U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran

Vader · Oct 25, 2007

U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 25, 2007; 10:19 AM

The Bush administration announced an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism.

The package, announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country's military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and included a call for other countries and firms to stop doing business with three major Iranian banks.

Full Article:

washingtonpost.com

Iran is getting owned like a collection of two dollar whores!!!!

:rofl

Thorgasm · Oct 26, 2007

And they are calling this diplomacy (wink, wink). Looks like they are setting the table for war.

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

It is a last gasp hope that SOMETHING will prevent Iran from balancing the final domino against the nuclear hair-trigger aimed at Israel which will force Israel to take action and thus start the end of the world dominoes falling.

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

HUME: So you think this really is threatening.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think it is.

HUME: It is not just talk about what diplomacy must do that sets off the alarm bells on the left.

KRAUTHAMMER: It will have a collateral effect, hopefully, of spurring others into sanctions, which might prevent a bomb and an attack.

However, I think it is sending a message — he is prepared to attack if nothing happens.

LIASSON: I have taken all of these remarks, Cheney's and Bush's about World War III and drawing the line at them having the knowledge to make a weapon, not just having a weapon, as a spur to the European allies that we had better get serious about this, because, so far, every diplomatic effort that has been made is not working.

As a matter of fact, you could say that things are going backwards since Iran just removed the one guy, Larijani, who people felt was reasonable and you can deal with. He is gone. He is replaced with someone who is very close to the ayatollahs.

I have no idea if the administration would actually launch a military attack before they left office, but that would be, certainly, an extraordinary undertaking with a lot of consequences.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304801,00.html

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

For All Intents And Purposes We're At War With Iran

It's not a matter of if or even when...

We ARE at war.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Olmert sounds alarm: Iran has crossed red line for developing a nuclear weapon. It’s too late for sanctions

October 22, 2007, 9:37 AM (GMT+02:00)

This is the message prime minister Ehud Olmert is carrying urgently to French President Nicolas Sarkozy Monday and British premier Gordon Brown Tuesday, according to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources.

Last week, Olmert placed the Israeli intelligence warning of an Iranian nuclear breakthrough before Russian president Vladimir Putin, while Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak presented the updated intelligence on the advances Iran has made towards its goal of a nuclear weapon to American officials in Washington, including President Bush.

Olmert will be telling Sarkozy and Brown that the moment for diplomacy or even tough sanctions has passed. Iran can only be stopped now from going all the way to its goal by direct, military action.

Information of the Iranian breakthrough prompted the latest spate of hard-hitting US statements. Sunday, Oct. 21, US vice president Cheney said: "Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.''

Friday, the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen said US forces are capable of operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities or other targets. At his first news conference, he said: “I don’t think we’re stretched in that regard.”

It is worth noting that whereas Olmert’s visits are officially tagged as part of Israel’s campaign for harsher sanctions against Iran, his trips are devoted to preaching to the converted, leaders who advocate tough measures including a military option; he has avoided government heads who need persuading, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel or Italian prime minister Romano Prodi.

The Israeli prime minister hurried over to Moscow last Thursday after he was briefed on the hard words exchanged between Putin and Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran Tuesday, Oct. 16.

According to DEBKAfile’s sources, the Russian leader warned the ayatollah that the latest development in Iran’s nuclear program prevented him from protecting Tehran from international penalties any longer; the clerical regime’s options were now reduced, he said, to halting its clandestine nuclear activities or else facing tough sanctions, or even military action.

The Russian ruler’s private tone of speech was in flat contrast to his public denial of knowledge of Iranian work on a nuclear weapon. It convinced Olmert to include Moscow in his European itinerary.

Our sources in Iran and Moscow report that Putin’s dressing-down of Khamenei followed by his three-hour conversation with the Israeli prime minister acted as catalysts for Iranian hardliners’s abrupt action in sweeping aside senior nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Saturday, Oct. 20 and the Revolutionary Guards General Mahmoud Chaharbaghi’s threat to fire 11,000 rockets and mortars at enemy targets the minute after Iran comes under attack.

Our military sources say Tehran could not manage to shoot off this number of projectiles on its own. Iran would have to co-opt allies and surrogates, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas and pro-Tehran militias in Iraq to the assault.

Cont'd at link.

DEBKAfile - DEBKAfile Exclusive: Olmert sounds alarm: Iran has crossed red line for developing a nuclear weapon. It’s too late for sanctions

Even more ominously...

DEBKAfile Reports: An Iranian organization (Hizballah's Friends) declares every American a “terrorist” after Washington unveils a new package of extra-tough sanctions Thursday

October 25, 2007, 11:55 AM (GMT+02:00)

The package was announced jointly by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and treasury secretary Henry Paulson and include branding Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and the al Qods Brigade sponsor of terrorists. These steps are unprecedented. DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources recall that the Islamic regime announced in advance that approval of these measures would be deemed tantamount to an American declaration of war on Iran and call forth retaliation. Tehran would target US interests in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel by means of Special Groups, i.e. Iran’s foreign intelligence networks, Hizballah or Hamas.

DEBKAfile’s sources reveal that these reprisals may be delayed some days because Iran's leadership is in the throes of a profound power struggle between hardliners and pragmatists. However, since the supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is commander-in-chief of Iran’s armed forces, including the IRGC and its al Qods Brigade, Tehran cannot afford to let Washington’s accusations go unanswered.

The new sanctions package includes US financial penalties for any world firms trading with the Revolutionary Guards. They would apply to more than 1,000 companies in Europe, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Asia. Our Iranian sources note that since IRGC-owned companies control more than 35 percent of Iran’s economic activities, the new sanctions will have a crippling effect on its national economy. This is already hard hit by Washington’s systematic blockage of Iran’s dealings with international banks, which has left Tehran seriously short of cash flow, foreign currency and basic commodities.

According to DEBKAfile’s sources, Iran very recently sent Indonesia an “emergency appeal” for gasoline and heavy oil, because it has run out of currency to pay for imported refined oil products. Tehran offered to reward Jakarta with a concession for building big new oil refineries, which Iran lacks.

Cont'd at link.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security

But, in a way, this is a good thing.

Hopefully the Iranians will attack us first.

:yes:

Thorgasm · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
For All Intents And Purposes We're At War With Iran

It's not a matter of if or even when...

We ARE at war.

Even more ominously...

But, in a way, this is a good thing.

Hopefully the Iranians will attack us first.

:yes:

Wow! And you say it's the liberals that hate America. You wish for us to be attacked. You salivate for our troops to be put into harm's way. You have earned the title of sickest bastard on this board!

Iriemon · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
It is a last gasp hope that SOMETHING will prevent Iran from balancing the final domino against the nuclear hair-trigger aimed at Israel which will force Israel to take action and thus start the end of the world dominoes falling.

So if Israel is an urgent threat to world peace because it going to attack someone, why shouldn't the US preemptively bomb, invade and occupy Israel? We call throw in a little torture and indefinite detention for the terrorists I'm sure we'll find there. Then we can set up a proper secular democracy by having elections for the whole area of Palestine and spread democracy that way.

Iriemon · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
For All Intents And Purposes We're At War With Iran

It's not a matter of if or even when...

We ARE at war.

Even more ominously...

But, in a way, this is a good thing.

Hopefully the Iranians will attack us first.

:yes:

I'm amazed at folks like you (and others) who just cite this partisan, neocon talking head opinions as if you expect the rest of us to be persuaded by it. As if being mislead by these same guys into war in Iraq never happened.

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

independent_thinker2002 said:
Wow! And you say it's the liberals that hate America. You wish for us to be attacked. You salivate for our troops to be put into harm's way. You have earned the title of sickest bastard on this board!

I don't salivate for them to be harmed at all.

But I DO recognize that the global ummah would be less apt to rise up in a Holy War against us if Iran attacks us first.

You didn't know that?

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

Iriemon said:
I'm amazed at folks like you (and others) who just cite this partisan, neocon talking head opinions as if you expect the rest of us to be persuaded by it. As if being mislead by these same guys into war in Iraq never happened.

Speak English.

winston53660 · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
Hopefully the Iranians will attack us first.

:yes:

Thank goodness you are not much more than a keyboard warrior.

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

Iriemon said:
So if Israel is an urgent threat to world peace because it going to attack someone, why shouldn't the US preemptively bomb, invade and occupy Israel? We call throw in a little torture and indefinite detention for the terrorists I'm sure we'll find there. Then we can set up a proper secular democracy by having elections for the whole area of Palestine and spread democracy that way.

You are presupposing a condition that is patently false.

Israel is NOT an imminent or long-term threat to world peace.

They have proved that over the course of 60 years.

Volker · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
They have proved that over the course of 60 years.

What, 60 years? They have problems to manage having one year without starting hostilities with their neighbors.

Vader · Oct 26, 2007

independent_thinker2002 said:
Wow! And you say it's the liberals that hate America. You wish for us to be attacked. You salivate for our troops to be put into harm's way. You have earned the title of sickest bastard on this board!

Actually, he's right, if Iran attacked us a retalitory strike would be completely justified.

He's not suggesting that he wants to be attacked but rather he's hoping that Iran instigates the armed conflict.

:mrgreen:

Vader · Oct 26, 2007

Volker said:
What, 60 years? They have problems to manage having one year without starting hostilities with their neighbors.

WRONG. Quit trying to market news for Al Jazeera. The Israelis DO NOT instigate --- THEY RETALIATE.

*slap*
*slap*
*slap*

:mrgreen:

Vader · Oct 26, 2007

Iriemon said:
So if Israel is an urgent threat to world peace because it going to attack someone, why shouldn't the US preemptively bomb, invade and occupy Israel? We call throw in a little torture and indefinite detention for the terrorists I'm sure we'll find there. Then we can set up a proper secular democracy by having elections for the whole area of Palestine and spread democracy that way.

Unfortunately for you, Irie, your country and Islam are more of a threat to world peace than Israel is, was, or ever will be.

Again --- you prove you're a victim of brainwashing by spewing islam-o-fascist terrorist-psychobabble bullshit.

Shame on you for being a sheep.

*slap*
*slap*
*slap*

Volker · Oct 26, 2007

Vader said:
WRONG. Quit trying to market news for Al Jazeera. The Israelis DO NOT instigate --- THEY RETALIATE.

*slap*
*slap*
*slap*

:mrgreen:

According to the article in this thread Israeli politicians travel through the world and lobby for war without even try to make up some retaliation nonsense this time.

Volker · Oct 26, 2007

Vader said:
Unfortunately for you, Irie, your country and Islam are more of a threat to world peace than Israel is, was, or ever will be.

Maybe there is some truth in it, Iriemons country, the US, is dangerous, too, but this is not Iriemon mistake.

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

Vader said:
Actually, he's right, if Iran attacked us a retalitory strike would be completely justified.

He's not suggesting that he wants to be attacked but rather he's hoping that Iran instigates the armed conflict.

:mrgreen:

Yup. Thanks!

See, what bothers me isn't that the opponents exist, it's that there are some otherwise loyal Americans reading the crap who fail to become educated about Jihad and that failure leaves the apologists and Islamic "board warriors" an opportunity to feed them lies and influence them to oppose the government's actions designed to save their azzes and their freedoms.

Thanks again, Vader!

Thorgasm · Oct 26, 2007

Vader said:
Actually, he's right, if Iran attacked us a retalitory strike would be completely justified.

He's not suggesting that he wants to be attacked but rather he's hoping that Iran instigates the armed conflict.

:mrgreen:

It still sounds like hoping for Pearl Harbor or 9/11. This isn't the playground. Wishing for war is still wrong. And tell me, cause I just don't get it, how is "wanting to be attacked" any different than "hoping Iran instigates the armed conflict"? Wouldn't being attacked equal instigating armed conflict?

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

independent_thinker2002 said:
It still sounds like hoping for Pearl Harbor or 9/11. This isn't the playground. Wishing for war is still wrong. And tell me, cause I just don't get it, how is "wanting to be attacked" any different than "hoping Iran instigates the armed conflict"? Wouldn't being attacked equal instigating armed conflict?

If we attack Iran first, Muslim law would support the entire ummah rising up in a global Holy War against the West.

If we don't stop Iran from acquiring nukes then the Iranians will have a loaded nuclear gun pointed at Israel.

Israel would not stand for that and would attack.

Muslim law would support the entire ummah rising up in a global Holy War.

If the Iranians had a loaded nuclear gun pointed at Israel but Israel did nothing about it Iran would simply use their nukes to intimidate Israel at will or, given the right kind of trumped up justification, the Iranians could launch on Israel, annihilating Israel and starting a thermo-nuclear war with the West.

Thorgasm · Oct 26, 2007

bhkad said:
If we attack Iran first, Muslim law would support the entire ummah rising up in a global Holy War against the West.

If we don't stop Iran from acquiring nukes then the Iranians will have a loaded nuclear gun pointed at Israel.

Israel would not stand for that and would attack.

Muslim law would support the entire ummah rising up in a global Holy War.

If the Iranians had a loaded nuclear gun pointed at Israel but Israel did nothing about it Iran would simply use their nukes to intimidate Israel at will or, given the right kind of trumped up justification, the Iranians could launch on Israel, annihilating Israel and starting a thermo-nuclear war with the West.

Well, if a caliphate is what they want, then MAD would surely work. If Armageddon is what they want, then MAD won't work. What do you think they want?

bhkad · Oct 26, 2007

independent_thinker2002 said:
Well, if a caliphate is what they want, then MAD would surely work. If Armageddon is what they want, then MAD won't work. What do you think they want?

To expand the religion.

"...But the goal of Islam was always to expand; first, to take over the Arabian Peninsula, and then to move out into North Africa and Palestine, and then east into India and beyond, and north into Europe, and so on, swallowing up all the nations that live in these lands. If Islam meets resistance then it fights. If it meets no resistance then it absorbs and moves on. In this sense Islam is in no way a peaceful religion; it is never content to meet another nation and live in harmony with it. It is only peaceful where it is not resisted. In Islamic theology only two states are recognised: the House of God, i.e. countries under Shariah; or the House of War..."

The Bloody Borders Of Islam (Charles Krauthammer)

The Qu'ran commands Muslims to rest not until Allah is the sole worshiped God. This injunction is basically a theological mandate of never-ending expansion and dominance... by force if necessary. How thus can Islam be considered as a benign and peaceful religion?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-philosophy/20304-quran.html

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." Ayatollah Khomeini

The Case for Bombing Iran

Thorgasm · Oct 27, 2007

bhkad said:
To expand the religion.

Ok. Then MAD would work and we don't really need to worry about a nuclear Iran.

Vader · Oct 27, 2007

independent_thinker2002 said:
It still sounds like hoping for Pearl Harbor or 9/11. This isn't the playground. Wishing for war is still wrong. And tell me, cause I just don't get it, how is "wanting to be attacked" any different than "hoping Iran instigates the armed conflict"? Wouldn't being attacked equal instigating armed conflict?

Yes, I believe being attacked would constitute instigation of armed conflict.

Essentially, we would finally be justified in eradicating Iran's terrorist government and armed terrorist forces.

We could then deal with Vladimir Putin and his communistic behavior. He would be checked and no more Kalishnakov (AK-47) machine guns would end up in Iranian, Syrian, or Palestinian hands.

:mrgreen:

U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran

Vader

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

bhkad

bhkad

bhkad

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Iriemon

Iriemon

bhkad

bhkad

winston53660

bhkad

Volker

Vader

Vader

Vader

Volker

Volker

bhkad

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

bhkad

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

bhkad

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Vader

U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency