I seriously doubt the sanctions will work this time. I honestly wish they would (I am no war hawk). But, Iran does not believe a popular uprising will overthrow the regime (when they had the chance they got squashed, with not so much as a supportive phone call from the US). Why would they fear another uprising? (Uprising, of course, is the only real fear of sanctions - it's not like these guys actually care about the people.)

http://bethsaidafigtree.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/let-sanctions-work-unless-they-wont/

Mr. Keller's analysis is fatally flawed by numerous fallacies. The first is his assumption that the world remains trapped back in the 1960s, or the 1990s. The USA is still feared by all rational people, just as the Italian Mafia is feared, but the USA is no longer trusted or respected, by any other nation. No nation on Earth will follow the US lead, without Mafia thug threats from Washington, of lethal consequences if they don't.

No nation or people in the world will pay the slightest attention to any UN or US sanction the Americans can't enforce directly, with the use of force or the threat of the use of force. Wherever the hand of the USA is absent, across 10 kilometers of border, there the smugglers will be, making millions in black market profits, and importing and exporting everything people want and need.

Yes, Iran can't build nuclear facilities or import uranium secretly. But Iran has no need to build nuclear facilities or import uranium in secret. There's absolutely nothing the US or the Jews can do to stop the Iranians from conducting the normal business of a normal nation. The Jews keep telling the world that any nation has the right of self-defence, so obviously Iran has the right of self-defence against the aggression and hostility of the USA and the Jews. Iran has no need for any more justification than a figleaf protest that their intent is purely peaceful, to gain and hold the support of virtually the entire world, against the foaming-at-the-mouth protests of the USA and the Jews. Very few people in the world think a large nuke dropped on Tel Aviv would be a bad thing to see. Probably 90 percent of the planet's population would rejoice, and dance with jubilation in their streets.

At the same time, it is easily possible that the nuclear program of Iran is merely a diversion, and they have been stockpiling biologics like smallpox, anthrax, and nerve gas underneath their mountains for the past 10 or 20 years. The plants for biologics are far easier to conceal than nuclear facilities, and the delivery system for biologics weapon is far simpler and cheaper than the missile design for a nuclear warhead.

Mr. Keller is only seeing what he wants to see. He is oblivious to the reality of the world, which completely contradicts his viewpoint. Despite decades of evidence, the Americans and the Jews still don't understand that the rest of the world disagrees with them.

As Ehud Barak pointed out not terribly long ago, even a nuclear Iran is no real threat to Israel. I concur. They are absolutely not a threat to the US either.

While its worth it to try to discourage Iran from going nuclear, there is no method of stopping them from doing so if they are determined regradless of sanctions, ect.

To be sure, a pointless war with Iran would be bad for them, even devastating, but it would also be economically devastating for us, as oil prices would sky rocket and remain so for as long as gulf traffic were threatened, which they ( and interested others) could sustain for a long time. Think $500 per barrel.

This article doesn't recognise as well as it might the determination of the hardliners/IRGC to acquire the bomb, for which they ensured their candidate won in the last election and for which they have already been willing to undergo sanctions without any real signs of compromise. The country might start collapsing around them, but evidently they are willing to risk that if it means they can carry on enrichment and ignore the Additional Safeguards, and if they think they can get the bomb before a political collapse. The power of the IRGC and Basij in Iran (just like the Republican Guard and Fedayeen in Iraq) enables them to crush any opposition in the meantime, and the nuclear programme has popular support both inside Iran and amongst the Iranian diaspora, having been well-propagandized by the regime and fitting well within the strongly independent and nationalist sentiments of all relevant sections of Iranian society.

And it may not take too long for Iran to produce a bomb, probably within Ahmadinejad's term of office and maybe within Obama's term. The suggestion on page 3 of this article that military intervention would only be justified if Iran were to build a bomb and if it were believed they intended to use it is clearly nonsense, and the author of this article would (were that to transpire) doubtless argue that we shouldn't risk a confrontation with a nuclear state, along with anyone else with an interest in their own continued survival. What is really being envisaged is a DPRK-like situation of containment with the hope that Iran's young population would somehow come to our rescue eventually. But those in Iran who had built the bomb would become heroes, the Islamic revolution would be secure for another 20 years and the outward- rather than inward-looking Iran would (rather than facing serious isolation after breakout) necessarily have to be engaged in the region on a diplomatic level that would tend towards growing acceptance of the regime. This would seem to be the strategy adopted by the hardliners in Tehran, who view nuclear weaponization as the route towards greater power in the Middle East and are willing to endure economic hardship to achieve it -- something this article doesn't recognise.

That would lead to a situation where many other nations would feel compelled to follow in Iran's footsteps.

The choice is thus a stark one: between a strong Iran and a nuclear-armed Middle East and the risk of a pre-emptive attack, with all the military and diplomatic retaliation that would result. "Containment", in order to *be* containment and not just weakness, has to include military action at this very late stage in the game. Furthermore, whilst it is wrong to suppose that the Iranian opposition movement is inherently opposed to the nationalistic sentiments of the regime, also the supposition that Iran's pseudo-democratic process cannot iron out the internal human rights issues without caving in on their foreign policy objectives is an evidence-free supposition. In this, as in previous articles proclaiming the danger to the Green movement of an attack, the Iranian reformists are a red herring. Iran is well aware of this, and Western support for the Green movement is being used effectively by the hardliners to cow the West. We must engage with the Green movement, but only insofar as to illustrate Western concerns and prepare them to drop some of their scruples and take advantage of military action if and when that occurs -- a difficult proposition, but one that would make all the difference if successful.

There are exactly two reasons Saddam didn't get nukes - The 1981 raid on Osarak by the IAF and the first Gulf War.

Oh and in case the author of this article hasn't noticed the West has been talking to Iran about exactly this issue for 8 years.

U.S., Iran by Revolutionary Guards supplant government in order to create a military dictatorship, he believes.
Watch Movie Video

Konser