As I understand it, Netanyahu is pressuring Obama to give Iran a deadline for when military force will be used if Iran does not stop its nuclear program (i.e. the part not run within an intrusive oversight framework that is supposed to prevent nuclear weapons know-how being mastered as a bi-product of running a legitimate civilian nuclear power project).
The choice is very simple: are we happy to accept Iran having nuclear weapons making capability? I don't believe most Governments of Western countries are. The consequences of acceptance of a nuclear capable Iran are:
1. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and possibly others will feel the need to acquire them.
2. The old order at the Security Council will be completely upturned. There will be a strong case to admit new countries as permanent members, if there isn't already, (e.g. India on the grounds of large population, Iran for representing an under represented religion, and of course both of them for possessing nuclear weapons) and possibly to get rid of some existing members (e.g. France and Britain to be replaced by an EU representative?).
3. An acceptance of the right to punish people in unacceptable ways in order to ensure they have a good after- life (a feature of extreme Islam?). (Christianity by comparison seems to be a sort of maxed-out credit card religion where you have the choice to do as you please, and if do do bad, you pay later with a grotty after-life?)
4. An acceptance of the right to become a nuisance to other countries by repetition of opinions not supported by facts and of a country's right not to have such opinions challenged. When the offender is nuclear armed and commands huge natural resources and uses questionable religious justifications for its behaviour, the problem for the other countries is all the greater?
Consideration of the other nuclear powers makes Iran very different from the others: Israel (an economically viable, open society accountable to its people), N. Korea (its behaviour is containable by its neighbours because it is economically weak and its neighbours are strengthened by defence agreements with the USA?) and finally Pakistan and India (both are more democratic and open than Iran).
The installation of Bavars missiles (more effective than the S300s the Russians reneged on a contract to supply to Iran) around the nuclear sites and the burying of an enrichment plant underground, the refusal to open up Parchin to IAEA inspectors, the signing of an agreement to cooperate on missile technology with N. Korea, the mastery of satellite launching technology (Iran has a space rocket launch site) and the enrichment of uranium in far greater quantities than is needed for medical isotopes are not the actions of a country that has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapon manufacturing know-how to say nothing of the high cost of sanctions it has been prepared to forego.
I therefore expect the West to attack Iran to stop the nuclear program (the leadership in Iran is not going to back down) and if the non-combatant Iranian casualties are less than 2 000, then compared with the cost of it in Syria, regime change in Iran will have been achieved cheaply, IMV. Mehdiabad in a new Iran with a development plan along the lines of the Turkish model will be immensely more valuable so of course I can't understand why our directors are behaving so perversely in diluting us small shareholders out while retaining control of it for themselves
There is nothing I can do about it either. They don't have to explain themselves. They can foist explanations on us that beg as many questions as they answer. "It makes Sandpiper easier to finance" by forcing small shareholders to give up a stake in a valuable zinc mine in Iran valued at almost zero in exchange for an overpriced phosphate project in Australia that requires a 2-year wait and $36m of expenditure (and further dilution) to bring it to the same development stage as our zinc mine in Iran.
Ross and Jordinson should resign IMO, if they continue with this proposal.
If a lie often repeated becomes the truth, it is not hard to see how the Iranian leadership deludes itself: the article below shows what the Iranian press did when Morsi backed the Syrian rebels at the NAM conference in Teheran.
How Iran is being discussed on pro-Republican party/pro Israel TV news networks in the USA:
"disturbing developments", "doubled the number of machines that can be used to make a core of nuclear warheads", "stockpiling uranium", "in an underground bunker", "every American citizen is less safe today" "Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon"
