Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Deal between Iran and the world!


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 November 2013 - 11:12 AM

A bad deal is a bad is a bad deal

Analysis made by MAN

(reproduction in full allowed)

 

In regard to Armenia and Russia, if this deal leads to peace and security in the area, and among all nations of the area, then it would benefit them greatly; since Armenia will be linked with Russia and others in CU in the near future, Armenia's economic role will be enhanced as a passage route or hayway to the Gulf and the Far East by way of Armenia>Iran. Those countries of CU all will benefit from this new access route via Armenia into the Middle East and the far Orient.

 

Locally Armenia & Iran will be able to go ahead with the construction of a hydro-power plant in Meghri, at their borders; but mostly Armenia will go ahead and finish the construction of the railway system linking it with Iran's well-developed railway system. Rail-cars filled with merchandize will go both ways: up & down, in a modern version of the Silk Road. They will pass through Georgia in sealed railroad cars or containers without being opened as per agreement with Georgia.

 

However, a bad deal is a bad deal is a bad deal is a bad deal...because Israel's interest has not been taken into consideration. The majority of nations on earth import their uranium to run their nuclear power plants, Iran refuses to import and rather is working to produce its own nuclear fuel, this puts Iran under suspicion for wanting to use the nuclear fuel it produces and enriches to build nuclear bombs and join the very exclusive league of nations with nuclear weaponry.

 

Any deal with Iran should have required the end of Iran’s enriching of uranium projects and demolition of its plutonium reactor under construction. Like many other nations Iran is able to import its enriched uranium for peaceful energy production; Iran has the right to use nuclear energy but does not have the right to enrich plutonium because its ambitions are very clear in regard of its role in the Middle East. Iran may not use the would be nukes for war purposes but the mere possession of them gives Iran a strong voice, position and leverage in the affairs of the Middle East. And that is what Iran is after mainly.

 

Israel now, in isolation and driven by fear for its security, would consider launching in the near future, or sometime in the next decade, a preemptive strike on Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons or enriching plutonium, and who knows Israel may be thinking it will save the world from a nuclear Armageddon started by the Muslims, a WW3, in the same way that Germany or its Hitler did in 1939. All premonitions indicates that Iran will have its ways and be a winner, a win that would eventually end by failure and own destruction.



#2 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 November 2013 - 12:53 PM

Israel, despite having nukes, did not use them even though it has been thru few wars with neighbors, and Israel should be recommended for that, in any case it will never be allowed to use nuke, not Israel and nor another country. When it comes to the neighbors of Israel they would have used nuke long ago if they had it. In the orient, that is the M.E. of the orient, all hate the Jews and their country, they hated them since ancient times, since they consider the Jewish nation as thread to their existence. So they are more likely that they would use nukes if they had any in hand driven by a blind uncontrolled Muslim impulse; Israel so far has been controlling its animal instincts in regard to fights when it comes to the use of nukes. In the future, Israel's safety guarantee would prove to be its nukes, as long as Israel have the advantage of the nukes over no-nuke-enemies there would be no winners in wars in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims. One or two nukes in the hand of their enemies is enough to wipe Israel out into ashes, while destroying Israeli's enemies require nukes in the hundred if not in the thousand. I am not trying to take sides here but doing logical deduction. With this new deal there might be some stability in the Middle East for the short time but in the long run it will prove to be disastrous.

 



#3 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,903 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2013 - 04:39 PM

Your assumption that Muslim Iran would use nuclear bomb to attack Israel, doesn't pass the reality test. It was the Christian America that used it for the first and last time and it was the Christian Germany that killed a lot more Jews than all the Muslim countries put together, therefore invoking religion in this case is not going to cut it for me. Your analysis is based on your Judea Christian bias and not reality. I rather have an Iran talking to USA than not talking at all. 



#4 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 27 November 2013 - 09:32 PM

You have not yet told us what, which kosher khash you eat after you are done smoking that wacky tabacky?.

You are so full of it , your eyes are turning brown.

Do you ever wonder why no one responds to your posts in religion-milijun, theology schmeoloji of first, SECOND and third cummings in a serious manner except in derision and ridicule.?

When did you discover Jesus-mizus?

Just in case you don‘t know English slang, look up what “cum/cumming“ means) ***

Above, Yervant said it better than I ever could about your judeo-Christian bias. An oxymoron of all ages if there ever was any other . judeo? Christian?

Which?

Judeo or Christian?

Please allow me to cite other oxymorons. mahmedo-Jesuit or -armeno-turkish.

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

 

As editor-in-chief of the bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos,

 

Anglo American, Franco German, Sino Soviet (read sino as Chinese) How about turkey as a member of NATO.

Count with me. Where is turkey and where the Atlantic? Is it closer than Timbuktu?

Do they mean AtlantiS?

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

Your quote.

 

Israel, despite having nukes, did not use them even though it has been thru few wars with neighbors, and Israel should be recommended for that, in any case it will never be allowed to use nuke, not Israel and nor another country. When it comes to the neighbors of Israel they would have used nuke long ago if they had it. In the orient,

 

Can I say, maybe not what moshe cohen can do with their “nklr” weapons. We are so sick of hearing how david avramovich would attack Tehran today, tomorrow or any moment now. But, ever since Uncle Sam said He would not back them up, will not furnish them with deep penetrating bunker busting bombs, they have stopped barking and gone back to Jeremiahan lamentatious puppy yelping. Where did all that bravado go? That Netanyahu is not shouting anymore. One can hardly hear his whispers and whimpers.. Now, let them rely on mehmetistan furkey, their only ally in the region.

Now they may have a real reason to lament.

Not unlike Narekatsi’s Lamrntations. Do I read it? NO!!! Who does?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/880055.Grigor_Narekatsi

http://ebible.org/asv/Lament.htm

*** http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cum

 



#5 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,903 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:33 AM

09:49 28/11/2013 » INTERVIEWS

Demands to disarm Israeli nukes to grow: George Galloway

Press TV has conducted an interview with George Galloway, a member of the British parliament, in London about the recent initiative by British lawmakers demanding that Israel come clean on its nuclear weapons program.
- I believe you were one of the MPs who raised the issue of Israel’s weapons and the concerns about them. What kind of response did you and those who were making similar calls get?
- As always there is a double standard employed. The whole regime of sanctions, which have caused so much pain in Iran, were imposed because of the fear that Iran might one day make a nuclear weapon.
Israel, as you’ve just said, has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Not only is it not sanctioned, it is endlessly rewarded with more arms and more money and more diplomatic and political support.
So although the British government has improved on its attitude towards the Islamic Republic, we are still some way off from forcing the British government to move on this relationship with the Zionist state.
- A lot of people were suggesting that this nuclear deal now between Iran and the six powers is going to bring Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the fore now and make it more visible that it is the party that hasn’t signed the NPT; it is the only entity with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Do you think these issues are going to come up now with concerns about Iran’s nuclear energy program being allayed?
- I do think so. Some of us have been making this point for more than 30 years since Mordecai Vanunu told us about Israel’s’ nuclear weapons - he, having worked in the nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev in occupied Palestine.
But you are right. Now that there has been all this hullabaloo about Iran nuclear questions, it unveils all over again the grotesque truth that the country, which talks most about Iran’s nuclear question, is the country which is illegally holding hundreds of nuclear weapons, which have never been inspected, which are subject to no treaty.
And Israel refuses even to confirm that which we all know to be true that it is a nuclear weapons power. So the demand will grow for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East and that requires the destruction of Israel’s nuclear weapons armory.
- How big of a threat do you see Israel’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons program because some people who are supporting Israel’s position are saying Israel shouldn’t be seen as a nuclear threat in the region and it hasn’t threatened anyone with the use of nuclear weapons?
- It hasn’t threatened anyone with the use of nuclear weapons because it lies about the fact that it has them. But its military power is underpinned by this nuclear weapons status.
However, I must tell you that nuclear weapons are useless against a people who refuse to be intimidated by them. If the Iranian people had been frightened or intimidated by Israel’s nuclear weapons, they would have surrendered all their rights. But they have refused to surrender their rights because they are not afraid of Israel however many nuclear weapons she has.
So, nuclear weapons are the nearest thing to a complete waste of money that is possible to imagine because you can never use them. If Israel were to use them for example against an Arab country or against Iran, God forbid of course, the winds would blow and people in all the surrounding countries would be affected for centuries to come.
So, you can’t use these weapons and all they are is an intimidator and bullying threat.
But if people like the Palestinians - and the Iranians for that matter - refuse to be intimidated; refuse to be bullied, well, these weapons are next to useless.

 
 

Source: Panorama.am



#6 man

man

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 November 2013 - 11:42 PM

The US administration has now signaled it wants a more modest engagement in the Middle East (focused on Iran, Syria and the Israel-Palestine conflict), as it "pivots" towards Asia and the rising power of China that enlarging its power base over the sea and soon will be landing on the moon

USA & NATO's appetite for full-scale air and land campaigns seems to have exhausted itself


America isn't leaving the Middle East, unfortunately
by Seumas Milne    
The Guardian, Wednesday 27 November 2013
http://www.theguardi...an-nuclear-deal

Remember how we got here. Three months ago, the US, Britain and France were poised to launch yet another attack on an Arab and Muslim country, this time war-wracked Syria. An unexpected, and unprecedented, vote by British MPs halted the bid to escalate the war. That stiffened resistance in the US Congress.

As Obama struggled to win support, Russia seized the chance to press for the UN-supervised destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. A deal was reached and the threat of attack abandoned. A couple of months on and Iran, Syria's closest ally, has now signed an agreement with the big powers to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief – and Syrian peace talks are back on the agenda for the new year.

The west's August attempt to confront the Iranian-Syrian "axis of resistance" has been turned on its head. Russia has been bolstered without lifting a finger. The closest US allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are crying betrayal and demanding their supporters sabotage the deal in Congress.

In fact, both agreements simply reflect a recognition of reality after 12 years of failed wars of intervention across the Middle East. In the case of Syria, despite covert intervention by western and Gulf states, the Assad regime has been gaining ground as the rebel camp slips further into the grip of al-Qaida-linked sectarian jihadists.

When it comes to Iran, the Shia Islamic republic has been hugely strengthened by the west's war on terror and the US-British invasion of Iraq in particular. Sure, Iran has been hurt by sanctions imposed by nuclear-armed states and the campaign of assassinations and sabotage waged by the US and Israel.

But the restrictions on its uranium enrichment programme agreed in Geneva on Sunday are significantly less onerous than those Iran offered in 2005, when its proposal of a centrifuge cap of 5,000 was rejected by the US out of hand. It now has upwards of 16,000.

What has changed is that the costs of confrontation with Iran have escalated for the US; the credibility of an all-out attack on Tehran is now vanishingly small; the west's Arab allies are in turmoil or immersed in an unwinnable regional sectarian war – and Iran holds a key to conflicts the US wants defused or settled, from Palestine to Afghanistan.

Whether the nuclear agreement lasts or goes further, Geneva is a measure of realism in a region turned upside down by increasingly bizarre alliances. Take Israel, the secular Jewish state, and Saudi Arabia, the Sunni sectarian autocracy. They are now not only working hand in glove against Iran, but both strongly backed the abortive attack on Syria and championed July's military coup against the elected Islamist president in Egypt.

The US-backed theocratic Saudi dictatorship, along with the UAE, Jordan and Israel, are now in close alliance with the secular military regime in Cairo – which is busy buying weapons from Syria's ally Russia – while Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are the main backers of Islamist and jihadist rebel forces in Syria. In fact, the Saudi authorities have been offering to release their own jihadist prisoners if they agree to go and fight in Syria and Lebanon with al-Qaida-linked groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, Islamist Turkey, which also backs the Syrian rebels, is trying to move closer to Iran.

The chaos and cross-currents are a product of the war on terror and the Arab uprisings that flowed out of it nearly three years ago. The campaign that began in Afghanistan, and passed through the destruction of Iraq via drone wars against the terror groups it fuelled, reached its last phase in the attempts to hijack or crush the popular revolts across the Arab world.

At every point, the war has failed in its stated aim of fighting terror and left a trail of destruction, death and sectarian conflict in its wake, from Pakistan to Libya. It has also revealed the limits, rather than the extent of US and western power to impose its will by military force. And it's that strategic defeat and overreach – paid for at such great human cost – that has been reflected in the deals made with Iran and Syria this autumn.

The US administration has now signaled it wants a more modest engagement in the Middle East, focused on Iran, Syria and the Israel-Palestine conflict, as it "pivots" towards Asia and the rising power of China. "We've got interests and opportunities in that whole world," as Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, puts it. That's been interpreted by some as the prelude to a US withdrawal from the most directly western-dominated region in the world, encouraged by declining US dependence on Middle East oil.

That would be too much to hope for. The US has been boosting its military presence and archipelago of bases in the Gulf, and the Middle East will continue to be crucial to the global energy market. But the failure of the war on terror and US decline means it is likely to try to use a reduction of tension with Iran to streamline and scale back its military involvement.

Which would, of course, be welcome for the people of a region trying to carve out their own future. The west's baleful terror war will carry on across the Arab and Muslim world in the form of drone attacks and special forces operations. But the appetite for full-scale air and land campaigns seems to have exhausted itself. That can only be good for all of us.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users