Hard Core Talk Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hard Core Talk » General » FREE SPEECH BOARD » Iran....

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Iran....
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 5 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iran Moving Currency As Pre-Emptive Move


January 20, 2006
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo News

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran is moving its foreign currency reserves out of European banks as a pre-emptive measure against any possible U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program, the Central Bank Governor said Friday.

Ebrahim Sheibani told reporters that Iran has started transferring the foreign currency reserves from European banks to an undisclosed location, the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency reported.

"We transfer the foreign exchange reserves to wherever we deem fit," Sheibani was quoted by ISNA as saying. "We have begun transferring. We are doing that."

Sheibani would not say how much money was involved and it was not immediately clear whether Iran's investments in Europe would be affected by the move.

Iran is facing possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for its refusal to give up its uranium enrichment program. The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions.

Gary Samore, an expert on Iran and vice president for international programs at the McArthur Foundation in Chicago, said the move reflected concern by Tehran that the Europeans might take unilateral measures amid the crisis over its nuclear program.

Iran's decision to pull out some assets "makes sense in terms of preparing for the possibility that Europe might take some measure to impose some financial sanctions," Samore said.

"I don't know that it changes the diplomatic formula — the key issue is still the question of whether or not the Western group can engineer a formal referral to the Security Council," he added.

European powers have drafted a resolution that calls for referring Iran to the 15-nation council but stops short of asking for punitive measures against Iran. The International Atomic Energy, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss the draft.

Iran's assets in the United States were frozen shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and installed a clerical regime.

The move suggests Iran has taken the issue of possible U.N. sanctions seriously. However, it has insisted that it won't give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, central Iran, on Jan. 10 and resumed research on nuclear fuel — including small-scale enrichment — after a 2 1/2-year freeze.

The shift alarmed Western nations that suspect Iran may be trying to produce nuclear weapons.

Uranium enriched to low levels is used to produce nuclear fuel for use in reactors producing electricity but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building nuclear bomb.

Iran has rejected U.S. accusations that it was seeking to develop atomic bomb, saying its nuclear program is geared merely toward generating electricity.

Iranian experts say Iran's accounts are protected by the Vienna Convention governing diplomatic relations, arguing that any seizure of the Iranian assets would be against international regulations.

Iran has previously complained that Britain blocked raw uranium it bought before the 1979 Islamic revolution; Germany refused to complete its only nuclear power plant and Paris has refused to release Iran's uranium materials despite having a share at a uranium enrichment plant in France.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_bi_ge/iran_europe

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
pato
Moderator
Member # 1758

Icon 1 posted      Profile for pato     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
damn--all of this after that "sky is falling" mantra when Iran wanted to go euro.

If they didnt have oil they would be a parking lot.

pato

--------------------
En la vida se presentan dos o tres ocasiones para ser heroe, pero casi todos los dias se presentan la ocasion para no ser cobarde"

Posts: 4440 | From: San Antonio, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pud
Member
Member # 532

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pud     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aw hell, whats a little fall out? [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 6748 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looming Iran showdown gives oil trade new worry
By Jad Mouawad The New York Times

THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006


While world leaders and diplomats debate how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, the real source of worry among analysts these days is the fate of the country's oil.

A standoff against Iran might have been easily shrugged off a few years ago, when the world comfortably sat on millions of barrels of untapped oil capacity. But today, the picture is quite different: Iran's production is greater than the world's remaining spare capacity.

Many analysts now fear a repeat of the Iraqi scenario: a diplomatic or military confrontation with a major oil producer in the Middle East that leads to the interruption of supplies at a time of high demand and results in substantially higher oil prices. These concerns are not completely ill founded.

Over the weekend, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hinted that his country might be willing to use the "oil weapon" - that is, curbing Iranian oil exports - if faced with international sanctions. At the same time, some members of the U.S. Senate said Iran should be sanctioned regardless of the consequences for oil prices. Such talk may be mere a negotiating tactic, but it is stirring anxiety in oil markets, which have been rattled since Jan. 3, when Iran announced its decision to resume a nuclear research program that was suspended under an agreement with France, Germany and Britain in late 2004.

The announcement led to a breakdown in talks with European negotiators and raised the likelihood of international action against Iran. Oil markets, which have been watching Iran's nuclear ambitions in recent months, have reacted strongly to the breakdown of talks. Crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange, which have risen almost 5 percent since the beginning of the year, were at $65.85 in late trading Thursday. Oil, which dropped to $55 last November, again appears to be headed toward $70 a barrel.

Other factors have contributed to the recent price rally, including unrest in Nigeria's main oil-producing region and new forecasts for strong growth in demand this year. But as the confrontation over its nuclear research program swells, Iran is turning out to be the biggest risk for oil markets this year. Prices are unlikely to fall significantly as long as the dispute with Iran remains, according to analysts.

The country is highly influential in the market. With about 10 percent of the world's reserves, it is the second-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia and helps to shape the cartel's pricing policy. It now exports two-thirds of the four million barrels of oil it pumps each day, mainly to Japan, China and other Asian countries. If, for any reason, those exports were stopped, other producers could not make up for the loss - unlike in 2003, when Saudi Arabia and Kuwait raised their output to make up for the drop in Iraqi exports.

"Why are the Iranians pushing so aggressively instead of biding their time, like North Korea did?" said Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy based in New York. "The obvious answer is that Iran is in a far stronger position. Iran can respond in ways that can be very painful to the international community. Iran has leverage."

Frank Verrastro, head of the energy program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the international community had to answer some very tough questions when it considers Iran's position.

"How do you punish an international actor when it produces a commodity that everyone needs? What can get Iran's attention without inflicting pain on everyone else?" Verrastro said. "Up until now, it has been a huge game of chicken."

Given the overall tightness in global energy supplies, analysts said it was unlikely that Iran's oil exports would be embargoed if the dispute ends up before the United Nations Security Council. But alternatives, like forbidding investments by Western companies in Iran's oil sector or banning technology transfers for that industry, might still prove crippling to the country's struggling petroleum sector.

The United States already bars its oil companies from operating in Iran, but Europe and China have resisted such moves. Iran has played on these differences in the past, paying close attention to its Asian customers, particularly China and India, in order to offset the growing hostility from the West, and awarding exploration and production licenses to companies from France, Russia, Japan and China.

The strategy has not been completely successful. Because of harsh contractual terms, oil companies are weary of investing in Iran. The result has been sluggish production growth that has disappointed the expectations of many analysts, low investment, and the perception that doing business in Iran is particularly difficult. While most producers are pumping at full capacity to meet record demand, Iran has been unable to reach its nominal production quota assigned by OPEC, of 4.11 million barrels a day.

BP drew the ire of the Iranian oil minister last year when its chief executive, John Browne, said that BP, though based in London, would avoid doing business in Iran because of the U.S. sanctions. And the election last year of Ahmadinejad, a hard-line conservative, has done little to ease the investment climate.

In the United States, the standoff is increasingly perceived as the top foreign policy and security challenge for President George W. Bush's second term. On Sunday, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" television program, said the United States should press for international sanctions against Iran. He added, "If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer."

Targeting Iran's oil sector would be too costly to consider, according to Mohammad-Ali Zainy, an energy economist at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. "The best punishment, because it would be the most effective, would be to deprive Iran of its oil exports," Zainy said. "But the problem is that this would create a big shortage on the oil markets and lead to a price explosion. It would be disastrous. It is something no one can afford."

Zainy added: "On the other hand, Iran can't afford to use its oil weapon either. It relies on its oil revenue too much."

The Iranian government derives about 50 percent of its revenue and most of its foreign currency earnings from oil sales, and, thanks to high prices, is expected to have earned more than $40 billion from those sales in 2005.

Tehran is betting that the world cannot afford to live without its oil. That might prove to be a miscalculation. Oil markets are resilient, as the loss of the entire production of the Gulf of Mexico last year proved.

While world leaders and diplomats debate how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, the real source of worry among analysts these days is the fate of the country's oil.

A standoff against Iran might have been easily shrugged off a few years ago, when the world comfortably sat on millions of barrels of untapped oil capacity. But today, the picture is quite different: Iran's production is greater than the world's remaining spare capacity.

Many analysts now fear a repeat of the Iraqi scenario: a diplomatic or military confrontation with a major oil producer in the Middle East that leads to the interruption of supplies at a time of high demand and results in substantially higher oil prices. These concerns are not completely ill founded.

Over the weekend, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hinted that his country might be willing to use the "oil weapon" - that is, curbing Iranian oil exports - if faced with international sanctions. At the same time, some members of the U.S. Senate said Iran should be sanctioned regardless of the consequences for oil prices. Such talk may be mere a negotiating tactic, but it is stirring anxiety in oil markets, which have been rattled since Jan. 3, when Iran announced its decision to resume a nuclear research program that was suspended under an agreement with France, Germany and Britain in late 2004.

The announcement led to a breakdown in talks with European negotiators and raised the likelihood of international action against Iran. Oil markets, which have been watching Iran's nuclear ambitions in recent months, have reacted strongly to the breakdown of talks. Crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange, which have risen almost 5 percent since the beginning of the year, were at $65.85 in late trading Thursday. Oil, which dropped to $55 last November, again appears to be headed toward $70 a barrel.

Other factors have contributed to the recent price rally, including unrest in Nigeria's main oil-producing region and new forecasts for strong growth in demand this year. But as the confrontation over its nuclear research program swells, Iran is turning out to be the biggest risk for oil markets this year. Prices are unlikely to fall significantly as long as the dispute with Iran remains, according to analysts.

The country is highly influential in the market. With about 10 percent of the world's reserves, it is the second-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia and helps to shape the cartel's pricing policy. It now exports two-thirds of the four million barrels of oil it pumps each day, mainly to Japan, China and other Asian countries. If, for any reason, those exports were stopped, other producers could not make up for the loss - unlike in 2003, when Saudi Arabia and Kuwait raised their output to make up for the drop in Iraqi exports.

"Why are the Iranians pushing so aggressively instead of biding their time, like North Korea did?" said Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy based in New York. "The obvious answer is that Iran is in a far stronger position. Iran can respond in ways that can be very painful to the international community. Iran has leverage."

Frank Verrastro, head of the energy program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the international community had to answer some very tough questions when it considers Iran's position.

"How do you punish an international actor when it produces a commodity that everyone needs? What can get Iran's attention without inflicting pain on everyone else?" Verrastro said. "Up until now, it has been a huge game of chicken."

Given the overall tightness in global energy supplies, analysts said it was unlikely that Iran's oil exports would be embargoed if the dispute ends up before the United Nations Security Council. But alternatives, like forbidding investments by Western companies in Iran's oil sector or banning technology transfers for that industry, might still prove crippling to the country's struggling petroleum sector.

The United States already bars its oil companies from operating in Iran, but Europe and China have resisted such moves. Iran has played on these differences in the past, paying close attention to its Asian customers, particularly China and India, in order to offset the growing hostility from the West, and awarding exploration and production licenses to companies from France, Russia, Japan and China.

The strategy has not been completely successful. Because of harsh contractual terms, oil companies are weary of investing in Iran. The result has been sluggish production growth that has disappointed the expectations of many analysts, low investment, and the perception that doing business in Iran is particularly difficult. While most producers are pumping at full capacity to meet record demand, Iran has been unable to reach its nominal production quota assigned by OPEC, of 4.11 million barrels a day.

BP drew the ire of the Iranian oil minister last year when its chief executive, John Browne, said that BP, though based in London, would avoid doing business in Iran because of the U.S. sanctions. And the election last year of Ahmadinejad, a hard-line conservative, has done little to ease the investment climate.

In the United States, the standoff is increasingly perceived as the top foreign policy and security challenge for President George W. Bush's second term. On Sunday, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" television program, said the United States should press for international sanctions against Iran. He added, "If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer."

Targeting Iran's oil sector would be too costly to consider, according to Mohammad-Ali Zainy, an energy economist at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. "The best punishment, because it would be the most effective, would be to deprive Iran of its oil exports," Zainy said. "But the problem is that this would create a big shortage on the oil markets and lead to a price explosion. It would be disastrous. It is something no one can afford."

Zainy added: "On the other hand, Iran can't afford to use its oil weapon either. It relies on its oil revenue too much."

The Iranian government derives about 50 percent of its revenue and most of its foreign currency earnings from oil sales, and, thanks to high prices, is expected to have earned more than $40 billion from those sales in 2005.

Tehran is betting that the world cannot afford to live without its oil. That might prove to be a miscalculation. Oil markets are resilient, as the loss of the entire production of the Gulf of Mexico last year proved.

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are the key points made by Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D. in his report: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.



· The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire

· The weapon is the Iran Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006

· With the opening of the Iran Oil Bourse:

o Europeans will no longer have to buy and hold U.S. Dollars in order to secure payment for oil. They will be able to purchase oil with their own currencies, the euro.

o The Chinese and Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the Iran Oil Bourse because it will allow them to drastically reduce their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar.

o Russians have an inherent economic interest in adopting the euro because the bulk of its trade is with European countries

o The Arab-oil exporting countries also need to diversify against the rising mountains of U.S. debt notes – the depreciating dollar



What the Iran Oil Bourse means to the average American is that suddenly, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars will become unwanted around the world. In essence, the money supply will double or triple. When supply outweighs demand, prices go down – except when dealing with currency. When money supply exceeds demand, prices go up. Its called inflation – the hidden tax brought to the U.S. taxpayer courtesy of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel and our friends in the U.S. Congress. Imagine if every Americans income doubled in next week’s paycheck. Do you think prices for goods and services would decrease, remain the same, or increase? If you think they would decrease or remain the same, can I interest you in a hot stock I’m selling called Enron?

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iran Has an 'Inalienable
Right' To Nuclear Energy

By Enver Masud
The Wisdom fund
1-19-5

Iran has an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as the production of electric energy, and the enrichment of uranium for its nuclear reactors. Could it be that Iran's plan for an oil exchange trading in Euros is the real issue? Or is it Israel? Article IV of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, states:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. Thus, not only does Iran have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.

According to Dr. Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist who was the top scientist for the army in the Reagan years, in December, 2003, Iran had signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement and had volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA - pending ratification by the Iranian Parliament - as if the Additional Protocol were actually "in force." Iran also offered, says Dr. Prather, "to voluntarily forego a complete fuel cycle . . . if the Europeans would get the United States to reverse the campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention, and misinformation." Iran had already offered on March 23, 2005 a package of "objective guarantees" (developed by an international panel of experts) that met most of the demands later made by the conservative, Washington based Heritage foundation says Dr. Prather. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, says Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA. Thirty years ago, Iran developing a nuclear capacity "caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help", says Tony Benn, Britain's secretary of state for energy from 1975-79.

With world oil production approaching a peak it makes sense for Iran to look toward alternative means for generating electricity, and to reserve its oil supply for other purposes including increasing revenues from the export of the additional oil not used for electricity production. A major reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S. military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency." Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism," writes William R. Clark the author Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar.

According to Toni Straka, a Vienna, Austria-based financial analyst who runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, Iran's "proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. . . . Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran. "Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US" says Toni Straka, "which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production." "There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury," says Tony Benn. Yes, given the technology and knowledge Iran could develop a nuclear weapon. But "under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities . . . or even to possess military-grade nuclear material," says ElBaradei. Thirty-five to forty countries possess this capability. Israel - not a signatory to the NPT - has had this capability for years, is believed to have several hundred nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them to Iran, and it is no secret that it has been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric power plant - just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq's, Osirak nuclear electric power plant in 1981.

U.S. news media's timidity was a significant factor in the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This invasion has claimed the lives of over 2000 U.S. soldiers and over 180,000 Iraqis. It has left uncounted others wounded and maimed, it has destroyed much of Iraq's - indeed the world's - cultural heritage, and is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers "between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to a report written by Joseph Stiglitz - recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics. John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post wrote on January 13: "The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called Thursday for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty obligations." Neither he nor the editors or ombudsman at the Post have responded to our request to identify which "nuclear treaty obligations" is Iran violating. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson say, "In pursuing a civilian nuclear program, Iran has international law on its side. . . . The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iran Calls For Formal
Holocaust Commission

Iran Focus
1-2-6

TEHRAN -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who recently called for the destruction of Israel and termed the Holocaust a "myth" has asked for a committee to be set up to prove that the massacre of some six million Jews in Nazi Germany never took place.

The Fars news agency, which is close to the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Ahmadinejad had proposed the idea after his comments calling for Israel to be moved to European countries such as Germany and Austria drew international outrage and United Nations Security Council condemnation.

Mohammad-Ali Ramin, who heads the state-run body Society for Defending the Rights of Muslim Minorities in the West, told Fars that Ahmadinejad wanted European governments to permit Western scholars to publish their research on the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad wanted the committee to clarify the real extent of the Holocaust, according to Ramin, who added that the radical President had the support of hardliners loyal to the Supreme Leader.

Senior officials inside the clerical establishment including Khamenei himself have backed Ahmadinejad's threatening remarks against the Jewish state.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5034

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Monday, December 26, 2005
Iran talk
The first sentence from an article (or here) by James Petras on the supposed upcoming Israeli attack on Iran:

"Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran."


Exactly! Do you think Israel would be threatening war against Iran every day if it actually had any intention of attacking? Israel of all places knows the advantages of surprise (and the disadvantages of being surprised). All this warning has just given Iran the opportunity to buy and install the most sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems available. You might argue that the Israeli threats are intended to influence Iranian behavior except for the fact that the constant threats have only served to influence the Iranian leadership to accelerate the development of Iran's nuclear program.


Reasons why Israel won't attack:


Iran isn't built on Greater Israel.

Shi'ite Iran will serve a major Israeli ally against its main problem, the Sunni world.

Iran, even with a nuclear program, poses absolutely no real threat to Israel.

It's Syria and not Iran that is the target in the 'Clean Break' document, a document that has been followed by Israel almost down to the word (well, except for the big part about reducing dependency on American taxpayer largesse).

Israel's safety depends on the mythology that it cannot be defeated, an idea achieved through much Israeli sacrifice. It has been pointed out that Israel's problem is that it has to win every time, and its enemies only have to win once. If Israel sends bombers against Iran, bombers which fail in their mission and are shot down, the Israeli mythology is shot down at the same time, and Israel's despondent enemies have a new reason for hope. Attacking Iran isn't worth the risk.


If you're looking for a real reason for all the Israeli talk of attack, here's (or here) 600 million of them. Talking up the threat to Israel is the main way Israel extorts money from the U. S. Congress.


This is a testable hypothesis. Let's see if there is an American or Israeli attack on Iran before the end of Bush's second term. I say no. On the other hand, it appears that Syria is in mortal danger of at least an air attack, and probably an attack from American ground troops. All the John Bolton machinations involving Mehlis and the U. N. aren't being done for fun.

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tehran plans nuclear weapon test by March
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.

The Foundation for Democracy citing sources in the U.S and Iran offered no further information.

The FDI quotes sources in Iran that the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force have issued new orders to Shahab-3 missile units, ordering them to move mobile missile launchers every 24 hours in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or Israel. The order was issued Tuesday, Jan. 16.

The group says the launchers move only at night, and have been instructed to change their positions "in a radius of 30 to 35 kilometers." Prior to the new orders the Shahab-3 units changed position on a weekly basis. Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamadan province, within striking distance of Israel. Reserve mobile launchers have been moved to Esfahan and Fars province.

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
KKK
Booted the fuck out a here!
Member # 377

Icon 1 posted      Profile for KKK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Europe | 21.01.2006
Iran Denies Shifting Assets From Europe
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Iran says it is not moving billions in oil revenues out of Europe
Iran on Saturday denied it has shifted funds out of Europe due to fears of economic sanctions over its nuclear program after a swirl of contradictory reports on whether such transfers had taken place.

A deputy central bank chief categorically denied that Iran was moving foreign currency out of Europe to Southeast Asia. The comments appeared to flatly contradict previous reported remarks by the bank's president.



"At the moment, Iran does not have any schedule to transfer its foreign exchange accounts to the named countries," Mohammad-Jafar Mojarad told the state news agency IRNA when asked if Iran has transferred the accounts to Asia.

Posts: 2196 | From: Newburg, Ar,Lizard | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Talon
Member
Member # 2225

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Talon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Link: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060122/switzerland_ubs_iran.html?.v=2

AP
UBS Cancels All Banking Business With Iran
Sunday January 22, 6:28 am ET
Report: Swiss Banking Giant UBS Cancels All Business With Iran, Syria


ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- Swiss banking giant UBS AG said Sunday it has stopped doing business with Iran because of the company's economic and risk analysis of the situation in the country.

UBS will no longer deal with individuals, companies or state institutions such as Iran's central bank, said company spokesman Serge Steiner. A similar policy is also being implemented in the case of Syria, he said.

--------------------
Looney said on 1/24/2006:
"We have already established your a retard now take your meds and button it shit pickle."

Posts: 2400 | From: Midwest | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WWW.HardCoreTalk.com

All contributions become the property of HardCoreTalk.com The Opinions, Views and Comments expressed by the members of this forum and website are their own and do not necessarily state or reflect those of HardCoreTalk.com or any of it's agents. HardCoreTalk.com does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of these messages and opinions, and does not perform an independent investigation to verify their truth or accuracy. All posted messages are the sole responsibility of the person from which such post originated. HardCoreTalk.com assumes no liability in any way for the content of any posted message or opinion, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any posted message FAIR USE NOTICE This board contains copyrighted material, which is reproduced under the Fair Use Provision of Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, and is posted for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. This material is posted without profit for the benefit of those who, by accessing this site, are expressing a prior interest in this information for research and educational purposes. This discussion board is strictly operated as a non profit venture and is for the express purpose of educating and informing our members and visitors.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3