And with that I’ll close this thread.

There is a well-defined way of showing something exists, how can I prove that something does not exist? You are asking an impossibility. It is not possible to prove a negative. So, what you bring up is a moot point.

When Israelis bring up the subject of Hitler and the Nazis in relations to Iran it shows that they live in a dream world. Admittedly, they are so traumatized by the WW II experience that they have lost all sense of reality. There is absolutely no comparison between Germany and Iran. Jews have lived in Iran for hundreds of years without any significant problems. Even now, 25,000 Jews live there. When has Iran made any threats against Jews? They are of course against the Zionism, but that is a very different issue. There are even many Jews who are against Zionism. So, I don’t understand what the fear of Iran is about.

As far as these so-called “grand plans” are concerned, these are the figment of the imagination of Israeli politicians. As far as I know, Iran has no grand plan for the Middle East. On the other hand, Israel does have a grand plan of dominating the region and taking as much land and resource from its neighbors as it can. So, the problem is with you. Unless Israel solves the Palestinian problem, it will not remove the animosity towards it. Iran has said many times that it would accept any solution that the Palestinians accept. So, the ball is in your court.

Given your other statements, I doubt this will mean much but perhaps others will appreciate it. Of course, it is I suppose in your view yet another aspect of the US/UK conspiratorial cabal to besmirch that paragon of peace, freedom, justice and transparency that is the modern Iranian government and even if not, such weapons are no doubt being sent by the average Iranian in solidarity with the Taliban against the evil infidel crusader invaders rather than through any official Iranian government effort.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/exclusive+iran+supplies+weapons+to+taliban/3582967

My final point was that if Iran stopped enrichment tomorrow, the US would not remove any of the sanctions. You choose not to discuss this point. I want to see how we can solve problems and how to go forward and you are interested in analyzing things endlessly. Another point was the Tehran Declaration. It was an attempt to make progress by satisfying practically all the demands of Obama. Yet he rejected it. There is no point in arguing with unreasonable people. Good luck to you!

” I already explained it to you. The US wants a yes-man in Iran. Humiliation occurs if Iran has to eat its words and back down from all that it has been advocating, for example by giving up the idea of having an independent nuclear energy program.”

I noted with some humor your use of the word “energy” in describing Iran’s “idea.” I wonder if that includes the “energy” involved in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv or beyond? You still are merely stating your conclusions based I suppose on assumptions. “The US wants a yes-man in Iran. ” I still await your facts on which you base your opinion and more clarification as to what in your mind constitutes a “yes” man (or even a woman-though I suppose not in Iran).

Yes, the Cheonan is a shameful incident on two accounts: in the first place, that this act of war had occurred, and in the second, that the PRC had requested moderation and ROC and its partners conceded to this request without extracting concessions.

But we are not talking about the appropriate response to torpedoed destroyer and a small number of hands lost in the process, tragic as this is. We are talking about a response to an event not seen since Nagasaki – the levelling of a city and the deaths of millions, if not as a result of the initial effect, then for years thereafter as a result of the long term effects.

I am not proposing a formal international body for the purpose of response. The current convention of alliances and treaties should suffice. For most parts, the Nuclear Club members of the West extend the deterrent value of their systems beyond their own territories – in the manner as we have seen during the Cold War. What I am suggesting is that this same nuclear deterrent umbrella should be extended not only to a response guarantee, but also that those that had assisted the aggressor will be held accountable for their contribution.

For that part, Iran’s path to this technological point in time is well documented. We know who supplied them with their P-2 centrifuge technology. We know who supplied them with ballistic missile and guidance technologies. I believe that the West should say to these nations: look, you’ve made your quick buck but now you had better find a way to get the genie back in the bottle, because if the possession of this technology should lead to the destruction of a city or worse, we will remember your assistance in bringing that about when we construct our response – whatever that may be. I envisage that this should be very much along the same lines as the warning JFK gave Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis: that a missile launched from Cuban soil would be responded to as if it was launched from within the Soviet Union.