Iran wants Nuclear bomb to spread Islamic revolution

[krsna]

Nuclear bomb for Islamic revolution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haviv Rettig – The Jerusalem Post June 29, 2005

 

Iran is committed to building a nuclear bomb, which would help it spread the Islamic revolution across the Middle East, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kupperwasser, head of the IDF Intelligence Corps research division, said on Tuesday.

 

He was addressing a meeting of the Knesset Forum on the Middle East.

 

The bomb "will allow them [the Iranians] to carry out the purpose of the creation of the regime – exporting the revolution," Kupperwasser said. "They can't do it right now, but once they have the bomb, they will be able to do it."

 

"They hate the State of Israel," Kuperwasser told the forum. "The difference between them and the rest of the people in the Middle East [who hate Israel] is that they think something should be done about it. That's why they support Hamas. That's why they give money to Islamic Jihad."

 

In the week following Iran's election of virulently anti-Zionist Teheran mayor Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as president of Iran, Teheran's nuclear ambitions were the focus of the forum.

 

Following his victory, Ahmedinejad vowed to continue Iran's nuclear program and called Israel an "illegitimate" state.

 

The consensus among the experts assembled was that the Iranian regime is committed to developing nuclear power.

 

The forum, a nonpartisan parliamentary group sponsored by the Center for Near East Policy Research in Boston and the Jerusalem Project for Democracy in the Middle East, was created to give MKs and the diplomatic corps in Israel access to critical issues for Israeli security in the region.

Menashe Amir, director of the Farsi department at Israel Radio, speaking about the election of Ahmadinejad, said that "Iran is the most anti-Semitic regime in the world."

 

The way to prevent Iranian nuclear armament, he said, is "to topple the regime in Iran, to aid the Iranian people to become democratic."

 

The country "is ripe for change," added Amir, who said he runs a radio show that broadcasts to more than a million listeners inside and outside Iran.

 

MK Ephraim Sneh (Labor), a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told <>The Jerusalem Post<> that the Iranian people could bring down the regime only if the international community showed them that they would have the world's support.

 

"I support real international sanctions on the part of all the world's nations that will close this regime down and bring about its downfall," he said. When asked whether Israel might take the matter into its own hands with a unilateral military response to the threat, Sneh said a military strike "is not the preferred option."

 

Dr. Ephraim Asculai, senior research Associate of the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies and formerly a member of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, said Iran probably "has a concealed [nuclear] program that is running in parallel to the negotiations [with the European Union]."

 

Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of <>Atomic Iran<>, focused on the strategic implications of Iranian nuclear power for the US and the international community.

 

Addressing American strategic concerns, he told the forum that "the technical problems of sneaking a bomb into the US are solved when a state is making the bomb."

 

Col. (ret.) Dr. Eran Lerman, director of the Israel office of the American Jewish Committee, said that despite the fact that Iran "probably won't [use its nuclear weapons against Israel] immediately, a nuclear Iran coupled with the regime's deep involvement in terrorist networks creates a dangerous and unstable situation."

 

"Iran has an operational terrorist presence on our border in the form of Hizbullah, and it has penetrated deeply into the Palestinian arena through the Islamic Jihad, which is under its control, and through certain members of the Fatah," Lerman, a former senior IDF intelligence officer, told the <>Post. <>

 

"The Iranian threat is a function of the regime's publicly declared commitment to the annihilation of the State of Israel, a declaration that is accompanied by statements that reflect the most vulgar form of anti-Semitism," he added.

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1119925651633&p=1101615860782

[Guest guest]

US has thousands of nuclear warheads, and they used them to crush Japan, kill 100000 civilians. Most western nations have nuclear weapons, but it is only IRan which will attact attention. Why am I not surprised?

 

As far as western hypocrites are concered, only they can have and use nuclear weapons, attack other nations, illegally occupy territories, murder civilians and so on. If any other nation or religious community, in this case, does the same, they're supposed to be terrorists. No wonder, westerners are hated all over the world.

[krsna]

 

 

by Professor Moshe Sharon

 

 

There is no Fundamental Islam.

 

"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

 

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

 

The Language of Islam

 

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

 

Driving Principles of Islam

 

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.

 

But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.

 

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

 

The Bible

 

Let me explain the difference.

 

The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

 

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

 

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

 

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

 

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

 

The Essence of Islam

 

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

 

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

 

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

 

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

 

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

 

Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

 

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.

 

The Bible versus the Koran

 

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

 

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

 

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

 

Islamic Rule and Jihad

 

What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

 

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

 

Two Houses

 

The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

 

Islamic Law

 

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

 

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws. The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

 

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.

 

These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

 

Islam and Territory

 

This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.

 

This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

 

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.

 

Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

 

Islam and Peace

 

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

 

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

 

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

 

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

 

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

 

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].

 

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

 

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

 

What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

 

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg. When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

 

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

 

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

 

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

 

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

 

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

 

Islamic Infiltration

 

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.

 

One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

 

End of Days

 

It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.

 

In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

 

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.

 

I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

 

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

 

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

 

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

 

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

 

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

 

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

 

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

 

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.

 

Professor Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. This article appeared on the Betar UK website (http://www.betar.co.il) December 24, 2003.

[krsna]

Iran with an Islamic terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.

 

Here is an exmple why: TEHRAN, Iran -- Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at a Tehran cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.

 

The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel.

 

A spokesman, Ali Mohammadi, described the group meeting Thursday as the "first suicide commando unit," though another official has claimed members already have carried out attacks in Israel.

 

"Sooner or later we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands," Mohammadi said.

 

-----------

 

If only 200 show up out of a population of 60 million, doesn't that also demonstrate they're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

 

What do you do when 200 terrorists are ready to die for their cause?

 

Accommodate them.

 

I'm sorry but the ideology of Islamofascism is a culture and religion stuck in the darkness of the 12th Century that has not undergone a period of reformation or enlightenment. This is no religion of peace that sanctions the slaughter of innocents.

 

(Islamonazism and Islamofascism are terms used to describe the use of Nazi and/or fascist terminology, beliefs and propaganda by Islamic religious and political leaders, generally manifesting itself in calls for the destruction of the world and it's "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.)

 

 

 

Iran,a known terrorist state is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We can worry about "Iranian democracy" later. First comes the safety of America,our allies and our interests. Destroy the mullahs...strike Iran now!

 

The future of Iran has major strategic policy consequences for the US in this region. A majority of the Iranian people who consider themselves Persian and not Arabic, would overthrow this radical Islamic theocracy if given a chance

 

 

The fact remains that Ameica's war against Islamic terror is the whole world's war against Islamo_Fascism and Islamic terrorism.

 

The fact is that Islam is pure evil dressed up as "peaceful" by some muslims.

 

 

Deal with the facts. Muhammad child raped a 9 year old little girl when in her own words was still playing with her dolls.

 

Then there is Muhammad slaughter of the entire male population of a tribe in Medina. Not to mention his muslims terrorist being told to kill his political enemies including an old man and a women with children. because those bad folks made fun of his pagan moon god cult.

 

Then there is Muhammad's muslim terrorist killing and stealing from Mecca caravans during the pagan Ramadan. They were told to bring back 20% of the stolen goods to Muhamhead to please allah of course.

 

And how do you like the koran telling men to beat their wives? It even tells the kind of stick to use.

 

Then there is the koran's promises of virgins, endless drunkeness (rivers of wine) and homosexual peophilia (young boys as fine as pearls).

 

Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.

In Islam All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed.As long as the Koran exists, Islam will continue to oppress, murder, enslave, threaten, lie and terrorize innocent people.

 

When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Ayatollah Khomenni comes to mind. How would an Iranian be treated if he spoke out about Khomenni ? Amnesty International just reported that many political prisoners have been executed in Iran.

His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.

 

Hizbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups for example knows exactly what they are doing. They know it is cold-blooded murder that they are committing upon Muhammad's request.

 

With the Islamic terrorists , "enemy personnel" can be anyone from an English Hi humanitarian worker in Iraq, an Indian Kafir(Infidel who doesn't believe in Allah), a Russian,A communist, An Algerian muslim kid, a Dutch filmmaker(van Gough) or Jewish toddler.

 

In short, the enemy is anyone not a Muslim(or sometimes a muslim) who does not believe the world is destined to be ruled by Islam.

[krsna]

The noose tightens around Iran

By Ehsan Ahrari

 

With the United Nations Security Council's permanent five - the US, Russia, China, France and Britain - banding together to recommend that Iran be reported to the council, at least for now the clear winner is the US, which has allowed the diplomatic option to play itself out.

 

The loser is Iran, which seems to have lost the support - or at least understandings - given by Beijing and Moscow that it would not be referred to the UN over its nuclear program.

 

Nevertheless, Iran has responded by threatened to halt all cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International

 

 

 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), if it is sent to the Security Council when the IAEA meets in Vienna on Thursday.

 

The Thursday meeting comes after the five major powers agreed that the 35-member IAEA board should "report to the Security Council on the steps required from Iran". But they added that the council should wait until IAEA secretary general Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Iran's nuclear program at a regular IAEA meeting on March 6 before deciding on any action.

 

Iran is in the process of being isolated. No major power wants to be on its side. Much of the international community does not believe that Tehran does not have intention to develop nuclear weapons. Even Russia - which has earned billions from Iran's various nuclear plants - is not willing to state categorically that Iran would not want to become the next nuclear-armed power.

 

Tehran had the chance of accepting a Russian proposal that would have enabled Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil, thereby allaying international concerns that Iran would divert nuclear material for weapon use. However, the Iranian government declared that proposed deal to be insufficient, and insisted it would conduct its nuclear research on its own soil, as per what it says are its legal international rights.

 

Now China and Russia will go to Tehran and explain the London agreement. They are expected to ask the government to provide "precise answers" to the questions that the IAEA has presented.

 

But there is more to the London agreement than meets the eye. This, in reality, is a compromise between the US and the EU-3 (France, Germany and Britain) on one side and China and Russia on the other.

 

The former group wanted to refer Iran to the Security Council immediately, while Beijing and Moscow wanted a more cautious approach. Thus they agreed to allow the referral of Iran to the world body only if it refuses to back down from its resolve to enrich uranium on its own soil. The IAEA is expected to submit its own report on Iran to the world body next month. That would allow time for Iran either to accept the original proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil or work out some other arrangement with ElBaradei.

 

In the meantime, the media are reporting that, according to the IAEA, Iran obtained a document on the nuclear black market that "serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb". To be fair, a reference to that document was originally made in a long report of the IAEA late last year. In that report, the agency only reported that the document contained descriptions of how to cast "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms".

 

The IAEA did not go beyond that description. Experts, on the contrary, concluded that the document included discussion of "how to mold highly enriched grade uranium into the core of warheads". Now the IAEA bluntly states that the document in question has a description on "how to cast fissile uranium into metal", and it is "related to the fabrication of nuclear-weapon components".

 

The fact that Iran obtained that document is ammunition for those countries that want to believe that Iran really wants to develop nuclear weapons, and not secure alternative energy sources as it has all along claimed.

 

Russia is also reported to have promised the US that in the next 30 days it will persuade Iran to accept the original deal of enriching uranium on its soil. If it were to fail, Moscow has assured that it would back tough diplomatic action against Iran. If Iran changes its mind and accepts the Russian deal, then it is not likely to be referred to the Security Council.

 

From Iran's perspective, the fact that Moscow and Beijing went along with the London agreement is not a good signal. It was hoping that great-power tensions and disagreement would enable it to count on a veto from Russia and China once the issue went to the UN, but this can't be guaranteed now.

 

As a related diplomatic maneuver, Iran attempted to use the OPEC card by asking members of that organization to use the oil weapon against the West if it is referred to the UN. However, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is in no mood to cause further turbulence in the international oil market.

 

At a time when Arab states are worried about a rising tide of democracy and the growing popularity of Islamist parties within their borders, they have no stomach to add further to their worries by alienating the US. Another important driving force that is working against Iran's interests within the framework of OPEC is that no Arab state is eager to see it develop nuclear weapons.

 

What are Iran's choices? After brewing for several months, the nuclear crisis has reached a crucial point: the ayatollahs will have to decide exactly want they want. If they don't wish to develop nuclear weapons, then the Russian deal of enriching uranium in Russia is good option. That would bring an end to all Western threats against Iran. However, if they really wish to develop nuclear weapons, then they should declare their intentions clearly - and then get ready to face the consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ehsan Ahrari is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.

[Guest guest]

He wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth, dismisses the Holocaust as a myth and defies the world by pushing ahead with a nuclear program.

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric has found instant appeal among some Arabs, who consider him a hero for standing up to Israel and the West. But not everyone is cheering the hard-line leader.

 

Many Arabs interviewed by The Associated Press said Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and defiance remind them of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and worry they will result in violence and turmoil for the Middle East.

 

They say the Iranian leader's comments against Israel are meaningless, especially without a common Arab stand on the issue. They find his insistence on developing a nuclear program worrisome because he may use the technology against them. And many say Ahmadinejad's focus should be redirected toward Iran's foundering economy.

 

"The Iranian president is beating his head against the wall. He is as foolish as Saddam," said Hussein Kadhim Thijeel, a teacher from the Iraqi city of Karbala. "He will make his people go through the same suffering that Saddam brought to the Iraqi people."

 

Mohammed Ahmed, a 30-year-old Jordanian electrician, agreed: "Ahmadinejad is speaking irresponsible and nonsensical words. He is repeating the Iraqi president's mistakes."

 

"He's a liar because he doesn't possess enough resources to wage war against Israel," said Mohammed Salim, an Egyptian retiree.

 

Still, Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel tirades have struck a chord in the Arab world, where the Palestinian struggle for a homeland is an almost holy issue.

 

"He tells the truth," said Muwaffaq Mohammed, a journalist from Syria, Iran's closest friend in the Arab world. "He says things few Arab leaders dare to say."

 

And Maher Ibrahim, a teacher from the Iraqi city of Najaf, called the president "a very courageous and strong man .... He is aware of the dangers of Israel because it is supported by America and Britain."

 

The Palestinian group Hamas, an ally of Iran's, has long praised Ahmadinejad. Moussa Abu Marzouk, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told The Associated Press this week: "We love and respect his stands."

 

Other Palestinians disagreed.

 

"I don't think he can help us with anything," said Sida Shteweh, 20, of the West Bank town of Nablus. "Everyone is threatening Iran, and if he can help himself that's good. But if he can't help himself, how can he help us?"

 

Since his election last summer, Ahmadinejad has deepened his country's isolation and provoked an international outcry when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and later expressed doubt about the Nazi destruction of 6 million Jews during World War II.

 

His outbursts have come amid a growing conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Washington says Tehran is secretly trying to build warheads, but Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and only to generate electricity.

 

Inside Iran, some pro-democracy reformers, including former President Mohammad Khatami, have denounced Ahmadinejad, saying his rhetoric is harming the country's international standing. But he also appears to rally public support with his insistence on the nuclear program.

 

Analysts call the difference in Arab opinions interesting: They say some Arabs may be drawn to Ahmadinejad's seemingly humble appearance and his campaign stance as a man of the people.

 

Other Arabs, however, may be fed up with slogans and with politicians who use the Palestinian issue as a "maneuvering tactic just to attract public opinion," said Jamil Nimri, a Jordanian columnist.

 

Some may even be affected by Sunni-Shi'ite tensions - Iran is predominantly Shi'ite - or by historic pan-Arab misgivings about their Persian neighbor, said Hazem Saghieh, a senior Lebanese columnist with the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat.

 

"Or it could simply be that he overdid it with the defiance," Saghieh said.

 

Mishari al-Misfer, a student from Kuwait, said Ahmadinejad's insistence on developing a nuclear program worries him because Iran could use nuclear weapons to attack Sunni Arab countries in the Persian Gulf that oppose Tehran in regional disputes.

 

"If problems (with the West) continue, he is going to harm the name of Islam. What happened after Sept. 11 is enough," al-Misfer said.

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

by Slater Bakhtavar

 

2006/02/17

 

The volatile political situation in Iran should alarm historical intellectuals. Less than seventy years after Hitler committed mass genocide against millions of innocent people in Nazi Germany, a new anti-Christ has emerged from the land of Ancient Persia. Following in Hitler’s footsteps, the current Iranian President is a fanatical dictator whose agenda is fuelled by a form of anti-Semitism which is expressed through his occult following of hard-line Islamic terrorists. His recent call to “wipe Israel off the map,” reinforces his ideological motive of mass genocide against innocent people. Optimistically but perhaps only temporarily he lacks the means to achieve his agenda. On the other hand, the current dictatorship may gain the means to commit mass genocide if the West continues to ignore the demands of the Iranian people for a free democratic society.

 

Those who doubt the possibility of genocide should take a look at the first-hand experiences of pro-Democracy Kurdish guerrillas. The oppressed minority has been fighting with the Islamic dictatorship for decades. Aaron Glantz interviewed two Kurdish guerrillas who spent three months under severe conditions of torture in Iranian captivity. One of the guerrillas recounted his impression of the Iranian justice system:

 

"They told us that we could not have a lawyer because the Islamic Republic itself represents God on this earth. They said you were working against the Islamic Republic. That means you were working against God, so you will be punished by torture."

 

Words that shock the Western reader resonate throughout all aspects of the oppressed Iranian society. The oppressive clerical dictatorship has subjugated the lives of millions of pro-western Iranians. Iran suffers from the worst brain drain in the world, has an unemployment rate of close to thirty percent, suffers from one of the worst drug addiction epidemics in the world, and houses one of the world’s largest political prisons. With its massive oil and gas reserves, Iran should be a first world country, and yet the average Iranian can barely feed his family much less afford the luxuries of a progressive state. The reigning clerics spend millions funding terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and billions buying off their trusted circle that’s loyal to their terrorist cause both inside and outside Iran.

 

Yes, Iran does have elections. These elections are a facade behind which manipulations of power are concealed. In an article in the National Review Online, pro-Democracy students Bahman Batmanghelidj and Kamal Azari point out that even if seventy percent of the people vote for pro-democracy candidates, “clerical hard-liners ignore the voice of the voters and continue to use their power to veto, repress, and crush even a few modest efforts at a political opening”. Anyone seeking to run for the presidency of Iran must first be examined by a hard-line group of twelve clerics. During the recent election, the Guardian Council disqualified over ninety-eight percent of the candidates, including all female candidates and virtually every single reformist. The seven candidates that made it past the Council were all Islamists loyal to the Islamic dictatorship. A dictatorship where all authority is vested in an un-elected ‘Supreme Leader’, currently Ayatollah Khamenei. Hence, although the Iranian government has elections, these elections are used as a propaganda tool directed towards the naïve rather than a tool of democracy. A recent poll conducted by pro-Democracy students in Iran shows that the current President of Iran enjoys the support of about twenty percent of the Iranian populace, likewise over eighty percent of the Iranian student body supports a secular democratic government.

 

Still, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has disowned the Iranian people’s call for modernization, choosing instead to pursue a policy of irrational fundamentalism that will trigger repercussions around the world. Ahmadinejad is the head of a fascist anti-Semitic campaign, denying the reality of the Holocaust and demanding the transfer of Israel to Europe. As the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center points out, Ahmadinejad’s statements “reveal him as a fanatic ideologue who despite criticism at home and abroad, clearly prefers revolutionary Islamic considerations, as defined by Khomeini, to pragmatic national ones”. Some critics believe that the harsh words of the Iranian leader are too emotional to be taken seriously, however, if the majority adopts this approach, it may be too late to suppress the wave of violence. If the possible violence materializes, it will be felt by the world at large and most importantly by the Persians themselves. After all, the fundamentalist ideology of the current regime sharply contrasts with the views of young Iranians that desire for a modernized and prosperous state that enjoys friendly relations with the world, without suffering the backlash from economic sanctions. Ahmadinejad’s policies will also exacerbate an already explosive relationship between the East and the West, perpetuating the dictatorship strategically in a vital region.

 

The Republican Party’s position of non-violent financial and moral support for the pro-American people of Iran is the best option available to stop these Iranian policies from further damaging the world. President Bush recently reiterated this support when he said that the “United States stands with the people of Iran” and that the “United States has no beef with the people of Iran,” but with the government. Taking the non-violent approach advocated by the Republican Party can be effective in stopping the nuclear threat like the one averted during the Cold War. Choosing non-violent action will help preserve stability in the region and lead to the peaceful elimination of an oppressive and unjust regime.

 

Let us take the campaign to the terrorists before we are all pledging allegiance to a regime with the vision of genocide and a universal caliphate state.

 

[Guest guest]

krsna das:

 

Iran with an Islamic terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.

 

mahaksadasa:

 

USA with a christian terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Stop parroting Krishna Das. Be serious. This is not the time to be funny. As good christians, we must protect the world from islamic terrorism. It is our responsibility.

[Guest guest]

Hypocricy is very serious, and I reject hypocrites. The US, feigning concern for WMD, indiscriminately uses WMD under the notion that manifest destiny, some perverted christian concept, gives them the right to do it. Depleted plutonium is a nuclear weapon, for those not listening. White Phospheros and napalm is a chemical weapon.

 

So they say a sovereign nation has no right to defend itself against first strike philosophies, right or wrong. No, a soverign nation has the DUTY to defend against illegal aggression. For those still not listening, Iran has been the target all along, but we had to occupy a weak and defeated nation first, to set up bases, etc. We used kids in the reserves to die in Iraq, now we can go to real war. And nuclear war it will be, and Israel and the US will use them at their own desire, without approval of its population.

 

Iran is just another Hitler, because we need a person to fight. Otherwise, we would call it what we DO call it, a CRUSADE against Islam.

 

Now some may say Islam is not legitimate, and I may well agree that it is a materialisitic religion, but I also know hypocricy is at play here as well, because christianity is not legitimate either, because they fail to do the will of the Supreme Father, thus are rejected by Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Rats lash out suicidally when no option exists. Old ladies who have watched their children blown away by Washington WMDS strap explosives to themselves and pull the string. Like the ethiopians who threw spears at Mussilinis planes dropping mustard gas on them. And hypocrites say, "tsk, tsk" when they feel the revenge.

 

The world needs protection, all right, from those who cannot distinguish between a game bird and a human being, and just shoot because killing is their only desire. Torture, humiliation, starving children out, bombing cities, destroying economies, killing the poor to feed the greedy. Sorry, I dont worry about that leader, I dont worry about HAMAS, Russia, China, N.Korea. My worry is the insane bastard who is destroying everything valuable about the concept of being american.

 

So, read my seriousness, after all, the NSA has read it even before I pushed the "continue" button.

 

mahak

[Guest guest]

WRONG! Only a handful western nations have nuclear warheads!

 

 

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

Declared nuclear weapons states Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test

United States 5,735/9,960[2] 1945 ("Trinity")

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 7,200/16,000 [3] 1949 ("RDS-1")

United Kingdom <200[4] 1952 ("Hurricane")

France 350[5] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")

People's Republic of China 400[6] 1964 ("596")

India 40-50[7] 1974 ("Smiling Buddha")

Pakistan 24-48[8] 1998 ("Chagai-I")