I'm just going to post a link to one article and a summary. It's not like even a hidden camera into Israeli defensive actions would change someone's polluted mind, but I'm not spending this beautiful evening in here, NFW! People like Willie Mays who put Israel on trial in every thread aren't really opposed to Israeli actions anyway. It's Israel's existence they're opposed to. But the BOOGEYMAN? He exists everywhere!
Five investigative teams assigned to investigate events related to the conduct of IDF soldiers during the Gaza War dealt with the following five issues:
Claims regarding incidents where UN and international facilities were fired upon
Regarding the UNRWA school in Jabaliya, Hamas fired mortar shells at Israeli forces 80 meters from the school. All of the shells fired by IDF forces landed outside the school grounds.
Incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles and crews
A building containing a mother-and-child clinic was used by Hamas as a weapons storage facility. Despite the fact that the building was not identifiable as a clinic, the IDF still warned the residents prior to the attack. IDF forces took extraordinary care and acted even beyond the obligations of international law.
Claims regarding incidents in which many uninvolved civilians were harmed
Regarding the attack on the house of senior Hamas operative Nazar Ri'an, Ri'an was a legitimate military target due to his involvement in the execution and planning of terrorists attacks, and his house was used as a weapons storage facility, as proven by the secondary explosions after the attack.
The use of weaponry containing phosphorous
The use of weapons containing white phosphorus as a smoke screen is standard, legal, and a tactic employed by other Western militaries worldwide.
Damage to infrastructure and the destruction of buildings
No uninvolved civilians were harmed during the demolition of infrastructure and buildings by IDF forces. In many cases, the planting of explosives or weaponry by Hamas was responsible for the significant damage caused to the structures.
The government of Israel ordered the IDF to embark on the Gaza operation following eight years of rocket fire on Israeli communities in southern Israel. During this time, hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, women and men were terrorized by endless attacks executed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza. Thousands of rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli schools, kindergartens and residential neighborhoods.
There were 1,166 Palestinian fatalities during the Gaza operation; 709 were Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives, whose names are known. 162 of the fatalities were men between the ages of 16 and 45, whose connection to Hamas is unclear. 295 of the fatalities were Palestinian civilians.
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm
Five investigative teams assigned to investigate events related to the conduct of IDF soldiers during the Gaza War dealt with the following five issues:
Claims regarding incidents where UN and international facilities were fired upon
Regarding the UNRWA school in Jabaliya, Hamas fired mortar shells at Israeli forces 80 meters from the school. All of the shells fired by IDF forces landed outside the school grounds.
Incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles and crews
A building containing a mother-and-child clinic was used by Hamas as a weapons storage facility. Despite the fact that the building was not identifiable as a clinic, the IDF still warned the residents prior to the attack. IDF forces took extraordinary care and acted even beyond the obligations of international law.
Claims regarding incidents in which many uninvolved civilians were harmed
Regarding the attack on the house of senior Hamas operative Nazar Ri'an, Ri'an was a legitimate military target due to his involvement in the execution and planning of terrorists attacks, and his house was used as a weapons storage facility, as proven by the secondary explosions after the attack.
The use of weaponry containing phosphorous
The use of weapons containing white phosphorus as a smoke screen is standard, legal, and a tactic employed by other Western militaries worldwide.
Damage to infrastructure and the destruction of buildings
No uninvolved civilians were harmed during the demolition of infrastructure and buildings by IDF forces. In many cases, the planting of explosives or weaponry by Hamas was responsible for the significant damage caused to the structures.
The government of Israel ordered the IDF to embark on the Gaza operation following eight years of rocket fire on Israeli communities in southern Israel. During this time, hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, women and men were terrorized by endless attacks executed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza. Thousands of rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli schools, kindergartens and residential neighborhoods.
There were 1,166 Palestinian fatalities during the Gaza operation; 709 were Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives, whose names are known. 162 of the fatalities were men between the ages of 16 and 45, whose connection to Hamas is unclear. 295 of the fatalities were Palestinian civilians.
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm
SL: this option of obtaining a restraining order against the mullahs is not available to Israel.
BAR: Oh but it is. And it is. The USA has quite effectively made it clear to Iran that if they violate the restraining order and launch an attack, there will be Hell to pay.
====
SL: Is it possible to know how paralyzing and horrific Iran's initial attack would be?
BAR: Of course not, since neither you nor I possess a working crystal ball. But it's reasonable to submit that you presume it would be quite horrific, while I presume it won't occur at all.
Which brings us back to our analagous scenario. If you're really, really sure that Dude is going to make his attack once he's got the bigger weapon, it might indeed be reasonable to strike him first.
But I'm thinking you better be really, really, really sure.
Because if you're wrong about his true, absolute intentions (that which he would REALLY do), you are now the murderer.
======
SL: Ok, we disagree (on the gravity of the threat)
BAR: Correct.
=====
SL: Anyway Bar, terrorists live on a different timetable than you and I. I also believe you expect they think like you and I, which is rationally, and in terms of a "Price to Pay" for their actions. They don't!
BAR: Oh but they do. As a collective. There may well be individuals who would promote the message of SuicideForAllah. But they'll be outweighed by the others who are content with protecting the homeland (Iran in this case) and who will consider the lives of themselves, their wives and children before they will give them all away in support of a superstitous claptrap idea.
Remember, with literally each passing day, increasing numbers of fundy Islamics are exposed to the free thinking ideas of the West. It's a slow, tedious process, but it's inexorable.
If you don't share that vision, then of course you're back to your Decision point of when and where you make your own first strike.
For me and mine, there will never be a strike of violence against my brother(s) for any reason other than pure self defense.
(Break out the Gandhi writings here)
:grandmais
BAR: Oh but it is. And it is. The USA has quite effectively made it clear to Iran that if they violate the restraining order and launch an attack, there will be Hell to pay.
====
SL: Is it possible to know how paralyzing and horrific Iran's initial attack would be?
BAR: Of course not, since neither you nor I possess a working crystal ball. But it's reasonable to submit that you presume it would be quite horrific, while I presume it won't occur at all.
Which brings us back to our analagous scenario. If you're really, really sure that Dude is going to make his attack once he's got the bigger weapon, it might indeed be reasonable to strike him first.
But I'm thinking you better be really, really, really sure.
Because if you're wrong about his true, absolute intentions (that which he would REALLY do), you are now the murderer.
======
SL: Ok, we disagree (on the gravity of the threat)
BAR: Correct.
=====
SL: Anyway Bar, terrorists live on a different timetable than you and I. I also believe you expect they think like you and I, which is rationally, and in terms of a "Price to Pay" for their actions. They don't!
BAR: Oh but they do. As a collective. There may well be individuals who would promote the message of SuicideForAllah. But they'll be outweighed by the others who are content with protecting the homeland (Iran in this case) and who will consider the lives of themselves, their wives and children before they will give them all away in support of a superstitous claptrap idea.
Remember, with literally each passing day, increasing numbers of fundy Islamics are exposed to the free thinking ideas of the West. It's a slow, tedious process, but it's inexorable.
If you don't share that vision, then of course you're back to your Decision point of when and where you make your own first strike.
For me and mine, there will never be a strike of violence against my brother(s) for any reason other than pure self defense.
(Break out the Gandhi writings here)
:grandmais
www.dailyalert.org
Iran Announces Plans for Ten New Uranium Enrichment Plants - Thomas Erdbrink
Iran's government will build ten new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country's nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad told state news agency IRNA that construction of at least five nuclear facilities was to begin within two months. The announcement comes just days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic's refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. (Washington Post)
Iran Says UN Criticism Prompted New Nuclear Plans - Ali Akbar Dareini
Iran had no intention of building ten new nuclear facilities until it was strongly rebuked by the UN nuclear watchdog over its nuclear activities, Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi said Monday. The ten-fold expansion of Iran's nuclear program will likely significantly heighten tensions with the West. (AP/Washington Post)
U.S.: "Another Serious Violation of Iran's Clear Obligations" - Jeff Mason
Reacting to the announcement, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday, "If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program." (Reuters)
Latest UN Censure of Iran May Start More Confrontational Phase - Glenn Kessler and Joby Warrick
The resounding censure of Iran on Friday by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency signals the start of a potentially more confrontational phase in the Obama administration's dealings with Iran, including the prospect of strengthened U.S.-led efforts to cut off Iran's economic links to the world. Iran will face a "package of consequences" if it does not soon become a "willing partner" in talks on its nuclear ambitions, a senior U.S. official warned. (Washington Post)
Rebuke Recasts Standoff with Iran - David Crawford and Jay Solomon
U.S. officials said stronger-than-expected support for the measure reflected international consensus that Iran's nuclear ambitions need to be checked. U.S. officials said they were particularly pleased that the Chinese took part in writing the draft resolution the IAEA board passed. Officials said the final resolution included specific wording offered by Beijing.
Discussions have focused on eight "baskets" of areas that could be targeted, including Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard. (Wall Street Journal)
Iran Announces Plans for Ten New Uranium Enrichment Plants - Thomas Erdbrink
Iran's government will build ten new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country's nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad told state news agency IRNA that construction of at least five nuclear facilities was to begin within two months. The announcement comes just days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic's refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. (Washington Post)
Iran Says UN Criticism Prompted New Nuclear Plans - Ali Akbar Dareini
Iran had no intention of building ten new nuclear facilities until it was strongly rebuked by the UN nuclear watchdog over its nuclear activities, Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi said Monday. The ten-fold expansion of Iran's nuclear program will likely significantly heighten tensions with the West. (AP/Washington Post)
U.S.: "Another Serious Violation of Iran's Clear Obligations" - Jeff Mason
Reacting to the announcement, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday, "If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program." (Reuters)
Latest UN Censure of Iran May Start More Confrontational Phase - Glenn Kessler and Joby Warrick
The resounding censure of Iran on Friday by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency signals the start of a potentially more confrontational phase in the Obama administration's dealings with Iran, including the prospect of strengthened U.S.-led efforts to cut off Iran's economic links to the world. Iran will face a "package of consequences" if it does not soon become a "willing partner" in talks on its nuclear ambitions, a senior U.S. official warned. (Washington Post)
Rebuke Recasts Standoff with Iran - David Crawford and Jay Solomon
U.S. officials said stronger-than-expected support for the measure reflected international consensus that Iran's nuclear ambitions need to be checked. U.S. officials said they were particularly pleased that the Chinese took part in writing the draft resolution the IAEA board passed. Officials said the final resolution included specific wording offered by Beijing.
Discussions have focused on eight "baskets" of areas that could be targeted, including Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard. (Wall Street Journal)
The West Goes Wobbly on Iran - Matthias Kuntzel
The West is not deterring the mullahs. Instead, the mere prospect of their nuclear capability is deterring the West. Ahmadinejad and his friends sense their chance. They are putting pressure on the democratic nations to drop Israel in exchange for a tempering of Tehran's hostility. They are using the entire repertoire of intimidation, ridicule, and insult in an attempt to transform the Jewish state into what the Czech Sudetenland was for France and Great Britain in 1938: the price to be paid for "peace in our time."
Nobody can be sure that a nuclear-armed Iran will allow itself to be disarmed and deprived of its power without using its nuclear weapons. In that case, the world may be faced with the choice of either submitting to Islamism or defeating it - albeit at an unimaginable price.
There is only one thing that can prevent the building of the Iranian bomb: the shutting down or destruction of the facilities that are producing the nuclear materials for it. The writer is a German political scientist. (Weekly Standard)
The West is not deterring the mullahs. Instead, the mere prospect of their nuclear capability is deterring the West. Ahmadinejad and his friends sense their chance. They are putting pressure on the democratic nations to drop Israel in exchange for a tempering of Tehran's hostility. They are using the entire repertoire of intimidation, ridicule, and insult in an attempt to transform the Jewish state into what the Czech Sudetenland was for France and Great Britain in 1938: the price to be paid for "peace in our time."
Nobody can be sure that a nuclear-armed Iran will allow itself to be disarmed and deprived of its power without using its nuclear weapons. In that case, the world may be faced with the choice of either submitting to Islamism or defeating it - albeit at an unimaginable price.
There is only one thing that can prevent the building of the Iranian bomb: the shutting down or destruction of the facilities that are producing the nuclear materials for it. The writer is a German political scientist. (Weekly Standard)
I grew up with the specter of nuclear annihilation from Russia hanging over
my head every day. A couple of dirt bags with a dirty bomb doesn't
intimidate me much and I live in a city that not only could be but has been
targeted. When did we (and the right wing in particular) become such a bunch of bed wetters?
Do we really wonder why a state would want an ultimate weapon when it
has hostile armies on nearly all it's borders? Do we question Israel in which
the threat to them is much, much less than to it's neighbors?
Reality check needed desperately.
my head every day. A couple of dirt bags with a dirty bomb doesn't
intimidate me much and I live in a city that not only could be but has been
targeted. When did we (and the right wing in particular) become such a bunch of bed wetters?
Do we really wonder why a state would want an ultimate weapon when it
has hostile armies on nearly all it's borders? Do we question Israel in which
the threat to them is much, much less than to it's neighbors?
Reality check needed desperately.
I know it's an old thread, but I want to know what moy brat have been up to at the Rx.
Who gave Iran its first two nuclear reactors?
The same country that helped Saddam in power and gave him chemical weapons, the same country that helped put the Taliban in power and gave them money and weapons, the same country that encouraged the Palestinians to hold elections and then retaliated with harsh sanctions for the results of the elections.......
Who gave Iran its first two nuclear reactors?
The same country that helped Saddam in power and gave him chemical weapons, the same country that helped put the Taliban in power and gave them money and weapons, the same country that encouraged the Palestinians to hold elections and then retaliated with harsh sanctions for the results of the elections.......
How ElBaradei Misled the World about Iran's Nuclear Program - Yossi Melman
This week, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei ended his controversial and unsuccessful term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Egyptian diplomat was considered Iran's most important supporter and benefactor in the international community and was responsible for his organization's placatory approach toward the Iranian nuclear program. For almost a decade, starting in 1992, the agency inspectors did not notice that Iran had a secret nuclear program that violated its international commitments.
Even when the agency had the information, in 2002 (to a considerable degree thanks to American, British, German and Israeli intelligence), ElBaradei ignored it and made every possible effort to undermine its reliability.
He intervened repeatedly to distort his inspectors' reports on Iran's nuclear sites, and he made sure that the IAEA's periodic reports about Iran would be camouflaged in diplomatic gibberish.
Time and again they repeated the phrase that "no proof was found" that Iran's nuclear program had military aspects, even though they were blatantly obvious. ElBaradei was opposed to sanctioning Iran, not to mention military action, and repeatedly attempted to conduct a dialogue with Tehran in order to reach a compromise. (Ha'aretz)
This week, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei ended his controversial and unsuccessful term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Egyptian diplomat was considered Iran's most important supporter and benefactor in the international community and was responsible for his organization's placatory approach toward the Iranian nuclear program. For almost a decade, starting in 1992, the agency inspectors did not notice that Iran had a secret nuclear program that violated its international commitments.
Even when the agency had the information, in 2002 (to a considerable degree thanks to American, British, German and Israeli intelligence), ElBaradei ignored it and made every possible effort to undermine its reliability.
He intervened repeatedly to distort his inspectors' reports on Iran's nuclear sites, and he made sure that the IAEA's periodic reports about Iran would be camouflaged in diplomatic gibberish.
Time and again they repeated the phrase that "no proof was found" that Iran's nuclear program had military aspects, even though they were blatantly obvious. ElBaradei was opposed to sanctioning Iran, not to mention military action, and repeatedly attempted to conduct a dialogue with Tehran in order to reach a compromise. (Ha'aretz)
so this means the Bush Administration was wrong when they said Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? when everybody called them liars and crackpots?
BTW: the moon is made of Swiss cheese, not provolone
interesting thread...
im with barman in that i beleive that Iran's nuclear ambitions are primarily defensive, as were north koreas....
North Korea did not attempt to launch at the South the moment they had the bomb.
any attack by Iran would mean they would be completely wiped off the map and do not beleive this is likely or even plausible.
It does bring about an interesting question.
What level of certainty does a nation have to have before launching a pre-emptive strike that will kill civilians?
For example... Does Israel have the right to attack Iran based on a 5% likelihood they will be attacked?
what about a 50% or 60% likelihood.
I also agree with barman when posts above, that you better be damn sure about the intentions of Iran otherwise, something has flipped and all of a sudden you have become the criminal.
im with barman in that i beleive that Iran's nuclear ambitions are primarily defensive, as were north koreas....
North Korea did not attempt to launch at the South the moment they had the bomb.
any attack by Iran would mean they would be completely wiped off the map and do not beleive this is likely or even plausible.
It does bring about an interesting question.
What level of certainty does a nation have to have before launching a pre-emptive strike that will kill civilians?
For example... Does Israel have the right to attack Iran based on a 5% likelihood they will be attacked?
what about a 50% or 60% likelihood.
I also agree with barman when posts above, that you better be damn sure about the intentions of Iran otherwise, something has flipped and all of a sudden you have become the criminal.
SportSavant, I know at least some of your family heritage traces back to that region of the globe, though as you certainly know, I have no idea how closely related (currently or in earlier generations) they would be to you now.
Do you have any family members who faithfully practice Islamic religion?
If yes, do they offer any perceptions regarding either Iran or the alleged "Islamic threat to North Americans"?
If no, then of course disregard that final question.
Do you have any family members who faithfully practice Islamic religion?
If yes, do they offer any perceptions regarding either Iran or the alleged "Islamic threat to North Americans"?
If no, then of course disregard that final question.
www.dailyalert.org
Iran revealed its nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom in late September after a British agent exposed its true purpose to the West, Ynet learned Tuesday.
American, British and Israeli satellites had documented construction works at the uranium enrichment site for years, but the West only learned of its true purpose from an MI-6 agent who was exposed by Iran.
Information proved by another Western intelligence agency coincided with the agent's findings.
A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had told the UN nuclear watchdog that it had begun building the plant within a bunker beneath a mountain near Qom in 2007, but the IAEA had evidence the project had begun in 2002.
The Islamic Republic said it decided to report the existence of the plant due to its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran told the Vienna-based agency that the site, which is guarded by heavy anti-aircraft weaponry, wouldn't be operational for 18 months and that no centrifuges have been installed in it as of yet.
The White House responded to the development by urging Iran's complete and immediate cooperation with the IAEA. "After hiding this site from the international community for years, full transparency is essential, and it is time for Iran to play by the rules like everyone else," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in late September.
US President Barack Obama said at the time that evidence of Iran's building the underground plant "continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion" that jeopardizes global nonproliferation.
Iran revealed its nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom in late September after a British agent exposed its true purpose to the West, Ynet learned Tuesday.
American, British and Israeli satellites had documented construction works at the uranium enrichment site for years, but the West only learned of its true purpose from an MI-6 agent who was exposed by Iran.
Information proved by another Western intelligence agency coincided with the agent's findings.
A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had told the UN nuclear watchdog that it had begun building the plant within a bunker beneath a mountain near Qom in 2007, but the IAEA had evidence the project had begun in 2002.
The Islamic Republic said it decided to report the existence of the plant due to its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran told the Vienna-based agency that the site, which is guarded by heavy anti-aircraft weaponry, wouldn't be operational for 18 months and that no centrifuges have been installed in it as of yet.
The White House responded to the development by urging Iran's complete and immediate cooperation with the IAEA. "After hiding this site from the international community for years, full transparency is essential, and it is time for Iran to play by the rules like everyone else," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in late September.
US President Barack Obama said at the time that evidence of Iran's building the underground plant "continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion" that jeopardizes global nonproliferation.
Iran said today that it had successfully tested an upgraded, long-range missile capable of hitting Israel and US targets in the Gulf, further stoking tensions in the Middle East and prompting a call from Gordon Brown for stricter sanctions.
In a terse, one-sentence announcement, Iranian state television said the Sejil-2 missile, a solid-fuel rocket with a range of 1,200 miles, had been successfully test fired. "It hit the defined target," state television said, giving no further details.
The extended range puts not only targets across the Middle East within striking distance but reaches as far as southeastern Europe. The new missile is also believed to have greater accuracy than previous models, which were also capable of hitting Iran’s arch-foe Israel.
Mr Brown, who is attending the climate conference in Copenhagen, said: "This is a matter of serious concern to the international community and it does make the case for us moving further on sanctions.” He said that he had spoken to Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, about the missile test. "We will treat this with the seriousness it deserves."
The test came a day after the US House of Representatives backed a Bill to impose sanctions on foreign companies that help supply gasoline to Iran in a bid to pressure Iran to back down over its controversial nuclear programme.
The US and its allies fear that Iran is covertly developing the technology to produce a nuclear weapon, and fear that its long range missiles could provide the delivery system for such a device. Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its very existence, after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for the Jewish state to be eliminated.
As a solid-fuel missile, the Sejil-2 is more accurate than liquid fuelled rockets. Iran has threatened to bomb Israel’s civilian nuclear reactors if the Jewish state launches a military strike to disable the Iranian nuclear programme, something Israel has refused to rule out should international sanctions fail to have any effect.
Iran is already under three sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment. It risks further sanctions after Tehran rejected a UN-brokered deal to send its low enriched uranium abroad to be further refined into fuel for a research reactor.
Sejil means means "baked clay" in Persian, a reference to a Koranic verse in which God sends birds to drive away attackers from the Muslim holy city of Mecca by bombarding them with stones of baked clay.
Today's test came as the US said it would investigate a report in The Times that Iran had been working on a trigger for a nuclear weapon.
The Obama Administration said yesterday that it was investigating work on a trigger — one of the final stages in the production of the atomic bomb.
Philip Crowley, the US State Department spokesman, said: “It’s safe to say the United States Government will be investigating... the revelations this week about nuclear triggers.” He praised the report in The Times, calling it a “fine piece of journalism”.
Rest of article and video:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6958599.ece
In a terse, one-sentence announcement, Iranian state television said the Sejil-2 missile, a solid-fuel rocket with a range of 1,200 miles, had been successfully test fired. "It hit the defined target," state television said, giving no further details.
The extended range puts not only targets across the Middle East within striking distance but reaches as far as southeastern Europe. The new missile is also believed to have greater accuracy than previous models, which were also capable of hitting Iran’s arch-foe Israel.
Mr Brown, who is attending the climate conference in Copenhagen, said: "This is a matter of serious concern to the international community and it does make the case for us moving further on sanctions.” He said that he had spoken to Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, about the missile test. "We will treat this with the seriousness it deserves."
The test came a day after the US House of Representatives backed a Bill to impose sanctions on foreign companies that help supply gasoline to Iran in a bid to pressure Iran to back down over its controversial nuclear programme.
The US and its allies fear that Iran is covertly developing the technology to produce a nuclear weapon, and fear that its long range missiles could provide the delivery system for such a device. Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its very existence, after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for the Jewish state to be eliminated.
As a solid-fuel missile, the Sejil-2 is more accurate than liquid fuelled rockets. Iran has threatened to bomb Israel’s civilian nuclear reactors if the Jewish state launches a military strike to disable the Iranian nuclear programme, something Israel has refused to rule out should international sanctions fail to have any effect.
Iran is already under three sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment. It risks further sanctions after Tehran rejected a UN-brokered deal to send its low enriched uranium abroad to be further refined into fuel for a research reactor.
Sejil means means "baked clay" in Persian, a reference to a Koranic verse in which God sends birds to drive away attackers from the Muslim holy city of Mecca by bombarding them with stones of baked clay.
Today's test came as the US said it would investigate a report in The Times that Iran had been working on a trigger for a nuclear weapon.
The Obama Administration said yesterday that it was investigating work on a trigger — one of the final stages in the production of the atomic bomb.
Philip Crowley, the US State Department spokesman, said: “It’s safe to say the United States Government will be investigating... the revelations this week about nuclear triggers.” He praised the report in The Times, calling it a “fine piece of journalism”.
Rest of article and video:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6958599.ece
There's Only One Way to Stop Iran - Alan J. Kuperman (New York Times)
President Obama should sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal.
Had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90%-enriched uranium by starting with purified 20%-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff.
If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb. Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran's bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.
There are three compelling reasons that the U.S. itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon's weapons are better than Israel's at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel's relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the U.S. takes action, the better.
The writer is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
President Obama should sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal.
Had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90%-enriched uranium by starting with purified 20%-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff.
If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb. Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran's bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.
There are three compelling reasons that the U.S. itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon's weapons are better than Israel's at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel's relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the U.S. takes action, the better.
The writer is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
Just a little background...
Scott is a Jew and Iran is well not a fan of Jews hence the US doing the dirty work in dealing with Iran
The funniest part about this is not that Iran is developing a nuke, its how or why we should give a rats ass when Iran is roughly 7000 miles from our coasts. If anyone should be concerned it should be Irans immediate neighbors in striking distance. But being that Jerusalem is probably one nuke away from annihilation i can see his worry. Hence Scotts hard on for us dealing with it
Scott is a Jew and Iran is well not a fan of Jews hence the US doing the dirty work in dealing with Iran
The funniest part about this is not that Iran is developing a nuke, its how or why we should give a rats ass when Iran is roughly 7000 miles from our coasts. If anyone should be concerned it should be Irans immediate neighbors in striking distance. But being that Jerusalem is probably one nuke away from annihilation i can see his worry. Hence Scotts hard on for us dealing with it
You only see what you want to see. Iran may be 7000 miles away however they are in the heart of oil producing nations. Since the current administration seems inept in developing a strategy to break our dependence on foreign oil it is vital that the Middle East remain intact.
The economic upheaval that would occur if Iran nuked any of their neighbors would be catastrophic. To point to Israel as the only real target is incredibly lame although I believe they would be at the top of the list.
Doing the dirty work is in our best interest and if we can keep thousands of Jews from being annihilated I say what are we waiting for.
BTW the cheap shot you took at Scott is unwarranted.
