Kako se situacija oko Irana sve vise zakuhava (tj. dok USA pokusava iransku "zabu" skuhati u loncu s laganim pojacavanjem temperature vode kako 'zaba' ne bi primijetila razliku-ili kao druga metafora: wall building brick by brick) sve je vise osvrta na aktualnu situaciju oko Irana uz povijesne presjeke i analize mogucih dogadjanja.
Bez obzira na linkove s desne strane evo nekoliko friskih analiza eminentnih strucnjaka, pocevsi naravno od Engdahla:
Engdahl: Pricing the Risk
....Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a point of no return in international relations. Even with sagging popularity, the White House knows this. The danger of the initial strategy of pre-emptive wars is that, as now, when someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response potential, the US is left with little option but to launch the unthinkable-nuclear first strike.
There are saner voices within the US political establishment, such as former NSC heads, Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush’s and the Pentagon hawks’ pre-emptive posture. The question is whether their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his exercise of Presidential power got out of hand.
It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the United States. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US pre-emptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject which neither the Bush Administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about.
Dakle, ako ovo nije bilo dosta teksta na engleskom, evo jos jedna analiza, ovaj put by Michel Chossudovsky:
Michel Chossudovsky-America's War of Terrorism
The Dangers of a US Sponsored Nuclear War (By Michel Chossudovsky, January 30, 2006)
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the same "military road-map". Confirmed by military documents, the US war agenda not only targets Iran, Syria and North Korea, but also its former Cold War enemies: Russia and China. We are dealing with a global military agenda characterized by various forms of intervention. The latter include covert military and intelligence operations in support of domestic paramilitary groups and so-called liberation armies. These operations are largely devised with a view to creating social, ethnic and political divisions within national societies, ultimately contributing to the destruction of entire countries, as occurred in Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, the US sponsored "democratization" agenda consists in intervening in countries’ internal affairs, often with a view to destabilizing national governments and imposing sweeping "free market" reforms. In this regard, the illegal invasion of Haiti following a US sponsored military coup, which was also supported by Canada and France, is an integral part of Washington’s global military agenda.
War and Globalization
War and globalization are intimately related processes. Military and intelligence operations support the opening up of new economic frontiers and the remolding of national economies. The powers of Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants and the U.S.-U.K. defense contractors are indelibly behind this process. Ultimately, the purpose of America’s "War on Terrorism" is to transform sovereign nations into open territories (or "free trade areas"), both through "military means", as well as through the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms. The latter, implemented under IMF-World Bank-WTO auspices often serve to undermine and destroy national economies, precipitating millions of people into abject poverty. In turn, so-called "reconstruction programs" imposed by donors and creditors in the wake of the war contribute to a spiraling external debt. In a twisted logic, "war reparations" financed by external debt are being paid to the US invader. Billions of dollars are channeled to Western construction conglomerates such as Bechtel and Halliburton, both of which have close links to the US Department of Defense.
Iran and Syria: Next Phase of the War
Confirmed in national security documents, a central objective of this war is the conquest and confiscation of Middle East oil wealth. In this regard, the broader Middle East – Central Asian region encompasses some 70 percent of the World’s oil and gas resources, more than thirty times those of the US. The Anglo-American oil giants in alliance with Wall Street and the military-industrial complex are indelibly behind America’s war agenda. The next phase of this war is Iran and Syria, which have already been identified as targets.
Iran is the country with the third largest oil and gas reserves (10%) after Saudi Arabia (25%) and Iraq (11%). The US is seeking with the complicity of the UN Security Council to establish a pretext for the bombing of Iran, which is presented as a threat to world peace.
Israel is slated to play a key role in launching the military operation against Iran.
This operation is in a state of readiness. Were it to occur, the war would extend to the entire Middle Eastern region and beyond.
At the same token, Israel would become an official member of the Anglo-American military axis.
In early 2005, several high profile military exercises were conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean, involving military deployments and the testing of weapons systems.
Military planning meetings were held between the US, Israel and Turkey. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
The UN Security Council resolution regarding Iran’s nuclear program provides a pretext, which the US plans to use to justify military intervention. Of significance is a November 2004 military cooperation agreement between NATO and Israel.
A few months later, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.
Nuclear Weapons in Conventional War Theaters: "Safe for Civilians"
An attack on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons (mini-nukes) has also been contemplated. Tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity between one third to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb have been cleared for use in conventional war theaters. The mini-nukes have been redefined as a defensive weapon, which is "safe for civilians" "because the explosion is underground". The Senate in a December 2003 decision, has authorized their use in conventional war theaters.
Air strikes against Iran could contribute to extending the war to the broader Middle East Central Asian region. Tehran has confirmed that it would retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In recent developments, Israel’s armed forces have been ordered by Prime minister Ariel Sharon, "to be ready by the end of March  for possible strikes" on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities (The Sunday Times, 11 December 2005).
Meanwhile, Iran is building its air defense capabilities.
Russia has recently announced that it plans to sell to Iran some 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems.
The planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-UK-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
Global Military Agenda
The war in the Middle East is part of a carefully defined military agenda. Formulated in September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objectives are:
-defend the American homeland;
-fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
-perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
-transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;"
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who now heads the World Bank, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential elections. The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for Empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003).
Distinct from theater wars, the so-called "constabulary functions" imply a form of global military policing using various instruments of military intervention including punitive bombings, covert intelligence operations and the sending in of US Special Forces, etc.
....cijela prezentacija na linku gore...
Jesmo li zaista toliko blizu upotrebi nuklearnog oruzja ili je sve samo partija pokera s igracima koji su ipak svjesni koji su ulozi na stolu?
Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.
Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.
Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official. According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.
What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis-ŕ-vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said. "Nothing provides the energy for imitation as much as success," commented one administration expert.
A further factor of Hamas' growth was the fact the PLO moved its base of operations to Beirut in the '80s, leaving the Islamic organization to grow in influence in the Occupied Territories "as the court of last resort," he said. When the intifada began, Israeli leadership was surprised when Islamic groups began to surge in membership and strength. Hamas immediately grew in numbers and violence. The group had always embraced the doctrine of armed strle, but the doctrine had not been practiced and Islamic groups had not been subjected to suppression the way groups like Fatah had been, according to U.S. government officials. But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain in strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.
Read full story@Richard Sale/UPI analysis from 2002
Another brick in the wall...
Blair accuses Iran and Syria of terrorism
Mon. 23 Jan 2006-Iran Focus
British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iran and Syrian on Monday of supporting terrorism.
“Iran is giving active support to terrorists round the Middle East and elsewhere”, Blair told reporters at his first monthly press conference of the year. “There is a situation obviously as a result of what has happened in Lebanon where there are very serious question marks about what has happened in Syria”, the British Prime Minister said, referring to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri.
“We are happy to have better relations with Syria and Iran, we have no desire whatever to act against people in Iran or people in Syria, but the governments of those two countries have to understand that the only basis of friendly relations is that they abide by their international obligations and do not support terrorism in other countries. Now I am afraid at the moment that is not the case”. “Now if either of those two regimes is prepared to meet us on that ground there is a different relationship that is possible, but it can't be done on the basis that they support the types of activities I am afraid it seems as if they have been supporting in the past few years”, he said.
Cekamo 'dokaze' uskoro...
Hm, a mozda ih Condie cuva zajedno s irackim WMD dokazima koje je obecala pokazat prije nekoliko godina?
Iran on Sunday said Israel would be making a "fatal mistake" if it resorted to military action against Tehran's nuclear program, and dismissed comments on the issue made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as a "childish game." On Saturday, Mofaz said "Israel will not accept Iran's nuclear armament," and added that Israel was prepared for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program. Mofaz, speaking at the Herzliya Conference, said that although Israel is currently satisfied with the international diplomatic efforts aimed at containing Tehran's nuclear program, Israel must prepare to defend itself. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Israel was only trying to add to Western pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program. "We consider Mofaz's comments a from of psychological warfare. Israel knows just how much of a fatal mistake it would be [to attack Iran]," Asefi told reporters. "This is just a childish game by Israel."...
Read more@Iran: Israeli military strike against nuclear program would be 'fatal mistake'
Prilog za slijedeci puzzle piece:
Tehran plans nuclear weapon test by March
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 -Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran. The Foundation for Democracy citing sources in the U.S and Iran offered no further information.
The FDI quotes sources in Iran that the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force have issued new orders to Shahab-3 missile units, ordering them to move mobile missile launchers every 24 hours in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or Israel. The order was issued Tuesday, Jan. 16. The group says the launchers move only at night, and have been instructed to change their positions "in a radius of 30 to 35 kilometers." Prior to the new orders the Shahab-3 units changed position on a weekly basis. Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamadan province, within striking distance of Israel. Reserve mobile launchers have been moved to Esfahan and Fars province.
Jos malo ponavljanja gradiva da ne bi bili nespremni za ispit na proljece...
The Enduring Threat: A Brief History
Iranian Nuclear Ambitions and American Foreign Policy
The resumption in August of uranium processing, directed by newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has not only aggravated enduring tenuous American foreign relations with Iran that have existed since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but additionally this provocative action directed by President Ahmadinejad escalated political tensions amongst the United States and the EU-3 which are major importers of Iranian petroleum.
toliko za danas, prelazim u ilegalu...
Analysis-Avoiding a war with Iran
By Mike Whitney-Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 19, 2006 (Copyright© 1998-2006 Online Journal)
The march to war with Iran is continuing apace despite skyrocketing gold prices, a jittery oil market, and the unrelenting chaos in nearby Iraq. Are we surprised?
The control of Middle East oil has always been a central part of the neocon strategy for global domination. That won’t change.
The toppling of Iran’s theocratic regime would consolidate dwindling resources under the stars and stripes and guarantee continued supremacy of US financial institutions, American energy giants, and the faltering greenback. Additionally, it would defang a potential rival to an emergent Israel, which sees itself as the prevailing power in the region.
There have been many signs that war is imminent, perhaps, none as convincing as the unexpected announcement last year that both General Electric and Halliburton were picking up stakes and leaving Iran.
Is Halliburton normally that squeamish about ethical issues related to trading with nations boycotted by the US?
The recess appointment of "mad hatter" John Bolton as ambassador to the UN was another indication that Washington was on the warpath. The fiery Bolton was “backdoored” into his position against the strong dissent of Democratic senators for one reason alone; to bully the Security Council into another preemptive war. He hasn’t disappointed. Just yesterday, Bolton lashed out in one of his familiar tirades saying, “This will be a test for the council, and appropriately so, because the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems threatens their region and threatens the world as a whole.”
No one except Bolton and his neocon friends in the hard-right think-tanks have made such unsupportable allegations.
Could it be that the whole nuclear weapons issue is just a convenient pretext for war?
Could it be that the “facts and intelligence are being fixed around the policy”?
Condoleezza Rice has added her voice to the chorus of right-wing pundits and politicos who want to expand the war in the Middle East. Just yesterday she said, “We’ve got to finally demonstrate to Iran that it can’t with impunity just cast aside the just demands of the international community.”
Then she added ominously, “[The president] always keeps all his options open.”
The “demands of the international community” never factor in to the decision making process at the Bush White House; nor do the facts. As yet, there’s no concrete proof that Iran is in violation of its treaty requirements under the terms of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). The case before the IAEA is a feeble rehashing of breaches that date back more than two years. Since then, Iran has been under the strictest inspection regimen ever devised by the watchdog agency. The results have shown no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program; as IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said, “We don’t see a clear and present danger.”
Given the sketchiness of the allegations, it’s looking increasingly uncertain that the case will go beyond the IAEA to the UN Security Council. However, one should never underestimate the persuasive powers of the Bush diplomatic team. Presently, the US, Britain and Israel are pushing hard to have the case referred to the UN-5, (the 5 permanent members of the Security Council) but Russia and China are understandably reluctant.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was unwilling to even discuss sanctions on Iran saying, “Sanctions are not the best way to solve international problems”; dismissing the sestion as “putting the cart before the horse.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Kong Quan was equally hesitant to support any move that would bring Iran before the council saying, “We think the most urgent thing for all the parties now is to still keep patient and make the utmost efforts to resume the negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran.”
Nevertheless, the Bush administration believes it can garner the necessary votes to bring Iran before the Security Council and, perhaps, win support for punitive action. The European allies remain deeply skeptical. After all, Europe and China depend heavily on Iranian oil and natural gas. (China imports 17 percent of its oil from Iran) So, any major disruption of supplies or closing down of the Strait of Hormuz would have a catastrophic effect on their economies.
In a worrisome article in the Christian Science Monitor, “On Iran, the West looks for a Plan,” reporter Howard LaFranchi notes, “For some experts the time is ripe to prepare the world economy for living without Iranian oil -- by developing pipelines in the oil-rich Gulf region to circumvent Iran-dominated transport routes.” . . ."countries should take steps now to ease the burden of future moves.” This shows us how grave the situation really is, and how the administration and Israel may be willing to disrupt the global economy and send oil prices shooting through the ceiling to achieve there mutual objectives. Still, there’s the nettlesome problem of whether Iran is guilty of the breaches in the NPT for which it stands accused.
It could be that the administration is simply wrong as it was about Iraq.
It’s also worth considering that the mere existence of WMD cannot be considered a legitimate rationale for aggression; a point that now seems to be an article of faith among liberals and conservatives alike. The possession of WMD neither proves “intention” nor “imminent threat.” If the production of WMD legitimized preemptive action, than the United States would be a justifiable target for every other nation in the world.
In Iran’s case, we have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or of noncompliance. Rather, we have the Bush administration asking its allies to deprive Iran of its “inalienable right” under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Nuclear weapons expert Gordon Prather points out the flaws in the administration’s position when he repeats the comments of Iran’s Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi in his recent article “What Noncompliance?”
Kharrazi says: “The ‘inalienable right’ of states to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes emanates from the universally accepted proposition that scientific and technological achievements are the common heritage of mankind. . . . It is unacceptable that ‘some’ intend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of ‘non-proliferation.’ This attitude is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty and destroys the fundamental balance which exists between the rights and obligations in the treaty.” “Scientific . . . achievements are the common heritage of mankind.”
..ili prevedeno na latinski: Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi
Cekamo pocetak veljace....
Relations between Iran and the United States have been unstable for decades.
Iran has been indirectly involved in numerous terrorist activities.
And the U.S. has intervened in Iranian affairs.
Following 911 attacks, Iran quietly offered support for U.S. military action in Afghanistan. In a historic gesture, then Secretary of State Colin Powell shook hands with Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi at U.N. headquarters.
It seemed as though the animosity between the countries might end.
However, on January 29, 2002, relations began to sour again.
In his State of the Union address, GWB said that Iran and its “terrorist allies” are part of “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”
Two days later, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced, “Iran’s direct support of regional and global terrorism and its aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, belie any good intentions it displayed in the days after the world’s worst terrorist attacks in history”.
Vise detalja i nastavak na ovom linku (zanemariti nepotrebne moralne dvojbe)
Usporedba struktura vlasti u Iranu vs. USA?
Iran’s government is an Islamic theocratic democracy; yet, in many ways, it resembles the U.S. government. Both have an executive branch headed by an elected president, a legislative branch and a powerful judiciary.
Of course, there are also many differences.
Iran’s Supreme Leader is in charge of outlining and supervising “the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” He is the commander-in-chief of the military, and controls intelligence and security forces. He has the authority to appoint and dismiss judiciary leaders, radio and television network leaders, and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. He can even deny candidates from running for office.
The President is under the Supreme Leader. Though this person occupies a high public profile, his power is limited by Iran’s constitution. For instance, unlike the U.S., Iran’s president is not in charge of the executive branch of the government (the Supreme Leader is). His main responsibility is setting the economic policies of the country.
Other branches of the government include the Parliament (similar to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives), Assembly of Experts (comprised of “virtuous and learned” clerics), Council of Guardians (determines if laws passed by Parliament are compatible with the constitution and Islamic law), the judiciary (similar to the U.S. judicial branch) and the National Security and Intelligence (comprised of the Supreme National Security Council, the army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security).
Often, disputes between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians reach the point of stalemate. To combat this, in 1988, Khomeini created the Expediency Council.
Its purpose is to mediate disagreements between the two branches of government.
Na kraju, citiram misljenje 'strucnjaka' za demokratska drustva:
"In his 2002 State of the Union address, GWB called for a reform of the Expediency Council.
He denounced this body as the “unelected few” who repress those with democratic aspirations."
Postoji li mozda razlika izmedju "Expediency Council-a" i Cheneyevog "Energy Task Force-a"?
Summary of West's nuclear standoff with Iran
Moves to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for defying the world over its nuclear program gathered pace on Thursday.
Britain, France and Germany said their talks with Iran had reached a dead end and agreed the dispute should move to the Security Council for possible sanctions against Tehran.
Here is a summary of developments in the nuclear standoff:
In August 2002, a group of Iranian exiles, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said Iran was hiding a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and other atomic sites.
The allegations were later confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which launched a probe into allegations that Iran was secretly developing atomic weapons as the NCRI and Washington claimed.
Iran says obtaining or using atom bombs would violate Islam and that it hid its facilities because of a Western embargo.
Tehran contacted a nuclear technology black market linked to the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, in the late 1980s in the midst of a war with Iraq. Iran received uranium enrichment technology and parts of a design for making the core of an atom bomb from Khan's people.
* Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, but has failed to declare many potentially arms-related nuclear facilities and activities to the IAEA over nearly two decades.
* The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has found no hard proof of U.S. and NCRI claims that Tehran wants weapons, but has been unable to confirm its nuclear program is purely peaceful.
* In September, the IAEA board declared Iran had violated its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which must be reported to the U.N. Security Council, but it set no date for referring the issue to the council.
* In late 2003, the EU began trying to persuade Iran to end its nuclear fuel activities in exchange for a package of political and economic incentives. In November 2004, Tehran agreed to freeze those activities temporarily while it pursued talks with France, Britain and Germany, the "EU3".
However, Iran restarted one of the suspended activities, uranium conversion, in August. This week Iran removed IAEA seals from uranium enrichment equipment, triggering the latest crisis.
* Russia, which has previously opposed sending Iran to the Security Council, has nearly $1 billion at stake in the Islamic republic's Bushehr nuclear reactor project plus a deal to supply the reactor with fuel that would be returned to Russia so Iran could not extract bomb-grade plutonium from it.
WHERE IS IT GOING?
* Even if the IAEA board refers Iran to the Security Council at an emergency session in February, Tehran is unlikely to face sanctions at first while a diplomatic solution is sought.
* Several developing nations on the IAEA's 35-nation board oppose sending Iran to the Council for working on a nuclear fuel program, which is legal under the NPT. They fear setting a precedent that could be used to deny them nuclear technology.
* It is unclear if Russia and China, who like the United States, France and Britain wield veto power at the Security Council, would support tough action like sanctions against Iran.
* Possible U.N. sanctions range from travel curbs on government officials to a full trade embargo. Any restrictions on Iranian oil exports would be a two-edged sword for the global economy as Iran is the world's fourth biggest oil exporter.
* Israel has hinted it may use air strikes to try to cripple Iran's nuclear capability, though analysts say this would be no easy task. Washington has not ruled out military force either.
A sad malo o kontekstu svega...
Iran's major oil customers, foreign energy partners
Iran, the 4th biggest crude exporter, sits on 11% of the world's oil reserves.
Iran has the world's 2nd largest gas reserves and lies beside the Strait of Hormuz, the main shipping route carrying Middle Eastern oil to international markets.
Pumping close to 4 million barrels per day, its full capacity, Iran ships about 2.4 million bpd to international markets, with roughly 60% destined for Asia and the remainder mostly to Europe.
Iran refines 1.6 million bpd, mostly for domestic use.
The United States has the least to lose from any physical disruption.
It has barred U.S. companies from importing Iranian crude since 1995 because of its disapproval of the regime.
Washington has also threatened sanctions against foreign firms investing in Iranian energy, although these measures are widely disregarded. Many foreign firms are pursuing investment projects in the Islamic Republic.
The following have most at stake:
* Japan - Imports about 550,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. Japan-led group due to invest $2 billion in a controversial deal to develop Iran's giant Azadegan oilfield.
* China - Imports roughly 300,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. In the running to develop Iran's promising Yadavaran oilfield, which could require investment of at least $2 billion.
* India - Imports at least 150,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. Iran due to supply India with liquefied natural gas (LNG) in deal valued at $22 billion. LNG exports to run for 25 years, starting from late 2009. India also angling for stake in Iran's Yadavaran oilfield. New Delhi planning a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India.
* Royal Dutch Shell (Britain/Netherlands) - Buys about 200,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. Developed the Soroush/Nowruz oilfields, which required investment of nearly $1 billion. Looking to invest in LNG plant with Spain's Repsol.
* ENI (Italy) - Lifts roughly 60,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. Invested in Darkhovin oilfield project, with total investment at $1 billion. Involved with Total in Doroud oilfield, which required investment of $1 billion. Also invested in smaller, Balal oilfield with Total. Has stake in South Pars gas field worth just under $2 billion.
* Total (France) -- Imports modest amount of Iranian crude. Has invested heavily in Iran's oil and gas sector. Involved in the development of the Sirri, Doroud and Balal oilfields. Invested in South Pars gas field with Malaysia's Petronas and Russia's Gazprom. Looking to invest in LNG plant.
* Korea - Refines about 100,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude. Involved in giant South Pars gas field, investment worth about $1.6 billion.
* Turkey - Consumes about 140,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude.
* Spain - Lifts modest volume of Iranian crude. Hoping to invest in LNG project with Shell.
Dakle, USA je glavni zagovaratelj sankcija, moze u Vijecu Sigurnosti racunati na GB (kao i uvijek, naravno) te vjerovatno na Francusku kojoj je puna kapa pregovora.
Sad se opet vracamo na Kinu i Rusiju, koje ce kao sto smo vec vidjeli biti tesko nagovoriti:
1/ Za pocetak, Iran kupuje vecinu svog oruzja od njih
2/ Rusija radi na Bushehr reaktoru i u planovima je za nove nuklearne investicije u Iranu
3/ Kina posjeduje 50% dionica iranskog naftnog polja Yadavaran i dogovorila je isporuku 250M tona iranskog LNG-a u vrijednosti od cca $70 miljardi
A opet, sve da se i svih 5 clanica dogovori oko sankcija, sama provedba sankcija ce biti vjerovatno teza od dogovora...
U.S. and EU want Security Council to tackle Iran
By Louis Charbonneau (Reuters)
The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday talks with Iran had reached a dead end and agreed it should be brought before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program. Accusing Tehran of turning its back on the international community, they said it had consistently breached its commitments and failed to show the world its nuclear activities were peaceful.
"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after talks in Berlin with his British and French counterparts and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. A joint statement from the "EU3" countries said: "We believe the time has now come for the Security Council to become involved."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (vidi funkciju na kartama) joined calls for an emergency meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to seek a referral to the Council, which can impose sanctions. After holding a news conference, the EU ministers headed straight to a teleconference on Iran with Rice.
The announcement signified the end of 2-1/2 years of attempts to convince Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, which they suspect it intends to use to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. Iran says it only aims to develop a civilian nuclear power program in accordance with international law. It said on Thursday it was not worried by the threat of referral to the Security Council.
Tehran raised the stakes on Tuesday when it began to remove IAEA seals on equipment used to enrich uranium. The process can produce fuel for power stations or, if the uranium is highly purified, for bombs. The EU3 statement said the decision was a clear rejection of its diplomacy and a challenge to the IAEA and the world.
"This is not a dispute between Iran and Europe, but between Iran and the whole international community ... It is about Iran's failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program," it said.
EU and Washington's patience with Tehran has been wearing thin for months, with anger rising after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and queried whether six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
In their statement, the EU3 deliberately did not mention the possibility of U.N. sanctions, an option they are holding in reserve in the hope that simply bringing Iran to the Security Council will persuade it to comply.
Russia and China, permanent Council members with veto powers, will hold the key to deliberations.
The two have previously resisted referring Iran's case there. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Iran, a big energy partner of Russia, could lose Moscow's support if it did not resume its moratorium on nuclear research.
"We will find it very difficult to continue our efforts," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.
Lavrov also told Ekho Moskvy radio that Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel aggravated the situation further.
"All this adds arguments for those who believe that Iran can be dealt with only through the U.N. Security Council."
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy stressed the need for close consultation with Moscow and Beijing.
"Only if we're together will there be sufficient strength for the Iranians to return to reason," he said.
Seeking an international consensus on sending Iran to the Security Council, Britain said it would host talks of senior foreign ministry officials from the United States, Russia, China and the EU3 next week. Diplomats said these were likely to be held on Monday.
Iran dismissed the threats to refer its nuclear program to the Security Council. "We are not worried," Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state television.
OIL RISES ON IRAN TENSIONS
Oil prices climbed to a three-month high as mounting tension over Iran stoked fears of supply disruption from the world's fourth biggest crude exporter, though they later pulled back. U.S. crude futures were up 76 cents to $64.70 by 1702 GMT, easing from a session high of $64.90, which was the highest level since early October.
...mozemo samo zamislit kako ce se cijene kretat uskoro kad se situacija s Iranom malo pogorsa...
A behind the scenes look of the Bush administration reveals a team of cronies, carrying out a "neo-conservative" revolution in total opposition with the History and Values of their country.
George W. Bush seized power with the complicity of the Supreme Court and despite electoral results that were against him; a global citizensurveillance system was set up through the USA Patriot Act; the Army was allowed to intervene in domestic policy; a propaganda machine was set up; the country abdicated its right to self-rule and has launched itself into a series of colonial campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. What we are witnessing is not simply a change in policies but the emergence of a new regime that threatens Liberty in America and Peace in the rest of the world.
The 52 Most Dangerous American Dignitaries
Pocela novog svjetskog poretka ili who is who in Bushmanland na stranici Poker Faces
Interesantno je pratiti koje su karte vec odigrane, jer kao sto rece Boza zvani Pub:
"Dzaba vam novci moji sinovci,
dzaba vam bilo dobre volje,
i pogledi cvrsti, lepljivi prsti
ja ipak varam malo bolje..."
ali kockar se krije i cuci u svakom od nas...i ceka pravi cas...
p.s. Boza je trebo biti veterinar, al je tjero neki inat...sto naravno nema veze s ovim kontekstom