Guy Villax culpa baixo preço dos genéricos por ruturas de "stock" nas farmácias

[atomez]

Estranho acontecimento, mas que afetou os mercados...

US stocks fall, oil rises on report of US vessel seizure

Saudi-owned pan-Arab television station Al Arabiya reported a U.S. cargo ship was taken to Bandar Abbas on the southern cost of Iran. The report could not be independently verified. Shots were fired at the ship before it was steered to the Bandar Abbas port, the Arab television station said on its twitter feed.

The Dow Jones industrial average briefly fell more than 100 points.

Mais tarde:

Is the freighter seized by Iran American? Depends who you ask

The Saudi Al Arabiya TV was first to report that a US cargo ship with a crew of 34 Americans had been fired on by Iran and forced to sail to Bandar Abbas. The Pentagon said US warplanes and the destroyer USS Farragut had responded to the Maersk Tigris cargo vessel’s distress call after being attacked by an Iranian patrol boat in the Strait of Hormuz and are monitoring the situation. Tehran has made no official comment on the incident. The seized vessel was then claimed by various sources, as the New York Stock Exchange fluctuated.

The Pentagon denied the vessel was a US cargo ship and that there was an American crew aboard. It was described as a Marshall Islands-flagged ship, which called for US assistance under their defense pact: “The United States has full authority and responsibility under treaty for the security and defense of the Marshall Islands.”

Other sources described the ship as Danish. A Maersk spokesperson told NBC that the ship commandeered by Tehran was on a “time charter” by Rickmers Ship Management which has head offices in Hamburg and Singapore.

But the main mystery is Iran’s motive in seizing the ship, unless it was suspected of spying. Bandar Abbas is the home port of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Maybe they know to whom the ship belongs.

[pcm1979]

Esse acordo é bom ou mau para as companhias aéreas? Hoje estão a cair, é porque é mau

[atomez]

Fighting rages over Bab al-Mandab Strait

Saudi Arabian special forces are involved in the military operation against Shiite Huthi rebels in neighboring Yemen for control of Bab el-Mandeb Strait a Saudi adviser said Monday. Army special forces supplied weapons and communications equipment to militia loyal to President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi in the main southern city of Aden, the adviser said.

He said army and navy special forces were also involved in operations against Huthi units that "invaded" Myun Island in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which much of the world's maritime trade passes.

Egyptian navy and marines are taking part in the military operation in Aden and Myun Island.

[Quimporta]

O Irão combate o ISIS no Iraque, o que é bom, mas no Yémen apoia os rebeldes Houthi, o que é mau. Na Síria o Irão apoia o regime do Bashar al-Assad, o que era mau, mas agora é assim assim, e está tempo de também se tornar bom.
Imagino a pergunta do segundo irmão Bush, se ganhar as eleições de 2016: "ninguém faz um desenho para eu saber ao certo onde é que posso mandar bombardear?!"

Fonte

[Dr Tretas]

Já está em curso uma guerra pela supremacia da negião. Mas como não nos afecta diretamente (por enquanto) ninguém fala nisso.

A história do Yemen? Um fait-diver. Que se lixe, desde que haja petróleo barato. Sunitas e Xiitas, sempre a matarem-se uns aos outros... booooring...

A única coisa que tenho curiosidade, é o que vai acontecer aos Curdos, que estão à beira de formar um Estado, pois a guerra com os bárbaros do Isis parece estar a correr bem. A Turquia não vai ficar contente... Isso sim, já é perto da Europa.

[atomez]

Já está em curso uma guerra pela supremacia da negião. Mas como não nos afecta diretamente (por enquanto) ninguém fala nisso.

[Quimporta]

...ou como anunciar um acordo que pode evitar uma nova guerra é a melhor forma de o mundo se desejar a si próprio uma Páscoa Feliz.

E.U. and Iran Expected to Issue Joint Statement on Nuclear Talks
NYTimes, By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGERAPRIL 2, 2015

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Officials of the European Union and Iran were expected to read a joint statement about progress toward a nuclear agreement soon, officials in Lausanne said Thursday, though it was unclear if tangible details would be released.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, was expected to hold a news conference shortly afterward, followed by a separate news conference by Secretary of State John Kerry, at which he was expected to disclose more specifics about any potential accord.

While members of the news media were being summoned for the briefings, the talks were still going on behind closed doors. Just minutes before the scheduled briefings, Mr. Zarif sent out a Twitter message saying the negotiators had “found solutions” and were, “Ready to start drafting immediately.” Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, sent a similar tweet.

(...)

[atomez]

US officials report that five Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats harassed and provoked three US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz early Sunday, Jan. 6. They turned away just before the US captain gave the order to open fire.

The incident occurred shortly before President George W. Bush was due for a tour of the region, including the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia. “It was the most serious provocation of this sort that we’ve seen yet,” said the US official.

As a US Navy cruiser, destroyer and frigate were transiting the strategic strait on their way into the Persian Gulf, “Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing them to take evasive maneuvers,” according to the Pentagon official. “There were no injuries. But there could have been.”

The Iranian boats came as close as 200 yards to one of the US ships before turning away “literally at the very moment that the US force was preparing to open fire.”

The US official said the Iranians radioed something to the effect that “we’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple of minutes.”

[fsma]

Qual é mesmo a notícia ?!

[Keyser Soze]

EUA avisam Teerão para não repetir acções “provocatórias”
Lanchas iranianas ameaçaram navios de guerra americanos no estreito de Ormuz
07.01.2008 - 15h46 PUBLICO.PT, Agências

Cinco lanchas dos Guardas da Revolução iranianos terão ameaçado e efectuado manobras hostis junto a três navios de guerra da Marinha americana, quando estes atravessavam o estreito de Ormuz, durante o fim-de-semana. A Casa Branca já avisou Teerão para não repetir este tipo de acções “provocatórias”.

A informação foi confirmada pelo Departamento de Defesa norte-americano, depois de a CNN ter noticiado o incidente, mas as autoridades sublinham que não foi efectuado qualquer disparo.

Segundo a cadeia de televisão norte-americana, na noite de sábado para domingo, cinco lanchas iranianas aproximaram-se 200 metros dos navios da Marinha norte-americana, quando estes se encontravam em águas internacionais do estreito de Ormuz, uma via marítima estratégica para o transporte de petróleo, ligando o Golfo Pérsico ao Oceano Índico.

De acordo com a CNN, que cita fontes do Pentágono, uma das lanchas terá mesmo ameaçado os navios americanos, enviando a seguinte mensagem: “Vou atacar-vos, vou fazer-vos explodir dentro de minutos”.

O comandante de um dos navios americanos terá chegado a ordenar à tripulação para que preparasse disparos contra as lanchas iranianas, mas a ordem não foi executada uma vez que as embarcações recuaram.

A CNN adianta que as lanchas pertenciam aos Guardas da Revolução, a força de elite das Forças Armadas iranianas que controla as principais armas de dissuasão do país. Recentemente, o Departamento de Estado norte-americano, classificou esta unidade, que contará com dezenas de milhares de efectivos, de força disseminadora de armamento.

O incidente ocorre a três dias da deslocação do Presidente George W. Bush ao Médio Oriente, a primeira desde que chegou à Casa Branca, numa tentativa de acelerar as negociações de paz israelo-palestinianas.

Numa primeira reacção ao incidente, a Casa Branca instou “os iranianos a absterem-se de acções provocatórias que poderão conduzir no futuro a incidentes perigosos”, já depois do Departamento de Estado ter afirmado que os EUA “enfrentarão” quem puser em risco os interesses do país ou de nações aliadas.

O estreito de Ormuz, junto à costa sudoeste do Irão, é a única porta de entrada no Golfo Pérsico e os analistas sublinham que Teerão poderá decidir bloqueá-lo em caso de ataque ou ameaça externa contra o país.

[Keyser Soze]

As implicações para o mundo
2007-12-28 00:05
O que o assassinato de Bhutto representa
Morte de Benazir lança o Paquistão no caos. Comunidade internacional teme o poder dos militares.

Bárbara Silva e Gonçalo Venâncio

Os Estados Unidos perderam ontem mais um aliado de peso na luta contra o terrorismo. Benazir Bhutto, ex-primeira-ministra do Paquistão, candidata às eleições legislativas de 8 de Janeiro e protegida de Washington, foi morta na sequência de um atentado terrorista durante um comício em Rawalpindi, perto de Islamabad.

O ataque bombista suicida de ontem não foi reclamado mas, em Outubro, quando regressou ao Paquistão, depois de oito anos no exílio, Bhutto atribuiu um atentado semelhante aos extremistas da Al Qaeda.

“A morte de Benazir Bhutto veio complicar ainda mais uma situação que já era complicada. Os EUA queriam vê-la no poder e não estão dispostos a trabalhar apenas com o presidente Pervez Musharraf. O pior medo dos EUA é ver as armas nucleares do Paquistão cair em mãos erradas”, analisou ao Diário Económico Marco Vicenzino, director do ‘think thank’ Global Strategy Project, em Washington.

O Paquistão começou o seu programa nuclear no final dos anos 70, tendo detonado cerca de uma dezena destas bombas, em testes controlados. Com o desenvolvimento do programa, o país tem hoje cerca de meia centena de bombas, com capacidade de transporte por avião.

O risco de Benazir era iminente desde o seu regresso ao Paquistão, mas o assassinato de Bhutto deixou o país a braços com uma gravíssima crise política, a apenas duas semanas das eleições. Mais do que isso, o ataque terrorista de ontem surge também como um duro golpe para a comunidade internacional, que ansiava por uma nova fase de estabilidade e democracia no Paquistão, como alternativa ao extremismo islâmico.

Para os EUA, o Paquistão é uma peça-chave na sua luta contra o terrorismo na região. Mas agora, dizem os analistas contactados pelo Diário Económico, o Paquistão corre sérios riscos de sucumbir à onda de instabilidade e violência que se tem espalhado pelo país.

“A morte de Bhutto mostra a enorme instabilidade que se vive no Paquistão. O país tornou-se muito importante ao nível da segurança internacional, especialmente depois do 11 de Setembro. Muitos dos atentados terroristas têm uma pista paquistanesa”, defende Miguel Monjardino, analista do Instituto de Estudos Políticos da Católica.

Na opinião dos observadores, o assassinato de ontem é uma boa notícia para a Al Qaeda, para os talibãs e para quem não quer uma evolução política no Paquistão e, ao mesmo tempo, um desastre para os EUA. “Washington disse que Musharraf [o presidente] tem de sair ou negociar uma transição para a liderança civil. Benazir Bhutto deveria assumir esse poder civil, mas ontem voltou tudo à estaca zero. Segue-se um período de enorme incerteza e potencialmente muito violento”, diz Miguel Monjardino.

Em aberto está agora a realização das eleições legislativas em Janeiro, com vários cenários possíveis: o exército voltar a instaurar o estado de emergência, o que significa um ponto final na campanha eleitoral; ou, por outro lado, manter o processo político em curso embora a campanha possa vir a ser muito violenta.

“A solução para o Paquistão pode passar de novo por um regime militar, e não pela democracia. É preferível isso do que ter a Al Qaeda no controlo do arsenal nuclear”, argumenta o general Loureiro dos Santos, acrescentando: “A questão é perceber até que ponto o exército paquistanês está disposto a apoiar Musharraf perante uma situação de grande perigo, em que o controlo de armas nucleares pode cair nas mãos de extremistas”.

A mesma posição é defendida por Saad Djeebar, analista do Royal Institute of International Affairs, em Londres. “O Exército paquistanês não deixará o poder em mãos alheias e apoiará Musharraf ou um outro general qualquer”.

Depois do atentado de ontem, milhares de apoiantes da ex-primeira-ministra invadiras as ruas de várias cidades do Paquistão em sinal de protesto. Musharraf decretou três dias de luto nacional e George W. Bush, à semelhança de muitos outros líderes mundiais, condenaram severamente os autores deste “atentado cobarde”.

Paquistão depende do investimento estrangeiro

A notícia do assassinato de Benazir Bhutto, ontem ao princípio da tarde, provocou a queda abrupta dos mercados bolsistas em todo o mundo. Ao mesmo tempo, a procura de activos financeiros do Tesouro dos Estados Unidos disparou e o barril de petróleo chegou a valer 97 dólares, fruto da forte especulação que se seguiu. No entanto, e apesar da instabilidade política e do clima de violência que se sente no Paquistão, a economia tem crescido a um ritmo de 7% ao ano na última década. Por outro lado, as bolsas de Karachi e Lahore já cresceram cerca de 1.000% desde 1999. No entanto, a economia paquistanesa depende do investimento estrangeiro, nomeadamente dos Estados Unidos e da Europa, e os investidores têm-se mostrado muito cautelosos desde que o presidente Musharraf declarou o estado de emergência, em Novembro. Os norte-americanos, responsáveis por um quarto das exportações de têxteis e produtos agrícolas do Paquistão, estão particularmente preocupados com a demora do avanço do país para uma democracia, cenário que ficou ainda mais longe de ser concretizado com o homicídio violento da ex-primeira-ministra. O Paquistão enfrenta ainda uma taxa de desemprego de 10% da população activa.

[atomez]

Esta é a estátua "D. Afonso Henriques Subjugando os Árabes" que está no Portugal dos Pequeninos em Coimbra.

Bem... se eu fosse árabe não ia achar lá muita piada...

[Keyser Soze]

E a bandeira de Inglaterra, também tem alguma coisa a ver com os templários?

sim


St George Cross in England

It is believed to have been adopted for the uniform of English soldiers during the Crusades of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, particularly by the Knights Templar. From about 1277 it officially became the national flag of England.



e em Portugal:

Quando os Templários passaram a ser perseguidos na França, Portugal recusou-se a obedecer à ordem de prisão dos seus membros. Na verdade os portugueses tinham os Templários em alta conta, já que ajudaram nas guerras de Reconquista que expulsaram os mouros da península Ibérica, e possuíam grande tecnologia de locomoção terrestre e marítima, útil a D. Dinis (1279-1325).

Assim, após a aniquilação dos Templários na maior parte da Europa, a Ordem continuou em Portugal, como Ordem de Cristo (da qual o Infante D. Henrique foi grão-mestre). Toda a hirerarquia foi mantida e na cruz vermelha sobre o pano branco, símbolo templário, foi acrescida uma nova cruz branca em seu centro, simbolizando a pureza da ordem.

A Ordem de Cristo herdou todos os bens dos Templários portugueses e desempenhou um papel fulcral nos descobrimentos portugueses. Por um lado, emprestaram recursos para a coroa portuguesa financiar os avanços marítimos, por outro, transmitiu à chamada Escola de Sagres todo o vasto conhecimento que já dispunham sobre navegação após anos singrando o mar Mediterrâneo. Essa ligação íntima explica porque as caravelas portuguesas tinham as suas velas pintadas com a cruz templária.

[Laaz Rockit]

E a bandeira de Inglaterra, também tem alguma coisa a ver com os templários?

[Canis Lupus]

Keyzer Soze

Advogado turco processa o Inter de Milão
Alegação é de que o time ofende os muçulmanos ao ostentar uma cruz vermelha no peito

Será por causa disso que cancelaram o Ku Klux United - Petro de Luanda !?




... coiso ,

Canis Lupus

[Keyser Soze]

0/12/2007 - 12h17m
Advogado turco processa o Inter de Milão
Alegação é de que o time ofende os muçulmanos ao ostentar uma cruz vermelha no peito

GLOBOESPORTE.COM No Rio de Janeiro

Um advogado turco, Baris Kaska, apresentou uma denúncia formal contra o Internazionale de Milão pedindo que o time perca os três pontos que ganhou na Liga dos Campeões por vencer o Fenerbahçe por 3 a 0. A alegação é de que o clube “manifestou de forma explícita a superioridade racista de uma religião”.

O problema seria a camisa que a equipe usou, que é branca e ostenta uma cruz vermelha no peito – o símbolo dos Templários, uma ordem de monges guerreiros da Igreja Católica na Idade Média.
Segundo o jornal “La Vanguardia”, Kaska afirma que não foi o resultado da partida que o incomodou, mas a “enorme cruz vermelha sobre o fundo branco”.

A foto dos jogadores uniformizados foi veiculada em quase todos os meios de imprensa na Turquia ao lado de alguma imagem de um templário. A ordem foi fundada na época das Cruzadas (por volta de 1099 d.C.), que tinha por objetivo reconquistar Jerusalém dos muçulmanos, e reza a lenda que os monges guardavam o Santo Graal.

- Esta cruz me lembrou dos dias sangrentos no passado – afirma Kaska.

[atomez]

One of the Israeli officers is roughly five feet from the surviving gunman and he decides to charge; but he makes a crucial mistake and doesn’t remember to change his empty cartridge.

Que estranho! Qualquer jogador de FPS (first person shooter) sabe que fazer o "reload" é vital para a sobrevivência...

Bom, parece que já lá não vão tão cedo.

Pois, parece que o Bush resolveu deixar a batata quente para o sucessor/a

Mas nestas cenas nunca se sabe, até pode ser uma manobra de diversão

[Keyser Soze]

Bom, parece que já lá não vão tão cedo.

a ainda bem

começa a pensar em quem vai ser o novo Presidente dos USA dentro de 12 meses

[Dwer]

Bom, parece que já lá não vão tão cedo.

[Keyser Soze]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R36DbfiFTTQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R36DbfiFTTQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

High tech becomes low tech

What you’re looking at are thermal images taken from an Israeli unmanned drone flying high above on the night of July 21. Two figures catch the eye of the drone operator sitting in a comfortable office far away. The figures are identified as Palestinian gunmen approaching the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel. The two gunmen move slowly among the bushes.

An Israeli unit is dispatched on a mission of interception, and you can see clearly that both sides are moving very slowly heading toward a collision.

The Palestinian gunman realizes that the Israeli forces are a few feet away and opens fire. A gun battle erupts. The black dots flying everywhere are the hot rifle shells. At this point one Palestinian gunman lies dead.

The explosion you see on the top right side is a grenade that was thrown by the second Palestinian gunman. The grenade explodes and doesn’t injure any Israeli soldier.

One of the Israeli officers is roughly five feet from the surviving gunman and he decides to charge; but he makes a crucial mistake and doesn’t remember to change his empty cartridge.

This is where low tech meets high tech.

With all the armored gear both sides have – night vision goggles, automatic rifles, grenades, and a sophisticated remote controlled drone in the air – what the Israeli officer is left with is wrestling the Palestinian to the ground with his bare hands.

You can see the officer standing up and running towards the Palestinian, but with no shells flying, he reaches the Palestinian and they are left tied up in a bundle, each fighting for his life.

The Palestinian pulls out another grenade and the Israeli manages to turn the Palestinian in the direction of the explosion, which kills the Palestinian, and leaves the Israeli officer only slightly wounded.

This piece of video is just a small and short testimony to the reality both sides face in this conflict, which occurs daily on the Israeli and Palestinian Gaza border.

[Keyser Soze]

war stories: Military analysis.
Nuclear Meltdown
We're not going to bomb Iran.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Dec. 3, 2007, at 5:31 PM ET

If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero.

In one of the most dramatic National Intelligence Estimates ever, the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded today "with high confidence" that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons" four years ago, in the fall of 2003.

The NIE, which was released this afternoon, also judges "with moderate confidence" that Iran won't be "technically capable" of producing enough materials for an atom bomb—much less the bomb itself—until 2010-15 or possibly later.

The report also concedes that Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear-weapons program "suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."

It was in 2005 that the intelligence agencies released their first, more alarming NIE, which concluded that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons despite international pressure.

The new report—which incorporates intelligence information as recent as Oct. 31, 2007—now finds evidence to the contrary.

President Bush and the administration's hawkish faction, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, can take some solace from the new intelligence estimate. For instance, the NIE states, again "with high confidence," that until the fall of 2003, the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons. It also notes that they are continuing civilian work "related to uranium conversion and enrichment." Most significant, perhaps, it concludes that the Iranians halted their weapons program "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."

But one implication of this last assessment is that Iran's leaders are not so hermetic—that, as the NIE puts it, "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issues than we judged previously." The Bush administration's campaign of pressure—the smart sanctions that it imposed and rallied other nations to join—appears to have had an effect. By the same token, inducements might spur further progress.

The NIE is strikingly explicit on this point:

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressure, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. [Italics added.]

The report grants, "It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be." But the point is this: The chiefs of the U.S. intelligence community are recommending a mix of pressure and diplomacy—sticks and carrots—as the best way to keep the A-bomb out of Iranian hands.

A little context is necessary to understand this report's full significance.

For the past two years, various factions in the Bush administration have engaged in internecine skirmishes over how to deal with the anticipation of an Iranian atom bomb. Cheney and his associates are the prominent hawks, in favor of stepping up the pressure and, if the time comes, attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps pre-emptively. President Bush has sometimes seemed to take this side, at least rhetorically, as when he said recently that failure to keep Iran from gaining the ability to build A-bombs could trigger "World War III."

Opposing this faction is … well, nearly every other agency and high-ranking official that deals with national-security policy. And ever since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense one year ago, the pro-diplomacy wing has grown increasingly outspoken.

In his confirmation hearings, Gates was asked by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., whether he favored attacking Iran. Gates replied that he did not, adding, "We have seen in Iraq that when war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable."

Earlier this month, in an interview with the Financial Times, Adm. William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, said, when asked about an attack on Iran, "Another war is just not where we want to go."

A week later, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked the same question, replied, "I would never take the military option off the table," but noted that this "doesn't mean it would be used," adding, "Diplomacy is very important."

Finally, Maj. Gen. James Simmons, an Army deputy corps commander in Iraq, said, during a press briefing in Baghdad, that the Iranians seem to be keeping to their "initiatives and their commitments" to stop the flow of IEDs into Iraq.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pushed for diplomacy over confrontation, when it comes to Iran, ever since she took the job at the start of Bush's second term.

And now, with today's NIE, we see the entire U.S. intelligence community not only, in effect, coming down on the side of the doves but concluding that the threat animating the hawks doesn't even exist.

There is another caveat here. At his confirmation hearings last year, Gates pledged to be independent and to give the president his unvarnished advice. "But," he emphasized, "there is still only one president of the United States, and he will make the final decision."

In other words (and many people make a mistake in neglecting this fact), Bush really is "the decider." Then again, in previous disputes within the administration, especially over decisions on Iraq, the dissenters have caved or been outmaneuvered. This time, on Iran, the leaders of the State Department, the Defense Department, the military command, and now the intelligence community are on public record as downplaying the wisdom of war—and, with today's NIE, disputing the rationale for even considering war.

Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated. If Bush were to order an attack under these circumstances, he would risk a major eruption in the chain of command, even a constitutional crisis, among many other crises. It seems extremely unlikely that even he would do that.

[atomez]

Como é hábito nestas coisas, há sempre muitas interpretações

Bush administration washes its hands of confrontation with Tehran over its nuclear weapons program. Israel is left to face the threat alone.

In a radical about-face, White House officials suddenly “discovered” Monday, Dec. 3, that Iran had halted it nuclear weapons program four years ago, but has continued to enrich uranium and could have enough material to build a bomb between 2010 and 2015. This “discovery” appeared in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, together with the comment that Iran seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than previously believed and is more vulnerable to international pressure.

This finding caused astonishment and dismay in Israeli political and military circles, particularly in the light of the close Israel-US rapport over last week’s Annapolis conference on the Middle East and the close Olmert-Livni-Barak lineup behind the Bush vision of Palestinian statehood.

Monday, too, even the “moderate” Arab turnout at the Middle East conference proved to be an illusion when Saudi King Abdullah walked into the GCC conference hall in Doha hand in hand with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president was invited to the Gulf summit for the first time. The “moderate” Arab front against Iran, proudly presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and prime minister Ehud Olmert, melted away to nothing.

Presenting the NIE, Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley said: “The estimate offers ground for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically without the use of force, as the administration has being trying to do.”

In effect, Washington has taken the military option off the table at the very moment that Tehran’s Saeed Jalili slammed the door on diplomacy in the “disastrous” conversation he held with the European Union’s Javier Solana in London, Saturday, Dec. 1.

The Bush about-face, which leaves Israel high and dry against a regime committed to wipe the Jewish state off the map, may be designed to draw attention from the happy communion between the Saudi monarch and Iranian president in Doha and other policy debacles.

After years of foot-dragging, Tehran has decided it has nothing to fear from the US and so why bother with further engagement over its nuclear program? Deputy foreign minister Saeed Jalili, the dour official who took over negotiations from the urbane Ali Larijani, did not mince his words with the Solana. According to the New York Times , Ahmadinejad’s close ally said: ‘Everything in the past is past, and with me, you start over,’” He added: ‘None of your proposals has any standing.’”

When Solana said that he was under the assumption that there would be continuity in the talks, Mr. Jalili told him he was wrong

The French official described the meeting as “a disaster,” adding “Jalili essentially said: ‘Everything that Larijani has proposed is a dead letter and we have to start from zero.’”

The Iranian official is also quoted as saying: “There is no longer an Iranian nuclear problem,” and the only interlocutor recognized by Iran from now on would be the International Atomic Energy Agency, with whom he claimed Tehran had solved all its problems.

The London conversation took place as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany met in Paris over the weekend to discuss a third sanctions resolution. The Chinese delegate agreed for the first time to join a sanctions motion, but the meeting was unable to agree on the nature of those penalties or the degree of their harshness.

From the posture adopted by Jalili in London, it is clear that Iran is no longer willing to heed international pressure for halting its drive for nuclear arms – especially since the Bush administration is clearly short of backing from the “moderate” Arab front.

In these circumstances, the White House has opted for minimizing the Iranian nuclear arms threat rather than confronting it.

[Keyser Soze]

U.S.: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work

* Story Highlights
* U.S. releases intelligence estimate on Iran's nuclear work
* Declassified summary of report released Monday
* Estimate says Tehran "less determined to develop nuclear weapons"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic halted an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

But it says Iran -- which declared its ability to produced enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 -- could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to.

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion.

"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report states. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concluded.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is strictly aimed at producing electricity, and it has refused the U.N. security council's demand that it halt its enrichment program.

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley expressed hope after the announcement, but he said Iran remains a serious threat.

"The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically -- without the use of force -- as the administration has been trying to do," Hadley said in a statement.

"But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem," Hadley's statement said.

Find this article at: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12 ... index.html

[atomez]

Israel’s inner cabinet in urgent session Wednesday to discuss advanced Iranian nuclear bomb timeline to 2009

November 7, 2007

The inner cabinet meets Wed. Nov. 7, to discuss the shortened timeline estimate for Iran to attain a nuclear weapons capacity, based on new intelligence information. IDF intelligence chief Brig. Yossi Baidatz told the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee Tuesday that Iran would have this capacity by late 2009, whereas the previous estimate was 2010 or 2011.

Committee chairman Tzahi Hanegbi told a radio interviewer that the new timeline made 2008 the critical year for grappling once and for all with the Iranian program.

The new data was put before the ministers ahead of their meeting Wednesday. DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that American nuclear and intelligence experts agree on the timetable after poring over the new intelligence input. This includes materials gathered in the Israel attack of Syria’s nuclear installation on Sept. 6. They have reached three key conclusions:

1. That Iran is engaged in the secret production of plutonium for nuclear weapons as well as radioactive materials for a dirty bomb, in parallel to its uranium enrichment projects. Israeli intelligence has believed this for three years, but until the operation in Syria there was no concrete evidence. This discovery is at the center of the current US-Israeli controversy with the International Atomic Energy Agency- IAEA, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei.

If he accepts the evidence, it will be an admission that his vast inspection apparatus in Vienna, whose job it is to watch out for nuclear misdemeanors across the world, missed out twice – in Iran and then in Syria. Dr. ElBaradei might then face the suspicion that his work is governed by political rather than professional motivations.

Up until now, the nuclear watchdog’s chief has not sent inspectors to examine Israel’s findings at the two Syrian sites targeted. He evidently fears they will come back with evidence of plutonium-related nuclear activity.

2. The working premise followed by American and Israeli intelligence is that if Syria was on the road to manufacturing plutonium, Iran must be far more advanced on this course and must be presumed to have begun manufacturing enough waste for dirty bombs and very likely also the materials for a nuclear bomb.

This premise demands a radical reassessment by the United States and Iran’s Gulf and Middle East neighbors of their options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat and essential restructuring of the Israel military’s functions to meet a possible radioactive attack by Iran or its terrorist proxies close closer at hand.

3. Intelligence sources report that these developments throw new light on the role of the Iranian heavy water plant at Arak, whose capacity to produce plutonium places it at the center of Iran’s nuclear program.

Seria um gigantesco bluff por parte do Irão - enquanto que a AEIA e o resto do mundo se preocupam com as centrifugadoras para o enriquecimento de urânio, estariam secretamente a produzir plutónio.

Entretanto o petróleo já vai nos $98

[scpnuno]

Caro colega

Independentemente de concordar ou não consigo, não pude deixar de reparar que a sua escrita anglo-lusa é igualzinha ao Joe Berardo a falar. Tal e qual, só sem pronuncia.

Eu avisei que ele andava por aqui!!

Ninguém acreditou!!

Está aí a prova provada

Abraços