any other upcoming travel or meetings to announce today," the official added, "but you can expect that we will have a robust schedule of negotiations between now and June 30th."
The P5+1 and Iran reached a framework political understanding earlier this month in Lausanne, Switzerland, but significant obstacles remain in their efforts to reach a full agreement by the end of June.
In particular, the two sides have differing demands on the pace of sanctions relief and access for international nuclear inspectors.
Also at issue is whether sanctions against Iran can be quickly reinstated with a so-called "snapback" provision if Iran is found to be in violation of the deal's terms.
READ: Rubio, Kirk: No nuclear deal unless Iran releases reporter
The final agreement will include this provision, Zarif said, but it's a measure that works both ways.
"We didn't do this in order to simply snap back," he said. "But we have a reciprocal procedure -- unfortunately because of the mutual lack of confidence that exists -- so that if each side believes that the other side is not living up to its commitment, it can, after completing certain procedures, revert back."
The provision, Zarif said, is beneficial for Iran because the U.S. has violated previous obligations to Iran under a provisional agreement by instituting new unilateral sanctions.
The U.S. has put new unilateral sanctions in place on Iranian officials since signing the provisional document. America, though, doesn't consider these a violation but rather enforcement of sanctions that are still in place.
"If people are worried about snapback, they should be worried about the U.S. violating is obligation, and us snapping back," he warned.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/irans-nuclear-threat-is-a-myth.html
On April 21, Iran and six world powers resumed the final phase of nuclear talks after a preliminary framework deal reached earlier this month. Iran and the P5+1 countries — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — are expected to reach a final accord by the end of June.
Yet hawks in Washington and Israel continue to oppose the negotiations. They argue that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon or even remain within sprinting distance of acquiring one. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, they claim, and would likely provoke a nuclear arms race in the troubled Middle East. Others have suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran may even precipitate World War III, pushing the world closer to a nuclear winter.
Most of these fears are simply unfounded. In fact, even if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon and managed to obtain one, it would not be able to carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States.
No ballistic missile option
Iran’s primary challenge in targeting the U.S. or Israel would be geographic. Roughly 1,100 miles separate the Islamic Republic from Israel’s borders. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which maintain joint missile-defense pacts with Israel, occupy much of the intervening space. This means that a missile from Iran could easily be intercepted by one of these countries before it reaches Israel.
Even if this first line of defense failed, Israel has three complementary missile defense systems that are among the most sophisticated in the world. Israel has the strongest military in the region and has recently quadrupled its air force’s striking power, which would allow the country to quickly intercept incoming projectiles.
Moreover, launching a surprise attack would be extraordinarily difficult, given Israel’s superior intelligence capabilities, which are focused almost entirely on Iran — not to mention its unprecedented cooperation with the United States.
Israel also has other geographical advantages: It would be nearly impossible for Iran to strike Israel without killing large numbers of Palestinians in the process. Iran has been one of the most vocal and consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause. Thus it is unthinkable that Tehran would carry out a nuclear strike, which could annihilate the Palestinian territories. Nuclear fallout from such a strike could prove devastating to southern Lebanon and western Syria, causing immense harm to two of Iran’s key regional allies, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime.
A strike on the United States would be even less plausible. To reach the U.S., an Iranian missile would have to deliver a nuclear payload more than 6,000 miles. The capacity of Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missiles is nowhere near this range, and it won’t be for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the missile would have to make it through the network that protects Israel, cross the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic, all without being detected or intercepted by NATO, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, U.S. satellites and Washington’s robust missile defense systems.
Clearly, any attempted nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S. is certain to fail. In fact, it would amount to suicide for Tehran. The regional and international response would be immediate, more or less unanimous and overwhelming in scale: The Islamic Republic would not survive.
The majority of the American public supports a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing – rather than enabling – Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Hawks contend that, even if it lacked the capacity to attack Israel or the U.S., Iran could provide highly enriched nuclear material to terrorist groups to be incorporated into a devastating dirty bomb that could be deployed against the U.S. or Israel. But this scenario is unlikely for a number of reasons.
For one, Iran’s regional allies — including Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen’s Houthis —are primarily nationalistic and rarely operate outside their home countries or their perceived national interests. Moreover, none of these groups have a demonstrated intent or capability to attack the U.S. mainland. This is in part why U.S. intelligence recently removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats.
Moreover, dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction. A radiological dispersion device does not have much more explosive power than a conventional weapon. Moreover, the relatively small amounts of nuclear material emitted in the process are unlikely to pose a severe immediate or long-term health risk to the public.
Therefore, even if Iran’s proxies obtained nuclear material and decided to carry out a radiological attack in Israel or the United States, the effect would hardly be catastrophic. The consequences for Iran, on the other hand, would be.
No deterrence
The logic behind nuclear deterrence is that a country will be hesitant to carry out an attack against an adversary that possesses nuclear weapons, lest it use weapons of mass destruction in reprisal. However, given that Iran cannot carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States under any conceivable circumstances, nuclear weapons would do little to deter Israel or the U.S. from attacking Tehran.
On the contrary, if in violation of its international commitments, Iran makes concrete steps toward developing and testing a nuclear weapon or manages to obtain one, that could be used as sufficient justification for a military intervention to disarm and possibly dismantle the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s procurement of a nuclear weapon would result in its becoming a pariah state like North Korea, with increased isolation. This is in stark contrast to the military, economic, geopolitical and ideological superpower it is poised to become if fully integrated into the international community. Hence Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is right to suggest that nuclear weapons hold no strategic value for Tehran.
Most nuclear nonproliferation and foreign policy experts, as well as the majority of the American public, support a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing — rather than enabling, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those presenting apocalyptic visions of nuclear-armed Iran are not independent ballistics experts. Instead, they are ideologues or parties who are aligned with one of Iran’s geopolitical adversaries or cynical politicians who want to exploit the Iranian bogeyman in the service of their domestic political agendas. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would hardly be the end of the world.
If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/irans-dire-strait-117566.html?utm_content=buffer85571&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/irans-dire-strait-117566.html#ixzz3ZD01d5yf
No, but everything you've raised to illustrate the threat that Iran is, actually points to how they are in fact the weaker adversary here and any action they were to take would ultimately work in their least interest. If they really wanted to close the Straight of Hormuz, they could have done it already and easily so. They're not going to do it. Enough with the scare tactics already.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©