| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: Iran reportedly readies for attack in March |
| Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:39:43 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Iran reportedly readies for attack in March
Sorry, no URL available at the moment, but the switch to euros by Iran is far more significant than had Saddam done it. The US appears to be approaching a desperate economic crisis for which there are no winning options.
Iran reportedly readies for attack in March
TurkishPress.com – January 29, 2006
Teheran is getting ready to counter a “preemptive strike” by USA and Israel. The Air Force Command of the Revolutionary Guard has ordered its Shahap-3 Missile Units to keep their mobile missile ramps in motion in preparation for such an attack. Responding to this order, in darkness of the night the primary missile ramps have been moved to Kirmanshah and Hamedan, and the reserve ramps to Isfahan and Fars regions.
The above actions are the basis for the efforts of the USA to attract Russia and China, as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to its side, and for commenting that a military intervention is always on the table. These actions are also the basis for Israel’s overt preparation for a possible offensive action and for making authoritative announcements that it “will not permit Iran” to proceed with its nuclear plans. Suddenly, all these activities have created a renewed global atmosphere of war. They are spreading anxiety and paranoia.
Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has never accepted any international agreement on nuclear weapons, and has never allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities. Yet, it is aggressively beating the war drums as if Iran is the country involved in nuclear development in the area. What kind of innocence is this?
Attacks to selected centers in Iran are foreseen to take place sometime in March-June.
Even the Pope called upon Russia and China, requesting that they reconsider the subject of Iran. Iran can do what the Arab countries cannot: withdrawing its funds deposited at Western banks and moving them to Asian banks.
Somehow, big steps are seemingly being taken toward a war. According to them, just two months remain. Within the next two months, confusing allegations will resonate as to how much of a threat Iran has become.
So, why was the month of March chosen? What is behind the prediction that Iran will carry out a nuclear experiment in March? In other words, why are the USA and Israel drawing global attention to the month of March? Why are Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia being pushed into a race of weapons build-up by bringing up the possibility that they may also acquire nuclear weapons?
Because, there is another event expected to occur in March, which could have an impact on the economy of the USA equivalent to a nuclear attack: in March, Teheran will implement its 2004 decision that it will start using the Euro instead of the Dollar in its petroleum trade, establishing a petroleum market, and breaking the “petrodollar” monopoly. Iran will open its petroleum market in March. Euro will replace Dollar in the petroleum trade. This will constitute a major attack on a vital component of the American Empire. Once the decision is implemented, a real debate will start on this doomsday scenario for the American economy.
Thereafter, the monopoly of USA/United Kingdom in international petroleum trade will collapse. The petroleum markets in New York and London will receive a heavy blow. The International Petroleum Market in London and the New York Mercantile Exchange controlled by the Americans are in a state of panic.
The Iranian position is being supported by the Chinese. The Japanese are also inclined to switch to Euro; this way, they could lower their Dollar reserves.
What are the implications of the widespread switch to the Euro, and the preference of Russia, European Union, Japan and some of the Arab countries to use the Euro in petroleum trade? What would happen if Russia that has major trade relations with Europe, China and Japan were to start using the Euro in the energy market? What would happen if the petroleum-producing Arab countries would also see the Euro as the alternative to compensate for the loss of Dollar’s value? Indeed, loss of Dollar’s value will force many countries to prefer the Euro.
This scenario will progressively lead to a profitable business.
If these issues were to lead to an escape from the Dollar, and dramatically reduce the flow of money to the USA, what will be the shape of the American economy?
There lies the wisdom of the month of March. This danger hides behind the hullabaloo that Iran will conduct a nuclear experiment in March. An Iranian petroleum market that is indexed on the Euro is more dangerous for the USA than any nuclear weapon.
The USA, which is working on controlling global petroleum markets under the label of “fighting terrorism” is actually fighting an economic war. However, as it becomes more and more aggressive, it is sinking deeper and deeper...
Information distributed by electronic mail by a reliable source in Turkey. Verbatim translation from Turkish into English language.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=105626 | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: Iran Strikes Back at Big Five Decision |
| Iran Strikes Back at Big Five Decision
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated
Press Writer
1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Iran struck back Tuesday at the Big Five's decision to refer the country's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying the move has no legal justification and would be the end of diplomacy.
At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of Tuesday, envoys of the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia agreed to recommend that the International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
They also decided the Security Council should wait until March to take up Iran's nuclear file after a formal report on Tehran's activities from the U.N. agency, which meets Thursday in Vienna.
"Reporting Iran's dossier to the U.N. Security Council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy," said Iran's leading nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. State television quoted him as sayiny Iran still believes the issue can be resolved peacefully.
Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also runs Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said it was difficult to predict how the IAEA meeting on Thursday would develop, the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency reported.
"The biggest problem for the West is that they can't find any (legal) justification to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council," ISNA quoted him as saying.
Larijani also reproached Europe for the London decision, which was taken at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and attended by the foreign minister of Germany and the foreign policy chief of the European Union.
"Europeans should pay more attention. Iran has called for dialogue and is moving in the direction of reaching an agreement through peaceful means," Larijani said.
Hours earlier, British, French and German representatives had met Larijani's deputy, Javad Vaedi, in Brussels for last-ditch talks on the dispute, but failed to make any progress.
Last week, Larijani flew to Moscow and Beijing to seek Russian and Chinese support against the Western drive to refer Iran to the Security Council.
The decision by Russia and China to vote for referral surprised observers as the two nations have consistently counselled caution on Iran's nuclear file. Both have major economic ties with Iran.
A French government official, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity, said the Russian and Chinese ministers had been persuaded of the need to show a united front.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to build atomic weapons. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is only for generating electricity.
Iran broke IAEA seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and resumed small-scale enrichment. The decision provoked an outcry as enrichment is a process that can produce material for nuclear reactors or bombs. Britain, France and Germany, who had been negotiating with Iran, said they would press the IAEA to refer the matter to the Security Council.
If the IAEA votes to refer Iran to the Security Council on Thursday, Iran is likely to retaliate immediately.
Iran's parliament has approved a law requiring the government to stop all voluntary cooperation with IAEA in the event of referral. This would mean that Iran stops allowing IAEA inspectors to carry out intrusive searches of its facilities and the country resumes large-scale enrichment of uranium.
Iran insists it has the right as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to build nuclear power stations and produce their fuel by enriching its own uranium.
But the United States and Europe do not trust that Iran would enrich uranium only for peaceful purposes because the country has concealed significant aspects of its nuclear program in the past.
While the IAEA has said it has found no evidence of Iran's building nuclear weapons, it has refused to give Iran a clean bill of health because of numerous unanswered questions over its atomic program. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: Iran Vows to Complete Its Nuclear Program |
| Iran Vows to Complete Its Nuclear Program
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
27 minutes ago
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Wednesday that his country will resist Western pressures to constrain its nuclear program, a day before a key vote by the U.N. nuclear watchdog likely to put Iran before the Security Council.
"In nuclear energy, our nation will continue its path until full realization of its rights," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Bushehr, southern Iran, the site of Iran's only nuclear power plant.
"Nuclear energy is our right, and we will resist until this right is fully realized," he said.
Ahmadinejad's speech, broadcast live on state-run television, came hours after President Bush increased the pressure on Iran, saying in his State of the Union address Tuesday night that Iran "is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."
The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors will meet in Vienna, Austria, on Thursday, where Iran's nuclear program may be reported to the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Security Council reached surprising agreement Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before the powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said late Tuesday that Iran would end surprise inspections of its facilities by U.N. monitors and resume frozen nuclear activities if Tehran is reported to the Security Council.
"If it happens, the government will be required under the law to end the suspension of all nuclear activities it has voluntarily halted," Mottaki said.
Ahmadinejad also said Wednesday that Iran won't give in to "bully countries."
"Our nation can't give in to the coercion of some bully countries who imagine they are the whole world and see themselves equal to the entire globe," he said.
His speech drew chants of "Nuclear energy is our right" from the crowd.
Iran insists its nuclear program is civilian only and has no other purpose than to generate power. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed to build a warhead. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran |
| Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran
Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:58 PM ET
By Steve Holland
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States will rise to Israel's defense if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.
In a Reuters interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Bush also said he saw a "very good chance" that the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.
"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.
Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."
Ahmadinejad has prompted international condemnation for anti-Israel rhetoric in recent weeks, including saying it should be wiped off the map, and also calling into question the Holocaust.
Iran is engaged in a stand-off over its nuclear program. Tehran insists its program is aimed at developing nuclear power and the United States and other international powers charge it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Asked if he thought the IAEA will refer Iran to the Security Council, Bush said: "The IAEA must take a look at the facts, and listen carefully to the arguments, and there's a very good chance it will."
The council's five permanent members, including a reluctant Russia and China, this week agreed to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog to report Iran to New York immediately.
Bush also said he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin about Iran and would not say how Putin feels about a Security Council referral. "He understands the threat, and we share the same goal," he said.
The IAEA's governing board will decide at an emergency meeting in Vienna on Thursday whether to report Iran to the Security Council. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: Why Russia caved-in on Iran |
| Why Russia caved-in on Iran
http://www.opednews.com
February 4, 2006
by Mike Whitney
Many war-weary newshounds are probably wondering why Russia caved in at the IAEA board meeting and agreed to have Iran sent before the UN Security Council. Russia, of course, is very familiar with Iran's nuclear program (having worked with Iran on its nuclear power projects) and fully realizes that the Mullahs are not developing nuclear weapons.
So, why would they go along with the coercive maneuvering of the United States that is so clearly designed to pave the way for war?
Obviously, Russia's foreign minister's comment that the referral to the UNSC is “only a warning” doesn't adequately explain why Russia would have placed its ally in such grave danger of a preemptive attack.
So why did Russia capitulate?
It may be, in the words of the Godfather, that the Bush administration made Putin “a deal he couldn't refuse”. For one thing, MosNews reports just yesterday that “Lukoil will replace the disgraced Halliburton” in providing fuel in Iraq. MosNews states, “Over three months beginning from April 1, LITASCO will have to deliver 180,000 tons of gasoline and 130,000 tons of diesel fuel to Iraq. After this the contract may be renewed.
Halliburton's replacement was chosen by a tender, the results of which the Pentagon announced on March 8. The winners were six Turkish companies and the U.S. Refinery Associates which won the right to the largest contract worth $108.5 million.”
That's a pretty hefty reward for Putin's vote on Iran, but apparently it only scratches the surface. (We should also note the generous prizes handed out to the 6 Turkish companies. Is this Turkey's payoff for using its bases in future military operations against Iran?)
Russia's real goal, however, is “the securing of rights for exploration and extraction at the huge West Qurna-2 oil field.” Putin has always insisted that the Bush administration honor Saddam's previous commitments with Lukoil. It appears now that Putin is winning that battle.
According to the Boston, Globe Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met with Iraq's oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up “an understanding” about Russia's $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil field. Al-Ulloum, of course, is just following Washington's directives in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq's main oil fields just to secure Russia's vote.
Why?
Does the administration really need a war with Iran so desperately?
Yes.
The truth is, that even the control of oil is not nearly as critical to the US as maintaining it's continued dominance in the exchange of oil in greenbacks. If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in March and openly compete with the US's monopoly on trading oil in petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will disappear beneath the waves.
This is not fiction.
The reason the United States is the unchallenged leader of the global economic system is because it has a stranglehold on the oil trade. Even the oil itself, or the price at which it is sold, is of less importance than the means by which it is traded. The nation that controls the currency, determines the rules of the game. It forces other nations to stockpile mountains of its debt-ridden script, while Congress breezily produces oceans of red ink. America's fat-cat bankers and corporatists are now living off the generosity of the developing world that must hold on to worthless dollars so they can purchase oil. Iran's plan to sell its oil in petro-euros threatens to break up this massive extortion-ring and put the greenback nose-to-nose with its global competitor; the euro.
The Lukoil transaction should prove to skeptics that Washington is prepared to give up anything to prevent the opening of Iran's oil exchange. The UN Security Council is just the last step before military operations begin.
The Bush administration is dead-set on attacking Iran and removing this existential threat to the American economy and the ongoing supremacy of the reserve currency.
Now that the case is in the Security Council, things should move ahead fairly quickly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above author conveniently ignores the fact that the Jewish supremacist (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) Neocons (some shown at the top of www.nowarforisrael.com ) are after Iran in order to prevent a nuclear program there which could challenge Israel's nuclear hegemony over the region.. In addition, the Israel first JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons and their supporters (like the rabid Zionist/Israel firster Daniel Pipes who was on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' yesterday as can be watched via the link at the following URL) want Iran neutralized so that Iran's support of Hezbollah (which forced Israel out of Lebanon) can be neutralized as well:
http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Series,WJE&ArchiveDays=30 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: U.S. may have to go it alone in Iran |
| http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060203-044418-1878r.htm
U.S. may have to go it alone in Iran
Feb. 6, 2006 at 7:16AM
Policy experts warn that the United States may not be able to rely on perennial ally the United Kingdom for support over Iran's nuclear program.
"We can't look to Britain for (help) on Iran because they've paid the price on Iraq," said Jeffrey McCausland, director of leadership in conflict initiative at Dickinson College.
"In Iraq, the coalition of the willing has become the Brits and the Yanks. How Iraq turns out will have a dramatic effect on the relationship (between the United States and the United Kingdom)," he said.
The European Union should shoulder more global leadership responsibility, said Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University, England, and former European Commissioner for External Relations. "That's what Europe should be seeking to do with the United States ... seeking to be a partner in economic, political, and security terms."
Instead, the EU is a "dead end," said John Hulsman, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC-based think tank. "The United States and the United Kingdom are the only two that can do things around the world," he said.
"The United Kingdom is the default (ally) in a crisis. On Sept. 11, nobody said, 'get Brussels on the phone,'" he said.
If U.S.-U.K. relations worsen, the United Kingdom might not rush to the head of the line to back U.S. action. The United Kingdom could become "not the first of three allies but the third of three," to support U.S. objectives, he said.
"The [U.S.-U.K.] 'special relationship' is in trouble," said Andrew Apostolou, assistant director of programs at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC-based think tank.
Michael Calingaert, executive vice president of Brookings' Council for United States and Italy, agreed. "U.S. policy and attitudes have damaged our relationship with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world."
In a 2005 Pew poll, only 55 percent of Britons had a favorable opinion of the United States, down from 75 percent in 2002, pre-Iraq.
Patten said there has always been a "seam of anti-Americanism in European attitudes."
The relationship between the United States and Europe is so important to both sides, he said, he doesn't believe that recent trends indicate a major shift.
"Over the years there were rows about Vietnam, Central America ... but overall (U.S.-Europe relations have been) a huge success," he said. "I hope we may find some way in which we can work together on the real threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Fast-track Israel's membership in NATO so an attack on Iran |
| Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:38:15 -0800
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fast-track Israel's membership in NATO so an attack on Iran can be pushed as a NATO rather than Zionist project
Thanks to Karim AG:
The following editorial comes from this morning's Wall Street Journal.
Just to recall: Aznar's government was tossed out of office after the March 11, 2004 train bombings in Madrid. These bombings were seen by many Spanish voters as a transparent NATO effort to stage an incident that would assist Aznar's
re-election. As seems to be getting quite usual, e.g., last week in Palestine, an electorate under pressure from foreign state terrorists did what the exact opposite of what all the pundits predicted. Since his defeat, Aznar has been mobilised by his US friends to continue working on alienating the European Union from Cuba; during his last term in office, Aznar greatly increased Spain's military spending and heightened its diplomatic involvement in NATO:
Review and Outlook
NATO for Israel
February 6, 2006; Page A18
As diplomatic triumphs go, the weekend referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency is very small beer. It came without a call to action, and even any U.N. debate was postponed to give Iran more time to embrace Russia's offer to let the mullahs enrich uranium under Moscow's auspices.
Even at that minor rebuke, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered a resumption of homegrown uranium enrichment and
barred snap IAEA inspections. But if the Iranians are as smart as they are devious, they'll accept the Russian offer, let the Europeans pretend the crisis is over, and continue to build a nuclear weapon in secret. Yesterday Iran said it will again consider Moscow's offer, and all signs point to the fact that on present course Iran is going to get the bomb one way or another.
Which is all the more reason for the U.S. to promote a more serious diplomatic response suggested to us last week over
lunch at the Journal by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar: Begin NATO accession talks with Israel.
Israel's NATO membership has been mooted before, but the suggestion is especially compelling as a response to the Iranian nuclear threat. Iran's apocalyptic President Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and influential former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has said an Islamic bomb "would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Those are unprecedented threats, which are all the more likely to be carried out if the mullahs think that the only retaliation would come from Israel itself. It may be that the mad mullahs aren't deterrable, since they claim to welcome mass martyrdom. But if Israel were part of NATO, the saner elements in Tehran would at least have to worry about the collective response of the West. Only last week President Bush promised that the U.S. would come to Israel's defense against Iran, but the NATO proposal has the additional virtue of forcing Europe to take a firmer stand against an Iranian bomb.
Many Europeans will object that NATO is a geographic defense pact, but it has already expanded its field of operation beyond Europe into Afghanistan. If NATO is going to continue to be relevant, it has to adapt to confront new threats to global stability, and a nuclear Iran certainly qualifies. It's fanciful for Europe to think it could stay aloof from an Iranian strike against Israel or the U.S., since the latter would surely retaliate and wider regional war would ensue. Iran is also developing ballistic missiles that will eventually have the capitals of Europe within range.
Even apart from the Iranian threat, a strong case can be made for Israeli membership. Israel is a liberal democracy, which is why nobody seriously worries about Israel's bomb. The Jewish state has also taken unprecedented steps for peace with its Palestinian neighbors over the past decade, relinquishing territory even as it became clear that there was little good faith on the other side. Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal and the subsequent victory of Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections are more than enough reason for the rest of the world to now reciprocate with a gesture of solidarity regarding Israel's defense.
Unless the civilized world unites to make it clear that Iran's current combination of rhetoric and nuclear armament is intolerable, Mr. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs will likely continue to believe they can have their nuclear apocalypse at a "reasonable" price. Inviting Israel to join NATO will send a far tougher message to Iran than mere referral to that tower of delay and rationalization known as the United Nations. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:27 am Post subject: Rumsfeld says military force an option against Iran |
| Rumsfeld says military force an option against Iran
Mon Feb 6, 8:35 AM ET
AFP
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the United States does not rule out using military force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.
"All options, including the military one, are on the table," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Monday's edition of German financial newspaper Handelsblatt.
"Today, biological, chemical and radiological weapons are available which could kill tens of thousands of people," Rumsfeld said, in comments in German.
"There is a genuine possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of people who behead innocent people and blow up children.
"The people of the free world must realize that they have been warned."
Rumsfeld said Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
"We know that terrorists are desperately seeking ever more deadly weapons.
"Iran is the main sponsor of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," he told Handelsblatt.
The Iranian nuclear crisis escalated on Saturday when the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, voted to report the Islamic republic to the UN Security Council over its atomic programme.
Iran said on Monday that large-scale uranium enrichment work, which is the the focus of fears that it is seeking nuclear weapons, would begin in "due course" in response to the IAEA decision
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: Rumsfeld says military force an option against Iran |
| Rumsfeld says military force an option against Iran
Mon Feb 6, 8:35 AM ET
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the United States does not rule out using military force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.
"All options, including the military one, are on the table," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Monday's edition of German financial newspaper Handelsblatt.
"Today, biological, chemical and radiological weapons are available which could kill tens of thousands of people," Rumsfeld said, in comments in German.
"There is a genuine possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of people who behead innocent people and blow up children.
"The people of the free world must realize that they have been warned."
Rumsfeld said Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
"We know that terrorists are desperately seeking ever more deadly weapons.
"Iran is the main sponsor of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," he told Handelsblatt.
The Iranian nuclear crisis escalated on Saturday when the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, voted to report the Islamic republic to the UN Security Council over its atomic programme.
Iran said on Monday that large-scale uranium enrichment work, which is the the focus of fears that it is seeking nuclear weapons, would begin in "due course" in response to the IAEA decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More war for Israel coming with the bombing of Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/01/14/more-war-for-israel-coming-with-bombing-of-iran.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
