Thread: Iran set to construct ten new enrichment plants

Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari


The commander of the Iranian Navy says that the country's naval forces will even chase Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden, if necessary.

“The Iranian Navy will remain in the Gulf of Aden as long as the situation in the Mandab Strait (Bab al-Mandeb) is insecure,” Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said on Sunday.

Sayyari noted that the Iranian Navy is currently in a very good situation because it can conduct missions under very difficult conditions.

The Iranian Navy has been conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since November 2008, when Somali pirates hijacked the Iranian-chartered cargo ship MV Delight off the coast of Yemen.

According to Iranian military sources, the country's navy has dispatched four fleets of warships to fight piracy off the coast of Somalia.

The Israeli navy has fired several shells at a number of Palestinian fishing boats off the coast of Gaza.

The Israeli navy opened fire on the fishermen near the al-Shudaniyya shore, northwest of Gaza City. No injuries were reported in the shelling, according to the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC).

An Israeli army spokesman said the fishing boats “violated security boundaries off the coast of the Gaza Strip... out of the permitted fishing zone.”

The Israeli navy enforces a blockade on the Palestinian territory and prevents fishermen from venturing more than five kilometers from shore.

Israeli gunboats enforce this limit by patrolling the internationally recognized waters off the coast of Gaza. The fishermen complain that they get fired on before they even get close to the limit.

About 3,500 fishermen struggle to trade off Gaza's 40km Mediterranean coastline despite the blockade.

Israel imposed a crippling siege on the Gaza Strip in 2007 after the Hamas movement took full control of the territory after pushing out Fatah security forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the acting Palestinian Authority chief.

An Iranian lawmaker says that the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors obeys the orders of the global arrogance.

Commenting on the recent IAEA resolution calling for Iran to halt construction of its new uranium enrichment plant at Fordo, MP Ali Zanjani-Hassanlou told IRNA on Sunday that the IAEA Board is only trying to hinder the progress of young Iranian scientists in the field of nuclear energy meant for peaceful purposes.

“The international community is well aware (of the fact) that the IAEA Board is politicizing Iran's case by telling lies,” he added.

On Sunday, the Iranian parliament passed a motion which calls on the government to downgrade its cooperation with the IAEA in response to the recent resolution.

Before the latest action, three rounds of UN Security Council resolutions were issued calling for the Islamic Republic to halt its enrichment activities.

Tehran denies the allegations that its civilian nuclear program is a cover for a nuclear weapons program and has actually called for the eradication of all weapons of mass destruction across the globe.

After Iran announced its plan to construct ten new enrichment plants, a senior nuclear official says the decision is a strong response to a new resolution by the UN nuclear watchdog.

"We had no plan to build many nuclear sites like [enrichment facility in the central city of] Natanz but it seems that the West do not want to comprehend Iran's message of peace," Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali-Akbar Salehi said.

"The West adopted an attitude toward Iran which made the Iranian government to pass the ratification on construction of ten sites similar to the Natanz enrichment facility," he added.

Days after a new resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on Iran to halt the construction of its Fordo enrichment plant, the Iranian government on Sunday tasked the Atomic Energy Organization (AEO) with building ten more nuclear enrichment sites.

Upon the Iranian government's decree, the AEO should begin the construction of five of the enrichment facilities over the next two months.

It should also propose locations for the remaining five enrichment plants within a two-month period.

"We have determined the location of five sites upon the president's decree. Our enrichment sites will be constructed in the heart of mountains," Salehi said.

He noted that each site has the potentiality to "supply fuel for a power plant as large as Bushehr power plant."

"The five sites inside mountains will be built in a way that will be protected from any attack," the vice-president said.

He expressed his regret that the West gave no befitted response to Iran's confidence-building measures.

Some Western powers, spearheaded by the US, have been pressuring Iran to accept an inflexible nuclear draft deal which wants Iran's Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) to be shipped out of the country for further enrichment and return to Iran to be used in Tehran research reactor.

Iranian officials rejected the UN proposal, first floated by the administration of US President Barack Obama, saying there are no guarantees that the country would in fact receive the fuel it requires.

Tehran says it is ready to accept the nuclear swap if it takes place within its own borders.

The order for the construction of the new sites comes as the Iranian government is expected to provide the country's power plants with 20,000 megawatts of electricity for domestic use.

On Friday, Iran's top nuclear envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh showed reaction to the new IAEA resolution, warning that the decision will only introduce tension to the "spirit of cooperation."

Besides Brazil, some countries from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) including Indonesia and Egypt criticized the passage of the resolution.

Brazilian envoy to the IAEA, who abstained from voting to censure Iran over the construction of the Fordo enrichment plant, said that a new round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program would be pointless.

Imposing more sanctions on Tehran "will only lead to a hardening of the Iranian position," Ambassador Antonio Guerreiro said on Saturday.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki told journalists on Saturday: “The resolution on the Iranian nuclear dossier does not take into account its regional aspect.”

He added that the UN nuclear watchdog's resolution should have also mentioned Israel's nuclear arsenal and nuclear disarmament in the Middle East.

European Union governments have given in to the pressure and appear set to make a last-minute agreement with the United States to allow its intelligence agencies to monitor bank accounts and transactions across the bloc.

Actually, the EU has been clandestinely allowing US intelligence agencies to have access to these financial records since 2001, allegedly to fight terrorism.

However, EU citizens were outraged when this invasion of privacy was revealed in 2006.

Now, however, interior ministers and security officials of the 27-member bloc are going to meet on November 30 to make a decision on legally allowing the United States to have access to bank data across the EU.

According to Spiegel Online, the EU interior ministers gradually succumbed to the “massive” pressure exerted by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US ambassadors in Europe, who pressed governments like door-to-door salespeople.

“They pulled out all the moral and political stops,” one EU foreign minister quipped.

Germany was initially opposed to the agreement but came around this week, and a recalcitrant Austria, one of the last holdouts, followed suit.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, who is from the new coalition government, told German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberg, who belongs to the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), that he would not block the US proposal in Brussels.

There will not be a German “no” vote, but instead, he will simply abstain, Spiegel Online reported.

In what many Europeans say is a surreptitious move, the final decision on the issue is going to be made one day before the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect on December 1, since the treaty would allow the European Parliament to have a say in the matter.

However, the issue will definitely face opposition in the EU Parliament anyway since a majority of MEPs are opposed to the idea of disclosing the bank data to the US.

The new treaty envisages a host of security measures and has paved the way for many inexperienced but obedient people like Catherine Ashton, a former EU commissioner for trade, to be elevated to the very apex of European politics.

Many analysts view the entire process as an attempt by Washington to realize its security goals.

The US involvement in the EU's banking system started after it illegally got its hands on the private bank data via the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication or SWIFT.

Over 8,000 financial institutions in over 200 countries are affiliated with SWIFT. The cooperative organization is not a bank and it lacks funds but operates a network of international financial messages.

The firm is registered in Belgium but one of its two major computer servers is located in the US.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the White House decided to intercept the bank data of people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities via the SWIFT server in the US.

The CIA, the FBI, the US government, and major banks all put pressure on SWIFT until the organization “voluntarily” began to hand over millions of pieces of data.

Privacy advocates and liberal politicians are opposed to the “SWIFT agreement” because it would give US intelligence agencies access to the personal information and financial records of all EU citizens.

Five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have now joined forces against Iran. China and Russia had previously resisted taking action against Iran have now joined forces with Britain, France, Germany and the United States.

This looks so much like the build up to the invasion of Iraq with harder sanctions on the horizon and followed with what could inevitably be military action.

Doesn't it appear strange that we also saw this same build up in Pakistan and India with the US spearheading pressure to stop both those nations from gaining Nuclear Weapons? What gives these elite five the right to dictate what another country should or should not do and yet is continues to turn a blind eye on the Israeli Nuclear Programme that already has its own nuclear arsenal.

We have the two leaders of the pack highlighting their concerns in respective press releases with the following headlines: "Brown says sanctions next if Iran doesn't respond" and "Obama warns Iran of consequences." It is obvious that both the US and UK are heading for a showdown and really do want a conflict with Iran. I guess its time for the price of oil to go up and for the US to increase its arms sale.

Last year the The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has affirmed in a report that Israel has a 'sizeable' nuclear arsenal. The report stated that Israel was considered to be a "de facto nuclear power with an advanced and sizeable arsenal," even though the regime had never itself acknowledged openly its nuclear-weapons status. I continue to ask the same question over and over again, why doesn't the Security Council impose sanctions on Israel? Why doesn't the Security Council make the same threats of possible military action against Israel? It is obvious that Israel represents an informal extension to NATO and that the US needs such a major military presence right in the heart of the Arab League.

It is so important to the US to have such a well equipped ally sitting between Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt. One could also assume that secretly the US supports Israel in breaking up what is left of the original Palestinian territory.

Obama said that he wanted the world to agree to a ban on nuclear weapons and all Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). He has made it clear that Iran must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. So why does Obama and Brown use WMD's in all their current theatres of war? Who are these supreme beings allowed to contaminate vast tracts of land with DU/EU that are certainly WMD's in the real sense of the word. We have seen all the war zones encounter the terrible consequences of these weapons and they have the audacity to tell Iran they must not produce such weapons.

The US and Israel both have stockpiles of weapons containing uranium components ready to go should an attack on Iran be required. Environmentally speaking should such an attack take place the combination of DU/EU weapons being used on nuclear facilities would be catastrophic not only for the entire Middle East but also the World.


At the moment Obama is having a rough ride in his new appointment since his promise of change that never came. Brown on the other hand has never instilled any hope in the hearts of the British people.....on the contrary his appeal is zero!

The other issue is that both countries are in a financial mess and the price of oil is low. Therefore, one can see three scenarios's playing out here.

• When leaders generally hit an all time low they go to war.

• In going to war the price of oil goes through the roof.

• Export of arms sales increases to very high levels

We keep seeing the same aggressive establishment and protection of existing or proposed pipeline routes to ensure their drive to secure future world energy markets. The war in the Balkans was all over the establishment of pipelines and their security, Iraq was all about taking over and securing the source of supply, Afghanistan was all about the TAPI pipeline, Georgia was all about an energy pipeline route and Gaza was all about trying to take the offshore Gas reserves from the Palestinians. Iran is also part of this same situation in that it is the only country the west really has no control over. Iran has the ability to threaten the western dominance as a source of supply.

I sincerely believe the US will allow Israel to eliminate or totally disintegrate the people of Palestine so they can no longer function as a unified body. This tactic would then allow Israel to rape the natural resources of Gaza.

Brown_As I have already pointed out, if Iran is a potential future nuclear threat to Israel and the West, then surely Israel is also an existing nuclear threat to the Islamic Countries of the Middle East. What gives the west the right to push this Iranian nuclear issue through the UN and yet the Middle East is not allowed the same privilege? It is obvious that the wests economic greed to control the worlds natural resources and their distinct pro Israeli support makes world politics totally corrupt. There exists a profound Christian and Jewish Zionist Diaspora at all levels of government in the US, UK and EU rendering those countries incapable of offering a fair and balanced government to its respective peoples. Many of the most senior positions are held or either controlled by these groups.

Iran is truly a victim of big brother tactics and Palestine is also a victim to the same aggressive leaders. The Goldstone report is a perfect example of Israeli propaganda at its best. In actual fact the Goldstone Report was terribly flawed and fell short of accusing the Israeli's of using WMD's. Their actions in Lebanon (2006) and their more recent conflict if Gaza has no doubt effectively damaged the DNA of the Lebanese and the Palestinians but in doing so they have also done the same to the residents of Israel. This has the potential to create mass genocide in all of these countries and other countries downwind. This is truly a modern day holocaust that has the full support of the US, UK, EU, NATO, Israel and of course the United Nations.