Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: [MO] Iran: the next target?

US claims over Iran's nuclear programme
sound eerily familiar
Jonathan Steele
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian
History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over
Iran. Just two years after the notorious Downing Street
dossier on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass
destruction and the first efforts to get United Nations
approval for war, Washington is trying to create
similar pressures for action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.
The immediate focus for action against Iran is the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which has produced
five reports on Iran in the last 14 months. Part of the
UN, with an international board which acts like a mini
security council, the IAEA's reports have raised
questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear
programme and its desire to create its own fuel cycle
which could eventually be used to produce bombs.
To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow
so-called intrusive inspections. As a confidence-
building measure, it also stopped enriching uranium. In
a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new report, and
it is its wording which is causing the latest flurry.
John Bolton, the Bush administration's point-man, has
been rushing round Europe claiming the evidence of
sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even though the
IAEA has consistently made no such judgment. It has
called for more transparency, but prefers to keep
probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN weapons
inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs more time.
Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that
nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and let
Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology - with the
safeguards that go with it - which countries like
Germany and France have promised.
Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have
intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After
the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he has
not started to trumpet US sources. But he is choosing
to interpret the available knowledge as harshly as
possible. He is also close to the Washington hardliners
in the Project for the New American Century, who
created the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against
unfriendly states and who favour regime change to deal
with Islamist fundamentalism.
Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of
Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said
last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at
this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if it
happened."
There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two
years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in going
to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say Iran has
violated its commitments under the nuclear non-
proliferation treaty and take the matter to the
security council for a decision on sanctions or other
stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move
to the UN.
Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not talking
about a full-scale US invasion with ground troops. It
has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan
to spare many for a third campaign. The talk is of
using US special forces or airstrikes to destroy Iran's
nuclear facilities, or giving a green light to Israel
to do it. Slightly less impatiently, there are hints
that the CIA will step up its campaign to overthrow the
regime in Tehran by encouraging anti-government TV and
radio broadcasts from abroad and infiltrating
opposition movements.
The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's stance.
Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam Hussein,
Britain is siding this time with France and Germany. It
is part of a "troika" which promotes constructive
engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. Their
dialogue ran into a sticky phase this summer with
allegations of bad faith on both sides, but the three
European states are willing to keep it going.
They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq
war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order
make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous
and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on
Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and
harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle
East, especially if Washington subcontracted the
attacks to the Israeli air force.
Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on
nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different.
People of all political persuasions in Tehran support
their country's right to have nuclear power, and
probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is not
the most intelligent way to persuade them otherwise.
The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's
unfair elections, as well as the certainty that
President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less
liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of
dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the
emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in
the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal with
than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven years.
Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq war who
are influenced by nationalism and economic imperatives
more than the revolutionary Islamic ideology of the
Khomeini generation. They want better relations with
the west.
Britain's difference with Washington on Iran is
remarkable. It matters more than the better-publicised
splits on the Kyoto environmental protocol or the
international criminal court. But does Britain's
alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that
Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key
geo-political and military issue? Or has he not yet
spotted that what he regards as the lily-livered
flunkies in the Foreign Office are up to their
"realist" tricks again? They also opposed the invasion
of Iraq until Ol' Laser-Eyes in Downing Street focused
on the file.
We will know the answer after the US election. Even if
Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change
in Washington's policy to wards Iran. Like Cuba, Iran
produces special symptoms of irrationality (because of
the unrevenged wound to US pride the mullahs caused
when they held diplomats hostage in the embassy a
quarter of a century ago).
So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What
easier way than to break with France and Germany and
show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a
Republican in the White House, Britain's prime minister
is still best friends when it comes to being tough with
Islamist bullies and taking the brave and moral route
to war? Inshallah, no.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1291894,00.html
_______________________________________________________

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:sh7wocja16b9.xs4dbdewdmry$.dlg@40tude.net...


Riletto ora il mio post.
Perdonate meraviglie quali "la telefonata gliel'ho fatto" e "arammenti" e
via dicendo... ma sono le 8 del mattino e ho scritto di rabbia, di getto, e
con musica nelle orecchie. Chiedo venia.
ec

esattamente l'11 settembre 2001.
Con tutto il rispetto, ma questo te lo sapevo dire anch'io (che non
scrivo libri strani), e con lo stesso livello di precisione...

AP wrote:
ma cosa vuol dire il tag MO ?????
-- 
  ___________________         100% COMMERCIALE
|,-----.,-----.,---.\        
http://scirio.altervista.org
||     ||     ||    \\       Crea Cruciverba:
|`-----'|-----||-----\`----. 
http://scirio.altervista.org/cruciverber/
[ SCIRIO|    -||-   _|    (| Crea test:
[  ,--. |_____||___/.--.   | 
http://scirio.altervista.org/test/
=-(( `))-----------(( `))-== 1 barza al giorno?
    `--'             `--'     
http://scirio.altervista.org/iscriviti.php

 
Medio Oriente?

 ma cosa vuol dire il tag MO ?????
I punti di domanda sono uno oppure tre, e si attaccano alla parola che
segue.
Ho visto la tua foto, secondo me piu' che la palestra farebbero miracoli
delle scarpe con una bella zeppa.
La lettura di una qualunque giornale, anche superficiale e limitate ai
titoli, piu' recente di 20 anni, potrebbe dirti molto sul tag MO.

Metal_Lord wrote:

non era cosě scontanto, eh? ;-)


 
lo dicevo io che il medio oriente era un'invenzione dei mas media


 anche tu rodi perchè c'ho qualche muscoletto senza praticamente fare niente?
Se non fai palestra hai dei noduli tumorali all'addome, non prenderla
sottogamba.
Non serve uno scienziato atomico per capire che sei la classica "mezza
porzione".

 porzione".
Sono più veloce e ho più tecnica, questo basta per vincere contro i 
"normal user"


  E vedrai che entro un anno bombarderanno Iraq, Iran e Siria.
E perche' la Corea del Nord no?

Administration) 
Agency, non Admin.
E cmq i tre target circolavano nei media giŕ dopo 2 setimane dal 9/11.
Sai che dritta...
-------------
"Non č solo la carrozzeria...č un problema di meccanica, anche."
Spaceman Spiff

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:uud8j0l00edds351f...@4ax.com...


 E perche' la Corea del Nord no?
potrebbero confondersi e bombardare quella del sud.
perche' credi abbiano messo sia l'Iran che l'Iraq?
(e ringrazia che non esiste uno stato che si chiama "Itulia"!) 
-- 
Matteo L.  - for mailbox messages sum 36 + 36
Frozen warnings close to mine
Close to the frozen borderline


Tranquillo, non siamo l'accademia della crusca  ;D
--
rIO.sK