one step closer to war w/ iran

these two news articles were released on drudgereport just a little while ago:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VTQSE81&show_article=1
Iran Says It Tests Advanced Centrifuges

Apr 8 01:38 PM US/Eastern

Iran Unveils Nuclear Expansion

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran has tested new advanced centrifuges, a breakthrough in a uranium enrichment program that the U.N. has demanded the country halt.
The hardline president says a "new machine was put to test" that is smaller but five times more efficient than the P-1 centrifuges already in use.

Ahmadinejad's comments Tuesday at a ceremony marking the second anniversary of Iran's first enrichment of uranium reflect his continued defiance of U.S. and U.N. demands that the country stop the process, which produce reactor fuel or material for a nuclear warhead.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080408124437.k89rrp7e&show_article=1

Iran starts installing new nuclear centrifuges

Iran Unveils Nuclear Expansion
Iran Says It Tests Advanced Centrifuges

Iran to fete controversial nuclear drive

Major powers plan to meet on Iran in April


Iran on Tuesday said it had started work to install thousands of new centrifuges to enrich uranium at its main nuclear plant, angering world powers who fear Tehran wants to develop an atomic weapon.
"Today, the phase for installing 6,000 new centrifuges at the facility in Natanz has started," the state broadcasting website quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying at the atomic plant.

His announcement came as Iran marked its "national day of nuclear technology" on the second anniversary of its first production of uranium sufficiently enriched to make atomic fuel.

Iran has already installed around 3,000 P1 centrifuges at an underground enrichment facility at Natanz, in central Iran, according to the latest report by the UN nuclear watchdog, and tripling this number would mark a major expansion of its nuclear capacities.

The West fears Iran could use enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon, and Tehran's refusal to suspend the process has been punished with three sets of UN Security Council sanctions and US pressure on its banking system.

World powers responded swiftly and with concern to Ahmadinejad's latest defiant announcement.


Gregory Schulte, the US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said "today's announcement reflects the Iranian leadership's continuing violation of international obligations and refusal to address international concerns."

The British foreign office said that by announcing the installation of new centrifuges Iran had "chosen to ignore the will of the international community.

"This is despite the fact that Iran's enrichment programme has no apparent civilian purpose, and shows that Iran is making no effort to restore international confidence in its intentions," it said.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community must consider "reinforced" sanctions if Iran does not respond to concerns about its nuclear programme.

Ahmadinejad also inspected a "new generation" of centrifuges being built at an above-ground research facility at the plant, the official IRNA news agency reported.


These are Iran's version of the more efficient P2 centrifuges -- the IR-2 -- which can enrich uranium considerably faster than the standard P1s. The reports did not say how many of these centrifuges Iran has built.

Ahmadinejad said he would announce more "good news" at a major ceremony at 1600 GMT at the headquarters of Iranian state broadcasting in Tehran alongside the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation Gholam Reza Aghazadeh.

State television was repeatedly playing patriotic music while children at schools around the country chanted the familiar mantra of "nuclear energy is our natural right."

Tehran has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of making concessions over calls for it to freeze enrichment, leading to deadlock in the standoff with the international community.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population whose supply of fossil fuels will eventually run out.

The United States has never ruled out military action to bring Tehran to heel, and Iran's arch enemy Israel has expressed alarm about the nuclear drive, especially after Ahmadinejad predicted the Jewish state is doomed to disappear.

Underlining the tensions, Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer warned on Monday that Israel would respond to any Iranian attack by destroying the "Iranian nation."


The Chinese foreign ministry said on Tuesday that envoys from world powers would meet in Shanghai on April 16 to discuss how to end the standoff over the Iranian nuclear programme.

But Iran is also believed to have experienced difficulties in utilising its existing centrifuges to full capacity.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has said it was "natural in this kind of industry that there are ups and downs once in a while."

In a warning to Ahmadinejad's domestic rivals, the semi-official Fars news agency reported that Iran had handed former nuclear negotiator Hossein Moussavian a two-year suspended jail sentence for "harming national security."

Moussavian was a leading nuclear negotiator in the moderate team that made a deal with EU countries to temporarily suspend enrichment during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami until 2005.

 

i was thinking, if amadinejad really was developing nuclear weapons, why would he be so open about the technological developments and expansion of the country's nuclear program?

one would think that if he was developing nuclear weapons he would be more discreet about the work.

also, here are a few other articles to take a look at.
now before you get excited, yes they are from infowars but they were not written by infowars, just carried carried by the site.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1144
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

RIA Novosti
March 29, 2008

Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

“The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,” the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran “that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost.”

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7311565.stm
Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'
Gen Petraeus said he was surprised how Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda
General Petraeus

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix.

There has as yet been no response from Iran to the accusations.


The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets
Gen David Petraeus


In response to the news that 4,000 US military personnel have now been killed in Iraq, he said it showed how much the mission had cost but added that Americans were realistic about it.
He also said a great deal of progress had been made because of the "flipping" of communities - the decision by Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaeda militants.

The extent of this had surprised even the US military, he said.

'Promises violated'

In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.


"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.
"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

The barrage hit the Green Zone on Sunday morning. Some rockets missed their targets killing 15 Iraqi civilians.

Later in the day four US soldiers died when their patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad, putting the total number of US fatalities above 4,000.

This and other bloodshed on Sunday came despite an overall reduction in violence since last June, when the US deployed an extra 30,000 troops for the surge.

Days earlier, Mr Bush marked the fifth anniversary of the invasion, saying that it had made the world a better place.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8301
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

Terry Atlas
Global Research
March 12, 2008

This report by the US mainstream press suggests in no uncertain terms that the US is heading for war with Iran and that opposition within the US high command has been significantly weakened with the forced resignation of Admiral William Fallon.

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran's moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn't directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president's policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon - whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq - signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon's resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran's nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.




4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone - if that becomes necessary - to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6.Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

 

hey bro, that's really kind of ignorant. i feel tempted to neg rep you but i wont'.

but seriously, that sentiment is very counterproductive to achieving any sort of progress.

 

i really do not see how the US is in a position to tell iran what they can do.

The United States IS NOT the world police. we do not have some innate authority to rule over every country on earth.

the US is the nation that has done the most nuclear proliferation by far. we have more nuclear weapons than all of the other countries on earth combined severl times over.

so just who in the hell is this government to tell another country they can't have nuclear weapons?

the united states is the only country in the world to have every attacked another nation using nuclear weapons.

and can you really blame iran for wanting them after what happened to their neighbor. in iraq, jusification was developed through blatent lies and misinformation in order to attack and take over the country.

and with the "axis of evil" status and seeing how iran is situated near afghanistan and iraq i think they have the right to be worried.

the exact same propaganda war drums are being beat for iran just like they were for iraq.

 

well, if nuclear proliferation is bad, than why doesn't the US set an example for the rest of the world and stop proliferating itself?

i guess it's, "don't do like i do, do like i say do"