Iran shows ‘utter disrespect’ for UN atom body
Khaleej Times
27-Nov-2008 (36 comments)

VIENNA - Iran is showing “utter disrespect” for the U.N. nuclear watchdog by ignoring unanswered questions about its atomic programme, European powers said on Thursday. Officials close to the International Atomic Energy Agency said last week its inquiry into suspected atom bomb research by Iran had degenerated into a standoff with neither side speaking since September, soon after Iran asserted “the matter is over”.“(This has been) two months of utter disrespect for the agency and members of this board,” Britain, France, and Germany said in a statement to the IAEA’s 35-nation governing body.British Ambassador Simon Smith, delivering the “EU-3” statement, said some on the U.N. nuclear executive were originally confident Iran would cooperate with the probe.“Iran’s dismissive response to these expressions of confidence is all too starkly set out in the report before this board, with its unmitigated record of refusal to cooperate,” the statement said.Iran’s denial of an IAEA request to check design details at a research reactor under construction and its failure to provide preliminary design data for a nuclear power plant planned at Darkhovin were of particular concern, he said.Iran’s programme was dangerous because it “continues and intensifies a threat to the stability of a troubled region”, the statement said.Iran says it is enrich... >>>

recommended by Farhad Kashani

Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Farhad Kashani

Anonym7,   When are

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonym7,

 

When are you planning to get real my dear friend?  I asked you couple of simple questions and you’re beating around the Bush. 1- Does IRI, or any regime or democratic government in the world, has the right to get blanc check? 2- What is your definition of defending? The most important way of defending a country is not to make enemies. Making enemies left and right is not only NOT defending our country, that’s taking our country towards the path of destruction. And for what, because Israel is killing Arabs? Most countries in the world disagree with that including almost all Arabia countries, so why is Iran being threatened? Because those “thugs” whom you love so much are “irrational”. They take “irrational” stance towards things. Not to say that they’re anti Israeli propaganda itself has nothing to do with Palestinians, rather, its jealousy towards Israel and maintaining a “revolutionary, enemy is out to get us” mentality so they can control the people easier. 3- You never said, what is the way that, in today’s Iran, we can find out whether Iranians are pro or against this regime?

  

By the way, the cheloo kabab was geat, the doogh, ahh not so much ! lol


default

Kashani, how was the chelo kabAb?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "Maybe you can stop hating U.S more than you love life and come up with a logical answer."

Kashani_jAn, now you are talking irrelevant. Since I say Iran needs to defend itself and put deterrence in place I hate U.S? Are you joking or again instead of doogh drank some good cogniak after your chelo kabAb?
.... On the contrary I believe if Iran has a strong deterrence in place it reduces the chance of Israeli or American adventurism and thereby benefits Americans.


default

Double standards!

by Ajam (not verified) on

As an opponent of the A bomb and yet proponent of peaceful nuclear technology, I believe the only way to dissuade the IRI from acquiring nuclear weaponry is only through negotiations. No amount of threat, sanctions or the carrot/stick game is going to achieve that.

In fact applying more pressure would persuade Iran to move toward the militarization of its programme ever faster as a survival gurantee measure. More sanctions would mean less of the chance for the relevant international bodies of inspection or even access to the Iranian enrichment sites, hence driving the programme in particular, and Iranain economy in general deeper into underground activities -- which is a viable option for a country that holds about 15% of the world's energy.

The threat of a military action would be welcomed by the conservatives as a catalyst to their shortcut to militarization path (as hinted by Ahmadinejad and in military leaders' recent comments) for it would justify declaration of a state of emergency and pursuant austerity budgets. Should this threat realise, the consequences would be as severe for the agressors as it could be for Iran.

Unless the West, and above all, the U.S. reconsider the one-sided approach to this issue, stop playing the arrogant, outdated carrot/stick game and start treating Iran as a sovereign nation, the IRI will continue on the current path of defiance. As for the people of Iran, contrary to how the Pentagon Cheerleaders and groupies like to prtray them, they are aware of their legitimate rights, do not fall for the propaganda schemes of the so-called international community and are conscious of their double standarrds in treatment of Israel, India and Pakistan (who are in blatant violation of non-proliferation measures) while there's no substantiated proof of Iran's infraction from NPT!


Farhad Kashani

Anonimos7, let me ask you

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonimos7, let me ask you something, with the current regime in power, a regime that has one of the, if not the, worst records of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the world, (and I guess you callt hat a "mistake"!!!!),what is your favorite way of finding “evidence” that vast majority of Iranians don’t want this regime? From what I’m reading about what you said, you’re trying to say the only official method to find out regime’s popularity is to conduct a poll in Iran. Now, just answer yes or no, is that what you’re suggesting? If so, (this is also yes or no), are you really, truly, seriously, no joking, saying that IRI is going to conduct this poll?

  

Also, what logic or what rule or what principal, does it say that a regime that “supposedly is defending Iran against aggression”, has the right to come back and rape that same country is “allegedly” defending? (I don’t what kind of defending that is when it gave up 33% of our Sea territory in Caspian Sea and is calling whoever criticized this treasonous move “an enemy of Iran”!! But that’s another subject!). Didn’t the Red Army do the same thing? Yes, it did defend USSR against Nazism, but, it came back and destroyed Russia. So are you saying that’s OK with you? Yes or no? Maybe you can stop hating U.S more than you love life and come up with a logical answer.

 


default

Crushi jan

by Anonymous21 (not verified) on

150 ta keshvar tooye sazmane melal, 35 keshvar tooye shoraye hokam, 15 ta keshvar toyoe security council nafahmidan motabeghe NPT iran hagh dare, to ye doone anchoochak fahmidi?


default

Killjoy: Wow, that was a

by Anonymous... (not verified) on

Killjoy: Wow, that was a scathing rebuttle. Mammad's mind has been contaminated by decades of indoctrination of hateful koranic and shariti's teachings.

He is one the most confused cast of characters on this site.


default

Mammad,

by Killjoy (not verified) on

Why should it bother you when Mr. Kashani calls the IR officials "thugs" and fundamentalists. What's it to you? Having read what you have written about your loss, if anything at all, you should be pleased that the regime's behavior is labled, thugish.

With regard to your second question in which you say,

"2. I agree, but what does that have to do with me? I have called the 1988 killings a crime against humanity, and have said that those who were responsible for it should be put on trial. What else can I say to satisfy you, if I am to do this?"

I would like to draw your attention to the following paragraph written by you almost half a year ago:

Rosie T.: About Iran/Iraq War
by Mammad on Fri Jun 06, 2008 09:25 AM PDT

"Regarding Iran/Iraq war:
(3) The war with Iraq was used to suppress the political opposition in Iran. However, in fairness, it must also be said that, in 1981, while large parts of Iran's territory were still occupied by Iraq and Iran was in completely defensive positions, the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin Khalgh started armed struggle against the government in July 1981, and assassinated hundreds of government officials and others. That was a prime factor in the bloodbath that was developed. Note that up until two weeks before the start of their assassination campaign, Mojahedin were still supposedly defending and supporting Iran's war efforts. Personally, I consider it a treason to start such a campaign of assassination in the midst of a patriotic war; most Iranians agree that at least the first two years of the war was a patriotic war. "

You start with a very accurate statement about the regime using "the war with Iraq to suppress the political opposition in Iran." Nevertheless, you decide to digress and talk about issues pertaining to MEK's armed struggle against the regime without explaning what led to this heinous masacre except for blaming it on MEK.

You consciously make excuses for the regime's brutalities vis-a-vis Iranians when you say, "That was a prime factor in the bloodbath that was developed."

Here, your logic is the same as the logic used by some regime's officials who say, even those on the left were happy to see Shah's generals being "court-martialled" (read lynched) after the revolution.

What that means is the regime could lynch anyone as long as a bunch of trigger-happy mobsters agree with such inhuman acts?

Mammad, maybe you should try and understand that:

1. Those masacred by the regime weren't all MEK members.

2. Even if they were all MEK members, they deserved proper trials where they should have been represented by capable lawyers.

You overlook the reasons for the mass murder of more than 35,000 Iranians in a matter of a month and a half by the regime and downplay the manner in which these crimes were carried out.

You may have heard that not even the parents the victims were aware of the fate of their loved ones.

The unfortunate thing for you and those who for their own personal reasons support your ideas is that you are so blinded by your ideology and love for the regime that you cannot think clearly, anymore, let alone differentiate between due legal procedures which should be observed in courts of law and the lynching methods employed by the Iranian regime.

Have you read anything about the so-called "trials?" If, as you claim, you are defending human rights, why is it that you don't consider the same rights appropriate for the victims of the masacres? What does Rajavi's "treason" have to do with those who were arrested long before Rajavi's change of heart? Was Rajavi on trial or those who were "brainwashed" by the organization?

Did you know how young some of these people were when they were arrested by the thugs you are defending?

Did you know that some of these men and women had already served their sentences, but had not been released and then were masacred en masse in their prisons?

Did you know that long before the war had even begun the regime had lynched thousands of Iranians including hundreds of MEK supporters?

Did you ever hear that more than three thousand of MEK supporters and sympathizers were imprisoned long before the Ayattollaahs and their lackeys and goons realized they needed a war "to suppress the political opposition?"

Contrary to what you claim, Mojahedin did not kill hundreds of government officials. This was another lie spread by the regime and regurgitated by regime's supporters. Similar to other lies some Ayattollaahs had spread about the Shah's crimes before coming to power.

Had many of the officials been assassinated by MEK, why would Khomeini order some such cases closed. And guess why Ahmad Khomeini was assasinated. Who did he threaten to expose and in what regard?

The problem with your style of writing is that you jump around very important issues without coming to the point.

Why do you say that MEK "were supposedly defending and supporting Iran's war efforts?" Were they or weren't they? Those who lived in Iran during that chaotic period know well that MEK supported the regime. Perhaps Rajavi was trying to emulate Gandhi when he ordered MEK supporters not react to the beatings carried out by regime's thugs.

As you also have mentioned in your comments on this same site, the MEK members used to, distastefully, call Khomeini "father."

You claim to have knowledge of Iranian history, but somehow you are incapable of putting two and two together. It is an unforgivable act of historical revisionism when of all the sources which are readily available to you, you settle for Rafsanjani's account of the events, knowing that Rafsanjani as the head of the armed forces for years, has every reason to falsify the facts and present his own version of history.

Also take a good look at your first sentence in this paragraph: "The war with Iraq was used to suppress the political opposition in Iran."

Do you consider the act of using the war to annihilate tens of thousands of Iranians, a crime?

Have you ever condemned IR for its war crimes? Isn't the deliberate prolongation of the war for six extra years and causing the nubmber of casualties to rise to hundreds of thousands tantamount to a war crime?

While you talk about trials for the Rajavis, you never even once have mentioned such trials for the officials of IR who welcomed the war because they knew it could be "used to suppress the political opposition?"

Instead you quote regime's warmongers who, based on the figures you have provided, caused the death toll to rise to about 238,000 in the second phase of the war. Would you describe Rafsanjani as a reliable source?

And you treat the figure only statistically to prove that some are exaggerating the casualities of the war without any condemnation of the regime for its war crimes.


default

if they build it...

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "So, the point is “Iranians” have already made up their mind, and that is, they do NOT want the regime to have nukes, and they do NOT want the regime to get powerful more than it is, and they do NOT want the regime to be power."

Kashani_jAn Where did you get that? I don't claim that Iranians want IRI to have nukes but I haven't seen any evidence of your claim either.
IF (note the big IF) IRI manages to build the nukes it very well deserves to have them ... I don't know of any country which has nukes and has asked for the approval of the world or even its people.
Despite my strong disagreements with IRI's internal policies I wish IRI total success in defending Iran against the U.S and Israeli war machines, more specifically I wish IRI total success in its nuclear program specially IF (note the big IF here) it is geared towards building a nuclear bomb. in My opinion IRI's mistake is that it did not build the bomb sometime ago.


Farhad Kashani

Xcd, AnonymousIrooni,

by Farhad Kashani on

Xcd, AnonymousIrooni, sickofiri, killjoy and Fred, good job guys.


Farhad Kashani

Mammad,   It is now

by Farhad Kashani on

Mammad,

 

It is now obvious to everyone why you people always relay or change any subject that concerns the IRI to Israel, including the claim that “since Israel have nukes, then IRI should to”.  Besides the clear fact that this is nothing less than a sick obsession with Israel, lets examine other issue. First, why does if Israel have nukes , IRI “has” to have them too? What is the logic behind “having to have” it? Is it competition with Israel? OK fine. So, is the nuclear bomb the only field of competition with Israel? What about other fields, like economy, democratic system, technology, …and other issues? Israel obviously is an occupying country, so we don’t wanna copy it there, but how about if we have a democratic political system like Israel? Why can’t we have a strong, open economy like Israel? Why can’t we have freedom of speech like Israel? So why is it only “nuclear bomb” that we are competing with Israel in? If that’s not the case, then is it that we need the bomb to stop Israel from attacking Iran? Ok fine. If that’s the case, A- Why does Israel want to attack us? what is the root cause? Has this animosity been there all throughout different historical times, or is something new (maybe the last 30 years only!)? Is it something in their ideology to hate “Iranian people” (Cyrus the great being one of them!)? B- Israel went into war three times against Arabs and faced annihilation during those wars, and is facing a rough intifada from Palestinians, and in none of those times did it use the nukes. So what makes us think its gonna use it now against us? There are bunch of countries with nuclear weapons, however, it was only used once in history. So what does that tell you? IRI itself claims a million times a day that it is a million times stronger than Israel, so why does it need nukes to defend itself against Israel?

 

The nuclear weapon the IRI is seeking is not to prevent attack from this or that, but to A – Strengthen its bargaining abilities against the world B- Terrorizes the Iranian people with it by showing how powerful they have become. So its not about what they are now, but its about what they will become once they have it. All totalitarian regimes fall, including your beloved IRI, but the question is WHEN? You speak of the USSR as they collapsed the day after they got the nukes! They were in power for 70 years , and they had the nukes from the 40s all the way till they collapsed. And damn right nukes was one reason they survived all this time (obviously it wasn’t because they had people electing them!). With the bargaining tool of nukes, not using them, they were able to exert influence in the world, oppress their people, spread communism and bully the world. IRI will do the same, except replace communism with Islamic fundamentalism. Obviously you like the IRI regime to be in power because its “anti American”, regardless of what it has done to our country and our people, but I don’t. I mean what logic says that the IRI can rape my country, hijack a religion and introduce a barbaric version of it, become the center of an ideology of death, and get away with it simply because they started an irrational, sick, twisted and obsessed anti American propaganda? I know you would agree with me, but I’m sure your other IRI supporter friends would not. Now, whether that Anti Americanism is justified or necessary or if its even real (versus just a game), it’s a whole different subject. If we get a democratic, peace loving government that is “anti American”, I’ll be the first one to support it, because its anti Americanism or anti whatever, is something that I, as an Iranian citizen who can elect his government, can control. So if it gets too far out of control, like it is now, I will do something about. But I cant now.

 

Bottom line is, I don’t want the regime to have any tools that prolongs its survival. I don’t wanna wait for “70 years”, because my country is to precious for me to see a minute wasted under this rule. Maybe you don’t care, but I do.


Farhad Kashani

Anonym7, you still

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonym7, you still haven’t’ made it clear whether you differentiate between the people of Iran and the Iranian regime. You have said many times that you don’t disagree with me regarding the crimes committed and committing now against the Iran by the regime. So if that’s the case, why is that whenever you talk about regime, you seems to mix the two? So, the point is “Iranians” have already made up their mind, and that is, they do NOT want the regime to have nukes, and they do NOT want the regime to get powerful more than it is, and they do NOT want the regime to be power. So take note of those.

 

All that being said, you made my point about “chaghoo” vs “nukes”. As we speak after 30 years, these thugs and bullies and faces of ignorance, only with “chaghoo” in their hands, were able to destroy Iran, start a terrorism culture and a culture of death, and bring the world ever closer to WWIII, so, imagine what they can do with a “nuke”. And that is exactly my point! 


default

Islamic Imperialism of Iran

by xcd (not verified) on

Islamic Imperialism of Iran has nothing to do with the US policies in the Middle East or the continuation of chaos and carnage in Iraq which the mullahs benefit from the most.

The Islamic Republic's hegemonic program started 28 years ago.... the violence and terrorism exported by the IR has to do with the fact that Khomeini and perhaps many Islamic leaders saw that Islam was doomed and was bound to become irrelevant in an increasingly modern and global world. So, like a good CEO in charge of a transnational Islamic Corporation, he decided to reduce the competitive advantages of the modern and secular society by brainwashing and demonizing everything Western and to promote martyrdom, terrorim, and dying for allah to rescue this religion from becoming immaterial to the lives of their constituents.

In essence, the Islamic religious industry is fighting for its very survival because they know they have nothing to offer to the post-modern man.


default

Why do people blend religion, ethics and government into this?

by Toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

Its simple, IAEA observes our enrichment plants, we need enrichment for our future, not to buy uranium from Russia or Australia for a political price for our children.

IAEA recieved a report from Israel and the US saying that Iran is doing something spooky, Iran asked for the original documents, as did the IAEA, the US has still not done this.

So legally, technically, Iran is innocent, regardless of who is in power in Iran. Currently they are sanctioning Iran for what it MIGHT be doing, or MIGHT be getting, SOMEDAY WILL GET.. etc.

If the IAEA lets it self be used as a political forum for people like Farhad, and Fred that has nothing to do with the technical and legal issue, as France, the UK and the US are doing, then the IAEA has lost its meaning and should be closed, together with that already dead organization called the U.N.

The IRI, the Shah, Mossadegh, whoever in power, Iran needs a legal under 90% enrichment capacity for its power plants in the future.

You want to change the world and fight the IRI Fred and Farhad? Good for you, but dont use the nuclear issue, it backfires on you because most Iranians understand the logic stated in the above text.


default

Fred, Is Deepak Chopra an Islamist too?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Fred says: "For the live version of Islamists murdering watch them butchering the unarmed and defenseless in Bombay, the only thing the Islamists are good at."

Fred, you are right these Islamists are among the worst, ... and they very well owe their strength to U.S atrocities. Here is how Deepak Chopra put it in CNN:

"You know, terrorists call mechanized death from 35,000 feet above sea level with a press of a button also terror. We don't call it that, because our soldiers are wearing uniforms. They don't see what is happening, and innocent people are being killed. So, you know, terror is a term that you apply to the other."
//www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/king.c...

Is Deepak Chopra an Islamist too?


default

Mammad, stop playing games

by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on

Again, you are, with all due respect, talking crap and it has nothing to due with your age, how slow your are or how bright you are. You are in fact very bright and smart. Unfortunately, you have a maraz called leftist agenda, marginalized by your deep Islamic beliefs which blind you from looking at the big picture. Now I think you are a very sharif person with high ethics and that comes from you being an honest person and a good Muslim. But your politics are completely screwed up like your dear friend Soraya khanoom. Did you read my post? Once I said the West was being hypocritical, it should have been the end of the story with respect to you going back to the IAEA. But yet you go back to this IAEA report. The West is looking for a booneh against the IRI and they will find it in these IAEA reports in the small print if they have to. They will find their booneh somewhere don't worry. Stop playing games with this IAEA report and the semantics of the words used to describe what is going on.

Again Mammad, I said that I would like to see Iran with nuclear power but not with Khamanei or people with his mentality in charge of such power.

Do you want the IRI to be a "virtual nuclear state" with Khamenei in charge?

You did not address this at all. You went back to the IAEA report. Perhaps, because of your unfortunate leftist maraz, you would be OK with someone like Khamenei in charge of nukes. I would not. And I don't care about how unfair it is, how colonial it is, how imperialist it is, how unjust it is ......... I don't want Mullahs with such power. Period.

Please don't play these word games "virtual nuclear state" instead of "actual nuclear state" crap. Why would the West take this risk with these Mullahs? Why? Now it may ultimately happen and you may get you wish. But I think it would not help the Iranian population one bit.

Iran had a population of 35 million in 1979, it has 70 million today. In Another 30 years it will probably have over 110 million. IRI has an inflation of over 25% and unemployment over 15%. IRI is in business only because of oil revenues. IRI has no plans for the future as evidenced by its total disregard for the welfare of the Iranian people. The IRI is not business friendly, overly regulated for no reason, has a dismal manufacturing sector, dismal stock market.... The IRI is an antagonizing factor with respect to Arab/Arab relations and Arab/Israeli relations in the region

To the West, the IRI is another potential Iraq waiting to happen. Look at why Saddam went to war in 91. He did not like the oil prices, he felt the Kuwaitis and Saudis were taking advantage of him and because Iraq was a welfare state with oil as its only resource, just like the IRI is today, it had no choice but to play the bully in order to raise oil prices/control oil production....Now do you think the West wants a nuclear armed IRI that is bankrupt in the future? What would a bankrupt IRI do with nuclear arms or potential nuclear arms at hand? Wouldn't it try to bully its neighbors? Wouldn't the neighbors try to get their hands on nukes as well? Do you want a "virtual nuclear" state all over the region with all these clowns in charge?

Again, I could see your point if Iran was a secular state with rational leaders. Look at the IRI reputation in the past 30 years: Execution of minors, Execution of people in the public, Eye for an Eye justice (did you see the article about blinding a criminal with acid as punishment), Mullah sanctioned prostitution called sigheh, treatment of Bahais, Treatment of Kurds, Treatment of Baluchis, press freedoms, murder of reformist, destroying all opposition by creating new Islamic election fitness standards, Ahmadinejad and every other IRI leader at every friday prayer gathering publicly saying Marg bar Amrica, Marg bar Israeel, Marg bar Engelis, Holocaust denial conferences, the World without Zionism Conferences....This is the reputation of our people Mammad. This is what we are known for. Are we known for anything else Mammad? Carpets? Pesteh?

Why fight and argue to make these Mullahs stronger Mammad? This nuclear program is not making Iran or Iranians stronger, its only strengthens their grip on the nation. Why do you want this? Why do you want these mullahs who have abused all of us in order to become stronger?

Iran has become a nation that can not compete in the world as a result of these Mullah policies. With all of our culture, wisdom and brain power, we as a nation can not compete with other nations! Look at South Korea, Look at Turkey, Look at Indonesia and look at the IRI.....


default

Let the IRI have nukes. It

by sickofiri (not verified) on

Let the IRI have nukes. It will only expedite their demise! Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. That is what the power that be are waiting for, anyway.


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Iran is an NPT signatory. They have the right to enrich uranium

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Your war dreams are shot. Get over yourselves. If you hate IRI, think of a better way of toppling it. This nuclear thing is complete BS made up by Israeli and MKO.


Fred

Islamist “us”

by Fred on

This is a threadbare Islamist tactic & I will not fall for it. You advocate nuke for the Islamist regime; I on the other hand advocate keeping it as far away from them as possible. My reasoning is simple and does not require an outline or one every other day convoluted long winded article as you apparently count as yet another one of your many self congratulatory talents.

Your Islamist brethren kill, the whole ideology is based on killing the opponents, for verification check any one of the hundreds of mass graves that Islamists are good at digging.  They have been doing it all along and as of this very moment are doing it in Iran, where they have the entire captive nation at their disposal and been at their killing for the past thirty years. For the live version of Islamists murdering watch them butchering the unarmed and defenseless in Bombay, the only thing the Islamists are good at.

No matter how their supporters and lobbyists try to sugarcoat their murder spree, the stench is too strong to be neutralized. BTW, I too read what you tried to pull with one of the mass killings and that the multiples of thousands of victims were “hardcore”.  

 To be as blunt as possible, I do not believe it is wise to trust mass murdering Islamist ideologues with a technology that has the capability of increasing their killing yield by the factor of gazillion. You on the other hand say it will be ok and the serial mass murderers should be trusted and given a chance to prove everyone wrong.  

When it comes to this sort of life or death situation, I prefer to stick with better safe than sorry over it takes one to know one Haji!  


Mammad

AnonymousIrooni

by Mammad on

1. I am sorry. I am old, slow, and not very bright. So, can you explain what part of what I say is crap? You seem to agree with most of what I say, but the "fine" line. While I do not know what the exact thinking of Iran's leaders are, I believe that they want to be a virtual nuclear state (as Mohamed ElBaradei has also said), rather than an actual one, which is the "crap" that I said in that video.

What I have said, which I stand by, despite you calling it crap, is based on all the credible evidence, reports, and analyses by the IAEA, and based on reading of the NPT, the IAEA Status, Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, the UN Charter, and all the relevant international laws. I have been researching this since 2000. Believe me, this takes countless number of hours. It is not something that you can do in a slow afternoon. 

Tell me (you do not have to, of course), how much research have you done on this, that makes you think you can speak so firmly about this issue? By reading I do not mean going to some right-wing or monarchist site, or listening to the true crap that Bush and neocons give us. Have you read the NPT, even at a superficial level? Have you read Iran's SG agreement with the IAEA which, by the way was signed in 1974 when the Shah was in power? Do you know what the IAEA Status says about when the dossier of a NPT member state should be send to the UN Security Council? The national rights of a state are independent of the type government that that nation has (that is why they are called NATIONAL rights). If they are given up, they can never be regained.

Now, you want to disagree with this assessment? I have no problem with it. You believe in what you believe based either on your gut feelings, or you can argue based on credible evidence, which should be based on what the IAEA has reported. If the latter is the case, I would like to hear your arguments (not of the type that you put in your comment below).

2. Soraya is fine and well. Thank you. As a matter of fact, I had dinner with her Tuesday night. I'll give her your "greetings."

3. It was me here in this column who told McCain lovers among Iranians who were having heart attack over the prospects of Obama victory that, the strategic goals of the US are the same, regardless of who the President is, and that Obama will be constrained by the same parameters as any other president.

Mammad


default

easy an-Irooni!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

An-irooni says: "Israel does not threaten Western, and the free world's, interest but the IRI does!"

Your "free world" is the biggest threat to itself. It appears you haven't been following the recent disastrous economical news, the biggest downturn after the great depression, caused by corruption, incompetence and criminal politicians of your "free world"!


default

Cut the Crap Mammad

by AnonymouseIrooni (not verified) on

You yourself have said that you believe the IRI at the end will have the capability and ability of building nukes. You, however, have qualified it by saying that they won't actually build it "unless they are in danger and if they are about to be attacked they will build it right before being attacked" (I am paraphrasing). You are trying to make these fine lines and ambiguities that just won't work for these IRI clowns.

I have seen the video where you say this. If you want us to say that the west is hypocritical about the IRI. Well sure! The West is hypocritical about the IRI 100%. The IRI is not Israel. As much as you would like to make the comparison or complain why the Israelis don't get such treatment. We know We know, the Israelis started so many wars......blah blah blah, the Zionist this and that, blah, blah, blah...at the end, Israel does not threaten Western, and the free world's, interest but the IRI does!

I could honestly see your point if Iran was a secular regime and was not situated in such a strategic geographical position. Unfortunately this is not the case. The people who are ruling the IRI are a bunch of animals. You know this yourself based on the personal treatment you have gotten from them. Although I would love for Iran to have nuclear power, I would hate to see it in the hands of these animals. Do you get it? So this is why you have this hypocrisy by the West.

By the way, were is your Zionist hating and Zionist obsessed friend Soraya? She has been unusually silent since the election. Maybe because of all the Zionists Obama has decided to include in his cabinet. It looks like Obama will be more Zionist than Bush maybe:))))


Mammad

FK

by Mammad on

When I said that your hatred of the IRI has made you blind, I did not mean any disrespect. You may be completely justified in your hatred, and you are entitled to your opinion regarding the IRI, whatever that may be.

However, the nuclear issue cannot be addressed or debated with slogans. There is only one impartial referee of this, and that is the IAEA, not Ahmadinejad, not Bush/USA/the West/, not anyone else. In addition, we either accept the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the IAEA Status, and Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, or we do not. If we do not, fine, there is nothing more to be said. If we do, then, what you say has no meaning whatsoever.

Much of what you said is your typical meaningless slogans, and then the same old, tired accusation of me supporting this or that. Your claim regarding me being sad over the collapse of the communism gave me a chuckle. Depending on who is attacking, I am an Islamist, or a communist, both, or worse!  I am first and foremost an independent thinker. I support what can be supported, and reject and criticize what cannot be.

When are you going to stop your slogans (we have heard them enough; your position regarding, for example, what I stand for is clear enough), and just stick to the subject that I brought up in my last comment? Respond to my remarks about the IAEA reports in my last comment.

There is one point in your otherwise meaningless "response" that I comment on:

Did 10,000 nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union, and 16 nuclear bombs of the apartheid regime in South Africa and its complete facilities for making many more (which, by the way, were developed with help from Israel) prevent them from collapsing? Of course, not.

If the IRI is removed from power, it won't be due to not having nuclear weapons. If it stays in power much longer, it won't be because it has nuclear weapons (which it does not have, and will not have). The two are simply not connected.

What those who say that if the IRI develops nuclear weapon will stay in power imply is that, with nuclear weapon Iran becomes unattackable, which means that they support, implicitly or explicitly, knowingly or unknowingly, military attacks on Iran.

Mammad


Mammad

Killjoy

by Mammad on

1. When one brings a particular article to the attention of people, and then give it his own title, one must be approving of the article.

2. I agree, but what does that have to do with me? I have called the 1988 killings a crime against humanity, and have said that those who were responsible for it should be put on trial. What else can I say to satisfy you, if I am to do this?

Mammad


Mammad

Fred, the intellectual

by Mammad on

Tell us what you think about Israel's 300 nuclear warheads. This is not my claim, but what Fecderation of American Scientists says. Tell us why you think Israel can have this arsenal, but Iran cannot even have uranium enrichment. Enlighten us. Teach us. Educate us. Give us a drop from your ocean of knowledge.

Let's see whether you can write a coherent short piece, outlining the reasoning for your opinion regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal, whatever it is. Let's see whether your only "expertise" is attacking others with smart a.., hit-and-run pharses (if they can be called that), or you are capable of moving beyond it.

Mammad


default

What Islamists don't

by sickofiri (not verified) on

What Islamists don't understand is that IRI is viewed as an extremist fascist religious regime.

That is a fact clear to all except the Islamic Republics cronies and beneficiaries.

Now, every single important extremist leader in the ME is either funded, trained or inspired by Islamic Republic's call for global jihad, its xenophobic attitude toward others, and by the cult of martyr-loving devotees in search of virgins in a brothel, called, "heaven";Just look at the (e.g., hate speech spewed in the mosques every Friday, death chants, school's curriculum of global jihad, etc).

This is not about a religion. It is about how this religion is being used as a utopian ideology (such as communism) to achieve world domination, nothing more and nothing less.
IR's response to Muslims attack in India:

Iran-President
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the Islamic Revolution of Iran is not limited to specific geographic or national borders.

"The Islamic Revolution is a deep and decisive move for all human beings," said the president during a ceremony to honor Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi.

Noting that the global arrogance was collapsing, the president said that the awakening people of the world were seeking great thoughts of the Iranian nation.

Referring to the present situation of the world, President Ahmadinejad stressed that further "strengthening of the Islamic system is the great duty of all Iranians."
1394**1412

//www1.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/081127551...

Essentially, Khamenie et al have declared war on all hte infidels and they expect, "peace"???

Don't expect the world to sit idly by and allow the muslim lunatics to wreack havoc in the world. Expect retaliation...

//www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/0045.ht...


default

the biggest thugs!?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "All that being said, your beloved IRI is a bunch of, literally, former thugs and “chaghoo kesh” and “laats” who are controlling the country now."

Kashani_jAn, chAghoo of a "chaghoo kesh" is no match for the nukes of an Israeli thug, that is why I hope Iranians change their mind and build the nukes. Even if Iran is un-beloved by me, I DON'T want to see it turned into another Afghanistan, or Iraq by those thugs whom you support.


default

Mammad,

by Killjoy (not verified) on

Two important points here,

1. This article wasn't written by Mr. Kashani. It's an article by Khaleej Times recommended by Mr. Kashani.

2. I don't think posting an article from a newspaper is as reprehensible as making excuses for the "bloodbath" of '88 which claimed more than thirty-five thousand victims.

Revising Iran's history and twisting historical facts while condoning such heinous crimes is tantamount to "blind hatred" for Iranians.


Farhad Kashani

Fred jaan, aziz,   The

by Farhad Kashani on

Fred jaan, aziz,

 

The only thing these Islamist leftists are “experts” in is how to justify for the murders and brutality of the IRI regime against the Iranian people, and how to come up with utterly despicable and at times, laughable, biased claims against America.

 

Fred jaan, they are getting increasingly bitter as Iranians are increasingly dismissing and rejecting their hateful ideology.

 

Lets stay on the course till Iran is free.


Farhad Kashani

Mammad, once you again you

by Farhad Kashani on

Mammad, once you again you have proven to us your misguided interpretations of realities and your clear bias of supporting a regime that has absolutely destroyed our country. What a shame that after 30 years of destruction of Iran, there are still few Iranians like you who bluntly support this barbaric regime.

 

Damn right I’m a proud “hater” of the IRI regime, just like the vast majority of Iranian people. In order for me to list the reasons for that, it will take me days, but here are the highlights, because this regime 1- Destroyed my country. 2- Initiated and inspired a culture of clash of civilization that is taking the world towards WWIII 3- Treats Iranians as sub humans. 4- Is the master of causing chaos in its region and the world. Because of those reasons, I don’t want the regime to get powerful, because if it gets powerful, it will stay longer in power, and if it stays longer in Iran, nothing would remain from Iran, and hell yeah, we, as a nation which is pioneer in civilization and humanity causes, deserve nothing even close like this regime. Now, that is our problem, and no one else’s, however, IRI is after the nuclear bomb, undoubtedly. Acquiring that technology means the guarantee of its survival. Obviously, you don’t give a flying crap about Iran, but I do. So, I don’t want that to happen. And a regime that ha nothing to hide, cooperates with the IAEA, and IAEA has said many times that IRI is not providing all the information required, so what does it have to hide?

 

I understand that you and your pals are still bitter over the fall of communism, and I understand that you hate America more than you love life. But this is not 1979, but rather 2008. in 2008, Iranians distinguish between the regime and our country. If we have a democratic and peace loving regime, I will be the first one who stands for its right not only for nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons.

 


Fred

Jack of all trades

by Fred on

Islamist nuke loving Sherlock Holmes says: “FK's hatred of the IRI has blinded him to facts and realities. And he often speaks about this issue, one for which he has no knowledge or expertise whatsoever.” The logical inference would be that  the Islamist  must be a nuclear expert and not a petroleum engineer and is supporting his Islamist regime’s all out push to acquire nuke capability with eyes wide open and heart full of love for IRI.