Codename 'Murky Water': Iran's Secret Plan to Contaminate the Strait of Hormuz

[sysop]

Iran could be planning to create a vast oil spill in the Strait of Hormuz, according to a top secret report obtained by Western intelligence officials. The aim of the operation is to both temporarily block the vital shipping channel and to force a suspension of Western sanctions.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-861343.html

[rleslie66]

A very effective strategy for Iran, in the event it is attacked, would be to attack the Saudi Oil infrastructure, which lies wholly exposed. Follow that up with guerrilla attacks, using the local Shiite minority, to prevent repairs, and you quickly have a global crisis greater that that caused by concentrating the attack on Israel.

[KhanZubair]

Seems to be a new brain child of anti-Iranian forces. Hope the Iranian leader will behave sensibly not to cause such damage to human kind and to seeworld.

[HorstPeter22]

"Iran would fire missiles at Israel's nuclear research center in Dimona if the Israelis attacked Iran's nuclear facilities -- knowing full well that such an attack would result in several thousand deaths on both sides."

In other words: Country A attacks country B, and if B strikes back, then B is the bad guy for causing "deaths on both sides".

An honest journalist would apply the same rules to all countries, no matter who happens to be A and B in any particular case.

This gets a lot more hypocritical, when we consider the fact that even though A has actual nukes, it threatens to attack B, in case it tried to develop nukes themselves. In fact, A's prime minister's infamous red line stops even short of B actually building nukes, it suffices for B to "be able to", before they'd be attacked by A.

Why the double standards, Mr Follath?

If they would leave these people in Iran alone, it would be very intelligent. NATO dropping depleted uranium on civilians doesn't sound all that humanitarian either. Going to war with them is not going to be very progressive.

[ninja97]

Originally Posted by HorstPeter22

In other words: Country A attacks country B, and if B strikes back, then B is the bad guy for causing "deaths on both sides".

An honest journalist would apply the same rules to all countries, no matter who happens to be A and B in any particular case.

The fact that country B has openly stated its intentions for decades that it will not rest until country A is wiped off the map, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, right?

The fact that country B is working around the clock to build its own nuclear weapons to be used OFFENSIVELY to achieve that goal is also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, right?

What do you know about REAL journalism? NOTHING.

Originally Posted by ninja97

The fact that country B has openly stated its intentions for decades that it will not rest until country A is wiped off the map, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, right?

The fact that country B is working around the clock to build its own nuclear weapons to be used OFFENSIVELY to achieve that goal is also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, right?

What do you know about REAL journalism? NOTHING.

The Japanese survived Nuclear attack. I doubt seriously that Iran really has nuclear weaponry. There is a profound feeling that they are bluffing, but they may have other tricks up their sleeves and want to draw us into a war for some reason, perhaps with the belief that continuous war will result in weakening the west.

[ArtMiller]

Originally Posted by ninja97

country B has openly stated its intentions for decades that it will not rest until country A is wiped off the map

If true, it would be relevant. The threat of force is prohibited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_...ational_law%29 and rightly so. If a country gets threatened by another country, that has to be taken seriously.

The "wiped off the map" statement, that Ahmadinejad is alleged to have made, has long been recognized as a mistranslation. Here examples from major newspapers. The New York Times states that

a senior Israeli official has acknowledged that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never actually said that Israel “must be wiped off the map.”

(http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...d-off-the-map/)

The Washington Post:

a colleague at The Washington Post, spotting the Bachmann and Obama statements during the U.N. festivities last month, suggested that this widely cited statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was actually a mistranslation.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...IKML_blog.html)

And when asked by journalists, Ahmadinejad gave the following answer:

If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?

"Whatever the people decide, we will respect it," Ahmadinejad said with obvious reluctance. "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl....326099?pgno=1)

And "Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei", quoting the Washington Post article above, had the following to say:

The Islamic Republic’s proposal to help resolve the Palestinian issue and heal this old wound is a clear and logical initiative based on political concepts accepted by world public opinion, which has already been presented in detail. We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organizations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.

So here you have two statements from the most powerful men in Iran, that leave no doubt that it does not intend to attack Israel.

Originally Posted by ninja97

country B is working around the clock to build its own nuclear weapons to be used OFFENSIVELY to achieve that goal

So having this "threat of force" issue out of the way, considering the threats of force Iran gets from the governments of Israel, the US, it would be understandable if they indeed tried to create a nuclear deterrent. Let's not forget that Iraq, after similar claims of possession and development of "weapons of mass destruction" by US government officials, was indeed attacked by the US military, and utterly destroyed to a point, where bombings and violence is still widespread. If Iraq actually had had a nuclear deterrent, it is doubtful whether the US would have attacked.

Your claim that they are building their own nuclear weapons is not only disputed, the US Secretary of Defense, stated it is wrong:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...-block-strait/)

And Panetta is hardly a defender of Iran's current regime. So people with access to intelligence information and who consider the current Iranian regime as an enemy, say they are not developing nuclear weapons. That they develop nuclear technology, and even actual nuclear power plants, is their right as signers of the NPT:

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...s#Key_articles)

That they are not in conformance of the NPT is a claim that was made against Iraq as well. Considering

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice.

however, what would be the point of voluntarily binding themselves to regulations that they intend to violate? If Iran did not want to conform to the NPT, they could just leave and join Israel, Pakistan and India, the 3 non-signers that acquired nuclear weapons. North Korea did it in 2003, and so could Iran if it wanted to.

[ArtMiller]

Originally Posted by retarded-freak

I doubt seriously that Iran really has nuclear weaponry. There is a profound feeling that they are bluffing, but they may have other tricks up their sleeves and want to draw us into a war for some reason, perhaps with the belief that continuous war will result in weakening the west.

Iran's leaders are claiming they aren't trying to build let alone want nuclear weapons and they also claim they are not trying to build them. In fact, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's foreign minister, reiterated that Khamenei

issued a religious edict — a fatwa — forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...nDT_story.html

Now that might of course be propaganda, but that's not something you'd do when trying to let the world know that you have a nuclear bomb. What you would do instead - and North Korea has done exactly that - is perform tests that the West would be able to detect and make some half-hearted statement or - and that is what the nuclear deterrence is all about - you openly state: We have the bomb, and you better not touch us.

That Iran wants to provoke war is news to me. No country wants to go to war with the US if they can avoid it, and that has been the case for decades. All that fear-mongering, say before the Iraq war a la "Saddam 'Adolf' Hussein's got rockets can reach Europe in 45 minutes... we should act now before there'll be mushroom clouds over our cities" are just ludicrous.

Whoever believes that any country wants to involve the US in a war against them should just compare the respective military budgets. Iran's will be something like 5% of that of the US. If they launched a nuclear attack (assuming they had a bomb), they'd be obliterated in hours. There'd be no mercy.

It's also worth looking at the history of the Islamic regime. Iran has not started a single war since the Islamic regime took power after the revolution of 1979, but it has been attacked by Iraq, with US and German support, at the time when Saddam was still considered useful and e.g. Germany would provide them with chemicals, and satellite maps of Iranian front lines. And we did not complain that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers at the time.

In the case of the US, however, you can't say they have been as peaceful. Examples are so abundant and fresh they hardly need enumerating here.

In regards to the US-Iran relationship it is interesting to keep some key developments in mind to understand who is interested in what:

- 1951 Mosaddegh gets democratically elected as Prime Minister of Iran
- 1953 CIA and MI6 organize a coup that overthrows Mosaddegh and installs the Shah
- 1970s Europe and the US sell nuclear technology and weapons-grade uranium to Iran
- 1979 the Islamic Revolution overthrows the Shah, installs an Islamic regime

The nuclear story in the 70s is particularly interesting for those who ask "Why does Iran need nuclear power? They've got so much oil, so it's obvious they want to build weapons".

"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'." At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._of_Iran#1970s

Originally Posted by ArtMiller

In regards to the US-Iran relationship it is interesting to keep some key developments in mind to understand who is interested in what:

- 1951 Mosaddegh gets democratically elected as Prime Minister of Iran
- 1953 CIA and MI6 organize a coup that overthrows Mosaddegh and installs the Shah
- 1970s Europe and the US sell nuclear technology and weapons-grade uranium to Iran
- 1979 the Islamic Revolution overthrows the Shah, installs an Islamic regime

The nuclear story in the 70s is particularly interesting for those who ask "Why does Iran need nuclear power? They've got so much oil, so it's obvious they want to build weapons".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._of_Iran#1970s

I know about all that. Actually, I earlier became suspicious that the UK was perhaps pushing for us to attack Iran now in some subtle manner. They were the ones before who wanted the oil there, British Petroleum. Iran sits at a big crossroads of western oil baronism, linked to Standard Oil, the rockefellers, and American imperialist activities in South America that Canada, the USA, and UK have been involved in, including the illegal paramilitary training school known previously as "The School of Americas". Since Israel has long been a supporter of all kinds of friendly dictators, it's obvious the power elite wants a return of control in Iran like the good old days.