Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know the Saudis were never on any control lists for "dual use" materials.
They don't have any manufacturing industry to speak of, so could hardly be regarded as a manufacturing threat.
Remember COCOM and the NPL controls were all about denying manufacturing capability.
They don't have any manufacturing industry to speak of, so could hardly be regarded as a manufacturing threat.
Remember COCOM and the NPL controls were all about denying manufacturing capability.
LW - hence my point re "international law" and "puff of logic". There is (as we are all aware) an entire supra-national industry/lobby group dedicated to the promotion / enforcement of international law.
Remarkably, many of the most vociferous proponents of "international law" tend to view it as a stick with which to restrain the actions of "the West" or the RSPs (Israel). They tend to be somewhat less vociferous and more equivocal when the "law-breaker" is a nation like Uncle Kims socialist paradise, Cuba, Venezuela (currently), China or Iran.
Personally, I'm all for acting for national interest, caveatted with pragmatism and avoidance of being an arsehole for the sake of it! In other words, abide by the spirit of the UN, but don't ignore an obvious "threat" because it's convenient not to. I'm afraid that I read I'maDinnerJacket and his theocratic mates as a bunch of chancers whose interests are largely opposed to those of the UK and who will be more irrational, rather than less, if they get a bucket of instant sunshine of their very own to play with.
That means that it is in the interests of the UK for an Iranian bomb to be prevented, preferably with the minimum effect necessary.
Remarkably, many of the most vociferous proponents of "international law" tend to view it as a stick with which to restrain the actions of "the West" or the RSPs (Israel). They tend to be somewhat less vociferous and more equivocal when the "law-breaker" is a nation like Uncle Kims socialist paradise, Cuba, Venezuela (currently), China or Iran.
Personally, I'm all for acting for national interest, caveatted with pragmatism and avoidance of being an arsehole for the sake of it! In other words, abide by the spirit of the UN, but don't ignore an obvious "threat" because it's convenient not to. I'm afraid that I read I'maDinnerJacket and his theocratic mates as a bunch of chancers whose interests are largely opposed to those of the UK and who will be more irrational, rather than less, if they get a bucket of instant sunshine of their very own to play with.
That means that it is in the interests of the UK for an Iranian bomb to be prevented, preferably with the minimum effect necessary.
I don't buy some of this rhetoric which is peddled by the likes of the college of knowledge and defence industry in whose interests it is important to portray the Iranian government as madmen, so they can sell more weapons and technology.
It would be utter lunacy for I'm a dinner jacket to lob a nuclear weapon because he knows full well that it would mean guaranteed destruction. That's why Deterrence works so well. Would the USA have needed to drop two on Japan if that country had known what they were being threatened with. Arguably not, but that is another discussion.
Iran, throughout its history has been invaded by all manner of countries, from the Macedonians and the Romans to the Russians, British and Iraq in recent history. During the Iran/Iraq war, they lost up to 1 million lives in the conflict and despite having chemical weapons used on them by Saddam, did (it is believed) not retaliate in kind. They are surrounded by Arab nations (bedouins) who make no secret of their animosity towards Persians and have greedy eyes on the oil and gas that Iran holds. Turkey (NATO) and Russia to the north (see the great game) and Pakistan to the south. In the middle of that mix, they have a superpower flexing its influnce in the region. A superpower that directly interfered in Iran with a coup that put the last Shah into power as a balance against communist influence. A superpower that has armed the nations around the gulf with technology that could be used against it. A superpower that it advised to keep out of the Gulf whilst an exercise was going on, because, maybe just because, the implications of an incident or genuine mistake could be serious and maybe, just maybe, Iran has no wish for such tensions to escalate.
Amongst this, they are developing their own weapon and I understand all the arguments put before but, this will mean that finally, they will have a means of ensuring that interference in their domestic affairs by other nations could finally be stopped. They have seen the policy of regime change in action and have no wish for it to happen to them.
I am not a pacifist, or CND, but I think that we need to see past the propoganda spouted by some quarters, fermented by the immortal words of George Bush Jnr.
Has Iran invaded any other country?
Has Iran fired a weapon at any other country?
Has Iran forcefully changed the regime in any other country?
Yes they play politics, yes they meddle in other state's affairs but that is no different to what 'western nations' have been doing for years.
In some ways, Iran is similar to china. Another nation that is similarly insular but, which has been the subject of foreign interference for centuries.
That's my side of the coin, I would be happy to be 'debated' on my points or my historical viewpoint corrected.
Have a peaceful weekend everyone.
It would be utter lunacy for I'm a dinner jacket to lob a nuclear weapon because he knows full well that it would mean guaranteed destruction. That's why Deterrence works so well. Would the USA have needed to drop two on Japan if that country had known what they were being threatened with. Arguably not, but that is another discussion.
Iran, throughout its history has been invaded by all manner of countries, from the Macedonians and the Romans to the Russians, British and Iraq in recent history. During the Iran/Iraq war, they lost up to 1 million lives in the conflict and despite having chemical weapons used on them by Saddam, did (it is believed) not retaliate in kind. They are surrounded by Arab nations (bedouins) who make no secret of their animosity towards Persians and have greedy eyes on the oil and gas that Iran holds. Turkey (NATO) and Russia to the north (see the great game) and Pakistan to the south. In the middle of that mix, they have a superpower flexing its influnce in the region. A superpower that directly interfered in Iran with a coup that put the last Shah into power as a balance against communist influence. A superpower that has armed the nations around the gulf with technology that could be used against it. A superpower that it advised to keep out of the Gulf whilst an exercise was going on, because, maybe just because, the implications of an incident or genuine mistake could be serious and maybe, just maybe, Iran has no wish for such tensions to escalate.
Amongst this, they are developing their own weapon and I understand all the arguments put before but, this will mean that finally, they will have a means of ensuring that interference in their domestic affairs by other nations could finally be stopped. They have seen the policy of regime change in action and have no wish for it to happen to them.
I am not a pacifist, or CND, but I think that we need to see past the propoganda spouted by some quarters, fermented by the immortal words of George Bush Jnr.
Has Iran invaded any other country?
Has Iran fired a weapon at any other country?
Has Iran forcefully changed the regime in any other country?
Yes they play politics, yes they meddle in other state's affairs but that is no different to what 'western nations' have been doing for years.
In some ways, Iran is similar to china. Another nation that is similarly insular but, which has been the subject of foreign interference for centuries.
That's my side of the coin, I would be happy to be 'debated' on my points or my historical viewpoint corrected.
Have a peaceful weekend everyone.
South Korea and Israel aren't going to do anything without the USA agreeing.
The Israeli's will do whatever they deem to be in their National Interest even if in direct opposition to Washington's desires. Survival of the nation surely falls into that category of issues where Israel shall do whatever they deem necessary.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger
In 1984 in the middle of the Iran / Iraq war, Iran did buy precursors for making mustard gas.
Whether they used them or not I can't say - the European export ban kicked in three days after the discovery, blocking the purchases.
I'm not going to say where from, or who from, but it did happen. Certainly they had the intent, but the attempt was blocked. On that occasion, the control systems worked - because people were on the ball and knew what to look for.
In 1984 in the middle of the Iran / Iraq war, Iran did buy precursors for making mustard gas.
Whether they used them or not I can't say - the European export ban kicked in three days after the discovery, blocking the purchases.
I'm not going to say where from, or who from, but it did happen. Certainly they had the intent, but the attempt was blocked. On that occasion, the control systems worked - because people were on the ball and knew what to look for.
Last edited by COCL2; 20th Jan 2012 at 13:47.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy talk
the timing was concurrent with those Iranian gas victims who were shipped to the UK/Europe for treatment.
I was always of the opinion that their poisoning may have self-inflicted, possibly inadvertently through poor handling skills, possibly to get "victims" into the public arena who could be trusted to only speak the Mullah's official line. (note - that is pure conjecture on my part)
Thats not to deny that Iraq was certainly using gas at that time - I just have doubts as to the origin of those cases sent to the west for treatment. There was always a suspicion that some earlier shipments had got through - some European countries were a lot less controlled in their exports, and the materials concerned were ultimately of German origin.
the timing was concurrent with those Iranian gas victims who were shipped to the UK/Europe for treatment.
I was always of the opinion that their poisoning may have self-inflicted, possibly inadvertently through poor handling skills, possibly to get "victims" into the public arena who could be trusted to only speak the Mullah's official line. (note - that is pure conjecture on my part)
Thats not to deny that Iraq was certainly using gas at that time - I just have doubts as to the origin of those cases sent to the west for treatment. There was always a suspicion that some earlier shipments had got through - some European countries were a lot less controlled in their exports, and the materials concerned were ultimately of German origin.
Last edited by COCL2; 20th Jan 2012 at 16:54.
Widger, nicely put. Bravo!
COCL: what you present in re Iranian chemical capability squares with much of what we got briefed on at the time, as my memory serves. Thanks for the refresher. We were also getting a lot of briefs on lasers used against both ground and air opponents, by both sides, but I don't know if both sides retained the same capaiblity, since I think most of our intel briefings were based on damage done by Iraqis using Soviet origin laser weapons (CO2 based, IIRC). Memory is not serving as well on that bit, sadly.
COCL: what you present in re Iranian chemical capability squares with much of what we got briefed on at the time, as my memory serves. Thanks for the refresher. We were also getting a lot of briefs on lasers used against both ground and air opponents, by both sides, but I don't know if both sides retained the same capaiblity, since I think most of our intel briefings were based on damage done by Iraqis using Soviet origin laser weapons (CO2 based, IIRC). Memory is not serving as well on that bit, sadly.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy talk
Personally I believe they would have gone down that route anyway. They were in a major war and all options were open to them, and worth exploring. Iraq just happened to get there first, and developed their capability earlier. Iran simply lost the race, like Germany lost the nuclear race, while Japan got ahead in the bacteriological warfare stakes (not that it did them any good)
However, thats a personal view.
And now they are playing catchup in another race and need to be stopped.
Lonewolf
sorry, Lazers were totally out of my area of knowledge.
Personally I believe they would have gone down that route anyway. They were in a major war and all options were open to them, and worth exploring. Iraq just happened to get there first, and developed their capability earlier. Iran simply lost the race, like Germany lost the nuclear race, while Japan got ahead in the bacteriological warfare stakes (not that it did them any good)
However, thats a personal view.
And now they are playing catchup in another race and need to be stopped.
Lonewolf
sorry, Lazers were totally out of my area of knowledge.
Last edited by COCL2; 20th Jan 2012 at 17:26.
Thats not to deny that Iraq was certainly using gas at that time - I just have doubts as to the origin of those cases sent to the west for treatment.
This would of course be well after the meeting Donald Rumsfeld had with Saddam and offered him Chemicals which strangely he converted into Weapons.
COCL - question is whether your remit not to transport to Iraq changed after that meeting between Donnie and Saddam.
Britain's dirty secret | Politics | The Guardian
Course UK taxpayers funded the Iraqi "Chlorine" plant in 1985 built by UK subsidary of German company.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo
You're way off the mark.
The European controls were put in place in a hurry in 1984 when it was realised what was going on. Discovery to legislation in three days (two days for the UK).
As for the stories of Rumsfeld and Co, I don't believe a word. Iraq was obtaining its materials from Germany through a web of trading companies. When the Germans realised the destination all hell broke loose and some companies were closed overnight by the authorities. Iran was unlucky in that the trading companies it chose were more scrupulous, and asked questions.
However you have to understand that at that time, many involved didn't understand the significance of the materials involved. Chemical warfare was something from the distant past, and not considered.
Essentially when the ban kicked in, exports were prohibited to anyone not on the "Australia list" - who were basically USA, Japan, the then EEC, and the "white" Commonwealth. If Rumsfeld was supplying Iraq he would have been breaching similar legislation in the USA. However, its unlikely he was: it was well known in the trade that after the European ban, India, and later China, took over the role of supplying Iraq.
Neither were party to the legislation.
Suggestions that the USA were supplying chemical precursors to Iraq, are in my opinion unlikely. Especially considering the materials involved were (with a couple of exceptions) not manufactured in the USA, but were in Germany....
The question is whether the German manufacturers were complicit, but thats something I'm not going to discuss.
PS What may be of concern is that Iran will almost certainly have improved its own technology. It now is making its own drugs, fertilisers and pesticides - not a far removed step from war gases. Given its close trading relationship with China, importing precursors should be no problem for it. Much is spoken of Irans nuclear potential, but what of its chemical weapons capabilities?
You're way off the mark.
The European controls were put in place in a hurry in 1984 when it was realised what was going on. Discovery to legislation in three days (two days for the UK).
As for the stories of Rumsfeld and Co, I don't believe a word. Iraq was obtaining its materials from Germany through a web of trading companies. When the Germans realised the destination all hell broke loose and some companies were closed overnight by the authorities. Iran was unlucky in that the trading companies it chose were more scrupulous, and asked questions.
However you have to understand that at that time, many involved didn't understand the significance of the materials involved. Chemical warfare was something from the distant past, and not considered.
Essentially when the ban kicked in, exports were prohibited to anyone not on the "Australia list" - who were basically USA, Japan, the then EEC, and the "white" Commonwealth. If Rumsfeld was supplying Iraq he would have been breaching similar legislation in the USA. However, its unlikely he was: it was well known in the trade that after the European ban, India, and later China, took over the role of supplying Iraq.
Neither were party to the legislation.
Suggestions that the USA were supplying chemical precursors to Iraq, are in my opinion unlikely. Especially considering the materials involved were (with a couple of exceptions) not manufactured in the USA, but were in Germany....
The question is whether the German manufacturers were complicit, but thats something I'm not going to discuss.
PS What may be of concern is that Iran will almost certainly have improved its own technology. It now is making its own drugs, fertilisers and pesticides - not a far removed step from war gases. Given its close trading relationship with China, importing precursors should be no problem for it. Much is spoken of Irans nuclear potential, but what of its chemical weapons capabilities?
Last edited by COCL2; 20th Jan 2012 at 19:00.
COCL
The UK govt provided export guarantee funding for a chemical plant knowing what it was being used for.............not hearsay.
As for US well Congressional investigations in 1992-94 showed what was exported from 1985 but no records existed pre 1985 apparently.
Riegle Report - Chapter One, Part Two
The UK govt provided export guarantee funding for a chemical plant knowing what it was being used for.............not hearsay.
As for US well Congressional investigations in 1992-94 showed what was exported from 1985 but no records existed pre 1985 apparently.
Riegle Report - Chapter One, Part Two
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd need to know more about that plant - first I've heard of it being UK built, but it doesn't affect the facts of what I've said about Iraq / Iran. However from what you've said and what I've briefly read, it would appear to fly in the face of the Chemical Weapons legislation.
More interestingly, why did a German company, Uhde, get a UK subsidiary involved in it? Especially when a Libyan plant previously built by a German company (the Rabatt plant) went bang in mysterious circumstances, which ended with the contractors directors in jail for evading export regs.
Curious. I've nothing more to add without knowing a lot more
More interestingly, why did a German company, Uhde, get a UK subsidiary involved in it? Especially when a Libyan plant previously built by a German company (the Rabatt plant) went bang in mysterious circumstances, which ended with the contractors directors in jail for evading export regs.
Curious. I've nothing more to add without knowing a lot more
I'd need to know more about that plant - first I've heard of it being UK built, but it doesn't affect the facts of what I've said about Iraq / Iran. However from what you've said and what I've briefly read, it would appear to fly in the face of the Chemical Weapons legislation.
More interestingly, why did a German company, Uhde, get a UK subsidiary involved in it? Especially when a Libyan plant previously built by a German company (the Rabatt plant) went bang in mysterious circumstances, which ended with the contractors directors in jail for evading export regs.
Curious. I've nothing more to add without knowing a lot more
More interestingly, why did a German company, Uhde, get a UK subsidiary involved in it? Especially when a Libyan plant previously built by a German company (the Rabatt plant) went bang in mysterious circumstances, which ended with the contractors directors in jail for evading export regs.
Curious. I've nothing more to add without knowing a lot more
Remember Matix Churchill and the attempt to jail the guys working with UK Govt, fair play to Hezza but strangely enough he was Sec State for Defense when warning against supplying the Chlorine plant as well............consistency at least.
Did you really know what was in the aircraft or did you rely on the manifest........
not trying to impute integrity but if it says Potassium Sorbate are you qualified to test whether it is or do you accept what it says.
Look at recent info out on Libya where Hague proven to have lied with UK boots on the ground and Qatar and France breaking UN sanctions with supply of weapons and all having troops on the ground.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
racedo
"Look at recent info out on Libya where Hague proven to have lied with UK boots on the ground and Qatar and France breaking UN sanctions with supply of weapons and all having troops on the ground."
Do you really believe that most people thought the UK and others "didn't" have boots on the ground, either as intel gatherers OR as ex soldiers paid for and controlled by the UK Gov't / MOD "representing Britain", which is only one step removed from sending signed up troops anyway.
And did you really think that countries wouldn't try to supply weapons to the rebels including China, South Africa (photo evidence of SA weapons). Gun making and selling is a business and wars are the best time to sell.
If that is the case, some people need to pull their head out of the sand.
"Look at recent info out on Libya where Hague proven to have lied with UK boots on the ground and Qatar and France breaking UN sanctions with supply of weapons and all having troops on the ground."
Do you really believe that most people thought the UK and others "didn't" have boots on the ground, either as intel gatherers OR as ex soldiers paid for and controlled by the UK Gov't / MOD "representing Britain", which is only one step removed from sending signed up troops anyway.
And did you really think that countries wouldn't try to supply weapons to the rebels including China, South Africa (photo evidence of SA weapons). Gun making and selling is a business and wars are the best time to sell.
If that is the case, some people need to pull their head out of the sand.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looking at the list of products in that "Riegle Report". Not a lot there to get bothered about - just diagnostic screening samples, kind of thing any medical school would have. Nothing much you can do with the materials listed. Quantities are insignificant.
What would worry me would be large quantities of culture media, fermenters, centrifuges, extraction gear and other process equipment.
I know from personal experience that the same atomic energy site also used to purchase custom made precursors for radioactive diagnostic tracers - almost certainly for diagnosing cancers.
Only objection that could be raised against sending them would be moral - on the grounds that only Saddam's cronies would benefit from the health care.
What would worry me would be large quantities of culture media, fermenters, centrifuges, extraction gear and other process equipment.
I know from personal experience that the same atomic energy site also used to purchase custom made precursors for radioactive diagnostic tracers - almost certainly for diagnosing cancers.
Only objection that could be raised against sending them would be moral - on the grounds that only Saddam's cronies would benefit from the health care.
Do you really believe that most people thought the UK and others "didn't" have boots on the ground, either as intel gatherers OR as ex soldiers paid for and controlled by the UK Gov't / MOD "representing Britain", which is only one step removed from sending signed up troops anyway.
And did you really think that countries wouldn't try to supply weapons to the rebels including China, South Africa (photo evidence of SA weapons). Gun making and selling is a business and wars are the best time to sell.
And did you really think that countries wouldn't try to supply weapons to the rebels including China, South Africa (photo evidence of SA weapons). Gun making and selling is a business and wars are the best time to sell.
In which case why would Iran or anybody else trust a Western country with their history of lying and interfering in countries to obtain trade benefits.
Just looking at the list of products in that "Riegle Report". Not a lot there to get bothered about - just diagnostic screening samples, kind of thing any medical school would have. Nothing much you can do with the materials listed. Quantities are insignificant.
Also not that nothing available pre 1985 which is the 2 years post Donnie Rumsfelds visit.
Remember these are public companies, the CIA run quite a few shelf companies who don't appear on the radar. Some financial commentators think that in the US the CIA etc have a significant piece of US business overusing its influence to its own ends.
Interesting that Zapata was name of Bush 1 company which was an oil company will alledged CIA links now owned by Glazer family and Operation Zapata was Bay of Pigs