Things you didn't know about Iran

christiefan915

Catalyst
Interesting article, long but readable.

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.

Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"

Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.

Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

Reality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

Reality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.

Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

Reality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.

Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Reality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The U.S. elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

Reality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/index.html
 
Right and their arms which were smuggled in to help the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan was just a joke. I C.

Interesting article, long but readable.

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.

Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"

Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.

Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

Reality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

Reality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.

Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

Reality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.

Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Reality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The U.S. elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

Reality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/index.html
 
You mustn't say things like this, Christy. The barking mad followers of the metaphorically deceased bush MUST have a ready supply of bogey men. Without them they would be forced to examine themselves! They would be totally unable to accept the revealed truth.
The info you have quoted is not new. Most of it has been around for ages, but.... the US media are chicken-shit scared of telling it like it really is.
After years of promoting 'the axis of evil' they would put their nice little earners at risk.


Interesting article, long but readable.

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
// snipped//
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/index.html
 
Things you didn't know about Iran........:cof1:

If the post wasn't so incredibly stupid on its face,....I'd respond....:rofl::bang:
 
Right and their arms which were smuggled in to help the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan was just a joke. I C.

Maybe I'd agree with you ... if our own record of supplying arms to some of the world's worst dictators wasn't so wretched.

The U.S. transferred arms to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. How does that make us different from Iran?

Thirteen of the top 25 U.S. arms recipients in the developing world in 2006/07, and well in 2008 were either undemocratic governments or regimes guilty of major ongoing human rights abuses, says a just released report by the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy institute headquartered in the U.S.

"U.S. arms transfers are undermining human rights, weakening democracy and fueling conflict around the world," the report said.

William D. Hartung, the lead author of the report, said, "The United States cannot demand respect for human rights and arm human rights abusers at the same time."

The 13 listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/20...ld-human-rights-violatorsundemocratic-nations
 
You mustn't say things like this, Christy. The barking mad followers of the metaphorically deceased bush MUST have a ready supply of bogey men. Without them they would be forced to examine themselves! They would be totally unable to accept the revealed truth.
The info you have quoted is not new. Most of it has been around for ages, but.... the US media are chicken-shit scared of telling it like it really is.
After years of promoting 'the axis of evil' they would put their nice little earners at risk.

I agree with everything you said. Remember some years ago, maybe the '80's?, we were seeing videos on TV or Iranians marching and carrying signs saying "death to America"? Then it stopped for a good while, until bush fueled the anger again with his "axis of evil" speech. Who wouldn't be upset over that? The mad followers take Iran's rhetoric as evidence that we're in their gun sights while completely ignoring all the anti-Muslim and ME rhetoric Americans spewed, especially after 9/11. It's time for the US to calm down and stop looking for enemies under every door step.
 
but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program

saying they have found no evidence to prove there is one is not the same as saying they have evidence which points to there NOT being one.....
 
I agree with everything you said. Remember some years ago, maybe the '80's?, we were seeing videos on TV or Iranians marching and carrying signs saying "death to America"? Then it stopped for a good while, until bush fueled the anger again with his "axis of evil" speech. Who wouldn't be upset over that? The mad followers take Iran's rhetoric as evidence that we're in their gun sights while completely ignoring all the anti-Muslim and ME rhetoric Americans spewed, especially after 9/11. It's time for the US to calm down and stop looking for enemies under every door step.

It's not only the US. We are all receptors of manipulative language - even those who use it to subdue.
The North Koreans firmly believe themselves to be an advanced civilisation. The Chinese position themselves as the 'Middle Kingdom' - that means between heaven and earth. Only the French and Israelis know the truth. People really DO hate them!!! :)
I might have cited this before but what the hell. Sitting in a taxi with a Chinese business aquaintance some years ago, the driver said with palpable disdain about me, 'Another foreigner who has come to China to steal our technology.'
At the time I had my knees up to my chin because a length of rope stretched across the back of the taxi holding the door in place!!!
In front of us, in a horrendous traffic jam, was a car with three wheels of one size and one from a completely different type of vehicle crabbing slowly across a bridge that looked as if it would collapse at any moment.
There is not much difference between those who take the word of the Washington (or London) puppeteers and that cabbie.
 
Right and their arms which were smuggled in to help the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan was just a joke. I C.


You helped Bush lie us into an unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the bogus premise that Saddam was armed to the teeth with WMD, was allied with Al Qaeda, and was dead set on attacking the United States. So nothing you say has any credibility with regard to Iran. In fact, we should believe the exact opposite of anything you say about Iran, based on your track record.

Nobody here admires Iran’s appalling theocratic government. Any everyone recognizes that Iran, like other large nations, are going to engage in actions that protects and promotes their interests in their region of influence.

But, when you, Bush, Cheney, and Palin try to frighten people into thinking Iran has designs on attacking the United States, you are going to be asked for credible evidence and proof. And you won't have any. Because Iran has never shown any indication that it wants war with the United States, it has never invaded another nation in its entire modern history, and they have zero capacity to do the United States any significant harm. Unfortunately, Obama is only marginally less antagonistic and disingenuous about Iran than your hero Bush.

If anything, our entire history with Iran has involved the United States fucking around in their affairs, including overthrowing their democratically elected government.

No one is saying to pretend the Iranian government is as pure as the driven snow. But, we need some adults to address this issue. Not a bunch of diaper-shitting NeoCons who invent fantastic stories about fantasy WMD and exaggerated monsters that don’t exist.
 
Blame America first is the left's motto. My position is that I don't take too kindly to our men and women being killed with Iran's weapons and the left sticking up for Iran. Quite frankly, it sucks.

Maybe I'd agree with you ... if our own record of supplying arms to some of the world's worst dictators wasn't so wretched.

The U.S. transferred arms to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. How does that make us different from Iran?

Thirteen of the top 25 U.S. arms recipients in the developing world in 2006/07, and well in 2008 were either undemocratic governments or regimes guilty of major ongoing human rights abuses, says a just released report by the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy institute headquartered in the U.S.

"U.S. arms transfers are undermining human rights, weakening democracy and fueling conflict around the world," the report said.

William D. Hartung, the lead author of the report, said, "The United States cannot demand respect for human rights and arm human rights abusers at the same time."

The 13 listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/20...ld-human-rights-violatorsundemocratic-nations
 
Things you didn't know about Iran........:cof1:

If the post wasn't so incredibly stupid on its face,....I'd respond....:rofl::bang:

this is a great response, and more should pay attention to it. i can't imagine the fear you must strike into your intellectual adversaries.
 
Last edited:
Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program.

All though there was some interesting information in the op, this line right here just reeks of bullshit and illustrates some degree of whitewashing and bias on part of the article.

Essentially what it's saying is "iran has not been forthcoming, or transparent, but the incomplete picture they've given the iaea doesn't show a weapons program."

um.. yeah, that's the point of not being transparent.

A very misleading/bad conclusion
 
Maybe I'd agree with you ... if our own record of supplying arms to some of the world's worst dictators wasn't so wretched.

The U.S. transferred arms to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. How does that make us different from Iran?

Thirteen of the top 25 U.S. arms recipients in the developing world in 2006/07, and well in 2008 were either undemocratic governments or regimes guilty of major ongoing human rights abuses, says a just released report by the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy institute headquartered in the U.S.

"U.S. arms transfers are undermining human rights, weakening democracy and fueling conflict around the world," the report said.

William D. Hartung, the lead author of the report, said, "The United States cannot demand respect for human rights and arm human rights abusers at the same time."

The 13 listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/20...ld-human-rights-violatorsundemocratic-nations
And don't forget, in the 80's when we still believed they were a threat to we'uns and our way of life, we traded arms with Iran. The post was a very good one. I did not know that Iran has never started a war with anyone.
 
Blame America first is the left's motto. My position is that I don't take too kindly to our men and women being killed with Iran's weapons and the left sticking up for Iran. Quite frankly, it sucks.

How kindly do you take thousands of Iraqis being killed with America's weapons?
 
In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

To me, that sounds like a pledge to attack it militarily. What do you think?
 
figures....the left acted like ignorant fools over Iraq....it's to be expected they will repeat the performance over Iran.....


Wait, so your contention is that Liberals were wrong about Iraq, and Cons were right?

Holy mother of God, this totally get my vote for the worst and most dishonest revisionist history in the history of message boards.

Dude, you, Bush, Cheney, and all their enablers were wrong about Iraq.

That automatically disqualifies you from saying anything credible about iran.

You were wrong about Iraq to the tune of one trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of dead, and no WMd and no alliances with Al Qaeda.

If you were so incredibly and shockingly wrong on Iraq, I have a question for you: Why should anyone believe a bloody thing about Iran?
 
Back
Top