Iran Launches Payload into Space 698
An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East:
"It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
From the article:
Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.
It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."
Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, but it can. It can get much worse.
Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.
It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech. Washington turned down Teheran's 2003 offer to open negociations. The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place. Everything indicates an imminent attack.
On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The white house's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer. Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran's nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
Mad world.
I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...
Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...
I guess you're right!
Re:Confusion? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it just so happens that Iran is *in fact* on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances these two are connected? Very good. These rockets *could* be used by Iran to lob scientific and communications satellites into space, but what are the chances that instead, they will first be used for nuke missiles? Be realistic, now.
And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.
Re:Confusion? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to have to disagree. It may very well escalate into a nuclear war amongst superpowers, but a single nuclear bomb (likely to be dropped on Iran by the US, considering their own rhetoric) on a non-superpower may illicit a large conventional response on key infrastructure. Or a limited nuclear retaliation.
Either way, a small nuclear attack will definitely not signal the end of the human race. You would need a large first strike which illicit a second strike and so on for that to occur. That would never happen due to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Nuclear doomsday scenarios are so overrated.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the administration doesn't want to negotiate with Iran, but they also don't want average dumb Americans to realize that. Americans hear "We'll negotiate as soon as (blah blah blah)", but most Americans don't know enough backstory to realize that the (blah blah blah) is an unreasonable precondition to negotiating.
I'm not satisfied either (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them [latimes.com], that's for sure.
If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.
--MarkusQ
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history. Obviously, when Saddam attacked Iran, he certainly didn't do anything to make Iran less inclined to establish regular covert (and not so covert) forrays into that country to erode the Sunni-ness of the place.
Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech
Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world. They openly and proudly finance and support organizations that do seek to destabilize the middle east and throw it back into a medieval environment. They did and do still speak in terms of wiping Israel off the map. So, that makes them more like Canada, maybe? If you had to name a couple of countries most on the "evil" list, in terms of trafficking in weapons and daily support for Really Bad People, Iran and North Korea definitely are at the top, especially in the context of extremist Islamic militancy.
The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
Do you not even WATCH press coverage of Europe? The US has been bending over backwards to allow Europe, the UN, and the IAEA to do what the EU has been insisting they be allowed to do: talk this to death, and use sanctions to make Iran somehow magically not want to have nuclear weapons while at the same time talking up the pending demise of its most hated regional enemy. The people establishing the "impossible situation" are the whole of the UN security council. European big-wigs are the ones standing up and saying the same things: this can't be allowed, sanctions will be needed, etc. Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?
Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?
The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it? The point is that they (Iran) are unwilling, as expected, to demonstrate any interest whatsoever actually not producing nukes. Why even bother sitting through pointless and empty negotiations if the very first step - which includes them doing something to show they even have an interest - is something they're already saying they won't do? It just saves everyone a lot of time. There doesn't need to be any negotiation because they don't intend to carry them out or abide by them anyway. It's hardly a mystery. Do you really wonder if the same guy that says he's just cured AIDS is going to negotiate in good faith to give up something he's already said he'll never give up... and says those things in the context of his promises to see the US and her allies destroyed?
Re:But don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...
Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.
Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:1, Insightful)
When such a country actively seeks nuclear technology for power, in light of the fact it has quite a lot of petroleum for such uses, the west has reason for concern.
When the US administration said Iraq did this, and Iraq did that, with a lack of evidence, it was propaganda. When Iran cries death to Israel and the West, concern raised in the West is not baseless propaganda.
The West has done some stupid things, especially in regards to the Middle East, but assuming everything they do is bad is only going to make the situation worse. I know a white kid who counterfitted money; clearly all white people counterfit money.
Re:is there a treaty which says they shouldn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you accept what Iran says at face value, this was a ballistic missile test. It had nothing to do with space exploration.
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that Iran is widely known to fund and train terroristic organisations. Not the kind Bush scared everyone when he needed excuse for Iraq, but the real guys - Hezbollah, Hamas... how'd you feel about one or both of those getting an ICBM with a nuclear warhead at their disposal?
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that so ? Because there is a belief that it is easier to make US change its behavior than to make it drop its technologies. Currently it is believed to be easier to make Iran drop its technology than to change its international stance but this opinion could very well change in the near future.
Iran never claimed a cure for AIDS (Score:2, Insightful)
However this current news in sync with recent events happening in Iran. And yes the region will be destabalized, the question is will it be for the good or for the ad. IRaq war destabalized the region, was it for the good or for the bad. Further, whats more important is will this destabalization be for the good of the Iranian people or not.
I think the answer is that destabalization will benefit Iran in the long but is a blow to percevied control of west and its allies in that region. Technological breakthroughs are always bebeficial to a country in the long run as they do not have to rely on bread crums thrown at them by those on power. India proved that by going nuclear in the 70s itself. I was tough to live in India during the 80s because of those sanctions, BUT because of those sanctions India learned to be self sufficient, damn US turned back a cargo ship full of rice when India did its first tests in the 70s, people went hungry, today India is oneof the largest exporter of rice. We wouldnt have Basmati rice if it wasnt fo rthose nuclear tests.
So I say go Iran, just dont make those damn nukes.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran is the threat? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 based on the flimsy excuse that the Soviet Union non longer existed, when we all knew Russia was effectively taking over in that role. Now the US is actively pursuing an ABM system and the Russians are getting quite twitchy about it. This presents much more of a nuclear threat than Iran's civilian nuclear program. Why are the media not continually harassing the US over the issue and accusing them of threatening world peace?
Clearly the US sets the news agenda, so perhaps the relative silence over the ABM threat is not surprising (even if it should be). If it is taboo to talk about the existing nuclear powers as the real threat, what about Saudi Arabia? There have been a number of independent reports over several years which claim Saudi Arabia is pursuing a secret nuclear program with Pakistan. Why is this being ignored. Could it possibly be because they are an ally?
Why don't we overhype the news some more!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno... (Score:4, Insightful)
There were a lot of groups active against the Soviets, and not all of them were allied. To group them all together shows a serious misunderstanding of the complexities of that war.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the bomb. It has long been considered a bad thing to let other get it. It isn't because they need it to defend themselves or anything. It is more in the opinion that we know we won't use it unless it was used against us but we cannot be certain they won't.
As for the rest, Americas interactions that parralell Iran's have been done in the Best ofr the interest of the united states and it's allies. Even when later it was found to have little positive effects it was considered at the time to be the best thing to do. Unfortunatly, this isn't an ideal world and not everything done has the greatest outcomes and not everything done was the best choice of the time. Although it was thought to have been the best choice. And the people not directly influenced by the positive results only see the negtive results but the key here isn't the results at all, It is who interest the actions were supposed to benifit. Iran's interest as presented presently will be against the interest of the US and some of it's allies.
When you ask a question like that, You have to look at what can come from it, what it is likly to be used for and who it could effect. If it could effect you and it could damage your reletive's property and possibly lives, you tend to want them to stop doing it. Whatever "it" is. And unfortunatly, the intentions could be admirable, the outcome could be non threatening and we end up with something like chernobyl.
As for being the only country to use a nuke. At the time it was used, there wasn't a concept of the damges it caused. It wasn't until after theat we discovered how bad they were. All we knew was an invasion into mainland japan would reult in massive loss of life for the good guys. While the intent of the bomb was only to inflict those losses on the enemy and save the "goodguys" (and yes are the good guys in that war) We unleashed something that couldn't be hidden again. Hilter was trying to find "the bomb" too ubt was unsuccessfull.
So our only instance of using it, we found how bad it was and at the same time, we showed it was possible. This meant that anyone else working on it would have found it too eventualy. To take nukes off the table reagon made a decision that elimintated it's use for the vast majority of wars. Mutualy asured destruction (mad) means that If you use it, we use it and anything you would hope to gain from us will be lost in your lands and possibly more too. The fatal flaw here? the rogue state who doesn't want to invade someone. They want to see them completly destroyed as a clensing process simular to the final solution for the jews. Except countries like Iran have this concept imbeded in their religion wich ultimatly rules the lands. This religious clensing concept is most noticable in the goups labeled as terrorist and etream in the middle east areas.
Yes Iran is more of a therocracy then a democracy or dictatorship. The president of Iran can be overruled at any time by the supreme leader (rahbar) who is a high prist or whatever the muslum position is with the same eeffects. SO lets say that Iran has the bomb and a delivery system that can reach anywere on earth. Now lets say that the extream religios factions infiltrate the churches in Iran and make the whole killing everyone else idea more popular. Now lets sat the Ayatollah is assasinated and his replacment is a follower of this extream belief. Now you will get atomic cleansing of all that disagree's with their religion and they see any retaliation as a test from god to determine how loyal they are. This exact scenario is the reason we are having so much of a problem fighting terrorist. How do you defeate an nemy that see dieing for the cause as the cause winning? And this makes Iran particularly dangerous moreso then other who mihgt get the bomb.
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though, nobody likes the regime in Teheran, but they sure seem a lot less beligerent than the one in War-shington. Unless the US stops meddling with other countries' for their selfish buck-driven interests, gives up veto-ing every single resolution concerning Israel and agrees to implement partition plans approved by the international community, radicalism and extremism is likely to foster. Oh, and did I mention the majority of Americans wants their government to give up Veto power and stop agressing other countries. So much for democracy...
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you implying that the US supported Bin Laden in the '80's? The I would have to imply that you are wrong.
True, the US did support the Moujahadin in the 80's, or at least we helped them knock down a few Russian helicoptors, but we did not support Al Qaeda nor Bin Laden. The people we supported were the same groups that helped us overthrow the Taliban.
Or, would you have had us sit by silently while the Russians slaughtered Afghanis by the thousands?
If Hezbollah or Hamas got an ICBM that could reach the USA, then I'd be concerned. But they don't. They can't even reach Europe right now.
Uh, if Iran just sent a satellite into orbit, then Hezbollah has the ability to strike anywhere in the world. All Iran has to do is conveniently leave the control room unguarded one day and... oops, someone launched something.
More likely, these groups won't need an ICBM. All they would need to do is make a phone call to someone in the US and tell them how they are going to smuggle the bomb in, what their orders are and how to carry them out. (You know, since we can't listen in on the phone call and all)
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
but then you say
Why get involved then if Israel is just another pissant ME country? You don't want to be the world's policeman but then you want to be the world policeman. You have to get your act straight.
Let's assume that you want to be the world's policeman:
Then it is a million times easier to police by _preventing_ the problems. Don't act when the countries already burned themselves to the ground, but stop them from getting the nukes in the first place. Your analogy between thoughcrimes when applied to humans vs. when applied to countries is not valid. In case of a country intelligence can be used to determine what the country is 'thinking'.
Let's assume that you don't want to be the world's policeman:
Then you should not giving a shit whatever happens in ME anyway. Israel gets wiped out - ok. Isreal wipes out the whole ME with nukes - also ok. Only when the nukes start flying towards US you retaliate.
So pick one of the two...
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran has obligations under the NPT to open up its nuclear research program to international inspectors to allow them to confirm what Iran says is taking place, something that even the US and Russia do. Iran has refused to allow inspectors entry into several key facilities, and has refused to turn over information about them, violating their Safeguards agreement, according to the IAEA. Pakistan's refusal to make available A.Q. Khan -- known for stealing from other nations several plans critical for development of his own country's nuclear weapons -- for interviewing by the IAEA even after evidence came to light that he supplied at least some of Iran's nuclear technology has further heightened suspicions as to the nature of the program.
I do see some hope in that Iran's economy -- which Ahmadinejad promised to turn around -- has continued to further tank even as Ahmadinejad has poured what may be billions of dollars into the nuclear program which has done little more than raise tensions with the West even as employment problems worsen. Evidence of support issues within the elite ranks of the clerics has come to light, and it may well be that Ahmadinejad will last only one term (though that means we still have to put up with him for another 2.5 years).
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.
But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.
Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)
intolerant idealism -check I agree Creationism, Christian Fundamentalism
racist -check Do I need to even say anything. America invented modern racism
sworn enemy of neighbor(s) -check Invaded Canada
willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check Iraq and cold war anyone? Who the hell cares if the Russian peasants worked for a capitalist elite or for a communist elite but no we have to have billions of dollars of missiles for our megalomaniac goals
So sure dont ignore Hitler but dont elect him too but gosh you rednecks went ahead and elected him twice. Will you please go out into the woods and shoot yourself now or are you just as shameless as the Chritian right?
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the bit I don't agree with. Iran would like to be rid of Israel, I believe that, but I don't believe the Iranian leadership are insane enough to launch a nuclear first strike even if they could, and I'm not aware that there's anything like the same cult of loyalty to the leadership that we find in North Korea. Open war with Israel or with the United States would mean total ruin for Iran, and the government and the people both know it. Much of the population consists of veterans of the long and horrible war with Iraq. I don't think anyone there wants that again.
Iran's playing a dangerous game here, but I'm not thinking in War On Terror terms about them. I'm thinking in Cold War terms. They're playing the same games the Russians used to - backing factions in unstable regions who are ideologically compatible. This isn't Islamic extremism, this is good political sense. I'm nowhere near as worried about Iran as I am about North Korea, because I believe the Iranians are sane and rational.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)
See, that's where I'm unconvinced. I don't think anyone really knows what's going on in the heads of the people in charge there. If starting a war with Israel is the best way of maintaining their grip on power, then I think they're going to do it, even if it means utter ruin in the longer run.
People don't necessarily act rationally: it's like a poker game. Once people have pushed enough into the pot, they're committed. It would make sense for them to just step back and cut their losses, but instead they just push it further and further. I don't think the Iranian senior leadership will necessarily take that step back, until the missiles are headed to their targets and a few million people are about to meet their respective deities.
Iran can't win against Israel; I don't think anyone rationally disputes that. (Iran and Israel can certainly both lose, but not win.) However, to admit that would be A Fate Worse Than Death for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, and I'm not sure that they won't turn the whole country into one big Martyrdom Operation, if it saves them face personally.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you fucking stop being obsessed with the Shrub, who's gonna be kicked out of the Whitehouse in a year anyway, and focus on some other, no less deserving figures?
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:3, Insightful)
With respect to your point, I'm torn with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions. There has been a lot of jumping up and down about Iran's nuclear program *might* lead to weapons and *might* destabilise the Middle East even more. That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use. The crux of the issue seems to be Iran's assertion that it's simply trying build a power source versus the U.S. position that Iran is clearly planning to turn Israel into a glass parking lot.
The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies. Although I of course acknowledge that fear-based policies existed long before the U.S. troubles with Middle Eastern societies, I really believe that the most terrible and far-reaching consequence of the September 11th attack was the conversion of the U.S. into an almost entirely fear-driven nation. Rationality in policy really seems to have been set aside and I fear that the situation in Iran will be the latest evidence of that.
Re:The US owns space (Score:3, Insightful)
All countries defend their interests. All countries reserve the rights to things (although most are less brazen at actually doing them than the US). China just demonsrated it has the ability to shoot down a satellite in space; both Russia and the US have done so in the past. No country unilaterally bars itself from future actions, or at least not without a clear benefit.
So; the US is just like any other country. Only slightly bigger and a little bit more scary.
Re:I dunno... (Score:1, Insightful)
There were other ideas back then. When the state was located somewhere else, the world would have been spared numerous problems.
The Israeli people have turned out to be expansionist and colonizing, something that is bound to cause conflicts and problems.
There now exists a very bad situation, where the non-obeyance of UN resolutions is a reason to start war against any country except Israel.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
The Prince of Persia is right.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha! Thanks for the chuckle! I've heard about a mental condition in which people are entirely unable to recognize sarcasm. It seems you and three mods all suffer from this terrible disease.
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a really big difference between the two phrases. More than one, actually.
"Israel" could refer to the entire state, or its citizens. It can be interpreted in genocidal terms. What was actually said, however, was the occupying regime - a very different thing.
And for the verbal portion, "wipe off the map" is an English term that carries a rather violent connotation, again it can even imply genocide. The actual Farsi phrase used has no such connotation, it's more equivelent to the English phrase 'this too shall pass.'
So the bad translation wasn't 'tomeytoe tomahtoe' as you try to paint it, and it wasn't just a bad translation either. It was deliberately misleading. Reading the 'translation' that's been plastered all over our media, you hear violent, possibly genocidal threats against a nation. Read the original, or a decent translation, instead, and what you find is merely disapproval of a particular government, and faith that justice will eventually prevail over it.
Humanity is insane. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, the iranian government has, in succession:
1. Threatened to destroy a nation.
2. Turned itself into a global focus point for nuclear rethoric and chest-thumping.
3. Declared the triumphant launch of an ICBM equivalent.
WTF are they thinking? It's almost as if they're screaming at Cheney-Bush Inc: "Lookee here, fuck us up! We'll give you excuses to do it!"
Can't they keep their zipper closed until there's hope for dialogue in 2009, once the jug-eared goon squatting in the White House moseys on back to his ranch in Texas or Paraguay or wherever?
Are they itching to have their country and population brutally victimized? Then again, remember how they used children as suicide soldiers during their war with Iraq back in the eighties.
Are they itching for an excuse to turn off their oil spigot, generating a global economic crisis, enriching the texan oil robber barons in the process? Remember that whenever there's a crisis of this sort, Chevron, Texaco and Shell invariably end up reporting their highest quarterly earnings in history.
As the cherry on the putrid cake, both sides in this fiasco play the religious card, the impending fulfillment of prophecy as some sort of implicit fact and key policy element.
All the world is threatened to get caught in the crossfire. Just another in-your-face scenario that reiterates the urgent need for alternative energy sources, as decentralized as humanly possible.
Fundamentalist regimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, they are US allies.
Er, never mind.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real danger lies, I think, in Bushco staging an elaborate Gleiwitz incident [wikipedia.org] type of operation that makes Iran look like an immediate, credible threat, in which case, they could, with only minor political backlash, re-institute the draft, and get the 300,000 men in Iraq that they needed to begin with, plus the addition 200,000 to 400,000 (minimum) that they would need to successfully invade Iran. Unfortunately, with the rhetoric coming out of the Bushco Corporate HQ, it seems like that might be exactly what they're planning.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:3, Insightful)
* GWB is talking up how Iran might soon have nuclear weapons. c.f. Saddam's fabled WMDs.
* Dodgy evidence is appearing (this laptop which contains plans for a nuclear device ENTIRELY IN ENGLISH with no notes in farsi!) c.f. dodgy stories about Saddam trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger which subsequently turned out to be BS.
* He is drawing different conclusions from intelligence than his own intelligence agencies (for example saying that the Iranian government is providing weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq)
* Troops are moving to the gulf despite no war having (yet) been declared. c.f. Iraq buildup.