This article's headline actually refers to a new "tough stance" by the US. This means...tougher talk.
"US seeks to shore up support for tough Iran stance," by Robert Burns for AP, February 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):
DOHA, Qatar - U.S. officials sought to shore up support Sunday for a tougher stand against Iran's nuclear program by saying Tehran had left the world little choice and expressing renewed confidence that holdout China would come around to harsher U.N. penalties.Even as the Obama administration intensifies its diplomacy, Iran is showing little sign of bending to the will of its critics. Past U.N. sanctions have had little effect. Some outside experts have detected what they believe are new slowdowns in Iran's nuclear advances, but the Islamic republic is believed headed toward having nuclear weapons capability in perhaps a few years -- estimates vary as to when.
President Barack Obama's senior military adviser called for more time for diplomatic pressure to work and said from Israel, which has hinted that it might attack if negotiations to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions failed, that such action could have "unintended consequences" throughout the Middle East. Israel views Iran's nuclear program as a threat to its very existence.
While diplomatic patience has its limits, "we're not there yet," U.S. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Tel Aviv.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on a quick visit to Persian Gulf allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia, told a forum on U.S.-Muslim relations that Iran has not lived up to its nuclear obligations and has rebuffed U.S. and international efforts to engage in serious talks. She said Iran has a right to nuclear power, but only if shown unequivocally it is to be used just for peaceful purposes.
While Iran insists it has no desire to get the bomb, Clinton said it appears otherwise.
"The evidence is accumulating that that is exactly what they are trying to do," she said during a question-and-answer session with her audience at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, attended by officials and scholars from around the world. She also used pointed language in stressing that after months of failed efforts aimed at direct talks with Iran, tougher action is now required.
"It's time for Iran to be held to account for its activities," she said, alluding to penalties designed to squeeze Iran's economy.
In her speech, Clinton said the U.S. and others were working on "new measures" to try to persuade Iran to change its course.
She added: "I would like to figure out a way to handle it in as peaceful an approach as possible, and I certainly welcome any meaningful engagement, but we don't want to be engaging while they are building their bomb."
Obama has said that work to broaden economic sanctions in the U.N. Security Council is moving along quickly, but he hasn't given a specific timeline. China, one of five permanent members of the Security Council, has close economic ties to Iran and can block a resolution by itself....
Apparently the Saudis are none too keen on the efficacy of sanctions and fear a nuclear Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/15/world/AP-ML-Clinton-Saudi-Arabia.html
It's the 1930s all over again, replete with weak Western leaders. Only difference is that Iran is no Germany respecting its capacity to wage war in a first-rate manner. That's a saving grace but it's largely negated by what nuclear weapons can do versus blitzkrieg.
Actually Hillary announced yesterday that Iran is on the way to becoming a military dictatorship that they report will be harder to rein in than the current theocracy.
If that is the case, the administration should be supporting the popular opposition to the Iranian govt to encourage a revolution and remove the power structure that wages a covert war on the west and Israel. What reason is there not to support the revolution?
At the website FP:
Clinton gets it wrong on Iranian nukes
Posted By Michael Singh February 15, 2010
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the surprising assertion yesterday in Doha that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not directly threaten the United States:
“[P]art of the goal -- not the only goal, but part of the goal -- that we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech, you know, the evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn't directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond.”
Secretary Clinton is surely correct about the threat faced by U.S. allies in the region, but her assessment of the potential threat to the U.S. does not comport with the evidence on Iran’s ballistic missile programs. Many U.S. facilities and thousands of American personnel are of course already within range of Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair recently testified (pdf) are “inherently capable of delivering WMD.”
Furthermore, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reported (pdf) this month that “Iran continue[s] to develop long-range ballistic missiles that will be threatening to the United States,” and the U.S. intelligence community has judged in the past that Iran may test an ICBM by 2015 (see here [pdf] for a full discussion of this issue). Iran last year demonstrated progress by successfully placing a satellite into orbit. At that time, the State Department spokesman issued a statement of “deep concern,” noting:
“Recently, Iran's development of a space launch vehicle (SLV) capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems. Many of the technological building blocks involved in SLVs are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles.”
The Pentagon spokesman also noted the U.S. concerns over the development:
“It is certainly a reason for us to be concerned about Iran and its continued attempts to develop a ballistic missile program of increasingly long range. Although this would appear just to be the launch of a satellite, their first, obviously there are dual-use capabilities in the technology here which could be applied toward the development of a long-range ballistic missile.”
The spokesmen’s concerns were well-founded. Given the available facts, it is difficult to support the view that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose a direct threat to the United States.
This article's headline actually refers to a new "tough stance" by the US. This means...tougher talk.
..................
Well, why not? Considering that those in favor of nothing more than *sanctions* against Iran have actually been referred to as "hawks".
"She said Iran has a right to nuclear power, but only if shown unequivocally it is to be used just for peaceful purposes"
THAT IS AQUIESENCE!
There is NO SUCH THING as "shown unequivocally it is to be used just for peaceful purposes".
That's BS and she KNOWS IT.
ONLY those that WANT to be CONNED will Accept any "unequivocal proof of peaceful intentions".
Wonder if Hilary ever heard of "The 12th Imam" WHO HAS BEEN IN A WELL FOR 1400 YRS?
Ok Robert, here it is, please notify me asap if there is any copyright issue and I'll remove it from my site straight away : THE FIRST ARTICLE OF BLOGGING THE QUR'AN TRANSLATED IN FRENCH.
If you get someone to check it out and if you're happy with it,I can publish one every week, I believe it's an amazing material and many people will be blessed by it. Below the first lines of the article and a link to the full article. God bless you Robert and all of you guys who are fighting the good fight.
Ok Robert, voilà, c'est fait, et je t'en prie informe moi au plus tôt s'il y a quelque problème que ce soit en ce qui concerne les droits d'auteur : LE PREMIER ARTCLE DE BLOGUER LE CORAN TRADUIT ENTIEREMENT EN FRANCAIS.
si tu demandes à quequ'un de le vérifier et si tu es satisfait du résultat, je peux en publier un par semaine, je suis convaincu que c'est un outil extraordinaire et que beaucoup seront bénis. Ci-dessous un lien vers l'article complet ainsi que les premières lignes de l'article. Que Dieu vous bénisse Robert ainsi que vous tous qui combattez le bon combat!
"
“Bloguer le Coran”, par Robert Spencer : Introduction
Pour comprendre quelles sont les motivations des terroristes du Djihad islamique, il serait bon de commencer par explorer ce qu’eux-mêmes disent au sujet de ce qu’ils font et pourquoi ils le font, et ce qu’ils veulent . Cela vous amènera à vous pencher sur le Qur’an (ou Coran), le livre saint de l’Islam. Les djihadistes le citent fréquemment et se aiment à se présenter comme ceux qui suivent « le pur Islam », l’article de foi tel qu’il est enseigné dans le Qur’an et la tradition islamique. C’est pourquoi dans le cadre de mes recherches j’ai cité le Qur’an à plusieurs reprises – et rarement un jour ne se passe sans que je sois accusé de choisir intentionnellement certains passages violents plutôt que d’autres et de les citer « hors-contexte ». En attendant, le Conseil sur les Relations Americano-Islamiques (Council on American Islamic Relations) et les autres groupes musulmans nous disent que pour comprendre le vrai et pacifique Islam, il nous faut lire le Qur’an.
C’est donc pourquoi dans les mois qui vont suivre, je vais le lire avec vous, et en discuter dans une série d’articles. En entier. Pas de « choix intentionnel » ou « hors contexte ». Dans son intégralité, du début à la fin. Certain parmi vous sont peut-être familiers avec la série de David plotz sur Slate, « bloguer la Bible » (« Blogging the Bible »). Cette série y sera similaire, mais au lieu de seulement écrire ce que pense ou ce que je ressens au sujet d’un certain passage, je me référerai, contrairement à Plotz, aux commentaires – tous de sources musulmanes – sur le Qur’an.
Je tenterai d’expliquer comment le Musulman moyen qui étudie le Qur’an comprend chaque passage particulier, et ce que cela peut signifier pour les non-musulmans."
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/bloguer-le-coran-par-robert-spencer-introduction/
Grim Reaper wrote:
"Actually Hillary announced yesterday that Iran is on the way to becoming a military dictatorship..."
I was puzzled by that headline, too. Ms. Clinton says that Iran is "becoming" a military dictatorship. Does she think that Iran was a democracy before?
At least Hillary wasn't all wrapped up. I was pleased to see her dressed like a Western woman on TV there.
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/debate-adnan-rashid-hamza-tzortzis-vs-jay-smith/
Debate between Jay Smith and two muslims on Premier Radio . Full length video_
"Dithering" - from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861605515/dithering.html
noun
Definition:
1. nervous indecisiveness: nervously confused indecisiveness in the face of alternative possible actions
Definitely applies here, wouldn't you say?
Every conceivable scenario involving the production of fissile material by iran Guarantees to create not just for Israel or the Untied states but for the entirety of the World as well, an unprecedented level of danger and insecurety which will have no end. This will sooner or later lead to a devastating holocaust with no real winners.
Remember that its not only an atomic bomb that they seek to build. What they are doing is developing an entire nuclear infrastructure that has the unlimited goal of possesing many number and kinds of nuclear warheads, radioactive poisons and weapons. Concurrently it is also developing and amassing as much armament it can including ballistic missles . What evidence does Hilary , Jones and the rest of the spell bound obamonites have that iran's intentions for its relentless and endless military buildup are just use during military parades?. Museum pieces? Is reality so harsh to accept, cant take the truth Gen. Jones? At least Hitler could justify his military build up as creating employment to ease the economic depression.
Israel has not choice while obama is in office but to begin the forceful disarmament of iran. Even under obama once this is begun we have no choice but to support Israel with her efforts .
Unless iran is stopped soon, we will all begin to pay for the consequences of this tragic failure not only for the life that remains with us but for that bleak future which remains for America and much of the World .
avraidire, thank you very much for the Jay Smith links,
they are phenomenal.
"More time ... ", "unintended consequences ... " ... .
Total cowards all. The American generals and admirals, at least 3 top layers of the US military, are total cowards. Anything to evade their duty to remove the intolerable threat of the Global Nuclear Jihad. Not only don't they dare to take on Iran themselves, but they won't let Israel do the job either. Jones, Mullen, Panetta, Gates are in a state of uncontrollable panic as they keep frantically shuttling to Israel to restrain it from bombing Iran, terrified of "what Iran might do". And our current Coward-in-Chief in the White House is dragging out the time to dump the responsibility on whoever comes after him, just as his cowardly predecessors, Republican and Democrat, did. The thing is, there's no time left for Obamus Carterus to strech out. The world is now doomed to the Nuclear Jihad. Because of the pathological cowardice of those who are in charge of the US government and military.
Total cowardization of our country, the United States of America, has occured for the last 31 years, ever since the Slimy Smiley Carter and the degenerate Brzezinski had sent the cowardly Gen. Richard Secord to Iran to urge "restraint" on the part of the Shah in the face of Khomeini revolution, just as today's US government and military officials keep calling for Israel's "restraint".
Just 2 years ago, there was one man who could break the Carter curse and save our country and other Western democracies from this evil peril. Just 2 years ago, we had Rudy Giuliani in the presidential race. We had ... . Not for long ... . The rejection of Rudy by the American voters was a horrible catastrophe that altered the destiny of this country and the rest of the Western world for the worse.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Hillary looked so comfortable telling the World that she is clueless.
Everything about Iran being a problem has been expressed as years away-for years now.
Doing nothing now leaves even more of nothing later.
It's always "later" until it's too late.
Tongue wagging is hardly a "tough stance".
They seem to either be unable to understand the full magnitude of what "nuclear jihad" evidently portends for the entire World's future or they are psychologically constrained from making the proper assessment as in the case of obamas handpicked SOS Hilary ,whom by her personal innate predisposition to accept unthinkable betrayal, ie willies WH public porno, or in the case of the Generals, their loyalty and duty bound acquiesce to their commander and chief prevents them from thinking clearly through the actual danger we face.In either case, this grandest of Historical blunders fault rests squarely in obamas shoulder for the remainder of time.
Dont forget about the power of hypnosis which may have not been limited to cheering teenage concert goers.
Iran has had nuclear weapons for 18 years:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/1999/980409-iran-jp.htm
We're too late.
Much of the so called homegrown iranian attributed nuke technology is obviously mostly soviet bought and in the future what may pass as an iranian bomb may indeed have been bought. But as for this 1999 case, I'm very skeptical.
the Russians are way too smart to commit such a strategically disadvantageous to say the least move.
A senior Israeli source said the documents "look awfully real," a US government consultant said he is certain of the authenticity of the documents, and the story was reported in the Jreusalem Post. That's all the proof I need. I am heading for my bomb shelter in the woods.
I think Israel will have to step up and save the world from Islam. I pray they don't hesitate to do the right thing.
Liberty-loving people, we're on our own. Do the homework, make preparations to survive the unimaginable, if possible,and arm thyselves to the hilt.
But, most of all, Christians, pray and repent!! Storm the gates of Heaven for mercy, protection, and strength in times of immense trials.
I don;'t know why you're using the word we're, because we know you're nothing more than a bigoted West-hating parasite who needs to be sent packing to Pakistan.
maybe the iranians put out this misinformation to test out the
effect such a scenario would produce vis-a-vis , Bush, Western reaction. Bad for iran, very bad for Russia.