IRAN NUCLEAR STOCKPILE OUT IN OPEN

"Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant... with inspectors present, the Iranians moved roughly 4,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium out of deep underground storage to the small plant that they have declared they will use to re-enrich the fuel to 20 percent purity... the fuel now sits out in the open, where an air attack... could destroy it.... military officials say this is a tempting moment for the Israelis...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?hp

IRAN AND THE NUCLEAR TREATY

From the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
"Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons...
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons...
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article IV: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

"... Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes that it would be far better if the U.S. would stress that Iran's right to uranium enrichment, consistent with Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV, is contingent on Iran's adherence to the treaty's Articles I, II, and III. Thielmann notes that Iran has no inherent right to uranium enrichment while it is violating its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Yet this point is being lost by the West's unqualified emphasis on the demand that uranium enrichment be suspended, and inconsistent U.S. statements about Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can posture that the West is just trying to keep Iran down and deny it the rights guaranteed under the NPT..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/22-1

WAR GAME SHOWS ATTACK ON IRAN COULD BACKFIRE

"... (A) recent war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge. The lesson is "once you start this, it's really hard to stop it"... even a "successful" airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities — setting the program back by two to four years — could come at a tremendous, unpredictable cost..."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html

ISRAEL HAS DRONE FLEET THAT CAN REACH IRAN


"Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and could fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range.The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.... The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000 meters), and remain in the air longer... The plane's maker, state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, has said it is capable of reaching the Persian Gulf, which would put Iran within its range. Israeli defense officials said the Heron TP could be a useful tool against Iran. It could provide surveillance, jam enemy communications and connect ground control and manned air force planes..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_drones

CLINTON PROMOTES CONFLICT WITH IRAN

"In a visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia this week, Hillary Clinton said that Iran "is moving toward a military dictatorship"... What could America's top diplomat hope to accomplish with this kind of inflammatory rhetoric?... what is the purpose of a speech like this? The most obvious conclusion is that it is to promote conflict, and to convince Americans that Iran is an actual threat to their security. Americans generally have to be prepared and persuaded for years if they are to accept that they must go to war... (Americans must be led to believe that) it's really true that all these people just want to kill us for no reason; that it has nothing to do with our foreign policy or wars; that we can effectively reduce terrorism by bombing and occupying Muslim countries; and that terrorism is the country's most urgent security threat..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/18/hillary-clinton-iran

IRAN SAYS NUKES ARE BANNED BY ISLAM

"Iran's supreme leader said Friday the Islamic republic isn't seeking and doesn't believe in pursuing nuclear bombs... "Iran will not get emotional in its response to these nonsensical statements, because we have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram (religiously banned)," he said. "This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/19/iran.nuclear/index.html?iphoneemail

DEBATE OVER DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

"... confusion and doubt arose (after Joseph Stack's airplane attack on an IRS building) over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist: he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies."
If an American Muslim argues that violence against the U.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets) is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination... if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invading American army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists.... (And) large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism/index.html

"... Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence firm specializing in international risk management, said the rhetoric in Stack's rant clearly matches the USA Patriot Act's definition of terrorism: a criminal act that is intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping..."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/plane-attack-prompts-debate-over-terrorism-label-558975.html