No country spreads hate more consistently than Iran.

The above is clearly imperialism if thats what you want to call it. However covert operations is the proper term used today. Any which way, its international gangsterism, if one does not understand that, then perhaps another subject is better suited for dialogue, as this one seems well above comprhension to many. Especially the masses hooked on reality tv.

It's just the hyperbole, I tend to use more neutral language-a product of my history and political studies. The US is not a 'real' imperial power and it bears little resemblance to any historical empire. I'm sure a superficial corellation could be made, but in essence, it would be hyperbole. The US has a seat on the Security Council and various international commitments are a part of the responsibility of that position-I'm sure you're aware of this.

im sure your post has a point, although obviousely pointless, im sure you will expound. More then foreign affairs, I understand power and its effect. Those dates listed above is foreign affairs, gangsterism is foreign affairs. They are foreign, and affairs of self interests backed by military. Quite simple if one would remove the blinders.

Unfortunatly, countries who are armed to the teeth think this way... shame.

90 days... everyday is 1% closer to an attack...

God help us!

10 - Everybody is too skeered

comply with the international consensus
and disarm or get disarmed by the international community by force.

Tell that to the victims of the terrorist attacks carried out with
Iranian weapons and support.



Of course EVERYONE is most concerned about their nuclear enrichment
program in fortified bunkers which has no other purpose than nuclear
arms development. For some reason these "peaceful" activities needed
to be placed in underground bunkers!



Actually, Canada is right up there with the US and the rest of the
civilized world in preventing Iran from nuclear weapons development
activities....



From the Council of Foreign Relations Backgrounder on
The Lengthening List of Iran Sanctions

Authors: Toni Johnson, Deputy Editor, and Greg Bruno July 2012

"International efforts to squeeze Iran economically are solidifying. In July 2010, Canada banned new investment (AP) in Iran's oil and gas industries. European allies have also implemented their own sanctions, and although historically these states have had less of an appetite for punitive measures, recent actions have been tougher. For much of the 1990s, while Washington imposed unilateral sanctions, EU countries maintained a policy of "critical dialogue" with Iran. But as Iran grew increasingly defiant on the nuclear front, European partners turned up the heat (PDF), Katzman of the Congressional Research Service notes. In June 2008, the EU froze the assets of nearly forty individuals and entities doing business with Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank; Western officials have accused Bank Melli of supporting Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Japan and the EU have also placed restrictions on international lending to Iran, which, Katzman writes, "represents a narrowing of past differences between the United States and its allies on this issue."
Navigating the Road Ahead

Experts are divided on the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool to force rogue states to abandon their weapons programs. In the cases of Libya and Iraq, many analysts note the role economic sanctions had in inhibiting the development of weapons programs (though in the case of Iraq, the full extent of their effectiveness was not known until after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003).

Washington hopes that squeezing Iran's economy will pressure the country's leadership to alter course on its nuclear program. U.S. officials in early 2012 said sanctions targeting financial transactions (Reuters) were beginning to have an economic effect. News reports show that the cost of doing business with Iran has become so onerous that many firms are dropping their transactions (Bloomberg) entirely. Iranian officials have continued to dismiss sanctions (FNA) as ineffective, but some have also said lifting them should be a major point of new talks. In April and May 2012, Iran met with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5+1) to discuss its nuclear program. However, those talks have yielded little movement on either side.

Whether these sanctions will deter the nuclear program remains up for debate. "After decades of struggling under punitive financial measures, Iran has persisted with its objectionable policies ranging from terrorism to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," write CFR's Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution. "All this suggests that ideological regimes that put a premium on their political priorities and which are seemingly insensitive to the mounting costs of their belligerence may not be suitable candidates for the type of cost-benefit analysis that sanctions diplomacy invites."

The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends a multi-pronged approach, including diplomacy, sanctions, and visible preparation of a "military option of last resort." Still, Takeyh notes in an April 2012 interview that both ending economic sanctions and forestalling a military strike were part of the reason for resuming negotiations.