"blitz" blix' iranium

some or all of you may have heard of hans blix? he's famously the undead post saddam inspector that found nothing. he has an interview on al-jazeera, wich is quitte decent in many respects , still for insiders clearly shows his own position, the usian (as perceived by the uk probably) one. I'll cover that.

here's the video: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2009/10/200910374842991758.html,
or here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vfGmS0e0Y4

it is a lot of material and the aproach and questions are to the point..

Obama has asked iran to proof in two weeks it doesn't have nucleair weapons..

i have comments on that, 1: a nation that wants them can obtain nucleair weapons over a period of twenty years. 2: it is not possible to ever proof that without an invasion or some such. 3: perhaps we are all safer when it does have a few.
4: for public knowledge it will not admit such weapons (israel doesn't) 5: it does (most probably) not have the capacity's to build an arsenal 6: taken such arguments into consideration this a dangerous request, requests that cannot be forfilled will lead to baseless reproaches.

Frost introduces by telling about the 6-partite talks. a surprising level of agreement he says "by all accounts" is reached. it is worth noticing that this kind of publicity is naturally meant to provide a positive signal. one might wonder what credit will be given to irans campaign for a nucleair weapons free world...(1)

it also is important to realise that even this bit of aproach, and the contents of this bit of media are facilitated by Obama's will to talk and perhaps even, to disarm. At the moment i do not trust him completely(2), but the argument that major nucleair powers would not hurry disarming in a time of proliferation is natural.

blix is asked for the meaning of progress, he reply's by first stating that the g6 were not asking for very much. only inspections. now that is partial, because they are acually asking a whole lot, and (if they even had to ask? i don't think so) now also immediatly inspections. However he is right in saying it is not that surprising iran agrees to that after announcing the plant.

interestingly that usia was aware of the existence of this plant over at least a month, (it is pretty visible from space) is now kept out of view, at least also by blix.

"the real question is wether iran can be (you say;) dissuaded from continuing an enrichment program"
basically technically not is there? civil nucleair energy necesitates a higher level enrichment then 5%. so abandoning such technological advance would play the whole worlds energy market in the hands of "the lucky few".

the real question is, will israel and iran need to achieve (you say;) parity.

in the context of the indeed mostly old russian proposal,( heh, there is a component of russian greed in the shuttling of material..) he goes into rhetorics, "iranians say they cannot trust anybody" and "it is much cheaper to buy it".

the first is not the actual argument, that centres more about the economic and technological parity.wether it wud be cheaper to buy it very much depends the iranian production methods, if iran manages to sell it, that would definetly be even more profitable, and the rewards of obtaining the technologies and gaining the expertise cannot be estimated yet.

he lauds the talks (and obamashowing some of his affinity with usia and 'the west') they will continue 'for a while 'at any rate'' this is a somewhat sceptical signal, but also apparently he knows (or poses) obama is not intend on running from talks immediatly even advance would be slow or hard.(3)

i myself am quite optimistical of the aproach as well. Keep up the good work blix!.

Blix returns to the point of disuasion. asking wich are the options "carrots" he says
to lead the donkey one way or the other. sanctions or "investments" bluntly put.

well usia, blix, eu, israel, and "the west" , the sanctions are already there, your wild economical attacks on innocents and children are a severe reality of iran, that part took you no long. investments? don't they come with guilt? and loans? with interest and interests? iran wants independence not interference.

blix what kind of commitment to a non-agression status? are you serious blix? come on. words on paper don't guarantee peace, what good has the ink of un resolutions done to the palestineans? a status like the current one? including bombings of iran?
and how about israeli weapons.. ah.. a nucleair free zone in the middle east..
if that loose argument wants some merit it is time to start inspecting israel.

however it is funny, usia that sets no step hardly without israeli permission now puts a nucleair free middle east on the table, i don't know wether to find it desperate or hilarious and i trust it for what the past 50 years have proven this kind of talk and promising. not at all.

some more blackmail, about corporation in afghanistan, libanon and gaza(west bank apparently not negotiable). that is horrible man, is there so much good israel and
usia forbid to happen?

wether iran uses this to drag out the situation. to actually build more centrifuges.
(implying they would be for weapons and not industrially usefull uranium). roundwinded yes, hans. think thoroughly.. what again did israel just offer^^?

the nucleair threat to iran is one of pronouncedly huge proportions, they will need a rocket or 10 to keep israel at bay, and it would work wouldn't it? if in reply to the total destruction of iran the total destruction of the israeli was guaranteed, iran would not anymore be under the threat of nucleair attack and agression. that is the sad of it. and all the use of conflict in the middle east would disappear with it, so we see israel's role in the middle east diminishing. when israel can no longer target anyone with unlimited destruction with impunity, her strongest tool of control has just vanished and (world) peace so bitterly lacking in exactly the middle east muslim lives came closer.

so that is a bit awfull, even hans would agree that a thorough expertise of the material would promote the safety. otoh. perhaps he settles for: any atomic bomb unmade(4) is an actual succes, the pragmatical course.

k he gets partial again next. iran has not ratified extensions to the iaae protocol.
ofcourse he knows, but he doesn't mention,(5) a lot of times actions of usia or israel are based on "not signing ratifications" unratified protocols, this argument is moot.

is there a third plant. i would think so, they must assemble the nukes somewhere, and given earlier attempts, will have taken precautions against further destruction of the civilian programme. otoh i am convinced that if there is such a third plant, usia knows of it's existence and location, and thus israel does as well.

also many nations still have classified nucleair projects, there is almost a tradition of secret plants, why no mention of that ?

remains to say he says there maybe an option of nucleair disarmament in the whole middle east (also referring to israel not wanting 2 neighbours with them), fortunately even here iran has been one step ahead of the blues , by founding her current campaign and aproach of a slogan asking for nucleair disarmament in all the world. a thing najad btw. referred to in his un speech.

conclusions: Blix is not impartial, his attitude towards nucleair weapons is only in so far sincere he would want a world without. but in his rhetorics he underlays the usian diplomatics. he is well informed, knows a few things most of us or i don't.
he is also quite as curious as usia what actually facilitates and comprives these advances in nucleair processing iran have meanwhile shown to deliver.

like with former hints, i won't go into detail. basically they just stem from the patch up procedure: if we are bombed yet we still want to make some how do we do that. and that it is funny when u can produce weapons grade uranium in a pinch, so that nucleair threats against your nation become obsolete.

i think these were the technical specifications of the project;) :P ofcourse unlike
north korea the iranian republic is rich enough and willing to manage the safety requirements.
the iranian talent for process control did the rest.

Last but not least, had i been iran, i would have been willing to buy weapons grade fissile material on any market, and henceforth conduct to rigid protocol certainly.

No matter i will remain a principle opponent of the iranian state as a religious entity, and one upholding a stiff, autocrat, authoritarian system, so do i think that of to many nations that routinely escape suspicion.

the right to doom and threaten other nations and people, (for religious differences should not matter), i grant to noone.

iran and other muslim nations have not been left in peace and quiet, not been free of threat, intimidation and extortion.
we, usia, "the west", israel, have made to many mistakes to claim the right is on our side.
the right is in the middle, justice will not be done by western attitudes and lies nor by islamic authority.

to achieve justice we need (parity and mutuality in) respect, and a love for peace.

it is incredible that ruling classes made such a waste of the love in the hearts of all people.(6)

love.


(1)i noted once before in the blog iran is having a campaign:"nucleair weapons for none, nucleair energy for all". btw. this obviously also translates into: we are held to the same rights and obligations the others adhere to.
(2) the downplaying of the gaza crimes against humanity, (and the unmentioned 'crimes against peace..] report , the conditional aproach (and surrender of abbas) to palestineans, is a bit much to bear. i see that as obama implementing the israeli policy of delay untill nothing is left of the palestineans.
(3) since he knows more of the attitudes and cordiality expressed in the meetings it is a positive signal for that as well.
(4) the "israeli " bomb, the "pakistani" bomb, the "south african" bomb, the "brasilean" bomb, the "english" bomb, the "usian" bomb, etc..
(5) typically "reinform" the iaae of the plans to go ahead with the second plant.
(6) with merely dialectic exceptions.

zionism reason of censoring

For me it is nothing new, i must admit, often when i turned anti israeli in a post somewhere suddenly the thoughts police appeared apparent , and my posts got manipulated or just remained unposted. i was wondering what was behind with alJ. apparently i am not allowed to publish in threads about israel.

Well apparently the israeli manipulation is bussy once again making the world population believe a couple of lies. I don't think their activitys are more deplorable then the usian or dutch, altho they are so on a large scale and sometimes quite different level.

Anyhowe be warned, my instinct puts it for preparation of a war to iran (something big), but it may also be a heightening of palestines repression that is their first most important interesse. I must add my posts get marked and unpublished even if i say no of the above things, and just neutrally and objectively describe what i see happening. (because predictably the whole distastefull list of accusations will be made against me, like antisemite, prejudiced, etc., well the only thing that got clear from that is that zionist and neocon are also the same)

Tactically it may still be usefull to consider it means israeli politics will basically not change under anyone else then olmert, like it didn't under him.
They will keep on blaming 'the other' palestine, lebanese, arab, shia. or iranian (atm.)

In charge

Finally the gaza strip is in the hands of hamas. Finally the popular majority can hold her own reigns. Finally not anymore an alienating security force dominate the street picture? Finally we can guard ourselves in our hunger?

I don't know what has been the spark, but i have noticed the glow of the fire before.
Anyway finally we are governed by someone who oposes israeli airstrikes, finally fatah shows up in the repressed and miserable occupied form of representation where it rili stands. The hopeless situation of the west bank.

(remember i felt like writing how we will finally have a decent organisation in gaza again.)
The point i make above is really what i feel, fatah has surrendered to much of her palestine identity to the circumstance. With best intends , though.

I remember how the al aqsa had to be turned into something we (nato had antagonised them a lot) could handle,
and how the result seemed to much influenced to maintain integrity.
I also remember how i thought arming up palestine security forces was a very unfriendly and not very sane measure. I would almost suspect money to come in at this point for lack of a better excuse. (It was at the task desciption i noticed btw... so i am not to blame(1))

From this vantage point fatah(the echelon esp., it was supposed to be hard but some struck it insane) has stuck to her word. Honestly, i suppose.
This is not an everything is ok message just a relativation on the security forces situation, wich is more specific then needed since the situation can be explained through the context of the gaza populace.

I want to stress the sociological aproach, i don't want to say gaza populace is such and such, or has such and such, but show that such development was rather inevitable for any populace in such a (limited) situation.
Now it has happened, i am not surprised at all.
I am surprised but i absolutely understand the logic behind it.(at least i think you might understand it better after reading this)

There are so many reasons people in gaza would be desperate about their life as a result of the negotiations (and blackmail) with israel. There is so little progress (outside eg. hamas social movement, i suppose this is where the islam solidarity could play a role. Well you have to pay for progress somehow.)
Everyone can and should try to understand how very limited the role of regional solidarity gets if the money can get "frozen" (they usually disappear after, at least i never heard of any of these mysteriously reappearing very much).

On with the subject. How would a situation where the security forces motives got to alienated, or to little control of their own actions, (they killed palestineans in some of the early attempts to surpress hamas on international ordres.) a situation were people have some (or at least something internationally called) control over their surrounds?

I tell you what would happen. It would be a politically motivating situation,
you being allowed politics and nothing else (electricity, water, medicines, school money or safety) would make a certain percentage of ppl inhibit political thought.
An arguably artificial political agravation indeed.

So i don't want to say these are majority opinions, i think we can speak of a situation were the feelings of the majority express though the level of power,
governance, ("souvereignity" perhaps). Since nothing (except unfortunate israeli incidents ) can or is allowed to happen in Gaza, the ppl already involved in political thought would feel a more pronounced responsability to reconsider the motives, targets, methods and strategys.(indeed both fatah and hamas got active almost frenzy at some points)

The situation in gaza has been rather shifty with quitte some violence, i think that is how the idea, to just take over, was born. Think logically, we are the majority, ppl would opt for that unity, and we are utterly(internationally) repressed for being us, our people are not respected. Why not try to arrange those affairs with the political reality internally represented. Why not?

You can see the gaza people got very politicised from this incident if you consider it like this, and people should maybe be hopefull because of that , and not angry.

I can think like hamas, the situation is shit, but we are in charge.
Wich is better then the situation is shit and this is not leading anywhere.

Perhaps hamas is more primitive, dutch would get more primitive if you kept taking out their radical reformist leaders, but it reflects its politico-social reality.

Wouldn't every surpressed people within a confinement attempt to organise it's own (consensual,'democratic')structures and hold them over the official one? (sooner or later.)Don't *you* admire the individual that can?

Gaza people's or the hamas political thought goes like:
let us at least try to arrange our own affairs as the shit for standing up for our peoples rights is apparently unrecoverable.

(also economically a half year ago," the damage is done", you know 'discrimination' : some event of that kind.)

I hope hamas will negotiate a truce with europa and the arab union to just get the chance to live untill the regional situation improves that much setting up something there is not a calculated loss, and when we do that fine seems cheaper. pls think education cus later perhaps there will be jobs or possibilities at some point instead) Zion has always been scared for Tyrus, though, and i think they are in charge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the really better aproach in such a case is to opportunistically formulate.
a very rare example would have been to actually have had the fatah security army secure palestinean airspace. That is how long i suspect we still stand from solutions in formal ways in general .The example was to striking to go unnoticed somehow..(It would definetly include jetattacks on palestinean civilians. For people persistent in denying that.. i thought i better notice,except ofcourse the palestineans currently in jet-attacks of the israelian populace.
What the israeli's should learn is to make qassam-1s: really hard to stop even by the palestinean security force, walls are forever!