Is Iran "perhaps single greatest" security risk to US

[Primbs]

What should Ron Paul say?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071024141828.xc988yq6&show_article=1

[Original_Intent]

I would say, with no sarcasm, that neocons are the single greatest security risk to the US.

[Omnis]

What happened to the terrists?

[werdd]

its funny... because we will totally kick irans ass in 1 day just like iraq and our morale will be all steroided for a few months until we remember we couldnt even police iraq and now we got 2x the territory to policitate.

[constituent]

its funny... because we will totally kick irans ass in 1 day just like iraq and our morale will be all steroided for a few months until we remember we couldnt even police iraq and now we got 2x the territory to policitate.

not it's not. no we won't.

[kylejack]

I actually do have some concerns about Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Non-interventionism is important, though.

[freelance]

Washington D.C. is the single largest threat--ALL OF IT!

[mrd]

I actually do have some concerns about Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Non-interventionism is important, though.
What weapons program? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm)

[kylejack]

What weapons program? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm)

Yeah yeah, they just need it for power. I don't buy it.

[apropos]

He should ask: why did we attack Iraq if Iran is so dangerous?

[Proemio]

I would say, with no sarcasm, that neocons are the single greatest security risk to the US.

To the World.
Either they are stark raving lunatics or the other 99.7% of us are.
The answer depends on who is running the asylum.

[jamesmadison]

Iran complies with all IAEA regulations and has rights under international law to pursue peaceful acquisition of nuclear power.

[kylejack]

Iran complies with all IAEA regulations and has rights under international law to pursue peaceful acquisition of nuclear power.
They are a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Parties_to_the_treaty

They violated the safeguard provisions by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret. As Mohamed ElBaradei reported (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf), they have been in violation of the safeguard provisions of the NNPT. Furthermore, the 2005 IAEA report states (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf) that they're in violation of the IAEA safeguard provisions as well.

Specifically:


1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute;
2. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities referred to in the Director General’s report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

Just because they're claiming that they'll allow inspectors now doesn't mean they comply with all regulations. The IAEA has specifically stated that they've been in non-compliance in the past several years.

[jamesmadison]

They are a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Parties_to_the_treaty

They violated the safeguard provisions by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret. As Mohamed ElBaradei reported (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf), they have been in violation of the safeguard provisions of the NNPT. Furthermore, the 2005 IAEA report states (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf) that they're in violation of the IAEA safeguard provisions as well.

Specifically:



Just because they're claiming that they'll allow inspectors now doesn't mean they comply with all regulations. The IAEA has specifically stated that they've been in non-compliance in the past several years.

Your link is a report from 2003 and it gives us no indication of the motives and ability of Iran in 2007.

Here is updated information for you:

IAEA: Iranian Cooperation Significant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6886949,00.html

Mohamed ElBaradei
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104795.html

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told France’s LeMonde on Monday that Iran will not be a nuclear threat for at least three years since the country is three to eight years away from producing a nuclear bomb.

Iran, IAEA resume nuclear talks
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28448&sectionid=351020104

Please keep your information up to date and avoid historical revisionism.

[kylejack]

Your link is a report from 2003 and it gives us no indication of the motives and ability of Iran in 2007.

Here is updated information for you:

IAEA: Iranian Cooperation Significant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6886949,00.html

Mohamed ElBaradei
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104795.html


Iran, IAEA resume nuclear talks
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28448&sectionid=351020104

Please keep your information up to date and avoid historical revisionism.
You said, "Iran complies with all IAEA regulations". As recently as 2005, IAEA reports indicated that they were not complying with regulations. The recent releases do not state that they are complying with all IAEA regulations, but merely that they have agreed to allow inspectors in and to work with the IAEA. El Baradei's comments about their violations not rising to the level that military intervention is needed are refreshing, but he did not say "Iran complies with all IAEA regulations" as you allege.

[Proemio]

They are a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And such stable and reliable partners as Pakistan and Israel are not...



They violated the safeguard provisions by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret. As Mohamed ElBaradei reported (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf), they have been in violation of the safeguard provisions of the NNPT. Furthermore, the 2005 IAEA report states (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf) that they're in violation of the IAEA safeguard provisions as well.

We are back to the Iraq=WMD equation. Iran will never be able to prove a negative; neither is of course ElBaradei.

But since ElBaradei only reported a nebulous "absence of confidence" (I don't trust you), how much stock do you put on his half-dozen latest pronouncement and reports that considers the existence of such a program as unlikely, and that even if there were one, it would take 3 to 8 years to bring from fruition. In other words, what's the panic?

There is also the revealing fact that the IAEA had to issue several official statements to rectify official sounding leaks from "certain diplomats" which "had no resemblance to reality". Someone is desperate, and it obviously isn't because of a bomb.

And finally. Even if Iran were to build ZeBomb or five, how would that threaten the U.S. anymore than a Pakistani or an Israeli one?

That leaves us with the irrational "islamofashist" thingy, which is pure projection in my view; a view supported by a long history of "us" attacking, murdering and robbing them them blind, long before those ingrates developed the audacity to start defending themselves.

To the chagrin of the 'great thinkers' at PNAC et al, that defense remains pretty much local; and that is the big problem, me thinks.

[OptionsTrader]

I actually do have some concerns about Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Non-interventionism is important, though.

Have your "concerns." Everyone has "concerns."

The solution to the concerns cannot be another trillion dollar invasion that finally bankrupts this country and puts the last nail in the coffin of a dying empire.

For the sake of all that is logical and just, we need to get these lunatics out of office and elect a principled statesman that will talk to leaders of countries instead of this crash course of mercantilistic aggression falsely justified by terrorism fear propaganda.