Exclusive: U.N. experts trace recent seized arms to Iran, violating embargo

Comments (26)
7303 wrote:

No proof?
“In another case of reported by Italy, Iran allegedly shipped dried explosives among bags of powdered milk, the report said.”
Who would be buying powdered milk from Iran when they import it from the Dutch? Hah!

Jun 27, 2014 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

So, this is a surprise?

Jun 27, 2014 10:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
divinargant wrote:

I am shocked to see gambling going on in the back room! Shocked I tell you!!!!!!

Jun 27, 2014 10:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

“The finding comes just days ahead of the next round of negotiations in Vienna between Iran and six world powers aimed at securing a deal ….”

Very suspicious timing indeed! Did it really take 3 months to draw these conclusions?

I suspect there are hundreds of other illegal arms shipments in recent months that could also have been investigated (from the US, from France, from Israel, etc.). Hmmmm.

Jun 27, 2014 10:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Aaaaand…the UN will gather a focus group to determine the make up of a committee to select a team to write a stern letter by 2015.

Modus operandi of the UN.


Jun 27, 2014 11:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
truemomineen wrote:

Really all weapons seem to point to Iran. How come the so called experts don’t know where the ISIS is getting their weapons and finance.

They never find Saudi and Qatari fundings

Jun 27, 2014 11:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GuitarGuyMV wrote:

Send in Chuck Norris and Delta Force.

Jun 28, 2014 4:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lepetit wrote:

So what? Is anyone going to do anything or slap Iran on the hands, when they’re trying to get Iran to supply them gas, and when this singularly inept or cynical US administration has decided to get along with the revolutionary guards? This president is Carter II, and his secretary of state reminds me awfully of Neville Chamberlain.

Jun 28, 2014 5:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Interesting! The weapons were bound for Sudan – and for whom in Sudan?

Nothing said about the associated Israeli piracy. Israel isn’t an enforcement “contractor” for the U.N. – unless something has changed.

So, what does the UN make of ISIS exporting U.S. made weapons from Iraq into Syria?

Does the U.N. object to Iran’s current “export” of arms into Iraq?

For that matter, why hasn’t the U.N. weighed in on the current mess in Iraq – or Ukraine? (Why is the U.S. involving itself in Iraq again? After the U.S. War Crime Invasion & occupation of Iraq, one would think that the U.S. couldn’t forget “Iraq” quickly enough.)

Instead, the U.N. has weighed in on one U.S. city cutting off water service to customers who are delinquent in their payments. Who and what are these U.N. guys? Are they implementing “Agenda 21?” (Or is anyone supposed to know about that? – Look it up on the ‘net!)

Other than being a news-making political forum; what does the U.N. functionally do – besides facilitate “aid-for-profit” to select countries? Wherever they go, the U.N. “peacekeeping” troops are famous for being either targets or bystanders to atrocities.

The U.N. can easily be replaced by a modern computer-conferencing application – augmented by “artificial intelligence;” replacing blatant stupidity. Let the U.N. headquarters building go back to the Rockefeller family. New York can use the office space and related revenue.

If the U.N. isn’t seriously interested in Israel’s long-standing history of violations of U.N. Resolutions – and the West Bank & Gaza Ghettos – does the U.N. expect Iran (or anyone) to take these latest weapons “findings” seriously?


Jun 28, 2014 5:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

gregbrew56 wrote:
“Aaaaand…the UN will gather a focus group to determine the make up of a committee to select a team to write a stern letter by 2015.

Modus operandi of the UN.


Of course. Would you prefer the UN to be a world government, with a military and the authority to tell sovereign states – including the USA – what to do?

The UN is not a governing body, it is a negotiating body. The UN has no military. If individual states within the UN wish to use force, they can do that with their own militaries if the UN agrees.

They can also do that if the UN doesn’t agree, but then it is an illegal war and the people who start it are war criminals.

Jun 28, 2014 7:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lavrentii wrote:

Fourty years of illegal settlement building, land theft, creating facts on the ground and Israel still gets the UN to jump when Israel says jump..

UN is a naked hypocritical institution, not to be taken seriously as international arbiter of anything. A tool…

Jun 28, 2014 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

The sanctions are nonsense because the reasons for imposing them are nonsense. Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons because Iran can’t make enough of them to challenge the potential US response to any use of them. However, Iran does need nuclear electricity because it should run out of oil by 2050. It lacks sufficient river systems for hydroelectric power. It has severe sandstorms that would cover and scratch solar panels and clog the gears for windmills. Nuclear power plants take many years to build, so Iran must start now.

Jun 28, 2014 12:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

OMG!!!!!!!!! shocking news..Iran cheated on the UN”S embargo for weapons..well wake up UN and USA…..Iran cheats on everything that they do…especially, marching day in and day out towards nukes, hydrogen bombs and the means to deliver them….the world is in peril. right before, your very closed eyes…

Jun 28, 2014 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

@rgbviews…is that a threat? I thought we were discussing Iran and what Iran has done, or not done… Jew haters like u, always find a way to divert attention from the subject and bring the conversation down to the gutter level…

Jun 28, 2014 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ToshiroMifune wrote:

Meanwhile the real evil in the Axis of Evil is well on its way to making good on its repeated threats to nuke the U.S.

“WASHINGTON – A long-suppressed report prepared by the Department of Homeland Security for the Defense Department concludes that North Korea could deliver on its threats to destroy the United States with a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack.

The report remains blocked from release to the American public.

However, a copy obtained by Peter Vincent Pry from sources within DHS finds North Korea could use its Unha-3 space launch vehicle to deliver a nuclear warhead as a satellite over the South Pole to attack the U.S. from the south.

Pry, executive director of the congressional advisory Task Force on National and Homeland Security, pointed out that the U.S. “has no early warning radars or interceptors” to stop a missile from the south.

Read the book that’s documenting the worry about the EMP threat, “A Nation Forsaken.”

Pry also was the staff director to the congressionally mandated EMP commission, which concluded that the damage from either a natural or man-made EMP event on the nation’s unprotected electrical grid would have a cascading impact on life-sustaining critical infrastructures as well as electronic components and automated control systems.

Along with the electrical grid system, the critical infrastructures include telecommunications, banking, finance, petroleum and natural gas pipelines, transportation, food and water delivery, emergency services and space systems.

DHS conducted the study after the spring 2013 nuclear crisis with North Korea in which the communist government’s leadership threatened a “preemptive” nuclear strike on the U.S. and then released videos depicting a nuclear attack on Washington.”

Jun 28, 2014 5:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

Bakhtin —- So YOUR idea of an illegal war is if the UN doesn’t agree to it? Would that make them a sort of governing body? Have you never heard all is fair in love and war? Are you suggesting our attack on Libya was illegal? r how about our drones in Yemen, Pakistan, etc?

Jun 28, 2014 5:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

I see you have not got caught up in the communication on the article…Obama mocks Republican lawsuit, pushes for immigration reform
I guess you may be a somewhat reasonable person!!! I just don’t concur with all your ideas.

Jun 28, 2014 10:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin, you state
“The UN is not a governing body, it is a negotiating body. The UN has no military. If individual states within the UN wish to use force, they can do that with their own militaries if the UN agrees.

They can also do that if the UN doesn’t agree, but then it is an illegal war and the people who start it are war criminals.
then are you saying no one has the right to stand up for what they believe unless the UN condones it?”

What type of government is this? This is the same logic within some large corporations…”where an employee cannot disagree with his supervisors/management”

this gets into the distinction between ethics and morality.

Jun 28, 2014 10:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

I actually am not incline to answer questions posed by other posters. I believe most are asking the question just so they can attack further…but to answer your question (from another thread of posts), the professor is:
Professor Alexander Tytler

Jun 28, 2014 10:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

however, although it does not appear in his “papers”, it has been attributed to him (along with others).

The test of anything is time…how long has this government been around? 1000 years, 500 yrs…200 yrs.

it is a great government…the best there can be. I love it. and hope it is around for ever.

it is great because it is balanced, allowing us to debate, and not being dominated by either the right or the left…for now.

Jun 28, 2014 11:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

CSParty wrote:
“Bakhtin —- So YOUR idea of an illegal war is if the UN doesn’t agree to it?”

No. International Laws idea of an illegal war is one that is not agree to by the UN

CSParty wrote:
“Would that make them a sort of governing body?”

No. The members of the UN agreed that a war started without UN agreement should be illegal.

CSParty wrote:
“Are you suggesting our attack on Libya was illegal?”

The USA didn’t attack Libya. Nato did. As Nato approved it, it is legal.

Jun 28, 2014 12:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013 wrote:
“then are you saying no one has the right to stand up for what they believe unless the UN condones it?”

Yes, because “what they believe” should not be forced onto others by war. I am sure the WW2 Nazis and Imperial Japanese where standing up for what they believe. I am sure the attackers on 9/11 were standing up for what they believe. Do you think they were right to that? You sound as though you support exactly the same reasoning.

ready2013 wrote:
“What type of government is this? ”

It is not a government. Why do you right-wingers insist that it is?

Jun 28, 2014 12:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin, again splitting issues between righties and lefties…its the issue that needs to be discussed, not whether the questioner is perceived either on the right or left.

maybe a lot of right wingers say the UN is a government…but I have never heard through any discussion that they believe the UN is a government…I will test the waters within the next few weeks. But I’ll bet you a hamburger at White Castle I can find folks on the left that know less about the UN than I do – and I know very little about it.

I admit, I loosely use the term government.

I suppose you are right (that’s tuff to say) by law & definition it is not a government. But if it has characteristics of a government and begins to do “government things” and given authority by its members, does it become a government? I am not asking to be argumentative?

you know, I have heard the left complain that those on the right do not have the right to determine what is right or wrong and should not impose their beliefs on others…how are we going to determine what is “right” or “wrong”?. you lean heavily toward the left, and you think I am heavily on the right. How is consensus to be reached.

I don’t think by majority is always the best answer, but it typically comes down to who is in power that determines what is right or wrong. I am chasing a rabbit. were not going to solve this.

generally, people and nations have choices, but there are consequences. Even if a person makes a moral choice which is “right”, he may suffer consequences if is not acceptable by those around him. Some civil rights leaders have experienced this.

I have no doubt everyone feels justified in their decisions, whether NAZI, American, Japanese, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc, .

Jun 29, 2014 8:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse

U.S. has been arming “rebels” (including Al-Qaeda and ISIS) in Syria fr months, where is the UN investigation into that?

Jun 29, 2014 7:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:


The UN lacks the most basic defining characteristic of a government – holding sovereignty over a land and/or people. It is not a government by any stretch of the imagination and discussing it is as pointless as discussing whether a rock might actually be a fish.

You may need somebody to tell you what is right and wrong, but us liberals can think and decide for ourselves. Not that it matters – you are evading the point again. It is not the existential fact of holding values that is at issue, or what those values may be, but your statement that it is OK to invade another country ‘to stand up for our values’.

Luckily, the member states of the UN have agreed that invading another country to force your values on it is wrong and illegal. Which means, once again, US Republicans are way behind the rest of the world.

Jun 30, 2014 8:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

the real point that I am making is – a nation will choose to be an aggressor regardless of whether it is “legal” or not. the only thing that will prevent that is the consequences of the action.

comparing to right or wrong is not evading the issue. we both disagree on a lot of stuff, thus, we can expect nations to do also (thus we each have our own interpretations of right and wrong…although mine are correct…I hope you see that partly in jest)

I believe it may be necessary for a country to invade another country to protect itself.

I do not believe the UN is a government, but if all (or even most) nations give it the powers of a government (whether by treaty or other) it is becoming a government by default.

thanks for your points…as usual it makes me put additional thought into my message. too many of us believe only in the way we were raised (or the news we watch)…you Might want to watch more of “FOXES and Friends”…there is a pun here. Thanks for your comments!!!

Jun 30, 2014 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.