Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV

Or, click to learn more


« Middle East Inside Line: Arab League/Turkey Criticism of Israel, Peres v. Netanyahu, Armenia Complication for Turkey-Israel? | Main | Israel, Iran, and "Existential Threat" (Halpern) »

UPDATED Iran's Nukes: The Dangerous News of The New York Times

UPDATE 1500 GMT: More signals that the Sanger-Broad "news" of undeclared Iranian enrichment facilities as an imminent threat, either to security or to political strategy, is not supported by most Obama Administration officials . Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told ABC News this morning:
Here we go again.
We are going to continue to put pressure on Iran,” she said. “We’re going to have a coalition that will really put pressure on Iran and will stop them from doing what they are trying to do. Over the last year, what we’ve seen when the President came into office, there was a unified Iran. Now we’re seeing a lot of divisions within the country. And we’re seeing steady progress in terms of a world coalition that will put that pressure on Iran.

Iran's Nukes: False Alarm Journalism (Sick)

The declared line by both Jarrett and senior advisor David Axelrod is that the US is on the way to "a strong regime of sanctions" against Iran --- today's spin is that Russia is on board --- the more successful undeclared strategy is getting individual companies, both from pressure from the US Government and from Washington's allies, to leave Iran.

There had been a few weeks of silence from the Iran Nuclear Beat of The New York Times --- reporters David Sanger and William Broad --- since the last meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of February.

On that occasion, their reporting, fed by a set of IAEA and "Western" officials who want a tougher line on Tehran, had declared that the IAEA would issue a much tougher report over Iran's approach to a militarised nuclear programme. In the end, the statement of the IAEA's Secretary-General, Yukiya Amano, offered little new, even if Amano's rhetoric was a bit more strident than that of his predecessor, Mohammad el-Baradei.

Well, the boys are back this morning with a double-barrelled picture of showdown and possible war: the two declare, "Agencies Suspect Iran is Planning New Nuclear Sites", and Sanger adds the speculative piece, "Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran".

As usual, the Sanger/Broad article is constructed on a patchwork of "Western officials" using the pair as a channel for their line on Iran, some twisting of words, and a disregard for context. The very first sentence is a guide: "Six months after the revelation of a secret nuclear enrichment site in Iran...." ignores the fact that Tehran declared the "secret" site to the IAEA. (There is a justifiable argument that Iran was forced into the declaration because Western officials, based on intelligence, were about to "out" the Fordoo plant near Qom, but that's a complexity beyond the New York Times piece.)

In this case, Sanger and Broad's entire declaration of drama rests on the standard process of IAEA inspectors looking for any sign of undeclared Iranian uranium enrichment sites. This is not earth-shaking: a series of IAEA reports have declared that, while there is no sign that Iran has diverted uranium to enrichment for military purposes, the Agency is looking for full disclosure from Tehran.

So what's new? Here, beyond the breathless invocation that "this article is based on interviews with officials of several governments and international agencies", is the total of Sanger and Broad's research: 1) the head of Iran's nuclear energy agency, Ali Akhbar Salehi, said that Tehran would build more enrichment plants (which indicates that Iran's intentions are not exactly covert and, despite Sanger and Broad's claim, was noted by news sites like EA); 2) some "recently manufactured uranium enrichment equipment" is not yet in the Natanz or Fordoo plants (which leaves the far from ominous possibility that it might be awaiting shipment to those plants or may be put on a 3rd site if Iran backs up Salehi's claim).

And that's it. There is no evidence here --- none, nothing, nada --- that Iran has or is anywhere close to an undeclared operational enrichment site. There is nothing here which indicates that, even if the site existed, it is being set up for a military programme rather than as a plant for enrichment of uranium to the 20 percent allowed by international regulations.

(In fact, a sharp-eyed reader will note that Sanger and Broad weaken the shaky foundations of their analysis with this paragraph slipped into the middle of the article: "American officials say they share the I.A.E.A.’s suspicions and are examining satellite evidence about a number of suspected sites. But they have found no solid clues yet that Iran intends to use them to produce nuclear fuel, and they are less certain about the number of sites Iran may be planning.")

And there is nothing here which indicates that Sanger and Broad have even glanced at their series of articles over recent months which have breathlessly implied Iran's march to a covert military programme for its uranium, articles which have evaporated without support for their claims , propped up by IAEA officials upset with the Agency's leadership or by US Government officials seeking an outlet for political moves rather than by any substantial investigation.

So what's the big deal? If indeed this is poor journalism, it should dissipate just like its predecessors.

Well, even poor journalism can have consequences, especially when it is buttressed by ominous speculation. On the surface, Sanger's "Imagining an Israeli Strike" is an introduction to a simulation played out at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution in December, one which considered US and Iranian responses to an Iranian attack.

Nothing more here, in other words, than analysts testing out a scenario. Except that the timing of this article, placing it alongside the Sanger/Broad exaggeration of news, is far from subtle: if Iran is hiding uranium enrichment plants, couldn't that bring the bombers in from Tel Aviv?

All too predictably, Sanger and Broad's piece is being splashed across websites who support tougher Israeli and US action, possibly even a military strike, and are looking for "evidence" for their position: Fox News and The Jerusalem Post have circulated the piece. (To be fair, neither has added editorial comment elevating the language of fear and threat; I anticipate, however, that columnists will soon be jumping in.)

It's one thing for a series of commentators to bang the drum for an Israeli or even US strike on Iranian facilities --- almost all of those opinions are marginal in policy discussions in Washington. It's another for two reporters at the leading newspaper in America, under the guise of "news" rather than speculation or editorial comment, to offer support for that action.

That's not just poor journalism. That's dangerous journalism.

Reader Comments (47)

Well said Scott. "Here we go again" indeed - another breathless piece of unsourced war-mongering on behalf of the neocons, in the tradition of the Judith Miller/Michael R. Gordon -- "that side" of the NYTimes. Dangerous "journalism" indeed. And this is supposed to be the "liberal" side of American journalism.

It will be interesting if Clark Hoyt, the presumed "public editor," the "ombudsman for readers" will dare to weigh in on this slime -- or will he be forced to make excuses for them.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWilliam


Since when NY Times has been writing on behalf of neocons??? NY Times is left to the core. I lived in New York for ten years and read NY Times daily on the train. So that is news to me that NY Times (one side of it as you say) has become a right-winger news outlet or speaks for necons. Anytime you folks disagree with a view credit does not go to neocons.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMegan

Well, then count yourself to be enlightened Megan. One doesn't have to live in NY to read the NYTimes. Perhaps you missed or forgot the yellow cake story -- from the same tradition of "dangerous journalism" serving not as speaking truth to power, but of serving power? Ah, but if the term "neocon" trips you up; try "liberal hawks" serving a similar agenda.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

I think William's right. Plenty of the 'facts' that led people to support the invasion of Iraq (or at least allowed other journalists and lawmakers to say they'd been mislead into supporting the invasion) appeared in the NYT- yellowcake, aluminium tubes, Saddam's apparent a-bomb and bioterror programmes etc. That doesn't make the NYT right-wing of course, but people like Miller didn't exactly disagree with Bush, Cheney et al.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMike Dunn


I don't think that Sanger and Broad are "writing on behalf of neocons". Indeed, I think that neocons --- if the term refers to those expressing opinions like William Kristol, John Bolton, the editorial folks at the Wall Street Journal, and the advocates at the American Enterprise Institute --- are increasingly marginal in the Iran debate.

What makes the article significant, and in my opinion counter-productive, is that it does not position itself as "neocon" but as an "objective" report of Iran's nuclear capability, resting on the political manipulations and manoeuvres of some officials inside the IAEA and "Western governments".


March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterScott Lucas

I had such a laugh this am when I read the uber-revelation: "Agencies Suspect Iran Is Planning New Atomic Sites" (

THE REVELATION: Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had ordered work to begin soon on two new plants. The plants, he said, “will be built inside mountains,” presumably to protect them from attacks.

“God willing,” Mr. Salehi was quoted as saying, “we may start the construction of two new enrichment sites” in the Iranian new year, which began March 21.

The revelation that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency ... now believe that there may be two new sites comes at a crucial moment in the White House’s attempts to impose tough new sanctions against Iran.


I think a revelation is defined as "a striking disclosure of something not before known or realised". My only explanation is that the authors of this piece have been out to lunch since November 29, when Ahmadinejad said on state television:
"We need to spread out to numerous sites to produce nuclear fuel for us. We shall build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. The new enrichment facilities will be the same size as our main enrichment complex at Natanz and work will begin within two months. So, in total, we need to have 10 new sites for developing our enrichment activities."

And the day after, when any number of articles reported this story:
Iran will build up to 10 new uranium enrichment facilities
November 30, 2009

And continuously up through this story (also on many news outlets at the time):
February 23, 2010
Iran to start building 2 new enrichment sites next year
TEHRAN – Iran announced on Monday it plans to start building two new uranium enrichment facilities next year. Iran’s Persian calendar year begins on March 21.

“Hopefully, we may begin the construction of two new enrichment sites in the next Iranian year as ordered by the president,” Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Director Ali-Akbar Salehi told the Iranian Students News Agency on Monday.

Salehi also said the AEOI intends to use more modern centrifuges at the new sites. He added the facilities will be built inside mountains in order to protect them from any possible attack. “From now on our enrichment sites will not be open sites; (they) will be built inside mountains.”

And to this very day.....

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

RE: politcal bias of the NYT
Last Fall (I believe) an EA reader posted an excellent explanation of how the NYT was liberal/left-leaning on social issues and hawkish on National Security/War issues. I tried to find it using Google site search but without success.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

Imagining an Israel strike on Iran by a druged & drunk yankee ,,

for those of you who have read the story here are a few points ,, first is that Israel would never enjoy having the benefit of surprise and momentum because for a fact Iran is on an absolute stand by 24/7 and they can not even find a minute that Iran is not watching out for any such attack ,, two ) KSA knows well that if it allowed Israeli jets to refuel on its territory then this would have devestating consiquences for them which may well result in orchestrated uprisings all around the kingdom ,, lets not forget that the ben-ladan fans are as active and alive as ever in Saudi ,, three ) if Israel attacks Iran in any shape or form in any hour of the day or night you can be %100 sure that Iranian reaction and retaliation would be almost simoltanious and there would be no time for the US to step in and send weapons etc .... if they drop a bomb in Iran they would recieve Iranian missiles all over the small country before their fighter jets have landed back ,, if they can still find a place to land ,, Four ) the writter is saying things the other way around ,, in case of such confrontation it will be Israel who would be very much damaged and the minimal devestation would surely be in Iran ,, Israel is as big as the province of Tehran only ,, and Five ) if this stupidity which may be inavitable for Israel happens you can be sure that it will not end in 8 days at all ,, infact it may escallate more and more and involve many others in which case daggers would be worn on the outside then and forces united in such a magnificant opportunaty and try their best to set Israel in its place once and for all ,,
Israel may be able to start such a confrontation but it will never be able to manage it nor will it be able to end it ,,

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterartemiss

With much respect Scott, I'm surprised you seem to think neocon influence over Washington has diminished. Presume you know the expression, "whistling dixie." Perhaps by name -- the former leading "neocon" lights are now on the "out." (and Gosh, Kristol's NYT column is now gone) Yet consider that so many of the former "liberal" advocates of engagement have lately sounded an awful lot like the neocons of old..... (e.g., pushing for "getting on the side of history," regime change, encouraging Israel to start bombing, etc.) Of course, some will be quite upset by the association; but to bring up another ole saw, the new duck sure sounds, walks, & talks like the old one.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

Let's find some comfort in the fact that NYT's readers find it a dangerous article too... :-)

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWitteKr

Please let’s remember NY Times is the business of making money. Provocative headlines and articles pay rent. It also makes it look as if the editorial staff has a private line to policy makers in D.C.

With regard to Saddam yellow cake it was not just NY Times that was duped it was the entire U.S. and some international news organizations and the U.S. Congress for that matter. The entire country was still suffering from September 11 and there were no cooler heads to prevail.

With regard to Iran and its nuclear ambition, irrespective of whether NY Times dances to neocons tune or Liberal Hawks I as an Iranian give you heads up that those who dismiss Islamic Republic ambition to have nuclear weapon will have egg on their face. I know the culture and the dark ideology of those in power in Islamic Republic; I know what they are after and for that I do not need to read NY Times. I just hope for the sake of my compatriots (both in Iran and the U.S.) I do not have to tell you “I told you so”.

March 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMegan


William, Scott, Mike,

Please let’s remember NY Times is in the business of making money. Provocative headlines and articles pay rent. It also makes it look as if the editorial staff has a private line to policy makers in D.C.

With regard to Saddam yellow cake it was not just NY Times that was duped it was the entire U.S. and some international news organizations and the U.S. Congress for that matter. The entire country was still suffering from September 11 and there were no cooler heads to prevail.

With regard to Iran and its nuclear ambition, irrespective of whether NY Times dances to neocons tune or Liberal Hawks I as an Iranian give you heads up that those who dismiss Islamic Republic ambition to have nuclear weapon will have egg on their face. I know the culture and the dark ideology of those in power in Islamic Republic; I know what they are after and for that I do not need to read NY Times. I just hope for the sake of my compatriots (both in Iran and the U.S.) I do not have to tell you “I told you so”.

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMegan

Artemiss, peace activists all over the world are working around the clock to try to avoid any kind of confrontation between Israel/USA and Iran. If war were to break out, it could very well escalate as you say, into a huge conflict with uprisings all over.

However, it is very important that everyone be aware that there is no chance of things unfolding with minimal damage to Iran but severe damage to Israel. There would be severe damage to both countries. The USA does not need to move anything or wait any amount of time to assist its ally Israel should hostilities break out. Ballistic missiles are already positioned in many locations to immediately strike Iran or intercept missiles coming out of Iran. The situation is already very, very dangerous for everyone.

In my opinion, because I believe, as Megan says, that this Regime is actually pursuing nuclear weapons, and is using taqiyya when it says it is not, and because that is absolutely unacceptable to the US and Israel due to previously set-in-stone nuclear policies, the only path to peace out of this situation is the Green path.

It is the Regime's ideological nature, making it ineligible to participate in the standard Mutually Assured Destruction framework, that is the reason for the US/Israeli objection to nuclear weapons for Iran. If the people of Iran can achieve their freedom and install a true democracy, nobody would object to them being treated the same as other democracies where nukes are concerned.

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen

It’s really dangerous. We do not admit that any country attack Iran....ANY COUNTRY!.
Be sure if Israel attacks Iran all Iranians as well I as someone who loves green movement and peace will be unified with the government to defense our country. We never attack anywhere so nowhere should attack us!

Why do they hate Iran? Wasn’t the imposed war with Iraq enough for them? The stupid war which really weakened both countries!

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterkiterunner


You ask why do the western countries "hate" Iran? I do not believe that either the people of the western countries or their Governments "hate" Iran or the Iranian people. I do believe that they fear Iran. And why do they fear Iran?? Not because Iran is strong or powerful( becaus eit is not) - but because of what your President says. He is a madman - like Hitler. He has told us what he intends to do - like Hitler did. The western countries right now are in much a similar situation that they were in the 1930's. They do not want war - but they are faced with a madman that does. It is coming - the same as it was in around 1938. There are many pacifists - as there was in 1938. But they are powerless to stop it. The only difefrence now is that Iran is NOT Nazi Germany. The Germans were smart, intelligent and built a powerful military force.


March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBarry

I guess this is the best place for the following article I read 2 weeks ago. I don't know how true Khan's written account is because Pakistan has never disclosed it. For what it's worth:
Pakistani scientist Khan describes Iranian efforts to buy nuclear bombs

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

Even if Iran wanted a bomb at the end of the 1980s, that doesn't mean it still does. I am often (but not completely) persuaded by those who argue it's all about achieving break-out capability in order to keep the rest of the the region and western powers on tenterhooks (not exactly a smart policy - but an effective bluff may be better than a powerless reality, as Saddam Hussein learned with his WMDs).

Then again, Iran having a token bomb is not seen as the end of the world by everyone: A nuclear Iran is more than likely but it's not the end of the world

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine


Thanks for your very true and correct comments ,, yes, Iran and Israel would both be damaged and maybe even devestated ,, but as a person and citizen I dont know why I and others like me would have to pay for the disagreement of other individuals ?! I am personally against no one and beleive that the time for wars of such nature must be well over now ,, why do we as the ordinary people have to spend our lives because of ideology ,, as far as I am concerned everyone must be allowed to have whatever ideology they like ,, so long as freedom of others is not taken away then all should do what they like ,, but you know I sometimes think that travelling in the present world is also travelling in time since in one part people live in 2050 and in another they still live in 1850 ,,

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterartemiss


You should be a analyst for Fox News, it suites you.. what`s up with the fear mongering? Iran is not germany and AN is not Hitler... AN is a puppet, dosen`t matter how many times he denies the holocoust. The Iran nuclear thing has been an issue in washington since Clinton, and back then they said iran was a few years away from getting a bomb. if you really think AN is Hitler.. then ask yourself.. why hasn`t Israel attacked.... I tell you why.. because they know that IRan will not launch an attack even if they get a bomb.. washington maximazies on this nuclear issue.. only last year they`ve sold billions of dollars of weapon to arab gulf states.. believe. me if US thought that Iran would use the bomb.. they would have attacked along time ago... US fear is only that iran will get more influence in the gulf.. and more control over the oil.

I`ll suggest you read Robert Baer`s book " the devil we know"

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGarry


In the region Iran is strong enough although we want to develop much more. I think all human beings have the right to be strong.

Pay attention that Ahmadinejad is the chief of administration and in Iran's political system it means only about 15 percent of power. The most important figure in Iran is the leader. Only the leader can order to start or stop a war. Moreover Ahmadinejad has not ever said he wants to attack any country.
Finally be sure:
The absolute majority of Iranians of any wings r pacifists and r strongly against wars.

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterkiterunner

Is iran working on a nuclear bomb? Is seems that way, though they do it with just enough denyablilty to keep them on the right side of the line.

Can anything be done about it? Probably not. We should not sell them the technology, but realistically, someone will.

The policy should be no policy other than a reminder that if Iran or one of their terrorist proxies uses nuclear weapons, Iran ceases to exist 30 minutes later.

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAnthony

Anthony, you've hit on the main problem. Normally, a country getting nukes isn't that big of a deal, because they can be expected to act within the realm of rational self-preservation, which means never, ever actually using them. The problem is that the current IRI leaders have made such extreme and extremely bizarre statements and actions, repeatedly, over so long, that there is much doubt as to whether these leaders would follow the self-preservation line of thinking.

Secretary Clinton has expressed that the US policy is that the world can't depend on the current Iranian leaders being deterred by knowing that if they or their proxies attacked anyone, assured destruction would follow. Khomeini was willing to execute tens of thousands of Iranians just for what he perceived as insulting him. It's not unthinkable that his successor would not mind sacrificing millions of Iranians in order to achieve the Regime's long-stated goal of wiping out what they perceive to be an illegitimate invading army in the region, Israel. We can see from the recent brutal videos how little Iranian people are worth to their leaders.

When leaders care more about their vision of prophesy, or righting an old historical grievance, than the people actually standing around them, logical reasoning doesn't always work on them. It's true, as many people have said over and over, that Iran is peaceful and has not attacked anyone in centuries, but this current Regime is completely different than the Iranian culture that maintained that peace over those centuries. THIS Iran only has 30 years of history to draw from, and 8 of those were spent at war. This Regime, with its emphasis on death and mourning and hostility toward outsiders, can't get credit for all the greatness of Iran that came before it.

This is the reason why Iran is treated differently than other countries. There's no mysterious cabal trying to keep Iran oppressed, it's simply that those entrusted with defending the USA do not believe that the current Iranian Regime would act logically for the best interests of the people of Iran, were it to acquire nuclear weapons.

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen


First of all we r against any kind of wars specially highly destructive atomic ones

Secondly, do not threaten Iranians plz! Remember Iran n Iranians has been existing since thousands of years ago! at least they have had a government since more than 2500 years ago. Many tried to cause Iran not to exist but they couldn’t. many came n went and come and go but Iran remains.

One more thing: sanctions on Iran only hamper more democracy in Iran. What do the West earn from putting sanctions on Iran? Nothing! They just lose good economic opportunities n make troubles for Iranians.
For example why developed countries don’t sell us high tech passenger airplanes? Do u know we encounter many problems because of this and many die?
When America doesn’t sell us good and safe plans the government is forced to buy awful planes, Topoloves , from Russia!
Whom sanctions help?!

March 29, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterkiterunner

A new york times article may only be used for public opinion perpuses and since the nuclear issue is the hottest & national security, military and foreign policy staff do not base their deceisions on a NYT article, hundreds of analysts, intelligence units, military planners, foreign policy advisors and so on have to work 24-7 on various options untill they come to the concluusin that war is the last resort. As one of you mentioned, NYT before enything is the business of making $$ and what would be more attractive to the eye of magazine hunters than a nuclear warning?

Islamic Republic's main nuclear goal is having bombs for the following reasons:

1- take a look at Iran's oil fields in Khark, Queshm, Lavan, Khosestan, Boshehr, etc. Pay attention to the huge torches of fire near oil fields, that's natural gas enough to produce electricity equal to 4 Booshehr nuclear plants burned 24-7-365. With less than 5% of the expense & challenge of building a nuclear plant, all that energy can be used to produce free electricty permanently w/o the heavy expense of maintaining nuke plants, enrichment, waste disposal and handling & so on!!

2- Iran's electricity doeant have the power grid capacity to handle the any electricty production above current level. Did you know that most Iran's neighbors including Turkey, Pakistan & Afghanistan buy electricity from Iran & Iran's main peoblem that causes constent power outage is because of the lack of electrical DELIVERY capacity, NOT production. the fact that most (over 90%) of Iran's high voltage power grits were built before the revolution when th country's population was 1/2 of now, urban population 1/3 of current & electric consumptions 1/5 of current level. That means even if Iran produces more electricity 1st of all there is no use for it and 2nd not capable of delivering it.

3- economical reasons: in a country that all the oil revenue is used for military spending, funneled to the Hizbullah, Hamas & other terrorist organizations and the rest of the $$ stolen from the nation, laundered and invested in private firms, real estate or blackout bank accounts in Swiss, China, Dubai, India, Cananada, England, Germany and so on, while the majority of popultion that relies private sector which relies mainly on non-oil industries and businesses are suffering. Do you think they even care about Iran's national interest? If they really care, at least they would've invested the money they steal from the nation inside the country to help generate the economy! IRI the opposite of its name, is not a republic, people do not have any vice & the parliamnet members are just a bunch of pre-selected dummies & have no power or authrity of their own.

4- if IRI really had peaceful intentions, it would've allowed the inspectors to inspect all the sites, acted transparently & followed international regulations.

5- IRI has all the reasons and intentions to want nuclear weapons, from the Islamo-suicidal Mahdavi ideology Ahmadinejad, Khamenei & most their crew are based on to their proven record of terrorism, terrorist support, proxy wars they've fought, funding, funding & arming the most violent terrorist organizations, undermining the development of democracy in Iraq & Afghanistan, publically & officially calling for the destruction of Israel while chanting death to US and Israel since the day IRI was established and so on

6- If IRI decides to minimize the risk of involvement while carring nuclear attacks on Israel or other targets, nuke warheads & rocket parts can be transfered by airplanes owned by the IRGC & never inspected neither in Syria, Dubai nor Iran or smuggled through a combination of sea and landsm crossed from the Syrian boders, assmbled in a gurage within few miles of Israeli border & shot w/o giving israelis a chance to use anti-air missel system. One single nuclear rockett exploded in the air is enough to cause very serious destruction and guess what, IR can't be directly blamed.

Don't think America is so far away from IRI's hands, Chavez allowed the Lebanese Hezbollah members to freely organize training camps, muques, etc. they are given so much power and freedom in Venezuela that the head of immigration minstry in Venezuellas was appointed by Cavez a Hezbollah Lebanese member so he can freely authorize any Hezbollah entry!!!
Also Ahmadinejad and Chavez had a plan of a Nuclear village & there are several secret industrial developments deep in the jungles & mountains are built in Venezuella by IRGC (possibilty of being nuclear sites) now imagine if IR posesses the warheads, they can be shipped to Venezuellay, there the Lebanese Hezbollah board them on fishing ship & explode near American sea shores. So not only Israel, but also America will be in danger.

Since IRI & Europe had godd relationships over the sweet deals IRI has been giving them such as oil & mineral explorations & filling their museums with priceless looted ancient Iranian artifacts, we haven't considered a potential nuclear attack on Europe. Don't you remeber the train bombing in Spain and other terrorist bombings in Europe, also how a cartoon was about start a world war III? Of course Iran didn't have nothing to do w/them, but time will change and IRI may secretly arm other terrorists to carryout the attacks.

as an Iranian, I am 100% certain that the IRI has the intention to produce nuclear weapons
Most ppl don't have any logical understanding of how the Iranian regime functions, Iran does not have a leadership centered around a single individual, but instead it is ran by a mafia. Iran's parliament, supreme court, constirution, even supreme leadership & president are all a show case to give the IR the appearence of a modern government. They don't even follow their own stone age constitution, regime pretends to be Islamic while the toppest Islamic figures in the country are jailed, exiled or silenced. Undreds of tonns of weaponry safely make their way from Iran to Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq & Afghanistan. Iran's leadership, economy, military, politics, drug trade, etc are all devided between 2 mafias always in competition with one another, the IRGC all the smaller famillies it's made of & Rafsanjani & partners.
Khmenei himself acts based on others decisions because he needs them for protection.

IRGC the mafia in control of the entire security of iran, up to 75% of GDP, airport, border, nationa, intel, naval, domestic, cyber security, owns its own airlines & the airlines (Aseman Air is 100% owned by IRGC & major shares in all other airlines) are only inspeted by IRGC staff.

March 30, 2010 | Unregistered Commentercyrus

Ah nice kitchen-sink speech/screed "Cyrus"..... and which MEK/FDD script did you find this speech on? You say you're "Iranian." And what would you say to the commonly heard expression, across the political divides inside Iran, that nuclear energy is Iran's right? (quite separate from weapons) How would you explain the Shah's nuclear program? If you really were iranian, you'd understand the nationalist implications of seeking nuclear energy.

March 30, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPicard

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>