Iran is threatening Greece, Turkey, and the EU

So today Iran creates explosive news by announcing their missiles now have a range of about 2000km. Furthermore, they are working hard on building nuclear power plants which could quite easily be used to produce material for nuclear weapons.

Add to this that they have been reluctant to agree to 100% cooperation with the world's nuclear watchdog and add their unpredictable theistic political and social system.

Add to this their new missile's ranges':

Add to this the charming words of Mr. Rafsanjani, who, according to the BBC,

Quote[/b] ]remains among the most influential conservative politicians in Iran, and is believed to have been the architect of Iran's nuclear programmes.

President for two terms from 1989-97, he is currently chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, as well as a deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts.

Though he was, in Iranian terms, pro-Western as a president, Mr Rafsanjani has been more closely associated with the conservative or hardline camp in recent years.

So what did this charming man say?

Quote[/b] ]"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on "Space and Stable National Security."

In my eyes, this is a direct threat to the EU, in that he is threatening not only with the destruction of Israel and attacking American forces, but he is also threatening an attack on Turkey (who, may I remind you, are an official EU candidate country) and Greece (who have been an EU member country since 1981), both of which had a major cultural impact on Europe, and thus the entire western world, in the recent centuries and millennia. Consider that Cyprus (also an EU member!) has several British bases which could be used by American forces...

His remarks can only be interpreted as a threatened attack on Israel and the EU; he is saying that such an attack would be a response to American aggression, but who is to say they will logically come to the conclusion that they are being threated? After all, they are being led by one of the most illogical regimes, a theistic dictatorship!

So what should we do? Seeing how the EU has just been threatened, seeing how being in the EU automatically guarantees that if one country is attacked, the whole EU considers itself attacked and thus the entire EU has to provide full military and economic assistance to a member country subjected to attack, seeing how a close partner of the EU is also being threatened (Israel), I think we should seriously consider the formation of an EU Iranian Task Force to go and smoke those madmen out.

If they were interested in peaceful co-existence, they would not be making such powerful and intimidating statements. They are a clear threat to the EU and the western world, and in my opinion we should act now before they deploy missiles with even larger ranges!

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3716490.stm

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....6418170

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/05/iran.missile/index.html

ugh!

The EU is threatened just because they're within range of someone's missiles? They've been in range of Libyan and Syrian SCUDs for quite some time. Russian missiles too.

Pfff this world is full of dickheads...

I just hope no american president gets the crazy idea to go look for the WMDs in Iran... Sounds a bit TOO familiar if you ask me...

I'm not really that impressed at all... well... i am... but i can't change a damn thing about this situation...

All we can do now is pray... ahum... i mean, hope that our great world leaders don't screw up AGAIN...

The EU is threatened just because they're within range of someone's missiles? They've been in range of Libyan and Syrian SCUDs for quite some time. Russian missiles too.

Exactly my thoghts.

Add to this their new missile's ranges':

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif' alt='smile_o.gif'>

ok sorry

The EU is threatened just because they're within range of someone's missiles? They've been in range of Libyan and Syrian SCUDs for quite some time. Russian missiles too.

None of which ever made such a presumptious statement: "If we get attacked, the world will change."

Of course, part of the reason for this statement is America's continued aggression in the Middle East and maybe we should do something about her actions there as well.

So what did this charming man say?

Quote[/b] ]"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on "Space and Stable National Security."

His remarks can only be interpreted as a threatened attack on Israel and the EU

How do you figure?

I think we should seriously consider the formation of an EU Iranian Task Force to go and smoke those madmen out.

Can you please be a bit more specific?  

The US and Israel have indicated that they don´t exclude a potential miltary strike against Iran if they continue their ongoing nuclear efforts. Iran has made clear that they will not be influenced by embargos as they already have a working nuclear system and can produce and reproduce the technology on their own.

Quote[/b] ]the US signalled that Israel, which took out Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, might act as Washington’s proxy by selling Tel Aviv 500 bunker-buster bombs with which to demolish Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel, which considers Iran its main regional antagonist, would be only too happy to oblige.

The US approach to Iran wasn´t especially friendly lately, so I do understand that they now show the world what they are able to do in case they should get attacked or not treated as other nations who have nukes in the ME.

I don´t feel threatened more than 10 years ago, but even politicians should understand now, that you can´t tell souvereign countries what they are allowed to do or not. Even if it doesn´t fit your plans or interests.

Edit:

And don´t forget that India and Pakistan also do have Nukes and I wouldn´t say that both of them are dealing with some issues in a very reliable and forseeable context.

The EU is threatened just because they're within range of someone's missiles? They've been in range of Libyan and Syrian SCUDs for quite some time. Russian missiles too.

None of which ever made such a presumptious statement: "If we get attacked, the world will change."

Of course, part of the reason for this statement is America's continued aggression in the Middle East and maybe we should do something about her actions there as well.

It's time for some countries to realize that doing whatever they want/like to other countries isn't very nice...

btw

i hope Bush doesn't get the crazy idea to start playing the hero right in front of the elections...

It wouldn't even surprise me if he'd be "intelligent" (haha) enough to do such things...

The US approach to Iran wasn´t especially friendly lately, so I do understand that they now show the world what they are able to do in case they should get attacked or not treated as other nations who have nukes in the ME.

Only 1 nation in the ME has nukes.  

While people getting bigger rockets is seldom a good thing, I don't think this is a problem. Iran-EU relations arn't that bad, plus we've got way bigger rockets.

It is an overall unfortunate, but inevitable global development. You didn't think everybody else in the world would permanently be stuck with pre-WW2 technological capabilities? It's equally unlikely that everybody else in the world would accept that we have the "good stuff" (ICBMs etc) while they don't.

It only goes to show how in the future when everybody can blow everybody up, diplomacy will be the alpha and the omega.

If they use those missiles against Europe they would be toast pretty fast. Doubt they will be stupid enough to ever use them

Quote[/b] ]Only 1 nation in the ME has nukes.

Cover blown    

Actually even before the Shahab 3 was modified it was able to hit targets in Turkey. That´s nothing new.

And even Lybia has the Sahab 3, bought from Iran.

Little on the Sahab 3 :

Country:  Iran

Associated Countries:  North Korea

Alternate Name:  Shihab 3, Shehob 3

Class:  MRBM

Basing:  Road mobile

Payload:  Single warhead, 1200 kg

Warhead:  800 kg; HE, chemical, submunitions

Length:  16.00 m

Diameter:  1.32 m

Launch Weight:  16,250 kg

Propulsion:  Single-stage liquid

Range:  1,300 km

Status:  Operational

In Service:  1999

Quote[/b] ]The Shahab-3 is an medium-range, liquid propellant, road-mobile ballistic missile. The missile’s range is sufficient to target Israel, Turkey, the Indian subcontinent, and American forces stationed in the Gulf. The missile’s low accuracy means the the missile would probably only be usable to attack civilian populations and has no military application other than simply holding enemy populations hostage. The program is believed to be called the Zelzel-3, though this has not been verified.

The primary threat from Iran’s program is not the Iranian military itself but the high probability that missile technologies will be given or sold off at very low prices to terrorist organizations or nations antagonistic toward the US. Many reports suggest that Iran has been negotiating with Libya concerning the sale of the Shahab-3 missile technology. The missiles are stored and operated in underground sites under the total control and supervision of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has very little outside oversight within Iran.

Unfortunately, little can be done to limit this proliferation. Fortunately however, the technology to defend against such missiles as the Shahab-3 is easily within technological and financial reach for both the US and its allies.

The Shahab-3 is believed to have a range of 1,300 km (808 miles) and a payload of 1200 kg. This translates to an 800 kg separating warhead, delivered with accuracy between 2,500 and 4,000 m CEP. This warhead can carry high explosives (HE), chemical agents or submunitions, though an unconfirmed Israeli report states a nuclear warhead is in development. Another Israeli report suggests that a satellite-launch variant on the Shahab-3, the Shahab 3-D, uses a purchased People’s Republic of China (PRC) guidance system and has an accuracy of 250 m CEP. The Shahab-3 is believed to have a launch weight of 16,250 kg with a length of 16.0 m and a width of 1.32 m, though an alternate report states 15,400 kg, 15.2 m and 1.25 m respectively. It uses an inertial guidance system and a single-stage liquid propellant engine.

There are reports that Iran has developed a longer-range ballistic missile called the Shahab-3A. This missile has an increased range of up to 1,800 km (1118 miles) with an improved guidance system that would probably increase the value of the Shahab-3A for use with military targets. All other aspects of this missile probably remain the same as the Shahab-3.

The history of the Shahab missile program goes back to the revolution that overthrew the Shaw. The nation wanted to quickly deploy a strategic deterrent that would secure their borders from the US intervention that they perceived as inevitable. The program went into full force in 1986, with work specifically on the Shahab-3 probably beginning in 1993. There are reported motor tests in 1997 and the first flight test in 1998. The first flight test on the Shahah 3-D, a two-stage solid and liquid engine satellite-launch version of the Shahab-3, occurred in September 2000.

It is believed that North Korea and Pakistan joined with Iran in a joint effort to develop a missile similar to the modern No-dong design, which is based on technology provided by the Russian ‘Scud B’ missile. North Korea could not carry out missile tests without crossing territory belonging to Japan and so missile tests for the new No-dong were instead carried out in Iran. North Korea eventually abandoned the project in 1994, but it seems that it was never completely shut down. There are now confirmed reports that North Korea continued to make deliveries to Iran related to the project, including four TEL vehicles. In 1998, Pakistan demonstrated a flight test of a missile similar to the No-dong 1 and the Shahab-3, providing more evidence that there was a combined effort on the part of North Korea, Pakistan and Iran to develop long-range missiles. It is suspected that Russian and PRC engineers have also been lending assistance to the program, though these reports have not been confirmed. The Iranians have had difficulties with their engines for the Shahab-3 and continue to use North Korean engines manufactured with PRC equipment and Russian plans.

Shahab 3

Uh well and the structure of the missile makes it a nice target for Anti Missile systems, that are already in place...

My view on this.

If you do some research on Iran and it's political and social system and their history you might find out that, despite US propaganda, Iran is not a nation full of mad terrorists that can't wait to blow the world back to stoneage. Infact Iran opened quite a lot in recent years and the people there have much better lifes than you would expect from (mainly US) anti-iran propaganda in the news.

On the other hadn they are an islamic theocracy and their people do not have many guaranteed rights like in western constitutions. Also women are excluded from many rights. So it's not a country I would call "good".

BUT despite the old ultra-conservative islamic council that watches national politics the new generation of politicians are not fanatic suicide bombers waiting for a chance to meet their virgins in heaven. Infact some of their politicians are very intelligent men that studied in the US or other western countries.

I saw an Interview with Mr. Chatami at the World Economic Forum in Davos last year and I was very impressed by that man. While I do not share his views and standarts I must say he is an intelligent and cultural man. He did find very good answers on the questions asked. And some of those questions were very delicate ones. And he was very polite, something Mr. Bush could adapt IMHO. It was not the ususal senseless babbling you hear from people like Alawi (interim Iraqi "puppet" PM).

Anyway. The Impression I got is clear. Iran is a sovereign state. It's not a terrorist group. Iran is interested in defending it's soil. Not in starting a nuclear war that will destroy them.

Now you've got to see their situation. They are on Bushy's "Axis of Evil" and two of their neighbouring states are already occupied by the US Forces and a third is a NATO member and friend of the US. The US is constantly thratening them (just listen to Mr. Rumsfeld for some time). On the other hand the world saw how weak the US got against North Korea which claims that it already has nuclear weapons. Iran saw that too. You can be sure that any country in the middle east that is not on the US payroll will do everything to get nuclear weapons now. Since that's the only guarantee tey can have that they won't be overrun. And this is a direct effect of the Bush policy in the middle east.

Now back to the topic. I don't feel the EU is directly threatened at this time. The EU has no big conflict with Iran. Infact many EU members have close economic ties to Iran.

Plus having nuclear facilities is not the same as having a nuclear bomb/warhead. Even if they have enriched uranium or similar stuff they would first need to develop the bomb. And that can take a looong time. I would be more concerned that they already get technical help from other countries like Pakistan (US "ally") or North Korea (which got help from Pakistan).

On one hand they have the same right as western countries to build nuclear power plants. The question is why do they refuse IAEA inspectors in some of their facitlies? Are they enriching uranium? Or not? The question is difficult to answer because we've seen in sevral places that the US is using those inspections for spying on countries and to "mark" targets incase of an assault. It's clear that Iran is not interested on giving those informations to an enemy that is threatening them (Ask yourself: Would the US allow Iranian inspectors in their facilities?). On the other hand the refusal makes them look suspicious. But as seen with Iraq - allowing inspections does not stop the US from attacking.

If you ask me the US is the big threat because it's frightening so many countries around the globe and (again) provokes nuclear armament. Iran is mainly a scared country that is (rightfully) fearing to become another US colony. You won't get such nations to cooperate because the only way out they see is having an atomic bomb.

Visuals of the Sahab 3 MRBM:

The Israelis and probably the U.S would nuke the crap out of them as soon as the first missile was launched.

I wonder where Iran got the idea that having some nuclear weapons would make their regime more secure.

Didnt the Iranian clerics crack down on moderates once Bush deiceided he was getting tough with Iran?

Hmm, a mobile ballistic system. A pain in the arse to track and identify.

Quote[/b] ]I wonder where Iran got the idea that having some nuclear weapons would make their regime more secure.

Nukes provide a change in diplomatic climate. That´s for sure. Once a nation has nukes it has to be taken serious in any matter.

Not to mention that the nuke capability of Iran is still very much in question as the latest modification to the Sahab 3 more indicated a modification for delivering chemical agents, but not nuclear warheads.

The Israelis and probably the U.S would nuke the crap out of them as soon as the first missile was launched.

I wonder where Iran got the idea that having some nuclear weapons would make their regime more secure.

Didnt the Iranian clerics crack down on moderates once Bush deiceided he was getting tough with Iran?

buddy... I wanted to express this: Iran has no interest in attacking anyone. (Since as you said it would only destroy them)

It only wants to defend itself against a US invasion. And a nuclear bomb is ideal for this. See North Korea. Of course it would destroy them too. But the US would never dare to attack if they can't rule out that their troops could get nuked away.

EDIT: ...or one of their cities or cities of allies

I wonder where Iran got the idea that having some nuclear weapons would make their regime more secure.

I wonder where the US got the idea that listing Iran and N Korea with the axis of evil and invading Iran's neighbour on false pretenses would discourage those nations from developing such defences.

The EU is threatened just because they're within range of someone's missiles? They've been in range of Libyan and Syrian SCUDs for quite some time. Russian missiles too.

None of which ever made such a presumptious statement: "If we get attacked, the world will change."

Of course, part of the reason for this statement is America's continued aggression in the Middle East and maybe we should do something about her actions there as well.

What good would it do Iran to nuke Istanbul if America bombs them? If anything, they'd attack Israel, Bahrain or Kuwait instead of the EU.

The Israelis and probably the U.S would nuke the crap out of them as soon as the first missile was launched.

I wonder where Iran got the idea that having some nuclear weapons would make their regime more secure.

Didnt the Iranian clerics crack down on moderates once Bush deiceided he was getting tough with Iran?

buddy... I wanted to express this: Iran has no interest in attacking anyone. (Since as you said it would only destroy them)

It only wants to defend itself against a US invasion. And a nuclear bomb is ideal for this. See North Korea. Of course it would destroy them too. But the US would never dare to attack if they can't rule out that their troops could get nuked away.

EDIT: ...or one of their cities or cities of allies

Your not big on sarcasm or rhetorical questions are you?

Analysts see 2 problems with what Iran has been up to lately:

1. Developing facilities which could be used to produce nukes will motivate other ME nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to do the same. In fact, both of those counties were talked out of their nuke ambitions in recent decades, but could easily reactivate those programs.

2. Last week Israel's Defence Minister said that Israel will consider “all options†to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Iran responded saying it would "react" militarily if Israel were to launch an airstrike against any of its nuclear facilities. The question is then, how would Israel react to Iran's reaction?