• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran tensions

"U.S. official in Washington, without offering any evidence, told The Associated Press that an American military team's initial assessment indicated Iran or Iranian allies used explosives to blow holes in the ships, including two Saudi, one Norwegian and one Emirati oil tanker. The official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation, agreed to reveal the findings only if not quoted by name. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols the Mideast and operates from a base in Fujairah, has repeatedly declined to comment on the incident."


Saudi Arabia says 2 oil tankers damaged by sabotage attacks - ABC News


What is the evidence to suggest who is responsible for the damage to the tankers?




//
 
Norwegian insurer says that tanker’s attack was organized by Iranian forces or its allies. The underwater drones more likely were engaged which carried explosive in the amount for 50 kilograms each.

Iran wants to show that it can easily obstacle normal oil traffic through Persian Gulf and Omani Bay even without direct blockade of Hormuz Strait but by the anonymous actions that will not entail a response from the US forces.

So, we can see, that bad example given by Russia with waging so-called “hybrid war” find their followers in other parts of the world and on another scenes and scenarios.

Exclusive: Insurer says Iran's Guards likely to have organized tanker attacks - Reuters
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
The only acceptable deal would have been one in which the Iranians dismantled all nuclear facilities capable of generating fissile material. A ten year suspension is not a deal. It is a decade-long kicking the can down the road in exchange for allowing Iran to integrate itself into the international trading and monetary system, expand its hegemony, and develop its weapons technology for ten years just in time to become a nuclear power. And, again, I do not think any of those nations would care overmuch if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon because they want to have trade with Iran which presents a huge economic opportunity for many. I am under no illusions about the nature of the regime or its grand strategy, which is to dominate its geopolitical region.
Click to expand...

As a signatory to the NPT Iran has every right in the world to have nuclear facilities and it is your own view which is unacceptable imo . Especially when , as a staunch defender of all things Israeli , you are not even questioning whether there is any validity to Israels alleged nuclear arsenal nor any agreement to have them monitored by the AIEA

Iran is/was complying with the deal while Israel hasn't even had one enforced upon it
 
Gladiator said:
"U.S. official in Washington, without offering any evidence, told The Associated Press that an American military team's initial assessment indicated Iran or Iranian allies used explosives to blow holes in the ships, including two Saudi, one Norwegian and one Emirati oil tanker. The official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation, agreed to reveal the findings only if not quoted by name. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols the Mideast and operates from a base in Fujairah, has repeatedly declined to comment on the incident."


Saudi Arabia says 2 oil tankers damaged by sabotage attacks - ABC News


What is the evidence to suggest who is responsible for the damage to the tankers?




//
Click to expand...

I think you are just supposed to believe them without the resort to any " evidence "
 
oneworld2 said:
As a signatory to the NPT Iran has every right in the world to have nuclear facilities and it is your own view which is unacceptable imo . Especially when , as a staunch defender of all things Israeli , you are not even questioning whether there is any validity to Israels alleged nuclear arsenal nor any agreement to have them monitored by the AIEA

Iran is/was complying with the deal while Israel hasn't even had one enforced upon it
Click to expand...

It isn't having the facilities that was the issue. It is what they were doing with them....

Can you say centrifuge?

They are exceeding the purity beyond what is needed to power her nuclear reactors.

Purity for nuclear reactors = around 6%
Purity for nuclear bomb = around 90%
 
Fledermaus said:
It isn't having the facilities that was the issue. It is what they were doing with them....

Can you say centrifuge?

They are exceeding the purity beyond what is needed to power her nuclear reactors.

Purity for nuclear reactors = around 6%
Purity for nuclear bomb = around 90%
Click to expand...

Iran was in full compliance with the treaty according to the IAEA, and only threatened to continue enriching when Trump idiotically decided to renege on an agreement which was actually working! An act which can only provoke Iran. What an 24 carat moron.
 
snakestretcher said:
Iran was in full compliance with the treaty according to the IAEA, and only threatened to continue enriching when Trump idiotically decided to renege on an agreement which was actually working! An act which can only provoke Iran. What an 24 carat moron.
Click to expand...

Why does Iran need an agreement to remain in compliance with IAEA guidelines?
 
Fledermaus said:
Why does Iran need an agreement to remain in compliance with IAEA guidelines?
Click to expand...

Because, old chap, there are two sides to every agreement. If Trump stupidly pulls out of a deal that was benefiting both sides, and then imposes further sanctions, should Iran just say, 'ok, no problem'? Or perhaps, '**** you' would be more appropriate. That has been Cuba's approach; they're not about to take any **** from America, and why should Iran? Iran (Persia), was doing just fine until the CIA blundered in and ****ed up a functioning, westward-looking, democracy. All your issues with Iran stem from 1953. Join the dots.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Because, old chap, there are two sides to every agreement. If Trump stupidly pulls out of a deal that was benefiting both sides, and then imposes further sanctions, should Iran just say, 'ok, no problem'? Or perhaps, '**** you' would be more appropriate. That has been Cuba's approach; they're not about to take any **** from America, and why should Iran? Iran (Persia), was doing just fine until the CIA blundered in and ****ed up a functioning, westward-looking, democracy. All your issues with Iran stem from 1953. Join the dots.
Click to expand...

And nothing there that explains why Iran needs an agreement with the US for them to remain in compliance with agreements they signed on to.
 
"This was a nerve-wracking seven days: last Monday four oil tankers – two of them Saudi flagged – were reportedly attacked near the strategic Strait of Hormuz. United States and Saudi security officials suspect that Iran or Iranian proxies are behind Sunday’s attack, though no specific details have been made public or can be confirmed. Iran has denied responsibility for the incident and accused the United States and Saudi Arabia of engineering events as a “false flag attack” meant to goad Iran into war."

"To add fuel to the fire, Saudi officials say a drone damaged one of its oil pipelines on Tuesday causing it to briefly shut down. The pipeline, which spans from east to west across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea is critical in bringing supply to export facilities that are a redundancy to get oil to the global market if shipping is blocked in the Persian Gulf."

"Houthi rebels in Yemen, aligned with Iran, have claimed responsibility for the attack against critical Saudi infrastructure. Thus, if true, both supply routes have been threatened – putting global oil supply at risk. Furthermore, Tehran has previously threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to sanctions against its oil exports."


Oil Prices Climb As Saudi Arabia Accuses Iran Of Attacking Tankers


Breaking News Thread:

White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War


//
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
It isn't having the facilities that was the issue. It is what they were doing with them....

Can you say centrifuge?

They are exceeding the purity beyond what is needed to power her nuclear reactors.

Purity for nuclear reactors = around 6%
Purity for nuclear bomb = around 90%
Click to expand...

Iran is complying with the deal it signed and your own country isn't , that's the facts of the matter

france24 said:
Iran has been adhering to a deal with world powers limiting its nuclear programme, the UN atomic watchdog said Friday, as diplomatic wrangling continues over the future of the accord.

The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran was still complying with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with global powers under which Tehran drastically scaled back its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.

The IAEA’s latest report showed that over the past three-month period, Iran’s stock of heavy water had risen from 122.8 to 124.8 metric tonnes and that it held 163.8kg of enriched uranium, up from 149.4kg in November.
Click to expand...

Iran is holding up its end of nuclear deal, shows IAEA report

When a state is being set up for an attack for complying with a deal it made with other states and the state that hasn't kept to it's word on the agreement is crying foul , sane people understand who is spoiling for the conflict and it ain't Iran
 
oneworld2 said:
Iran is complying with the deal it signed and your own country isn't , that's the facts of the matter



Iran is holding up its end of nuclear deal, shows IAEA report

When a state is being set up for an attack for complying with a deal it made with other states and the state that hasn't kept to it's word on the agreement is crying foul , sane people understand who is spoiling for the conflict and it ain't Iran
Click to expand...

Is enriching beyond the requirements for power plants part of the agreement?


I know an Islamic Bomb is a wet dream for folks like you.

The IAEA had previously failed to investigate the nuclear archives that Israel had smuggled out of Iran in January, even though the recovered documents and files contained details unknown to international inspectors.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Is enriching beyond the requirements for power plants part of the agreement?


I know an Islamic Bomb is a wet dream for folks like you.

The IAEA had previously failed to investigate the nuclear archives that Israel had smuggled out of Iran in January, even though the recovered documents and files contained details unknown to international inspectors.
Click to expand...

You know for a fact they are doing this?

A personal attack, really?
 
Fledermaus said:
Ask the Israelis. It looks like they have documentation the IAEA ignored.

BTW - He has been calling for weapons parity for Palestinians, Hamas, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Israel is not always the best source when it comes to affairs in the middle-east, think I would need need confirmation from another source, and no the Saudis are not acceptable

Did not know that, what does that even mean, weapons parity?
 
Casper said:
Sorry, but Israel is not always the best source when it comes to affairs in the middle-east, think I would need need confirmation from another source, and no the Saudis are not acceptable

Did not know that, what does that even mean, weapons parity?
Click to expand...

If Israel has a gun, then so should Israel's enemies.

If Israel has a plane, then so should Israel's enemies.

If Israel has a nuke, then so should Israel's enemies.
 
Fledermaus said:
If Israel has a gun, then so should Israel's enemies.

If Israel has a plane, then so should Israel's enemies.

If Israel has a nuke, then so should Israel's enemies.
Click to expand...

They have guns.

They have planes.

They would need 80 nukes to be even with Israel, not gonna happen.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Here's the thing, US forces can now launch a devastatingly conventional assault causing greater destruction than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

Have our armed forces very significantly evolved somehow since the second Iraq war? Because it was said as well that we'd rain shock and awe upon them and the war would last a few days. Well, it wasn't so easy and it turned into a decade-long quagmire. Now, being Iran militarily much stronger than Saddam Hussein's Iraq, what makes you think that we'd do any better against them? Maybe there was some strengthening of our military, but not to this order of magnitude.

The first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait had a long and slow build-up of US forces in Saudi Arabia. It took months, 400,000 troops, thousands of tanks... then we finally invaded.

Do you really think that Trump sending one aircraft carrier there with no other build-up, will result in a devastating conventional attack?

Waging war against Iran will be a HUGE mistake.

Unfortunately the arrogance and stupidity in the White House and the need to wag the dog and please the Israelis and Saudis might indeed lead to this huge mistake.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
Have our armed forces very significantly evolved somehow since the second Iraq war? Because it was said as well that we'd rain shock and awe upon them and the war would last a few days. Well, it wasn't so easy and it turned into a decade-long quagmire. Now, being Iran militarily much stronger than Saddam Hussein's Iraq, what makes you think that we'd do any better against them? Maybe there was some strengthening of our military, but not to this order of magnitude.

The first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait had a long and slow build up of US forces in Saudi Arabia. It took months, 400,000 troops, thousands of tanks... then we finally invaded.

Do you really think that Trump sending one aircraft carrier there with no other build up, will result in a devastating conventional attack?

Waging war against Iran will be a HUGE mistake.

Unfortunately the arrogance and stupidity in the White House and the need to wag the dog and please the Israelis and Saudis might indeed lead to this huge mistake.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the ignorance is with those people calling this build-up a potential invasion force.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Have our armed forces very significantly evolved somehow since the second Iraq war? Because it was said as well that we'd rain shock and awe upon them and the war would last a few days. Well, it wasn't so easy and it turned into a decade-long quagmire. Now, being Iran militarily much stronger than Saddam Hussein's Iraq, what makes you think that we'd do any better against them? Maybe there was some strengthening of our military, but not to this order of magnitude.

The first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait had a long and slow build-up of US forces in Saudi Arabia. It took months, 400,000 troops, thousands of tanks... then we finally invaded.

Do you really think that Trump sending one aircraft carrier there with no other build-up, will result in a devastating conventional attack?

Waging war against Iran will be a HUGE mistake.

Unfortunately the arrogance and stupidity in the White House and the need to wag the dog and please the Israelis and Saudis might indeed lead to this huge mistake.
Click to expand...

No one sane wants war. Yes, today one aircraft carrier can deliver more damage than Hiroshima and Nagasaki without nuclear weapons.

Politics turned Iraq into a quagmire, just as it did in SE Asia.

Don't blame the Saudis, or the Israelis. They are making their own moves, and both have held back because of us. The Saudis have nuclear weapons bought from Pakistan, whose nuclear research they financed. Delivery last summer. The Saudis have allied themselves with Israel, with good reasons. The Israelis have a weapon that bypasses nuclear technology. Romance makes for strange bedfellows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom