FOCUS

To friends of Israel: Ahmadinejad Has Screwed Us Again!

We, "the Jewish people", are alone. Alone facing the monsters and evils of the world: from backward Arabs, to fire-breathing Iranians, to an anti-Semitic world. We, the ultimate victims, stand proud, fighting courageously till the end, the others' attempt at annihilating us. The beasts of Iran were just about to rain a nuclear holocaust on our head, until suddenly, a paper monster it turned out to be, by the admission of Bush's intelligence community, which not long ago provided the American empire and Israel with the needed pretext to commit aggression and destroy the country of Iraq. We can't handle it; how dare that SOB AhmadiNejad not be the monster we so eagerly wanted him to be? He's surely bluffing, (after all, we are notorious in being able to hide a nuclear program) and the American intelligence community, (which certainly used reports from the Mossad to reach its conclusions) , are plain naive, and, lest we forget, anti-Semites. How can we justify our endless militarization and conquest, if not in the name of being victims threatened at any moment with annihilations. And worse of all, when the world stops focusing on the Iranian monster, they might notice what we're doing to the Palestinians. This is unacceptable; the situation is intolerable; we're suffocating .. bring back the threat to our existence NOW!

Jamshid aka Eskiel

Jamshid :"The west is NOT denying Iran's rights to nuclear technology. They even competed with each other to sell the most modern nuclear technology to Iran, and we Iranians being picky, we took our time and choose the ones who offered us the best package. hata baarashoon naazam mikardim. Of course I am talking about the Shah's period."

Your loyal servant and good shabbat goy Shah , Mord , ( died ) . Get that in your ears . Those days will never come back for you .

Oh BTW , Go tell your Hasbra instructors that we Iranians want the money that we invested during the Shah in Israel to develop missiles that are now pointed at us . Don't forget the interest !

To: Ben Madadi: I am glad you are not in charge of Iran

You lack the basic education, knowledge, and understanding that states that energy, and in particular CHEAP energy is one of the main issues of progress for iran today. Lets give just one example and may be you will start thinking: Iran lacks water resources. The country has been suffering from lack of rain and effects of desertification and lack of echo based systems that produce rain for at least 40 years. Water is a main resource for agriculture which can be the first step towards independence of a nation (food that is -- in case you are confused). One major project in Iran is to pipe water from the caspian, persian gulf and the like into the desert inside the country and in parts that are close to large cities and create "artificail lakes" so that this causes change in the environment, and prepares the atmosphere for rain and in effect help to create forsts and other sources of natural water. That project cannot even take off unless CHEAP energy is available. This project in its entirety requires at least 3-4 fully operational nuclear power stations each at MILLIONS of MEGAWATTS. This is one among hundreds of projects currently on drawing boards which require nuclear power to produce CHEAP energy in abundance. Go figure the rest Ahmagh agha.

Mehdi and his trust issues !!!

Mehdi :"The problem is that nuclear tech, especially enrichment could potentially bring a country closer to the creation of a nuclear weapon. So in that light, the concern here, at least the "apparent" concern, is that Iran's government is not trusted enough."

And why is that ? Have they invaded any country ? have they stolen any land and water from their neighbores ? Have they shown any suicidal tendecies in past 30 years ?

Nuclear technolgy and pro-IRI's deceptive tactics

The west is NOT denying Iran's rights to nuclear technology. They even competed with each other to sell the most modern nuclear technology to Iran, and we Iranians being picky, we took our time and choose the ones who offered us the best package. hata baarashoon naazam mikardim. Of course I am talking about the Shah's period.

So the west does not deny Iran nuclear technology as a matter of principle. It is the IRI which is being denied. And it is the IRI and its insane politics that is depriving Iranians from not just nuclear technology but also many other more important technologies.

The pro-IRI individuals here keep on focusing on the "Iran's rights are being denied" idea only to divert attention from the fact that Iran rights ARE being denied, NOT by west, but by the IRI.

This is a successful deception tactic that works in Iran and in this site as well. Look at how many people with good intentions are debating endlessly with these pro-IRI individuals.

To Ben: Iran has every right to nuclear power. Don't let these bachek akhoonds divert your attention and make a subject out of whether we need nuclear power or not. That is not the issue. Focus on the fact that it is the IRI is DENYING Iran's rights to nuclear and many other advanced technlogies, and not the west. It is the IRI that is denying Iran's rights to human rights as well, and not the west. The problem is the IRI and its ideology.

1974 need to read the history of his zionist forefathers

1974 :"Does inviting a former KKK member by the name of David Duke to a holocust conference not deserve a "massive propaganda machine"? "

Hey , at leat they just invited KKK , they did not cooperated with Nazis as your Zionist forefathers did .

David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1938 a month after Kristallnacht, "If I knew it was possible to save all (Jewish) children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the latter -- because we are faced not only with the accounting of these (Jewish) children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People."

Ben

Ben :"It is worth further elaboration to see whether IRAN needs nuclear technology or not!"

And would you mind telling us who the hell are you to think you have the right to think any one should dictate to Iran what it need or doesn't need ?

Did anyone do any further study to see if that aparthied racist state in middle east need nuclear BOMB before they get 400 of them and threaten the whole region if not the whole world ?

First get it through your thick head

It is for IRAN to decide if it needs to develop a NUCLEAR Industry or not.

Dweller on the Threshold - Sya own with USA

You people are out of touch with reality.
With over 1000 000 Iraqi children murdered for OIL,
USA is the most hated government in in the ME and the world.

Go get a JOB and WORK for 25+ only to hear you are replaceable ....

WEll, Iran is not replaceable. IRAN does not need permission from US to do develop Irans Industries.

If you are a real Iranian ?

Tell me where do you plan to spend your retirement ?

IRAN ?

Probably NOT. If that is the case STOP pretending to being Iranian .

(Like this fucking site - Chicago Pizza: The only place is not from is Chicago).

American.com

Further elaboration

It is worth further elaboration to see whether IRAN needs nuclear technology or not! Some detailed article from someone else wouldn't hurt. Does Iran, a country with so many natural resources, especially gas, that are mostly untapped, need to spend so much money on risky and polluting technology like the nuclear technology and also risk International isolation? Or what Iran really needs is more jobs, a better organised economy and improvement in human rights? What will this nuclear technology bring anyway? As far as I have studied... this nuclear technology smells nothing but a way to develop weapons, or at least to have the capacity to develop atomic bombs. It simply makes no economic sense whatsoever!!!

Good Job Anonymous 1974B! Nazanin exposed as Arezu.

Looks like you exposed this supporter of IRI dictators under a different name. Good Job!

I smell alot of IRI Supporters

Iran doesn't need nuclear technology as a first priority. This is another IRI show to distract the people of Iran from their real problems (freedom of speech, Individual rights, un employment, inflation and more....While some here are hypocrite and blame the USA as an Imperialist monster who wants nothing but Iran's oil and resources, I believe Iran's enemy is from within (IRI). We should stop accusing USA for putting its nose into Iran's affair and instead work towards a free Iran. I have message for those passive and IRI supporters (Shame on you). I challenge those who don't agree with my comment.

Hey Arezu- Dodging the question like Nazanin?

No one accused you of plagiarizing smarty koon. Please read what I said or do you only copy and paste without reading? You are dodging the questions posed to you just like Nazanin joon. You conveniently leave half the story and facts out of your copying and pasting to make your false claims and analysis. Please explain the David Duke paradox smarty koon- why did Ahmadinejad invite a KKK leader to a Holocust conference? Please explain the hanging of people in public under Ahmadinejad smarty koon. Please explain the hanging of children for crimes committed as children under Ahmadinejad. Please explain the stoning of women. You are only a big shot when it comes to attacking zionists and copying and pasting far lefty propaganda? Please explain Ahmadinejad seeing the light of Mehdi during his speech? Please explain how "there are no gays in Iran". Suddenly when we corner you with questions you don't feel like answering, you don't want your time waisted smarty koon? good come back with the lollipops, cookies, milk and bugs bunny. Answer the question Nazanin. Answer the questions we asked. Stop dodging.

Go see your monkey president at his best:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=o467fUGPBF4

To:Anonymous 1974B, educated definitely, I also read do you?

Hi dear little kid Anonymous number 1974B:

I don't need to provide you with my credentials. You won’t understand it.

No kidding, I cut and pasted it, I even gave you the links; I was not plagiarizing (WONDER IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING?). Various individuals wanted facts and sources; as such I provided exactly that - this is what we learn in school. We don't plagiarize!! Remember this!

Have you taken a preliminary English class or are you still in First grade? I wonder! If you have not, let me just give you a bit of a teach in -, the first thing your teacher should have taught you is to ensure you don’t copy someone else’s work, and if you are using their words verbatim you ensure that you provide the source. So maybe you want to remember this for your next writing assignment at school, it will help you so that you won’t receive an “F”!!

By the way stop wasting my time, I don’t have time for little brats like you, go suck on your lollipop or get a glass of cookies and milk from your mommy and watch bugs bunny.

To: Mehdi - Confidence Building is a two way street

Dear Mehdi:

Though I disagree with you regarding your statement that Iran does not have an immediate need for nuclear energy, the issue with the U.S. is not Iran's nuclear energy program, it is regime change, in order to supplant a puppet regime that will kowtow to U.S. demands. A regime which will provide the U.S. with a foothold in another oil,gas, and uranium rich country, Iran. It is unfortunately, the U.S. Imperialist need to have hegemonic control in the Middle East. This is not conspiracy theory, or another pro-IRI talk as many are going to say, it is the reality.

You speak about why not suspend Iran's nuclear facility for a while in order to build confidence. However, trust is a two way street. Iran has tried for years to build confidence with the international community, but nothing was ever sufficient for the U.S. As such, Iran already knows that if it stops enrichment this lead to another set of excuses after another.

We have already seen this. First it was Iran's desire to develope nuclear weapons, when this was not being bought off by the IAEA, Russia, China and other countries; it switched to Iran providing IED's which have killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq (mind you with absolutely not one single evidence or proof at all); then it is support for terrorist organizations; and then it is human rights violation.

We know for a fact that there are many countries which have records far worse than Iran in every single area that the U.S. is pointing to Iran, however as they are "allies" of the U.S. they can get away with anything. The U.S. simply turns a blind eye.

Unfortunately, the U.S. double standards and hypocrisy have damaged its credibility in the world. It is the U.S. which needs to build confidence with Iran based on mutual respect and its rights under international law. I would also recommend that you read this article written by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, December 7, 2007:

BUSH's REAL LIE ABOUT IRAN

DESPITE RECENT CLAIMS OTHERWISE, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REBUFFED NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN AT EVERY TURN -- A MAJOR STRATEGIC BLUNDER

//www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/07/ir...

(THE FOLLOWING IS JUST AN EXCERPT OF THE ARTICLE: YOU SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE)

"Rather, the real lie is the president's claim that his administration has made a serious offer to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, and that Iranian intransigence is the only thing preventing a diplomatic resolution.

Negotiations over Iran's nuclear activities started in the fall of 2003, initiated not by the United States, but by the "EU-3" -- Britain, France and Germany. Iran, for its part, agreed to suspend its nuclear activities as talks proceeded. But, contrary to Bush's statement at his press conference this week, the United States did not "facilitate" these negotiations.

For more than two years, the Europeans tried to "drag" the administration in, but to no avail.

In the spring of 2005, in the face of European pleas for U.S. support, President Bush grudgingly approved token gestures.

Finally, in 2006, faced with a breakdown in international support for sanctioning the Islamic Republic, the Bush administration reluctantly agreed to join the EU-3, Russia and China in nuclear negotiations with Iran, if Tehran would again suspend its nuclear activities. But the administration negated the impact of its decision by effectively gutting the major powers' offer to negotiate.

On their own, the Europeans had crafted an incentives "package" for nuclear talks in 2005, intended to clarify the benefits that could flow to Iran from a negotiated settlement. This package included provisions for economic and technological cooperation with Tehran. It also contained a substantial section on regional security, including offers of a security guarantee and recognition of a regional role for the Islamic Republic. But to have real significance, such offers needed to be endorsed by the United States -- Europe could not, on its own, assure Iran's security needs, especially as President Bush and other senior U.S. officials publicly challenged the Islamic Republic's legitimacy.

Unfortunately, when the Bush administration finally decided to back a multilateral offer for nuclear negotiations with Iran in 2006, it refused to endorse the incentives package unless the language dealing with regional security issues was removed. Senior British, French, German and EU officials have told us they recognized that removing these provisions would render the package meaningless from an Iranian perspective .

The diplomatic efforts of our European allies and other international partners to broker serious negotiations with Iran are doomed to fail until this deficit in U.S. policy is corrected.

The Iranian leadership -- a collective in which Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful player -- wants a strategic "deal" addressing Iran's core interests: security, the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, and Iran's regional role. Even with Ahmadinejad in office, Tehran has tried repeatedly -- through discussions with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and other channels -- to elicit some indication that Washington would be willing to consider Iran's security interests and regional role as part of a negotiating agenda , but President Bush has consistently refused to allow this. It is in this context that the significance of Bush's real lie about Iran is exposed: The Bush administration has never offered to negotiate with Tehran on any basis that might actually be attractive to the Islamic Republic's leadership.
__________________________________________________

ALSO IF YOU WISH TO KNOW THE CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES THAT IRAN HAS UNDER TAKEN IN ORDER TO BUILD CONFIDENCE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THEY DID - ONLY TO REBUFFED BY THE U.S.
___________________________________________
What measures has Iran taken for “confidence building”:

In October 2003, Iran entered into an understanding with France, Germany and the UK (Tehran Agreement) with the explicit expectation to open a new chapter of full transparency, cooperation and access to nuclear and other advanced technologies. Iran agreed to a number of important transparency and voluntary confidence building measures.

These confidence building programs included:

 It signed and immediately began full implementation of the Additional Protocol;
 It opened its doors to one of the most expansive and intrusive IAEA inspections;
 It provided a detailed account of its peaceful nuclear activities, all of which had been carried out in full conformity with its rights and obligations under the NPT;
 It maintained for over 2 years a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment of Uranium as a confidence building measure;
 It further expanded its voluntary suspension in February and November 2004, following agreements with EU-3 in Brussels and Paris respectively, to incorporate activities which go well beyond the original IAEA’s definition of “enrichment” and even “enrichment-related” activities.

Regretfully, Iran received very little, if anything, in return for its transparency, cooperation and voluntary suspension of the exercise of its legitimate and inalienable right. The European negotiating partners, pressured by the U.S., instead of carrying out their promises of cooperation and open access, have repeatedly called for expansion of Iran’s voluntary confidence building measures only to be reciprocated by more broken promises and expanded requests. In spite of its repeated and publicized claims the EU-3 never offered, throughout the negotiations process, any meaningful incentives to Iran, other than empty and demeaning “promises” of “consideration” of “possible future cooperation”

In November 2004, following extensive negotiations, Iran and the EU-3 agreed on a package that has become known as the Paris Agreement. The objective of the Paris Agreement was to “move forward” in “negotiations, with a view to reach mutually acceptable agreements on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.”

The Paris Agreement envisaged that “while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements,” and “to build further confidence, Iran decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and processing activities.”

At the same time, the EU-3 recognized “that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation” as well as “Iran’s rights under the NPT exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination.”

The Paris Agreement rested on the premise that the purpose of the Agreement was reaching mutually acceptable long term arrangements and that suspension was a temporary measure for as long as negotiations were making progress. The Agreement further envisaged specific mechanisms to monitor and assess progress.

In March 2005, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, senior officials from Iran and EU-3 were mandated to make an assessment of the progress that had been achieved. It became evident that even though Iran had made many significant and far-reaching proposals benefiting both sides, the EU-3 faced with extraneous pressure, were simply trying to prolong fruitless negotiations. This policy, in addition to its devastating impact on mutual trust, was detrimental to Iran’s interest and rights as it attempted to superficially prolong Iran’s voluntary suspension by dragging the negotiations.

In short it became evident that after massive pressure from the United States in the winter of 2005, the EU-3 had conceded to unilaterally altering the Paris Agreement into solely an instrument of de-facto cessation of Iranian peaceful enrichment program, in violation of the letter and spirit of that Agreement.

In February 2005, Iran suggested to the EU-3 to ask the IAEA to develop technical, legal, and monitoring modalities for Iran’s enrichment program as objective guarantees to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would remain exclusively for peaceful purposes. While one member of the EU-3 accepted the suggestion, unfortunately the lack of consensus among the Eu-3 members prevented resort to IAEA as an authoritative and impartial framework for solving the impasse.

On March 23, 2005, in a clear stated desire to salvage the Paris Agreement, Iran offered a collection of solutions for objective guarantees suggested by various independent scientist and observers from the United States and Europe.

The package included:
 Strong mutually beneficial relations between Iran, and the EU/EU-3, which would provide the best guarantee for respect of the concerns of each side;
 Confinement of Iran’s enrichment program, in order to preclude through objective technical guarantees any proliferation concern:
o Open fuel cycle, to remove any concern about reprocessing and production of plutonium;
o Ceiling of enrichment at LEU (Low Enrichment Uranium) level;

o Limitation to the extent of the enrichment program to solely meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran’s power reactors;
o Immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment;
o Incremental and phased approach to implementation in order to begin with the least sensitive aspects of the enrichment program and to gradually move to enrichment as confidence in the program would be enhanced

 Legislative and regulatory measures
o Additional Protocol;
o Permanent ban on development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons through binding national legislation;
 Enhanced monitoring
o Continued implementation of the Additional Protocol; and
o Continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities to provide unprecedented added guarantees.

Regardless of how much Iran continued to further its good-faith to salvage the process by suggesting negotiated resumption. Iran gave the EU-3 until August 2005 that is nine months after the Agreement.

Iran made it clear in Geneva that any proposal by the EU-3 must incorporate EU-3’s perception of objective guarantees for the gradual resumption of Iran’s enrichment program, and that any attempt to turn objective guarantees into cessation or long-term suspension were incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement and therefore unacceptable to Iran.

On August 5th, 2005, Iran received a disappointing proposal. It not only failed to address Iran’s rights for peaceful development of
nuclear technology, but did not offer anything to Iran in return. The proposal self-righteously assumed rights and licenses for the EU-3 which clearly went beyond or even contravened international law and assumed obligations for Iran which have no place in practice or law. It incorporated a series of one-sided and self-serving extra-legal demands from Iran, ranging from accepting infringements on its sovereignty to relinquishing its inalienable rights.

The proposal had absolutely no firm guarantees or commitments and did not even incorporate meaningful or serious offers of cooperation to Iran. The EU-3 never bothered responding to the March 23, 2005 letter sent by Iran outlining additional confidence building measures that Iran was willing to take.

So as a result of these failures of the EU to negotiate in good faith the Iranians announced they would resume the uranium conversion – subject to IAEA Safeguards – they had voluntarily suspended. The Iranians continued to maintain suspension of full enrichment related activities and resume only the UCF process, which is by definition a pre-enrichment process.

In effect the Iranians viewed the actions or in-actions for that matter of the EU as a breach of the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement as well as the principles of good faith-negotiations.

According to Dr. Gordon Prather (Physicist) – “We know why the EU never made a substantial offer. And why the EU never responded to the Iranian substantial offer. Bush-Cheney-Bolton wouldn’t let them.

Bush-Cheney-Bolton must have know what was in the Iranian offer shortly after March 23, weeks before the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT (RevCon) held in May.

It was obvious that Bush-Cheney-Bolton wanted a failed diplomacy and intended to place Iran under the strictest guidelines so that it would either leave the NPT providing an

excuse for taking the matter to the UN, a prelude to waging a war a la Iraq, or make sure that Iranian regime does exactly what the U.S. tells it to do, as such a regime change within itself, or less another excuse would be created to do a coup d’etat and bring in a puppet regime.

The EU could not even provide security guarantee to the Iranians or the guarantee that there would be no attempt by the U.S. to change the regime of Iran. They couldn’t give such guarantees because they cannot commit on behalf of the U.S. Obviously, the Iranians knew that the ultimate goal was regime change.

In September 2005 during the Summit of the United Nations once again engaged in dialogue with the EU-3 and other interested delegations. The President of Iran during his address to the UN General Assembly made another far reaching offer of added guarantee by inviting international partnership in Iran’s enrichment activities.

The proposal given was an offer for foreign governments and companies to hold 35% share of investment and practically contribute in and monitor the uranium enrichment in Natanz, central Iran. The 35% share is was not just meant to be an investment, but the ability for such governments and companies to have an active presence in the process of uranium enrichment and production of nuclear fuel. This was the best kind of international supervision totally negating any possibility of diversion toward weapons.

In March 2006 certain members of the IAEA Board claimed to have been unable to satisfy themselves about “the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s program.” Hence the Board called on Iran to:
 “reestablish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency”;
 “reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water”;
 “Pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on December 18, 2003”;
 “implement transparency measures as requested by the director general, including in GOV/2005/67, which extends beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations.”

But then the Board went on to :

“Request the director general to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these steps are required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue.”

No referral?

Just a request that Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei report to the Security Council the absolutely outrageous discriminatory demands that his Board of Governors has made of Iran – an IAEA member in undisputed compliance with its Safeguards Agreement and the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons?

 What the U.S. is doing is attempting to eradicate Iran’s inalienable rights under the NPT
 This action by the Bush Administration is destruction of the foundation of the NPT.
 But the Bush Administration itself is in violation of the NPT – NPT prohibition against Bush’s assisting India with its nuclear weapons program;
 And the NPT prohibition against Bush’s preventing Russia and China from facilitating Iran’s enjoyment – without-discrimination – of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
 The U.S. has been the most frequent violator of its NPT obligations.

Yes Arezu (Nazanine) You are very educated :)

Yes Arezu you are very educated. Copy and paste far left analysis to prove your point. Copy and paste from any where in the internet to prove that Ahmadinejad deserves respect. Very original Nazanine joon. Its very easy to do in the internet these days. You call copying and pasting b.s. from other websites to support your lefty (pro terrorist leaning IRI views) as homework?
Does inviting a former KKK member by the name of David Duke to a holocust conference not deserve a "massive propaganda machine"? Very rational for you and your love monkey Antarinejad I guess. What would happen if someone in America invited David Duke to a conference about "the World without blacks" smart koon? You don't expect any reaction to that? You do not think that the invitee to such a conference would be demonized like Iran inviting a racist idiot to a Holocust conference?

You are on the fringe Nazanine joon. 99% of the people on this website like me: love Iran, love Islam, love Iran but hate the IRI because its a savage regime.
Iran is savage Because it goes and executes 17 year old boys who allegedly committed crimes when they were 13 years old. Why is it "difficult for you to understand" or admit that the IRI is evil and deserves to be demonized for such actions? go search the web for rationalization of executing minors and copy and paste it for us please. Kudos to you Nazanine a/k/a Arezu for waisting your energy on defending Ahmadinejad and his idiotic comments. Is there also a lefty explanation regarding Ahmadinejad
seeing the hidden Imam while making his great speech at the UN?

Who is doing the b.s.? Boro to Ayineh negah kon. It appears that you have not done your homework.

Re: Nader Vanaki

What you say is true. I don't think anybody is denying that aquiring nuclear technology is generally good for a country - although nuclear power in general still has its opponents. The problem is that nuclear tech, especially enrichment could potentially bring a country closer to the creation of a nuclear weapon. So in that light, the concern here, at least the "apparent" concern, is that Iran's government is not trusted enough. Especially when its president goes on record, even if in for a show, threatens Israel and sets up events to dispute the Holocust, etc. Most people and countries realize that the international laws have most likely not been violated by Iran but most of these countries also have concerns about the possibility of Iran "potentially" getting access to a nuclear weapon. I think because of these, a lot of countries turn a blind eye on the international laws. I think that's why the US resolved that Iran must stop enrichment until the matter has been studied further.


The point here then really is a matter of trust. Now Iran could act like George Bush and try to go forward despite this or iran could pipe down just a little and choose to resolve such trust related concerns first. I think in the interest of peace and future of Iran and also because the enrichment tech is not an urgent need for Iran, it should choose to abide by the UN resolution and work on nuclear tech based on importing the fuel and meanwhile work with the UN and remove the lack of trust that they have. That does take some work though, doesn't it?

To:Anonymous1974b to bad that truth bothers you!!

Obviously from this discourse it demonstrates many are still "illiterate" and are in dire need of education.

First, I have far too much integrity and principles to hide behind someone else's name to express facts.

Second: I have no clue who this person Nazanin Ghasemian is that you are speaking about. But if she has made similar comments kudos to her for daring to speak the truth in such an anti-Iranian web-site.

Third: Too bad for you that facts to correct false propaganda are too difficult for you to understand.
This seems to be the problem with many on this web-site who hate it when one corrects the massive propaganda machine that has been used to demonize Iran and Ahmadinejad. Call me pro IRI all you like, but it will not change the truth.

Fourth, I don't need your plane ticket to go to Iran or anyone else's. So, keep your pennies for yourself.

Finally, it is more appropriate that you stop the b.s. and do some homework as opposed to saber-ratelling the same b.s. we have heard over and over again. No intelligent, educated, well read, and well informed individual is buying this crap any more.

People's Priorities

People's priorities are certainly not reading cut and paste jobs from various websites about things that are irrelevant to the subject in discussion. It does not make for an elaborate analysis if we simply cut and paste ramblings from various sources.

Your conclusion is totally wrong Ben since you do not realize that apart from energy, it will creat jobs and spin off technologies in welding, metallurgy, controls, power generation, electronics, structures, heat transfer, manufacturing, safety, reliability etc....

So filter out all the noise you have so far heard and read on this crummy website and other news analyses, or whatever Wolf Blitzer would like to feed the public from 'Situation Room' and look at the absolute meaning of it all. It is good for the country. And if George Bush and his buddies had any brains they would start dialog and propose to aid Iran in building nuclear reactors and transferring this technology instead of the lame stance he has now.

you haven't learned from history (to MRX)

you said, "So apparently we Iranaian do not learn from history"
My friend, you haven't leaned from history, many of us have. Let's turn the table around. Why should Iranians trust a bunch of people including an alcoholic who cook up wars. The latest one (Iraq war) which is still going on. Specially when the same group of people not long ago orchestrated Iraq war against Iran and gave the Iraqis chemical weapons which were used against Iranians.

Arezu is Nazanin Ghasemian

We missed your BS on this site. Nice to have you back under a different name. Nazanin, why don't you and live in the IRI please. I will pay for your ticket.

:Mehdi

Thanks for you comments! For my statement that the technology is out-dated and unsafe I have no statistics but there are many reliable sources for this. Remember Chernobyl? Iranian technology is probably worse than that! Even the West hesitates developing too much nuclear plants/installations because of its safety concerns, and don't forget that Western technology is far superior to that of Russia and Ukrain etc. And of course, Iran is buying the technology from Russia mainly, and the rest are clandestine, maybe North Korea, maybe some unofficial Pakistani providers. I don't think there are any clear statistics anywhere because I have not given any numbers and keep in mind that we are talking about Iran where objective and clear statistics are not often there anyway, for many things.

Logic is some thing we Iranian do not seem to have!

When a country like Japan or France pursue nuclear energy, it's because they have no other source of energy to fuel their economey. When you are seating on top off the second largest natural gas resources in the world and instead of using that you spend billions of dollars to pursue nunclear energy, then the question comes up why? you are either in love with nuclear energy (which I don't think it's the case in here. Although may be some where in Quran there is refernce to nuclear energy!!!) or let's face it you want to develop nuclear bomb period! If you trust this bunch to develop nuclear bomb, then you either have an screw loose some where, or you have not learned that tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and missiles did not prevent disintegeration of soviet union nor has it helped pakistan in any shape or form. So apparently we Iranaian do not learn from history nor do we use any logic in our life, which explains why the country is so fucked up!

No case For Needing Nuclear Power

Maybe there is a case but I don't see it. Articles referenced by CyrusC are not convincing to me. Not enough numbers and statistics to clearly show the need. Sure, Iran is developing and needs more power but Iran could also invest in building refineries and increase gas productoin and reduce its need to import refined oil product at such high prices. Besides, the west is willing to live with Iran having nuclear power plants; they are just fighting against enrichment tech (right or wrong). Why not to calm things down for the moment and just live with that until such time that the issue can be resolved in the UN?

Besides, Iran could also invest in petroleum technology instead. The Bushehr plant, I am not sure what happened to it, could produce so much raw material for Iran and for export that would push Iran way up in the air as far as power, technology and money. So I can't see why instead Iranian president gives a speach against Israel - no matter what he said exactly. I am no fan of Israel. I just don't see the point in taking up such a challenge. I could be wrong but I think if Iran completed Bushehr project 30 years ago, or anytime within that period, it would bring in so much money and power that it could build a whole new country in Palestine that would make Israel like a ghetto. Why not do that instead and win the situation without rasing a finger? Wouldn't that be a better statement to make?

I still think that the main point of Madadi's writing is valid but not the exagerated general statements.

"regime change" had/has nothing to do with Nuclear issue

Bush/neocon policies for "regime change in Iran", "new middle east", and putting Iran in axis of evil had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Some of these policies were defined by neocons as early as late 90's.
If the cooked up Iraq invasion had been as successful as expected (or not a miserable failure- however you put it), Iran would have been next, regardless. In fact some of the neocons (like Michael Ledeen) were advocating attacking Iran first, then Iraq.
Mr. Ben, fortunately many in IRI (Khamenei in particular) are much smarter than you. So far they have played the game very nicely and protected the people and the country that you claim to care about.

Iran DOES need nuclear energy

Iran needs nuclear energy:
//www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/11/ir...

For once and for all, lets put this myth to rest:

Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics
Author: David Wood
Journal: Atoms for Peace: an International Journal
2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 - 300

Abstract: Rapid growth in Iran's domestic energy demand and its dependence on oil exports for revenue
has forced it to consider alternative future energy solutions...

Iran’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Bolstered by Petroleum Geopolitics
Energy Tribune, Dec. 11, 2006
[G]iven Iran’s ongoing energy struggles, it makes sense, both economically and from an energy point of view, for the country to be pursuing nuclear power. Why? Iran simply doesn’t have enough gas production to increase its electricity production in the short term. It does, however, have a surfeit of uranium.

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Sunday, March 27, 2005

The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive
By David Isenberg
Asia Times Aug 24, 2005

Forced to Fuel by M Sahami
Harvard Int'l Law Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005

Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran's
Nuclear program
Iran Affairs May 30 2007

Iran actually is short of oil
by Roger Stern
International Herald Tribune January 8, 2007

Energy : Iran needs nuclear power
By Mohammad Sahimi, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh and Kaveh L.
Afrasiabi
International Herald Tribune
Published: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003

Excellent comments by both dariushabadi and Mehdi

I don't need to add anymore when both Dariushabadi and Mehdi provided valid and in-depth analysis of the current political and social dynamics with respect to Iran.

Thank you gentlemen for your excellent and intelligent analysis.

However, one thing that needs to be cleared is the demonization and mis-translation of the Iranian President's statement that has been used by both the White House, the neocons, the Zionists, as well as the Israeli propaganda machine with respect to this statement "Israel being wipped off the map".

This statement has been a premise by which the U.S. and Israel declare Iran to be threat to the existance of Israel, and Iran's intent of nuking Israel, therefore a threat to the peace and security of not only the countries in the Middle East but also the U.S., Europe and the world.

Now if Iran had such a power we should definitely proclaim it to be the real super-power, which we all know it is not.

As such for clarity of purpose I would highly suggest that individuals who still believe this mis-translated statement to read what Ahmadinejad actually said. This is coming directly from credible sources such as: the New York Times, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, who speaks Arabic and Persian fluently, as well as tons of other documents and web-sites who have published the correct translation.

I will leave you with just a few, in the hopes that just as Mehdi said, we do not exaggerate situations to such an extent that we drive countries to war and destruction over nothing...

I want to apologize in advance for this lengthy document, however, I believe that it is imperative that we get our facts right as opposed to preaching the propaganda that is being fed to us by a biased media.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE FULL ARTICLES SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS ISSUES FROM POINT OF FACT vs. MYTH:

Thank you all for your time.
______________________________________

//www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30i...

Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.
The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.
"Wiping Israel off the map"

Last October, The New York Times printed a translation of a transcript of a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, translated by Nazila Fathi in their Tehran bureau. I wrote this at the time:
The Iranian Foreign Ministry responded to the U.N. statement by saying that "Iran is loyal to its commitments based on the U.N. charter and it has never used or threatened to use force against any country," and indeed, a reading of Ahmadinejad's statement suggests quite clearly that the "wiped off the map" is to be taken literally (i.e., that the political boundaries of the region should be redrawn), and not figurately as meaning "wiped off the face of the earth." He explicitly denies that he is talking about "A fight between Judaism and other religions," and explicitly describes the endpoint of the struggle in the Middle East by saying: "It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power." There is no talk of "driving the Jews into the sea" or "waging war against Israel" or anything remotely along those lines, merely the expression of support for the goal of a democratic Palestinian state. And for that, he is condemned by the U.N., while real aggressor states like the U.S. and U.K. (not to mention Israel) are among those who do the condemning.......

_____________________________________
//www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-an...

Juan Cole the translation itself was incorrect!

The actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

________________________________________

//www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-n...

Article by Professor Juan Cole from University of Michigan

Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"
Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution

“Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).

If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about?

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.”

_______________________________________________

Ahmadinejad: Lost in translation

//www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12...

Nowhere does he demand the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He called for greater governance for Palestine. The word map does not even feature. And the president makes plain that the Holocaust happened, but, he argues western powers have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialistic purposes. What the mainstream ran with is complete deception.

The deception has been aided by the fact that much of the media use an ‘independent’ company called Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) for translating Middle Eastern languages. Memri just happens to be owned by two right-wing neo-con Israelis: Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of one of Dick Cheney’s aides (and ex-special assistant to ‘Strap-on’ John Bolton), David Wurmser and former(?) Israeli Military Intelligence officer, Colonel Yigal Carmon. Indeed a look at Wikipedia’ s incomplete staff list seems to suggest a heavy Israeli bias in staffing and at least two more ex-Israeli Military Intelligence people. Still the little red email is sure that’s just a coincidence, as is the fact that the Israeli army (presumably military intelligence) has also used this mistranslation tactic in the past.

And once Ahmadinejad had been brushed with the wacko Jew destroyer tag, it was a short hop, skip and ein Sprung before he was alongside Adolf Hitler in the pantheon of baddies. Like Milosevic and Hussein before him, Ahmadinejad’s Hitler comparison is as sure a sign war is imminent...................

______________________________________________

//www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12...

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map -Does He Deny The Holocaust?

An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .

By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann
Translation to English: Erik Appleby
Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)
It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.

Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.

Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence.

As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:
................................................

_____________________________________________

//lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/ev...

He wants to wipe Israel off the map! That’s what we were told in our news media’s hysterical reporting of Ahmadinejad's speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran on 26 October 2005. Except it turns out that, when correctly translated, he didn’t really say that Israel must be wiped off the map, but that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time", which is not a threat of war or annihilation, but an expression of hope for regime change. Ahmadinejad isn’t a Zionist. He doesn’t believe that the Muslim-majority land of Palestine should be forcibly transformed into a Jewish state, and his speech is an expression of confidence that Zionist rule over Jerusalem will come to an end just as surely as other once-powerful regimes (he cites the examples of the Shah in Iran, the Communists in the Soviet Union, and Saddam’s rule over Iraq) all came to an end. If you look at the Middle East through a Zionist perspective, you might not like to hear that, but it doesn’t give anyone the right to pretend that he’s threatening to launch nukes at Tel Aviv or drive the Jews into the sea, as the “wiped off the map” language would suggest.

Too Much Opinions No Facts or Statistics

The title and the main point of your article is very valid but unfortunately you veer off too much and you state a lot of opinions with no statistics to back it up. Frankly, it sounds like you just don't like the regime and use this issue to repeat old grievences. the claims you make about Iran not needing electricity or that their nuclear technology is out-dated, that it is probably unsafe, etc. is not based on any facts or statistics or references. Sounds like a bunch of personal opinions by someone who simply doesn't like the regime.

It is very true that nuclear energey at this point should not be such an important issue for IRI to the point of pushing the country to the verge of a disasterous war. It is very true that "wiping Israel off the map" must not be an agenda for IRI, no matter what we, or they think of the Israel-Palestine problem.

However, I for one do not feel that "all" Iranians live in fear of the regime. It is simply not true. As far as I know Iranians living abroad can travel back and forth to Iran with practically no fear. And I am talking about by far the greater majority here. we all know people within Iran are no living a life of freedom but it simply is not as bad as you say it is. The picture you draw of the regime is just exagerated way too much. I do not believe that IRI has "no" respect for human rights. You might say relative to such and such countries, human rights violations are higher or something like that. But I don't think you can even say that Iran has the worst human rights violation records in the world. I think it is important to keep things as factual as possible and not just create a hype. We all know that there are too many human rights violations, so let's report it as it is. It will make your article more respectable.

You say the US and EU are concerned that Iran may build a nuclear weapon and that is the reason they fight Iran's attempt at learning nuclear technology at all. This is not necessarily true. If you consider the fact that Israel intelligence agents, as early as 1980's, knew exactly what piece of nuclear technology Iran did have and did not have, and also the fact that the CIA supposedly "accedentaly" (if you can believe that) provided bomb making technology to Iran (supposedly the intention was to damage Iran's technology in this area), you will get suspicious of why all of a sudden now they are creating such a hype. The fact may be that they are hiding other reasons under the guise of nuclear threat. They always need an excuse to intervene, don't they? So your article is very naive in that sense.

But you rmain point is well taken and is very valid. I for one think that Iran should have stopped enrichment for now until such time that the UN would allow it, even if this means a violation of iran's law according to international law. It just makes sense to do so. This would be a small "sacrifice" for the good of all.

Grammaer error: maybe JJ would fix it...

Marinating... it is maintaining... there are other smaller errors too... well, dear reader, sorry for that!

Complete waste of money

Iran has the largest natural gas reserve in the world after russia. If you just use the gas that is being burned every day (by product of pumping oil) you will be able to generate enough electricty for god knows how many years.
This is just a case of mad men wanting to have nuclear bomb and a greedy russian/korean or who ever
found perfect opportunity to rip us off. you know IRI is guve shiredeh that gives free milk to any one. well except may be to it's own citizen!