Article: Russia and China warn US that an Israeli attack on Iran means world war...

[Kirkland Laing]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

Neither of these articles are from major media outlets to the best of my knowledge. That's what I found so surprising about the articles, that the statements from Russia/China had been wholly ignored by major western media sources (again, to the best of my knowledge).

Russia (and i'm sure China) have a bunch of loony tune outlets that are full of stories like this all the time.

Pravda.Ru: Russian news and analysis

Today they've got reports about blonde women ruling the world (at all times!), Israel having to buy more US weapons (actually given them on welfare) because of the super duper weapons Russia just sold Iran, and a UFO over Area 51.

[CGM]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

[Nameless]

That's true enough, but what is also seldom mentioned is that when the west (the UN actually) was trying to stickhandle this whole mess after the war, the Arab leaders took a hard line and didn't exactly play ball, and the UN called their bluff and acted unilaterally and the palestinian people got the short end of the stick.

The modern knot of this struggle is the structure of the UN: The security concil and the unlimited veto they can blindly use. i wrote an article that will get published about it in a few months, halas it's in french otherwise I would upload it for the interested ones, I just need to make a few touches up and it's done. If one couldn't use the veto more than X times on some regions or some cases, Israel wouldn't be on the winning end as they would face sanctions. Unfortunately, the consil can wage as many vetos as they want and then, countries of that consil can protect their own interests and we have the mess we face now, especially because it gives all the flux of arguments to fill the mulsim radical groups: "- you see, the international community aren't helping us and aren't willing to do so, the only solution we have is Allah and to show them what we're made of'". Change the veto situation and on the other end, you also choke down the muslim radicals as their revendications are obsolete if Palestine recover their lost boundaries and have a legitimate state.

Well, point taken, I wasn't so much referring to what is happening now is to what happened back then when Israel was formed. But yeah, the UN now sure has it's flaws and limitations. The veto system certainly hi-lites those flaws, but I'm nott convinced veto system is the problem in and of itself, but it is misused by those who have veto power as a way to further their politics. The real problem is a total lack of consensus on the politics.

Anyways, I'm interested in your article, give us a link when it gets published, even if it is in French I have friends that can deal with that.

I have to send it tomorrow or in 2 days, I can send it to you in the meantime for a lecture if you want, it's more or less 15 full pages. Thus said, I really think after my researches that the veto system is a major problem, I explain why in a nutshell:

the 5 persons who are the only one to benefit it are the 5 kings winner of the second world war: France, China, Russia, UK, US, at the time, these countries were given that (by themselves, of course) as they were the "guardians" of the planet, the 5 most able nations. TOday things have chanced and many other countries are contributing even more to the UN than some of them (i.e Japan and Germany for example). On all the vetos waved, 90% have been used.. by Russia and the US. Basically, if you possess a veto, you can't be sentenced by anything at all by the UN, you're totally covered.
Not only that but any resolution voted by the general assembly depends about if you decide or not to use your veto, so basically, the article 97 that says that every nations are equal in the UN is pure bullshit as 5 countries can say no to whatever they want and nobody can't do nothing about it. To this day, more than 135 resolutions have been voted against israel because of their incredible and non-sense actions, war crimes and such... 135 times the international community said that it was too much and had to be sanctionned but the US did drown the whole thing, just making the problem bigger and bigger.
Everytime a resolution is voted or vetoed, not only the whole system is paralyzed but it costs hundred of thousand of dollars, sometimes millions thrown down the drain (hostel for everybody, paying security, deplacement, lawyers, translaters etc). If 75% of the world vote in favor of something, how can you justify that a random dude, because he won 70 years ago has the sole right to say no depending of his humor? especially when he's not "watching" as much as he's supposed to over the rest of the world? if you ask me, this is non-sense, the veto should be abolished or controlled, like you can't use it more than once a year or not more than once or twice when it concerns denounciations of a specific country.

[CGM]

OK bud, then hold off for now on sending the whole package. I'll take a little time to digest these few paragraphs and let you know if I have appetite for more.

[Kirkland Laing]

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

The IAEA head has said they're not building a bomb and he doesn't think they're even planning to.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has once again highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb.

Speaking at a session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, ElBaradei reiterated the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," ElBaradei asserted.

He said that the issue of Iran's nuclear standoff with the West is a problem of trust.

The IAEA boss referred to a December 3 joint assessment by 16 US spy agencies, which conceded that Tehran is not running a nuclear weapons program, and said that the US intelligence report agreed with his agency's assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

ElBaradei: Iran not after bomb

Now that's the first thing google found but I'm sure if you go to the IAEA website it's there somewhere or if you google the quote eventually some known media outlet somewhere will have reported it.

Iran have the ability to build a bomb but aren't. If they did they'd have an untested weapon with no delivery capability and no way of getting one while under sanctions. They have enough material for one bomb and it's under constant watch. The IAEA have a bunch of inspectors and cameras in Iran monitoring their entire operation constantly.

[CGM]

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

The IAEA head has said they're not building a bomb and he doesn't think they're even planning to.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has once again highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb.

Speaking at a session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, ElBaradei reiterated the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," ElBaradei asserted.

He said that the issue of Iran's nuclear standoff with the West is a problem of trust.

The IAEA boss referred to a December 3 joint assessment by 16 US spy agencies, which conceded that Tehran is not running a nuclear weapons program, and said that the US intelligence report agreed with his agency's assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

ElBaradei: Iran not after bomb

Now that's the first thing google found but I'm sure if you go to the IAEA website it's there somewhere or if you google the quote eventually some known media outlet somewhere will have reported it.

Iran have the ability to build a bomb but aren't. If they did they'd have an untested weapon with no delivery capability and no way of getting one while under sanctions. They have enough material for one bomb and it's under constant watch. The IAEA have a bunch of inspectors and cameras in Iran monitoring their entire operation constantly.

You say that IAEA says they aren't doing it, but then you quote the IAEA as saying not that they aren't doing it, just that they haven't seen indications or concrete evidence. There's a bit of a difference. As for the Mossad, well who knows what they've found out, I'n sure they wouldn't tell "us".'

Anyways "no evidence" means either they aren't doing it or they are doing a good job at covering their tracks. Sure there are issues of trust involved. I wouldn't trust a guy like Ahmadinejad any further than I could throw him. You are free to trust him if you want.

I do believe the IAEA though. So if they say they haven't found any concrete evidence, than so be it. We agree on that much. It means they haven't found any concrete evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kirkland Laing]

It's impossible for them to be secretly doing anything productive without uranium and the IAEA have the uranium under constant surveillance. Without the uranium, there's no way to make a bomb. It's also really difficult to do anything regarding nuclear production secretly when you've got weapons inspectors and satellites watching everything. Nuclear facilities are big things, you can't just build one without people noticing. And if they ever decided to use that uranium to build a bomb they'd have to kick the inspectors out like North Korea did, giving us six months' notice at the minimum, assuming they don't hit technical problems. And that's six months to build an untested bomb with no delivery system. The whole thing is just sensationalism.

[CGM]

OK well if you are saying that it's a provable fact that the IAEA has accounted for the worlds supply of Uranium, then I will have to concede this point to you. I'll even concede if it can be proven that there can't possible be any uranium in Iran that the IAEA doesn't know about. Of course, these things can't be proven.

Anyways, we don't disagree on the facts, we seem to disagree on the interpretation. Do we think it is possible that Iran might attempt to deceive and be successful at it? As has been mentioned, trust plays a role. You know where I stand on that.

As for claims of a possible world war, I see it as sabre rattling by the Russkis, but I don't think we need be overly concerned about the Russkis or the Chinese.

time to move on.

[Kirkland Laing]

And we know all the Iranian nuclear scientists. They all went to school in the west to learn the nuke stuff and they're all vetted by our security services before they even are accepted on a course. The inspectors know them all and monitor what they're doing all the time too. We know what their nuke-qualified people are doing all the time. Any serious attempt to build something covertly we'd know about. At best they probably have the outline of a crash-building programme ready to go.

[CGM]

And we know all the Iranian nuclear scientists. They all went to school in the west to learn the nuke stuff and they're all vetted by our security services before they even are accepted on a course. The inspectors know them all and monitor what they're doing all the time too. We know what their nuke-qualified people are doing all the time. Any serious attempt to build something covertly we'd know about. At best they probably have the outline of a crash-building programme ready to go.

Because we are certain that we know all of the nuke specialists that are on the Iranian payroll?

Anyways, by "we" I assume you mean western governments by virtue of their association with the IAEA.

OK, you've made your point, I don't quite share your confidence in our ability to keep on knowing all the salient facts. But your logic based on these premises is solid.When it comes to consensus, that's as far as I can go.

[Gandalf]

The modern knot of this struggle is the structure of the UN: The security concil and the unlimited veto they can blindly use. i wrote an article that will get published about it in a few months, halas it's in french otherwise I would upload it for the interested ones, I just need to make a few touches up and it's done. If one couldn't use the veto more than X times on some regions or some cases, Israel wouldn't be on the winning end as they would face sanctions. Unfortunately, the consil can wage as many vetos as they want and then, countries of that consil can protect their own interests and we have the mess we face now, especially because it gives all the flux of arguments to fill the mulsim radical groups: "- you see, the international community aren't helping us and aren't willing to do so, the only solution we have is Allah and to show them what we're made of'". Change the veto situation and on the other end, you also choke down the muslim radicals as their revendications are obsolete if Palestine recover their lost boundaries and have a legitimate state.

Well, point taken, I wasn't so much referring to what is happening now is to what happened back then when Israel was formed. But yeah, the UN now sure has it's flaws and limitations. The veto system certainly hi-lites those flaws, but I'm nott convinced veto system is the problem in and of itself, but it is misused by those who have veto power as a way to further their politics. The real problem is a total lack of consensus on the politics.

Anyways, I'm interested in your article, give us a link when it gets published, even if it is in French I have friends that can deal with that.

I have to send it tomorrow or in 2 days, I can send it to you in the meantime for a lecture if you want, it's more or less 15 full pages. Thus said, I really think after my researches that the veto system is a major problem, I explain why in a nutshell:

the 5 persons who are the only one to benefit it are the 5 kings winner of the second world war: France, China, Russia, UK, US, at the time, these countries were given that (by themselves, of course) as they were the "guardians" of the planet, the 5 most able nations. TOday things have chanced and many other countries are contributing even more to the UN than some of them (i.e Japan and Germany for example). On all the vetos waved, 90% have been used.. by Russia and the US. Basically, if you possess a veto, you can't be sentenced by anything at all by the UN, you're totally covered.
Not only that but any resolution voted by the general assembly depends about if you decide or not to use your veto, so basically, the article 97 that says that every nations are equal in the UN is pure bullshit as 5 countries can say no to whatever they want and nobody can't do nothing about it. To this day, more than 135 resolutions have been voted against israel because of their incredible and non-sense actions, war crimes and such... 135 times the international community said that it was too much and had to be sanctionned but the US did drown the whole thing, just making the problem bigger and bigger.
Everytime a resolution is voted or vetoed, not only the whole system is paralyzed but it costs hundred of thousand of dollars, sometimes millions thrown down the drain (hostel for everybody, paying security, deplacement, lawyers, translaters etc). If 75% of the world vote in favor of something, how can you justify that a random dude, because he won 70 years ago has the sole right to say no depending of his humor? especially when he's not "watching" as much as he's supposed to over the rest of the world? if you ask me, this is non-sense, the veto should be abolished or controlled, like you can't use it more than once a year or not more than once or twice when it concerns denounciations of a specific country.

Really interesting post. I agree with pretty much all of what you are saying here. The UN clearly needs reforming with special attention being paid to the paralysing and wasteful veto.

Israel should have been undergoing international sanctions years ago. The amount of garbage they have been allowed to get away with over the years is shameful.

[El Kabong]

People in the Middle East tend to get the other end of the superior firepower rather than the freedom and liberty thing though.

...perhaps they should change their tune, you know, kill us with kindness instead of just trying to kill us.

[Kirkland Laing]

And we know all the Iranian nuclear scientists. They all went to school in the west to learn the nuke stuff and they're all vetted by our security services before they even are accepted on a course. The inspectors know them all and monitor what they're doing all the time too. We know what their nuke-qualified people are doing all the time. Any serious attempt to build something covertly we'd know about. At best they probably have the outline of a crash-building programme ready to go.

Because we are certain that we know all of the nuke specialists that are on the Iranian payroll?

Anyways, by "we" I assume you mean western governments by virtue of their association with the IAEA.

OK, you've made your point, I don't quite share your confidence in our ability to keep on knowing all the salient facts. But your logic based on these premises is solid.When it comes to consensus, that's as far as I can go.

Yes, we do. We know everything about every person who studies nuclear technology in the few western universities that teach the really important stuff, both our own and foreign citizens, and those people all get tracked throughout their careers wherever they go.

[Kirkland Laing]

People in the Middle East tend to get the other end of the superior firepower rather than the freedom and liberty thing though.

...perhaps they should change their tune, you know, kill us with kindness instead of just trying to kill us.

Maybe if Americans didn't wet the bed over things like Saddam and his fearsome weapons of mass destruction and their government go off and kill a million Iraqis then Middle Eastern people would feel less inclined to fly planes into buildings. They've had fifty years of miserable repression at the hands of the US, maybe if they hadn't had that it's unlikely that they'd be so upset. If North Carolina had been transported into Jordan, for instance, one of the nastiest secret police states over there and one whose regime is propped up by US military/security/diplomatic aid for half a century now, but we change "US" to say Iranian or Pakistani, how would you feel if your rulers were doing the exact opposite of what you wanted at the behest and control of the Iranians/Pakistanis?

[CGM]

And we know all the Iranian nuclear scientists. They all went to school in the west to learn the nuke stuff and they're all vetted by our security services before they even are accepted on a course. The inspectors know them all and monitor what they're doing all the time too. We know what their nuke-qualified people are doing all the time. Any serious attempt to build something covertly we'd know about. At best they probably have the outline of a crash-building programme ready to go.

Because we are certain that we know all of the nuke specialists that are on the Iranian payroll?

Anyways, by "we" I assume you mean western governments by virtue of their association with the IAEA.

OK, you've made your point, I don't quite share your confidence in our ability to keep on knowing all the salient facts. But your logic based on these premises is solid.When it comes to consensus, that's as far as I can go.

Yes, we do. We know everything about every person who studies nuclear technology in the few western universities that teach the really important stuff, both our own and foreign citizens, and those people all get tracked throughout their careers wherever they go.

right ok, you are certain that we know everything there is to know about the world's supply of uranium, and furthermore we know everything worth knowing about everybody who is working in the field of nuclear technology. I can't believe you are serious. Go ahead and believe it if you want, but don't be too surprised if more than a few people don't fall for this politically motivated horseshit.