Iran brags about duping West on nuclear buildup

[JoeEpcotRocks]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml

From article:

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

Iran has completed uranium enrichment equipment at Isfahan
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.

The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.

Let's see if the UN will finaly wake up (if it's not too late). Or, if they will continue to trust Iran like they trusted Iraq's Saddam.

 

[Mackey Mouse]

I have to say this here....

I cannot worry about things that I cannot control.....this is what I say to my children and husband....live for today, we do not know what tomorrow will bring. It concerns me greatly that they will have nuclear power and what will happen once they do.....that is why I say live for today....enjoy each day as the sun rises and sets....

 

[LukenDC]

Let's see if the UN will finaly wake up (if it's not too late). Or, if they will continue to trust Iran like they trusted Iraq's Saddam.

Like Reagan trusted and supported Saddam? I am no fan of Saddam, but it's time for the neo-cons to wake up and recognize that the USA at times supported Saddam because he was fighting Iran. Our country has a long history of supporting people who eventually turn against us (think Osama and the Afghan muhajadeen from the 1980s) and we cannot allow that to happen again.

 

[dcentity2000]

Ah, the Telegraph - a totally unbiased source

Seriously though, I do wonder about Iran. It's stood up against the UN, laughed at the USA and continued regardless of the threats made by the EU. That's not good.

On the other hands, we have nukes and aren't exactly angelic nations...



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Like Reagan trusted and supported Saddam? I am no fan of Saddam, but it's time for the neo-cons to wake up and recognize that the USA at times supported Saddam because he was fighting Iran. Our country has a long history of supporting people who eventually turn against us (think Osama and the Afghan muhajadeen from the 1980s) and we cannot allow that to happen again.

I'm familiar with the 80's.

Now how about responding to the current news and the UN's toothlessness.

 

[Charade]

Our country has a long history of supporting people who eventually turn against us (think Osama and the Afghan muhajadeen from the 1980s) and we cannot allow that to happen again.

Are you referring to OBL being funded (secretly of course) by the CIA to fight the Russians?

The CIA-Bin Laden Myth
By Richard Miniter


In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.”

There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans.” Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,” possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.”

Even if the CIA wanted to pay “Arab Afghans” -- which agency officials insist they did not -- bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan’s northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan’s quartermaster, providing food and other supplies.

If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden’s camp. “If he hears an American, he will kill you.”

Why is this myth of CIA support for bin Laden so persistent? Some find the myth persuasive because they do not know that America and Saudi Arabia funded two different sets of anti-Soviet fighters. Others on the anti-American left and right, in both Europe and America, find it oddly comforting. It gives solace to those who want to think the worst of us. The CIA-funding myth allows them to return to a familiar pattern, to blame America first. Whatever the cause, this myth weakens America’s case for the war on terror by setting up a moral equivalency between America and Al Qaeda. This animates protests at home and makes it harder to win allies abroad.

When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani learned that a Saudi prince had blamed U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 atrocity, he famously turned down the prince's $10 million donation. His words at the time could be applied to the myth of CIA support for bin Laden: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack,” he said. “Not only are these statements wrong, they're part of the problem.”

 

[dcentity2000]

Let's invade Iran.

No wait, one better!

Let's invade everyone with WMDs or the capacity to make WMDs! Why not?



Rich::

 

[lyeag]

Let's invade Iran.

No wait, one better!

Let's invade everyone with WMDs or the capacity to make WMDs! Why not?



Rich::

So, you don't take their threats agains Israel's ritght to exist seriously?

 

[dcentity2000]

So, you don't take their threats agains Israel's ritght to exist seriously?

Of course I do! I was merely poking fun at where this discussion may well go



Rich::

 

[George Zimmer]

Hi... I'm George Zimmer - Founder And Ceo Of The Men's Wearhouse.

I Will Impress My Mighty Self Upon You All By Invading Your Living Rooms And Pilfering Your Supplies Of Yoghurt. In The Process I Will Resolve International Conflict In My Gargantuan Stride And Demolish My Enemies As If They Were Ants Under My Mighty Feet.

I Guarantee It.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I'm familiar with the 80's.

Now how about responding to the current news......

Joe, I trust that we can depend on you to post this again (referencing an even earlier decade) or a similar comment when someone brings up Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. After all, you do want to be consistent when deciding when the statute of limitations on a debate point has run out, right?

 

[Tanuki]

Iran has learned the same lesson as other countries - once you have the nukes they don't invade you. (see Pakistan and N. Korea)

 

[Mugg Mann]

Iran has learned the same lesson as other countries - once you have the nukes they don't invade you. (see Pakistan and N. Korea)

Quite true. Which is the corollary of the golden rule;

"He who has the gold, makes the rules"

 

[eclectics]

So, you don't take their threats agains Israel's ritght to exist seriously?

Do you think for one minute the Israelis are going to kick back their heels and watch this from the balcony? They don't need us or the UN. If one country is prepared and willing to make premptive "guarantees" to safeguard their safety, especially from nuclear weapons, it's Israel. I wouldn't worry too much about Israel protecting itself if it feels threatened. And this time I doubt they will worry too much about consulting their allies before they do it.

 

[dcentity2000]

Iran has learned the same lesson as other countries - once you have the nukes they don't invade you. (see Pakistan and N. Korea)

Exactly. I wish you weren't right but you are so, so spot on



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Do you think for one minute the Israelis are going to kick back their heels and watch this from the balcony? They don't need us or the UN. If one country is prepared and willing to make premptive "guarantees" to safeguard their safety, especially from nuclear weapons, it's Israel. I wouldn't worry too much about Israel protecting itself if it feels threatened. And this time I doubt they will worry too much about consulting their allies before they do it.

Israel has the best trained army in the world (better than the UK by now I'd expect given the continuing violence) and it is not afraid to use it. That being said, Iran isn't exactly impotent...

I dread the potential stand off between the two countries.



Rich::

 

[JimB.]

I dread the potential stand off between the two countries.

IMHO, there will never be a "standoff" between Israel & Iran. If Israel truly feels that Iran is in danger of becoming a real nuclear power, they will (once again, IMHO) do what they did to Iraq in the 80's.

They will premptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities and resolve the problem themselves.

There will be a blistering firestorm of criticism openly (while secrently giving thanks they did it), & Israel will say "too d*** bad" & go about their business.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Are you referring to OBL being funded (secretly of course) by the CIA to fight the Russians?

Excellent post on the CIA - Bin Laden Myth.

 

[LukenDC]

Excellent post on the CIA - Bin Laden Myth.

It is no myth that American arms and funding to the anti-communist Muhajadeen during the 1980s were eventually diverted to what became al Qaeda and the Taliban. The government, even your beloved Bush administration, has said as much.

 

[eclectics]

Israel has the best trained army in the world (better than the UK by now I'd expect given the continuing violence) and it is not afraid to use it. That being said, Iran isn't exactly impotent...

I dread the potential stand off between the two countries.



Rich::

I doubt it will come to that. They are both smart. There will be a lot of posturing on both sides. Iran knows Israel will not tolerate overt threats. I suspect Iran will back down but it would probably like to get something out of this (not quite sure what yet). I also suspect Israel will let the UN do it's thing. Their taking action on their own will be a last resort thing. Hopefully it will not come to that.