What conspiraciy theories are there concerning Iran and the whole Iran nuclear thing?

Be like Nutella

I'm mad interested in the whole Iran thing and I'm just wondering what theories are floating round...

Seems the sanctions wont neceassarily have any real impact on whether they get to the bomb or not IF that's what they're after? cue conspiracy theory..

I watched a pretty recent Charlie Rose interview with Irans 'western Mouth' (can't remember the guys name but he headed up their entire nuclear researtch for 25 years) anyway his english was perfect and he was pretty candid about most stuff... he said basically that they aren't after the bomb.... and that it just suits the US to act and say publicly that Iran is after the bomb... now I know the guy could be lying out his hole but the point is a valid one to discuss...

what if.... Iran is not after the bomb?
why would they play this game with the west? and what if, as this dude said, the US knows full well that Iran is not after the bomb...but that is suits them to say that they are.... for a host of reasons.... why would the US want to inflate the Iran Nuclear race thing?

A lot of conspiracy forum/sites are full of a lot of crap...everybody here would probably agree but not all of it obviously... there'#s a huge amount of good info has come out by the thousands of people interested in uncovering a lot that has gone on since 9/11 and a lot of that research and discussion has unearthed a huge amount that people didn't know... so that's why I'm trying to get a sense of what are the theories when it comes to Iran and the US and all the rhetoric and the IEA **** etc..

whats your opinion on all this?

I'd urge anyone with an interest in the Iran tension to watch this guy... he could be lying out his eyeballs I don't know but he seems to be the dude willing to talk to the west and the fact he was put o Charlie Rose means he really was representing the Iranian Party line.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12000

Tzar Chasm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm mad interested in the whole Iran thing and I'm just wondering what theories are floating round...

Seems the sanctions wont neceassarily have any real impact on whether they get to the bomb or not IF that's what they're after? cue conspiracy theory..

I watched a pretty recent Charlie Rose interview with Irans 'western Mouth' (can't remember the guys name but he headed up their entire nuclear researtch for 25 years) anyway his english was perfect and he was pretty candid about most stuff... he said basically that they aren't after the bomb.... and that it just suits the US to act and say publicly that Iran is after the bomb... now I know the guy could be lying out his hole but the point is a valid one to discuss...

what if.... Iran is not after the bomb?
why would they play this game with the west? and what if, as this dude said, the US knows full well that Iran is not after the bomb...but that is suits them to say that they are.... for a host of reasons.... why would the US want to inflate the Iran Nuclear race thing?

A lot of conspiracy forum/sites are full of a lot of crap...everybody here would probably agree but not all of it obviously... there'#s a huge amount of good info has come out by the thousands of people interested in uncovering a lot that has gone on since 9/11 and a lot of that research and discussion has unearthed a huge amount that people didn't know... so that's why I'm trying to get a sense of what are the theories when it comes to Iran and the US and all the rhetoric and the IEA **** etc..

whats your opinion on all this?

I'd urge anyone with an interest in the Iran tension to watch this guy... he could be lying out his eyeballs I don't know but he seems to be the dude willing to talk to the west and the fact he was put o Charlie Rose means he really was representing the Iranian Party line.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12000

Hi all, long time lurkers, love the forum

From what I understand its about the oil bourse, America didn't have a problem with irans anti western stance and weapons program in the eighties and nineties, help they even went and got that ollie north fella to supply them with weapons. But they decided to start a separate oil bourse and sell derivitave chemical products in a currency other than us dollars, this strongly impacts on US national security, currently all oil is traded in us dollars, this maintains the us dollars position on the global currency market and allows the us to run massive defects, it also means that whilst all other countries must first buy us dollars before they can trade oil the us justs needs to crznk up the printing press to meet its energy needs
So its the same thing as what happened in iraq, the US went to war in iraq to stop sadam from changing the currency of the oil for aid program to euros, now people will say that the us dwidnt profit from iraq but the main thing and that the contracts were awarded to other countries, but the mainmission was accomplished, soil continues to be traded in dollars and a sharp signal was sent to other countries that were contemplating a similar move like venezuela and iran.

Iran however didn't back down fully, and have proceeded to establish a second. Bourse for the trading of all ol derivative products and have in the last year or so set up new trade agreements with china on a non monetary product swap/balance of trade agreement which also bypasses the need for dollars.

Course iran can't be allowed to develop a bomb either as that would mean that the ameiscans coulent threaten them militarily any more and israel might have to pull its head in

Be like Nutella

Holy **** you seem to know what you're talking about...oil traded in Dollars = America Happy : ).... ok I'm only new to considering this one as THE driver behind the Iraq farce and the continuing and heating up Iran situation. I'm not saying I buy it yet as I don't understand the economics as you seem to but by God I'll go and learn about this Oil traded in Dollars malarky I tell thee... sounds pretty logical actually ...whether America waged a war on the sole basis of this driver I don't know...but I'll be back when I learn more. Cheers... nice start though...
America is America because it's currency is held up by the whole world being forced to buy and sell oil in Dollars seems to the central thesis there... and therefore it's in America's interest to use this nuclear tension thing whether true or not to leverage control over Iran vis a vis oil; vis a vis being traded in Dollars etc
Can you give us a link to something so I can learn about this perspective...which may to you seem obvious and elementary...

Tzar Chasm

Just google the kish bourse for more info, the wiki for it also makes a link to the cutting of the under sea communications cable that occurred on the day the exchange opened, which wasn't something i'd considered myself, but the timing does fir neatly.

The importance of maintaining the dollar as the benchmark for oil trades cannot be onderestimated, imo its probably the main driving force behind the libya excursion too. Can't hve an oil rich islamic country doing its own thing

snafuk35

The conspiracy is wide open.
It's an election year and Obama is ramping up the tension in the Mid East.
Obama would actually risk a shooting war in the Gulf it caused the American people to row in behind him.
If the Iranians miscalculate and an itchy trigger finger launches a missile at an American ship, the US will respond with overwhelming force. For a time oil prices will sky rocket as the fighting closes the Strait of Hormuz and the shallow water is littered with sunken Iranian ships. Whether people do not support Obama initially does not matter because once battle is joined the straits would have to be opened or the world would face economic ruin. America would lose sailors and airmen but the pay off would be a resounding American victory. Russia and China would give up Iran rather than start a wider war.
The Iranians meanwhile have a plummeting currency and the mullahs are faced by a divided society. They are being crippled by oil sanctions since December 31 and they will feel the heat unless they act. They are gambling that they can get better negotiation terms if they threaten to block the strait. This would prompt the Americans to test their bluff by sailing a carrier group right through. They would have to fight and be smashed or back down and cave into the world and either way face humiliation. Closing the strait or going war would also harm the flow of Iranian oil too.
For Iran now it is lose/lose.
The mullahs might be left with one last throw of the dice - actually go to war and stubbornly go down fighting.
They view the world in apocalyptic terms - the rise of Satan, the return of the Mahdi and the final judgement.
They may actually be crazy enough to act in a way that rationalists have refused to consider, though their crazy death cult of jihad has been starting them in the face. Before we had to witness suicide bombers. Now we are could be about to witness a whole country commit suicide - shower Israel, the Gulf and the American fleet, maybe continental Europe too, with missiles and then go down gloriously as they are carpet bombed into oblivion.
They would die happy knowing they took thousands if not hundreds of thousands of infidels with them.

Be like Nutella

wow

ok... so from your perspective basically Iran is capable of actually going all the way with its threats and carrying out the extreme views of it's religious leaders and dictator like president (and his little cabal) be it closing the strait (or at least trying to) or even starting on the Americans if they get too close as things heat up.....AND ...that Obama would not shy away from this as the result would be pro America or American interests etc... but are you saying it's actually in Obama administration's interest to stir this thing up to the point of Iran doin something stupid like you say and sinking a US ship or something like that...a la Falkland’s a la Bay of Tonkin etc

I'm not sure you can write off the Iranian people in this equation.... I get your logic but don't forget Iran is a sophisticated nation of well educated young people and they’re pissed with the current leadership situation... they're not likely to rally behind a leadership willing to strap a suicide vest on take the whole country with it?

plus.... the US is by all accounts INCAPABLE politically and financially of rallying a war effort that could escalate to Iraq invasion levels again for quite a few years.... in fact it's debatable whether the world’s financial system could (Iraq and Afg cost close to a $Trill) ... Europe would not support War in Iran.....Troops would be hard to motivate as they are disheartened enough having spent feckin years involved in **** that nobody wanted them to do...coming home to a country who had no respect for the reasons they were there etc... but I take your opinion you obviously think Iran is well capable of goin nuts on this thing... and that the outcome of such a War with the US would deffo be pro US .... I'm not so sure... if we're talkin destroying their very important and long time undercapitalised and ailing oil fields and killing thousands with bombing raids... I'm not so sure the resulting world would be pro US... it's a tough one to think through.... remember the dictators that recently got their p45s were in some ways controllable by the US (aid, weapons etc)..but these new young informed revolutionaries hate the US for many reasons and although democracy will form slowly in these nations they are for the moment anti-US AS WOULD IRAN be after the supposed war with the US...

stuar

Well back in 2002 I was reading after Iraq the US will go after Iran, and low and behold the same tactics used again.

Toronto Sun. November 10, 2002
But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration's national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional peers in Israel's right-wing Likud party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops into Mesopotamia.

The prevailing view in the Israeli military is that Iraq will be quickly defeated by U.S. forces, and then likely split into two or three cantons. Israel's North American supporters, however, are still being given the party line that Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq.

Iran is a different story. Iran is expected to produce a few nuclear weapons within five years to counter Israel's large nuclear arsenal, and is developing medium-range missiles, Shahab-3s and -4s, that can easily reach Tel Aviv.

With 68 million people and a growing industrial base, Iran is seen by Israel as a serious threat and major Mideast geopolitical rival. Both nations have their eye on Iraq's vast oil reserves.

Israel's newly appointed hardline defence minister, former air force chief Shaul Mofaz, who was born in Iran, has previously threatened to attack Iran's nuclear installations. Thanks to long-range F-15Is supplied by the U.S., plus cruise and ballistic missiles, Israel can strike targets all over Iran. This week, Israel's grand strategy was clearly revealed for the first time, though barely noticed by North American media, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for an invasion of Iran "the day after" Iraq is crushed.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/print.asp?ID=293

Didn't really workout that way for the US/Israel.

I've always believed Iran was next after Bush announced "VICTORY" a few years back.


Here's another article from a few years back:

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

hooradiation

snafuk35 wrote: »

The conspiracy is wide open.
It's an election year and Obama is ramping up the tension in the Mid East.
Obama would actually risk a shooting war in the Gulf it caused the American people to row in behind him.

This might be the case if the republican party wasn't hellbent on giving Obama the next election on a silver platter.

Seriously, at this point every snide, accusing copy&paste post about how Obama (or, if you're feeling rakish, Obomber) is a mass murderer and is personally guilty of murdering children could be played 24/7 on every television station from now until November 2012 and he'd still win, because the republican field is so goddamn weak.

Jonny7

stuar wrote: »

Well back in 2002 I was reading after Iraq the US will go after Iran, and low and behold the same tactics used again.

I'm curious, what criteria do you apply to decide whether something you are reading is true or false?

stuar

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm curious, what criteria do you apply to decide whether something you are reading is true or false?

Erm..........Read the news, While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

What is Iran guilty of now Jonny??

The articles were from years ago, all coming true now don't you think, so I'd say they were accurate predictions.

What do you apply to whats true or rubbish in your view?, just curious.

studiorat

stuar wrote: »

The articles were from years ago, all coming true now don't you think, so I'd say they were accurate predictions.

There's no "all coming true" more like you've just become aware of it. Iran and the US have had this relationship since the late 1970's.

During Khatami's term things became a little warmer but it's back to business as usual these days.

Jonny7

sweet jesus, have a look at "thetruthseeker.co.uk".

Why do conspiracy theorists hate the US and Israel so much, but seem to have so much support for Iran (a country with real state control, censorship - you know, stuff conspiracy theorists are apparently against)

Odd set of principles.

Jonny7

stuar wrote: »

Erm..........Read the news,

Yeah but those sites aren't really news. They are just blogs and interpretations of events, including twisted, exaggerated and even false facts to present a narrative to malign certain countries and back others.

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus, have a look at "thetruthseeker.co.uk".

Why do conspiracy theorists hate the US and Israel so much, but seem to have so much support for Iran (a country with real state control, censorship - you know, stuff conspiracy theorists are apparently against)

Odd set of principles.

Because for the most part there's some sort of millennialist eschatology involved whose narrative is usually based around american politics. With origins in the far-right, and from self proclaimed patriots who think the US has become a socialist state. It's also because the US is an easy target for people who don't think too hard, big country, large cultural influence they see it as main stream and naturally something to be "against".

To actually find out anything about the other side of the story would be too much trouble.

Jonny7

studiorat wrote: »

Because for the most part there's some sort of millennialist eschatology involved whose narrative is usually based around american politics. With origins in the far-right, and from self proclaimed patriots who think the US has become a socialist state. It's also because the US is an easy target for people who don't think too hard, big country, large cultural influence they see it as main stream and naturally something to be "against".

To actually find out anything about the other side of the story would be too much trouble.

So why the backing of Iran?

It has much more state control than the US, strictly controlled media, protesters aren't pepper sprayed - they are shot, arbitrary arrests, tortures, disappearances, huge religious bigotry and influence.. etc.. etc..

Iran in its current state is a living template of everything a conspiracy theorist should loathe.

The same sites I see constantly defending Iran, are the same ones which vehemently slate Saudi.

Very strange indeed

stuar

Sweet jeepers boys, yeah everybody picking on poor USA and Israel and ignoring the bad guys Iran.

How many nations has Iran invaded lately?
How many human beings have Iran killed lately?
Who has the most blood on their hands?, USA, Israel or Iran?

500,000 children died in Iraq from 1990 to shock and awe due to sanctions, not a day passed from 1990 to shock and awe that USA didn't bomb Iraq, how many civilians died at the hands of USA and Israel in the past say 20 years?

Who supplied both Iran and Iraq with the weapons needed to continue their war against each other?

Who has never signed up to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, although having an unknown number of nukes?

And you wonder why boys that these 2 warmongers are hated in every corner of the globe.

Why dont you boys make a list of all the bad things Iran has done and we'll compare notes, how's that!
P.S. I'll even allow you's to include pre/post TPAJAX project(1953) and pre/post Islamic Revolution(1979)

You cackle about human rights in Iran, lets compare notes on human rights, all people are human, so we'll see who has caused the most suffering to humans.

stuar

studiorat wrote: »

There's no "all coming true" more like you've just become aware of it. Iran and the US have had this relationship since the late 1970's.

During Khatami's term things became a little warmer but it's back to business as usual these days.

No not just becoming aware of it, the articles I was talking about were "after Iraq, Iran", wipe the speck off your glasses and read again.

snafuk35

A number of factors are fueling this:

1. Oil is running out and prices are climbing and Iran is sitting on a lot of oil.

2. America must reassert its global dominance soon or it will become the sick man of the world allowing China to take over like the Americans stole the mantle from the British Empire. Europe, Africa, South America and Asia are up for grabs and Iran is the pivot literally since it sit on the Hormuz Strait.

3. Iran fears American attack and believes war is probably inevitable anyway.

4. The Arab Spring has seen the weak US client state Arab nationalist dictatorships collapse and Sunni fundamentalist Islamic 'democracies' were on the cards. They threaten the autocratic rule of the mullahs because Shias will demand the same rights. The Iranians fear the violence in Iraq between 'democratic' Sunni and Shia forces spilling over into Persia (with a Sunni Taliban on their Eastern frontier).

5. With no more cards left to play - Iran has out-moded military technology and weapons but it could inflict a short term but hugely damaging blow to the world economy by trying to block the straits of Hormuz and sparking a short sharp war.

6. What you never hear about is how much Europe and America fear Iran's missiles tipped with conventional warheads raining down on Israel, Iraq, Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields or on Western European cities. Most of these rockets could be stopped but not all of them. Some of them could carry chemical weapons or radioactive waste that could kill hundreds of thousands if they were distributed at altitude after delivery to the target by a long range missile.

7. Both sides face pain and intolerable pain whether there is peace or war.
Iran's posturing is going to look increasingly pathetic and hollow if their bluff is called and they back down and their regime implodes. America's power will implode if Iran is permitted to acquire nuclear weapons - a game changer in the region.

8. The can has been kicked up the alley for years - Iran under the Shah sought nuclear power status and this continued through the 80s, 90s and 00s. Finally the crunch as come and war is increasingly the only option for both sides to save face. Because this is ultimately about saving face no matter the cost in lives and treasure.

M three

Yet another thread about Iran.
When you look at the organised campaign by western media to demonise Iran it cant but remind you of the campaign run in part by the creel commission almost 100 years ago.
Its sole purpose was to push the american public towards support for joining world war 1.
Back then just one of the things the US government agency did was hire 75000 "4 minute men" to drum up support for the war.

How many people have they got on the job this time? Spreading crap about Iran and anyone else they consider to be an enemy all across the internet, in newspapers, on tv etc.

Have a read of this if your sceptical;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information

Be like Nutella

How does you make sense of the demeanor and comments from Dr Larijani on Charlie Rose? (November 18)
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12000
His comments:

"If you ask in terms of capability, hypothetically, is Iran capable to do that if it decides, obviously yes. Any country who has nuclear technology is capable of doing that. I mean the Germans can do it in two months. The Japanese in less than a month or others in...."

"I mean, why would we need a weapon at all? We are so strong in the region. We are capable to deter any eminent threat. Why would we need an atomic bomb?

"we don't have the slightest idea of what the whole thing is about"

"we have serious doubts about the authenticity of the whole thing..."

"Our capasity in nuclear technology is not something that can be taken away from us"

"I'm afraid our Saudi brothers are victim of another plot ...."

"We are a sincere signatore to NPT, we think non-proliferation is a benefit to Iran..."

"We are an advocate of middle east free of Nuclear weapons.."

All of this is confusing, this guy ran The Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics in Tehran. He's a very smart guy. He’s a connected guy. He was given what seems to be a long leash on Charlie and he was very cavalier with his remarks as if the US posed no threat to Iran no matter which way this thing goes.



Note his comment about the assassinated scientists... they kill 2 scientists there are 10 to take their place etc... as if he’s talking about martyrs.

This whole situation is confusing.

I get the rhetoric, I get the mind games and the game theory and the political spin one way or the other... I factor all that in but it's still confusing.


They can or cannot be stopped from achieving 'The Bomb' ?



I think no... not in the end if they want it... the knowledge is there... the insitutions are there.

If they get the bomb will they use it against Israel like a child opening a Christmas present ?



No of course not, they're not insane. Plus, it will be 5 years before they have even 20/30 nukes and a proven ballistic capability.





Can they close the straits realistically?



Yes for a short period...for days or a week maybe if they really wanted but very quickly the US would destroy their efforts and the straits would reopen within weeks.


What is involved in the most effective air strike the US could inflict to stop, even for now, Iranian efforts towards the bomb?


>100 targets bombed with 1000 / 2000 kg laser and GPS guided JDAM’s dropped from B2’s over >3 nights. Hundreds killed.


What min effect would it have?


If we consider Iran 3-5 years from having an effective ballistic nuclear capability with >10 nukes, then an air strike like above would put them back probably a minimum of years maybe upwards of 3-5 years, which would put their effective nuclear capability out to likely >7 years from now.


So does a Nuclear Iran pose so much of a threat as to carry out such an action given the potential fallout and risks involved in such an action including a possible further downgrading of international opinion of the US which is already low after the Iraq war?


No I would consider air strikes an unintelligent option given the risks and politcal cost.


Is there any parralel with the Israeli strike on the reactor in Iraq in 1989?


None at all. That was a relatively clean strike on one target in one night by two planes and was probably justified at the time.





I think this interview with Larijani is so interesting and enigmatic it shows the real compexity of the situation and the irrationality of both sides of the equation.. and the ability of major spokesmen to lie categorically and straightfaced and to play the semantics game deftly in the face of direct questions. The interview is an education. I am a fan of Charlie but in this case I think he showed his nationalistic bias and primed some questions unfairly and tried to show Iran in as poor a light as was possible although I don’t think he planned it that way... just natural anti-Iranian bias which he as I and you are not immune to given the media we live with in recent years. I fear more what the Obama administration will do in this hyper-political year AND what an Obama beater MAY DO given some of the hawkish sound bites already coming from the prospective republican nominees... although I am aware these views become more specific and logically supported as horses fall from the race over the next few months... saying that, Rick Perry would be bad for my sleep.. I’d take Bush again before Perry at least he gave me a laugh.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad-Javad_Larijani

M three

Be like Nutella - You're playing a blinder there.
Iran is no more a threat to the world than mrs doyle is to a jar of coffee.

Thats some bile you're spewing forth

Be like Nutella

I'm not sure I get ya..

Are you saying I'm saying that Iran is a massive threat and the west should stop it having Nuclear weapons?

I don't think Iran is a massive threat to anyone with or without Nukes...and I don't agree with the air strike option...

do you mean bile like you're saying I'm talkin ****e or you're saying I'm speakin the truth or what?

M three

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'm not sure I get ya..

Are you saying I'm saying that Iran is a massive threat and the west should stop it having Nuclear weapons?

I don't think Iran is a massive threat to anyone with or without Nukes...and I don't agree with the air strike option...

do you mean bile like you're saying I'm talkin ****e or you're saying I'm speakin the truth or what?

Its quite simple.
I see you started the thread, your posts on this thread are full of speculation and focus on Iran.
My first post should have highlighted to you how the anti Iran agenda is being established, manufactured and promoted by western governments, mainly the USA.
You're either led buying into their nonsense and warmongering, or, you're part of that agenda.
Either way its not good for you.

Be like Nutella

Anyone think Iran actually tried to Kill the Saudi Ambassador? and by Iran I don't mean a radical few in the rev guard but directly from the top?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-charged-in-terror-plot/2011/10/11/gIQAiaYxcL_story.html

Be like Nutella

M three wrote: »

Its quite simple.
I see you started the thread, your posts on this thread are full of speculation and focus on Iran.
My first post should have highlighted to you how the anti Iran agenda is being established, manufactured and promoted by western governments, mainly the USA.
You're either led buying into their nonsense and warmongering, or, you're part of that agenda.
Either way its not good for you.

Wo ok so it's actually rationally possibly in your mind that 'I' am part of an anti-Iran agenda or something? that's am little disturbing... are you very young?

Be like Nutella

focus and speculation on Iran?
Of course, it's a bloody thread about Iran...jaysus man

I started it to see would others maybe have a different angle than as you rightly put it..the mainstream media who are mad anti-Iran

M three

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Wo ok so it's actually rationally possibly in your mind that 'I' am part of an anti-Iran agenda or something? that's am little disturbing... are you very young?

Most definately or you're just naive and taken in by the propaganda

Now you answer this question;
Do you believe that stories are being promoted 24/7, through conventional media and the internet, that are designed to promote Iran as a threat?

Be like Nutella

I do indeed the media is generally unkind to non-western nations....but do I believe that it's part of a massive conspiracy involving all the major media giants and BBC and RTE all acting cahoots with the governments of the west, the bilderbergers and all that etc etc... No not really although I do think most media and people including myself have no real understanding of middle eastern culture/thinking or politics

Be like Nutella

best thing you could do is offer an explanation for whats going on or you could just hang around and argue... thats all this thread was for to get some different views and possibly I could learn some stuff off other people...like the oil in dollars thing... thats interesting... or the whole America as a dying power thing vs China etc...thats a rationale....interesting also... my guess is that none of the rational theories are completely right or wrong in that there's forces which govern how any given administration acts... it's a complex structure of lobbying think tanks and advisors with agendas and vice presidents and a whole staff of people with some strong ideas like for instance Paul Wolfowitz was in the Bush administrations so it's likely parts of all of these theories (the not mental ones) are in play at some level...in some cases probably competing against eachother.... God knows the realist neo-cons would love to bom bom bombom bom Iran and so sorth...everyone wants to have influence.... in the Iraq case a group of neo-cons kinda got their way to large degree... in this case maybe there's another agenda I don't know yet...that's why I'm askin

M three

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I do indeed the media is generally unkind to non-western nations....but do I believe that it's part of a massive conspiracy involving all the major media giants and BBC and RTE all acting cahoots with the governments of the west, the bilderbergers and all that etc etc... No not really although I do think most media and people including myself have no real understanding of middle eastern culture/thinking or politics

A few weeks ago during the 6pm news Rte aired a report on progress in iraq since the end end of the war.
For starters the war hasnt ended in iraq, or is that country anywhere near being stable. Aside from that, what the hell were rte doing showing a report that painted the US in glowing terms? It was so biased towards the US armys activities in iraq it wouldnt have looked out of place on fox news

Do you think some kid in rte put that all together over lunch?

Be like Nutella

ok now I'm interested... and I am open minded to pretty much anything if it's supported by either evidence OR even enough ya know logic and probability.. so go on then tell us in your mind...how that piece got into that news on RTE...like you've got free reign here to just go wild and paint the picture no matter how mad it sounds... how do YOU think the pro US crappy news segment got into that news?

Be like Nutella

also consider the whole structure of news and how most news is deseminated....franchised etc.. here's an example....AP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press

Be like Nutella

also I don't just watch mainstream media... I watch all kinds...Keith Obermann....laugh at fox and all that on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart....GPS Fareed Zakaria.... Charlie rose coz he gets to talk to everyone..whether he's **** or not.... and I don't think he's that ****...eh...websites...BBC world tv... American, British, Irish News...no comment tv.... feckin euronews...everything....even a lot of stuff on the CFR site... which I know although it is a tool of the freemason satanic lizard alien bohemian grove dwelling neo-cons and I am joking...also has on it some brilliantly written and researched articles and papers on various shtuff going on... and yes I am aware of the issues with the CFR ...so ya can't rule ALL news out...or generalise in general in fact generally speaking it's generally a bad thing to do..generally... you learn more with an open mind and a critical mind to judge what you're hearing/reading/learning etc

in fact this article isn't bad either
http://www.cfr.org/
or this one
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-05/hard-line-u-s-policy-tips-iran-toward-belligerence-vali-nasr.html

stuar

The media spin on this would make an astronaut puke his lunch up.
The NEW EVIDENCE is non existant, its a reworded 2003 report, nothing new, no smoking gun, zilch, nothing but propaganda hype being lapped up by the masses. A laptop with old news from an unknown source, mossad/cia most probably, but nothing new.
If anybody can show this DAMNING new evidence, please do.
Iran has invited the IAEA back in to inspect their facilities.

This article in the NewYorker by Seymour Hersh(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh), an American Jew with a good track record is a good read about the NEW EVIDENCE or lack of any!

Iran and the I.A.E.A.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html

Here's a link to the invitation by Iran to the IAEA.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/216921.html

And for the sceptics links from the other sides.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4164424,00.html


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7BJ0SA20111220


http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/dpr/pressreview.html

I cant seem to find a Fox News article on the invitation.
http://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=toolbar-instant&hl=en-GB&ion=1&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGHP_en-GBIE450IE450#q=iran+invites+iaea&hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGHP_enGBIE450IE450&tbs=qdr:w3&prmd=imvns&ei=m1EGT6TTLIPMhAf97KGNAg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b37869eaed2d4391&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=897

Jonny7

Anyway for anyone with an open mind, here is a decent overview of the whole thing, its quite a long read, but you can see arguments and concerns from both sides of the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

Be like Nutella

Cheers Stuar some good **** there

Be like Nutella

interesting view.... after Iran HAS the Bomb

Iran-U.S.: After the Iranian Bomb
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]September 30, 2011
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]By Bruce Riedel
[/FONT][/FONT]Executive Summary[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: Meir Dagan, a former director of Israel’s secret service, the Mossad, and someone who ought to know, says Iran is still years from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He is quoted as saying, ―Not before 2015.‖ Like all Israelis, he says Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability will significantly affect the politics of the Middle East. Dagan has also said force should be used only as a last resort because the price of war with Iran is a heavy one. What he doesn’t say is that when Iran gets the bomb, Israel’s four decades old monopoly on nuclear weapons capability in the Middle East will be over. The military balance of power in the region, however, will not be transformed as Israel will continue to have military superiority over any and all of its enemies, backed by the support of the world’s only super power, the United States. Iran is backed only by Syria, and that relationship is in deep trouble because Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is in deep trouble. Iran is not an existential threat to either America or Israel..........[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]the full article/paper pdf is here ... I've read it.. it's pretty informative if subjective[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docUploaded/RIEDEL_IRAN_US_CSR_REPORT.pdf[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][/FONT]

stuar

Iran has announced new naval drills near the strait of Hormuz for February, just days after ending similar, and only days after warning washington it will not allow any US aircraft carriers back into the Gulf without Irans permission.

They are not backing down and the strangle hold the US are trying to apply doesnt seem to be frightening or intimidating them in the slightest.

It's more a matter of when and not if at this stage.

stuar

Here's another for you nutella:

EXCLUSIVE: To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them.

During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/07/31/26940/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

So why the backing of Iran?

It has much more state control than the US, strictly controlled media, protesters aren't pepper sprayed - they are shot, arbitrary arrests, tortures, disappearances, huge religious bigotry and influence.. etc.. etc..

Iran in its current state is a living template of everything a conspiracy theorist should loathe.

The same sites I see constantly defending Iran, are the same ones which vehemently slate Saudi.

Very strange indeed

Because of the Israel - Palestine conflict. They insist on taking sides against Israel no matter what. For better or worse Israel is where it is now and it's not going anywhere, lot's of people just can't stomach that.

Jonny7

studiorat wrote: »

Because of the Israel - Palestine conflict. They insist on taking sides against Israel no matter what. For better or worse Israel is where it is now and it's not going anywhere, lot's of people just can't stomach that.

Yes but I have pretty strong opinions against Israel in that situation.

I guess I just haven't gotten to the extremes of supporting nasty regimes and dictators just because they are enemies of <insert country>

Call me old fashioned but I prefer conspiracy theorists who do it out of fun/intrigue rather than hatred and bitterness

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes but I have pretty strong opinions against Israel in that situation.

I guess I just haven't gotten to the extremes of supporting nasty regimes and dictators just because they are enemies of <insert country>

Call me old fashioned but I prefer conspiracy theorists who do it out of fun/intrigue rather than hatred and bitterness

Give it a rest, you were supporting the ethnic cleansing friends of Al Qaeda in Libya louder than anyone.

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes but I have pretty strong opinions against Israel in that situation.

The thing is though that both modern national identities came about around the same time. Each party is engaging in a systematic denial of the others legitimacy and each is engaging in terrorism against the other. Taking sides shouldn't even be on the cards.

studiorat

Anyhoo! Back on topic : http://www.todayszaman.com/news-267768-iran-west-ready-to-resume-nuclear-talks-with-turkish-assistance.html

Tzar Chasm

Iran could probably close the straits for a while, altho the US may have the better toys those weapons are extremely expensive compared to anything iran would deploy, consider the cost both financially and psychologically if the yanks lost a carrier but the iranians were still capable of knocin out missiles.

How long would Iran need to close the straits for anyway to push the western economies over the edge, a week, a month?

Iran seem to have learned the lessons of history well.

Tzar Chasm

Iran could probably close the straits for a while, altho the US may have the better toys those weapons are extremely expensive compared to anything iran would deploy, consider the cost both financially and psychologically if the yanks lost a carrier but the iranians were still capable of knocin out missiles.

How long would Iran need to close the straits for anyway to push the western economies over the edge, a week, a month?

Iran seem to have learned the lessons of history well.

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

How long would Iran need to close the straits for anyway to push the western economies over the edge, a week, a month?

About 20% of the world's oil came through the Strait in 2011, so whilst OPEC countries like Saudi would raise production to compensate you'd have one very pissed off world (including China and Russia) and one very isolated Iran.

Tzar Chasm

Seems to me that the bulk of saudai oil flows through the straits too, most of the oil fields are in the east and the oil ports, sure they could truck it to jeddah or yanbq but would that really be capable of bridging the gap left by tankers

ed2hands

Good thread.

Linked below is interesting piece today from Pepe Escobar in the Asia Times.

He like many others reckons that the crisis is...
(cover the childrens ears)...not actually the fault of Iran.

Caution: May contain traces of what some refer to as "America/Isreal bashing" (a.k.a. decent independant journalism)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA07Ak01.html

Be like Nutella

good article I especially agree with the part when he says that after so much Israeli/Agression.....

"Then when Tehran reacts to the non-stop Western aggressive barrage, it is blamed with "acts of provocation"

Absolutely true... and it's not like Iran has a voice in western media... not that I'm a fan of the Iranian leadership which is a cruel extremist bunch of irrational amoral fcuks.... I am however a fan of Iranian people and the Iranian culture.

Be like Nutella

Anyone actually read the wiki page for the
Nuclear program of Iran?

first para:

" The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2] "



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran