Barack Obama's deal won't be enough to stop Iran getting the atomic bomb
Handshakes in New York won't change the realities in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran
Con Coughlin
Published: 8:00PM BST 24 Sep 2009
With less than a week to go before Iran delivers its formal answer to the West's offer of a peace deal over its nuclear programme, it is tempting to think that the diplomatic net is finally closing on Tehran. That is certainly the impression given by the suggestion that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is prepared to support a further round of sanctions, which would most likely target Iran's oil and gas industries.
As one of the country's main trading partners, the Russians, given their geographical proximity to the Iranian border, have the ability to undermine the West's attempts to pressurise Tehran. In fact, they have done so repeatedly since the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions surfaced six years ago: they sold Iran sophisticated military equipment to protect it against any possible attack from the West – such as the S-300 anti-missile system – and also helped build the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactor in the Gulf.
But following Mr Medvedev's meeting with President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Russian leader hinted heavily that Moscow might be prepared to drop its opposition to further measures, remarking: "Sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases sanctions are inevitable."
While this falls well short of an unequivocal commitment, it has been seized on by Mr Obama's supporters as evidence that his policy of resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis by peaceful means is paying dividends.
Iran has until next Thursday to respond to an offer tabled by the E3+3 countries – Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China – of a deal over its illicit nuclear programme. If, as is widely anticipated, the response is inadequate, the fact that the Russians are prepared to support stronger sanctions would immeasurably strengthen the negotiators' position. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has talked of imposing "crippling" sanctions if Iran continues its defiance. These could range from tightening pressure on its currency to a ban on refined petroleum exports.
With only China, which also enjoys lucrative trade ties with Tehran, declining to reveal its hand, the message even appears to be getting through to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, that time is no longer on Iran's side.
While Mr Ahmadinejad's address to the UN this week contained its usual hateful mix of anti-Semitism and denunciation of the West, he refrained from making any direct reference to the nuclear issue. In the past, he has not been shy about declaring that the regime's nuclear programme is non-negotiable, and his reticence in New York was taken a sign that Iran is about to undertake a momentous change of course, thereby justifying Mr Obama's softly, softly approach.
But before we get too carried away about the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the world's most explosive issue, a few words of caution.
Mr Obama might believe he has pulled off a sensational diplomatic coup by winning Mr Medvedev's support, but there is no guarantee that the Russian president can deliver on his commitment even if he does agree to a new round of sanctions.
The Americans believe Mr Medvedev is more amenable to co-operating with Washington because of Mr Obama's unilateral decision last week to cancel the East European missile shield. Certainly, the removal of a system that could intercept and destroy nuclear-armed Iranian missiles aimed at Europe should concentrate a few minds in the Kremlin. The American missiles would also have provided protection to Russia, which is far closer to Iran's missile sites than Western Europe.
When I last visited Moscow, I met a senior aide to former President Vladimir Putin, who had just returned from Iran and was in no doubt that Mr Ahmadinejad's regime was deeply unstable and posed a serious threat to global security.
Even so, Moscow continued its support for Tehran, because Mr Putin took the view that anything that caused Washington discomfort was worth pursuing, even if it jeopardised Russia's own interests. And while Mr Medvedev gives a good impression of being in charge of his own country, there are few in Russia who doubt that Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, and his merry band of oligarchs remain the real power in the land. It was Mr Putin who was behind the recent attempt to ship arms to Iran in a vessel that was subsequently hijacked by pirates. And it was Mr Putin who dispatched planeloads of security experts to Tehran this summer to help Mr Ahmadinejad suppress the post-election anti-government demonstrations. If Mr Putin wants to maintain his support for Tehran, I doubt there is much Mr Medvedev can do about it.
There are similar questions about the extent of Mr Ahmadinejad's authority, even if he does decide to co-operate with the US-led talks in New York next week. Although he won a second term in office in those bitterly contested elections, Mr Ahmadinejad is under no illusion that he survives only because he continues to enjoy the patronage of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader.
According to a secret document leaked recently by officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Mr Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons since 1984, when he is said to have told senior officials that a "nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God's soldiers".
Mr Khamenei has long been seen as the driving force behind Iran's nuclear programme. And so long as he remains committed to turning his country into a nuclear power, there is nothing Mr Ahmadinejad can do to stop it, irrespective of any undertakings that he might provide at next week's meeting. In which case, Mr Obama will need to have a serious rethink about how he prevents Iran from building an atom bomb.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6228607/Barack-Obamas-deal-wont-be-enough-to-stop-Iran-getting-the-atomic-bomb.html
Comments: 46
*
Just to be right. There is no proof Iran is going to build a bomb. It has nuclear enrichment plants, the uranium for making a bomb needs to be much more enriched than that for electricity generation. I pose this question to whomever may be in the know. Are these plants capable of producing such highly enriched Uranium?
Looking at it from Iran's point of view, I agree with Ross it is surrounded by its enemies and from that point of view is only seeking to defend itself, perhaps.
However, I think its ambitions are more sinister and I do not think it can be trusted with nuclear weapons if it is indeed trying to acquire them. I think the West needs to toughen up on Iran possibly using force NOW before it acquires the bomb when Iran will be a whole load more dangerous rather than pointless resolutions in the UN that Iran takes no notice of. Obama is too soft for the job, I agree with comments made below, we need someone much sterner than Obama in charge. Bring back Reagan and Thatcher! At the moment I'd settle for Bush and Blair!
As for comments made below about Britain's submarine fleet being reduced to three, I agree! Britain must maintain its independent threat because in the event of war, France would fall quickly as it often does and America would sit on its fat arse for two years. Germany might get it's end in I suppose.
Bart
on September 25, 2009
at 07:36 PM
Report this comment
*
JOHN CHUCKMAN
I hope you are been sarcastic otherwise you have been reading comic books
christian
on September 25, 2009
at 07:24 PM
Report this comment
*
@Charles Lee on September 25, 2009 at 06:44 PM
"The logistics of an Israeli attack on Iran are impossible - the skies over Iraq (the only logical route) are controlled by the Americans and are closed to them."
You don't seriously believe that, do you?
And even if were true, Saudi Arabia would doubtless "discover" that it was having trouble with its air defence on the day in question - SA being, after all, the main target for Iran's nuclear ambition, Sunni vs. Shia trumps Sunni and/or Shia vs. infidel every time.
Catweazle
on September 25, 2009
at 07:24 PM
Report this comment
*
Patricia the One on September 25, 2009 at 05:18 PM
"The world has been stolen by the rich,for the rich, and this system is now entrenched".
How can it have been stolen when it belonged to the powerful (which is the same thing as rich, essentially) all along?
The cream (or the scum, depending on your viewpoint) floats t the top, always has, always will.
And the only people who don't believe that 'Might is Right' are the losers.
At least in the modern West, the majority of the population gets a crack at it.
Or used to, until the Socialists came along, that is.
Catweazle
on September 25, 2009
at 07:13 PM
Report this comment
*
"Barack Obama's deal won't be enough to stop Iran getting the atomic bomb"
You're right, Con.
The decision to acquire a nuclear deterrent has been taken at very highest level and threats from Obama will not change it.
After all, threats from the warmongering cabal of George W.Bush didn't trouble the Iranian leadership for a moment.
They called his bluff, and they were right.
Israel's threats to take independent action are another bluff.
The logistics of an Israeli attack on Iran are impossible - the skies over Iraq (the only logical route) are controlled by the Americans and are closed to them. They don't have enough tanker planes to support the bomber fleet required to do an effective job. They won't be able to offer search and rescue facilities to downed pilots.
The most important Iranian nuclear facilities are so deeply buried that even bunker buster bombs would prove ineffective.
And, of course, this says nothing about the likely Iranian response to Israeli aggression, which would be horrific.
The Dimona nuclear reactor is well within reach of Iranian long-range missiles, as are the major Israeli oil refinery complexes, located at Ashdod and Haifa.
The urban centres of Gush Dan are wide open to attack from both Iran and Hezbollah.
There will be no Israeli attack on Iran, and certainly no American attack.
Charles Lee
on September 25, 2009
at 06:44 PM
Report this comment
*
by mentioning the talmud alan shows that he is not what we think : an anti israeli ... he is an antisemite ..
karim abukhdeir
on September 25, 2009
at 06:38 PM
Report this comment
*
Big difference between Iran and Israel; the Israeli atomic weapons will not be pointed at us.
Herewegoagain
on September 25, 2009
at 06:06 PM
Report this comment
*
My country should never support the Western crusade against Iran. It were Western missiles to be installed near the Russian border, not Iranian. Our President Medvedev, if not the best possible President, is at the very least patriotic, like Putin, and I hope they will never sell our support of Iran to the West, which cannot be trusted.
a Russian
on September 25, 2009
at 06:06 PM
Report this comment
*
No, Ken Stevens. Saddam was toppled because Iraq is oil-rich and he wouldn't obey orders from America.
Michael Fremlins
on September 25, 2009
at 05:57 PM
Report this comment
*
THis is the time we have all dreaded: when a madman from the middle east defied the west and determined to use his nuclear weapons. And there is little doubt that one day Iran will use the bomb. In their situation, there is no need to have nuclear weapons unless you intend to take offensive action.
If Obama and America is impotent, do not expect the Israelis to stand idly by waiting to see what Iran will do. And Russia will have to decide whether it is worth bringing about a major conflict by supporting Iran. I believe we are approaching the most dangerous moments since 1962.
David
on September 25, 2009
at 05:57 PM
Report this comment
*
Isreal can have as many nukes as they like - they are no threat to us. They are Isreal's final defence when the Arabs try to wipe it out - 'You destroy us we will destroy you'.
John
on September 25, 2009
at 05:39 PM
Report this comment
*
ban on refined petroleum exports
I think you mean a ban in IMPORTS...?? Iran has no effective home produciton of gasoline and relys on imports - if a blockade was effectively imposed it would rapidly have an impact.
Hysteria
on September 25, 2009
at 05:26 PM
Report this comment
*
Obama,
George Bush, Re - Badged. End of.
Medicare for the poorest 40% of Americans , forget it.
Iran, ? bomb the crap out of them.
The differance , ? Non
Neo Cons Rule. FACT.
Irrespective of who the fools who think we live and vote in a democracy works.
The world has been stolen by the rich,for the rich, and this system is now entrenched, We are all slaves now, the only difference in the degree of slavery,and which country we happen to live in.
Patricia the One
on September 25, 2009
at 05:18 PM
Report this comment
*
Six years of talk...and no results.
The Obama administration is deluding itself if it really is depending on Russian "support," which will be tepid at best. And what do you expect from the Chinese, who...by the way...hold so much U.S. debt?
No, the Israelis will find a way around the Iraq-airspace issue. They will do what they need to do to ensure their own survival.
Obama's just another Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. He is an international weakling and a domestic failure.
Godspeed, Israel.
Jack Davis
on September 25, 2009
at 04:59 PM
Report this comment
*
Its the first duty of any leader to protect the country from invasion & occupation from a foreign power.
Iran has one of the worlds largest oil reserves, in a world with depleating resorces. It is totally surrounded on all sides by an oil hungary superpower, USA( bases in former soviet states in north,iraq,afg & carriers in gulf to the south) This same country directly threatend it with military action & invaded & occupies two of its neighbours.
The Iranian leader would be neglecting his duty if he wasnt developing a nuke.
By the way from an Iranian point of view, just because Obama the friendly face, is in power for the time being doesnt mean US foreign policy will stay the same long term. There could be another neo con in the white house in 4-8 years time, that they would have to deal with. Its understandable that they would seek some kind of deterent that guarentees their security in the long term.
ross
on September 25, 2009
at 04:59 PM
Report this comment
*
Despite the glamour and appearances of decisive action, statements made at the UN regarding nuclear disarmament and non proliferation are just a joke.
There are geopolitical realities that cannot be changed with handshakes. Those who know remember the infamous handshakes of Ribbentrop and Molotov or remember Chamberlain getting off the plane and waving a piece of paper and saying that war had been averted.
Goodwill is one thing, but groundless idealism is quite another. It a bit like the apple given to Snow White. It looks wonderful, but it is highly poisonous.
Carlos Cortiglia
on September 25, 2009
at 04:41 PM
Report this comment
*
@Cedric on September 25, 2009 at 12:00 PM
"Is it not odd, that while discussing Iran, Obama talks to Medvedev instead of Ahmadinejad."
Of course not, Cedric.
Are you not acquainted with the old saw concerning monkeys and organ grinders?
Catweazle
on September 25, 2009
at 04:40 PM
Report this comment
*
What a perfect excuse, as if one were ever needed, to avoid discussing Issrael's own 200 nuclear warheads and its proven belligerence within the region! Not to mention its brutal occuptation of Palestinian lands, and open contempt for international law.
AKPAN
on September 25, 2009
at 04:40 PM
Report this comment
*
@Michael Fremlins on September 25, 2009 at 03:43 PM
"So when is that "democratic liberal state" going to abide by the UN resolutions that it is in breach of?"
Why would any civilised, democratic nation take a blind bit of notice of anything emenating from the collection of dictatorships, kleptocracies and tyrranies that predominantly compose the Useless Nonentity, Kremlins, especially as they are all General Council resolutions and so have no legal force whatsoever (you DO know the difference between the General Council and the Security council, don't you)?
In any case, as you are such a fan of the UN, has it escaped your attention that, had the Arab states conformed to UNSC Resolution 181 (which, as a Security Council resolution WAS binding), and immediately attempted to conclude Hitler's plan for the "Final Solution", none of this mess would have occurred in the first place?
But that would entail admitting the legitimacy of the State of Israel, wouldn't it, Kremlins?
Catweazle
on September 25, 2009
at 04:39 PM
Report this comment
*
Are we talking about Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, if so, that's no secret, it has been known about, and it's possible capabilities since 2001 when the Russians first started construction.
geoffthereff
on September 25, 2009
at 04:39 PM
Report this comment
*
"Israel has initiated wars and conflicts with every neighbor that it has."
JOHN CHUCKMAN 03:41 PM
This is completely false. They have been surrounded by hostile arab armies from the modern State's foundation in 1948. (And suffered attacks before that.)
They did pre-empt an attack at the start of the Six day war in June 1967, but only because of the aggressive build-up of foreign troops on their borders.
Gizmo
on September 25, 2009
at 04:39 PM
Report this comment
*
Saddam got toppled for overplaying his supposed WMD card, i.e none got found afterwards.
Ahmadinejad should beware of too much histrionic brinkmanship, for fear not of getting invaded but that Israel would undertake a pre-emptive strike before Iran could finalize nuclear weaponry (if that is indeed their intention).
The consequences would set us all alight!
Ken Stevens
on September 25, 2009
at 03:56 PM
Report this comment
*
Con- good with some interesting homework. Please keep on with this topic as it's very important. We need to encourage change in Iran and not one that puts them back in the hands of the self-serving, greedy US. Iran has a strong educated middle class that is fed up with that nations leadership, and anything that the West can do to support the evolution and independence of the country under a new and better leadership will remove some but not all of the threat... and it will weaken Russia's position if they are seen as less-needed as a deterrant to an attack by Israel.
Iran needs to be its own nation and a part of today's world. Embargos starve the poor, and the rich and the leaders will always have what they need to live comfortably. You have to see it to understand what is going on: the subcurrents are far bolder and more conventional than the over-publicised Twitter-mongers and "youth"... it is the grownups who want the change and who need it for their own and their family's well-being.
But Israeli missiles pointed at the nation's principal population centres deter that middle class from getting fully on-board that the West will ever act on behalf of freedom. The West just does not understand this whole situation and thinks that belligerent weapon-wielding actions in reaction to the words of certain "rabid-dog" Iranian leaders will promote progress... which it will definitely not. France needs to take a much more proactive role in these discussions and the resolution of the issues as they are respected by the Iranians and seen an less aligned with the axis of evil of the US, UK and Israel.
Henry Cave Devine
on September 25, 2009
at 03:46 PM
Report this comment
*
Well, now the Iranians have done it! They will be receiving a proper scolding from Mr. Obama directly. That will certainly teach them a lesson, and immediately change their behavior. <-- this is the thinking at the white house
jopiper
on September 25, 2009
at 03:43 PM
Report this comment
*
So when is that "democratic liberal state" going to abide by the UN resolutions that it is in breach of?
Michael Fremlins
on September 25, 2009
at 03:43 PM
Report this comment
*
Even if Iran were working towards a weapon - something that is not at all clear - why would that be so terrible?
Israel has had a nuclear weapons program since about the 1960s.
That program is totally illegal and has always been hidden. Only gradually, with bits and pieces of information, do we understand the Israeli program.
Israel has abused its nuclear weapons status in several ways over the years.
It has frequently threatened its neighbors, using its weapons to intimidate virtually the entire Middle East. For example it has fitted its small fleet of German Diesel-powered submarines with American Harpoon missiles adapted to carry a nuclear warhead.
Israel participated in proliferation, a case as bad as anything done by Pakistan�s renegade scientist, in its strategic agreements with former apartheid South Africa, which briefly became a nuclear power thanks to Israel.
Israel has used secrets around nuclear weapons, stolen by spies from the United States, to trade with places like the former Soviet Union. That�s why Jonathon Pollard likely will die in prison, the American intelligence and military establishment considering him the worst spy in American history.
Israel has initiated wars and conflicts with every neighbor that it has.
Iran�s entire modern history is peaceful. It was forced to fight a bloody war with Saddam Hussein who was helped by the United States � and possibly secretly Israel - in that terrible war.
Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, including of course America�s occupation of Iraq after killing a million people there.
Europe grew for decades under MAD, and today represents a great and thriving set of societies.
A form of MAD in the Middle East would also help peace.
I see only two likely scenarios for Israel ever to agree to what the rest of the world calls peace, to stop attacking everyone, to cease its apartheid, and to treat its neighbors with respect.
One is for the United States to stop subsidizing Israel and make some demands. This is a virtually fantasy scenario. Israel�s carefully-groomed influence in Congress makes it impossible.
The other scenario is for Israel to have a competitor that reduces its ability to behave the high-handed bully that it now is. A large state like Iran having nuclear weapons could have just that effect. MAD in the Middle East would be beneficial, not harmful � at least from the viewpoint of anyone other than Israeli Imperialists and their supporters.
JOHN CHUCKMAN
on September 25, 2009
at 03:41 PM
Report this comment
*
There is still no proof whatsoever of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Everyone is speculating and blowing a lot of hot air over some hypothetical BS. Show me the evidence or stop beating war drums. Iran has the right to pursue civilian nuclear program, being a signatory to the NPT. There is no legal basis upon which we can tell them to stop enriching uranium.
Meanwhile, nuclear-armed Israel, who makes belligerent threats and attacks its neighbors and is NOT a signatory to the NPT is ignored by the world.
Hypocrisy much?
Bakari
on September 25, 2009
at 03:41 PM
Report this comment
*
Israel is a democratic regime? A regime founded by terrorists that follows the Talmud? Beam me up Scotty!
Alan
on September 25, 2009
at 03:00 PM
Report this comment
*
When I studied the 1930's I could not get over how naive the West was in handling Hitler. Even in 1940 when PM, half Churchill's cabinet would have negotiated with Hitler. But you would think that we might have learned something.
The West has not. The USSR softened up the West and nearly won the Cold War even though it was rotting from within. But for Reagan and Thatcher it might have won and the UK might have become some communist satellite like Poland.
Now again we have not learned. The UN is a collection of the biggest group of murderers and kleptocrats under one roof, ever. So Iran is isolated. Big deal ! It was Iran who told us today " By the way we have this other nucleur facility we did not tell you about"
Obama is being tested ( forget schizo Brown) and is failing - over Iran, North Korea and China. There is civil war with drugs cartels nearer to home than Afghanistan - on the US Mexico border. And Obama is losing control there too.
He may give good speeches ( as did JFK and Blair - two real fakes) but he has no bottle when facing the US's ( and the West's) enemies. NATO is busted and a bunch of surrender monkeys.
We need the US to say - "Stop or we will unleash Israel, on you load of murderers in Iran". Israel is itching and may go it alone anyway.
I feel already that Obama is another Carter when we need a Reagan running the USA.
Mike
on September 25, 2009
at 03:00 PM
Report this comment
*
Steve 08.49
We only have 4 nuclear subs and the Trident missile range can't cover N Korea, Russia and Iran at once and we already know that one is normally in N Atlantic watching those pesky Russkies (it recently collided with a French sub doing the same thing).
One is normally being maintained and one is 'exercising'. This illustrates the problem of having only 3 subs.
On the other hand, USA has 14...I assume there are a few out there already.
All we wnt now is the Chinese to weigh in and the Israelis to make a few overt threats and I think the Iran will allow full access and abandon attempts wto produce nuclear weapons.
Don't forget the complicating factors of Mr A's problems on the home front. One day, the dissenters will be released from gaol. I expect they will be quite cross about the false imprisonment, torture and rape....
Lady Muck
on September 25, 2009
at 12:33 PM
Report this comment
*
Is it not odd, that while discussing Iran, Obama talks to Medvedev instead of Ahmadinejad.
Cedric
on September 25, 2009
at 12:00 PM
Report this comment
*
We are historically moving into uncharted waters, however, one sage said: If you wish to see into the furure then look into the past. There you will discover that mankind have been hell bent in wiping each other out since the birth of civilisation.
Let us cut to the chase. Bring on the inevitable nuclear holocaust. It is long overdue. According to David Attenborouh there are 3 times as many people on the planet than there were when he kicked off his career. Time for nature to embibe in a degree of culling and by far and away the most useless, pathetic and wasteful creatures on the planet are Homo Sapiens, so no real loss there.
inuendo
on September 25, 2009
at 11:53 AM
Report this comment
*
Iran has run rings around the whole caboodle.
They will get the bomb and attempt to detonate it in Israel. The fate of Palestine will not cause them a moments concern.
Unlike the west the Israel understands this and will nuke Iran first. They have no choice in the matter as the west have become appeasers.
This is a salutary reminder to Britain to retain her defensive capability. Should we ever be threatened neither France or Germany or America will come to our aid. At least not until they have thought about it for a year or two.
ray edwards
on September 25, 2009
at 11:42 AM
Report this comment
*
Nuke 'em all! It's law of the jungle, kids. Kill or be killed.
However, speaking seriously, I haven't heard yet how Iran can have any nuclear program which would be acceptable by it's critics. Or it is all about regimes popularity among some circles? It is hard to hear a peep about Dimona reactor in Israel and it is hardly used to produce electricity...
Mladen Matosevic
on September 25, 2009
at 11:27 AM
Report this comment
*
Vanuunu,Vanunu, you say Vanunu and I say Vanuunu.
David Rawson
on September 25, 2009
at 10:57 AM
Report this comment
*
I thought the official Iranian stance was that it does not have a weaponised nuclear programme? Are we now so far down the road of different sets of what constitutes the truth that we are losing track of where we are?
As to what constitutes the truth is would seem that removing irritating US presences on the hinterland of what Moscow considers its hegemony is the quid pro quo for Russian cooperation in sanctions against Tehran.
If as these piece suggests, it is an extreme religious leader such as Khamenei who controls Iran, and avidly pursues a bomb, then it is because he knows his views are anathema to so many others, including many Iranians, that he is kept in power by paid thugs and allows falsified elections so as to have the equally nasty Ahmadinejad as his supposedly democratic mouthpiece.
We live in a world where an awful lot of countries with full seats at the UN are run by all kinds of nasty governments - but Iran has to be high on the list. The UN has given up even pretending it is about democracy and rights for all in every Member state - which can only mean more states run like Iran. We should beware.
On balance, ours is an ugly world, for those with decent societies with rights for everyone are having little success in exporting their values to others - who are living in medieval theocracies, familial dictatorships and one party states. The UN has proved itself a poor vehicle and has been eclipsed since it froze the world as it was in 1945. It is no longer controlled by those who had all the power then.
simon coulter
on September 25, 2009
at 10:13 AM
Report this comment
*
No sanctions will work. With 1944 technology it took us 10 months to make enough U-235 for a bomb. The bomb design was so reliable we didn't even test it until it's use (Alamogordo was a test of a plutonium weapon). Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously said Pak. would EAT GRASS b4 giving up on having a nuke .. and they had a STOCKPILE b4 testing.
The west will NEVER do what is needed. Structurally it is unable to do so.
That means there will be an unrestricted regional war in the middle east.
Unrestricted
And if Iran has already built one, and they are not stupid, we will see use of nuclear weapons.
MONTHS
epaminondas
on September 25, 2009
at 10:08 AM
Report this comment
*
It is not a case of selling the S-300 anti- missles but of delivering and installing them. That is still to happen.
John Joyce
on September 25, 2009
at 09:37 AM
Report this comment
*
Article by Con Coughlin Reads:-
Handshakes in Newyork won't change the realities in Moscow &
Tehran?
Well, so what do you suggest
Con Coughlin-dear?
Before you suggest to bomb the
Tehran and Moscow, Remember the
other Countries having Bombs-i.e
Beijing,Tel Aviv,Delhi-and many
other Countries have Nuclear-Weapons, so what is your fear?
From any Country in this world?
Barak Obama and his USA's-Democrats were elected by their
Voters of USA, surely he have a
duty to serve them first,before
starting another war with- another Country may be wrong?
Handshake is the only thing you
could do with other countries &
NOT War-War,War?
What 44th President of USA must
do,is to serve his own fellow-
Country-men,the USA Citizen by
getting universal Health-Care &
Automobile Industries on their-
feet(USA-Economy)the priorities-
of his Country right first??
No-body,and no country is ruled
by other countries any more?+!
NO wars,with any country now,-
they all have Bombs, the only- Question is now? who will be-
first to use their bomb on who-
and which Country is Vulnerable?
But not for long,they all- working hard to catch-up with us
and the world is moving fast?+!!
Cllr Ken Tiwari (Independent)
on September 25, 2009
at 09:29 AM
Report this comment
*
Its a pipe dream for the security council to think we will have a nuclear free world.
North Korea produced them against world opinion.
Iran will soon have one against world opinion.
Pakistans may soon be in the hands of the Taliban.
Israel will not give hers up as long as Arab countrys refuse to recognise her right to exist, or continue to threaten to wipe them of the map.
The genie is out the bottle and you will never get it back in.
Unfortunately someone in the future will use one of these weapons, the world will then have to live with the aftermath.
Kevin Wardle
on September 25, 2009
at 09:10 AM
Report this comment
*
So, the self proclaimed president of the WOrld, BArak Hussein Obama, antagonised the Poles and other Eastern Europeans in order to appease the one European country that is dogmatically dedicated to undermining the only country that he is officially president of. The puppet who is nominally president of that country says his country might support Obama's sanctions initiative knowing he lacks the authority to honour any pledge that he might make.
My guess is Russia will sign a sanctions bill that is so insipid to be of at best marginal symbolic value. However, they will never honour it because Mendelev lacks the authority to do so.
Iran will continue as before. Obama will make a stirring speech that will excite the gormless and believers in the tooth fairy. Realists will thin about Neville Chamberlain's sincere but misguided attempt to appease Hitler.
Is Obama too arrogant, too inexperienced or too stupid to learn the lessons of history?
George VII
on September 25, 2009
at 09:10 AM
Report this comment
*
Fortunately, there is still one democratic liberal state that has the courage to stand up for Western civilisation, and will take the responsibility upon herself to neutralise the Mad Mullahs if it appears that they are in danger of creating a nuclear device.
Oh, by the way, Kremlins, the current Iranian regime isn't just bad, it's downright evil, and insane to boot.
Israel.
Catweazle
on September 24, 2009
at 10:58 PM
Report this comment
*
Why do not let the good people of Iran do the job for us, and drop a bomb on browns head.
"Con" we know you are working hard, but who are you are working for??
Goldman sachs?? Or maybe Eratz Israel?? Or the IDF.
mark
on September 24, 2009
at 10:47 PM
Report this comment
*
"Any jackass can kick down a barn," former US speaker of the House Sam Rayburn used to say. "It takes a carpenter to build one." I would add that it takes a man with intellectual Minerva and astute leadership to achieve what President Obama has achieved in such a short time. President Obama is trusted by the world leaders and loved by billions of people around the world and viewed as a man of peace, compassion and intellectually powerful and courageous who means what he says. President Obama is a carpenter, builder, plumber and an electrician who knows how to do a good job in a house. I believe that he has built a strong foundation and opened the way in nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament. Pea brain President G W Bush wanted to impose his vision of world order by dropping bombs and missiles on the heads of innocent people whom he considered his enemies but failed every where and left his country bankrupt.
I pray that President Obama has opened the way to the day when our world would be free from another nuclear holocaust thousands of times more horrendous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I hope that every nation with nuclear capability including Iran and Israel support this agreement.
Saqib Khan
on September 24, 2009
at 09:34 PM
Report this comment
*
Con Coughlin says "Iran... baddies.... nukes...."
Zzzzzzz.
Michael Fremlins
on September 24, 2009
at 09:22 PM
Report this comment
*
So why doesn't we park one of our trident subs of the iranian coast??
Wbat else have they got to do?
If Iran gets the bomb it'll be parked there permanently
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment