# Iran Super Thread- Merged



## JasonH

Iran: We can repel U.S. attack

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 0952 GMT (1752 HKT) 

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

*"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.*

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Bush said on Monday that Washington would not rule out military action against Iran if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

His comments followed an article in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday which said U.S. commando units were conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify hidden nuclear and chemical sites for possible future strikes. Full story

Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make nuclear weapons and Pentagon officials have rubbished the New Yorker report. Full story

Iranian officials have given no public reaction to the New Yorker article which suggested Pentagon officials were eager to tackle Iran in the second term of the Bush administration.

Mehr news agency, which analysts say has close ties to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an editorial entitled "Futile espionage" ridiculed U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

*"The United States is well aware that Iran has strongly withstood U.S. pressure for over 25 years ... Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said.*

"The U.S. and Israel know that they can never militarily challenge Iran, since attacking the Islamic Republic would be biting off more than they could chew and would only choke them if they attempted it," it added. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html

Anyone with half a brain can tell they are talken about Missiles with possible Nuclear warheads.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

If Iran has nuclear weapons, I doubt that they are accurate or have enough range to hit any targets in the united states.However, I could definately see a nuclear attack on israel in retaliation for US attacks.

I guess i should have more accurately named my War of the Future thread to, War of a few months from now.  :-\


----------



## JasonH

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Reminds me of Bahgdad Bob
> 
> "There are NO US soldiers in Baghdad!"



Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.

What ever happend to that guy?  He just kinda disappeared.


----------



## 48Highlander

I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.

UPDATE:

ah here we go...

January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?


----------



## chaos75

I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.  Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.  Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair.  

Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).  Any thoughts?


----------



## CBH99

The US can't possibly hope to engage in a war with Iran, for several reasons.

1.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

2.  International Support - How many countries do you think are going to support the United States after the mess they created in Iraq?  Another "Coalition of the Willing", which minus Australia, Britain and Spain, consisted largely of a pool of countries some of us hadn't even heard of before.  The point here - not a lot of countries are going to support a war with Iran.  The mess in Iraq is right next door, and everybody knows the US is going to be in Iraq for quite some time before things get to the point where they can withdraw.  Not a lot of countries are going to want to get involved in yet another Middle East guerilla campaign in Iran.

Do you guys think the UK will support the US if this "crisis" ever actually comes to fruitation?  I only ask this, because in the past month or so, Britain and the rest of the EU has distanced itself from the US militarily.  The EU has lifted its weapons ban on China (Or is about to?) - and Britain supports the move in the interests of growing closer to Beijing politically.  Also, its no secret that after the US invaded Iraq preemptively and large unilaterally, many of its allies in the EU were shunned for not supporting them.  So - any thoughts on whether the EU would support the US on yet another bold crusade into Iran?  And, any thoughts on the feasibility of some sort of campaign against Iran, even if it is just special forces/airstrikes?


----------



## 48Highlander

International support isn't an issue.  The US doesn't need the EU.  The UK and Australia would continue to support them if the case for an invasion of Iran was strong enough.

The possibility of an invasion is a non-issue anyway.  It can't happen while Bush is in office beause the military is occupied in Iraq and even assuming they can pull out within a year, they'll need a period to rest and reorganize before they can launch another major campaign.  That means that if the president who follows Bush has the balls to do it, the earliest invasion of Iran would still be probably at least 3-4 years in the future.  More than likely though, a war won't be neccesary.  With Iraq there was no longer any room for a diplomatic solution, with Iran there's still a lot of other options to try before war is considered.


----------



## Love793

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> ah here we go...
> 
> January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?



One of the many rumours around Ft Hood regarding him was, He tried to turn himself in (key word Tried).  For some reason or another US/Brit Int told him to pound salt.  How embarasing can that be?  The guy doesn't even make it on the deck of cards and not even Int doesn't wants to talk to him.


----------



## CBH99

Thats a good point 48th - even after US forces get pulled from Iraq, it'll take them a while to reorganize themselves and rest up before any other major campaign.  However at the same time,  precision air strikes and special forces is always an option - a very effective option at that.

I would hate for a campaign to be launched against Iran, to be perfectly honest.  I travelled to Tehran a little more than 2yrs ago with my wife, and its an absolutely beautiful city.  Much different than what we see on TV here, and the entire political atmosphere in Iran is much more laid back and comfortable, despite the media reports we get here in the west.  Although women still had to cover their faces, the atmosphere when travelling throughout the country (I stayed mostly in Tehran) was quite comfortable, and the people there were very, very friendly.

48th Highlander - you brought up an interesting point, perhaps without even meaning to.  With the current state of geopolitical affairs - anybody else see the world just caving in on itself anytime soon?  j/k -- but in all seriousness...we have to do something about Sudan (Getting them to sign a piece of paper doesn't count) - we have to monitor the North Korea/South Korea situation,  we have to monitor the China/Taiwan situation, Iraq is a mess (The US won't be able to pull out within a year, despite optimistic outlooks), plus any other sudden shitstorm that could whip up;  anybody else got any feedback on the idea that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and that the geopolitical structure of today will be MUCH, MUCH different than it will be in even 10yrs from now?


----------



## 48Highlander

It's a safe bet that the world will be massively different in 10 or 20 years.   Declining oil reserves alone will produce massive changes, with the "alternate fuel" market booming.   Whichever nation(s) most effectively capitalizes on that will see massive growth in a very short period.   Such a shift in the balance of power around the world will almost deffinitely lead to some sort of conflict.   Also, according to the CIA, the EU will start falling apart in about 15 years:

http://story.europesun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/ab2402315313d795/id/17ae829b56c41987/

I'm not sure how accurate such a prediction is, but whatever the case, the prosperity or lack thereof of the EU is going to be pretty important in the next 10-15 years.

And ofcourse, the middle east is going to change a lot as well.   Hopefuly the elections in Iraq will go well, and the country will serve as an example and a beacon to the rest of the pople in the middle east.   Or it could very well fall apart, starting another series of bloody conflicts which will doubtless drag numerous first world nations in with them.


It's deffinitely going to be an interesting decade.


----------



## Long in the tooth

The Atlantic Magazine recently did an article about a think tanks simulation of Iran/US conflict.  They came up with the same conclusions - Iran may have it's nuclear program damaged, but it will not be defeated.  With six times the population of Iraq and probably a more motivated military it could become the American's Stalingrad.  So the US is left with using honey (a la North Korea), vinegar (Iraq sanctions) or taking an iffy leap into the unknown.

On another and longer term note the Economist magazine believes that the U$ will lose its status as reserve currency.  It now borrows and transacts in its own currency and has issued trillions of dollars of cheques that have never been cashed.  This change will be the result of excessive government spending.  By comparison, our government have been tightwads and our CPP the gold standard.  If you think going from a 60 cent to 80 cent dollar was something, wait'l our dollar goes to $1.10 US in 18 months.  A positive balance of trade is vital to maintaining dominance, and once lost technical and military superiority has historically quickly been lost.


----------



## FredDaHead

CBH99 said:
			
		

> 1.   Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.   You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?   Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.



I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran. HOWEVER, I think the likeliness of the US acting in Sudan is about as high as Michael Moore getting hit by lightning while kissing the Olsen twins during the production a pro-Bush documentary. The US act in their (self-percieved) political interest and, as was shown with the UN not acting and barely speaking against the situation in Sudan, it isn't in the US' interest to send in troops, as nobody (apparently) cares about Sudan.

Even if the US were to act, if they didn't get the UN approval (which they won't, as the UN doesn't give a fly about Sudan either) they'd still get attacked by every crackpot leftist conspiracy theorist Moore-wannabe, and someone would invent something about Sudanese ressources making the US act. Dubya (and his friends) know this, so they're not about to act "unilaterally" in an "illegal" "invasion" of a sovereign, "peace-loving" nation, no matter how much good it would do to stability in the region, human rights, and, of course, preventing the genocide from getting finished.


----------



## CBH99

Its a sad state of affairs really, when political interest takes priority over doing whats morally and ethically right.  Who cares if Rwanda repeats itself, and another 800,000 people are killed, raped and slaughtered in Africa?  We didn't want anybody to think we went in for the wrong reasons, so I suppose its justified.  Lets send confusing signals to the rest of the world about our committment to the China/Taiwan conflict - after all, its not like we're supposed to lead by example, are we?  My point is - we have a moral obligation to act to prevent mass atrocities from occurring; we shouldn't let political convenience get in the way of doing whats right.

"With great power, comes great responsibility" - Uncle Ben


----------



## Glorified Ape

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran.



I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course. 

That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq. 

You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked  off the original discussion.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.
> 
> You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
> Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked   off the original discussion.



You're probably right, though I honestly wasn't trying to sidetrack - it was more of an attempt to illustrate the practical political difficulties of such an invasion. That being said, I likely didn't go about it in the best way possible.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Jay Hunter said:
			
		

> Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.
> 
> What ever happend to that guy?   He just kinda disappeared.



Is that they guy saying it at the press confrence as an M1 was crossing a bridge behind him?

He prob got a job for the PM and his spin team

The subs are working fine
The new MGS is an excellent piece of kit
The new helicopters are exactly what we need 
and on and on and on


----------



## Wizard of OZ

On the real issue though

.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

Do you not think they would use the government (puppet) of Iraq to send in troops to the cause.  

Isreal would never make the list as it would incite to many negative forces to the side of Iran.

Russia and France would block any UN option.  

India and Pakastian may be willing to move if they get room to grow.  

China won't care to much as long as they leave NK alone for now.

Yes the forces of the US are streched fairly thin but if they were able to turn Iraq over to UN forces in 6-7 months you can bet GW gets his second war before his term is done.

If Iran keeps ratiling thier saber you might hear not see some B-2's or F117's in around some "key" areas of Iran.

My two cents.


----------



## FredDaHead

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course.



The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.

More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...


----------



## Bert

The politics of the region are complex.  Heres a Stratfor special and it sheds
an interesting perspective on the current US, Iran, and Iraq dynamics.

After the Election 
www.stratfor.com

By George Friedman 

It is now a week from the Iraqi elections. Apart from knowing the precise levels of violence the insurgency will be able to reach before the election, most of the rest of it is clear. The election will be held. In much of the Sunni region, the turnout will be extremely low -- low enough that the election might be suspended there. The Shia will win. The United States could choose to suspend the elections -- and there should be no mistake about who is making the decisions on this -- but the point for that has passed. If the elections were going to be postponed, one would think that Washington would have made that decision weeks ago. 

The next decision that will have to be made is whether to certify the election. There is not much choice there either. Washington knows the vote in the Sunni region will be disrupted. To hold the election and then fail to certify it because of the guerrilla war makes no sense. The guerrilla war has been there for a long time now. If you are going to hold the election anyway, not certifying it would be an exercise in futility. 

If the vote is certified, a government will be formed. The Shia will dominate that government. They would have dominated any government for simple demographic reasons. With the Sunni vote suppressed, they will dominate the government overwhelmingly. The United States has proposed in the past some artificial formula to guarantee Sunni representation in the government, a substitute for an election, but the Shia have rejected it. Moreover, if the United States allowed the Sunnis to take a full seat at the table in spite of their inability to suppress the insurrection, there would be zero incentive in the future for Sunni elders to take a chance. Undoubtedly, some sort of contrived Sunni presence will be inserted, but this will be a Shiite government. 

Thus, at some point in February, a Shiite prime minister, governing through a predominantly Shiite Cabinet, will become the government of Iraq. The Shia have been waiting for this moment for decades. Although divided, the formation of a government that reflects -- or over-reflects -- Shiite power will be a moment of enormous triumph. The evolution of this government is unclear. It could evolve into an Iranian-style theocracy, although the Iraqi religious leaders seem to take a different view of this than the Iranians. It might be ruled by Islamic principles without the overtly theocratic elements. It could even be, for a time, formally pluralist or secular. Whatever it will be, it will be Shia, and it will be under the heavy control of the religious leaders. 

The first problem the new government will face will be the Sunni uprising. Sunni guerrillas recently killed two of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's aides. They have been conducting a fairly one-sided assault against the Shia for months. The reasoning behind the attacks appears to have been to intimidate the Shiite leadership prior to its taking power. What they have done instead is infuriate the Shia. The Shia have suffered from suppression by the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein -- Sunni by birth if not by religious principle. They have been the dispossessed. It is now their time. 

The Shia understand they cannot simply remain in a defensive mode. They have been passive in the run-up to the election, but after the election their credibility as the government of Iraq will depend on how they deal with the guerrillas. They must either suppress the guerrillas or negotiate a deal with them. Since a deal is hard to imagine at this time, they will have to act to suppress them. If they don't, the government will either be destroyed by the insurgents or Iraq will split into two or three countries, an evolution unacceptable to the Shia or to Iran. 

Therefore, the Shia will fight. The Shiite leadership has made it clear it wants the United States to remain in Iraq for the time being. This does not mean it wants a long-term American presence. It means it wants U.S. forces to carry the main battle against the Sunnis on its behalf. In the same way that al-Sistani wanted the Americans to deal with Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr during the An Najaf affair, he wants the Americans to carry the main burden now. 

The United States is prepared to carry a burden, but it is not prepared to single-handedly deal with the Sunnis any longer. The Shia have substantial armed militias. It is these forces -- not the failed Iraqi army the United States has tried to invent -- that will be the mainstay of the regime. The Shia don't want this force ground up because it is the guarantor of their security. The United States is not going to protect the regime without these forces engaged. 

At this point, something interesting happens. The Shia have a greater vested interest in the viability of this government than even the Americans. The Americans can leave. The Shia aren't going anywhere. For the first time, the United States has a potential ally with capabilities and motivation. Most important, it is an ally that is not blind on the ground. Its intelligence capability is not perfect among the Sunnis, but it is better than what the Americans have. 

It is an opportunity for the Americans. It is hard to get excited any longer about opportunities. We have seen so many open up and either prove chimerical or be fumbled by the United States that we temper our enthusiasm in all things. Nevertheless, the Shia will be the government for the first time; they have been waiting for this; they owe the Sunnis a beating and they might, with the United States, have the means to deliver it. 

In all of this, the role of Iran is the most complex. The Iranians supported the Shiite community throughout the post-Desert Storm period. During the first phase of the American occupation, the two Shiite communities were close. Since the events of April 2004, the long-term wariness between the two communities has returned. Iran might not be as enthusiastic as it once was to see a Shiite government in Iraq. Alternatively, Iran could use its ongoing influence to manipulate and control that government. 

It is no accident, in our view, that Washington is beating the war drums against Iran in the weeks before the Iraqi election. It is not only about nuclear weapons or not even about them. It is warning the Iranians not to intrude into Iraqi affairs. The Iranians might listen, but it's unlikely. Iraq is a fundamental national interest of Iran, and the Iranians will be playing. 

Thus, the election brings a new government with new interests and new crises. If the government is seated, and we can't see why it wouldn't be, the next thing to watch is what steps it takes with its militias against the insurgents. Certainly, the guerrillas will be hitting them hard, so passivity is not an option. The Iranians will be manipulating the government and the Americans will be squeezing it. But it is at this point that something might finally, if temporarily, break in favor of the United States. Certainly that is the bet Washington is making.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Frederik G said:
			
		

> The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.
> 
> More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...



True enough. I think the casualty situation would be higher with Iran too - not something the US is very good at tolerating. While actual invasion casualties probably wouldn't (just guessing here) be that high, I would imagine that Iran's version of insurgency would be alot larger and more costly. Iran's people are alot more cohesive than Iraq's, something that would probably aid insurgents.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government.  


"  But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons. 

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program. 

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek." 

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack. 

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "  taken from canoe.ca  You think they don't know they are next?

Remember where there is a will there is a way.  It might not be easy but it is possible.  If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.


----------



## Cliff

chaos75 said:
			
		

> I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.   Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.   Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair.
> 
> Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).   Any thoughts?



I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D


----------



## dutchie

Cliff said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D



Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government.
> 
> 
> "  But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.
> 
> Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.
> 
> "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek."
> 
> Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack.
> 
> "We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "   taken from canoe.ca   You think they don't know they are next?
> 
> Remember where there is a will there is a way.   It might not be easy but it is possible.   If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.



I don't think it's unlikely that the US is going to manage to turn the Iranian people against their government when even the Kurds in Iran don't bother rebelling. The ayatollah's coup back in the 70's wasn't exactly unpopular and the memories of US meddling in their internal affairs and during the Iran-Iraq war probably aren't gone. 



			
				Cliff said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.



I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.


----------



## tomahawk6

Why not just allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons ?
What will they do with their new capability ?
How will that affect the world oil market ?
Could Iran blackmail the other oil producing countries in the region essentially controlling a big chunk of the world oil market ?
With nuclear weapons Iran would have the ability to destroy Israel - would they do it ?
With nuclear weapons would Iran give nuclear devices to terrorists to be used against the uS or other perceived enemies ?

US pre-emptive strike against Iran thus stopping/delaying its program and none of the above possibilities become reality. Given the pro's and con's I think a pre-emptive strike using air power would be the best option.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.

Sweet mother of God,.......Ape and I agree on something, any country who would use a nuclear weapon in this day and age would have to be 100% willing to be destroyed themselves.  The govt. of Iran are smarter than this, my concern would be the "passing off" of nuclear "suitcase" bombs to the people who would not care if they destroyed themselves as long as it was on American soil.
Except for that one demented guy in North Korea, I can't see anyone using a nuke anymore unless it was in a "all hope  gone scenario.


----------



## Cliff

Caesar said:
			
		

> Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.



I realize my position isn't exactly on strong moral footing, but I still think war should be waged.   At least, on a limited scale.


----------



## 1feral1

What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.

I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.

Don't think Canada is immune either.

Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Cliff

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.
> 
> I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.
> 
> Don't think Canada is immune either.
> 
> Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



I agree with you on surgical air strikes.   It's not the Iranian government that is likely to go nuclear, but rather some of the radical factions that could take control of these potential wpns. It took me awhile to accept the Bush administration's preemptive military policy, but I think it's the way to go. As far as I'm concerned, Iran is already indirectly waging war against America with terrorism. All the more reason to nip them in the bud, before it's too late..


----------



## jmacleod

Israel knows quite a bit about the present State of Iran. I doubt that Iran will be attacked by
any country, and the Iranian Mullahs are well aware of the lack of any real intent. Removal
of the Mullah led government is the answer, defined in some detail in recent articles in several
British periodicals and newspapers. The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands
of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they
set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the 
troops "back home". The region will be more or less unstable for some time, but forces in
Iraq, Iran and Syria will eventually dominate the future of these countries - not as democracies
perhaps, but focused on a better life for all, long overdue in the region. MacLeod


----------



## Cliff

jmacleod said:
			
		

> The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
> withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the troops "back home".



I haven't heard the Bush administration say anything about withdrawing.   What makes you think they will? If it came down to it, a tactical withdrawal to the Kurdish North might make more sence since it wouldn't require the troop density of Iraq to sustain long term mil operations.


----------



## tomahawk6

Given the poor cooperation we are getting from Turkey by moving into the Kurdish area we would find ourselves stranded. Long term there will be some form of US presence in Iraq for a long time ,it may be in the form of an air base and a forward deployed division but a presence none the less. Kuwait and the Gulf States will continue to be the logistical base for US operations in the region. Iran is surrounded by US airbases and is well within range of sea based TLAM [conventional and 200kt W-80 nuclear warhead]. Iran would be hard pressed to stop an attack by B-2 bombers. The real problem is the dispersal of the Iranian nuclear program. But for my money take out the reactor and you setback their program many years. Of course Iran would try to launch terrorist attacks which might escalate into a wider bombing campaign against key targets in Iran.


----------



## Gunnerlove

> godless hethan fundamentalists



Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.   

If the US feels they can take on the entire middle east without further destabilizing the region they are insane. Gradual change is the key to stability. When religious people are threatened they turn to their religion and become increasingly conservative (If you don't believe me look at the last US election). Increasing the number of extremely conservative fundamentalist Muslims in the world is not in any westernized nations best interest. 
A rational educated population worldwide should be one of the key building blocks for international security. Instead we seem to be creating far more fanatics (on both sides of the Bible/Koran fence) who are convinced that their religion is the best and that God is on their side.       

But hey maybe I am wrong and a decade of random bombings and sanctions, followed by invasion and occupation might stabilize Iran and improve world opinion of the US.    :


----------



## tomahawk6

Actually the regime in Tehran is increasingly isolated from its own people. The regime has blocked the moderates by preventing them from even getting on the ballot. Until the people are willing to take to the streets they will remain under the heel of the ayatollah's. Of course a precise air campaign might be able to knock out the props that hold the regime up.


----------



## Bert

I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.

The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response 
in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the 
nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.

Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its 
own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in 
the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties 
despite the usual rhetoric.

An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.


----------



## Marauder

Another tack would be to locate and erase the scientists willing to work on giving any whack-job fundamentalists The Bomb. If you keep taking out the wetware, all the hardware in the world does you no good. A bullet in the head or knife in the throat in the middle of the night is far more quite and less likely to give the media a hardon than a mushroom cloud over the known location of a nuclear reactor. Eventually the mullahs will get wise, but hopefully by then any scientist with a shred of self-preservation insitinct will get a case of amnesia when it comes to reading tech diagrams (given by the French or Russians no doubt).


----------



## Bert

That assumes the Iranians have everything nicely centralized, gathered intelligence is 100% correct,
and everthing works like clockwork.     The US may have assets in the region to make the attack as
you suggest but not to deal with the possible consequences.   Noticable movement of militaries
will take place. The escalation will be noticed by the Iranians and their well aware of the possibility.   
I'm sure the US and Iran have carefully considered the scenario from various angles.


----------



## Cliff

Bert said:
			
		

> I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
> enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.
> 
> The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response
> in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the
> nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
> research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.
> 
> Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
> limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its
> own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in
> the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties
> despite the usual rhetoric.
> 
> An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
> know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
> groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
> world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
> that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
> by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.



You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.


----------



## 1feral1

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.



Extremists are using their religion as a front and excuse to promote terrorism and murder (look how many muslims are dying at the hands of their own kind) and are a disgrace to mainstream Islam, hence why I call these cowards godless murderers. I am in no way implying that muslims are godless, the majority like us just want the same things we do. 

So, Mr Love, try seeing things outside the square.

Wes


----------



## 1feral1

Cliff said:
			
		

> I agree with you on surgical air strikes.



It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## jmacleod

There are many very articulate and compelling opinons about Iran and the current state of Iran
-Iraq situations or possible situations on this site, which are appreciated. I base my opinions on
the State of Iran today on two sources; people whom I have worked with from the Northrop
Corporation, California, who had a significant presence in Iran in the days of the Shah, and my
association with Israeli industries. In particular, I read DEBKAfile on a daily basis. The best intelligence
on the Iran of January 2005 comes from Israel and France who have for different reasons, a vested
interest in knowing a great deal about the intentions of the Mullahs, who recently for instance
executed two Iranian nuclear scientists who attempted to flee Iran through Syria. Fellow readers,
take the time to read the reports in DEBKAfile and Paris Match (en francais of course). North American
news sources are biased, untruthful, and motivated by commercial interests, in particular, in Canada
the god-awful CBC. There is also, in my opinion, based on information from American friends and
associates, no doubt that the Bush government are focused on an orderly departure from Iraq - a
good source of information on this thesis can be found on the US site "Military.com" MacLeod


----------



## Ty

Cliff said:
			
		

> You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.



I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?

In general, an operation in Iran would have to be justified with readily verifiable intelligence that the consequences of not acting far out way those of the operation- an international Defence of Necessity, per se.   What it boils down to is that one country is going to bomb another country because: it thinks it may have nuclear capabilities, those nuclear capabilities might be passed on to some terrorist organization, and that terrorist organization might attack another country.   What of Iran's response to this action?   If they did possess nuclear weapons, is it conceivable that they are all centralized in one location or in locations that the US knows of?   As such, if one facility survives, creates a nuclear weapons, and then passes it off to said terrorist groups in retaliation of an the offensive, this creates a bit of a vicious cycle.   

I don't believe Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon- directly or through a proxy.   The consequence is that the smallest shred of heretic evidence pointing the finger at them would lead to a very bad state in the world.

So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!

Cheers


----------



## Cliff

TA said:
			
		

> I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?



The CIA effectively taking out terrorist targets in Yemen would fit nicely into Washington's preemptive policy.   These type of actions will continue to curtail terrorism,since they won't be around to mount attacks on US soil.      



> So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!



I hope "this argument" materializes into taking out any nuclear capability Iran has.


----------



## Cliff

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



Kudos to Israel.. They did the right thing.


----------



## FredDaHead

> Stratfor
> www.stratfor.com
> SITUATION REPORTS - January 22, 2005
> 2349 GMT - EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner says the threat of a U.S. military attack against Iran is not that great, predicting that a diplomatic solution ultimately would be found, although negotiations likely would be difficult. U.S. President George W. Bush warned Jan. 17 that the United States would launch a military strike against Iran if Tehran does not end its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.



...Someone care explain to me how the EU suddenly can decide what the US will do?

Anyways, I'm on the fence for this one.. On one hand we (the West) have to be careful of not letting a crazed state created nukes and possibly completely destabilize the whole region, and give nukes to terrorists, but on the other hand we can't go and destabilize it ourselves and created a very very bad situation.

And another trouble is finding allies who'll let "us" go into Iran using their territory:



> Stratfor
> www.stratfor.com
> SITUATION REPORTS - January 20, 2005
> 1405 GMT - The Afghan Defense Ministry said it would not allow a third country to use Afghan territory against neighboring Iran, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported Jan. 20. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zaher Azimi said that while there was a large U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, Kabul would never be convinced to allow Washington to send special forces into Iran -- a reaction to a recent report in The New Yorker magazine of a covert U.S. military reconnaissance operation under way in Iran.



Anyways, all in alll, this could turn ugly REAL fast. Let's just hope it doesn't.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ugly it is already 

Nasty is and real are what you have to hope it doesn't become.

Iran will be quite capable of giving the US more then just a bloody nose should they choose to invade.

Going after the leadership of Iran is an option but one that comes with possible unintended consiquences.  Having a harsher party rule.

Yes the air strikes may work and put back Iran's nuclear weapon program 10 yrs but what if that just pisses them off and they start to sell the stuff just to make dirty bombs to prove a point.


----------



## Glorified Ape

I'm not trying to fan a fire here or anything, nor am I being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking this but can anyone tell me what right we, the US, or anyone else has to attack Iran or take any action against them (save passive actions such as economic sanction) because they're seeking nuclear weapons?


----------



## 1feral1

You're fan'n  ;D

Wes


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Mon, January 24, 2005 

Strike at Iran possible

By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun


A topic of concern around Washington in these days of post-inauguration and pre-State of the Union address, is what's next? 

President George W. Bush's inauguration speech left some puzzled, others encouraged, many uneasy. 

He talked a lot about freedom, without getting into specifics, and didn't mention Iraq. That got people buzzing. 
  

What he seemed to be doing was giving a blueprint for the future -- a future that extended beyond his term in office, deep into the unforeseeable future. 

To some it was a perilous approach, to others it was inspired. Thinking big, thinking beyond. An agenda for America. 

No lame duck 

What Bush did convey, was that he intends his final term to be no lame duck administration. 

His fixation on freedom and democracy in the world conveyed to a growing number the likelihood that the next big target for his aggressive democracy is Iran -- not a war, not ultimatums or embargoes, but direct action. Something has to be done about Iran's already considerable nuclear ambitions. 

There isn't much time. 

It is an issue that also worries Europe. 

In 1981 Israel did the world a favour when it bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor which was intended for nuclear weapons, with a large assist from France. 

That message was absorbed by Iran, which apparently has no single Osirak-like site, but diverse sites to develop various aspects of the program, with back-ups and duplication. 

Some sites are underground, some in population centres, all of them widely distributed. 

So air strikes alone are unreasonable and unlikely. 

What seems possible in the future -- that is, during President Bush's watch - is sabotage on the ground. Perhaps a Special Forces style attack, with limited air co-ordination -- an aggressive raid to eliminate some or all key nuclear sites. Then get out. 

In Pakistan 

While Western intelligence has some knowledge of where these sites are, the ones who know best are in Pakistan, which is believed to have helped Iran develop its nuclear potential in the days before Pakistan was an American ally, and when it backed the Taliban of Afghanistan and al-Qaida. 

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf changed all that when he decided President Bush was serious and not one to be toyed with, and threw his future in with America's. 

Some realists speculate that there already are Special Forces inside Iraq, and that at some point an un-admitted alliance of American, Pakistani and German commandoes, with a possible inclusion of British, will be tasked with eliminating Iran's nuclear sites. Or at least some of them, before it's too late. 

The one thing that seems fairly certain (one can never be absolutely sure in such things) is that Israel will not be directly involved. 

Iran has few friends in the Islamic world who look forward to the ayatollahs and mullahs wielding nuclear weapons. 

Since in foreign affairs as in war (and love) success is the prime virtue and failure the cardinal sin, judgment awaits the outcome of this nuclear showdown. Will, or will not, Iran become the next nuclear world influence? 

Regardless of what happens in Iraq (a Shiite win in the Iraq election seems assured), it won't affect what is viewed as necessary in Iran. 

As for the third member of Bush's "axis of evil" trio -- North Korea -- little action is planned. Kim Jong Il is so obviously a fruitcake with no allies except Cuba, and is in questionable health anyway, that nature will likely settle that issue. 

Maybe the future will become clearer at the State of the Union address on Feb. 2 -- probably more about America's self-decreed responsibility if not to make the whole world democratic, to at least make the world safer for democracies. 

Not a bad legacy


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/01/24/908194.html


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ape

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?  :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.  ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Ape
> 
> Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?   :threat:
> 
> If you did sorry.
> 
> OK enough of the sarcasm.   ;D



 ;D As much as I'd love to comment, I don't want to be inflammatory. 

Regarding my previous post, I don't necessarily oppose non-violent efforts against proliferation but it doesn't seem to me that taking overly aggressive postures towards countries is likely to make them NOT want nuclear weapons - quite the opposite. If a man with a big gun bent on obtaining your subservience keeps threatening you, what are you going to do - capitulate or get your own gun? If you subscribe to the old "better to die free than live on your knees" maxim, you get a gun. 

I guess what I'm saying is that, in this case, we might get catch more flies with sugar than we will with s***.


----------



## a_majoor

I am always puzzeled by posts which seem to get the positions reversed and postulate Iran as the aggrivated party in this dispute.

Iran is the nation actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran is the nation that sponsors terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as well as many others.

Iran is the nation which seeks to export an Islamic revolution. (Among others. Saudi Arabia has also done so, although it is questionable if this was state policy.)

Iran is the nation that openly seeks the destruction of a democratic state (Israel)

Iran is the nation which has branded the United States "The Great Satan", and openly incites violent actions against Americans everywhere in the world.

Iran's government uses its oil wealth to further these aims, rather than concentrate on the various needs of its own people, who are enslaved by the Mullahs.

George W Bush is continuing the unofficial policy of "containment" begun at the end of the Carter Administration, but is now openly offering moral support to any pro democracy movements in Iran (read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23747-2005Jan20.html and draw your own conclusions). Further efforts through trade and diplomacy may occur, and as long as Iran keeps their provocations to a minimum, the Americans will keep their "terrible swift sword" sheathed. Otherwise, read the Iran and Syria-war of the future? thread http://army.ca/forums/threads/25162.90.html


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Majoor i agree Iran has done all of those things.

But he without sin cast the first stone.

America is the only nation in the world to use nuclear weapons.

America sponsered the CONTRA rebels 

America traded arms for hostages in Iran

America sponsored the IRA 

and the list could go on.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't doubt that Iran has some evil intent.  But without prove of this how could an attack be justified.  If the US does it alone why do we have a UN?


----------



## a_majoor

The list could go on, but these situations you list have little or nothing to do with the current situation that the Iranian government is creating. Grievance lists of American actions (especially with no reference to why these actions took place) are very much like Osama Bin Laden complaining about the destruction of the Moorish Andelusian state by Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1490's.

As for the UN, based on their constant anti semitism, inaction during genocides in formar Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia and now Dafur, revelations about the extent of the corruption in the UN run Oil for Food program and the continuing "sex for peacekeepers" scandle in the Congo, well, "_why do we have a UN_?"


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.  They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

I have no love for Iran but i just don't think the US should go around and say hey change to be like us or we will kick your ass.  

I don't see them talking to China that way or to a lesser extent North Korea.  

If they could prove that Iran is threating the free world by selling nuclear weapons or waste to terrorist groups i mean real proof not that betty crocker instant bake stuff they had for Iraq. then they could make a case for it.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.  Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?  (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.


----------



## Cliff

Another good call was when Reagan ordered terrorist targets taken out in Libya back in the 1980s.


----------



## dutchie

Wizard:

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan. 

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Yea i kinda updated that list

Still that is one of the major threats of Iran according to the US is it not the fact that they are developing nuclear weapons?

While the US was the only nation to use them be it 60 yrs ago or not.  Total war or not.  Do you think they would have used them in Europe?  I doubt it highly doubt it.

Staying on topic though let he without sin cast the first stone.  I see no defense of America here?  Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.  Saber rattling will do little to solve the situation.  I can't remember who said it but you may catch more flies with sugar.  Not saying us an appeasement policy but maybe they should not threaten everybody at once.


----------



## 48Highlander

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I see no defense of America here?   Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.



Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.  You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.  That alone gives them all the justification they need.  Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?  If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.


----------



## a_majoor

The question of Iraqi WMD and terrorist links has been resolved in the positive for several years: The Senate Intelligence comittee and the President used the same sources and came to the same conclusions, Germany, France and the UK using their own sources also saw Iraq as a threat. A BBC journalist wrote a book called "A Higher Form of Killing" published in 2002 which also comes to the same conclusions. Cech intelligence has never recanted from their claim to have observed Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague several weeks prior to 9/11; and the 9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda.

If you consider that "Betty Crocker" stuff, well only the explosion of an Iranian nuke on your doorstep will convince you.

Syria and Iran are sovereign nations, and Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences. China and North Korea can watch the news, American actions are all the talking points they need right now.

I don't see any signs the UN is making attempts to reform, if they do it will be a wonderful thing, but until then, please take their calls and say I am not available at this time. Read this thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/25875.0.html, then ask yourself who would you rather have come to the rescue if a natural disaster was to level your community; the US or the UN?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.   You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.   That alone gives them all the justification they need.   Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?   If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.



48

So if America saw our porse borders or poor immigration policy, lack of spending on the military, slack court system....... and on and on, as a threat to their national security you would be ok if they came in and took the place over? To you know do what was in their best interests.

Give me a break

Majoor 

How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq? 

"9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda" they also had against they Saudi government but what happened to that?  Oh yea an AMERICAN court found it insuffecint

I think that sometimes we get blinded by the giant spin machine that is the American media.  And yea i consider it Betty Crocker stuff cause it is all circumstancial and would never hold up in any court.  IF they had the hard proof it would have been an easy sell to the UN and the rest of the world but they did not.

So by your own words "Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences"  You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?  Not a puppet government of the Americans?  

You know that if this type of conflict was occuring in China that the US would not be able to play the game they are now of intimidation or posturing tough to do with army the size of China's....  watch tv and see america's actions?  you will have to explain this one.  A conflict with either of those two nations would eat up a hell of resources and manpower then anything in the middle east would. 

I would never want a nuclear bomb to go off on anyones doorstep to prove a point.  I am saying that they sure as hell would need a lot more evidence then they have now.  Not to say the Iran is an inocent party in all of this but i think putting America on a pedistal is a mistake.  They are not the international police man that they think they are.  

As for they UN they do need to change and it starts at the top will it come i don't know.  But that is the body that should be acting as the international police man not the US.

As for the UN comming to help or the US I would not care who came, you are bringing two seperate issues together here.  One of the US comming to the humanitrian aid of nations to forcing their will on nations.


----------



## 48Highlander

Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it.


----------



## 1feral1

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant
> 
> US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA
> 
> US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.
> 
> US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.
> 
> they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.   They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.
> 
> As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.   Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?   (kinda like the Canadian government)
> 
> The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.



What!!!!!! 

Have you been smoking hemp in a uni pub sucking on a warm beer? Get some fresh air and eat a reality biscut instead of those funny tasting brownies.

Pal, you got alot to learn, and not from a text book either.

I cannot say one thing good about Iran, and I find it hard to phathom what you are saying.   They are a serious threat to de-stablise the region should they develope these weapons. So what would you say if Iran went ahead and got a nuclear weapon manufactured? They will, its just a matter of time.

Don't think for one second this technology would not be used agsinst us.

Canadians are not immune either. Infact most Iranians probably don't even know what a Canada is ( living uneducated and oppressed under a wicked ruthless regime). You, Mr OZ are already condemmed by the colour of your skin and the culture you have. Just remember they hate you as much as any westerner and they would dance in the streets on your corpse if they had a chance. Don't go painting the USA as the enemy here. I value my freedom and way of life, so if it takes an airstrike to prolong it, I support it 110%.

Shame on Pakistan and other nations for helping Iran out with this technology. Again 21 century technology with a very dangerous 13th century mentality. That really frightens me and I am not afraid to admit it. 

As for the USA using nukes so what! Are you condemming the USA for this? That was 60 yeras ago, and it ended a dirty war which not only would have caused 100's of thousands of Allied casualties (including Canadians) if Japan was to be invaded, and an estimated 1,000,000,000+ civilians.

I don't want Iran do develope any such weapons and I support the 'disarmament' in any way possible to ensure this does not happen. Either by pen or sword ( I know the pen won't work here).

In the years to come, I think the west is in for a rough ride. 

As for the UN, they are hopeless, and are not what they used to be. Too busy on trying to be PC rather than get the job done (could not organise a gang-bang in a monkey whore-house with a first full of banannas). when you got a cancer you exercise it, not dance around undecided, as if ya do that, your dead!

I just want a more safe world, and if it means keeping these countries full of twisted hate in check by what ever means possible lets just get the job done.

I am no war monger by any means, but I believe in whats right, and sometimes you gotta give someone a bloody nose if the councilling does not get through. 

Your profile is empty. I would like to see at least some mininum info for us to see who you are. You like to 'walk the walk' now its time to 'talk the talk' Enough annonynimity. I have read many of your posts which seem to be tainted with a very leftist flavour (being PC here for a sec - 'not that there is anything wrong with that' - Seinfeld quote). 

Back up your posts by giving us some credentials. Have a squizz at mine. I am not shy.
Wes


----------



## muskrat89

> How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq?




Stephen Hayes has recently released a book that documents the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Believe whatever you want....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp


Quote
The Connection 
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right. 
by Stephen F. Hayes 
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37 
    
From The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America 
by Stephen F. Hayes. 


"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday. 

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection." 

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong. 

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report 

last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off. 

A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting. 

The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend." 

Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.

CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated 

that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.

The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq. 

He hasn't been heard from since.

The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.


THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read: 


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report: 


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials. 

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike." 

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq. 

The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." 

Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to suggest that his administration should have given more thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., that "could take several forms." In one scenario, "suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."

A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and raised a familiar question: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

But another passage of the same report has gone largely unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this: "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide to use terrorists to attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals," including "Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide." 

CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002: 


--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. 

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. 

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. 

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. 

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. 

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated his judgment that there had been numerous "contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the war the Iraqi regime had provided "training and safe haven" to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the Iraqi regime had "command and control" over al Qaeda terrorists. Still, said Tenet, "it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing."


SO WHAT should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush administration should do is create a team of intelligence experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year, the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15 people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This is not enough. 

Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant. 

A second critical step would be to declassify as much of the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship must have been "cherry picked" from much larger piles of existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be disclosed without compromising sources and methods.

Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam; documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility.

It is of course important for the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet to back up their assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? And why did Thomas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, tell reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program"? Other Clinton administration figures, including a "senior intelligence official" who briefed reporters on background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program.

We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11 intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time for the American public to see more of the intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. counterstrikes two weeks later.

Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.

The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of them.


----------



## a_majoor

Thank you, Mr Muskrat!


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Muskrat

"The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed."  

Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.

Majoor 

You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?

Wesley

Really my arguments lack fact?

Was it the press that lied about the Arms for hostages scandal?
Did they find a huge cache of WMD and forget to report it?

Yes America dropped the bomb and it was the right thing to do at the time.
That list was in response to the one from the Majoor and if you read it, I said let he without sin cast the first stone.

Do i think the US is a bad nation or painted them in a negative way no.  I think that thye have been exercising alot of muscle international without alot of world opinion.  You want people to stop hating you then stop pissing the world off.  I agree sometimes they have to act and act fast world opinion be dammed and the two bombs are a perfect example of that.  But having the might does not make everything you do right.  

You say I am a leftest, I doubt it and i would love for you to show me how i appear that way.  All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right.  Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof).  

Do you think i want Iran to develope nuclear weapons?  Canada would be just as guilty as any other nation if that was to happen.  We sold the reactors to Pakistian who in turn helped Iran.  

No i don't think Canada would come away unscathed and i find it fairly embarising that there is not much we can do about it militarily.  We lack the backbone in our duly elected government to change any of these problems and we continue to put that problem back in power.

As for the warm beer and funny brownie, not called for.  I drink cold beer and suffer at night due to a lack of hockey.

because profile is empty that makes my opinion count for less?

48 

This one you have to explain to me.

"Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it."

How does what i asked you go near a consipiracy theory?


----------



## 48Highlander

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?   Not a puppet government of the Americans?



Conspiracy theory.



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> But having the might does not make everything you do right.



"having the might" also doesn't automaticaly make every action wrong.



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right. Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof).



I see.  So who's side are YOU on exactly?  If you're against the US action in Iraq, I take it you're on Sadams side?  If so, would you please provide me with a link to the exhaustive and detailed "proof" which Sadam showed you in order to bring you to his side?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I am on the side of the colation.   I beilve Sadam  > had to go.  There is no doubt in my mind that the things he did were illegal and border on insane.  But i don't think that the government in place would last if the US pulled out. Making it a puppet to US demands. Things may change after the election.

And you are right having the might doesn't make it automatically wrong it just makes you carry a bigger burnden of proof when you do things.  And you are held to a higher standard.  Especially when you go things alone, or with the "Colation of the willing"

The world holds the US to a higher standard then alot of the third world countries and backwards dictatorships that they tend to deal with.  The reason for this is the US has assumed this role.  If they want the lime light they should have to carry the responsiblitiy with it. 

I have no doubt that Iran is up to no good.  None.  But you have to know by fact before you can just assume it.  That is all i am saying.  Saying you have proof and then finding nothing does not help your credibilty on the world stage.

That is all, other then that i like to play a little devils advocate to make blood boil.


----------



## muskrat89

> Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.



I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....


----------



## 48Highlander

You hold the US to a higher standard?   In the Iraq conflict, on one side you have a democraticaly elected president in charge of a nation which gives almost unlimited rights and freedoms to it's citizens.   On the other side you have a dicatorial regime which executes the citizens of it's nation at the whim of those in power.   Yet which country is compared by the left wing to the Nazi regime, and which president is compared to Hitler?   The world doesn't just hold the US to a "higher standard", those edumacated individuals of "higher moral integrity" hold the US to an impossible standard.   Nothing the US does will ever be good enough, not because of lack of evidence or positive results, but simply because they're an easy target to pick on, and the ones most often in the limelight.   You see examples of that attitude everywhere in our world, like for example the entertainment industry.   Nobody wants to see movies stars or other famous people having stable marriages and normal lives.   People want to see sex, drugs, violence, divorces, suicides....the more scandal the better.   Same goes for politics.   Eliminating possible threats and removing dictators lacks sex-appeal.   It's much more fun to speculate bout corporate ambitions being the driving force behind invasions to seize wealth and oppress the little people, or secret "clandestine" government operatives flying planes by remote control into the WTC in order to justify a christian crusade or American imperial ambitions.   See how much sexier all those phrases sound?   It's all about image.


----------



## MagieNoire

Caesar said:
			
		

> Wizard:
> 
> Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.
> 
> The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.
> 
> And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.



What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:


----------



## Voltigeur

Well gentlemen, first is first, I support the US foreign policy for the simple reason that in Roman times, you had to support Rome.... but don't forget, Iran, Irak, Syria and so on... they are like the Persia of Roman times. Rome never successfully controlled the Middle East... It's not the place of the westerners.... We messed up everytime we have been there.... The US are swimming in their own mess.... They supported Saddam, they supported the Shah of Iran... They caused a lot of suffering amongst the people there by putting and supporting dictators because they knew it was the only way to maintain an economic influence over the area. Now, since Saddam turned his back on them in 1991 and the Shah of Iran was dismissed in 1979, the whole area was not under their influence anymore.... Yes, they went into Irak and they will go in Iran because we are not talking about freedom for those people, we are talking about maintaing USA superpower for the next century... it's simply a long term vision which people at the pentagon have been working on for years... Oil is necessary for the tanks, the ships, the jets and every car owner in America.... They are in the Middle East because it was just a matter of time before China put his nose there! Anyway, those who are listening Imagine of John lennon and dreaming about a world of peace and freedom, I strongly suggest you start your homemade weed plant cause you're gonna need it... especially when there will be no food in your cooler. For the rest who are wake up, be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.
Good bless all our brothers and sisters of the United States Armed Forces.


Better to live one day as a lion than one hundred years as a lamb - Benito Mussolini


----------



## Glorified Ape

Voltigeur said:
			
		

> be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.



Yes, because we all know the only way to protect your way of life is to invade and slaughter all those who don't abide by it!  :


----------



## Gouki

Listen to some of you people .. "who's side are you on?"

Do you really think anything is so perfectly black and white?

If I do not agree with Bush's policies, does that now make me a terrorist?

I will not get involved with what was right and wrong regarding this whole issue, because there are some rights and some wrongs and it goes so deep until it's murky and convuluted beyond recognition. 

But I will say that it is a primitive state of mind to think that something either "is" or "is not" .. I forget who said that, but it is true.

Disagreeing with Iraq does not make you on Saddams side.

_Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country._

Hermann Goering said that. Despite his affiliations, he was correct. But I guess someone will now denounce me as being on the Nazi's side for using a quote of theirs, right?


----------



## 48Highlander

No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.

Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D

If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.  You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.  In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.  Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.  Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.  In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.  And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.  In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all 

I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.  Just try to avoid using quotes.  I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.


----------



## Voltigeur

I see your point Steve... don't worry about the quote, it's true even though it's coming from fatty Goering. You are right to say everything is not balck and white... In fact, the whole thing is more kind of a muddy gray than anything else but sometimes you got to take a side. Hell, I dont agrree with a lot of things that Bush is saying. A lot of people on Canada are screaming against the USA and their policy... They refuse to admit to the whole syaing... It's ugly but it's necessary! Why, I will tell you. Canada is a little sweetheart country. It's surrounded by three oceans and a big brother in the south to provide for everything. There has been no war and no major disaster on its soil for more than 300 years. People are fat and they enjoy more freedom than anywhere else in the world. In that way, They are ignorant cause they simply don't know why they have such nice standards of living... If it was not for the States, Canada would be the bitch of everybody. Yes, US foreign policy is questionable at some extent but as long as you have electricity, food, shelters and a future for your family and your children... dont scream at them too hard... The USA don't owe us anything, we owe them for everything.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....



True 

And i never meant to for it to be taken as such.   A post is an opinion unless backed by a quote or other form of relevant material.   Correct? And all i gave was my opinion if i had hard evidence of these links i would have put them there.   The following are from USA today and the Washington Post in that order.

The prewar intelligence has been called into question both nationally and abroad because of the military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, some evidence cited by the Bush administration has been discredited, including documents on supposed approaches to obtain uranium in Africa, which turned out to be forgeries. 

At a news conference in Washington, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Friday the failure to find the weapons was a defeat for her government, which strongly supported the war. 

"There is a pervasive concern when and how we will find them," Palacio said. But she said she was relaxed about the weapons search. 

Republicans say there is little doubt the weapons existed and accuse Democrats of questioning the intelligence and its use for political reasons. They defeated three attempts by House Democrats this week to expand the weapons inquiries as part of an intelligence bill approved early Friday. 

On Thursday, 24 House Democrats announced that would seek an independent commission to examine the Iraq intelligence. They say they want to know whether intelligence was inaccurate or whether the administration presented a distorted interpretation of the intelligence to make the case for war. 

Democrats have also questioned whether the Bush administration overstated Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. A recently completed draft report by a U.N. terrorism committee on efforts to stop al-Qaeda operations does not mention Iraq. The committee has seen no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, said its chief investigator Michael Chandler. 

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Friday that the committee's mandate did not include examining Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. He said the committee lacked the expertise to assess any links. 

In addition to the intelligence issue, Democrats and some Republicans have criticized President Bush for not speaking publicly of the long-term costs and U.S. troop commitments that will be needed in Iraq. 

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Bush to ask for help policing Iraq from the NATO military alliance and its member states. 

"I implore the president to kind of get over his feelings about the Europeans, and the French and the Germans in particular, and seek their assistance because I believe they are ready to assist. They need to be asked," Biden said. 

In an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered," Secretary of State Colin Powell said "a large presence of troops" will be needed for months to stabilize the country, improve security and eliminate remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and his Baathist Party. 

"I can't be more precise than that, because we don't know," he said. 

And now the post

Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01 

In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda. 

A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report. 

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired intelligence panel last fall, asked the CIA for more information. (Ellen Ozier -- Reuters)   

We want to give you the opportunity to show firsthand what it is like to live and work in Iraq. 

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said. 

"There has always been an internal argument within the intelligence community about the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," said a senior intelligence official, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity. "The NIE had alternative views." 

Similar questions have been raised about Bush's statement in his State of the Union address last January that the British had reported Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa, which the president used to back up his assertion that Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. In that case, senior U.S. officials said, the CIA 10 months earlier sent a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger who reported that country's officials said they had not made any agreement to aid the sale of uranium to Iraq and indicated documents alleging that were forged. Details of that CIA Niger inquiry were not shared with the White House, although the agency succeeded in deleting that allegation from other administration statements. 

Bush, in his speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, made his case that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, by mentioning several items such as high-level contacts that "go back a decade." He said "we've learned" that Iraq trained al Qaeda members "in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Although the president offered essentially circumstantial evidence, his remarks contained none of the caveats about the reliability of this information as contained in the national intelligence document, sources said. 

The presidential address crystallized the assertion that had been made by senior administration officials for months that the combination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and a terrorist organization, such as al Qaeda, committed to attacking the United States posed a grave and imminent threat. Within four days, the House and Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution granting the president authority to go to war. 

The handling of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda has come under increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with some leading Democrats charging that the administration exaggerated the case against Hussein by publicizing intelligence that supported its policy and keeping contradictory information under wraps. The House intelligence committee opened a closed-door review into the matter last week; its Senate counterpart is planning similar hearings. The Senate Armed Services Committee is also investigating the issue. 

Bush has defended his handling of intelligence before the war, calling his critics "revisionist historians." 

"The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons, and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed," Bush said in his weekly radio address yesterday. He vowed to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes." 

Questions about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush cited in his Cincinnati address were raised shortly after the speech by ranking Democrats on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel. They pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate than a 28-page "white paper" on Iraq distributed on Capitol Hill on Oct. 4. 

In one of the more notable statements made by the president, Bush said that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and added: "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." 

Bush did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence analysts was that Hussein would launch a terrorist attack against the United States only if he thought he could not stop the United States from invading Iraq. The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president might decide to give chemical or biological agents to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for use against the United States only as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." And it said this would be an "extreme step" by Hussein. 

These conclusions in the report were contained in a letter CIA Director George J. Tenet sent to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, the day of Bush's speech. 

While Bush also spoke of Iraq and al Qaeda having had "high-level contacts that go back a decade," the president did not say -- as the classified intelligence report asserted -- that the contacts occurred in the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, was living in Sudan and his organization was in its infancy. At the time, the report said, bin Laden and Hussein were united primarily by their common hostility to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, according to sources. Bush also did not refer to the report's conclusion that those early contacts had not led to any known continuing high-level relationships between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, the sources said. 

The president said some al Qaeda leaders had fled Afghanistan to Iraq and referred to one "very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It was a reference to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian. U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents, the sources said. 

As for Bush's claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and use of poisons and deadly gases, sources with knowledge of the classified intelligence estimate said the report's conclusion was that this had not been satisfactorily confirmed. 

"We've learned," Bush said in his speech, "that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." But the president did not mention that when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had referred the previous month to such training, she had said the source was al Qaeda captives. 

The CIA briefed congressional committees about the National Intelligence Estimate but did not deliver the classified version until the evening of Oct. 1, just before a Senate intelligence committee hearing the next day, congressional sources said. At that closed-door session, several senators raised questions about qualifying statements made in the report, which was circulated only among senior national security officials. 

On Oct. 4, three days before the president's speech, at the urging of members of Congress, the CIA released its declassified excerpts from the intelligence report as a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda links. The members wanted a public document to which they could refer during floor debates on the Iraq war resolution. 

The white paper did contain passages that hinted at the intelligence community's lack of certitude about Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda ties, but it omitted some qualifiers contained in the classified version. It also did not include qualifiers made at the Oct. 2 hearing by an unidentified senior intelligence official who, during his testimony, challenged some of the administration's public statements on Iraq. 

"Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy," said Bob Filippone, Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed the war resolution. 

When the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence panel member and at that time chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked to have additional portions of the intelligence estimate as well as portions of the testimony at the Oct. 2 hearing made public. 

On the day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham with some of the additional information. The letter drew attention because it seemed to contradict Bush's statements that Hussein would give weapons to al Qaeda. 

Tenet released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the president in his speech." He went on to say, however, that the chance that the Iraqi leader would turn weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons of mass destruction. 

On Oct. 9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing them that no additional portions of the intelligence report would be made public.  There is a little of what i found. As far as the connection to Al Qaeda was concerend.   I don't know if i call it proof but it is better then "opinion in post by OZ"    ;D

It is about image i agree why do you think the press gets to ride with the army now?   To that same statement, though the US is the biggest kid on the block no doubt or argument right?   Do you not think that having that kind of power does not come with some sort of responsiblitiy deserved or not or wanted or not it does.   

And of course they are an easy target, it is like playing king of the hill, the one on top has to work very hard to stay there cause everybody is gunning for them.



Voltigeur i hope you do not think i am on the side of Iran.   I am not.

MagieNoire

Sure it can, the concept of total war allows for it.   The death toll and colllateral damage to the main island alone would have far exceeded that of the two nuclear weapons droped on them.   

It is nice to see that this fourm is not all verbal squabiling.


----------



## Gouki

48Highlander said:
			
		

> No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.



Funny, I don't recall saying that the quote applied in all circumstances. I thought it was quite clear that I was using that quote in this instance.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D



I'm not on the US side, or any side. Is your manner of thinking so confined and narrow so that everyone must be on a certain "side" Cake and pie may be evenly divided but things are not so simple in real life.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.   You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.   In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.   Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.   In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.   Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.   In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.   And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.   In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all



Well, isn't that convenient that any manner of said thinking makes me automatically a fool? Maybe I think someone may be a fool for not thinking it's about oil? Maybe I could say you're a fool for believing that democracy will take hold in Iraq? I don't think any of these things but it's quite easy to simply go around calling everyone a fool for thinking the way they do. 

On top of that, why should anyone care if you think they are a fool? You have your own beliefs and reasons for believing them, why call someone a fool for not sharing that view? Is it because you're an ultra right wing nutjob? If so, you're a fool. Is it because you are a Republican and anyone that talks down about the US hates America and freedom? If so, you're a bigger fool. Perhaps you are an evil communist who wants everyone to tow the party line? If so you are the biggest fool of all 

See, anyone can pull this infantile method of attack. 



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.   Just try to avoid using quotes.   I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.



Or it just may be that I found his quote better able to sum up what I am feeling/thinking better than I could express it. And by the way, it was hardly irrelevent.

As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.


----------



## CivU

"Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool."

Wait a few years.  The only fool will be the person who thinks the War in Iraq had nothing to do with oil.


----------



## Voltigeur

LOL I love that quote by the regretted General George S. Patton... It says a lot about the kind of man he was... a pure and steeled soldier. Well, this is a deep topic and I took a kind interest to read your newspaper references. Personnaly, what I retain from Irak and the whole US foreign policy in the Middle East is the following :

Of course there were no WMD
It's not to free Iraki from Saddam (They supported Saddam for a long time and they give a damn about atrocities)
Oil is one of the main reason
The main reason is   to extent to shere of influence of the USA, politically, militarilly and economically in the Middle East.
Oil is one of the major factor because it's going to be a scare resource in less than 50 years
China is on its way to become a superpower... the move in the middle East is linked to that just like this missile shield we are talking about...
The US are talking about Irak, Iran and North Korea... its just a way to talk to China saying : "I'm still running the show" 
To sum, the whole show is about economic competition... Freedom is always the perfect cover
Iraki are not more important to the US than Sudanese, or other dying people are. They care about the geostrategic position and the resources. 
Am I going to blame them... No! In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US... Who knows, maybe someday we are going to be those people that the chinese are sorry for on TV...LOL


----------



## Gouki

Voltigeur you are clearly a leftist liberal fool. Why don't you just run up and hug Osama, you freedom hating terrorist.

(joking btw).


----------



## CivU

"In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US"

The world is a difference place almost two thousands years later.   You can be a Canadian and not be with the US and not fear being conquered in an epic battle on the plains of Saskatchewan.   Siding with someone out of either fear of their power or an inferiority complex is a poor methodology for deriving a position on anything.   If you were surrounded by ten enemy soldiers would you merely cave and side with them out of the sheer domination they held over the situation?


----------



## Voltigeur

LOL Steve... Damn, if I am a leftist liberal, I wonder what you are... maybe green party


----------



## 48Highlander

Steve said:
			
		

> As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.



That tells me all I need to know.  You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".  So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?


----------



## 1feral1

MagieNoire said:
			
		

> What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:



What about the attrocities the Japanese committed against Allied PoWs? Australian, American, British and even Canadians. This also included civilian 'citizens'   including men, women and young children.

What about the insane brutal treatment of the Chinese and Koreans under Japanese rule, not forgetting the other Asian nations taken during their 'empire' expansion.

Even today the Japanese government fails to even acknowledge or even unofficially say 'sorry' for what they had done not so long ago.

Shame on them. So before you go smearing shyte on what your great nation accomplished to end a nasty and brutal World War, you had better take a long look at what Japan had done prior to the 6th and 9th of August 1945 even going back to the 1930s with their invasion of Manchuria.

At least the German government acknowledges their tarnished Nazi past, and has publically apologised time and time again. Now thats a humble and gallant thing to do, and something to be admired, and the first steps in the long process of forgivness.

Wes


----------



## Voltigeur

CiviU, my man... the world isn't so different than two thousand years ago... technology has improved all right but the deep human principles and vlaues are the same... Their is a lot of parallels you can make with the US and the Roman empire... Just pay attention to details and read between the lines... It's pretty the same ball game. All the US want is to maintain its superpower and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. All the Roman empire did starting around 150 AD was to maintain its border and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF ROMAN PEOPLE. And to answer your question, since I'm now a cop and a former Infantryman, you should know that I won't switch side out of fear... I am more American than Canadian in my way of thinking... it's just the way it is and I personnaly think it will be the time soon for a North American Federation... doyou really think that 30 milions canadians should stand up to 240 millions American when they speak the same language and share the same values... well almost the same values right Moose!


----------



## CivU

Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.



The only difference between us and the yanks is that we're more socialist, and we accept the monarchy.   Otherwise we may as well be part of the US.

If your opinion differs, you may wish to qualify it with some examples.


----------



## Gouki

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That tells me all I need to know.   You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".   So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?



I have my own reasons - none of which I will ever care to explain to you. I don't care the slightest if you think I am a fool. The feeling is mutual, but it doesn't matter whatsoever.

I'm through discussing this with you.


----------



## Voltigeur

Well CIviU, thats your opinion and I respect it... However, you are the first who will bring your kids to McDonald, go to see an Hollywood movie and have a family life just like the normal American way... You will want to have a big car and a big house just like the American way and send your kids in a good school so they can have a good life just like the American way... You think canadian are special... that they are diferent and so on and so on... Damn, have you ever been in the States or talked to some moderate republican or open democrat... you would see there is difference in your way of thinking except the moose head in the back of your head. Its pretty much the same. Don't you forget that you all descend from the same ancestors. Most people in Canada are just the rest of some loyalists who fled the American Revolution... Mother Elizabeth don't give a damn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam... I'm sure you'll find family traits.


_
To be or Not to be - WS_


----------



## Voltigeur

Thanks 48Highlanders... always nice to have some Scotts warriors on my side


----------



## Voltigeur

Anyway, lets just sell Canada top the States so I can finally join the few, the good, THE MARINES
Semper Fi


----------



## CivU

Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.  Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples.


----------



## CivU

"Mother Elizabeth don't give a darn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam"

I don't remember that as part of my Canadian Forces swearing in ceremony.  Must have missed that passage...


----------



## Gouki

Unfortunately I've contributed to this .. but this thread is getting pretty far from what it was meant to be .. I was really enjoynig hearing the debate about the US and Iran and such before ... all this happened. So does anyone else have anymore to say about Iran..?


----------



## Voltigeur

Let Iran with Iranians, Irak with Irakis but let the Americans invade Canada. LOL


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.   Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples.




But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:   44%
In favour:   53%

US:
Opposed:   55%
In favour:   30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.   The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?   Same concept, different name:

Opposed:   51%
In favour:   46%

Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?


----------



## muskrat89

> Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?



Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere...   :


----------



## CivU

"Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere..."

What is this referring to?  I've lived in Canada more than a dozen years.  And last time I checked, reading up on things was hardly a negative means of informing yourself...


----------



## CivU

But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:  44%
In favour:  53%

US:
Opposed:  55%
In favour:  30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.  The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?  Same concept, different name:

Opposed:  51%
In favour:  46%



Where does this data come from?


----------



## a_majoor

> Majoor
> 
> You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?



The "Oil for Food" scandal sums it up very nicely: Iraq already had billions of dollars worth of business with France and Germany, and were skimming the "Oil for Food" money (about $21 billion worth) and using it to bribe French, German and apparently Chinese government officials to put up a huge diplomatic fight against any effort to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. France and Germany were (and still are) not willing to accept a Democratic Iraqi government reneging on debts racked up during the Ba'athist dictatorship, nor million and billion dollar contracts negotiated with Saddam being repudiated.

Really, all this stuff is open source, you can find it by reading various newspapers, magazines, internet Blogs and so on. I have given you quite enough material to begin doing the basic research and finding the answers on your own.

Since facts don't seem to be working, lets go to a story:

You have just taken over the "Iraqi variety store", the previous owner having been arrested and jailed for various crimes. The store is a mess. The slushy machine is missing, and no one can say where it is despite it being one of the biggest attractions of the store during the 1980's and early 1990s. 1/3 of your employees are surly and resentful, having lost their management positions when the former owner was arrested. Despite your best efforts, getting back to business is difficult. Every time the police patrol leaves (usually with a petty criminal in the back seat), bikers or native cigarette smugglers are harrassing your customers, shoplifting or throwing a brick through your window. You have even caught some employees  helping these thugs.

You also are aware that the biker chicks hang out at the "Syria strip bar" at one end of the street, and the "Iran pizza" franchise at the other end of the street is a well known native hangout, and they seem to be selling slushies as well....

You have enough on your plate as it is, your new security guard needs to be trained, store policies enforced, but there is a good sign; during the last municipal election, the new police chief has promised to maintain the patrols in your neighbourhood (even with the sudden flooding downtown), and although you can't quite prove the connection between the roving gangs of thugs and the two stores at either end of the street, lately there has been a van parked in an alley most days and nights.....


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> Where does this data come from?



I used 4 different sites to look up and double-check the statistics.  It took me all of 5 minutes on google.  Try looking it up for yourself, and if you really can't figure it out I'll go find the links.


----------



## Infanteer

Wow, alot of arguments all over the place on this one, here's my crack at it:

1) Canadians and Americans:   Try going to a city in the United States and then going to a city in any other country, especially one in the non-developed world.   You will see that except for a few cosmetic issues and some different historical inputs, Americans and Canadians are largely the same - we both get up in the morning, eat cereal, drive the sport utility to work and pay lots for gas, work infront of a computer, pick up the kids from judo/hockey/scouts, eat a steak, watch the evening news, go to bed, and repeat.

2) Whoever thinks that US/Western involvement in the Middle East isn't about oil is a fool.   However, whoever thinks that we shouldn't be involved in the Middle East because of oil is also a fool.   Until our economies can move away from oil-dependency (which is probably the best long-term strategy to dealing with the region - we can simply leave the sand-dunes to the mullahs and dictators) we have every reason to take a personal interest into how things unfold there.   If you still believe that we shouldn't be in the Middle East for oil, please get rid of 90% of your cozy belongings (including the computer you're using to read this) and give all your money away...better yet, send it all to me.

3) It's obvious that many people don't agree with a very assertive/aggressive US-led Coalition policy in the Middle East?   I've taken the time to argue extensively on why I feel it is in general a good strategy, but I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in".   Please, I'm all ears - give me something to chew on and think about instead of one-off comments on the morality of Iraq (which is merely an means to an end) or how Americans are imperialist nazis.


----------



## muskrat89

CivU - 48Highlander said 





> Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?



He said this because there are a LOT of people on this board that  make unsubstantiated claims, generalizations, etc., about people in the US. Based, typically, on something they have heard or read somewhere, as opposed to actual experience LIVING in the United States.

There are several members of this board who are either American, or Canadians living in the US. Sometimes it helps to look at profiles to see who you are speaking with. Generally, people with credibility put enough info in their profile to get the jist of who they are and what they have done.

I have lived in the US for about 15 years. Thus far, I have chosen NOT to become a US Citizen. When some of the people on this board try and spout off with some authority about life in the US, people in the US, etc., it is almost laughable.

It would be like me stating with some conviction, what the people in New Zealand are like...or think... or do...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

MagieNoire said:
			
		

> What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.  :skull:



It prevented over 1,000,000 Allied casualties, and brought about the end to a Japanese regime that was notable for murdering prisoners of war, torturing civilians, and waging aggressive war.


----------



## onecat

"What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   


I'ld have to disagree, the 2 atom bombs ended the war quickly and they were far fewer Japanese citizenx killed in those tow bombing raid that in the fire bomb raids the US was doing before that.  If anything was un-justied it was the fire bombing.  Raids totally designed to cause as fire as possible; very nasty and if you think the naplam used in Vietman was bad.... this was far more deadly.

It does bring up an interesting debate, as both sides did what would now be called war crimes.  Only the allies won and so our's are some how justied because of that.


----------



## Rushrules

Radiohead, 

To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes.   

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.


----------



## a_majoor

*Individuals and nations are morally justified to take up arms or use force to protect themselves*. 

Imperial Japan was an aggressor state since the mid 1930s, and a quick search on the Internet will bring up pages of stomach turning activities sanctioned by the Imperial government and carried out by the Imperial Army. All this happened BEFORE they launched a surprise attack against the United States.

Given that history, is it creditable to imagine that the Japanese Empire would have ceased these practices on its own accord?

Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have).

Given this history, does it seem creditable that Iran will cease these practices on their own?

If the United States can achieve their aims through diplomacy, trade and support of the pro democracy movement in Iraq, then that would be wonderful, and I think this would be everyone's preffered option. We need to ask what we must do should these efforts fail, and military solutions ranging from a "head-shot" to a full scale invasion need to be investigated and war gamed in order for the Administration to understand the range of options available. 

If the Iranians are not comfortable with this sort of American activity, they should ask themselves what is causing this activity after so many years of neglect?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Majoor i think you meant to say Iran in this Para

"Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."

No one is disputs that change is necessary (well i don't otheres may) It is how and why that change is to come about that we have been debating over.



			
				Rushrules said:
			
		

> Radiohead,
> 
> To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.



Your kidding right?

The war was almost over?  Some small islands around Japan where troops were isolated and cut off did not fully surreneder until the 80's when the troops were found.

They would have fought to the death hence the Samrari way. Or kamakazie bombers.  It would have been a war of desperation much to what we are seeing in Iraq right now with suicide bombers and car bombs and the such except on a much higher scale.

In some ways i agree it was a way of showing the Red Army what they were capable of but in some many others it was a quick fix to a war tired nation and world.


----------



## 48Highlander

Hey, we finaly agree on something 

The idea that the US dropped the bomb to scare Russia is an old communist-generated conspiracy theory that's been perpetuated way past it's time thanks to groups like ANSWER.  It's extremely popular in the old warsaw pact countries.  Of all the Serbs and Croats I know, almost all of them think of it as a fact rather than propaganda.  Just goes to show what decades of government controled media can do.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

You mean puppet governments right.    ;D

Yea see we can agree.

i know they were satilite nations, used as a shield to protect the herd from the Western invasion.   ;D


----------



## CivU

I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?  Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Would never happen to much money in special intrest groups in the states to lose if that were to happen.  And we all know it is money that makes policy not people.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

CivU said:
			
		

> I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"
> 
> How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...



Why should the US cut ties with the only democracy in the Middle East? To appease a bunch of fanatics?   No dice.   That would be craven capitulation on the scale of Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler in 1938


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"
> 
> How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...



You're joking right?  Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?  You're a real humanitarian...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

48Highlander said:
			
		

> You're joking right?   Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?   You're a real humanitarian...



Ok its a full moon

we have agreed on two issues on the same form i better buy a lottery ticket.

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor

> "Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."



I realize Ba'athist Iraq did many of the same things, but the Hezbollah (Party of God) is a distinctly Iranian creation, and the Iraqi military used barbaric tactics like mustard gas attacks to break the waves of Iranian children the Mullahs were sacrificing in the name of Allah the Merciful....


----------



## 48Highlander

He was correcting you.  Look at the second sentence of what you wrote.  You put in "Iraq" instead of "Iran".  Either that was an accident or I total missed the point of your post.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

That is all i meant by the post.   Was i think you meant to use Iran instead of Iraq.   In the postion.   Iraq did alot of that stuff plus gassed it's own people and the kurds as well.

I have no sympathy for those who did the crime.


----------



## CivU

Only democracy? Didn't the US just install a democracy in Afghanistan...

And what are the necessary allegiances of the US to Israel beyond political concerns, I hardly think their protecting them out of their own humanitarian aims.  Beyond that, look at history.  Israel can militarily take care of itself, not to mention that it is the only nation in the region possessing nuclear weapons...


----------



## 48Highlander

Well you're allowed to hardly think if you want, but I'm pretty sure most of us are in agreement on the neccesity, both for humanitarian reasons and self-interest, of strong relations between the US and Israel.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

How do you Install a democracy? 

What if you can't figure out how to work it, does it come with a warranty or exchange policy?


----------



## George Wallace

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> How do you Install a democracy?



It takes time.  They will have to have Election after Election over a great number of years, before the populace is comfortable and safe from Terrorists.  Eventually "Lawlessness" will be done away with and the people will have a "safe" democratic nation.



> What if you can't figure out how to work it, does it come with a warranty or exchange policy?



Like our "Democracy" there are no warranties or garrantees.  No exchange policy.

It took years for the nations after WW II to create Democracies that worked.  There was no magic wand waved and presto Japan, Germany, Italy and a few other nations like Taiwan, became Democracies.  It took years.  Some worked out better than others.  

GW


----------



## Gouki

Especially in an area like the Middle East with it's religious problems and civil strife..


----------



## 48Highlander

Check out what Collier's magazine had to say about the posibility of democracy in Italy.  The parrallels are just amazing.


Quoted from http://www.calblog.com


Can Italy Learn Democracy?

That's the headline on the cover of a Collier's magazine dated November 27, 1943. It's an article written when Italy was in the throes of a post-war state similar to that in Iraq. Here's the article summary, straight from page 11:
Besides the adults who are members of the Party, Italy has a whole generation which reached maturity under Fascism. Re-educating this group and settling antagonisms which threaten to produce a civil war are the big problems in the creation of a democratic Italy

Such doom and gloom. Sound familiar? Substitute Saddam for Fascism and Iraq for Italy and this could have been written this morning in any number of mainstream press outlets.

Here are some passages about Marshal Badoglio, the man leading Italy before their first elections -- the equivalent of Iraq's Allawi:
There's so little leadership left in Italy that up to mid-October, Badoglio hadn't been able to find enough men, pending opening of the jail doors, to fill out his cabinet. 

* * *

But he has guaranteed the British and American governments that, upon his installation in Rome, he will form a government of all shadings of public opinion, excluding all Fascists or pro-Fascists. As soon as possible after Italy's liberation, elections will be held to permit Italians to choose their own government. 


How did Italy ever make it? And what's this "British and American governments"? Why isn't there a broader-based coalition?

There's no timeline for elections there. Parts of Italy, though Mussolini was toppled, were still controlled by the Germans. Badoglio didn't have peace throughout the whole country yet. Parts were a "no-go" zone, as Kerry complained about parts of Iraq.

Remember Kerry's complaints that Alawi had to rule from behind a walled compound:
_n what is left of Italy -- four provinces in the heel of the boot . . . [the king] and Badoglio live in damp, unheated villas without running water. 

Were there complaints that Badoglio was a puppet government? Of course:
Members of [the Communist and Socialist] organizations to whom I talked in Cairo, Algiers and here in Italy, complain that by "setting up" the king and Badoglio, the Allies have not given the Italians leaders who symbolize the true democtratic sentiment of the people. 

The conclusion to the article expresses the hopelessness of the situation:
In spite of all indications of progress, Italy's ultimate destiny is clouded in uncertainties. Italy is a nation with a glorious Roman past, and a tragic Fascist present, and an unfathomable future. . . . Compared to these problems, the matter of forming a new government in freed Italy, with or without Badoglio, fades into unimportance. 

Just as holding elections in Iraq doesn't matter with terrorists still in control of Fallujah?_


----------



## onecat

"Like our "Democracy" there are no warranties or garrantees.  No exchange policy.

It took years for the nations after WW II to create Democracies that worked.  There was no magic wand waved and presto Japan, Germany, Italy and a few other nations like Taiwan, became Democracies.  It took years.  Some worked out better than others."

If you at the inter-war period you would see that Germany was very democratic and had those traditions in place well before WW1.  It was the events of great depression taht lead to the growth in support of Hilter.  Once he was in, he changed the system to keep his party in power. If the depression had never taken place then the US would not stopped the loans it was giving to Germany to help it pay France and UK for WW1.  Without the loans it send the German economy into a tail spin and this helped to get Hilter elected.


----------



## 48Highlander

radiohead said:
			
		

> If you at the inter-war period you would see that Germany was very democratic and had those traditions in place well before WW1.   It was the events of great depression taht lead to the growth in support of Hilter.   Once he was in, he changed the system to keep his party in power. If the depression had never taken place then the US would not stopped the loans it was giving to Germany to help it pay France and UK for WW1.   Without the loans it send the German economy into a tail spin and this helped to get Hilter elected.



Ah, I knew it had to be the americans fault somehow 

If you want to be technical about it, Iraq was also demcratic for a bit before they elected Sadam.


----------



## Gouki

48Highlander.. he did not blame it on the Americans. It was just one of things that helped Hitler rise to power. One of many, many things.

Love of God .. the way you react to anything challenging America, you're like someone who gets tapped on the shoulder and jumps up guns blazing ready to go in  a split second.


----------



## 48Highlander

Get a sense of humour Steve.  Either that or buy glasses so you can see the little winking smiley face in that post


----------



## Gouki

My contacts are working fine ... that post may not have been the best example around but it's how you react in general to anything remotely "anti-american" or against America in almost any way that I was talking about. Call it whatever you want to call it but you come off as having a rather short fuse that isn't hard to light.


----------



## 48Highlander

My responses to whatshernuts aren't exactly the best example.  Look into the discussions I've had with more intelligent members of the board and you'll realize you're off-base.  Or don't.  I don't particularily care about your opinion of me, so unless I'm addressing you, feel free to keep it to yourself.  If you have other things you wish to discuss that's fine, I have nothing against you, but leave personal comments out of it.


----------



## MagieNoire

Steve said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I've contributed to this .. but this thread is getting pretty far from what it was meant to be .. I was really enjoynig hearing the debate about the US and Iran and such before ... all this happened. So does anyone else have anymore to say about Iran..?



Briefly, I feel Iran is far my dangerous than Iraq was under Saddam. Look at history. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Saddam at least was under watch and contained but Iran. 

I believe the US will head off to Iran next. A very scary proposition.

This has been an interesting thread to read. I see other issues that were brought up, but out of respect for the OP, I won't comment on them.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

We really got off topic there for a while.

Can we get back to the crushing of Iran by the mucho Superior forces of the USA.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I would rather see someone put a stop to the assholes in africa killing men women and children then bothering with iran. They remind me of Russia feeling ignored and having to rattle their cage evey so often.


----------



## Fusaki

> I would rather see someone put a stop to the assholes in africa killing men women and children then bothering with iran.



Agreed.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Time to stir the pot

WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?

Really you think that they will just back away from Iran and Syria to go to Africa a contient that has been killing each other since the dawn of man?  For what reason.  Other then humanitarian.  they will let some other nations solve that problem they will stay where the money is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?



Oh I agree with you. Whats in Africa? Well, nothing.

Some people are going to argue that we should go there because it's the humane thing to do. (I'm one of those dreamers heh)

Others are going to say Iran and the middle east pose more of a threat. Depending how you look at it, thats  true too.   

What irks me is when people start claiming all these rightious reasons for being involved in the middle east yet seemingly ignoring other conflicts. The chaos and killing in Iraq is nothing compared to whats going on in africa.   If were going to involve ourselves with the middle east "to protect ourselves" then thats great, but we should call a spade a spade.   If we want to go to war to "kill evil doers" then lets go crack some heads of people who deserve it and leave no stone unturned.


----------



## Torlyn

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Time to stir the pot
> 
> WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?



You really think that the war in Iraq is about oil???  Given the cost that the latest Iraqi incursion has cost the united states, (estimates around 151 billion and rising) coupled with the cost of the first persian war (76 billion) you're looking at the american financial cost of ~226 billion dollars...  This does not include any monies or debt forgiveness by the americans to help rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq...  Now, latest estimates have Iraq holding about 112 billion barrels of oil in TOTAL reserves...  Their current output is about 2.5 million barrels a day...  Doing the math, even IF the Americans were to pull, let's say, 50% of the profit out of each bbl (unlikely for obvious reasons) and it costs roughly $8 barrel, with the current price around $48 a barrel, the Americans would be getting $20/barrel, or $50,000,000 a day.  So, just to pay what the actual financial costs have been, they would have to continue stealing that 50% of profits at $48 a barrel for 4520 days, or just under 13 years.  And that's providing they pulled out all support immediately, and refused to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure.

That 50% of profits is ridiculously high for a reason...  The Americans would not be able to santion Iraq in such a manner at all, and it is highly unlikely that the rest of OPEC would be willing to allow the US to make any sort of "deals" with Iraq to provide cheaper oil, so the above scenario is just to illustrate that even if treaty of versailles-esque sanctions were to be leveled against Iraq, it still wouldn't be worth it.

I just really don't see how anyone can honestly believe the Americans are in Iraq for money.  I used to believe that they were there solely for oil, until I went and crunched the numbers.  It just doesn't seem right.  IMHO, of course.  

T

EDIT - Ghost778 - I agree.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

If it was really about killing   :mg: the evil doers > don't you think they would be in North Korea by now .   No this about stabalizing the oil supply from the Gulf and keeping prices resonable for the economy.   yea with some stomping of bad guys to boot.   But really about the good ole green back.   And maybe a little pay back from daddy's last visit to finish some busniess.

It is more then just about oil my friend there is more money there then just oil.


----------



## 48Highlander

Really?  Want to name some of these other sources of revenue and perhaps provide figures?


Claiming that there's any one reason for the Invasion of Iraq is childish.  There were obviously a multitude of factors affecting that decision.  If the US didn't care about human rights abuses, terrorism, and WMD, they wouldn't have bothered maintaining a no-fly zone and handicapping themselves by placing sanctions on Iraq and refusing to buy oil from Iran.  On the other hand, if humanitarian concerns were the only reason, you're right, they would have gone into Africa or North Korea.  So obviously, there were numerous reasons, amongst them humanitarian, economic, and defensive.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Think of the money private coperations are going to make from the rebuilding phases.  Think of the money the US grain and agriculture department will get supplying food.

By stabilizing the region they stabilize the price of oil in the whole region.  Have you seen how volital that market is.  

What i meant is there is more then Iraq's oil to be considered here.  Having a military presence in the area will keep OPEC honest, or as honest as say the UN.  

If WMD were a concern, where are they?

I do agree there were other forces but they new alot of what was going on in Iraq before they went in Iran is a different story my friend.  

oh yea no luck on my lottery ticket.


----------



## Jarnhamar

For sure. It's all about balancing reasons and pros&cons.


----------



## dutchie

You'd think that the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and the 60th anniversary of the liberation (and discovery) of Auschwitz (sp?), coupled with the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Africa right now, that the West would actually act BEFORE the killing/genocide/whatever is complete. 

Unfortunately, the pace of action is a lot slower (it seems) when there is not a financial investment involved. Colonial powers in Africa (like Belgium, France, Holland) act quick, but have questionable motives. African nations act fairly quick, but their capability (particularly in the area of logistical support of heavy airlift capability) is limited at best (not to mention their level of training). Unfortunately, that leaves the rest of the West....but we are SO SLOW to act, that it becomes too little, too late. 

I understand that from a completely cold, political perspective, that securing western interests in the Middle East is a higher priority than stopping black Africans (Sub-Saharan) from killing each other, especially when they are located in a resource poor country....but for heavens sake, haven't the Sudanese been killing each other for months now? Isn't there any interest in stopping the killing of 1000's of Sudanese? 


BTW, if anyone thinks that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with oil (throughout the Middle East, not just Iraq), they're fooling themselves. Sure, there are other reasons (like 48th said), but oil was a big reason.....no blame there, that's a legitimate reason for INTEREST in what happens there, but you still need other reasons to go to war.

Oops, just opened a can I thought I had firmly closed.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I have a list here some where that has i think 12 legit reasons for war when i find it i will add it to this post.

And yup the can is open and the worms are crawling.


----------



## Torlyn

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Really?  Want to name some of these other sources of revenue and perhaps provide figures?



I'm assuming this was for W of O...  What I was getting at in my post is that too many people claim that the Americans are in Iraq JUST for the oil...  I was trying to refute that in my post.  (Gotta work on that whole clarity thing )  I think Ghost778 summed it up best when he said " It's all about balancing reasons and pros&con".  While "stabilizing" (I have this in quotes, as $50/bbl isn't exactly a good stability for the Yanks) oil prices may have something to do with the Iraqi invasion, there are a mulititude of other reasons that the Americans are there, and claiming it's all about the money just doesn't sit well.  Sure, it helps, but it's not everything.  If the African nations were able to directly threaten American soil and interests the way the the Iraqis and al-Quaida (I always spell that wrong) did, I'm sure they would have shifted at least some operations to Africa by now...  Easy for me to say, as a self-proclaimed arm-chair general.  

T


----------



## Bert

Another Stratfor special I know everyone is waiting for...


The Three-Power Game
www.stratfor.com 

By George Friedman 


Now the question becomes Iran. But the Iran question is not the simplistic "next target" issue that has been framed by the media -- or the Bush administration for that matter. The Iran question is far more complex, subtle and defining. It divides into two questions. First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide? 

To approach these questions, we need to look at the world through Iran's eyes. Iran has a single, overwhelming national security interest: protecting itself from encroachments by foreign powers. After World War II, the primary threat came from the Soviet Union. Another threat, both ancient and continual, came from Iraq. Under both the shah and the ayatollahs, Iraq constituted what became Iran's major national security threat. 

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s had a devastating effect on Iran. There is hardly an Iranian family that did not suffer a loss in that war. Iraq came out ahead in the war militarily, but had it simply defeated Iran, the result would have been catastrophic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq has been Iran's nightmare. 

This is why the Iranians did not seriously object to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Iranians did everything they could to encourage and entangle the Americans in the war -- including providing intelligence that triggered American responses. There was nothing more important for Iran than seeing Saddam Hussein's regime collapse. 

For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable. 

It had been Iran's hope that the U.S. invasion would create a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The United States certainly dangled this possibility in front of the Iranians. Ahmed Chalabi, the original fair-haired boy of the Pentagon, had a dual role to play. He was the conduit the Iranians used to pump intelligence into Washington that justified and required the invasion. He was also the channel used by the United States to convince the Iranians to keep the lid on the Iraqi Shia. Chalabi told Iran that the United States would give them what they wanted if the Shia remained quiet. Chalabi, like a figure in a Cold War espionage novel, was used and used up by both sides. 

The Iranians will get a Shiite government in Baghdad after the election. It is not clear at all that it will be a puppet state. The Iraqi and Iranian Shia have diverging interests and somewhat different views of the kind of regime they want. Nevertheless, whatever the tensions, any Shiite regime is better than a Sunni regime as far as the Iranians are concerned. Even for this there will be a price. The new government will continue to control Shiite regions and probably have the cooperation of the Kurds. It will not control Sunni regions, where the insurgency is in place. There will not be a real Iraqi state unless the Sunni insurgency is defeated. The Shia -- with the Americans -- can potentially defeat the Sunnis, but Iranian cooperation is necessary. At the very least, the Iranians will have to avoid destabilizing the Shiite government by manipulating the Iraqi Shia to get more pro-Iranian officials in place. They will also have to share tactical intelligence on the Sunni insurgency with the Americans. 

Alternatively, they can go with their second-best choice: chaos in Iraq. Under that scenario, the Shia in Iraq are pressured not to fight the Sunnis and the Iraqi regime becomes the government of Shiite Iraq and nothing more. At that point, Iraq, in effect, becomes divided into three states -- Shia, Sunni, Kurd. 

This is a tempting proposition. The problem the Iranians have is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If Iraq collapses and the Iranians dominate southern Iraq, then the road is open militarily to Kuwait and Saudi oil fields. The Iranians might not want to take advantage of this, but the Arabs cannot hope for the best as a foreign policy. 

The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet. 

The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk. 

Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni. There are the Sunnis themselves, divided and unsure of their direction. There are the Shia, maneuvering to shift the political balance with the Sunni without becoming American puppets. Within each of these communities -- including the American -- there are deep divides, complex contradictions and political tensions. Each side is trying to use these to its advantage. 

How this relationship plays out is the real issue. The question of the Sunni insurrection in four provinces of Iraq is not unimportant, but it is not defining. It is simply the arena in which the basic strategic complexity is being played out. But the real game is: Three players, each trying to create an alliance that locks out the third without limiting its own freedom of action, with none of the players really in control of the situation. It reminds us a bit of the U.S.-Soviet-Chinese game in 1968-1970. But even there, although internal factionalism was rife in all three countries, the decision-making process was not that chaotic. 

That's why, in the end, it does not boil down to the Shia as much as to Iran. Iran can opt to align with the United States and define the terms under which it will accept a united Iraq under a Shiite-led coalition government, or it can go for it all, undermine the Shiite leadership in Iraq and open the door to the division of Iraq into three parts, with southern Iraq in the Iranian sphere of influence and the road to the western littoral of the Persian Gulf wide open -- except for the United States. 

Iran has a low-risk, low-reward choice and a high-risk, high-reward choice. How lucky is Iran feeling?


----------



## Marauder

Let's face it, the Sudanese (or residents of any other African country) would still be killing each other even if there was an American/NATO presence in the area. The first time some section of Marines was being overrun and opened up the emergency can of "You die now", the press would be screaming bloody murder. Then Kofi would have to take time out of his busy schedule of spinning his offspring's involvment in the "Oil for Fraud" business to denounce the senseless killing of some fifth-rate thugs with third-rate (Russian/Chinese) equipment by some ugly 'Mericans. Then there would be the usual navel gazing and second guessing of the grunts on the ground, and it just turn into another Rwanda/Srbernica. The REMFs and generals would slap on a restrictive ROE and order no interference, and the guys on the ground would have to stand by and let the killing go on ad nauseum. Then the whacko left would whine that the troops are "letting the genocide occur before their eyes", and if the troops whacked some of the skinnies with guns, then the troops would be racist, vicious babykillers who are out of control. Damned if you do, fucked over if you don't.

You think Iraq is a quagmire? Remember the whole Somalia debacle? Remember what happened when one shithead went off the deepend and got the whole CF smeared as racist murderers, and dealt the death blow to the Airborne? Africa is nothing but trouble, with no discernable benefit to Canada, except setting the Forces up to be the Government's bitch yet again. Nothing the CF could accomplish in Africa would last more than a week after we pulled out. Let's fight and kill the people who can do us actual harm, not the ones who will just force us to do harm to ourselves. May sound selfish, but I'm an asshole. So what?


----------



## Jarnhamar

One might argue that since our troops are fighting in iraq and afghanastan ergo (hey look, im trying to sound like the university debater types) there has been no attacks on US soil.   Though honestly i'm still a little skeptical that iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Anyhow, theres a million considerations that could have been made.
Occupy their attention to keep them away from north america.
Fixing a mistake they made.
Removing a possible threat.
Giving their troops combat experience.
Testing new inventions and weapons.
Giving   companies contracts in said occupied country.
Heck maybe even just getting rid of old rations 
Theres a million and one reasons why we went to war, some noble, others much less so.

I really liked one post Infanteer made a while ago about the game civilization. (I probably won't do his post credit here)
Basically your country, when your a democracy, hates war. If your constantly making war your going to loose support of your people. Sooner or later they revolt. You need to make peace soon.
However, when you run our of rubber, steel, oil [whatever] you had better find a new sourse of it fast, including invading another country for it. When the resources stop flowing (and as i see it, the quality of life drops) your people will let you do just about anything to get it back.
Not totally relivant to this conversation but i think it's something to consider when people act like going to a war for a resource is something only the anti-christ would do.

Suppose Iran did start shit with the states, could the states effectivly deal with them you think?
I remember always hearing that the US armed forces were suposed to be able to fight a major conflict on two fronts. (I picture something like ww2?)
It seems in they are having a hell of a lot more trouble in iraq than they thought. From issues of body and vehicle armor to retention rates and dwindling new recruits.   Given that thought, i'm not sure how easily the US could "blow through" iran's defenses.


----------



## a_majoor

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Suppose Iran did start crap with the states, could the states effectively deal with them you think?
> I remember always hearing that the US armed forces were supposed to be able to fight a major conflict on two fronts. (I picture something like ww2?)
> It seems in they are having a heck of a lot more trouble in Iraq than they thought. From issues of body and vehicle armor to retention rates and dwindling new recruits.  Given that thought, I'm not sure how easily the US could "blow through" Iran's defenses.



Ghost, please take the time to read all the pages on this thread, or better yet go to the "Syria and Iran, War of the Future?" thread, and you will see some of the options we believe are possible (although not necessarily desirable) for the United States.

Your remarks about the "two conflict rule" represent American thinking during the Cold War era (i.e. fighting in Germany and North Korea), but I do not believe this is the rule anymore. Even if it is unofficial policy, the deep force drawdowns during the Clinton administration would make it quite difficult to enact, and it will take several years to build new American divisions (just like it will take us up to five years to recruit, train and equip the 5000 troops the Prime Minister promised in the last election. Perhaps you could drop him a note asking what has happened to that plan?).

Most of the "issues" about body armour and so on have been revealed to be "selective" in nature. When that soldier quizzed Donald Rumsfeldt about the lack of armoured HMMVWs in Iraq, his unit _already had_ over 70% of the fleet armoured, and the remainder were being kitted out in the motor pool as he spoke. Perhaps he, or the reporter who put him up to it just didn't bother walking through the compound. Perhaps serving Americans can give us the exact figures, but many military "bloggers" report high rates of re-enlistment among troops in or just returned from Iraq, since they feel they are making a positive contribution. The reporting issues are so bad that at least on American LCol has written a piece (posted on this forum, although I can't find it just now) which openly states the media are practically committing treason by ignoring the achievments of the troops and reporting for the Jihadis (who are never called Jihadis or terrorists by the media).

Your point about competition for resources is correct in historical terms, empires were created to gain access to resources, and wars were fought between empires over the colonial resource base (or lack of same). On the other hand, we in the West are moving away from that paradigm, shifting to many less resource intensive processes and activities (replacing copper telephone wire with glass fiber optic cable, for example). We still use a huge amount of resources, but also get far more from them. The United States is accused of consuming something like 30% of the world's resources, but produces about 40% of the worlds economic output. Imagine if they were as efficient as the Chinese, for example.

Resource driven conflict will be a smaller factor in the future, as we move in fits and starts to a more information intensive economy. (The final realization may be centuries away, when information technology is embedded in everything), but conflicts driven by ideas may become far more dangerous in the future. You can't win a military victory, you must defeat and discredit _an idea_ as well. Victor Davis Hanson is the military historian who expresses this idea most clearly, look up "The Soul of Battle", "Carnage and Culture", and "Ripples of Battle" to examine the thesis for yourself.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Ghost, please take the time to read all the pages on this thread, or better yet go to the "Syria and Iran, War of the Future?" thread, and you will see some of the options we believe are possible (although not necessarily desirable) for the United States.



Thanks for the direction, i'll take a look at that thread as well as go through this one.  
I appologize for not reading the whole thread before weighting in (I think i've gave posters shit for that in the past).  I scanned a page or two and each post I looked at seemed pretty far off track. Some other posters [*waves to CiviU and magienoire*] gave me the idea that it was just one big argument so i skipped to the end.. Maybe I just had bad luck with which posts i looked at.  Never the less, bad form on my part and i'll smarten up


----------



## ajax

This has been an interesting read so far, but I have to think that your all getting pretty old.   We spent the majority of Highschool learning about Europe/WW1/WW2 and some of you have it bang on while some seem to have a rather anti american view that over shadows the truth.   

Would you have let a probable 1million of your people die, or kill what?   100,000 of the enemy?   Considering they were fire bombing them at the time aswell it worked out better to nuke em.

On topic though.

[EDITED FOR INFLAMMATORY REMARKS:  AJAX, YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE, SIT BACK, LISTEN AND REFRAIN FROM OFFERING UP SUCH SILLY, JUVENILE COMMENTS - INFANTEER]

What's almost as bad is the U.N.   I thought they were supposed to stop massacres/genocides.   Heck we learned that's why the League of Nations was scrapped as they didn't do thier job, and hence WW2 started.   The U.N seems to be going the same route and should similarly be dumped, I mean with what's going on in Africa, the scandals etc it's pretty obvious that something needs to change.


----------



## Torlyn

ajax said:
			
		

> What's almost as bad is the U.N.  I thought they were supposed to stop massacres/genocides.  Heck we learned that's why the League of Nations was scrapped as they didn't do thier job, and hence WW2 started.  The U.N seems to be going the same route and should similarly be dumped, I mean with what's going on in Africa, the scandals etc it's pretty obvious that something needs to change.



MY sympathies to the provincial high school systems...   :

T


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I love seeing other get jumped on instead of me in a post. ;D

The policy that said they had to be able to fight to major conflicts at the same time did date back to WWII. (Domino Theroy)   It was also based in the Naval thought after WWI that said they needed to have a navy equal to the the next to largest navys in the world so twice the size of its competition. I can't remember the name of the admiral that started that policy i want to say MONROE but that is not right.  

The Problem with going into affrica as opposed to South Asia even for Humanitarian aid is (this is my opinion only) three things.  

A.  The corruption at all levels is so great that money given to rebuild and build new infastructure in the nations is divereted to arms or private personal.

B.  The people are so used to coroption and war that they would not know what to do with peace.

C.  To many different factions killing each other for nothing other then race/religion and the list goes on and on.  They don't want peace it would be to hard to enforce because as what happened in Rwanda and even Somalia at the first sign of trouble the UN or what ever nation was in would have to pull out.  Not because they could not handel the conflict but then they would seem like the bad guys.  You have to remember the warlords are smart they know how to play the press.  Arm the kids and tell them to shoot the troops footage like that would kill the americans at home ad around the world

remeber this is my opinion only

If they want to go into Africa then you have to go in as a war maker not a peace keeper as there is no peace.  You have to come with an Iron fist as it is the only thing these people tend to understand.

Ok now you guess can hammer me.   :-X


----------



## Infanteer

You got your ideas mixed up a bit:



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> The policy that said they had to be able to fight to major conflicts at the same time did date back to WWII. (Domino Theroy)



The Domino Theory was the theory that if one state fell to communism, it's neighbours would soon also fall to revolutionary fervor.   This is a different than the concept that saw the US Military judge its readiness by being able to respond to two Major Regional Contingencies at the same time.



> It was also based in the Naval thought after WWI that said they needed to have a navy equal to the the next to largest navys in the world so twice the size of its competition. I can't remember the name of the admiral that started that policy i want to say MONROE but that is not right.



This was a Royal Navy policy, I believe.   A longstanding policy which was applied to ensure the security of the British Isles, the Empire, and the sea-lanes in between - it really got trumpeted when a newly-created Germany industrialized and sought its "place in the sun".   As for the Admiral's name, I don't think Admiral Sir Jack Fisher was the creator of such a policy, but he sure was a drumbeater for it in the latter half of the 19th century.


----------



## 48Highlander

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Think of the money private coperations are going to make from the rebuilding phases.   Think of the money the US grain and agriculture department will get supplying food.



And who's paying for the majority of the rebuilding?  How exactly does it benefit the US for their companies to get paid for the rebuilding when they're the ones who end up paying for it?  How much money is being put into providing food and water?  Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> By stabilizing the region they stabilize the price of oil in the whole region.   Have you seen how volital that market is.



Yeah but when the price is "stabilized" at a level higher than the pre-war average, that's not really a positiv thing now is it? 



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> What i meant is there is more then Iraq's oil to be considered here.   Having a military presence in the area will keep OPEC honest, or as honest as say the UN.



That we can agree on.



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> If WMD were a concern, where are they?



I really hate that line of argument.  Ever hear of probable cause?  If a police officer has reason to suspect that you've commited a crime, he has every right to detain, question, and search you.  If his investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't mean that he had some evil ulterior motive, nor does it neccesarily mean that you're innocent.  All it means is that either his assumptions were wrong, or that you're good at hiding the evidence.  Neither situation would invalidate the investigation though.  Fact is, the majority of nations accepted as fact the assumption that Sadam still possesed biological and chemical weapons.  They knew for a fact that he was developing delivery systems with a range longer than one allowed under UN directives.  And they passed a resolution to take action if Sadam didn't come clean about his weapons program.  All those things put together more than add up to "probable cause".


----------



## CivU

"Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"

The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.  It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.

"Ever hear of probable cause?"

Your police analogy is weak at best.  After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...

And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?  I suppose it's all really a moot point now with their having been an election in Iraq, the results of which will undoubtedly generate far more debate at present than the WMD's will...


----------



## Torlyn

CivU said:
			
		

> "Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"
> 
> The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.  It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.
> 
> "Ever hear of probable cause?"
> 
> Your police analogy is weak at best.  After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...
> 
> And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?  I suppose it's all really a moot point now with their having been an election in Iraq, the results of which will undoubtedly generate far more debate at present than the WMD's will...



I don't think you read his entire post...  Who do you think is paying for it?  As 48th said, the US GOVERNMENT will be paying for it...  Now, if they have to spend 10 billion dollars (random number) beefing up the infrastructure in Iraq, how much of that does the american government get back?  Hmm...   :

So what you are saying regarding the WMD is that the UN, with Hans Blix and a team of investigators, who repeatedly were denied access to places where they KNEW these weapons were (the same mustard gas that Saddam used on the Kurds, threatened the Americans with, or hey!  How about the hydrogen cyanide he used against (you guessed it!) the Kurds?  The nerve agents?

It must be wonderful being in a world so full of conspiracy theories, I guess.  The best part for you?  No proof just strengthens your "theory".  I mean, Saddam HAD WMD during the first gulf war...  Why were they not destroyed?  Where did they go?  Oh wait...  Probably off-lifted by the Americans to Area 51 in order to further the conspiracy.  

T


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> "Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"
> 
> The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.   It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.



In one word....."huh?"

So your argument goes something like this:
Nobody needs to prove that the US is going to make more money than they spend because they're an Evil Capitalist Empire.   Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit.

Does that about sum it up?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Your police analogy is weak at best.   After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...



Uhuh.   And if they determine that you plan on slaughtering any of your neighbours who hold different political or religious beleifs, I suppose they'd just let you go.   You sure you're living in Canada?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?



What part of the probable cause analogy did you have problems comprehending?   Or are you refering to my statement about the delivery systems?   Those are well documented, although for some reason nobody seems to remember them.   Allow me to refresh your memory:



> from   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm :
> In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction.
> 
> A cache of 12 Al Samoud missiles was found south of Bayji at LD7154 and LD7644 on 21 July 2003 at 1700 hrs.



And then we have the missiles which we know were under development, but never actually manufactured:



> from http://www.janes.com/aerospace/news/jmr/jmr041019_1_n.shtml :
> Between 2000 and the arrival in Iraq of United Nations Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors in November 2002, Iraqi engineers worked on three clandestine programmes to develop long-range ballistic missiles. Details of all three missiles were revealed in the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD published on 30 September 2004.
> 
> Two of the missiles were based on liquid propellants, the third on solid propellants. All would have had ranges of 500km or more, exceeding the 150km range restriction set by UN Resolution 687.
> 
> As a result of UN sanctions, none of these projects left the drawing board despite three years of work by Iraq, while the arrival of UNMOVIC inspectors forced Iraq to attempt the destruction of all evidence that the projects had existed.
> 
> According to a senior Iraqi missile engineer interviewed by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the plan to develop missiles with a range of more than 150km dated back to 1997 or 1998. During a monthly ballistic-missile meeting at the Military Industrialization Commission (MIC), Minister of Military Industrialisation Abd-al-Tawab Abdallah al Mullah Huwaysh (who was to become deputy prime minister from 2001 to 2003), stated his desire for a 1,000km missile. In mid-1999, Huwaysh is reported to have told a meeting of Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard personnel that Iraq was developing a missile with a range of 500km and that development would take five years.
> 
> The formal go-ahead for the new missiles was given by Saddam Hussein in June 2000. Many sources stated that the project was regarded as highly secret, information being passed only in person at face-to-face meetings among a select few individuals. These arrangements may account for the discrepancies in dates provided by various individuals interviewed by the ISG.
> 
> The Al Karamah State Establishment, later known as Al Karamah General Company, started work on liquid-propellant concepts, while solid-propellant weapons were studied by the Al Rashid General Company. Both teams seem to have decided that the quickest way to develop long-range missiles would be to cluster existing hardware.



But I suppose that's just more Yankee Propaganda eh?   CIA must have planted the evidence.


----------



## CivU

"Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit."

At least we agree here.  There is no way the US would enter into the Iraqi war without the ultimate objective of benefitting politically and economically...

As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.  Where are they?  You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?


----------



## 48Highlander

CivU said:
			
		

> At least we agree here.



Come on!  How childish can you posibly be?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.   Where are they?   You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?



Now I KNOW that our universities are next to useless.  Your comprehension skills are non-existant.  Show me where exactly I claimed that there are currently any WMD's in Iraq.  Do you think that in the future you could be so kind as to limits your arguments to statements I've made instead of things you wish I'd said?


----------



## Torlyn

CivU said:
			
		

> "Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit."
> 
> At least we agree here.  There is no way the US would enter into the Iraqi war without the ultimate objective of benefitting politically and economically...
> 
> As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.  Where are they?  You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?



Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole...

T


----------



## jmackenzie_15

what does this have to do with Iran repelling a US attack?


----------



## CivU

"Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm

This is old news.  Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.  As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...


jmackenzie_15:  this has everything to do with Iran.  With the elections in Iraq now over, and the potential, but nonetheless slow and prolonged withdrawl of US troops, it is entirely possible that to invade Iran over this presidential term, any number of claims will be made on grounds that were as contrived as the ones for the Iraq invasion of March 2003...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I really hate that line of argument.  Ever hear of probable cause?  If a police officer has reason to suspect that you've commited a crime, he has every right to detain, question, and search you.  If his investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't mean that he had some evil ulterior motive, nor does it neccesarily mean that you're innocent.  All it means is that either his assumptions were wrong, or that you're good at hiding the evidence.  Neither situation would invalidate the investigation though.  Fact is, the majority of nations accepted as fact the assumption that Sadam still possesed biological and chemical weapons.  They knew for a fact that he was developing delivery systems with a range longer than one allowed under UN directives.  And they passed a resolution to take action if Sadam didn't come clean about his weapons program.  All those things put together more than add up to "probable cause".

New Case law in Canada says that even if they have reason to suspect you in a crime you cannot be search you unless you are arrested for the crime.  This case law came out this summer.  From an incedint in Winipeg.  So using your own annalage the US would have had to have enough proof to arrest Iraq in order to go in and search the nation for its WMD.  

This is not to say that at one point they did not exist but if this is your sole cause for going to war then you had better find the smoking gun.  They did not.

I hate to have CiviU back me on this but.... probable cause is not beoyond a resonable doubt.  I know i will get jumped on for this but stir the pot i must it is like a calling or maybe an illness. 

As for the war the US government may pay billions in cost so that some of it's "friends" may make hundreds of millions in profits of rebuilding off of the taxpayers backs .

stir stir stir


----------



## a_majoor

There were any number of "probable causes", ranging from defiance of UN resolutions, committing acts of war against the US and the UK, activities consistent with the development of WMD, activities consistent with the support of terrorist organizations, genocidal actions against the local population, corruption of French, German, Chinese and UN officials in exchange for under the table arms sales and political interference in the UN and so on.* Despite most or all of these reasons being explicitly stated by the Clinton and Bush administrations over a period of years,* there seems to be a severe case of selective hearing as for the justifications for OIF.

The common law precedent of "probable cause" is a good analogy, Canadian case law seems to be rapidly filling up with unwarranted assumptions (I listened to a radio interview with a UWO Law professor who asserted that _viewing crime as the action of an individual  committing the transgression was incorrect_. If they are teaching that in Law school, who knows what sort of case law will be developed?)

As far as Iran is concerned, there are many "probable causes" as well. Supporting the Jihadis and Hezbollah is bad enough, and their stated nuclear ambitions should also make thinking people everywhere begin to worry. The factors working in "our" favor is the presence of a viable pro democracy movement inside Iran, which has the potential of doing the heavy lifting for the West. The elections and process of creating a consensual government in Iraq should bolster the pro democracy forces in Iran (and indeed throughout the region).

This being said, the pro democracy movement will be a more gradual process, and if the Mullahs decide to short circuit things with a massive provocation, then coallition military response is warrented. Based on many factors discussed on this and other boards, the most probable military action would be a "head shot" to decapitate the regime and isolate it from the population and organs of power.


----------



## Torlyn

CivU said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm
> 
> This is old news.   Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.   As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...



As 48th said...  Both these articles say that there WERE WMD in Iraq...  You implied that Saddam never had WMD, when the inspectors were there...  Nice of you to give evidence to support my position.  How's that piehole again?   ;D  As far as an intellectual contribution, please se 48th's comment regarding: you.

W of O:  I asked a few of my lawyer type profs, and they were suprised to hear this, as were a few of my cop buddies, as they are still detaining and searching people with the "smoking gun"...  If they get a call to a house for a B&E, and someone is running down the street away from the house, even if they didn't see the person exiting the house (no smoking gun) they will still chase, detain and question...  Perhaps I misunderstood?  A link to the caselaw would be helpful. As for the money,  :.

T


----------



## 48Highlander

I think what the Wizard is saying is that in the past the police had the right to search you before saying the words "you are under arrest for...", whereas now they have to say those words first before they can search you   small technicality.  I'm not sure wether or not he's right about that, but either way it's not a big difference, and doesn't in any way disprove any part of my analogy.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ohh you can detain him and question him but anything found by a search would not be allowed as eviedence i will find the case law and attach it.   It jsut came out last summer and it was inregard to a guy suspected of a a B&E and the the cops detained and searched him they found drugs which they charged him for.   The courts ruled that the search was unlawful and breached his Charter 8 rights and the eviednce was tossed under sec 24(2).   So if you search a guy (or girl) now it has to be incedent to arrest. otherewise your evidence is tossed.   If your cop friends don't know that then they are out of the loop it posted all over this office for weeks after it happned. WHAT NOT TO DO.

I don't disagree that it is possible that he had them but when it came time to find them they were not around.   Hence no smokin gun.   I know the Majoor will jump on this but that is fine.

Getting back on topic; now that the elections are over does anyone see a time line for either an intial puhs into IRAN or SYRIA or with the saber ratteling going on over NK is that the next stepping stone for Democracy.   

I can see the US maintaining an Airbase in Norther IRAQ just close enough to do serious damage to both Iran or Syria.   thoughts?

I found it it is Rv MANN 2004 SCC 52   the courts allow a pat down but it has to be for officer safety reasons going into the pockets and such would not be allowed.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You got your ideas mixed up a bit:  SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS
> 
> The Domino Theory was the theory that if one state fell to communism, it's neighbours would soon also fall to revolutionary fervor.   This is a different than the concept that saw the US Military judge its readiness by being able to respond to two Major Regional Contingencies at the same time.  Not under their concept of domino theory was that if one state fellt to the communist they would have to be able to uphold that state and any other that showed weakness hence Asia
> 
> 
> This was a Royal Navy policy, I believe.   A longstanding policy which was applied to ensure the security of the British Isles, the Empire, and the sea-lanes in between - it really got trumpeted when a newly-created Germany industrialized and sought its "place in the sun".   As for the Admiral's name, I don't think Admiral Sir Jack Fisher was the creator of such a policy, but he sure was a drumbeater for it in the latter half of the 19th century.  Actually the American Admiral was MAHN not sure if it is spelt right but he formed it off of the Royal Navy policy and was in place after WWII and was used to beat the MONROE DOCTRINE to death you know that isolationist policy.



my changes are in Yellow.


----------



## Pikache

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4084908.stm

Bomb damage in Ahwaz, Iran, 12 June 2005
The bombs in Ahwaz exploded over a two-hour period
Six bombs have exploded in Iran, killing at least 10 people, days before the presidential election.

Four blasts targeted public buildings in the south-western city of Ahwaz, killing at least eight people and wounding more than 70 others.

Hours later, a bomb exploded in the capital Tehran, killing two people. Three other bombs were defused.

Bombings have been rare in Iran since the war with Iraq ended in 1988. No group has claimed responsibility.

Ahwaz, which is close to the Iraq border, was the focus of unrest between Arabs and Persians in April, when several people were reportedly killed.

'Failure'

The bombings in Ahwaz took place over a two-hour period.

One of the bombs exploded outside the governor-general's headquarters.

Two went off near government offices and a fourth exploded near the home of a local state television executive.

The explosion in Tehran took place near the Imam Hussein square in the city centre. As well as the two who died, at least two people were wounded.

The interior ministry also confirmed that a bottle filled with explosives blew up in Vali Asr square in central Tehran, but there were no reports of casualties.

A spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body, blamed the attacks on separatist Arabs aided by members of the armed Iraq-based opposition group, the People's Mujahideen, and remnants of the Baath Party.

*The spokesman, Agha Mohammadi, told the BBC he was sure the Americans were behind the attacks and also suggested that Britain might be involved - but he gave no evidence to support his claims.*

The People's Mujahideen denied any involvement in the attacks.

"Whoever is responsible for this, the target of the blasts is to undermine Friday's presidential elections," said interior ministry spokesman Jahanbaksh Khanjani.

Rumour

Iranians go to the polls on Friday to elect a successor to President Mohammad Khatami.

Opinion polls put former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the lead.

April's trouble in Ahwaz - the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province - started after a letter circulated on the internet suggested that non-Arabs were being-relocated to the city to dilute its ethnic Arab population.

Crowds attacked government offices and banks, setting them on fire, and hundreds of people were arrested.

The official who was supposed to have written the letter said it was a forgery.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I find it perplexing that 80% of their population is under 30.


----------



## Marauder

If it was the Americans, I'm pretty sure Dubya would be on the tube telling the Ayatollah that he's sending the JDAMs "with plenty of hugs and kisses, mother fucker!"

Call Dubya what you will, but the sumbitch has balls larger than Paul Martin himself.


----------



## Manimal

Iraq's Iranian insurgency 
Peter Brookes  

Iran is becoming a foreign-policy problem of almost immeasurable proportions -- from its nuclear-weapons brinkmanship to its feverish support of Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism.  

But Tehran's most proximate -- and often overlooked -- threat to American interests is its attempts to destabilize Iraq by supporting and fomenting its own insurgency against Coalition and Iraqi forces.  

Tehran is seeking a hasty retreat by the United States and its partners that will leave a political and security vacuum that Iran can readily fill, dragging Iraq into its sphere of influence - or, perhaps, carving off southern Iraq to create an Iranian Shia "super state."  

Without question, Iranian encroachment on Iraq must be prevented at all costs.  

Some Middle East experts don't buy this take on Iran's involvement in Iraq, especially its geopolitical intentions. Yet Tehran plainly has every reason to want to see the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq fail.  

First, since the 1979 revolution, the "Great Satan" has been Iran's No. 1 enemy. The radical regime found it bad enough having American forces in the region before the Afghan and Iraqi wars, much less having 150,000 cranky, battle-hardened GIs right next door.  

Now, Tehran faces not only the prospects of (at least some) American forces being stationed long-term in the theater, a fundamental check on Iranian power, but also the possibility that Iraq and Afghanistan could become strong U.S. allies.  

Second, Iran's rulers are deathly afraid that the freedoms taking root in Iraq/Afghanistan will highlight the Iranian revolution's abject political, economic and social failures to Iran's increasingly discontented "baby-boomers."  

Iran's young people -- 60 percent under the age of 30 and born after the revolution -- are increasingly going to look at the political, economic and social freedoms enjoyed by Iraqis and Afghans and ask: "Why not us?"  

Third, Iran is a Shia Persian country in a tough Sunni Arab neighborhood. Bringing southern Shia-majority Iraq under Iranian influence -- or, even, via secession from Iraq or civil war, Iranian control -- will neuter long-time enemy Iraq as a threat.  

Absorbing southern Iraq would not only debilitate Baghdad by cutting off access to Persian Gulf seaports, it would significantly increase Iran's size, population and oil wealth, putting Tehran on a trajectory to regional dominance.  

Iran has been slipping clerics, intelligence agents and paramilitary forces into Iraq and bankrolling sympathizers, political parties and militants since the spring 2003 invasion to bring Iraq under its sway - while doing its best to keep its fingerprints off its dirty dealings.  

But seeing Coalition forces facing a tough insurgency, Iran evidently decided to seize the opportunity to advance its cause, upping the ante by changing its tactics from garnering influence to actively instigating insurgency against U.S.-Coalition forces -- even Iraqis who might stand in the way.  

You want proof? Well, Coalition forces recently intercepted a number of shipments of explosives being spirited across the border from Iran to Iraq. Experts believe that a new, more lethal-type of roadside bomb -- capable of destroying armored vehicles -- is based on an Iranian design often used in the past by Hezbollah against Israel.  

Just last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seemingly choking off a desire to be more direct, said: "It is true that weapons, clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq." Another senior officer claimed that the new bombs are, "the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've seen."  

But it's more than just these new deadly explosives: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-directed component of the insurgency probably consists of several hundred Iranians and Iraqis as well as members of Lebanon's Iranian-backed, Shia terrorist group, Hezbollah.  

Some analysts believe that the Iranian paramilitaries and Iranian-supported militias are training insurgents in southern Iraq as well as in Iran. In addition, it's likely that Iranian-led insurgents are being prepped by Hezbollah guerillas in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.  

Iranian behavior is increasingly troubling and problematic for U.S. national security and regional interests -- an Iranian-directed insurgency in Iraq is just the latest example of Persian perfidy.  

It's time to stop handling Iran with kid gloves, especially while Iranian hi-tech bombs deployed by Tehran-backed insurgents are killing Coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians, encouraging civil war and destabilizing the country.  

It's time for an aggressive rollback strategy against the Iranian regime - to address its drive for nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terror in Iraq and elsewhere, and its repressive rule at home. The strategy should embrace biting economic sanctions, aggressive covert action -- and even surgical military strikes to protect American and Coalition forces and interests.  

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050822.shtml


----------



## John Nayduk

Hardline President's remarks spark fury
Nuclear weapon fears
  
Tim Butcher 
The Daily Telegraph; with files from CanWest News Service 


October 27, 2005



CREDIT: Behrouz Mehri, AFP, Getty Images 



IRAN'S GOAL: TO WIPE ISRAEL 'OFF THE MAP': Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday stands in front of the logo for a conference in Tehran entitled "The World Without Zionism." The top of the logo, not shown, is a picture of the globe. 

JERUSALEM - Iran's new hardline President called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" -- the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a chorus of international condemnation.

The White House said they underlined American concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Several reports have estimated that Iran is five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

President Ahmadinejad, elected in June, was addressing a conference in Tehran titled "The World Without Zionism," attended by about 3,000 students who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map.' The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

Mr. Ahmadinejad praised Palestinian suicide bombers, and his remarks were delivered just before a suicide bomber killed five people in the Israeli town of Hadera.

It was the worst such attack in three months.

"There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe this disgraceful blot from the face of the world," Mr. Ahmadinejad said.

Germany called his comments "completely unacceptable," and France "firmly condemned them."

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Paul Martin told the House of Commons, "Canada will never accept such hatred, such intolerance and anti-Semitism."

Under his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Iran had shown signs of easing its hostility toward Israel. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments underscored how the gap between Iran and the West has widened during the dispute over Tehran's insistence of developing its nuclear capability. His bellicose language was reminiscent of Iran's Islamic revolution, launched by Khomeini in 1979, when the new President was a young activist.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, said the comments demonstrated that the Iranian leadership represents a genuine threat to Israel's existence.

"We believe that Iran is trying to buy time so it can develop a nuclear bomb," said Mr. Shalom. "Iran is a clear and present danger."

He added: "This kind of regime is very extreme. It would be a nightmare for all the international community if they had a nuclear bomb."

Although Israel is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal, it fears such weapons falling into the hands of hostile states. In 1981, when Saddam Hussein threatened to develop a nuclear capability, Israel launched a pre-emptive air strike to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Unilateral military action by Israel would be much harder against Iran's nuclear capability. Military jets would have to fly much greater distances, and the Iranians have spread their nuclear programs across a number of sites -- some located inside mountains.

Israeli military planners are nonetheless believed to have a number of options, including air strikes using American-designed bunker-busting munitions and commando raids.

Israel stressed that the threat of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons was a danger to countries outside the region, including European nations in range of Iran's long-range missiles.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven a defiant successor to Mr. Khatami, a Western-leaning reformist who wanted to bring Tehran closer to the international community, repeatedly rejecting European Union efforts to persuade his country to curb its ambitions to enter the nuclear age.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments are "all the more troubling" given Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Canada does not believe that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear power solely to meet its energy needs. Like the United States, Canada believes Iran is secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapons program and that it should be brought before the United Nations Security Council.

"It is very important that all countries do stand up together to make sure that we do not accept that Iran continues a nuclear program," Mr. Pettigrew said.

He reiterated Canada's desire to see Iran taken before the Security Council. "Our patience has worn thin," Mr. Pettigrew said. "This kind of comment made by the President ... given the fact that they have those nuclear ambitions, makes us even more preoccupied and concerned."

© National Post 2005


----------



## 2 Cdo

I can't wait for the apologists to appear and somehow blame Isreal and the US for this asinine statement. :threat: Maybe the Isrealis should just step up and deal with this threat. But then we would have people say they didn't have the UN's approval : and that attacking Iran is illegal! :


----------



## Weiner

I'm not too tuned into the political situation, so I was wondering if this is anything new.   It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).

Unless I am really underestimating the man.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Its only a matter of time now  :threat:

If Iran launched an offensive against Israel, how well prepared is the rest of the world to respond anyway? The US is obviously fairly tied up in Iraq.. England has alot of committments as well...

Would they have to pull troops out of other places and place priority on Iran, or do they have the manpower to still fight an effective war against Iran while maintaining current troop strength everywhere else they are comitted?
I wouldnt think so, but I could be wrong.

I dont think Iran could pick a better time to do something like this.


----------



## Old Ranger

Have you meet any MASAD?

Israel is not a simple push over, although they have a very good "Help Us" campain.


----------



## Goldsmith

> I was wondering if this is anything new.  It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).


Standard sabre-rattling, we've heard this all before. And yes, they do literally call for the absolute destruction of Israel. What I find about this story so interesting is why its news worthy, probably because Sharon is using the media scrutiny of Iran to call for Iran's removal from the UN. Not going to happen.


----------



## Infanteer

Considering Iran has got Western forces on two flanks, I don't think it's going anywhere soon.  Israel would love a reason to send Merkava's westward, pushing its enemies along the whole way.

What would be the opposite of "push them into the sea"?  Push them into the Hindu-Kush?  Push them into India? :akimbo:


----------



## Goldsmith

Yeah its an interesting situation, Iran flanked by Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq flanked by Iran and Syria.

Iran-Syria Mutual self Defence pact
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1416319,00.html


----------



## Infanteer

Syria flanked by Israel and Iraq (and Turkey?).  Don't forget a couple million Indians who are just looking for an excuse to go into _Dar al-Islam_.  All the makings of a nice 1914 scenario....


----------



## Wils21

Just a little background on some of the politics of our friend.

In practice, the control of foreign policy, nuclear policy, and the main economic policies were already within the power of the supreme leader. From the beginning, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei wanted Ahmadinejad to be the next president because he did not want an equal partner or rival as president. The presidency was the last holdout of Iran's reformists, and the victory of Ahmadinejad gave total control of Iran's state institutions to hard-liners. Khamenei controlled the Parliament, the judiciary, the army, radio and television, and now he will be able to control the presidency as well. The conservative political establishment made a decision late in the campaign to support Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, more closely tied to Khamenei than either Rafsanjani or Khatami, is unlikely to challenge the Guardian Council, particularly given the alleged Guardians Council support for his presidential bid. 

Ahmadinejad was perhaps the most conservative of the seven candidates who were permitted to compete in the presidential race. The Rafsanjani campaign attempted to stick Ahmadinejad with the label of an extremist, intent on rolling back reform. They called Ahmadinejad a fundamentalist who is probably taking Iran back to some kind of Taliban-style of governing. Reformists charged that an element of the Revolutionary Guard is violating prohibitions agains military involvement in politics by mobilizing votes for Ahmadinejad. 

Ahmadinejad, an unabashed conservative, resurrected the fervor of the 1979 Islamic Revolution during the campaign by saying Iran "did not have a revolution in order to have democracy, but to have an Islamic government." Ahmadinejad had a bloody background. He was responsible for the execution of hundreds of dissidents after the war. 

Ahmadinejad said in an 08 June 2005 interview on state broadcasting that he favored relations with all other countries on the basis of respect. He said relations with immediate neighbors were the most important, followed by countries that were once part of the Persian Empire. Then come Muslim states, and last but not least, states that are not hostile to Iran. Turning to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad said its structure is "one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam." 

The three most prominent new members of Ahmadinejad's government are all known for their conservative views:


Manouchehr Mottaki, foreign minister, is a former ambassador to Japan and Turkey who has strongly backed Iran's nuclear programme and supported the move to resume uranium conversion 

Mostafa Pourmohammadi, interior minister, is a hardline former deputy intelligence minister 

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehei, intelligence minister, is an Islamic cleric thought to be an opponent of press freedom.
All three men are understood to be followers of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

Just two clerics were named to the cabinet, and no women were appointed. 

Sounds to me like hes set himself up nicely.  Noone to undermine his authority.  Complete control.  This may be a more serious situation then people choose to admit.

For more info: www.globalsecurity.org


----------



## Slim

> We believe that Iran is trying to buy time so it can develop a nuclear bomb," said Mr. Shalom. "Iran is a clear and present danger."



Whoops...Iran is now at the centre of a very accurate and dangerous weapons site!

I would never want to hear those words aimedat me by such a capable nation as Isreal


----------



## couchcommander

Israel can hold it's own. If Israel so desired Iran would no longer be able to consider itself "developing" (the technological disparities between Israel and Iran are even more pronounced than they were between Israel and Egypt/Syira in '76). 

I am just amazed that someone who is a "democratically" (heh) elected leader would say that towards another nation. The amount of ignorance is just astounding. Modern states really don't do such things (what does that say about Iran)?

Bah!


----------



## Marauder

> Germany called his comments "completely unacceptable," and France "firmly condemned them."



Ahhh, the Axis of Weasels offering tepid, backhand condemnation of the Axis of Evil. Good to know some things will stay forever constant. I would put down good money that the only time the UN would ever invade any country in a timely fashion would be if Isreal started kicking some ass in the name of self defence.

On topic, how do you say "Get Some" in Hebrew?


----------



## a_majoor

Marauder said:
			
		

> On topic, how do you say "Get Some" in Hebrew?



I believe you use the initials "IRBM"


----------



## daniel h.

I realize many believe that the U.S. and/or Israel were lookaing for an excuse to go to war with Iran....now they don't even need an excuse. Especially considering the many marchers in support of this guy the next day. Is Iran asking to be attacked or what? Iran reportedly does NOT have nuclear weapons, so why would the guy say this? Is he that out of touch? Even if you feel this way, why say it out loud?


----------



## CBH99

Iran doesn't really have to worry about the US or Allied forces at its borders. 

Iran knows, just like the US and NATO does, that NATO and the US are too pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan to mount a credible offensive.  Yes, US Forces are in Iraq right now, neighbouring Iran - but an offensive would require that US Forces relocate themselves, and this can't happen with the current political and security situation there.

This isn't anything new.  Sabre rattling, just like always.


----------



## Slim

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Iran doesn't really have to worry about the US or Allied forces at its borders.
> 
> Iran knows, just like the US and NATO does, that NATO and the US are too pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan to mount a credible offensive.   Yes, US Forces are in Iraq right now, neighbouring Iran - but an offensive would require that US Forces relocate themselves, and this can't happen with the current political and security situation there.
> 
> This isn't anything new.   Sabre rattling, just like always.



What would an offensive in Iran get, except a population that absolutely hated the USA even more...Its not like anything can actually be done with the country, is it?

Does anyone know of a pro-West influence struggling to come out over there?


----------



## paracowboy

Slim said:
			
		

> Does anyone know of a pro-West influence struggling to come out over there?


I don't know if they're "pro-west" per se, but there is strong ground-swell for reform amongst the youth. In fact, this is seen in some parts as the reason for the crack-down by the hard-liners.


----------



## Slim

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I don't know if they're "pro-west" per se, but there is strong ground-swell for reform amongst the youth. In fact, this is seen in some parts as the reason for the crack-down by the hard-liners.



Oh that's just great...Weren't the *STUDENTS * the ones who wanted the hardliners in in the first place?!


----------



## paracowboy

Slim said:
			
		

> Oh that's just great...Weren't the *STUDENTS * the ones who wanted the hardliners in in the first place?!


not these students. Their parents. 
The times, they are a changin'. To everything, there is a season. Smoke on the water (sorry, wrong song.)


----------



## Zartan

There is an armoured force of rebels that roams on the desert. I've only heard of them on the news, however, sorry.

However, Iran has sizeable minorities of Azeris, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is, the later two being rather small, but may like not having an oppressive Islamic government govern them.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> not these students. Their parents.
> The times, they are a changin'. To everything, there is a season. Smoke on the water (sorry, wrong song.)



Aye, I go to school with many people from Iran. I onced asked a friend what he thought of the Ayatollah - "he's worse than the shah". They may not be counter-revolutionaries (though one of them claims to have desecrated a copy of the Qu'ran), but it's an indication, perhaps a more realistic one of Iranian youth, compared to those mass rallies with those "down with Israel" tees and burqhas.


----------



## KevinB

Some of the academic students are definetly pro-reform (whatever that means in that neighnourhood) - but a lot of disenfranchised youth is lookign for a scapegoat - and the hardliners are going to use them and Israel as a rallying cry.

 Just when I figured Syria was next on the mapquest people to visit.  

Though Israel will nuke them to glass if they get frisky so...


----------



## bubba

10 to 1 says Isreal kicks there ass in 30 days or less,IF they start throwin knuckles...any takers!!!


----------



## jmackenzie_15

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I think the fuze on the mideast powderkeg just got a wee bit shorter.



Im inclined to agree.


----------



## Old Ranger

bubba said:
			
		

> 10 to 1 says Isreal kicks there *** in 30 days or less,IF they start throwin knuckles...any takers!!!



How bout 7 days, or dare I say 6.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051208-092511-8567r.htm

Iran with nuclear weapons may well accelerate armageddon. Pre-emptive strike may not solve the problem but it will delay it and cost them billions and hopefully there will be a revolution.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

I can't beleive theyve gone this long with all trash their president is talking and nothing has happened yet.

He was shooting off about the jews in another article, and questioned whether or not the holocaust even happened. If somebody told my country they were going to wipe us off the map, I would take that threat as 1 step down from being invaded.

Israel will have dropped the ball if they allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. No good can come of this, at all.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Its not like they (Israel) haven't launched a preemptive attack to stave off nuclear proliferation before.


----------



## Infanteer

Looks like Israel has replied in kind.  Perhaps the pegging of an rough timeline of when to expect preemption by IDF forces will cool the rhetoric down a notch in Tehran.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47848



> WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS
> Israel plans strike
> on nuclear Iran
> Sharon tells military to prepare
> for attack on key sites in March
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: December 11, 2005
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> 
> 
> 
> © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered his defense forces to plan for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities by the end of March - the time intelligence sources say Tehran will be able to begin producing nuclear weapons.
> 
> The directive came after Iran's President Mahmoud Amadinejad this week suggested Israel should be moved to Europe.
> 
> Iran has been ignoring warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about its plans to continue enriching uranium.
> 
> In early March, Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran.
> 
> Defense sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return," after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
> 
> "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
> 
> The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the chief of staff, according to a report today in the London Sunday Times.
> 
> Israeli intelligence has reportedly identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the IAEA, according to the Times.
> 
> If a military operation is approved, Israel will reportedly use a combination of air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran's nuclear program for years..
> 
> The Times reports Israel would likely call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refueling.
> 
> Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft.
> 
> "Once the Iranians get the Tor-M1, it will make our life much more difficult," an Israeli air force source told the Times. "The installation of this system can be relatively quick and we can't waste time on this one."


----------



## tomahawk6

If a strike is to occur it must happen before the Bushehr site is fueled otherwise you risk spreading radioactivity all over. The real problem is hitting the enrichment facilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm


----------



## a_majoor

The "Real" real problem is no one knows what "other" facilities exist, although it is strongly suspected the Iranians dispersed many of their sites and facilities to prevent being rudely pre empted. It is also strongly suspected that many of the facilities have been hardened or moved into deep underground tunnels and bunkers. Doing a pre emptive strike with nuclear weapons to ensure you destroy or neutralize such facilities is probably asking for far more trouble than its worth.

There is also the final problem, as outlined in the movie "The Usual Suspects":

Kujan: "Keyser Soze was standing right there. Why didn't you shoot him?"

Verbal: "I couldn't. What if I missed?"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I wonder if it is possible to strike a nuclear plant with tactical nukes but have it seem like a conventional attack as the destruction and nuclear fallout of the plant would possibly mask the tac nuke?


----------



## a_majoor

The nuclear release of high energy thermal and ionizing radiation is very distinctive, and can be reliably recorded with various means, including siesmographs (distinctive trace unlike an earthquake), radios (sudden wash of static over the airwaves as the EMP pulse moves past) and various sensors in the air and space. An atomic explosion is like nothing else, and unless this can somehow be disguised as an industrial accident ("It looks like Hassan forgot to engage the saftey when he wired up the firing circuit...."), there will be no ambiguity as to what happened or who did it.

Why we are now in this predicament?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/singer200512120837.asp



> *Israel vs. Iran*
> Can the international community get in on this fight?
> 
> By Saul Singer
> 
> What a perfect arrangement: The only country that every country has a right to condemn can be relied upon to do the world's dirty work. This is the underlying mindset as the West contemplates a nuclear Iran.
> 
> When push comes to shove, the Israeli air force will take care of the problem, so the world can go into spasms of righteous indignation while enjoying the fireworks.
> 
> There are, however, a number of flies in the ointment of this convenient scenario. Journalists and policymakers, like generals, tend to fight the last war, so everyone has in mind the 1981 Osirak operation, where Israel dealt a fatal blow to Saddam Hussein's dreams of mass destruction by destroying his nuclear reactor. But the Iranians are not idiots, and they have taken into account the possibility of an Israeli air strike in designing their program.
> 
> A new report by the U.S. Army War College, with a chapter on Israel drafted by former IDF Brig.-Gen. Shlomo Brom, finds that Israel cannot launch a sustained air campaign that will reliably destroy a series of hardened, well-defended, and dispersed targets. In order to avoid the airspace of intermediate countries, Israeli aircraft would have to fly more than 900 miles â â€ refueling over the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
> 
> But let's say, by some miracle, it could be done. And let's even say, as Brom speculates, that Iran would not be able to tell Hezbollah to launch the thousands of missiles pointed at Israel's north because Israel would retaliate against Syria, possibly toppling that regime.
> 
> Still, the question remains, why is little Israel being left to fight the world's war? The answer is not just that life's unfair. The real answer is that the enlightened post-modern European refusal to lift a finger â â€ let alone a gun â â€ to defend itself is consigning us all to a dark age of terrorism and war.
> 
> The irony here is that it is precisely those who claim to believe most in a borderless world ruled by international law who are ushering in a new Hobbesian era. How is one to explain Europe's obsession with the United Nations on the one hand, and its emasculation of the principles on which that organization was founded?
> 
> *If Europe, through the U.N. and in partnership with the U.S., simply followed the U.N. Charter, we would be living in a very different world today.* That charter (Ch. 1, Art. 1, Para. 1, first sentence) states the U.N.'s purpose: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace..." (emphasis added).
> 
> Does this ring any bells? Is there a state that is a greater threat to international peace than Iran? How much terrorism does a state have to sponsor, how many member states does it have to threaten with destruction, and how far does it have to get in obtaining the ultimate means to carry out such threats before the collective obligations of free nations under the Charter are remembered?
> 
> The nations that wrap themselves most tightly in international law are actually those responsible for turning that law, and its aspirations for the world, into a dead letter. As in the case of Iraq, by refusing to join the U.S. in effective non-military collective action against Iran, Europe is making military action or an Iranian victory inevitable.
> 
> It is in this context that I found it difficult to watch European ambassadors placing a wreath on the spot where a suicide bomber killed five Israelis, including 38-year-old Eliya Rozen, outside a mall in Netanya. On Tuesday, at his wife's funeral, Gadi Rozen spoke of their three childrens' questions when he told them their mother was dead. Roi, the five-year-old asked, "Who will be my mother?"
> 
> What wreath will these ambassadors lay if Israel gets hit by a nuclear weapon? Or if Israelis are killed in a war to destroy Iran's nuclear program? Or if 9/11s continue to multiply, including in Europe, because al Qaeda enjoys the tailwind that a nuclear Iran would bring?
> 
> Perhaps it is pointless to appeal to European sympathies for Israel when these same nations won't even defend themselves. Most bizarre, however, is that Europe, by refusing to impose draconian sanctions on Iran, is guaranteeing either a huge victory for the terror network or military action by the US or Israel. In other words, under the cloak of international law, Europe is bringing either the aggression of its enemies or unilateralist defensive actions of exactly the sort it claims to most want to prevent.
> 
> Those diplomats, no doubt, had the best of intentions. But with all due respect, spare us the wreaths. Join us and defend yourselves. We are not your hired hitmen; don't depend on us to save you. Take your beloved international law seriously and throw the book at Iran.
> 
> It may not be too late, with common will, to force Iran to back down without firing a shot. And if it is too late for peaceful means, that shot should be fired together, legally, in the name of international peace and security.
> 
> â â€ Saul Singer is editorial-page editor of the Jerusalem Post and author of Confronting Jihad: Israel's Struggle and the World After 9/11. This piece first appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is reprinted with permission.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/singer200512120837.asp


----------



## Baloo

> The Sunday Times - World
> 
> The Sunday Times 	December 11, 2005
> *
> Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran*
> Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington
> ISRAEL'S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
> 
> The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
> 
> Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.
> 
> The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran.
> 
> A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: "What next?" That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.
> 
> Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return" after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
> 
> "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
> 
> The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that "G" readiness - the highest stage - for an operation was announced last week.
> 
> Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. "There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment," he said.
> 
> He promised it would not be done during forthcoming talks with European negotiators. But although Iran insists it wants only nuclear energy, Israeli intelligence has concluded it is deceiving the world and has no intention of giving up what it believes is its right to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> A "massive" Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the "top priority for 2005", according to security sources.
> 
> Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA.
> 
> Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, "it has been understood that the lesson is, don't have one site, have 50 sites", a White House source said.
> 
> If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.
> 
> It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 - the equivalent of the SAS - and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

Thoughts?


----------



## D-n-A

If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.


----------



## Redeye

MikeL said:
			
		

> If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.



Hard to say.  I'm not sure most of the Arab world are fans of Iran, but at the same time as they're united by religion in their attitude toward Israel it could nevertheless be problematic.  I'd have to admit that I wouldn't want to find out, but if Israel decides this is their course of action against Iran, it's not as though we have any ability to stop it!


----------



## Bert

I think for the civilian populations reading something like this is frightening food for thought.  
However, all governments prepare for various scenarios (disaster, military, economic) all the time 
and this article may only state the obvious. I'm sure Iran has counter scenarios developed for
years and years.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Just read in Jane's that the Americans are improving the F15E by improving range and avionics.  This would make it an E'+' or even an F model.

First customer?  Israel.  They are also cooperating very closely improved anti missile technology such as a vastly improved patriot.

This is a scary road we're on.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Well Iran isnt showing any signs of backing down or stopping its nuclear production.... so...
something has to be done before they are nuclear capable..... right?


----------



## a_majoor

The Middle East isn't monolithic, and most Arabs consider the Iranians to be "Persians". There is also the religious aspect, the Saudis consider the Iranians to be heretics (and the favor is returned), while the Ba'athists are more interested in a secular sort of dictatorship. 

While there will be the usual cries of outrage if Isreal is compelled to strike Iran, there will also be a few sighs of relief, and maybe a few indrawn breaths when people realize what Isreal is capable of.


----------



## Acorn

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Middle East isn't monolithic, and most Arabs consider the Iranians to be "Persians". There is also the religious aspect, the Saudis consider the Iranians to be heretics (and the favor is returned), while the Ba'athists are more interested in a secular sort of dictatorship.
> 
> While there will be the usual cries of outrage if Isreal is compelled to strike Iran, there will also be a few sighs of relief, and maybe a few indrawn breaths when people realize what Isreal is capable of.



*All * Arabs consider the Iranians to be Persians (they certainly don't consider them to be Arabs - and Kurds are something else - Iranian or not). Some Shi'a Arabs may accept them as co-religionists, but Arabs in general believe they are the roots of the faith. The Persians came later.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html

Good article. Essentially the EU is unable to influence an Iran that is determined to obtain nuclear weapons. That leaves two options do nothing or strike. Thats all well and good for Europe or the US, but Israel cannot afford to sustain an Iranian first strike. The best defense is a good offense or so the adage goes. Israel was surprised in 73 when the arabs launched their Ramadan war and paid a high price as a result. Israel for its very survival must strike Iran's nuclear weapons program - if it can obtain the intelligence to do so.


----------



## nULL

MikeL said:
			
		

> If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.



My guess is that there will be a great deal of condemnation, but very little action; "Arab nationalism" has never really resulted in a body capable of unified action. The Palestinian conflict showed that aside from rhetoric, the Arab nations did very little to aid their brethen; on the contrary, many of them used the situation to their advantage, seeing it as a way to gain both territory and prestige.


----------



## Baloo

nULL said:
			
		

> My guess is that there will be a great deal of condemnation, but very little action; "Arab nationalism" has never really resulted in a body capable of unified action. The Palestinian conflict showed that aside from rhetoric, the Arab nations did very little to aid their brethen; on the contrary, many of them used the situation to their advantage, seeing it as a way to gain both territory and prestige.



Something seems wrong with this. Maybe its the fact that Israel was involved in wars with multiple Arab nations in the Israeli War of Independence (1948 - 1949), the Six Day War (1967) the Yom Kippur War (1973), not to mention wars against Egypt in 1956 (Suez) and Syria in 1982 (Lebanon). Plus, the support many governments gave the Palesitinian Intifada, albeit only on a monetary, public relations level. Consecutive losses to the IDF pretty much limited what the Arabic neighbours could launch at the Israelis conventionally, and so have simply given in to supporting such groups as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been effective on different levels, more so than their military campaigns. However, if the Arab states can find in Iran, a leader as they once did with Egypt to lead the rhetoric and stepped-up offensive, and they continue to see the United States military caught up in Iraq, I would not be surprised if certain states found renewed animosity.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> They are also cooperating very closely improved anti missile technology such as a vastly improved patriot.
> 
> This is a scary road we're on.



It is called the Arrow-2 and it is a lot bigger than the PAC-III.

The Iranian president has also proposed that Israel should ''be mouved'' to Canada,US or Britain.


----------



## nULL

Baloo said:
			
		

> Something seems wrong with this. Maybe its the fact that Israel was involved in wars with multiple Arab nations in the Israeli War of Independence (1948 - 1949), the Six Day War (1967) the Yom Kippur War (1973), not to mention wars against Egypt in 1956 (Suez) and Syria in 1982 (Lebanon). Plus, the support many governments gave the Palesitinian Intifada, albeit only on a monetary, public relations level. Consecutive losses to the IDF pretty much limited what the Arabic neighbours could launch at the Israelis conventionally, and so have simply given in to supporting such groups as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been effective on different levels, more so than their military campaigns. However, if the Arab states can find in Iran, a leader as they once did with Egypt to lead the rhetoric and stepped-up offensive, and they continue to see the United States military caught up in Iraq, I would not be surprised if certain states found renewed animosity.



Yes, Israeil was involved in wars with multiple Arabic nations - perhaps because all had something to gain? Egypt and Syria (to name but 2) could have been motivated into action to prevent Trans-jordan's King Abdullah from laying claim to the Arab parts of Palestine. I'm curious as to why you think Arab nationalism is such a strengthening force; many of the Palestinian refugees in those camps are there because of other Arab nations' unwillingness to absorb their "brethen".


----------



## a_majoor

The parameters are changing, this is no longer simply part of the regional theater in WW IV, but a real and present danger in its own right. Iran needs to be confronted and defanged of its nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism and explicit anti-Semetism sooner rather than later

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp



> *The Multilateral Moment?*
> Our bad and worse choices about Iran.
> 
> "Multilateralism good; preemption and unilateralism bad.”
> 
> For four years we have heard these Orwellian commandments as if they were inscribed above the door of Farmer Jones’s big barn. Now we will learn their real currency, since the Americans are doing everything imaginable — drawing in the Europeans, coaxing the Russians and Chinese to be helpful at the U.N., working with international monitoring agencies, restraining Israel, talking to the Arabs, keeping our jets in their hangars — to avoid precipitous steps against Iran.
> 
> Its theocracy poses a danger to civilization even greater than a nuclear North Korea for a variety of peculiar circumstances. Iran is free of a patron like China that might in theory exert moderate influence or even insist on occasional restraint. North Korea, for an increasingly wealthy and capitalist China, is as much a headache and an economic liability as a socialist comrade.
> 
> In contrast, Iran is a cash cow for Russia (and China) and apparently a source of opportunistic delight in its tweaking of the West. Iranian petro-wealth has probably already earned Tehran at least one, and probably two, favorable votes at the Security Council.
> 
> Of course, Tehran’s oil revenues allow it access to weapons markets, and overt blackmail, both of which are impossible for a starving North Korea. And Iran’s nuclear facilities are located at the heart of the world’s petroleum reserves, where even the semblance of instability can drive up global oil prices, costing the importing world billions in revenues.
> 
> No one is flocking to Communism, much less Pyongyang’s unrepentant, ossified Stalinist brand. Islamic radicalism, on the other hand, has declared war on Western society and tens of thousands of jihdadists, whether Shiia or Sunnis, count on Iran for money, sanctuary, and support. Al Qaeda members travel the country that is the spiritual godhead of Hezbollah, and a donor of arms and money to radical Palestinian terrorists.
> 
> North Korea can threaten Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the western United States, and so poses a real danger. But the opportunities for havoc are even richer for a nuclear Iran. With nukes and an earned reputation for madness, it can dictate to the surrounding Arab world the proper policy of petroleum exportation; it can shakedown Europeans whose capitals are in easy missile range; it can take out Israel with a nuke or two; or it can bully the nascent democracies of the Middle East while targeting tens of thousands of US soldiers based from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf.
> 
> And Iran can threaten to do all this under the aegis of a crazed Islamist regime more eager for the paradise of the next world than for the material present so dear to the affluent and decadent West. If Iran can play brinkmanship now on just the promise of nuclear weapons, imagine its roguery to come when it is replete with them.
> 
> When a supposedly unhinged Mr. Ahmadinejad threatens the destruction of Israel and then summarily proceeds to violate international protocols aimed at monitoring Iran’s nuclear industry, we all take note. Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying. Terrorism, vast petroleum reserves, nuclear weapons, and boasts of wiping neighboring nations off the map are a bad combination.
> 
> So we all agree on the extent of the crisis, but not on the solutions, which can be summarized by four general options.
> 
> *First *  *is the ostrich strategy — see and hear no evil, if extending occasional peace feelers out to more reasonable mullahs. Hope that “moderates” in the Iranian government exercise a restraining influence on Mr. Ahmadinejad. Sigh that nuclear Iran may well become like Pakistan — dangerous and unpredictable, but still perhaps “manageable.” Talk as if George Bush and the Iranians both need to take a time out.*
> 
> I doubt that many serious planners any longer entertain this passive fantasy, especially after the latest rantings of Ahmadinejad. Pakistan, after all, has some secular leaders, is checked by nuclear India, and has a recent past of cooperation with the United States. Most importantly, it is more than ever a lesson in past laxity, as the United States and Europe were proven criminally derelict in giving Dr. Khan and his nuclear-mart a pass — which may well come back to haunt us all yet.
> 
> *Alternatively, we could step up further global condemnation. The West could press the U.N. more aggressively — repeatedly calling for more resolutions, and, ultimately, for sanctions, boycotts, and embargos, energizes our allies to cut all ties to Iran, and provides far more money to dissident groups inside Iran to rid the country of the Khomeinists. Ensuring that democracy works in Iraq would be subversive to the mullahs across the border. Some sort of peaceful regime change is the solution preferred by most — and, of course, can be pursued in a manner contemporaneous with, not exclusionary to, other strategies. *
> 
> It is a long-term therapy and therefore suffers the obvious defect that Iran might become nuclear in the meantime. Then the regime’s resulting braggadocio might well deflate the dissident opposition, as the mullahs boast that they alone have restored Iranian national prestige with an Achaemenid bomb.
> 
> *A third, and often unmentionable, course is to allow the most likely intended target of nuclear Iran, Israel, to take matters into its own hands. We know this scenario from the 1981 destruction of Saddam’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor: the world immediately deplores such “unilateral” and “preemptory” recklessness, and then sighs relief that Israel, not it, put the bell on the fanged cat. *
> 
> But 2006 is not 1981. We are in war with Islamic radicalism, at the moment largely near the Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy. Thousands of Americans are in range of Iranian artillery and short-term missile salvoes, and, in theory, we could face in Iraq a conventional enemy at the front and a fifth column at the rear.
> 
> And Iran poses far greater risks than in the past for Israeli pilots flying in over the heart of the Muslim world, with 200-300 possible nuclear sites that are burrowed into mountains, bunkers and suburbs. Such a mission would require greater flight distances, messy refueling, careful intelligence, and the need to put Israeli forces on alert for an Iranian counterstrike or a terrorist move from Lebanon. Former Israeli friends like Turkey are now not so cordial, and the violation of Islamic airspace might in the short-term draw an ugly response, despite the eventual relief in Arab capitals at the elimination of the Iranian nuclear arsenal.
> 
> If the Israeli raids did not take out the entire structure, or if there were already plutonium present in undisclosed bunkers, then the Iranians might shift from their sickening rhetoric and provide terrorists in Syria and Lebanon with dirty bombs or nuclear devices to “avenge” the attack as part of a “defensive” war of “striking back” at “Israeli aggression”. Europeans might even shrug at any such hit, concluding that Israel had it coming by attacking first.
> 
> *The fourth scenario  is as increasingly dreaded as it is apparently inevitable — a U.S. air strike. Most hope that it can be delayed, since its one virtue — the elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat — must ipso facto outweigh the multifaceted disadvantages. *
> 
> The Shiite allies in Iraq might go ballistic and start up a second front as in 2004. Muslim countries, the primary beneficiaries of a disarmed Iran, would still protest loudly that some of their territories, if only for purposes of intelligence and post-operative surveillance, were used in the strike. After Iraq, a hit on Iran would confirm to the Middle East Street a disturbing picture of American preemptory wars against Islamic nations.
> 
> Experts warn that we are not talking about a Clintonian one-day cruise-missile hit, or even something akin to General Zinni’s 1998 extended Operation Desert Fox campaign. Rather, the challenges call for something far more sustained and comprehensive — perhaps a week or two of bombing at every imaginable facility, many of them hidden in suburbs or populated areas. Commando raids might need to augment air sorties, especially for mountain redoubts deep in solid rock.
> 
> The political heat would mount hourly, as Russia, China, and Europe all would express shock and condemnation, and whine that their careful diplomatic dialogue had once again been ruined by the American outlaws. Soon the focus of the U.N. would not be on Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the role of Europe, Pakistan, China, and Russia in lending nuclear expertise to the theocracy, but instead on the mad bomber-cowboy George Bush. We remember that in 1981 the world did not blame the reckless and greedy French for their construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein, but the sober Israelis for taking it out.
> 
> Politically, the administration would have to vie with CNN’s daily live feeds of collateral damage that might entail killed Iranian girls and boys, maimed innocents, and street-side reporters who thrust microphones into stretchers of civilian dead. The Europeans’ and American Left’s slurs of empire and hegemony would only grow.
> 
> We remember the “quagmire” hysteria that followed week three in Afghanistan, and the sandstorm “pause” that prompted cries that we had lost Iraq. All that would be child’s play compared to an Iranian war, as retired generals and investigative reporters haggled every night on cable news over how many reactor sites were still left to go. So take for granted that we would be saturated by day four of the bombing with al Jazeera’s harangues, perhaps a downed and blindfolded pilot or two paraded on television, some gruesome footage of arms and legs in Tehran’s streets, and the usual Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer outtakes.
> 
> So where do these bad and worse choices leave us? Right where we are now — holding and circling while waiting for a break in the clouds.
> 
> *Still, there are two parameters we should accept — namely, that Iran should not be allowed to arm its existing missiles with nukes and that Israel should not have to do the dirty work of taking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.*
> 
> The Europeans and the Americans right now must accelerate their efforts and bring the crisis to a climax at the Security Council to force China and Russia publicly to take sides. India, Pakistan, and the Arab League should all be brought in and briefed on the dilemma, and asked to go on record supporting U.N. action.
> 
> The public relations war is critical. Zen-like, the United States must assure the Europeans, Russians, and Arabs that the credit for a peaceful solution would be theirs. The lunacy of the Iranian president should provide the narrative of events, and thus be quoted hourly — as we remain largely silent.
> 
> Economically, we should factor in the real possibility that Iranian oil might be off the global market, and prepare — we have been here before with the Iranian embargo of 1979 — for colossal gasoline price hikes. This should also be a reminder that Ahmadinejad, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and an ascendant and increasingly undemocratic Putin all had in common both petrodollar largess and desperate Western, Chinese, and Indian importers willing to overlook almost anything to slake their thirst. Unless we develop an energy policy that collapses the global oil price, for the next half-century expect every few years something far creepier than the Saudi Royals and Col. Moammar Gadhafi to threaten the world order.
> 
> The Democratic leadership should step up to the plate and, in Truman-esque fashion, forge a bipartisan front to confront Iran and make the most of their multilateral moment. If the Democrats feel they have lost the public’s confidence in their stewardship of national security, then the threat of Iran offers a Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or John Kerry an opportunity to get out front now and pledge support for a united effort — attacking Bush from the right about too tepid a stance rather from the predictable left that we are “hegemonic” and “imperialistic” every time we use force abroad.
> 
> *Finally, the public must be warned that dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come*.
> 
> Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Interesting, really good post
thanks!


----------



## tomahawk6

A nuclear Iran under the mullah's are a definite threat to not only their neighbors but to the west. But what do ? Do nothing and hope for the best ? Or a military operation to neuter the Iranian nuclear program ? Both options have alot of risk. By doing nothing the west ends up being reactive to whatever  Iranian ambitions are played out. Recently they are selling their oil for Euro's instead of dollars. Israel has been threatened with annihilation if they launch nuclear strikes on Israel there are a whole set of unknowns we are facing, including the biblical setting for armageddon.

On the other hand a military surgical strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities present other problems. The facilities are well dispersed, can we take all of them out ? After any attack the Iranian's might shut down the straight of hormuz. They might also launch an offensive into Iraq to attack coalition forces. For these reasons I think that the military option will not limit itself to Iran's nuclear facilities but also to the IRG and to the security apparatus that enables the mullah's to rule. The leadership does not feel the army is reliable so we might avoid that as a target. The Iranian leadership would also be targeted. Finally we might take out key oil/gas targets or a naval blockade to strangle their economy. I dont like the options its the classic damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.


----------



## a_majoor

Long article, follow the link to " The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented"

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml


----------



## CanadianBoy92

Sounds like another Gulf war stirring up


----------



## a_majoor

How close are they really to getting the bomb? They seem determined to bring war to the West, can they?

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007986.php



> *Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War*
> by Joe Katzman at January 20, 2006 06:14 AM
> 
> "I tell you naught for your comfort,
> Yea, naught for your desire,
> Save that the sky grows darker yet
> And the sea rises higher.
> 
> Night shall be thrice night over you,
> And heaven an iron cope.
> Do you have joy without a cause,
> Yea, faith without a hope?"
> -- G.K. Chesterton, The Ballad of the White Horse
> 
> In the wake of Tom Holsinger's article "The Case For Invading Iran," I was going to enter a comment, but it became long enough to deserve a full post. To begin with, it's time to lay my own cards on the table.
> 
> I personally believe that we're very likely to see at least 10 million dead in the Middle East within the next two decades, with an upper limit near 100 million. I do not believe pre-emptive action will be taken against Iran. *I do, however, believe the extremist mullahs in Iran mean exactly what they say. They are steeped in an ideology that believes suicide/murder to be the holiest and most moral act possible. They have been diligent in laying strategic plans for an offensive Islamic War against Israel, America and the West. Plans backed by 25 years of action, and stated no less clearly than Mein Kampf.* I believe that Ahmedinajad's talk of 12th Imam end-times and halos around his head at the UN aren't the ravings of an isolated nut, simply an unusually public (and unusually noticed) expression of beliefs that are close to mainstream within their ruling class. That class of "true believer" imams and revolutionary guard types have been quietly consolidating their control over all sectors of Iranian society over the last few months, and I do not believe anyone in the world today has both the will and the capability to stop them. A key pillar of The Bush Doctrine is about to fail.
> 
> At some point within the next decade, therefore, I believe that *they will not only have nuclear weapons, but that they will act to make good on their stated beliefs and plans.* With eventual "3 Conjectures" level results as noted above. I hope you're all invested in solar, folks, and have some panels up on your houses.
> 
> It gets worse.



follow the link and read the rest.


----------



## 1feral1

To answer the question about repelling an attack.

Not if the sun rises four or five times before 0900h  

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hawkins200601310811.asp



> *Making China Pay*To get at Iran and North Korea, we’ll have to go through Beijing.
> 
> By William R. Hawkins
> 
> The looming crisis over Iran's nuclear weapons program is turning attention to China's role as the protector of the two remaining "axis of evil" regimes. On January 9, the day before Iran removed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, its deputy foreign minister Mehdi Safari met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui in Beijing. The official Chinese statement was that "Zhang reiterated the principled position of the Chinese side on properly settling the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiation. Safari briefed Zhang about the views and considerations of the Iranian side in this respect." It is hard not to suspect that the meeting was to clear Tehran's impeding action with Beijing.
> 
> After the news broke, foreign-ministry spokesman Kong Quan told reporters on Jan. 10, "We believe that the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of IAEA. In the current context, the most feasible approach is still the negotiation between the three EU countries and Iran." Beijing knows that two years of EU talks have gone nowhere. *Beijing also knows that talking is the alternative to acting. As long as the only country acting is Iran, Tehran will prevail.*
> 
> Actions Speak Louder than Words
> 
> Weeks earlier, Chinese officials pledged to veto any U.S. or European attempt to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran, particularly any involving an embargo on oil shipments or energy development. In 2004, Iran agreed in principle to sell China 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years, a deal valued at $70 billion. China already imports 14 percent of its oil from Iran. Sinopec, a state-owned energy company, hopes to develop Iran's enormous Yadavaran oil field. These deals violate the U.S. Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in Iran. *China will not hesitate to oppose (or violate) similar sanctions if imposed by the U.N. or by a U.S.-EU coalition. *
> 
> Other sanctions, such as bans on the sale to Iran of high-tech products or military gear, will also not be acceptable to Beijing. Iran is a growing market for its manufacturing exports, which China uses to pay for Iranian oil. *Indeed, Beijing would like to use the crisis to cut into Europe's trade with Iran, a factor that will dampen the eagerness of the EU to levy its own sanctions on Iran.*
> 
> China has also been "hosting" the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program. As does Tehran, Pyongyang acts while everyone else just talks — or prepares to talk. There have been only four actual rounds of negotiations since the process started in August 2003, and no progress. Beijing's insistence on a "diplomatic solution" is code for its opposition to any use of pressure or sanctions against North Korea.
> 
> *So before there can be effective pressure on Iran or North Korea, there must be pressure on China.* Beijing is very dependent on exports to the American market as the primary engine of its rapid economic growth. China's trade surplus with the United States in 2004 was $162 billion and probably topped $200 billion in 2005. *There is also a considerable flow of American capital and technology into China. These flows give Washington considerable leverage, which Beijing is well aware of.* Indeed, on December 12, the State Council of the People's Republic of China published a white paper entitled "China's Peaceful Development Road" which sought to insulate economic issues from diplomatic issues. Yet, when this same paper proclaims "the principle economic target is to double the 2000 per-capita GDP by 2010," the implications for such an increase in the resources available to the Beijing regime cannot be ignored in other capitals, and not just in Washington.
> 
> Beijing's claim in "Peaceful Development" that it will never turn its increasing wealth into international power is no more credible than the claims it has made in other white papers issued in 2005. The list includes: "Building a Political Democracy in China" (October); "China's Endeavors for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation" (September); "New Progress in China's Protection of Intellectual Property Rights" (April); and "China's Progress in Human Rights" (April).
> 
> Making Our Money Talk
> 
> There is growing support for doing something to pressure Beijing to change its ways. Last year, when state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) tried to buy California-based Unocal Corp, the outcry on Capitol Hill ultimately forced CNOOC to withdraw its bid. The House of Representatives, in a healthy show of bipartisanship in foreign policy, passed a resolution declaring "a Chinese state-owned energy company exercising control of critical United States energy infrastructure and energy production capacity could take action that would threaten to impair the national security of the United States." This resolution passed by a vote of 398-15.
> 
> The strongest support for continued U.S. appeasement of Beijing has come from large American corporations which have invested in China. *However, continued failure to protect intellectual property, the theft of which the U.S. Trade Representative's 2005 report on Chinese trade barriers called "epidemic," is causing many companies to rethink their bets on China as a market in which they will be allowed to thrive.* The Heritage Foundation's 2005 Index of Economic Freedom ranked China a lowly 111 out of 161 countries (tied with Zambia and behind Pakistan), with property rights, foreign investment, regulation, and financial markets rated as typical of a "repressed" economy. *American manufacturers and their congressional allies are also turning up the heat on Beijing's manipulation of international currency values*.
> 
> American diplomats should advance the argument that Beijing needs to act more responsibly as a member of the global community to curb the dangerous behavior of Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who raised the "stakeholder" concept in regard to China's role in world affairs last September, apparently made no progress with Premier Wen Jiabao or other officials on the Iranian issue during his January 24 visit to Beijing. At his press conference after the talks, he dodged questions related to Iran, whereas the press conference conducted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry restated its previous position on negotiations with Tehran. Two days later, Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, arrived in Beijing to further coordinate diplomatic strategy. A former Revolutionary Guards leader, Larijani is Tehran's top negotiator on the nuclear issue.
> 
> As a former U.S. trade representative, *Zoellick remains wedded to the notion that international economics can be divorced from international politics. This is clearly not a tenable concept, as shown by China's own strategic behavior*. _*Beijing must be told that its continued easy access to global markets, upon which its rapid development depends, will be at risk if it continues to ally itself with rogue states that pose a threat to global security*._
> 
> — William R. Hawkins is senior fellow for national-security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council in Washington, D.C.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hawkins200601310811.asp


----------



## The Gues-|-

*The approaching war with Iran: Part II*
How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?

January 19, 2006 – If you get your news from the Big Five, the global media conglomeration of Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Bertelsmann AG, Viacom, and News Corporation, which when combined control approximately 90% of the world’s headlines, than there is little doubt that you have been adequately primed with stories regarding Iran’s nuclear power ambitions and the threat that such ambitions represent to the United States.  Absent perspective though, these headlines amount to nothing more than fear-mongering hype intended to persuade Americans into supporting the Federal Reserve, U.S. Congress, and Bush Administration once again if they collectively decide that it’s necessary to launch yet another pre-emptive strike in the Middle East under flimsy, if not false pretenses.


The fact is that Iran wants nuclear power.  It wants to join a growing list of countries that already enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.  Which countries currently have nuclear power plants operating within their borders?  The list might surprise you.  Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States.  According to the Uranium Information Centre[1] there are a total of 441 operable reactors in these countries.  


Countries that are exploring or actively seeking nuclear power capabilities include Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam.  The countries that are known to have stockpiles of nuclear weapons are Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Pakistan, and India.  Israel is considered a de facto nuclear power by most observers, although it has long maintained that it will neither confirm nor deny whether it has nuclear weapons.  North Korea is suspected to have joined the list of nuclear powers in 2005.  South Africa once had nuclear weapons but has since reportedly destroyed the weapons, but not the capacity to manufacture them again if necessary. 


Given the fact that nuclear power plants are currently operating in 31 countries with 7 more countries in pursuit of atomic energy, is it possible that the United States of America is honestly threatened by Iran seeking nuclear power capabilities?  And given the fact that there are currently approximately 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is it plausibly that Iran, even if it had 20 nuclear warheads, wouldn’t be pulverized if it ever attempted to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States or any of our allies? Nuclear or not, Iran will never be a nuclear threat to the United States.   It is a mathematical improbability.  According to Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, of these 31,000 nuclear warheads, about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice. The combined explosive yield of these weapons is approximately 5,000 megatons, which is about 200,000 times the explosive yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima.[2]   None of these nukes are in Tehran’s control.  With this perspective intact, is it possible that the United States of America is really threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions?  It does not seem possible, yet the propaganda machine is churning out battle cries daily that do not match reality.  That’s what propaganda is, words masquerading as news that defy and deny reality. 


The truth be told, Iran’s current nuclear ambitions, whether for peaceful purposes or not, do not pose any greater threat to the United States then when Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1988.  Prior to Pakistan becoming a nuclear power, Muslim countries in the Middle East were surrounded by non-Muslim nuclear powers.  Therefore, beginning in 1970’s, Pakistan viewed the development of a nuclear bomb as its last resort and only defense against being invaded by India or the Soviet Union.  There are many historical indications that Pakistan was most likely correct in its assessment regarding the need to become a nuclear power.   In 1979, when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Pakistan feared becoming a future target of Soviet aggression.  To make matters worse, in 1980, Pakistan was told that the United States would not commit forces to defend Pakistan if the Soviet Union invaded.  This lack of support from the United States made any claimed alliance between Pakistan and the United States doubtful in the eyes of the Pakistani people, and only increased Pakistan’s urgent approach towards becoming a nuclear power.  


Although relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved significantly since September 11, 2001, it is a matter of fact that Pakistan played a vital roll in helping Iran and North Korea advance their nuclear programs during the 1990’s.  In other words, without Pakistan’s assistance, it is likely that the Iran nuclear hysteria would not be possible today.  Regardless of past cooperation between Pakistan and the nuclear pursuits of Iran and North Korea, the rhetoric suggesting that a future nuclear-powered Iran presents a clear and present danger to the Middle East and the United States simply cannot be substantiated when measured against the number of countries that currently operate nuclear power plants and the staggering amount of nuclear warheads stockpiled around the world that are controlled by the United States and its allies.  


The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States clearly demonstrated the positive power to be found in fearing a nuclear counterattack.  If either the Soviet Union or the United States would not have been a nuclear power during the Cold War, it is reasonable to suggest that the country possessing nuclear warheads would have invaded the one that did not, thus making the Cold War, hot.  The governments of India and Pakistan intensely distrust if not despise each other, but knowing that each side has nuclear weapons has restrained either side from launching all out invasions on the other ever since both became nuclear powers.  In both the Soviet Union vs. United States and India vs. Pakistan nuclear showdowns, President Ronald Reagan’s tactical strategy, “Peace through superior firepower” proved flexible enough to withstand being minimized to “Peace through similar firepower”, and remain a fundamental truth.  


It is worth noting that during the 1990’s, Pakistan considered Iran as its closest regional ally.  However, times have changed this alliance.  Iran is now a fundamental Shiite haven with a government to match.  Pakistan on the other hand is sliding toward an ideological Sunni state.  Shiites are outraged by Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States, with most viewing the Unites States / Pakistan relationship as an unholy alliance that amounts to nothing less than blasphemy.  If tensions between Iran and Pakistan escalate as expected, then Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon will mirror Pakistan’s urgency to develop a nuclear weapon in the 70’s and 80’s to defend itself against a nuclear India.  


Iran also knows what the world knows but Israel will not admit; that Israel is a nuclear power with an overwhelmingly decisive military advantage over Iran.  Iran might spout words of hate towards Israel, but they do not dare launch missiles, because unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t fight wars for oil.  It fights wars for survival, and will not hesitate destroying Iran’s oil reserves if it determines such military actions to be tactically advantageous.  


The bottom line is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are well documented and have existed for more than two decades.  Pakistan played a vital role in advancing the nuclear capabilities of both Iran and North Korea in the 1990’s.  As Pakistan moves closer to the United States, and with 130,000 U.S troops in Iraq, Iran is being pushed into a weapon of last resort scenario similar to that of Pakistan when India became a nuclear power.  In January 2006, the Big Five media conglomeration has fired up the propaganda presses and aggressively started churning out the Iran Nuclear Threat headlines at an alarming pace, even though there is really nothing new about Iran’s 20-year-old nuclear ambitions.  When measured against the list of 31 countries that currently operate nuclear power plants, the 7 that are pursuing nuclear power, the 31,000 nuclear warheads already distributed around the world, the fact that Israel is a nuclear power, and the United States having 130,000 troops in neighboring Iraq while building permanent military installations faster than George Bush can say 9/11, nuclear or not, Iran is of no military consequence to the United States or Israel, and it will not be for generations to come, if ever.  


If Iran’s desire to have access to nuclear power is old news, which it is, then why is it being splashed as breaking headlines across the world?  Why now?  What has happened thus far in 2006 that was not happening in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005?  Did uranium enrichment equipment and facilities suddenly and surprisingly appear on the Iranian landscape?  Is Iran’s announcement that it has restarted its uranium enrichment research; the Big Five called it breaking the seals on its uranium enrichment equipment, which sounds vaporously spooky, when all it really means is that Iran unlocked the doors of the facilities that house the uranium enrichment equipment and turned the lights on once again; is this action an actual threat to the security of the United States of America?  No, it is not.  


So what is it?  What is Iran doing that has the Big Five, the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, U.S. Congress, and the Executive Branch Bushians urgently leading the misinformed American people down the road of “we found those weapons of mass destruction we were looking for in Iraq, in Iran”?   If Iran’s nuclear ambitions don’t add up to the propaganda, which it does not, what does?  


In a December 16, 2005 Associated Press article, President Bush said that Iran is a “real threat” to the United States and called on Tehran to “prove it does not seek nuclear weapons.”  Sound familiar?  Just a few years earlier, Bush challenged Iraq to prove it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.  Saddem Hussein said that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.  But how do you prove you don’t have something?  Vilified and scorned U.N. Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter repeatedly told the Big Five that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction programs prior to the Bushians launching its pre-emptive strike.  


The truth is that Iran stands about as much chance of convincing President Bush that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as the nineteen men and women convicted in 1692 by the Massachusetts Puritans for practicing witchcraft did in convincing the Puritans that they were not witches.   The Executive Branch Bushians know that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of no real threat to the United States, but believe that Americans will take the nuclear threat bait.  Either way, the Executive Branch Bushians, along with the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the U.S. Congress, need this new lie to stick firmly in the minds of approximately half of the population of the United States so that it can go about the business of thwarting the real threat that Iran posed to the United States.  And yes, Iran does pose a real threat to the United States, a clear and present danger far worst than anything the Big Five is reporting.  Why the Big Five is not reporting on the real economical “nuclear bomb” that Iran already possesses serves as evidence to the intuitive American that this unspoken threat is absolutely real.  In March 2006, Iran will break the seals on its Iran Oil Bourse.  


If you are not familiar with the Iran Oil Bourse, you need to Google it promptly.  Thankfully, many reporters, commentators, and scholars that operate in the 10% zone not controlled by the Big Five have wrote outstanding articles and analysis regarding the true implications of the Iran Oil Bourse.  In fact, there seems to be a new article on the subject, released daily.  On January 15, 2006, Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. wrote The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.  His analysis: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.  His qualifications: Petrov received his Ph.D. in economics from Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria.  In his article, Petov recommends reading two works by William Clark: The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq, and The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target.  


Here are the key points made by Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. in his report: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.


·         The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire

·         The weapon is the Iran Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006

·         With the opening of the Iran Oil Bourse:

o        Europeans will no longer have to buy and hold U.S. Dollars in order to secure payment for oil.  They will be able to purchase oil with their own currencies, the euro. 

o        The Chinese and Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the Iran Oil Bourse because it will allow them to drastically reduce their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar.

o        Russians have an inherent economic interest in adopting the euro because the bulk of its trade is with European countries

o        The Arab-oil exporting countries also need to diversify against the rising mountains of U.S. debt notes – the depreciating dollar


What the Iran Oil Bourse means to the average American is that suddenly, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars will become unwanted around the world.  In essence, the money supply will double or triple.  When supply outweighs demand, prices go down – except when dealing with currency.  When money supply exceeds demand, prices go up.  Its called inflation – the hidden tax brought to the U.S. taxpayer courtesy of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel and our friends in the U.S. Congress.  Imagine if every Americans income doubled in next week’s paycheck.  Do you think prices for goods and services would decrease, remain the same, or increase?  If you think they would decrease or remain the same, can I interest you in a hot stock I’m selling called Enron?  


Another way to think about the U.S. dollar is in terms of a company stock.  Speaking of Enron, when the truth about this company’s finances hit the street, what happened to the value of the stock?  It plummeted.  Why?  In theory, the news of false financials didn’t directly cause the stock value to drop.   It dropped because there were more sellers than buyers.  From its highs of $90 per share, Enron quickly became worthless in the span of a few weeks.  Everyone who held shares of Enron, simultaneously sold their stock, and there was nobody willing to buy the shares.  The situation with the U.S. dollars is very similar.  If enough people and countries stop holding U.S. dollars, the value of the dollar in your wallet will plummet.  The greenback will go the way of the Continental.  In 1775 the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of paper money to finance the American War for Independence. These notes, known as "Continentals," would be redeemable only after the colonies won their independence. Overprinted and distrusted by the public, they declined rapidly in value, giving rise to the popular expression "not worth a Continental."


So what are the real options that the United States of America has to protect its security and financial stability?  Option A is to believe the Big Five propaganda machine financed by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel that prints our funny money, and take our chances with invading Iran to thwart the March 2006 launch of the Iran Oil Bourse.  To some that might sound appealing, but such action will not change the fact that our federal government has been operating on a Federal Reserve credit card, which has no credit limit, for so long that We the People now have a $8 trillion dollar national debt.  The Federal Reserve Banking Cartel loves this enormous debt because it represents interest payments from the U.S. taxpayer to its network of private corporations.  The ability of the federal government to tax incomes, on behalf of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, before the wage earner ever receives his or her paycheck, makes hard-working men and women slaves to the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel.  The U.S. Congress supports using the citizenry as collateral for its wayward spending, for without the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel accepting as collateral, the birth certificates of American citizens and the potential, future taxable wages that they represent, the federal government could no longer finance its 1174 federal agencies and the payroll associated with 4.3 federal employees.  


Option B is to abolish the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 immediately, eliminate seventy-five percent of the 1174 federal agencies and the millions of federal mandates they represent, seize all gold held by the banking cartel, allow the cartel member’s financial institutions to collapse while forgiving all debt owed to the cartel, return the printing and coining of money to the U.S. Treasury, eliminate fractional and fiat money schemes, and return our currency to a commodity backed system such as gold and silver.  Finally, there is need to amend the Constitution of the United States of America so as to abolish the 16th Amendment and add language that would prevent the federal government of the United States from deficit spending or operating with a national debt ever again.  


There really are no other options, and March 2006 is fast approaching.  This is not a doomsday scenario.  It is fact.  The fiat money scheme run by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel is about to collapse.  Meanwhile the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the Big Five media conglomeration are so fearful of the court of public opinion in the United States, that they will not even utter the words, Iran Oil Bourse.  


On a personal note: I have two sons, ages 18 and 15.  I myself am a veteran who served ten years in the United States Marine Corps.  Arguably, we are all hawks.  There are wars worth fighting, and there remain causes worth dying for in defense of the United States of America.  Sustaining the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is not one of them.  Fighting against the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is.  


It’s time for the We the People of these United States to spread the word and truth regarding the real threat Iran poses to the United States, and act boldly to fix our own government and money system so that we no longer are required to fight wars to maintain the stability of our own currency.  

http://www.teamliberty.net/id215.html


----------



## JasonH

Washington officials have already stated that Iran has the ability to produce the deliverance and the nuclear arms.  So they are rip roaren ready to rock.


----------



## SoF

Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.


----------



## mo-litia

SoF said:
			
		

> Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.



That, in a nutshell, is Bush's entire foreign policy.


----------



## Glorified Ape

The nuclear threats theorized to exist from countries like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan having nuclear arms are not predominantly from the states themselves but from the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-state actors (IE terrorists) through such states, either through theft, coup, purchase, or "gifts". I don't think that threat is really as serious or extant as people make it out to be - the culpability, especially nowadays, of the states involved would be nearly as much as if they'd employed the weapons themselves. The pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially by states such as North Korea and Iran, seems to me to have more to do with creating a viable deterrent to the perceived threat from the US and/or other powers than it has to do with expansionism or aggression from the newly nuclear state.


----------



## KevinB

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially by states such as North Korea and Iran, seems to me to have more to do with creating a viable deterrent to the perceived threat from the US and/or other powers than it has to do with expansionism or aggression from the newly nuclear state.



Well considering their "leader" has stated that he beleives vapourizing Israel is gov't agenda #1 I might beg to differ with your assumption.


----------



## 48Highlander

SoF said:
			
		

> Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.



 :

Don't forget he also needs to build a parking-lot for Disney's next big project.  Oh, and the Zionists want to build more banks.


----------



## mo-litia

I'm personally a big fan of _Zionist_ banking; it's certainly a better economic model than some of the alternatives out there.  ;D


----------



## regulator12

The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points


----------



## The Gues-|-

regulator12 said:
			
		

> The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points



As much as I'd like to take credit for it, I can't... because I didn't write it; lol.  But hey! thanks anyways


----------



## regulator12

No Problem, well thanks for bringing to light a good read.


----------



## Glorified Ape

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well considering their "leader" has stated that he beleives vapourizing Israel is gov't agenda #1 I might beg to differ with your assumption.



Tyrannical governments, especially Iran's, love to bluster and boast about what they would/should/could do to "Enemy X" but I'd say the contemporary state of affairs is such that none of them will come anywhere close to putting their money where their mouth is - a nuclear Israel (and no one's still wondering about the existence of nuclear capabilities in Israel, regardless of the ambiguity on the subject) would be far too painful to obliterate, even without retaliations from the US and allies. When they had the Soviets and a somewhat fence-sitting US in a bipolar standoff it was one thing, but now there's no doubt as to the outcome of any nuclear or military action against Israel, nor of where the US stands in relation to Israel and its foreign policy in the Middle East. 

 North Korea boasts and spews alot of the same kind of tripe towards the US but no one actually sees it as anything but what it is: empty posturing to solidify support on the domestic extremist front and maintain some semblance of pride, no matter how thin, to rhetorically prop up the fragile system of rule at home. All such states can realistically do is posture and secure their continued authority at home by making themselves too costly a target to attack. I think the reason why the US is so concerned about Iran and North Korea having nukes is that it essentially removes military force from their list of options in dealing with those states by virture of its cost, both economic and political, internationally and at home. Realistically, I think the economic and political cost of military force on an invasion scale, by Western states (especially unilaterally, is already getting to the point where it's prohibitively impractical for all but the most extreme circumstances (such as 9/11). I think the US would do better to use its other tools where it still retains de facto dominance, but that's a different topic.


----------



## ChopperHead

I heard this on the news I dont rember which channel though but i heard Iran has cut off all trade with Denmark over those stupid cartoons. Anyone confirm that?

arnt North Korea and China allies? So if China has the Largest Army in the world and is rapidly becoming a massive Nuclear power as well. Is it not logical to assume that any action against North Korea would in turn provoke a Chinese retaliation? Also North Korea is right beside China and Russia so it's not really a mistery on how they are being supplied here. China is it's ally and with the current state of the Russian Armed forces it would not be difficult to get weapons from them as they need money. so a couple Russian nukes wouldnt surprise me if they showed up on N. Korean soil. or Iranian soil for that matter.

 the way i see it the world is just teetering on the brink of another world war. which I do belive will happen in my lifetime. there is that taiwan issue then theres the Iran issue and the situation in Africa etc etc etc the world is being held together by duct tape and that hundred mile tape is getting pretty damn close to the hundreth mile.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Some other interesting reading relating to the above article:

Iran’s Oil Exchange threatens the Greenback 
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060123_iran_92s_oil_exchange_.htm

Enjoy    March is just around the corner lets see if they know what they are talking about eh?




Cheers


----------



## Long in the tooth

If a man states that he will immolate the Jews and create a unified superstate under his leadership I will take him at his word.  After all, that's what Hitler did 15 years before WW2 when he wrote Mein Kampf.  Whether he really intends to do so is moot; the followers he's attracted will follow through.  Recall that the final solution devised in 1942 cannot really be traced to Hitler except by indirect means.  All it often takes is a tacit sanctioning of an action for a mob to to it.

As an American General stated "I'm not really afraid what they can do to us, but more afraid of what we may have to do to them (to end it)."  The US remains the only Hyper Power in history, spending far more on defence than the next 10 countries combined.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## The Gues-|-

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Just my 2 cents.



You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, so there's my 2 cents as well, 4 cents in total! :dontpanic:


----------



## TCBF

You do what you gotta do to stay on top.  As Canadians, we better hope they DO stay on top.  Once you start to slide....

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Tyrannical governments, especially Iran's, love to bluster and boast about what they would/should/could do to "Enemy X" but I'd say the contemporary state of affairs is such that none of them will come anywhere close to putting their money where their mouth is



 ???

So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".


----------



## Cannonfodder

The paradox of the Middle East is that the more that the west tries to control it , the more it gets out of hand . I do not the solution to this one but here is a solution maybe the west could supply Tehran with thorium based nuclear reactors .If Iran's true aim is electrical generation then Thorium based reactors would be a good fit since they do not produce weapons grade plutonium 239 and uranium 235 . If this is there true aim , they should be open to such a proposal if not the writing may be on the wall .


----------



## Acorn

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".



???

Silly analogy, even if I disagree with Glorified Ape.


----------



## ZxExN

When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Sadam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.


----------



## Chummy

It is interesting that most of the replies to this post address only the nuclear weapons, and not the latter half of the post. Since these weapons are unlikely to be used against the west, or at all if they are an effective local deterrent, the more ominous message in the initial post is the shift in American policy from being a global player, deferent to international law, to being willing to act unilaterally using pre-emptive, and by all standards illegal action. (I am not anti-american, or necessarily anti-war, for that matter - after 9-11, taking out the Taliban was completely justified, and internationally supported. Iraq is another matter). 

Gwynne Dyer, in his fairly recent book "Future:Tense", makes a compelling argument to this effect. He argues, with compelling citations, that the war in Iraq was really the result of a neo-conservative agenda to use a weak country to demonstrate American willingness to use unilateral force to justify its military might, by "proving" the willingness and need to keep a "pax americana". He further argues that, if the Americans are not forced from Iraq, the "Rule of Law" represented by the UN that at least allowed countries to save face and back away from conflicts, will cease to exist in any meaningful way. 

He also argues that some considerable devaluation of American currency, and power, is inevitable over the next 30-50 years (to get into the details, read the book, I don't want to summarize the whole thing here). Mr. Dyer does not present a scenario where this happens as quickly as suggested in the original post, but I suppose it is not impossible. Certainly, it is not in anybody's interest to put America's back to the wall like that, but undoubtedly a huge fear in Washington is that someone will yell that the emperor has no clothes.     

Mr Dyer argues, and I agree, that what is truly scary is this entire world scenario, precipitated by the current gang in Washington under highly questionable pretenses, appears to be setting the stage for the return to multilateral power alliances, and the type of political conditions that lead to World War I. These are the very conditions that were unthinkable with the advent of nuclear weapons, and resulted in the urgent creation of the United Nations. This is much more complex and fundamentally serious than the usual mantra "War for Oil", or Iran obtaining a nuclear power plant, in terms of the fate of the entire world.   

Hopefully a change in power in Washington will result in Washington taking a more rational world view where the US sees itself as a big, important country, but still just another country in the international community, nevertheless. Hopefully the relative peace and international rule of law (with a few noted exceptions) in the world of the 1990's, and the positive outlook, has not slipped beyond our grasp. The current US regime's world view of America is simply dangerous.


----------



## DBA

ZxExN said:
			
		

> When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Saddam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.



I despair at the complete ignorance expressed in that paragraph. The Shiite and Kurd populations were not better off under Saddam. Children are going to school in present day Iraq in the majority of the country. Large populations lived in fear of persecution including summary arrests and executions while Saddam was in charge so they don't wish for his return. Compared to historical conflicts the Iraq war is pretty mild, just look back to the Iran/Iraq war in which it's estimated over a million died. The country would be rebuilt already and the Americans gone if the terrorists let the job be done so I don't fault the Americans for the slow progress.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chummy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> He also argues that some considerable devaluation of American currency, and power, is inevitable over the next 30-50 years (to get into the details, read the book, I don't want to summarize the whole thing here). Mr. Dyer does not present a scenario where this happens as quickly as suggested in the original post, but I suppose it is not impossible. Certainly, it is not in anybody's interest to put America's back to the wall like that, but undoubtedly a huge fear in Washington is that someone will yell that the emperor has no clothes.
> 
> ...



We have discussed this particular point just a few months back; see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33469/post-252205.html#msg252205

My point then, as now is that states and empires ebb and flow.  I, personelly, do not detect any divine intervention in the affairs of states and empires over the past few thousand years - not even now, in America.

America can and, I think, will arrest and _moderate_ the _rate_ of its 'decline' but that decline is, of course, not absolute - it is measured relative to the _rise_ of competitors.

I would add that ideas endure longer than empires – Greece is no longer a _power_ but we still read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and Aristotle and Plato.  The British empire is distant memory but Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill remain.  The ideas of Jefferson and Madison will outlive the exploits of the US military.

----------

PS  We already have an Iranian Bourse thread at:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39009/post-326653.html#msg326653 perhaps this should be merged with it.


----------



## tomahawk6

There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.


----------



## a_majoor

Chummy said:
			
		

> It is interesting that most of the replies to this post address only the nuclear weapons, and not the latter half of the post. Since these weapons are unlikely to be used against the west, or at all if they are an effective local deterrent, the more ominous message in the initial post is the shift in American policy from being a global player, deferent to international law, to being willing to act unilaterally using pre-emptive, and by all standards illegal action. (I am not anti-american, or necessarily anti-war, for that matter - after 9-11, taking out the Taliban was completely justified, and internationally supported. Iraq is another matter).



Ah yes, "International Law". When you go to a criminal or civil court, you are seeing the State exercising its power. Without the armed power of the State as an ultimate recourse to compel obedience, how will you receive your justice? If you are awarded a judgement in your favor and the other party balks, the sheriff can seize his chattel property and the offender can be arrested and jailed. Without the recourse to State power, you are SOL.

But where is the overweaning Power to compell a Sovereign State? Even a relative pipsqueak State like Ba'athist Iraq was able to defy "International Law" through the 1990s, with some assistance from the "Oil for Food" crowd to be sure, but since no one was able or willing to compel Saddam Hussein to follow the directives, he simply did not. If Iraq doesn't follow "International Law" without compulsion, then what is to stop Iran from defying "International Law" (and they don't even have nuclear weapons yet!). How about a Sovereign State with vastly more power and resources like China? 



> Gwynne Dyer, in his fairly recent book "Future:Tense", makes a compelling argument to this effect. He argues, with compelling citations, that the war in Iraq was really the result of a neo-conservative agenda to use a weak country to demonstrate American willingness to use unilateral force to justify its military might, by "proving" the willingness and need to keep a "pax americana". He further argues that, if the Americans are not forced from Iraq, the "Rule of Law" represented by the UN that at least allowed countries to save face and back away from conflicts, will cease to exist in any meaningful way.



I wonder why arguments like this always end up with appeals to the UN. After the complete failure of the UN through the 1990s (Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Oil for Food, Rwanda, WMD inspections in Iraq, genocide in Dafur...shall I continue?) is there any possible legitimacy left in that organization? For that matter, would you want to give the sort of power required to compel a Sovereign State to a corrupt and profoundly illiberal institution like the UN?



> Mr Dyer argues, and I agree, that what is truly scary is this entire world scenario, precipitated by the current gang in Washington under highly questionable pretenses, appears to be setting the stage for the return to multilateral power alliances, and the type of political conditions that lead to World War I. These are the very conditions that were unthinkable with the advent of nuclear weapons, and resulted in the urgent creation of the United Nations. This is much more complex and fundamentally serious than the usual mantra "War for Oil", or Iran obtaining a nuclear power plant, in terms of the fate of the entire world.



NATO was not a multi-lateral power alliance? What about the G-8? The Anglosphere? The Francaphonie? The British Commonwealth? The world has always had shifting formal and informal alliances, some which are reflected in formal organizations (think back to @400 BC when the Delian League was locked in a series of hot and cold wars with "Sparta and her Allies". All the City-States of Greece were involved, as well as the Persian Empire and many unaffiliated Greek City-States throughout the Mediterranean sea.)



> Hopefully a change in power in Washington will result in Washington taking a more rational world view where the US sees itself as a big, important country, but still just another country in the international community, nevertheless. Hopefully the relative peace and international rule of law (with a few noted exceptions) in the world of the 1990's, and the positive outlook, has not slipped beyond our grasp. The current US regime's world view of America is simply dangerous.



A far more compelling argument is that the inattention of the United States to the external world through the 1990's set the stage for the present state of affairs.


----------



## BKells

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
> so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
> The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.



The United States has an 8 trillion dollar debt and a 415 billion dollar budgetary deficit. Their trade deficit is 610 billion, the largest ever recorded in history. Do you know anything about what continual budget deficits does to the money market? If you don't, I'll sum it up for you: RECESSION. Negative GDP Growth. Depression.

You let me know how this is anywhere near a desired economy. They are indeed poised for a very great fall.


----------



## Remius

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
> so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline.



There is no question that the US economy is powerful but to adopt the attitude that there are no competitors is dangerous.  Underestimating the competion is the 1st step to failure.  If China ever decides to wake up completely the US will be in trouble.  The sheer amount of manpower that emanates from there is scary.  

Although the US is the only real superpower right now, don't think for a second that things can't change over night.  The roman empire was unmatched in both economy and military and it fell apart due to social and cultural erosion.  The decline happened quite rapidly.  The same could happen in the US in the span of only a few years if the right ingredients are in place so don't get too comfortable with your notion of "WE ARE ALL POWER, NONE CAN FACE US".  Sometimes defeat comes from within.  Then your competitors (so called wannabes) become a real threat.


----------



## a_majoor

BKells said:
			
		

> The United States has an 8 trillion dollar debt and a 415 billion dollar budgetary deficit. Their trade deficit is 610 billion, the largest ever recorded in history. Do you know anything about what continual budget deficits does to the money market? If you don't, I'll sum it up for you: RECESSION. Negative GDP Growth. Depression.
> 
> You let me know how this is anywhere near a desired economy. They are indeed poised for a very great fall.



This sort of accounting ignores the over 51 Trillion dollars of assets in the hands of US citizens. In fact, by the reasoning above, Canada should have landed in the toilet a long time ago given our vast debt and deficits. (Even today, I would wonder what exactly Canada's budgetary position is given Paul Martin's Enron like accounting since 1993.....). The US debt and deficits have been growing for DECADES, many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits and economic growth. After all, the Great Depression occured while the United States balanced its budget, and the "New Deal" which eventually helped end the depression was explicitly financed by debt and deficit spending.

As for their "desired" economy, an annual @ 4% growth rate in the GDP and an unemployment of 4.7% dosn't sound too shabby to me.


----------



## Navy_Blue

I think the US is coming to the top of a peak and in our life time we will see it head down (Not really good for CND).  I'm only 28 and China in the 21st century makes China of the 70's & 80's look like the dark ages.  They have done in 20 years (or less) what it took the US more than 50 to do.  A country like China is in a limbo between Communist and Capitalist.  They enjoy the Labour costs of a communist country with monetary rewards of a capitalist nation.  Most of our manufactured goods comes from Asia.  More and more of our raw material and natural resource are are going to head west.  We're seeing it now with Chinese firms having real intrest in buying up our biggest mining companies.  These people are going too pass us before we even know we have been passed.

Europe (UK, France, Germany) of the 19th century was the power house.  It had the real military might and the infancy of the industrial revoltion fueling it.  In the 20th Century North America took over (partly because we just finished bombing Europes industry into the ground).  Our economy has sored in the past fifty years while Europe leveled out (until the EU started to change things).  China and Asia is in the passing lane now beside us giving us a smerk and getting ready to hit the gas.  I think we may be seeing the tail lights soon.

Unemployment rates are steady for now but the big three (or two now) have laid down major layoffs.  GM is saying if they don't figure out how to dig out of there slump they have just over 1000 days before they are in real trouble.  Ford is dumping 30,000 over the next few years.  When auto makers in the US start seeing red the industries which support them will follow.  The economy is not in happy boom times like it was prior to 911.  We're heading down.  I'm glad I work for the government and have a contract for the next 15 years.

The writing is on the wall our arrogance is blinding us too it.  I haven't seen anything saying "we're alright"..."this will all pass and we'll be fine."  Its all "Global Warming"...."Crisis in Iraq"...."Terrorists"..."Nukes in Iran" We are witnessing a change in world order.

Goodluck everybody


----------



## regulator12

I think it is a scary thought for the average person that America could and will fall. It scares people to think that China will be the next super power. These are issues that most people turn a blind eye to and hope wont happen. This world is changing fast and i think the next few years to come will be very interesting for all of us.....


----------



## a_majoor

All right, listen up you pessimists!

We are the inheritors of an intellectual and cultural tradition which goes back over 2500 years.

The West has overcome challenges ranging from Global Cooling from @1400-1800, the loss of 1/3 of the population due to the Black Plague, invasions from the most terrifying armies in all history (the Huns), internal conflict over religion which devastated most of central Europe (30 years war), and challenges to the ideas and ideals of liberal democracy by the most terrifying philosophies that the West could produce (backed by modern industrial armies and states) in the forms of Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism . 

Our ancestors did all that and at the same time raised a towering cultural edifice of art, music, literature etc. second to none. We created and operate the industrial and post industrial economy which directly or indirectly feeds, clothes, houses and employs virtually everyone in the world. We even landed men on the Moon.

If we walk away from these great achievments, if we complain about the problems we face but fail to take actions to solve them, if we don't use the wide ranging freedom of inquiry, capital and personal mobility to impliment the best possible solutions, then we deserve everything which happens. Many of the problems pointed out here are relatively a fraction of the size of problems like the Great Depression or National Socialist Germany were to previous generations, our resources and the depth of our knowledge is vastly greater than what was available to them, and in terms of relative size, the problems are much smaller.

NO MORE WHINGIG about debt, trade imbalance, oil, Jihadis or anything else unless you are going to be a true member of Western Civilization and offer a solution as well. Better yet, tell us how *YOU* personally will impliment this!


----------



## true canadian

What the hell is wrong with these nuclear power countries.  Whats so good about having them they only bring massive death and destruction to the citizens of the country.  Why don't they do old fashion bombing on military factories and dive bombing on enemy forces.  Nukes are stupid if your going to defend your country by using them and use it on a country then its just going to send one back and the country that you tried to save and the attacking country are both inielated by these bombing.  So in my eyes nukes are just world enders not country protectors. Also what are the US doing, attacking countries with nukes, there the ones with like 13000 of them so lets all attack them. :threat:  If the cold war actually happened the Nuke part then north America and northern Asia and Europe would of been completely destroyed because of back and forth bombings.  :-\


----------



## aesop081

true canadian said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with these nuclear power countries.  Whats so good about having them they only bring massive death and destruction to the citizens of the country.  Why don't they do old fashion bombing on military factories and dive bombing on enemy forces.  Nukes are stupid if your going to defend your country by using them and use it on a country then its just going to send one back and the country that you tried to save and the attacking country are both inielated by these bombing.  So in my eyes nukes are just world enders not country protectors. Also what are the US doing, attacking countries with nukes, there the ones with like 13000 of them so lets all attack them. :threat:  If the cold war actually happened the Nuke part then north America and northern Asia and Europe would of been completely destroyed because of back and forth bombings.  :-\



Wow !!  what an intelligent and well thought out post  :


----------



## derael

Not only that...his alias is "true canadian"...time to hang our heads in shame I guess  :crybaby:


----------



## regulator12

> We even landed men on the Moon.



That is debatable, i wont start here but i am sure there are skeptics of whether that happend or not...i for one am skeptical......


----------



## a_majoor

No need to debate, the Apollo astronauts left a laser reflector on the moon. Illuminating it and seeing the reflection is a bit of a challenge, but it hasn't stopped some people: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/laser_moon_010810-1.html


----------



## regulator12

Ill take my foot out of my mouth now...... :-[


----------



## Navy_Blue

Dude the cold war did happened.  WWIII did not.  No matter how illogical it sounds MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction)  saved our asses.  We came close I think and probably more times than we know.  Through just blind luck and the thought of wiping all life out on earth we didn't press the red button.  

These people acquire nukes b/c it buys them clout weather they can hit North America or not.  That clout makes the US play fair some times.  We have all seen how much clout this country has (soft wood, beef, etc).  These days there are people who would love to "find" a briefcase sized weapon and place it as close to us infidels as possible.  Iran hints at sharing some of the same views as the people looking for small nukes.  Tends to make life worrysum for world leaders.

As far as my pessimistic views go.  The Asian culture has persisted for thousands of years longer than us or even the people we have inherited our "intellectual and cultural tradition"  They have been through just as many hardships conquests and victories as we have.  The simple fact is they are poised to take the lead on the this planet.  In no way should taking the lead economically be considered a threat to our culture beliefs or freedom.  We're talking about billions vs hundreds on millions who will be expecting to consume goods as quickly as the western people they in some cases have looked on with envy.  

The problem is that this level of consumerism could very well break the planet as whole.  Solution. have a vision of what our future looks like and not a vision of four years down the road when the next leader can bribe us with lower taxes or better healthcare.  Our politicians don't try and bribe us with big dreams because we don't dream that way anymore.  Our culture doesn't look at our children and wonder or care what they will have to deal with.  We care about our next pay check our next vacation our next night out.  No one wants to think about the future because no one sees one.
We our culture would have to make big sacrifices to make things turn around and we are not willing to do so.   Respected PHD's in every field relentlessly tell the media how bad it is and it all comes out as white noise to us.  How do you make us hear the screams??

I'm on for the ride now.  I look to the stars and I still dream.  I bring my kids up to look to the future, to care about the planet and to care about our country as much as I do.  I only wish other people would do the same.  Most people I know don't see past next week.  If you point it out, they shrug and say "it not my problem."


----------



## regulator12

People wont care till they need to care.


----------



## nULL

I find it curious that many in this thead are debating the merits of going to war with Iran. While naturally this is expected on a website entitled army.ca, I couldn't help but feel that the article's underlying theme - the apparent collapse of our financial system - has been underplayed. I did a little snooping on google, and wow - just wow. 

I'm starting to wonder if I should be heavily investing in commodities; is a return to the gold standard inevitable? I question whether or not the article's warning of a transition to the euro is likely; like our current system, it's a fiat currency. Wouldn't it therefore share the same weaknesses and uncertainties as our current system?


----------



## Cannonfodder

You said it Null , the days of the US dollar are numbered , the new standard global currency will be the euro . Gold and other commodities are fairly sound investments with the current and future global situation . Soaring trade deficit , high consumer debt , a housing bubble , erosion of  American domestic industry , and ever increasing expensive military adventures will bring the US economy to its knees . The old solution was to print more currency in the form of bonds , the majority of these bonds are held by foreign investors [Chinese] when they decide to flush the dollar and go to the Euro it will be a rapid process . There are more imminent dangers to the security of the US than some other country acquiring nuclear capibility . Way to go  W , half a trillion on military adventures since 911  , out of control spending  , and neglecting the real threats to US security . I dont think your daddy will be able to bail you out of this one .


----------



## Glorified Ape

48Highlander said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".



 Iran isn't a "gangbanger" - it's a sovereign state which knows that its own obliteration (along with its leadership) lies in waging any type of military aggression - nuclear or not. The repercussions of the former are 100x the latter. There's an argument to be made that nuclear weapons actually pacify a state's foreign behaviour towards other nuclear states insofar as the repercussions of agressive posturing or action are exponentially greater than what they would be if the offending state was non-nuclear. India and Pakistan's situation has actually improved since both came into possession of nuclear weapons. Conventional warfare between nuclear states becomes a very risky, high-cost avenue when the possibility of nuclear war is factored into the equation. 

As I said before, I think Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology (assuming it's intended for weapons, which I would guess is probably so) stems from a need for deterrence - primarily against the US, but I suppose against Israel as well. Given the recent incursions into the Middle East by the US and other states, combined with the fact that Iran is now almost literally surrounded by the US (Iraq, Afghanistan) and its [quasi-]allies (Turkey, Pakistan), it's hardly surprising that they would want to possess a viable deterrent to disuade an invasion or attack. The deterrent value is compounded when one considers that the states acting as staging points or allies to any action by the US are the ones that will suffer the most from any nuclear backlash due to their proximity. Iranian aggression would be suicide, and they know it - it would be doubly so if it was nuclear aggression. As loud, obnoxious, and extreme as Iran is, I don't think their leadership is suicidal. 



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
> so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
> The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.



European economic volume (IE trade) dwarfs that of the NAFTA, let alone the US. The EU is the largest economy on Earth. European trade is disproportionately internal and thus subject to a lesser degree of external influence while US trade (and NAFTA) is far more externalised. More than just a competitor, the EU is now the dominant economy. Individually, the US still trumps everyone else but the old state-centric, individualist political-economic model is dying at the hands of regionalisation - just look at developments along these lines in Asia (ASEAN/APEC) and South America (MERCOSUR). If the US were dealing on a one-on-one basis with Europe, your statement would be correct. As it stands, it's the level at which governance takes place (especially economic governance) that determines a unit's scope and for Europe, that governance is regional. The same might be said of North America if NAFTA expands/deepens into a customs union or beyond, but the US (especially the present administration) doesn't seem particularly fond of the idea as it necessarily means the degredation of sovereignty. 

God knows what will happen if Asia ever decides to move anywhere near the level of integration that Europe now has.


----------



## tomahawk6

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> You said it Null , the days of the US dollar are numbered , the new standard global currency will be the euro . Gold and other commodities are fairly sound investments with the current and future global situation . Soaring trade deficit , high consumer debt , a housing bubble , erosion of  American domestic industry , and ever increasing expensive military adventures will bring the US economy to its knees . The old solution was to print more currency in the form of bonds , the majority of these bonds are held by foreign investors [Chinese] when they decide to flush the dollar and go to the Euro it will be a rapid process . There are more imminent dangers to the security of the US than some other country acquiring nuclear capibility . Way to go  W , half a trillion on military adventures since 911  , out of control spending  , and neglecting the real threats to US security . I dont think your daddy will be able to bail you out of this one .



For the Euro to replace the dollar the EU better have a dranatic economic overhaul because until that happens the Euro is second place. Compare Europe's unemployment to that of the US. Their combined economies are being strangled by their national welfare programs - healthcare, doll, ect.


----------



## a_majoor

Thinking that Iran is somehow constrained by "Realpolitik" WRT nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. When their President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and claims the arrival of the Mahdi is immanent (in Islamic theology, this is similar the Christians proclaiming the return of Jesus Christ and the day of Judgement), the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are proclaiming the Apocalypse is more than just "scary". A military "head shot" against their nuclear facilities, government institutions and revolutionary guard is probably the best possible solution we have now, unless the Iranian population can rise up en mass and overthrow their opressors.

Lenin proclaimed "World Revolution",  Hitler wrote extensively about what he planned for Europe, and Imperial Japanese policy was fairly well known in the first half of the 20th century, and surprise!, they did their best to carry out their stated intentions. Intelligence commonly looks at capabilities rather than intentions, which may be one of the traps we have fallen into, in any "rational" universe, Iran is completely unable to carry out any of its stated intentions. Indeed Osama Bin Laden stated the reason for the 9/11 attacks was explicitly to provoke the United States into war, while not a rational act by any means, this played directly into his belief system (based on observed American behavior in the 1990s, he felt America was a "paper tiger", and he believed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on would not only be slow, grinding and unsuccessful, but would also lead to an uprising throughout the Islamic world.)

WRT economics, there are large challenges facing the West (not just the United States), but adversary often unleashes creative solutions and allows merit to come forward when the status quo fails. Statist solutions to the economic problems haven't worked, but given the limited challenges we have faced so far, the system has been able to continue to function. Place a large shock and innovative solutions like President Bush's proposed reworking of Social Security or the privatization of Canada's health care system become not only desirable but absolutely necessary. 

For those people who are arguing the primacy of Asian or other non-European/Western cultures, just read your history. The Chinese invented paper currency, gunpowder, sailed huge armadas in the Indian Ocean and so on, but who actually took over the world? These other cultures are internally focused, and while this gives them a certain longevity and internal stability, this does not tranlate into their long term advantage. One might ask why these Chinese fleets did not establish colonies in India, the Arabian Peninsula, the east coast of Africa, or Indonesia, when there is unambiguous evidence they had actually visited these places?


----------



## RCD

It is only a matter of time.


----------



## BKells

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This sort of accounting ignores the over 51 Trillion dollars of assets in the hands of US citizens. In fact, by the reasoning above, Canada should have landed in the toilet a long time ago given our vast debt and deficits. (Even today, I would wonder what exactly Canada's budgetary position is given Paul Martin's Enron like accounting since 1993.....). The US debt and deficits have been growing for DECADES, many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits and economic growth. After all, the Great Depression occured while the United States balanced its budget, and the "New Deal" which eventually helped end the depression was explicitly financed by debt and deficit spending.
> 
> As for their "desired" economy, an annual @ 4% growth rate in the GDP and an unemployment of 4.7% dosn't sound too shabby to me.



4% growth rate in Real GDP or nominal? Where are your figures coming frmo?

"Many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits, and economic growth"

You must be making this up. Please supply some sources. My source, Gregory Mankiw (former Bush economic advisor who resigned in disgust and is a professor at Harvard university, PH.D. in macroeconomics) begs to differ.

"Deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, increase interest rates, discourage invetsment, and result in slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to lower tax revenue and higher spending on income-support programs, and the result is even higher budget deficits. A vicious cycle."

"When the government reduces national saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises, and investment falls." It's called the crowding out effect. The government sucks up all the supply of loanable funds and leaves none left over for private firms to borrow for investment.

And as for your comment about Paul Martin.. he got us out of our vicious cycle of budget deficits that stretched from 1975 - 1993. It took enormous political courage. And where do we stand now? The only country in the G8 that is running a surplus and paying down our debt.


----------



## Long in the tooth

I propose that WW 3 was fought and won by the democratic/capitalistic west.  I was fought in Korea, Germany, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, South Africa, Namibia, Central and South America and all the oceans.  The major powers could not fight head to head because they knew it would result in mutual destruction; so the war was waged 'at the margins'.  Proxies and economic resources as well as media and entertainment were employed.  Nike and Levis were the anvils of victory for this battle, but all had modern militaries in order to avoid direct conflict.

Not all battles were succesful for the west of course, but with superior economic resources Reagan eventually beggered the communists.

Now we're in the middle of WW 4.


----------



## Rodders

S_Baker said:
			
		

> OKAY gents, how 'bout we keep this on topic and quit the USA bashing.
> 
> As far as the USA falling anytime soon?  Don't think so, we still have a lot of technology from the Roswell crash.....



I don't think analysis or observations in which the United States is portrayed as anything but superior or infallible implies "USA bashing". All things have negative aspects or downsides. Me, you, Canada and the United States are all imperfect. To note these imperfections is a necessary part of analysis. To ignore them is naive at best, negligent at worst.

BTW when will some of that Roswell technology be implemented into the mainstream so I no longer have to reset my digital clock after a power outage? 

This is my first post on this board. I don't wish to sound argumentative in anyway. I have found this thread both interesting and educational and I want to see it continue in a constructive direction.

Thanks

Rodders


----------



## regulator12

That is true when will they solve the problem with those dam power outages affected digital watches. It really is annoying you know.... ;D
Likewise Rodders is correct, analysing the United States and pointing out obvious flaws is not bashing but mere analysis. It could be for the better if these types of debates were held in government offices to bring up new solutions to problems.


----------



## Navy_Blue

"World War" "Cold War" It no longer true encompasses what we are dealing with in the 21st century.  I think its just the beginning of a global state of flux that will consume all aspects of our lives.  It will take years for this all to cool off.

To get back on topic a bit  Iran....

They have the power now to bring our economy to its knees.  One WWII era mine placed on a Dow could quietly cross the straights of Hormuz or just the mouth of the gulf.  Let it off in the very thin shipping lane and boom!  Now repeat step one; 6 or 7 times the same night.  Drop a few in the red sea and the Suez closes.  One tanker sinks in those straights and the oil tapes shut off.  IMO insurance rates would sore and oil prices would sky rocket like in the 70's.   The question is why hasn't our friends or enemies in the middle east done this recently.  Al-Qaeda could do this on a whim.  A mine is a pretty simple divice you don't need allot of people to organize a strike like that.  It wouldn't be the first time either; is it not in the intrest of there cause?

I spent 6 months going up and down the gulf and the straights there are little crappy wooden Dow's everywhere.  There are warships everywhere too but you can only check so many of these ships.  For the hundred or so boats the ship  boarded there were a thousand more. 

I think most of the negative press (granted they are crazy! crazy! people running that country) we here about Iran now is because of the oil exchange expected to open in under a month.  If things go bad we need an excuse as to why we need to overthrow invade or disrupt Iranian leadership.  Reading that Saddam opened one of these exchanges a year before the war, starts to makes you think.  Everyone laughed at him till it started making real money.  The public needed to here about all the bad things Saddam was doing a year in advance of the invasion to get them in the mind frame and to think it was truly necessary.  Then negative media flooded the air waves quite literally.  All talk was on terrorists and WMD's in Iraq.

Afghanistan I think was the only legitimate target the US had the right to say enough! and go in.  Iraq was a step to far; a step the toothless UN should have been dealing with (someone needs to buy them dentures).  The Al-Qaeda strong hold was in Afghanistan not Iraq.  Saddam supported there cause with words of encouragement but that was more to thumb his nose at old Georgie.    

There is allot more to all this.  Things happening in the shadows from both sides.  If the bad guys really wanted too they could be doing much more damage to us.  Maybe that is what they want though, just prick the sleeping dragon and make it restless.  If you stab it in the butt and it wakes up...your gonna get burned.  They aren't getting burned yet, 911 no matter how awful was just a pin prick like Madrid and London.  Its still early and we've been at it now since 911.


----------



## a_majoor

BKells said:
			
		

> 4% growth rate in Real GDP or nominal? Where are your figures coming frmo?



The US Treasury and Congressional Budget Office



> "Many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits, and economic growth"
> 
> You must be making this up. Please supply some sources. My source, Gregory Mankiw (former Bush economic advisor who resigned in disgust and is a professor at Harvard university, PH.D. in macroeconomics) begs to differ.



Since this isn't a popular or even intuative position, I am not going to play pin the tail on the URL (look up Larry Kudlow for some fairly easy to understand primers). Instead, I am going to put *your* powers of observation to work: create a chart or graph with yearly debt, deficit, interest rates tax rates and GDP. Plug in the figures from as far back as you can, and look for corellations. The only one you will find is the inverse ratio of taxation to GDP. The United States was working on a balanced the budget through tax and tarrif increases in 1929, which hastened the onset of the Great Depression.



> "Deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, increase interest rates, discourage invetsment, and result in slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to lower tax revenue and higher spending on income-support programs, and the result is even higher budget deficits. A vicious cycle."



See above. You should be able to prove this easily if it was the case. Oh, by the way, what is the current prime interest rate? What is the current deficit? GDP? 



> And as for your comment about Paul Martin.. he got us out of our vicious cycle of budget deficits that stretched from 1975 - 1993. It took enormous political courage. And where do we stand now? The only country in the G8 that is running a surplus and paying down our debt.



Like I said, their Enron like accounting makes this subect to question. The "surplus" rose and fell with the political winds, but oddly seemed to vanish at budget time; no tax relief for the likes of you and I. Oh, and the Debt has remained fairly static at $576.8 billion over the same time period, and the unfunded liabilities (CPP, government pensions) is also steady at @ $500 billion. Yes, Paul Martin managed to keep us One Trillion dollars in debt for a decade, "surplus" be damned......


----------



## Cannonfodder

The current state of Iran is a product of western societies sanctioning bad behavior by not holding current governments accountable for there human rights abuses as long as they give us what we want . The routes of fundamentalist Islam has its routes in Iran in particular in the 1950s with the abusive regime  of the Shah . Compound this further with foreign support of Israel and the backing of abusive regimes in Saudi Arabia , its no wonder that Arabs view the west with suspicion and  contempt . Oh and lets not forget about the crusades , the west has brought its own brand of poison  to the middle east  too often .
     Iran wants nuclear power and the bomb as a defence against the other state in the middle east that has an advanced nuclear program with several weapons , Israel . Call it keeping up with the Jones , or in this case the Goldbergs , misguided foreign policy by several nations without  thought  for the ramifications has created this situation . How can it be resolved ? , a war would not solve anything , just create future pretexts for future conflicts . This Iraq fiasco has shown that countries can be defeated but not conquered ,  a war with Iran would be devastating for both sides and in the end would not offer a more secure environment . Sure you just throw a couple nukes in there done deal , for today but in 10 , 20 years this will come back to haunt the west .
     Pre emptiveness will solve nothing  , misguided  policies by chicken-hawks [ people who would not fight when they were asked , but are willing to commit others to the fray ,i.e.; Bush ,Cheney ] . Iran needs to be dealt with but not by military intervention , if they want nuclear power  , so be it  . Thorium based nuclear reactors offer the capability to generate electricity but do not generate U 235 or weapons grade plutonium . Dealing with Israel , is a must they need to give up there nuclear weapons and the US needs to suspend military aid in order to secure a lasting peace . We can  not pick sides , objectivity is a must  if dealings with Iran are to succeed .


----------



## tomahawk6

What if they say they dont want thorium reactor's ? What is your next course of action ?


----------



## Cannonfodder

Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.


----------



## aesop081

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.



Thats positively brilliant...why didnt anyone think of that before ?

 :

Earth to canonfodder....

Bottom line is that Iran is a signatory to the NPT
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/


----------



## Kirkhill

> Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada?



I do love nightmare scenarios.  ;D

Let's try this one on for size.  China invests in Alberta Tarsands.  (It's happened you say?)  Alberta is short of labour (Rumour to that effect) Chinese company applies to bring their own labour force into Canada to service their project.  Their project also includes a pipeline to Prince Rupert.  To secure their investment they import their on Private Security firm with responsibility for the Oilsands project, the pipeline and the load out terminus at Prince Rupert.  (How many bodies would that take do you reckon?)

They start pumping more than Canada wants to export.  Whose oil is it again?


----------



## Cannonfodder

Sorry aesop081  , the nuclear genie  has been let out of the bottle  , information flows from country to country without interuption . Iran is next in line for capability  , who will be after ? , building a nuclear bomb is not rocket science but it also requires alot of specialty items like uranium and if you haven't been paying attention it is getting harder and harder to come by . Countries  like China and India are building reactors at a pace that will soon out strip current supply . Canada , and Australia , the major suppliers of uranium , are trying to find more mineable deposits  . Countries that have uranium reserves will be very reluctant to part with it .
  I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .


----------



## aesop081

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .



My point with NPT is that Iran is a signatory and the rest of the international comunity has an obligation to demand its compliance.  In case you yourself need a "news flash", israel, India and pakistan are not.  Therfore, to what line should Israel be brouht to ?  Also your idea of " take away nikes from Israel " is propesterous as it doesnt pass the reality check.  if you wish to offer a solution to all this canonfodder, it should at least be plausible.  You do not meet this criteria.  Israel does not even acknowledge having nuclear weapons to begin with and even if they did, their geopolitical and military reality all but guarantee that they would never accept those terms.  

You are the one saying to "deal with the reality on the ground" yet you are the first one to ignore them.


----------



## Cannonfodder

In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
  
  The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .


----------



## aesop081

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
> 
> The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .



The original treaty may have been signed under the shah but :

_Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. [8]_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Therefore your assertion that the NPT was somehow seen as opressive by The Iraninan regime is ungrounded by the fact that less than a year ago, Iraninan authorities re-afirmed their countrie's participation in the NPT.  While north Korea has openly rejected the treaty, Iran has not.  The terms of the NPT were review every year until 2005 and Iran has not sought to change it.  rather it chose to support the treaty as it was therefore obligating it to abide by its terms.


I'm not placing my faith on the effectiveness of the treay but rather on the fact that the NPT gives the international community the leagl and moral obligation to opose Iran's nuclear ambition. Treaty entered bu sovreign states for the basis of international laws. In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable.  The solution to Iran's nuclear plans does not lie with the removal of Israel's weapons as this will never happen. You idea of offering a different type of reactor to Iran while disarming Israel amounts to Munich all over again.


----------



## Rodders

Well, let's be realistic. Why would China want to destroy the US? Moreover, why would China want to invade Canada? If you believe the reason for this would be for them to acquire the natural resources we have, they would not need to invade us. They would get them the say way other countries do. By purchasing them. There is only one country on the planet with the geographical ability to invade us, and that's the US.

I do not suggest that we stop doing business with the US. We couldn't, and there would be nothing to gain from it. However, it is a fundamental of business or investing to have a diverse portfolio. You don't invest all your retirement savings with one company. What do you do if they go bust? Canada can, and should be conducting more business with the Asian markets. We don't owe anything to the US that they don't in turn owe to us. That is, the consideration and loyalty that goes along with being national friends. But our first responsibility must be to ourselves. The beauty of it is, we can do both. We do not need to "pick sides". Because China is beginning to rival the US on the world stage does not make it our enemy. The "us & them" mentality is necessary and unavoidable sometimes, but it should not be embraced so readily.

Economics have been the predominant motivation for conflict in the past, and no less so today. However, governments play less of a role these days then they did a few decades ago. MNC's have usurped a great deal of power from national governments, particularly(although not limited to) with regards to foreign policy. Why take by force when you can have through trade? 

To summarise, I think the risk of Canada being invaded by the Chinese is equal to the threat of swarming killer bees that were have supposed to have been up here by now. 

All power fades, and all empires fall. The place the US holds in the world right now is temporary. They will not be the dominant power forever. If the US really wants to cheat history, and not fade into disarray and obscurity like every other empire before them, they need to figure out how to integrate themselves into a changing world. To this end, I have two hopes. One that there is no excessive destruction and death for any nation's people, and two, that Canada does not get dragged down with them.






			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada?
> 
> Conduct Partisan operations, really what could Canada do if the Chinese decided to take what they wanted?  The UK can no longer defend Canada.  Russia, maybe, or sue for peace?  I think it is fair to say that many nations would love to get a piece of North America if something happened to the US.


----------



## Glorified Ape

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Thinking that Iran is somehow constrained by "Realpolitik" WRT nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. When their President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and claims the arrival of the Mahdi is immanent (in Islamic theology, this is similar the Christians proclaiming the return of Jesus Christ and the day of Judgement), the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are proclaiming the Apocalypse is more than just "scary". A military "head shot" against their nuclear facilities, government institutions and revolutionary guard is probably the best possible solution we have now, unless the Iranian population can rise up en mass and overthrow their opressors.



Whereas nuclear weapons in the hands of a Western religious zealot are somehow preferable? Hey, I haven't noticed Iran participating in any unilateral acts of international aggression lately, but I haven't read the news reports yet today. The thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people that spout off about "good" and "evil" and "evil-doers" and other non-thinking, sensationalist rhetoric disturbs me too, but I'm not about to argue for the invasion of the US because of it. 



> Lenin proclaimed "World Revolution",  Hitler wrote extensively about what he planned for Europe, and Imperial Japanese policy was fairly well known in the first half of the 20th century, and surprise!, they did their best to carry out their stated intentions. Intelligence commonly looks at capabilities rather than intentions, which may be one of the traps we have fallen into, in any "rational" universe, Iran is completely unable to carry out any of its stated intentions. Indeed Osama Bin Laden stated the reason for the 9/11 attacks was explicitly to provoke the United States into war, while not a rational act by any means, this played directly into his belief system (based on observed American behavior in the 1990s, he felt America was a "paper tiger", and he believed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on would not only be slow, grinding and unsuccessful, but would also lead to an uprising throughout the Islamic world.)



9/11 was an entirely rational act from the perspective of an adversary of the US. Not only did it inflict levels of damage greatly disproportionate to the resources invested but it provoked a response that has alienated "the enemy" (to him the US) from its traditional allies and from a sizeable portion of the world, not to mention the domestic conflict this reaction brought about in the US. 9/11 was not unfeasible or irrational - it was entirely the opposite - both feasible and rational, especially when one considers OBL (and other leadership calibre AQ members) continued existence (assumedly). Iranian aggression is unfeasible insofar as it is impracticable without bringing about the destruction of Iran and the guaranteed deaths/detainment of its leadership. It's irrational insofar as the level of damage suffered would far, far outdo the level of damage wrought - especially on a personal level vis a vis the Iranian leadership.

Iran is not Nazi Germany, nor the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan - it has neither the capabilities nor the grandeur of intent or historical circumstances which all three possessed in such a conjunction that their ambitions were practicable. As for Iranian intent, I stated earlier that I believe their intent to be deterrence, which seems to me to be the most glaringly obvious reason for obtaining nuclear weapons at this juncture. When one factors their current situation with past US policies and practices towards Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Iran-Iraq War, etc.), such an intent is hardly irrational or unwarranted. 



> WRT economics, there are large challenges facing the West (not just the United States), but adversary often unleashes creative solutions and allows merit to come forward when the status quo fails. Statist solutions to the economic problems haven't worked, but given the limited challenges we have faced so far, the system has been able to continue to function. Place a large shock and innovative solutions like President Bush's proposed reworking of Social Security or the privatization of Canada's health care system become not only desirable but absolutely necessary.



Absolutely necessary? If you're part of the Chicago school, I guess... 



> For those people who are arguing the primacy of Asian or other non-European/Western cultures, just read your history. The Chinese invented paper currency, gunpowder, sailed huge armadas in the Indian Ocean and so on, but who actually took over the world? These other cultures are internally focused, and while this gives them a certain longevity and internal stability, this does not tranlate into their long term advantage. One might ask why these Chinese fleets did not establish colonies in India, the Arabian Peninsula, the east coast of Africa, or Indonesia, when there is unambiguous evidence they had actually visited these places?



I'm not quite clear on what your point is here - "we're the best because we conquered, slaughtered, and subjugated better than everyone else"? 



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable.



By that logic, should I hold all your arguments defunct because of your anti-Iranian bias?


----------



## a_majoor

No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....

Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.

9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.

My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.

When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.


----------



## Glorified Ape

a_majoor said:
			
		

> No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....
> 
> Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.



The same "sky is falling" predictions were made about India, Pakistan, China, and probably even South Africa when they first obtained nuclear weapons but it didn't fall and the world's still here. Now it's Iran and North Korea - Chicken Little's back, heralding their nuclear ambitions as harbingers of the apocalypse. Same script, different cast. The risk posed by either state once in possession of nuclear weapons has been blown out of proportion, not surprisingly, by the people that stand to lose the most (control and influence wise) by such possession - the nuclear powers, most especially in the West. If you've got a stick with which you can beat the other apes over the head, you don't really want them to get their own sticks. 




> 9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.



I like the "last 10 days" reference (seriously). I see what you're saying about the dying throes of regimes, but the same was said of Saddam and look what happened there. I don't put too much stock into the "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the latter. Improvement has been made, undoubtedly, but the real test will be when there isn't a huge foreign military presence shoring up the government. Another big test will be what happens when (or if) an Iraqi or Afghani government adopts policies or practices in contradiction of US wishes - I have a feeling that such an eventuality would bring about a distinct change in US attitudes (and actions) towards Iraqi and Afghani democracies. 

The Caliphate ambition has always been unrealistic and I doubt the emergence of "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Palestine and Lebanon) makes it any more unrealistic than it already was. The established regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Syria, etc. provide just as much of a stumbling block (if not moreso) to that ambition than any of the aforementioned transition states. 



> My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.



I find the Austrian school's disdain of empiricism to be a little strange - seems to me that similar praxeological-based sects (like rational choice theorists in poli sci) often fall flat on their face because of it. John Crow might be a good example. I agree with your prior statement as to the lack of a link between deficits/debt and economic growth - I heard the same argument from a Keynesian just recently (yes, they still exist it seems). 



> When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.



I'm not sure it was a matter of the Chinese not capitalizing so much as it was their insular nature. That being said, the Mongols sure did a bang-up job. I don't really measure a civilization's "success" by its capacity for expansionism. I don't take a Huntington-esque realist view of civilizations where the maxim seems to be "dominate or decline". I find that the inverse seems to be just as true - domination, or the attempt thereof, often seems to trigger decline far faster than the more unambitious approach taken by more insular cultures like the Chinese or Indians. That being said, my knowledge of the varied civilizations' histories is about an inch deep and a mile wide.


----------



## Chummy

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Ah yes, "International Law". When you go to a criminal or civil court, you are seeing the State exercising its power. Without the armed power of the State as an ultimate recourse to compel obedience, how will you receive your justice? If you are awarded a judgement in your favor and the other party balks, the sheriff can seize his chattel property and the offender can be arrested and jailed. Without the recourse to State power, you are SOL.
> 
> But where is the overweaning Power to compell a Sovereign State? Even a relative pipsqueak State like Ba'athist Iraq was able to defy "International Law" through the 1990s, with some assistance from the "Oil for Food" crowd to be sure, but since no one was able or willing to compel Saddam Hussein to follow the directives, he simply did not. If Iraq doesn't follow "International Law" without compulsion, then what is to stop Iran from defying "International Law" (and they don't even have nuclear weapons yet!). How about a Sovereign State with vastly more power and resources like China?
> 
> I wonder why arguments like this always end up with appeals to the UN. After the complete failure of the UN through the 1990s (Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Oil for Food, Rwanda, WMD inspections in Iraq, genocide in Dafur...shall I continue?) is there any possible legitimacy left in that organization? For that matter, would you want to give the sort of power required to compel a Sovereign State to a corrupt and profoundly illiberal institution like the UN?
> 
> NATO was not a multi-lateral power alliance? What about the G-8? The Anglosphere? The Francaphonie? The British Commonwealth? The world has always had shifting formal and informal alliances, some which are reflected in formal organizations (think back to @400 BC when the Delian League was locked in a series of hot and cold wars with "Sparta and her Allies". All the City-States of Greece were involved, as well as the Persian Empire and many unaffiliated Greek City-States throughout the Mediterranean sea.)
> 
> A far more compelling argument is that the inattention of the United States to the external world through the 1990's set the stage for the present state of affairs.



I agree on one level that international law requires the power of the state to back it up. Certainly with respect to a particular resolution involving a non-compliant member, this is true. However, the key to any rule of law is that those bound by it have to feel bound by it, either by agreement or coercion. Otherwise, there is anarchy. International law is really just the set of conventions that most countries agree to live by, but this isn't really any different from the law within a common law country. It's just that international law as a concept is just in its relative infancy. 

In the case of states, coercion of a non-compliant member state can come from the group of countries agreeing to abide by UN principles, wielding their collective power. A society full of people who want to be a part of it is always on more solid ground than one having to coerce its members. Your argument seems to presume that the UN would only function if it had the strength to coerce all of its members. I would argue that it is effective on a variety of levels because most countries want to make it work, recognizing it as a means of protecting their internal autonomy so long as certain rules aren't broken (like invading your neighbours). Prevention of genocide was never a part of the original design of the UN, but international convention was definitely taking the UN in that direction. The UN is a radical thing in the history of sovereign states.

Member compliance on specific issues is often the biggest difficulty with the UN, admittedly, but this does not always lead to failure, either. The use of force is contemplated, but, like in a civilized country, limited in its application. Gulf War I was an example. So was Korea. I'm not so naive as to think that there weren't other political forces at work in these examples, but this is true at every level of government down to your local municipality. That's just life. 

The positive thing is that the UN provides a means of saving face for countries when they need to point to something to justify their backing away from a hard line position. It provides a way of backing out of a situation that, absent such a safety valve, is more likely to end in war purely by momentum. The UN's biggest success has been as a way of restricting conflict to avoid all out nuclear war. It is only effective to the extent that countries choose to follow it, but it has proven useful on a number of occasions that could have turned out very badly otherwise. Admittedly, and as you point out, it has failed on a number of occasions as well, but these failures in my view are not a valid argument against its existence. For relations between countries, it is the best thing we have, and is worth improving, not abandoning. This is why I see the US backing away from it as a dangerous development, as the UN's most powerful member. This particularly in light of the inevitable decline in the US's relative world power over the next half century. 

Of course, states that have common interests will align themselves economically or in strategic arrangements. These can exist within the UN just as cities and provinces exist within a country. However, I would argue that American unilateralism without giving at least a nod to international law is a step backwards on a slippery slope. I don't see any causal relation to support your proposition that the present world is a result of a US failure to project power in the 1990's. The neo-conservative crowd in Washington would certainly like you to believe that. The fact is that Hussein was rendered powerless after Gulf War I, a UN action. Bush Sr. did it the right way. Bush Jr. is going about it the wrong way. 9-11 changed a lot of things, but, following the Bush Sr. model, there would now be a full UN contingent cleaning out Afghanistan of all the terrorist bases, Iraq would remain contained (they had nothing to do with 9-11, and experts are pretty much unanimous that there were no WMD's left), and the US would not be alienating itself. Is Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication.


----------



## vonGarvin

ZxExN said:
			
		

> When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Sadam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.


I think that's debatable.  The media want stories of suicide bombers, beheadings, etc.  Now, imagine Iraq with the same media scrutiny under Saddam's power.  The gassings, the killings, the torture chambers, etc.  Now, in another analogy, I'm fairly certain that 1938 Germany was a better place to live than 1946 Germany.  And remember, it's the terrorist attacks in Iraq that are making people "live in fear and die every day", not the US.  I'm pretty sure that kidsa re going to school, and so forth.  Besides, the only person I know of who was in Iraq under Saddam's regime was Sean Penn, so really, the truth IS out there, but I doubt that the mass media version of it isn't all that accurate.


----------



## a_majoor

Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".

The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil). 

As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.

We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.


----------



## a_majoor

We have allies inside Iran itself, and certainly should be offering as much encouragement as possible to the revolutionary movement. If they overthrow the Theocracy, then the movement is legitimate in its own right, a great deal of pressure is taken off democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support for Hamas, Hezboullah and the Jihadis will be cut off at the knees.

While this person is playing up the positives, the situation is quite real and his observations should not be discounted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp



> *Counting the Minutes*
> A conversation with Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar.
> 
> Q&A by Jason Lee Steorts
> 
> Amir Abbas Fakhravar is one of the most prominent dissidents in Iran. A former medical student and journalist, he was arrested and imprisoned after the publication of his anti-regime book This Place Is Not a Ditch. While on a leave from prison he fled the authorities, and has been on the run ever since. From the Iranian underground, he coordinates the activities of various dissident groups, and for this reason the regime has (according to his knowledge) issued a standing order for the police to shoot him on sight.
> 
> Through the help of an Iranian émigré living in California — who wishes to be identified only by her first name, Manda — Fakhravar recently phoned NR deputy managing editor Jason Lee Steorts to discuss Iran's nuclear program, the hopes of the Iranian people, and his life as a fugitive.
> 
> National Review Online: What do the Iranians you know think of Iran's nuclear program?
> 
> Amir Abbas Fakhravar: The regime is trying hard to tell to everybody that the nuclear activities are like the nationalization of oil 50 years ago. They are telling the world that this is somehow a national interest and that it's something the people want. But it's not like that at all. I'm very much speaking on behalf of the students and the youth that I'm in contact with, and nobody thinks about it like that. We are lacking elementary necessities, schools, hospitals. These are the things we think of as our national interests, not the nuclear program. If this nuclear technology were something coming out of the minds of our own people, and promoted by our own people, we would say O.K., this is by all means our national interest. But it was a technology smuggled in from the borders of Pakistan by people working through A. Q. Khan's network. What I hear from the students, the youngsters who are 70 percent of Iran's population, is that if this were such a national thing, why did the regime spend 18 years hiding it from us? Only two or three years ago we found out that [the regime] was spending billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue on this technology instead of on our basic needs.
> 
> NRO: One argument we hear in the West against confronting Iran, whether through sanctions or through military action, is that doing so will make the regime more popular with the Iranian people — that it will actually strengthen the regime.
> 
> Fakhravar: Please don't ever say that the people of Iran are going to have resentment or anger in their hearts toward America or Western countries for doing this. That is 100 percent false. To see this, all you need to do is contact some Iranians inside the major cities. Just send your journalists to interview the people in the streets and ask them. It was Saturday [February 4] that the people here found out that Iran was going before the [U.N.] Security Council, and there was celebration all over Tehran. I heard from my own family, the families of my friends, that it was one of the busiest days of the year for the pastry shops — that people were buying pastries and cookies and candies in the streets of Tehran and going to each other to celebrate. They think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain with action that, no matter how long the time period, leads to the downfall of this regime. If you overthrow the regime, we will welcome you with open arms and open hearts. People are counting the minutes for this regime to be over and gone.
> 
> NRO: What makes you think you speak for the majority?
> 
> Fakhravar: When I go to underground meetings of fellow students and friends of mine, I see that my statements, my books, all the things I and other dissidents have been saying are on the walls of their bedrooms. I hear what they say. They very much give their views. And I meet with other people who are on top of other networks. I meet with representatives of many, many networks, and I know what all of these people are thinking.
> 
> NRO: The Iranian regime does a great deal to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. What do the Iranians you know think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about Iran's role in it?
> 
> Fakhravar: We see that the interests of the Palestinians are more important to this regime than the interests of Iranians. When we see a government like that, that has Shehab missiles and parades them through the streets and covers them with cloth threatening "Death to Israel," "Death to America," we don't think this is in the interests of Iran or of anybody. This is purely for [the regime's] own interests. We, all the youngsters, think of other nations — Americans, Israelis, Europeans — as our brothers. We see that two generations have already been lost [since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979]. In kindergarten, in primary schools, one of the biggest elements they're teaching is that other people's religions are not right, that other people are our enemies. They preach death to America and death to Israel. They praise suicide bombers. This is what they are doing with our culture and our civilization that go back 2,500 years. Nobody trusts the schools or wants to send their children to them. Apart from all the everyday problems people are confronting, besides economic problems, unemployment, inflation, this is the education we see — the education of death.
> 
> NRO: What do Iranians think of George W. Bush?
> 
> Fakhravar: The people of Iran, especially the youth, are so admiring of Bush and his administration for siding with the people of Iran rather than the government of Iran. No other leader of any government, even the Europeans, took this stand. All the youngsters support him and love him, and we want to express our deepest gratitude for him and his administration and what they are doing to liberate us.
> 
> NRO: Are you receiving any support from the U.S. government?
> 
> Fakhravar: I cannot mention who, but I'm definitely communicating with some people in the U.S. government and have established contacts with people in the Bush administration.
> 
> NRO: Can you say anything about your personal safety and the conditions you live in?
> 
> Fakhravar: As I said before, I'm a fugitive on the run and am living in hiding. For years I've been struggling and fighting this regime. I was in the most notorious prison. They broke my knee, they tore my ligament, they broke my nose, so many tortures, and my family has been through so much because of me. My only aid and objective is to see this regime be gone totally — not only a part of it, but the whole regime. I want for my sister and mother and all the women I know to live in freedom. I want my children, when I get married and have a child and he goes to school, to be taught love rather than death. We want to live among all the nations of the world in peace, and we want all the basic freedoms that other countries have right now. We don't want our name to be — whenever people hear "Iranians," a country that had such a civilization and was so respected — now they say Iranians equal terrorists. We don't want our name to be mentioned like that.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp


----------



## Chummy

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".
> 
> The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil).



I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations (sometimes). It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently. I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing. 


			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.
> 
> We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.


----------



## a_majoor

Chummy said:
			
		

> I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that *it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations *(sometimes).



I am not familier with these historical examples, care to provide some?



> It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently.



Since the UN itself is not acting according to the rule of law (the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan should be a big clue, and things like "Oil for Food" or Dafar are another indication of which way they are going).



> I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing.



The US was isolationist in the 1900's, and emerged on the world stage under the tutalage of the "Progressives", with President Wilson taking the defining step of entering World War One and remaining engaged in European politics in the aftermath. The true irony is when the US steps aside and alows "multilateralism" to run its course, we see the unravelling of Yugoslavia, the deadlock over North Korea's nuclear program and the absolute failure of diplomacy vs Iran's nuclear ambitions. OF course when the United States steps in and takes action to supress genocide or otherwise enforce the UN charter........


----------



## TCBF

"... Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication."

- Please, let us not confuse effectiveness with sophistication.  The two are often at odds with each other in the real world.

Ya  know what?  Tonight, emailing a friend, it occured to me that the Iranians might want nukes to protect themselves from whom?  Not the Isrealis or the Yanks.  Who attacked Iran and killed hundreds of thousands?  Iraq, thats who.  And who is to say what might happen in the future if the American plan for Iraq goes awry?

So... my conclusion: The country which has the most to benefit from a sucessful American democracy building exercise in Iraq is... Iran.

Tom


----------



## Chummy

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I am not familier with these historical examples, care to provide some?



The Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the most important example of the UN being instrumental in the process that resulted in the situation being diffused with the parties saving face. It was by no means the whole story, but played a key role. It is, of course, always harder to prove a negative ("when did someone NOT do something because..."), but the fact that, when the security council appeals for a cease fire and offers peacekeepers, and the (usually losing) side invites this, it is difficult for the other side to continue on fighting. The result is that real estate seldom changes hands in a permanent way as a result of the war. The Arab Israeli and Indo Pakistani conflicts have been relatively short and did not result in a significant change of borders at least in part due to the deterrent value of the Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council's diplomatic intervention. The UN never recognized the annexation of East Timor by India, and after 26 years East Timor was independent again. 

The implication is that this possibility makes invading your neighbour a less viable extension of politics (for you Clausewitz fans). It saves face by providing the reason not to fight. I am the first to admit that this only happens when the great powers of the day go along with it (Iraq 1), the war doesn't happen within only one of their spheres of influence, or as in Korea in the 50's, one of them boycotts the security council vote.  My argument is not that the UN is perfect, just that the international law for which it is a repository, which says that sovereign states do not invade each other as its cardinal rule, is the correct way to go. I can't emphasize enough, I am fully aware of the organizations shortcomings. 

To extend this, what would the post 9-11 world look like if the US had followed UN rules? I think terrorists routed in Afghanistan with a full UN force sympathetic to the US; Iraq would still be contained, and the US would have more resources to do other (legal) things with its military - maybe act as part of a UN force to stop some future Iranian aggression, who knows? Or force real inspections of Iran with full UN cooperation? Anyway, we can "what if" until the cows come home... 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since the UN itself is not acting according to the rule of law (the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan should be a big clue, and things like "Oil for Food" or Dafar are another indication of which way they are going).



I don't follow the logic. The Liberals broke the law, so Canada is not a country founded on the rule of law?



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The US was isolationist in the 1900's, and emerged on the world stage under the tutalage of the "Progressives", with President Wilson taking the defining step of entering World War One and remaining engaged in European politics in the aftermath. *The true irony is when the US steps aside and alows "multilateralism" to run its course, we see the unravelling of Yugoslavia, the deadlock over North Korea's nuclear program and the absolute failure of diplomacy vs Iran's nuclear ambitions.* OF course when the United States steps in and takes action to supress genocide or otherwise enforce the UN charter........



At the risk of misdirecting this thread, these are some very sweeping statements. Can you expand on how "multilateralism" resulted in the unravelling of Yugo, North Korea, and how all diplomatic recourse has been exhausted in Iran, or in the interest of brevity provide cites for further reading? Admittedly, when the US fails to commit resources to the UN and pay its dues, it makes it difficult for the UN to carry out its mandate, but that's part of the problem with going it alone all the time... and we're back to wondering how long the US resources will hold out for them to carry on imposing pax americana...


----------



## Rodders

And who is to say what might happen in the future if the American plan for Iraq goes awry?

Or if the American plan goes as they wish.


----------



## a_majoor

Chummy said:
			
		

> The Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the most important example of the UN being instrumental in the process that resulted in the situation being diffused with the parties saving face. It was by no means the whole story, but played a key role. It is, of course, always harder to prove a negative ("when did someone NOT do something because..."), but the fact that, when the security council appeals for a cease fire and offers peacekeepers, and the (usually losing) side invites this, it is difficult for the other side to continue on fighting. The result is that real estate seldom changes hands in a permanent way as a result of the war. The Arab Israeli and Indo Pakistani conflicts have been relatively short and did not result in a significant change of borders at least in part due to the deterrent value of the Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council's diplomatic intervention. The UN never recognized the annexation of East Timor by India, and after 26 years East Timor was independent again.



The Cuban Missile Crisis? The USSR backed down when the US signaled its resolve with the naval blockade of Cuba, and the implicit threat that if things went any farther General Curtis LeMay would be unleashed to turn Cuba, the USSR and probably China into radioactive rubble. (Don't forget the Russians were in Cuba in the first place because they *did not* have a credible strike force at the time). I will argue the Arab-Israeli wars were short because of the limited objectives of the Israelis, not to mention the limited logistical base of all players (unless their patrons, the USSR and the United States were willing to pour resources into the fight, see the Yom Kippur war), similarly the Indo-Pakistani conflicts. Since there is still a low level state of hostilities in these regions, with outbreaks of active fighting, I don't see where the UN has had any effect. (Palestinian, Iranian and other Arab governments, for the most part, still refuse to recognize Israel, and continue hostilities using a terrorist/insurgency model since that is what they can support). As for East Timor, the UN made comforting noises for 26 years but it was Anglosphere troops that actually came ashore, fought against Indonesian "militias" and troops and helped to secure East Timor as an independent nation.

The ultimate arbitrator in these cases isn't the UN, it is some one nation or group of nations using armed force to get the solution they want.



> The implication is that this possibility makes invading your neighbour a less viable extension of politics (for you Clausewitz fans). It saves face by providing the reason not to fight. I am the first to admit that this only happens when the great powers of the day go along with it (Iraq 1), the war doesn't happen within only one of their spheres of influence, or as in Korea in the 50's, one of them boycotts the security council vote.  My argument is not that the UN is perfect, just that the international law for which it is a repository, which says that sovereign states do not invade each other as its cardinal rule, is the correct way to go. I can't emphasize enough, I am fully aware of the organizations shortcomings.



Egypt kicked the UN troops out of the Sinai which was a good signal they were preparig to go to war, and the Croats (and to a lesser extent the Serbs) had no issues rolling over UN "peacekeepers" to reach their objectives in the civil wars of the 1990s. Somali warlords ignored the UN until President George H.W. Bush landed 20,000 Marines, and when they left, it was open season on "peacekeepers" again. I could mention how closely Argentina and the UK followed UN direction in the Falklands. The list of examples is pretty long.....



> To extend this, what would the post 9-11 world look like if the US had followed UN rules? I think terrorists routed in Afghanistan with a full UN force sympathetic to the US; Iraq would still be contained, and the US would have more resources to do other (legal) things with its military - maybe act as part of a UN force to stop some future Iranian aggression, who knows? Or force real inspections of Iran with full UN cooperation? Anyway, we can "what if" until the cows come home...



It is easy to demonstrate there was little or no enthusiasm in the UN for any of those projects, but the real giveaway is the little parenthetic inclusion of (legal). The Congress of the United States voted in favor of going to war, so it is as legal as it is going to get. In a more metaphysical sense, self defense is *ALWAYS* legal, *and only a government willing to protect its citizens can be truly thought of as legitimate*. In the UN club, just sitting in the capital is legitimacy enough, and no one inside the UN is going to look too closely at the internal conduct of these nations who torture, starve or otherwise abuse the rights of their citizens.



> I don't follow the logic. The Liberals broke the law, so Canada is not a country founded on the rule of law?



Founded on the rule of law, but drifting away. If you really want to play "what if", imagine if the Liberals had won this election, and were free to continue looting the public purse without constraint and impose social engineering through the courts without parliamentary challenge or oversight. (The normal chain of events is that parliament legislates, the courts apply the law; this seems to have been turned on its head)



> At the risk of misdirecting this thread, these are some very sweeping statements. Can you expand on how "multilateralism" resulted in the unravelling of Yugo, North Korea, and how all diplomatic recourse has been exhausted in Iran, or in the interest of brevity provide cites for further reading?



EU and then UN efforts to stop the Yugoslavian Civil war were ineffective, and the wars only ended when the US finally decided they did "have a dog in this fight" and sent a divisional sized task force to impose order. Notice I was in Bosnia as part of an effort to enforce the "Dayton Accord" (as in Dayton, Ohio, USA) and not the "Montreal" or "Paris" accords. The Kosovo air campaign was entirely a NATO affair, with no UN input. North Korea is essentially a cats paw for the Chinese to alternately threaten or sooth their neighbours, the so called six party talks have amounted to a big zero in the results column. Iran has resisted all efforts to contain its nuclear ambition, breaking the seals and disabling the monitoring of the IAEC and stalling efforts by the EU to stop or divert the program until they either enrich enough uranium to do the deed; or get the Europeans to concede that Iran can develop nuclear weapons.


----------



## RossF

regulator12 said:
			
		

> The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points



I'm pretty sure the name reads "The Guest"..


----------



## The Gues-|-

The Washington Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1139395531778&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

*US to present Iran with 30-day ultimatum*


The United States will present a 30-day ultimatum to the UN Security Council this week, the Washington Post reported Saturday, calling on Iran to cease with its nuclear program. 

It was reported however, that the US would not request further economic sanctions on Iran. 

Iran and the European Union inched toward a compromise Friday that diplomats said would allow Tehran to run a scaled-down version of a uranium enrichment program with potential for misuse to develop atomic weapons. 

The development was significant because the Europeans and the United States have for years opposed allowing Iran any kind of enrichment capability - a stance that Russia, China and other influential nations have embraced in recent months. 

Top European officials - including the foreign ministers of France and Germany - publicly described talks Friday in Vienna as failing because of Tehran's refusal to reimpose a freeze on enrichment. 

"Unfortunately we were not able to reach an agreement," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters. He said the EU continues to demand "full and complete suspension" of uranium enrichment and related activities that have fed fears that Iran may be pursuing nuclear arms. 

Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the meeting ended, after just over two hours, "without achieving a result." 

But diplomats familiar with the talks told The Associated Press that after months of deadlock, the two sides explored possible agreement by discussing plans that essentially would allow Iran small-scale enrichment after reimposing its freeze for an undefined period. 

The compromise would serve Iran, the European Union and Russia by allowing all of them to say they had achieved their main goals. 

Iran would be able to run a program it insists it has a right to under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if it is only on a research basis instead of the full-scale enrichment. 

The Europeans, who since 2004 have negotiated for Iran to scrap enrichment, could tolerate small-scale enrichment if Iran first agrees to their key demand - a freeze to re-establish confidence. 

Moscow could benefit diplomatically and economically if Iran accepts its plan to move its enrichment program to Russia - except for activities defined as research and development that all sides agree on under any compromise plan. 

One of the diplomats - who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the substance of the confidential discussion - said the impetus came from Moscow, which has taken the lead in talking to Iran since talks with the Europeans collapsed late last year. 

He said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was to float the compromise plan in Washington on Monday and Tuesday to gauge American reaction. 

Consensus on such a compromise by the Russians, Europeans and Iranians could leave the Americans with two unpalatable choices. 

If Washington accepts the plan, it essentially leaves Iran in a position to develop technology that it could use to make fissile uranium for warheads. 

If it refuses, it again could face diplomatic near-isolation on what to do about Iran after months of building the kind of international consensus that last month led the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board to put the UN Security Council on alert about Iran's suspect nuclear program. 

By depriving the Iranians of domestic control of enrichment, the Russian plan - backed by most in the international community including the US and the Europeans - is meant to eliminate the danger that Tehran might misuse it to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Small-scale enrichment under a compromise would deprive Iran of the chance to run the thousands of centrifuges needed to enrich in sufficient amounts to give them material for multiple weapons. But it would allow them to perfect the methodology, should they later decide to start industrial-scale enrichment. 

Iran restarted some enrichment activities last month, two years after voluntarily freezing the program during talks with the Europeans. Those talks unraveled late last year. 

A report last week by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei showed Iran testing centrifuges - machines that spin uranium gas into enriched uranium. 

And just a few months down the road, "commencement of the installation of the first 3,000 ... (centrifuges) is planned for the fourth quarter of 2006," the report said. 

Experts estimate that Iran already has enough black-market components in storage to build the 1,500 operating centrifuges it would need to make the 20 kilograms (45 pounds) of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude weapon. 

Tehran insists it wants enrichment only to generate electricity and that it does not seek nuclear arms, but a growing number of nations share US fears that that is not the case. 

While Russia backed alerting the Security Council to Iran, it remains reluctant to press for tough action against Tehran, an economic and strategic partner. Lavrov said Friday that permanent council members were not united on a course of action. 

"There is no collectively discussed and agreed strategy of what we all will be doing in the Security Council if the issue is there," Lavrov told foreign reporters, hinting at his country's opposition to increasing pressure on Tehran. 

The IAEA's board is to discuss the Iran issue at a meeting beginning Monday, including the ElBaradei report. The board notified the UN Security Council Feb. 4, after Iran refused to heed requests to maintain a suspension on enrichment. 

There had been little hope the Vienna meeting would achieve a breakthrough. Both sides had made clear before that they would not move from their positions; the Europeans demanded Tehran freeze all enrichment activities and Iran insisted it would not. 

A Russian nuclear agency official, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media, confirmed the Moscow talks remained snagged over the same issue - Iran's refusal to freeze enrichment at home. 

Still, Lavrov hinted at the chances of compromise detailed to the AP, saying Friday that a deal with Iran was still possible before the IAEA meeting. 

"There always is an opportunity to reach an agreement," the Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying in Moscow. 

In Vienna, ElBaradei said he was "hopeful" of a negotiated solution after meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, while the Iranian representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, described the talks with the Europeans as "fruitful."


----------



## The Gues-|-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/05/ixportal.html

*How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator*

The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations. 

The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.

In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.

He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."

America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.

Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.

He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."

Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.

The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges. 

In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process. 

Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."


----------



## tomahawk6

The US wants the UN to issue Iran with a deadline. Later this year Iran will have 3000 centrifuge's enriching uranium.


----------



## a_majoor

Waiting for the UN to take action on this issue will be like waiting for the Un to take action on Dafur, send aid to the Tsunami victims, find and punish the perpetrators of "Oil for Food"....shall we go on?


----------



## Kirkhill

a_majoor, the problem is, rightly or wrongly, the only way that action can be taken is if a "check list" has been completed.  One of the boxes on that check list reads "UN".

Those people that are in a position to take action - the people of the OECD generally - are not yet convinced that their fear of consequences is outweighed by their need/desire to act. Thus they choose to accept delay and prevarication: anything to allow them to continue in the belief that "it may never happen".  The UN check box allows them to deny a little longer.  It is conceivable that it will take a mighty big shock to convince them of the need to act.

Unfortunately, a smart foe can inflict fatal damage by the continuous application of force at low levels.  These low level applications have the joint advantages of both causing movement and also inuring the target to the application of higher levels of force.  Applying higher levels of force speeds the movement and permits the use of still higher levels of force.  Ultimately the target is eliminated and was never aware of anything other than a generalized sense of discomfort and unease.

The counter may have to be the shocking application of force, in the face of public opinion, or else a longer game played at low levels that generate similar generalized sense of unease, but nothing that the public is sufficiently exercised about to oppose directly.  In the first instance failure or even too high a price can risk alienating the population to such an extent that the government is denied the opportunity to act, even if it is in the long term interest of the population.  In the second case the government may survive long enough to act in a measured fashion.

Thus we end up with a combination of the Cold War and the "Great Game" of the 19th century.  Economics, Politics, Covert work and Policing with only the occasional resort to open clash of arms.  Such long wars, decade and century long struggles for dominance are actually the norm.  The periods of open conflict that punctuate these struggles,  when armies confront armies in open combat, might actually be seen as often being the point at which the long term strategy has failed,  the force has become sufficiently apparent to the population under threat, that it is prepared to support military action through personal sacrifice and through taxes.

This current period in our history looks to me as if it has significant parallels with the struggle between Paris and London that commenced with the arrival of Richelieu in 1624 and didn't really end until the Entente Cordiale of 1904.  And some argue that the struggle continues.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Today brought nothing more then new troubles as Iran stated that the USA will feel pain if they cause Iran to feel pain.

I think that Egypt and Syria could be decding factors in this mess.  If Egypt condems Iran then the rest of the major Arab nations will probably follow suit.  If Syria says it wants to stay out of what it sees as purley national interest then the USA, Isreal could have a fairly free hand in dealing with Iran but if the other players don't pipe up then i think you will see (or hear) a lot more of the behind the scenes activities.

MOO


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Or maybe they just need to dance.....

http://www.glumbert.com/media/rave.html


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Do you ever get the feeling that Iran is just seeing how far they can push this before they get burned?

I mean saying you want to a nation wiped off the face of the earth.

Basically telling the Western powers that you don't care what they think you are going after a nuclear program anyway.

I think they are taking advantage of a overextened US military and a Europe that is as divided now as it has ever been in the past when dealing with rouge nations.

Of course that is just my MOO


----------



## tomahawk6

Look's like the united front so far exhibited by the US and our allies may be causing friction within the Iranian leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?ex=1300078800&en=563a2470b4397d6c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Could it be that they are just trying to make a cash grab?  Kim Jong Il has been successful leveraging concessions with his nuclear sabre rattling.  I bet Iran would love some of that kind of leverage.  Maybe they didn't realize how much friction they were going to encounter, but their leader is not really leaving himself too many avenues for retreat.  That's the kind of thing that can lead to a "sudden heart attack"  or a high velocity lead stroke and end up in political change.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

High velocity lead Stroke, I like that.  I think he has a better chance of being stung by a bunch of lead bees from a parade apperance but that is my MOO.

This guy is well and beyond Kim Jong Il, I mean even Kim did not think he could wipe a nation of people off the face of the earth in public.  I really think this guy lifes in a shell.  It had better be thick cause his whole world could come crashing down around him.


----------



## couchcommander

This article was posted elsewhere, but I think it deserves a spot on this thread:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html



> The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
> by Krassimir Petrov
> 
> I. Economics of Empires
> 
> A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.
> 
> Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.
> 
> For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.
> 
> *Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold.* The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.
> 
> Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.
> 
> *When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.
> 
> From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.
> 
> In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.
> 
> The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. *As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.
> 
> *The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000.* At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
> 
> Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.
> 
> History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.
> 
> 
> II. Iranian Oil Bourse
> 
> *The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro.* In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:
> 
> · The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
> 
> · The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
> 
> · The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
> 
> · The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
> 
> Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.
> 
> At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:
> 
> · Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
> 
> · Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
> 
> · Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
> 
> · Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
> 
> · Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
> 
> · Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.
> 
> Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.
> 
> The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem—to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world—that barbarous relic called gold.



And to immediately address the question that is going to come up "Well then why are Germany, France, etc. getting involved with the Iran nuclear issue?" I would think that they are very aware of their dependance upon the United States' economic well being. 

... just a few notes as well. The date for the opening has been pushed back to mid to late 2006, and it will initially take euros and dollars, with an eventual move to all euros. Further, the european union would have to cooperate by printing massive amounts of euros to keep up with demand. Given the mentioned effect this would have on the US economy, and the Europeans dependance upon it... I don't see that happening.


----------



## couchcommander

This is a link to the IAEA Report: "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran". This was recently sent to the Security Council for review. 

It is available at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

An expert below:



> B. Current overall assessment
> 
> 46. A detailed overall assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme and the Agency’s efforts to verify
> Iran’s declarations with respect to that programme was provided by the Director General in November
> 200422 and again in September 2005.23 As indicated in those reports, Iran has made substantial efforts
> over the past two decades to master an independent nuclear fuel cycle, and, to that end, has conducted
> experiments to acquire the know-how for almost every aspect of the fuel cycle. Many aspects of Iran’s
> nuclear fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium
> conversion and plutonium research, had not been declared to the Agency in accordance with Iran’s
> obligations under its Safeguards Agreement. Iran’s policy of concealment continued until October
> 2003, and resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with that Agreement, as summarized
> in the Director General’s report of September 2005.24
> 
> 47. Since October 2003, Iran has taken corrective actions with respect to those breaches. The Agency
> has been able to confirm certain aspects of Iran’s current declarations, in particular in connection with
> uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor
> programme, which the Agency has been following up as routine implementation matters under Iran’s
> Safeguards Agreement and, until 6 February 2006, its Additional Protocol.
> 
> 48. Two important issues were identified in the Director General’s November 2004 report as relevant
> to the Agency’s efforts to provide assurance that there are no undeclared enrichment activities in Iran,
> specifically: the origin of LEU and HEU particle contamination found at various locations in Iran; and
> the extent of Iran’s efforts to import, manufacture and use centrifuges of both the P-1 and P-2 designs.
> 49. With respect to the first issue — contamination — as indicated above, based on the information
> currently available to the Agency, the results of the environmental sample analysis tend, on balance, to
> support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination. It is still
> not possible at this time, however, to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to all of the
> contamination, particularly the LEU contamination. This underscores the importance of additional
> information on the scope and chronology of Iran’s P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes, which could
> greatly contribute to the resolution of the remaining contamination issues.
> 
> 50. With respect to the second issue — the P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes — although some
> progress has been made since November 2004 in the verification of statements by Iran regarding the
> chronology of its centrifuge enrichment programme, the Agency has not yet been able to verify the
> correctness and completeness of Iran’s statements concerning those programmes. While Iran has
> provided further clarifications, and access to additional documentation, concerning the 1987 and mid-
> 1990s offers related to the P-1 design, the Agency’s investigation of the supply network indicates that
> Iran should have additional supporting information that could be useful in this regard. Iran has also
> been asked to provide additional details on the process that led to Iran’s decision in 1985 to pursue
> centrifuge enrichment and on the steps leading to its acquisition of centrifuge enrichment technology
> in 1987. However, Iran maintains that no information, other than that already provided to the Agency,
> exists.
> 
> 51. No additional information or documentation has been provided with respect to Iran’s statement
> that it did not pursue any work on the P-2 design between 1995 and 2002. As indicated above, Iran has
> been requested to search for more information, and any supporting documentation, relevant to the P-2
> programme, in particular with regard to the scope of the original offer in connection with the P-2
> centrifuge design and Iran’s acquisition of items linked to that programme. Iran, however, maintains
> that no such information exists.
> 
> 52. The Agency continues to follow up on all information pertaining to Iran’s nuclear programme and
> activities. Although absent some nexus to nuclear material the Agency’s legal authority to pursue the
> verification of possible nuclear weapons related activity is limited, the Agency has continued to seek
> Iran’s cooperation as a matter of transparency in following up on reports related to equipment,
> materials and activities which have applications both in the conventional military area and in the
> civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area. In this regard, Iran has permitted the Agency to
> visit defence related sites at Kolahdouz, Lavisan and Parchin. The Agency did not observe any
> unusual activities in the buildings visited at Kolahdouz and Parchin, and the results of environmental
> sampling did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. The Agency is still
> assessing the available information, and awaiting other additional information, in relation to the
> Lavisan site and the PHRC.
> 
> 53. As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared
> nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of
> nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point
> in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.
> The process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process
> even with an Additional Protocol in force. In the case of Iran, this conclusion can be expected to take
> even longer in light of the undeclared nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme, and in particular
> because of the inadequacy of information available on its centrifuge enrichment programme, the
> existence of a generic document related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, and the lack
> of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, including, as mentioned
> above, about recent information available to the Agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could
> involve nuclear material.
> 
> 54. It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and
> nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency
> verification. In order to clarify these uncertainties, Iran’s full transparency is still essential. Without
> full transparency that extends beyond the formal legal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and
> Additional Protocol — transparency that could only be achieved through Iran’s active cooperation —
> the Agency’s ability to reconstruct the history of Iran’s past programme and to verify the correctness
> and completeness of the statements made by Iran, particularly with regard to its centrifuge enrichment
> programme, will be limited, and questions about the past and current direction of Iran’s nuclear
> programme will continue to be raised. Such transparency should primarily include access to, and
> cooperation by, relevant individuals; access to documentation related to procurement and dual use
> equipment; and access to certain military owned workshops and R&D locations that the Agency may
> need to visit in the future as part of its investigation.



You'll notice that the only thing that Iran can reliably be accused of is possessing documents and materials which could be used to manufacture p-2 centrifuges, and having a non-technical document dating from the 80's about how to form Uranium into hemispheres. The p-2 centrifuges can be easily explained by their want for domestic nuclear energy, however, the document is troubling, though it has been sealed by the IAEA (and is certainly not proof of any wrongdoing).


----------



## couchcommander

Another interesting article, from the same author who correctly predicted the war in Iraq well before it happened (available at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html, "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:  
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth")

http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html



> The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
> by William Clark
> 
> *The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. *
> 
> 
> In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market
> 
> 
> "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
> 
> - James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
> Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
> 
> It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.
> 
> Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.
> 
> Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
> 
> "The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]
> Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.
> 
> 
> "Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries"…"Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran."
> 
> "…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level." [3]
> To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]
> 
> Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
> 
> The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
> 
> Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:
> 
> 
> "Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange."
> 
> "…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way."
> 
> "…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.
> 
> The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]
> It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.
> 
> 
> "The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in."
> 
> "….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations."
> 
> "While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact." [6]
> Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.
> 
> 
> "Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.
> 
> He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." [7]
> (Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.
> 
> 
> "Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."
> 
> "Others familiar with Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."
> 
> "…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]
> One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades
> 
> During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).
> 
> The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).
> 
> The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.
> 
> 
> "The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."
> 
> "…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."
> 
> "….If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."
> 
> "There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all." [13]
> It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.
> 
> Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.
> 
> A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.
> 
> 
> "NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]
> Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:
> 
> 
> "Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."
> 
> "…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. " [17]
> Synopsis
> 
> Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.
> 
> This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.
> 
> Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.
> 
> 
> "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
> 
> - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
> 
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
> 
> [2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/...
> 
> [3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
> 
> [4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
> 
> [5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
> 
> [6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789
> 
> [7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588
> 
> [8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com
> 
> [9] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," ibid.
> 
> [10] "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
> http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
> 
> [11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
> http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
> 
> [12] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
> 
> [13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
> 
> [14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
> 
> [15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html
> 
> [16] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.
> 
> [17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
> 
> [18] Philips, Peter, "Censored 2004," Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/
> 
> Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html


----------



## couchcommander

Heh... and something for my own amusement:

Bush: 2003



> The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies.



Bush: 2006



> The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons



...and again in 2003


> And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.



...2006


> The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people....America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.



...2003


> Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida



... and finally 2006


> The regime in that [Iran] country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.





... hrm...this entire Iran thing seems vaguely familiar for some unknown reason....


----------



## a_majoor

Actually the entire project has a fatal flaw which was revealed in a single line at the end of the first post: " Further, the european union would have to cooperate by printing massive amounts of euros to keep up with demand."

Since inflation is a monetary phenomena, the EU will rapidly suffer from self induced inflationary pressures, coupled with a large and inefficient regulatory regime. The United States suffered from this in the period between the end of the Gold standard during the Nixon administration and the Carter administration, with the late 1970s being a period of severe economic hardship ("Stagflation") which required rather drastic means to crush at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

I am sceptical the EU has the will to take the same steps to reverse stagflation, and the fact the bulk of their foreign exchange holdings will be under the control of a hostile state (which could threaten to dump Euros if Islamic Sharia law is not enforced in Islamic enclaves in Europe, for example) will simply make it a lot harder for Europe to either disengage from Iran or even chart their own policy path if they go this route. On the other hand, the reflexively anti-American attitude of the EU elite, plus their short sighted, short term gain mentality will probably have them play right into the hands of the Iranians.

As for Couchcommander's last post; *I hope it does sound familier, since the end result is also being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan;* newly minted consensual governments, emerging structures for the rule of law and the growth of free market economies. Germany and Japan took decades to rebuild, why should we believe that a job of the same magnitude will take any less time in Southwest Asia?


----------



## couchcommander

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for Couchcommander's last post; *I hope it does sound familiar, since the end result is also being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan;* newly minted consensual governments, emerging structures for the rule of law and the growth of free market economies.



In determining the particulars of a crime, two elements play significantly, those being actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus), literally, guilty action, and mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), guilty mind. With this concept, the same action, depending on the intent of the person, can be construed as two completely different things, for example the difference between manslaughter and murder. 

Thus, the intent of a state in undertaking a hostile action must be considered, and this intent will distinguish particular actions from others. For example, a state attacking another which had knowingly, and beyond a reasonable doubt harboured individuals and organizations directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own citizens, for the reason of mitigating this threat, is a vastly different action than attacking a state with a very thin layer of evidence supporting the former position, and really for the primary reason of preserving ones own hegemony. 

Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. *Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action.* These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.


----------



## meni0n

So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?


----------



## couchcommander

meni0n said:
			
		

> So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?



The articles are meant bring to question whether or not any of these are indeed their primary motivation. As I said in the post, whether or not you find the true motivations, whetever you decide them to be, ethical or not is a decision only you can make for yourself.


----------



## Nemo888

Didn't we put Saddam in power to prevent the creation of a Shia Arab superpower? Why did we get rid of him, unless the demise of Iran was already planned?


----------



## a_majoor

As the mountains of documents from Iraq are translated, a picture first painted by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and articulated by George W Bush is coming back into view. This is, of course the picture of an aggressive regime determined to use WMD and support for terrorism as the asymmetrical means of breaking out from the Allied imposed restrictions post 1991. (Somehow I don't see the MSM rushing out to report these findings).

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316&view=1



> *Issues & Insights*
> Declassified Truth
> 
> Posted 3/16/2006
> 
> The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.
> 
> In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.
> 
> Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.
> 
> Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.
> 
> As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.
> 
> Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.
> 
> Here, for instance, are the marching orders for Directorate 8, the Mukhabarat's "Technical Affairs" department: "The Eight Directorate is responsible for development of materials needed for covert offensive operations. It contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons and explosives."
> 
> It goes on. Directorate 9, we discover, "is one of the most important directorates in the Mukhabarat. Most of its work is outside Iraq in coordination with other directorates, focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination."
> 
> The document also discusses the Mukhabarat's Office 16, set up to train "agents for clandestine operations abroad." The document helpfully adds that "special six-week courses in the use of of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah."
> 
> Got that? Terror techniques.



Follow the link and read the rest. 

The United States dealt with a clear and present danger in Ba'athist Iraq, and since political pressure hasn't reduced the danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, I think it is safe to say they will deal with the  demonstrable short term danger to the West, rather than worry about fairly nebulous currency exchange dangers. Since the EU has a per capita GDP about 25% below that of the United States (despite having a larger land, resource and population base), a stagnant economy and is facing a demographic crunch in 25 or so years, I don't think smart investors are going to be running to invest in Euros. A true reserve currency needs to offer long term stability, not the prospect of a meltdown waiting due to a demographic crisis when the 30 year bonds come due.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. *Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action.* These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.



So it was GW Bush and the western media that have created false video of the Iranian president and all of his threats?  Wow.  Those sneaky war-mongers! Someone should put a live camera on that guy so he can say what he really means instead of being misquoted by the capitalist slave Zionist media.  
What?  Oh?  He was live?
Thennnnnn, he, uh, was being drugged, NO, controlled by HYPNOTIC PREDATOR DRONES!  For God sake, somebody make a tin foil turban for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before it is too late and we end up in a war that only the United States wants!   See, look at this, they are doing it again:

*Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would not give up its nuclear rights. 

“Today we announce with pride that the peaceful knowledge and technology are at our disposal in order to be used for different purposes, including electricity generation, and we have not borrowed it from anybody that can take it away from us,” he said. * 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060320-1618-iran-nuclear-president.html

Geez, it's only a veiled threat.  And it's an Arab country.  They are all about the veils, you ethnocentric electricity hater.


----------



## couchcommander

On the threats against other nations front, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/">the US is not innocent on this count either</a>, you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

couchcommander said:
			
		

> On the threats against other nations front, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/">the US is not innocent on this count either</a>, you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.



I'm all about the rambling metaphor.  

The difference is that threatening a country to not pursue a nuclear weapons program is pretty okay in my books.  If they are so burning to have nuclear power, then do it the right way and have the International Atomic Energy Agency overseeing it like everyone else.  
Oil, blah blah blah.  I have every belief that at such time as oil does not suit the American interests, there will be a flurry of "discoveries" (actually releasing of buried technology) that render oil obsolete.  It will be a massive shift in the world dynamic, but ultimately it will likely be the United States that spear heads it.  In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?


----------



## couchcommander

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?



No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

couchcommander said:
			
		

> No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.



I think promising to push Israel back into the sea is a good enough reason to doubt their intent with the technology.  Just because they are not yet nuclear* capable * doesn't mean we should sit idle and let them.  Korea is a perfect example of how not doing anything allowed a freaky little Elvis wannabe dictator to wield a really big stick.  
Plus, I would rather see our allies going after theocratic zealots that are *seeking* the technology.  If you go after NK, then you may just get to see one of their nukes get tossed out and used.  At least with Iran a nice 48 hour hail of cruise missiles would sort out who is bluffing who.  
I also consider that these leaders in the middle east seem to have a real need to hear their own voices on television and need to sound tough to their people.  I remember one Iraqi dictator who used to talk pretty tough until he was playing sewer rat.  One would think that experience would let them know what is a good bluff and what is not.  If the US calls Iran's bluff, Iran is going to be in a bad way.  I think Iran is counting on the US military being stretched thin right now and figures it can pull some "shout at the bully from half a block away" and then at the last second say "okay, never mind.  Send in the inspectors".  I think the days of cat and mouse semi compliance with UN rules is coming to an end.  Unfortunately, there is only one country that seems intent on holding some of these bumblehumps to an accounting.  
And it ain't France.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1176995,00.html

Charles Krauthammer on the threat of hyperproliferation.
The Iranians will leave us with just two choices - do nothing or strike them hard. The article shows what the world could be like in the event we do nothing.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

From the linked article from Tomahawk:

*It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'Ãªtre is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?*

Good enough for me.  Where's the LOD?


----------



## couchcommander

Always amusing.

I too, would agree, that world leaders who control WMD thinking about the apocalyspe is a bad thing. Unforunately, Ahmadinejad <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/030812vanimpe.html">isn't the only one</a>. In fact <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y">this other guy</a> claims to be getting his orders directly from the big man.... scary IMO.



> According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."



From the last article. 

My point would be, I suppose, that I support removing any tyrannical or insane leader... for the reason of removing a tyrannical or insane leader (and of course we must decide whether this will actually bring about any more stability or peace). Once again, however, it seems to me that this is far from the US's true intentions. 

And regardless, as I said before, if we are going after people for this reason, I can think of a number of better targets than Iran. 

And once again, it cannot be proven that they have or are actively (currently) pursuing nuclear weapons. Past experience dictates that we cannot trust what the US is saying in this regard, so I will wait until an independant agency confirms it (*waits for the same "Well you can wait, but when you get nuked you'll be sorry" response I got re: Iraq*)  I'm reminded of the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Seriously, JACK VAN IMPE?!?!  
Couchcommander, you are not so couch bound that you believe everything you read on the internet, are you?  I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush is saying.  GWB has never made any bones about being a Christian, so if he referred to having "prayed to make a right decision" that is not the same as "God came to my security briefing and gave me a flaming sword to carve up Mesopotamia".  If the man didn't say it on camera, or in print, take it with a grain of salt.  Bush hating is very fashionable.  
Besides, no one is talking regime change in Iran (Yet).  They just need to have their nuclear program shut down before it is too late.  It's not like they are saying "we only want a few more kilowatts, what is the harm".  They are making definite threats to Israel, and anyone else who provokes their displeasure.  
Ultimatum, deadline, last chance, Tomahawk storm.  Short and sweet.


----------



## couchcommander

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying.



lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper. 

And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.

However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion. 

I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.

 For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities. 

However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it.


----------



## a_majoor

The amount of evidence that Iran has been promoting attacks against Western interests is fairly long and detailed, dating back to the American Embassy takeover in 1979, the "tanker war" in the 1980s to their quite open support of vicious terrorist movements like Hezbollah and Hamas to the present. 

Like Iraq under the Ba'athist regime, past actions are a very good indicator of what to expect, so if they are making open threats to acquire and use nuclear weapons, then it would be very short sighted NOT to take them at their word. As for "evidence" that Iran is persuing "peaceful" nuclear power; the fact that the Iranian people were unaware of the nuclear program for many years would seem to indicate there was something less than above board about it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

couchcommander said:
			
		

> lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper.



I whine about a [sarcasm] icon all the time 
How can we believe any media from any source completely?  They are all so easy to manipulate and all seem to have some sort of agenda.  I think one should keep an open mind, view multiple information sources and also consider the countries past actions.  



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.



I don't agree.  From their actions and words, we should not assume anything in that country these days is peaceful.  If they really are looking for another power source, they should have no problem allowing UN inspectors to monitor their activities.  It is their actions and words that make the monitoring necessary, so if they want to cry about "it's our country, it's not your business" then the shouldn't have been so quick to go back to war-threat Israel bashing.  



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion.
> I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.
> For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities



Oh, cripes, forget about regime change.  I can't even imagine what a drawn out cluster hump that would be.  I seem to recall that was one of the reasons that Iraq was an attractive target, because of the relatively low level of religious fervor.  I realize it looks a lot like there is religious battles going on, but in reality the insurgency is just using religion as a herald, and the real problem is politics, coupled with a lot of non-native button pushing on the part of Al Qaeda.  Kind of like Norther Ireland.  Catholic vs. Protestant really doesn't have much to do with what was going on.  More like Irish poor underclass (catholic) vs rich, small British ruling class (Prod).  



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it.



Come on!  That concession-ish talk is what led to 9-11.  For years the radical Islamic threat had been identified, but it was always "well, if you attack them, you just make them martyrs and make it worse".  We are past the "placate and ignore" phase.  This is a shooting war, and the shitrats need to be hunted down and exterminated.  It is us or them, and there will be no happy medium.  Here is some food for thought.
This is an excerpt from the introduction portion of an actual Al Qaeda training manual:

*In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate
PRESENTATION
To those champions who avowed the truth day and night ...
... And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases
...
-*- The confrontation that we are calling for with the
apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates ..., Platonic
ideals ..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the
dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and
destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
*** ...
Islamic governments have never and will never be established
through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are
established as they [always] have been
by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth*

I don't see these guys sitting down in a nice board room in the Hague and chit chatting about religious freedoms.  They are dedicated to the eradication of our society.  They see it as their absolute duty to Allah to wipe all traces of the western world from existence, or die trying.  

Me, I'm all for helping them out with the "or die trying" part.   :akimbo:


----------



## xander

Great article by Seymour Hersh, the same journalist that broke the Abu Graib scandal. The article talks about US military options against Iran including tactical nukes and how a war with Iran may play out. I'm not able to post the article because it is over the maximum characters allowed so here is the link to the New Yorker article.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact


----------



## tomahawk6

Hersh is a communist and very anti-military.


----------



## Cliff

> Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.



So what, it's no mystery that SF teams are conducting SR and working with the locals in Iran (no different than the early stages of Afghanistan and the NA). The tactical nukes seems like a bit of a stretch, even for comrade Hersh


----------



## couchcommander

I don't think anyone should be surprised that the US is scouting targets.

Re: the use of tactical nukes. The US had been exploring and developing limited nuclear options all through the Cold War. They seem to believe that nuclear weapons can be used to acheive certain objectives, within the context of a conventional war, without necessarily leading to an escalation.

In fact the <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf">Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, circa 2005</a> specifically states that nuclear weapons will be considered when there is a threat of an enemy using a WMD, to attack enemy WMD in hardened bunkers, to stop WMD proliferation to proxies, and just plain old to "demonstrate US intent or capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of WMD".....scary, especially when you realize this is all pre-emptive. For us lefties this caused quite a stir...


----------



## Cliff

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Re: the use of tactical nukes. The US had been exploring and developing limited nuclear options all through the Cold War. They seem to believe that nuclear weapons can be used to acheive certain objectives, within the context of a conventional war, without necessarily leading to an escalation.



Agreed. 

Yet, I still don't think they'll be used in Iran (it would destabilize the ME and further polarize the various sects). 



> For us lefties this caused quite a stir...



LOL.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

IMO I don't see nukes happening.  If there was one way to polarize the planet against the US, nukes would be it.  I have to believe with bunker buster technology, and other smart weapons, they could get the job done there (hopefully it won't come to that) with conventional ordinance.  
Besides, they are going to need all of those warheads to turn India into a glass parking lot when the Red Wave that we are all paying to build starts to flow out of China.  But I will leave it to ChCdr or one of the other better edumacated members to shoot down or support that wild hare opinion. ;D


----------



## couchcommander

I agree that nuking Iran isn't likely, but then again I thought that the US wouldn't pull out of the ABM treaty as well (too destabilizing)... I just wouldn't rule it out IMO.

*edited.... so that it actually made sense, i suppose... yup definately edumacation*


----------



## Long in the tooth

Iran may be the most complex geo-political problem since NATO was formed.  The US knows this and has made overtures towards India, which is of course the world's largest democracy.  Pakistan and China complicate the issue, but I believe concerns about China are quite over-rated.  The chinese must worry about 10 million men who will never find wives due to the (now obvious) one child policy.  Once China has a significant middle class democracy will hopefully follow.

Iran's young population (half under twenty five years old), religious government and military improvements do not bode well.  They have recently released news that they've developed a torpedo based on Soviet designs that can travel at 200 knots.  It's powered by a rocket motor and uses 'super cavitation' technology to minimize resistance through the water.  Iranian subs have been routinely patrolling as far as the South African coast and interdiction of oil tankers of the straits of Hormuz would be disasterous for the western economies.

I think the US will draw a very public line in the sand that is acceptable to the public and even world opinion, and then goad Iran to cross it.  The theocrats in Tehran will have to be careful as any misstep on their part could lead to massive international opposition to them.


----------



## A O G 101

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I think the US will draw a very public line in the sand that is acceptable to the public and even world opinion, and then goad Iran to cross it.  The theocrats in Tehran will have to be careful as any misstep on their part could lead to massive international opposition to them.


I agree that the us will have to draw a line ,I think more so they will have to draw a line that is acceptable to the rest of the world and the Israeli's.


----------



## Cliff

A O G 101 said:
			
		

> I agree that the us will have to draw a line ,I think more so they will have to draw a line that is acceptable to the rest of the world and the Israeli's.



The ROW also needs to get their butts and act before it's too late.


----------



## Long in the tooth

OK, out on a limb... but I believe the USA believes better earlier than later.  This balance of power probably gives the US more latitude, and they have definitly learned a lesson from the 'wonder bra'... gotta have some fun here, ask and I'll tell...


----------



## couchcommander

Right, I'll bite... what do you mean by the US's "wonder bra"... other than their getting to be middle aged and needing "more support" to feel good about themselves in public?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> OK, out on a limb... but I believe the USA believes better earlier than later.  This balance of power probably gives the US more latitude, and they have definitly learned a lesson from the 'wonder bra'... gotta have some fun here, ask and I'll tell...



I'll bite too.  WTH are you talking about?


----------



## Long in the tooth

OK, both the NVA vs US and Afghan vs USSR recieved sp from external allies.  Tthis is where I get "no visible means of support".  They all received sp, but not acknowledge it as it would made it direct conflict with the other super power.  In Iraq etc right now there is no external sp..... The ultimate Wonderbra omercial should be shot in Havana.


----------



## 1feral1

Face it nukes or conventional, one day on the news you'll hear that their reactor(s) will be destroyed by either the US or Israel. in my opinion, this is certain.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Long in the tooth

Iraq is very difficult as they have spread scientific  sites all over the country.. and it is a Big country with 60,000,000 people, as many as Nazi Germany....

But Iraq has no external means of sp..., all its own. The US has done an incredible job in isolatiing Iran.  Iran is now a festering problem that most countries would like to see lanced.


----------



## A O G 101

I think a lot is going to have to do with the russian's picking up on the re-construction at the Bushehr reactor site,that germany vacated after the revolution in  Iran,If the US wants to find a diplomatic solution to this problem their going to have to form closer ties with russia over this thing.Russia is bidding to supply them with the fuel for the reactor and disposing of the spent fuel themselves,If all goes has planned,great, if not this could be the ultimate ' Genie in a bottle' for all of us.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons negotiations are just a stalling tactic until they have workable nuclear weapons. It took South Africa only 10 years time and $250m to produce 7 weapons capable of being employed by their Bucaneer's. Their method was the gun type uranium model. Iraq also was using that method to produce a nuclear weapon. It takes a metric ton for a Scud warhead and 500 pounds for an advanced Scud [longer range]. The Iranian's have both. Our choice will be either to do nothing and see Iran gain nuclear weapons or try to take out their ability to make nuclear weapons. For Israel its really no choice at all - for their very survival they must act.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical2.asp?print=true


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Agreed, Tomahawk
Now, stand by for the shrieking and wailing about Bush loving war and being part of a Zionist doctrine :


----------



## MarkOttawa

A useful counter-weight to the New Yorker and Washington Post stories by William Arkin (no fan of the Bush administration) of the Washington Post--who has uncovered a lot of relevant facts.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/goldilocks_and_.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More facts from William Arkin:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/wild_speculatio.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

The Iranian's announced that they have enriched uranium. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191334,00.html


----------



## Armymatters

My personal opinions on Iran:

To me, the real heads of state (not the nutbag Iranian President) sincerly do not believe that they want nuclear weapons. The IAEA in a February 2006 report reported that all declared nuclear materials in Iran are accounted for by the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf) indicating to the IAEA that there is no diversion of such nuclear materials towards a weapons program, but the IAEA cautions that there may be undeclared nuclear materials and activity in Iran. They came to this conclusion due to issues in the past about the scope nuclear programme, and lack of information on the enrichment, and the supposed weapons designs the Iranians got. 

Taking out the Iranian nuclear facilites will be a tough task. Most of these facilites are buried deep underground, and are heavily dispersed throughout the country. Taking them out using air strikes will not gurantee total destruction and shutdown of all of the facilities. This is not Iraq and the Osirak reactor, as Iraq back in the 1980's had only one reactor and research facility. Iran has many reactors and research facilities. The only way to permenantly shut them down in Iran is to do a ground assault, but that would be iffy in prospects, as the Iranian military is well trained, well armed, well motivated, and very large, compared to the paper tiger that Iraq was. Also, there is a very real and big chance that such an invasion would ignite a Islamic Holy War against the West, a prospect that would be very alarming for the security of Western nations.

Iran does have the right to a civilian nuclear power programme under the NPT. Proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world is of great concern for the security of all nations on this planet, and as such, proliferation of nuclear weapons technology should be curtailed and prevented.

Edit: to summarize, yes, I think that the Iranian nuclear programme is of concern regarding its possible size and its intentions and goals, but one must see the bigger picture, and think about the security of all of the neighbours of Iran and of the rest of the world if attempts are made to shut down the program by force.

Edit 2: I am also asking the following questions:
1. What is the cost of shutting down Iran's nuclear program by force in terms of lives and the security of other nations? Is it worth it to attack Iran to shut down the nuclear program, compared to the increased security risks that may be encountered due to the fallout of such an attack?
2. Can we trust the Iranians with the program? So far, cooperation with the IAEA has been above that the IAEA requires. Can we trust them with being more forthcomming about the scope of their program?
3. What are the risks to other nations in the region? Will it destabilize other governments?


----------



## A O G 101

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Iranian's announced that they have enriched uranium.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191334,00.html


well aside from people dancing with vials of enriched uranium,I read this has better news than previous? Debatable?


----------



## Bert

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act 
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Another interesting article from Stratfor.


Iran: Crossing the Redline?
www.stratfor.com

Summary

Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.

Analysis

Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.

Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.

Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe, enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans still do not want military action -- but it is close.

For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.

But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States. Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of the ebb and flow of those negotiations.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Armymatters said:
			
		

> 2. Can we trust the Iranians with the program? So far, cooperation with the IAEA has been above that the IAEA requires. Can we trust them with being more forthcoming about the scope of their program?



Coupled with:



			
				Bert said:
			
		

> Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require *several * of these cascades, and a *power program requires dozens of them*. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.



So it is not too hard to figure out that if you provide the illusion with cooperating with inspectors, you can develop your technology and fissile materials in plain view.  If they need a large amount of enriched uranium for a plant, then in the process of acting like they were building a plant not end up with a considerable amount of enriched uranium for weapons?  I'd be pretty uptight if I had to live in Israel.  
The planet better get it's collective crap together and make a decision on these guys, or no good will come of this.


----------



## Armymatters

We also have to be careful how we deal with Iran, otherwise, we could ignite a Islamic Holy War against the West, and that would be even uglier. Right now, provide some incentives for Iran to be more forthcomming about the program and encourage Iran to be more open is all we can do.


----------



## couchcommander

What effect would Iran cutting off oil supplies have on our economies? Can OPEC keep up with demand? Would they even be willing to keep up with demand, whether it be to keep the prices high for their own benefit, or because they feel that the US has done something inappropriate?

.... I don't think we can afford that senario. We need to tread lightly, and before doing anything with Iran make sure we don't kick our own balls in the process.


----------



## Love793

Well, as for the Iran cutting off oil, the Price as of 0730 this morning in Windsor is $1.05 a litre.  And that is just with the rumours of sabre rattling.

The rest of it, sounds very similiar to the N Korean issue that came up prior to Bush's exploration of Iraq for NBC Capability.  I do have agree that eventually sometime on CNN, we're going to hear about either an American or Isreali airstrike on one or more reactor/research facility (and my money is on the Isrealis).


----------



## JBP

You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is... 

They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars. 

Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it. 

You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?

-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!
 ???


----------



## George Wallace

Interesting that the only 'country' of the three that lay claim to be the 'Home of Islam' and so far that is not in a 'state of war' is Iran.  Others that would like to lay claim to that 'Right' are Afhanistan and Sudan and of course we have Iraq on the fringes.


----------



## Landmine Detector

"You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is... 

They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars. 

Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it. 

You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?

-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!"


I think you're right.  If the Americans launched a ground offensive we would be with them.  The political pressure would be so great that those europeans would probably be there too.  However, I don't think that the US or NATO can realy afford to push an occupation of Iran considering that their militaries are tied up in Iraq, and Afghanistan.  

I think that inorder to deal with the Irainian government we need to avoid any talk of "regime change."  Don't get me wrong, there are bad people running that country, but as soon as the West says that they will essentialy "kill off" the old regime negotiations are impossible.  Even after a (hopfuly) quick war, if the regime is given the option to shape up they will be less inclined to fight to the death and will cave easeier.  The last thing the West needs is to be bogged down fighting gurrilla wars everywhere in the mid east.  This also means that the decapitation strikes against Hussain early in the Iraq war couldnt be repeated.  Hard to negotiate with someone after you have tried to kill him personaly.

As far as military options go, if there was only a convetional air strike against military targets al la "shock and awe" the west could try and make the case that we are punishing Iran, but dont want to own it.  This is harder to do if the west lands an invasion force.  At issue:  how can you confirm that you have taken out all nuke development unless you land ground troops?

Also, how would a strike against Iran effect the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## GAP

It is Iran that has drawn the line and is daring anyone to cross it. It's itching to start a fight, whether diplomatic or otherwise, to support it's place in Middle East politics. It's about prospective, and Iran wants to be high on the visibility list.


----------



## Navy_Blue

We do realize that unlike previous opponents of our friends to the south, Iran is much better equipped and trained than other foes.  Maybe not as advanced but they would be the most capable fighting force the US would face since Korea, maybe even WWII.  Iraq was a push over and Afghanistan was nothing.   Iran has a few toys and even a few nasty tactical options.  We would see huge casualties in the first 24 hours ships, plains and men.  

The US likes to bomb people first but the second one missile hits a target all shipping will stop because they will sink anything trying to get through the straights....completely ignore the ones with guns and hit tankers....World begins the worst energy crisis since the 70's.  The leaders of the world know this, its really a tight spot and Iran just may have us by the balls.  

Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again.  I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???


----------



## couchcommander

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again.  I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???



Well it all comes down to how they view nuclear weapons. If they think that they can be used as an instrument of policy, ie to acheive objectives and eventually victory, then they just might. As I mentioned, US doctrine does support the concept of a limited exchange, and there is nothing stopping Iran from having a similar doctrine. If they feel that they can acheive a high enough return with their capability that outweighs the potential effects of a similar US strike, they could be tempted. 

However, if they view the use of nuclear weapons simply in terms if deterrance, ie if they believe that the use of a nuclear device would trigger a series of events leading in an all out exchange, then they would be very unlikely to use them. We cannot assume that their view is the second, but nor should we automatically assume it is the first. I am no position to even speculate which one it is, but I can say that both doctrines have been explored by most nuclear capable nations, though with different conclusions.


----------



## Cliff

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Iraq was a push over and Afghanistan was nothing.   Iran has a few toys and even a few nasty tactical options.  We would see huge casualties in the first 24 hours ships, plains and men.



I don't think Iraq was a push over or Afghanistan was nothing. Anytime you operate in a foreign territory = it's a big deal.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Nuclear option....that is so absurd sounds like a little reporter over exaggeration, I never heard the US ever say this.

  Those who have any minor knowledge of targeting would understand that you don't need to use a nuc even one as small as a tactical one on a nuc plant or enrichment facility, just a hard target deep penetrating of the 10,000 lb range. Dropped from high alt by stealth they would not even know what hit them just that a massive explosion happened, it could even look like an accident!

  As for Iran as a foe that would be able to stand up to a fight...Sadam hammered them with 10 times less forces. They would roll over easily i my opinion....the aftermath and insurgent activity would be tough though.


----------



## a_majoor

Much of what is being reported is nonsense. Destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran through kinetic action would be the very last step, since it would not resolve the underlying problem, which is the regime and their quest for regional hegemony.

US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, *but*, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.


----------



## JBP

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Much of what is being reported is nonsense. Destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran through kinetic action would be the very last step, since it would not resolve the underlying problem, which is the regime and their quest for regional hegemony.
> 
> US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, *but*, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.



Something like a cruise missile maybe?  

At this point in time I don't think we should do anything in a military way about them. Only diplomatic, let them start beating thier chests and screaming in monkey to show off the fact they are "strong and dangerous". So did North Korea. Thank god we didn't go to war with them yet either... 

I think the media prods people on by shooting thier big mouth's off and just posting things on TV like, "US considers military strikes against Iran" and makes the public automatically think another war not only is being thought of, but that it's imminent. If George Bush started another war now, the USA population I think would lynch-mob the White House and kick his ass... There are some very, VERY unhappy people in the USA with him to say the least!

Hopefully we don't get sucked into the "suck" until about 2010 when we have a stronger military.... So long as we don't get torn apart again by politics and leadership switching hands too many times by then!


----------



## GAP

> I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard)


That's a scenario I can't visualize at all..As much noise as is being made, this country is a Theocracy, and I can't see you taking out the mullahs or changing their mind. The formal government is simply a tool of the Shite mullahs and we should not forget it. They have been so successful, simply because for the most part the general populace has 'been made' to believe what the Mullahs spout, irregardless of whether it makes sense or not to us.


----------



## George Wallace

GAP said:
			
		

> ....... The formal government is simply a tool of the Shite mullahs and we should not forget it. They have been so successful, simply because for the most part the general populace has 'been made' to believe what the Mullahs spout, irregardless of whether it makes sense or not to us.



I wouldn't 100% agree with you there.  There still is a lot of dissent in Iran, but it is very subdued by the faction in power.  If they did gain more popular support amongst the people, I could see them defeating the Mullahs in an election.  That being if there was ever a fair election to be held.


----------



## A O G 101

so question,With the ayatollah khamenei having declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons,can anyone forsee a religious  coup coming out of thic country in the near future


----------



## GAP

Already has been a religious coup...The different factions of the government are representing different factions of the Theocracy. The generation that experienced life under the Shaw and all it's freedoms, has for the most part been sidelined and is pretty ineffectual. Not that there's not dissent, but life is pretty brutal to those that do not tow the line, at least publicly. 
Can they export it...see "Southern Iraq"


----------



## Marauder

You know, if JSOC were to just liquidate all those pointy headed nuclear scientists who speak Farsi, and make an example of any free agents *coughrussianschinesekoreanscough* who went to Iran to try and rebuild that capability...

Oh, the glee  I would feel to see the wacky lefty academics here shite the bed over that...


----------



## Love793

What about the reactor technology we sell everyone?


----------



## Armymatters

Love793 said:
			
		

> What about the reactor technology we sell everyone?



The CANDU reactor technology? It requires no enrichment, but it is easy to get plutonium from this reactor design as you do not need to enrich the uranium, and it can be reloaded without having to turn off the reactor.


----------



## couchcommander

That's how India got the bomb, if I remember correctly. Not CANDU, but another Canadian heavy water reactor.


----------



## Armymatters

couchcommander said:
			
		

> That's how India got the bomb, if I remember correctly. Not CANDU, but another Canadian heavy water reactor.



It was based off the NRX design and was donated by us in 1960 (curiously, NRX suffered a partial meltdown in 1952). The Americans supplied the heavy water needed to operate the reactor. When the Indians blew up their first bomb, it prompted a major outcry here, and we cut off any future exchange of nuclear materials and technology with India.


----------



## Navy_Blue

My point about Afghanistan and Iraq being push overs stands.  The conventional forces folded within days if not hours after air strikes and assaults began.  What we are fighting now is a gorilla war (completely different).  I challenge anyone to find few if any instances where conventional forces (plains, tanks, ships and 1000's of infantry) fought and won against a gorilla force.   Iran would turn into this type of conflict very soon after any attack.

The people leading the insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan know that they just have to hold out a few years and the governments will change and promises will be made to pull out of these places.  I don't agree with it but it will happen.  Our western society has no stomach for casualties.  We don't see past four years and we can't possibly see the benefits of having a middle east where everyone plays nice.

Anytime the British had problems involving insurgents in the past they sent in the SAS won harts and minds of the locals and demoralized the opposition.  If the British would have carpet bombed some of there quite conflicts and sent in troops and killed civi's it would have turned out much differently.   The Brits aren't perfect though...they never really did crush the IRA and they are now stuck in a bind with the Yanks. The US and Russians always figured overwhelming force would break there opponents.  They had to pull out of both Vietnam and Afghanistan. 

Our only real alternative just may be to let them grow up on there own build there nukes and let them know that no one on this planet will stand by and let them use them.  All these little countries who have nukes should get an understanding that they will be wiped from the Earth if they use them.  The Russians, the Chinese, France, the UK and the Yanks (all the big kids with nukes) should all agree too this kind of enforcing an understanding of M.A.D. on the others.

I'll leave it at that for now...

 :threat:


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Nobody ever wants a gorilla war.  All that poop and banana peels  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop

*Israel will be 'annihilated,' says Iran's president * 

So of course, more posturing and more threats to Israel.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must have called FTD and ordered a bouquet of daisy cutters.  At least he is making the case to have him taken out pretty clear to the UN for us.  

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/14042006/3/world-israel-annihilated-says-iran-s-president.html


----------



## muskrat89

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/14/D8GVSUC0H.html

 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran

The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."


----------



## muskrat89

and more....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/060415084241.xdv0o3w3.html

Iran issues stark military warning to United States
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern


Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.

The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.

Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.

"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.


----------



## GAP

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/D8H0CJ882.html


> "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a *conference in support of the Palestinians*. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."





> Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar also began a fundraising tour of Arab nations Friday seeking new aid, but Arab states have been reluctant to back up their vocal support for the Palestinians with cash. ]



How many Arab countries have spouted the rhetoric about helping Palestine, but when it come time to anty up...well the quote about Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zaha kinda says it all. Granted there is a potential issue here, but maybe the Iranians are counting on the West to shoot from the hip thus giving them the argument "see what they are trying to do!!!" The converse is North Korea. The US made all the same noise, but backed off. That was a mistake we will pay for for decades to come.


----------



## 1feral1

Love793 said:
			
		

> Well, as for the Iran cutting off oil, the Price as of 0730 this morning in Windsor is $1.05 a litre.  And that is just with the rumours of sabre rattling.



Well, here in Brisbane, today its $1.18-$1.22/L. For propane 51 to 56 cents /L, diesel around $1.30/L. One Aussie $ = about 72 cents US


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## MarkOttawa

William Arkin of the Washington Post outlines US war planning against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401907.html

His overall conclusions:

'Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can't just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes that it will "win" merely because war is messy.

On the surface, Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. Despite last week's bluster from Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a workable one. We may have a global strike war plan oriented toward attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, but that plan is also focused on North Korea, China and presumably Russia. The Bush administration is not going to wait for a nuclear attack. The United States is now a first-strike nation.

The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed "flexible deterrent options" in case Iran were to take such actions.

One might ask how these options could have any deterrent effect when the government won't talk about them. This is another reason why Rumsfeld should acknowledge that the United States is preparing war plans for Iran -- and that this is not just routine. It is specifically a response to that country's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism.

Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

A little something else to throw into the "factors" basket when considering "Courses Open"....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

http://tinyurl.com/q8uws

Iran hardliners register volunteers for suicide raids
Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:13 PM IST

''By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Some 200 Iranians have volunteered in the past few days to carry out "martyrdom missions" against U.S. and British interests if Iran is attacked over its nuclear programme, a hardline group said on Sunday.

The United States and other Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master enrichment technology to build atomic weapons, a charge Iran denies. Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution, but has not ruled out a military option.

Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman for the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, said fresh fears over a possible U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear sites helped attract volunteers during its latest recruitment drive.

"Because of the recent threats, we have started to register more volunteers since Friday," Samadi told Reuters by telephone.

"Some 200 people have registered to carry out operations against our enemies. America and Britain are definitely considered enemies."

Chanting "Death to America" and "Nuclear technology is our right", volunteers registered their names at the former American Embassy in southern Tehran on Sunday.

They signed a document called "Registration form for martyrdom-seeking operations" and pledged to "defend the Islamic Republic's interests".

"We will give a good lesson to those who dare to attack our country," said Ali, a 25-year-old masked volunteer, after filling out registration form.

When asked why he had covered his face, Ali said: "I do not want to be recognised when travelling abroad to harm American and British interests."

TENS OF THOUSANDS REGISTERED

The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which says it has no affiliation with the government, was formed in 2004. Since then Samadi said some 52,000 people have signed up to be involved in possible attacks.

The Sunday Times of London, quoting unnamed Iranian officials, reported Iran had 40,000 trained suicide bombers prepared to strike western targets if Iran is attacked.

"The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade," the report said.

But Samadi denied the report.

"The Revolutionary Guards have no links to martyrdom-seeking operations. We are the only martyrdom seeking group in Iran," he said. "And we are an independent group."

No Iranians are thought to have directly executed suicide bombings in recent years. But the United States has accused Iran of being a state sponsor of terrorism.

In Sunday's New York Times a former White House counterterrorism expert said Iran's response to any U.S. military attack would be to use "its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world".

"Iran has forces at its command far superior to anything al Qaeda was ever able to field," wrote former White House counterterror chief Richard Clarke and former State Department official Steven Simon.

The "martyrdom" registration coincided with a conference on the Palestinian cause. Iran has refused to recognise Israel and supports anti-Israeli groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.

Inside the embassy, the walls were decorated with pictures of Palestinian suicide bombers. Videos of Israeli army attacks on Palestinians were shown on a wide screen. Books and CDs on the Palestinian uprising were also for sale.

In 1979, the then-American embassy was seized and its staff were taken hostage by militant students in 1979. The 52 hostages were freed after 444 days in captivity. ''

(DON'T LOOK HERE IF YOU WANT TO AVOID A BLATANT SELF PROMOTIONAL PLUG   - I'm collecting & posting news/background on Iran here:
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/IRN:%20%20Mil%20Options - feel free to drop by; feedback always welcome! )


----------



## tomahawk6

I don't see the US accepting 40,000 Iranian visa applications for quite some time. Seriously this nuclear strike issue was cooked up by the New Yorker to sell magazines and to stick it to the Bush administration. I dont see any US President using nuke's under any circumstance except retaliatory. The regime is determined to have nuclear weapons. How determined is the west to prevent that prospect ? Iran may be betting that we dont want to risk war to stop them. Saddam made the same calculation though and he is in a cell now. If the military card is played then I think there will be some form of regime change as part of the overall plan. Until the regime changes we will constantly be looking over our shoulder.


----------



## Navy_Blue

But the change in leadership in Iraq hasn't solved much.  Iran would be just the same insurgents and locals blowing themselves up to kill soldiers of what ever coalition the US can talk into rolling over Iran.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> But the change in leadership in Iraq hasn't solved much.  Iran would be just the same insurgents and locals blowing themselves up to kill soldiers of what ever coalition the US can talk into rolling over Iran.



Hasn't solved much?  When is the last time Iraq threatened to re-invade Kuwait?  When was the Republican Guard operation against the Kurds or the Shiaa in the Euphrates delta?  Not saying all is rosy in Iraq, but some problems were solved...

Not saying that I have inside info, but who says that the US would necessarily have to invade Iran to change the regime?


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

From Macleans January 23rd 2006 :
_Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rumoured to have taken part in the 1979 seizure of the American embassy in Tehran during the early days of the Islamic revolution, and some former hostages and a journalist who covered the crisis say they recognise him from that time._ 
Wow, it's _starting_ to make a looooong list...


----------



## muskrat89

> How many Arab countries have spouted the rhetoric about helping Palestine, but when it come time to anty up



Coincidentally today (or maybe yesterday) Iran committed $50 million in aid to the Palestinians


----------



## zipperhead_cop

You aren't a suicide bomber until you go "boom".  Until then, you are a just a big talker.  Middle eastern hype and propaganda knows no bounds.


----------



## Navy_Blue

The change in leadership has not solved anything until people in that country start playing nice and look at what they have as an opportunity.  Iraq hasn't been a threat to anyone since the 90's.  After Desert Storm all eyes were on him and he knew it.  The US bombed anything that moved into that no fly zone that wasn't supposed to be there.  Saddam spent more money on Palaces and and himself then he did on his Republican guard.  He was a nut bar with extra peanuts.  

I think if you asked most Iraqi's today *I think * they would be happier trying to hide in the shadows of a Dictator than live through endless road side bombs and suicide attacks.  The Kurdish are loving it they practically have there own country in the north (red flag).  South of Iraq is pretty quite but they kinda like Iran (red flag).  Not great if you ask me.

Iraq and the stability of the middle east has gone down hill since Mr Bush said the major fighting was over.  The US didn't plan for this whole insurgency thing, they thought everything would be hunky dory if Saddam was out of the picture.  I can't see how even today the top brass still had a "We'll be home by Christmas" mentality.

There is a very real possibility that they will leave Iraq much like the Russians left Afghanistan.


----------



## ready to go

> WASHINGTON, April 18 —As diplomats meeting in Moscow failed to reach agreement on how best to raise pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, the American and Iranian presidents, both using tough language, staked out unyielding positions today. In response to a reporter's question, President Bush declined to rule out a nuclear attack to stop Iran from building atomic weapons if diplomacy fails. "All options are on the table," he said. But Mr. Bush added, "We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we're working hard to do so."
> 
> In Tehran, a defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Iranian military that it had to be "constantly ready," and he warned bluntly that Iran would "cut off the hand of any aggressor," The Associated Press reported.
> 
> In Moscow, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said diplomats of the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany had recognized the "need for a stiff response to Iran's flagrant violations of its international responsibilities," The Associated Press reported.
> 
> But he said talks on possible sanctions against Tehran had failed to produce an agreement. Mr. Burns said the United States expected Security Council action if Iran misses an April 28 deadline to stop uranium enrichment.
> 
> Neither Mr. Burns nor other American officials would say whether Russia and China had softened their opposition to sanctions.
> 
> Tensions over Iran have helped push oil prices to record highs. Crude oil for May delivery rose 90 cents today to settle at $71.35 a barrel, after trading as high as $71.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
> 
> The diplomats meeting in Moscow hoped to narrow their own differences over how best to persuade Iran to halt work on nuclear weapons.
> 
> Mr. Ahmadinejad's warning came in a martial setting, at a Tehran parade commemorating Army Day that featured the latest in Iranian weaponry, The A.P. reported. Speaking hours before the Moscow meeting, he told the military that it must be prepared to defend Iran.
> 
> "Today, you are among the world's most powerful armies because you rely on God," Mr. Ahmadinejad declared.
> 
> "The land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead."
> 
> But he sought to underline that Iran bore no aggressive intentions unless attacked. "The power of our army will be no threat to any country," he said. "It is humble toward friends and a shooting star toward enemies."
> 
> The United States and Britain have said that if Iran continues uranium-enrichment activities past an April 28 deadline set by the Security Council, they will press for a resolution making the demand compulsory.
> 
> Russia and China, both with trade and strategic ties to Iran, have insisted that diplomacy will require more time. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, said earlier that "neither sanctions nor the use of force will lead to the solution of the problem," the Itar-Tass news agency reported. But Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment.
> 
> Mr. Bush, in brief comments made after announcing White House staffing changes, said that he would urge President Hu Jintao of China to increase Beijing's pressure on Iran when Mr. Hu visits the White House on Thursday.
> 
> The top Chinese nonproliferation official, Cui Tiankai, visited Tehran over the weekend to urge Iranian leaders to seek a negotiated solution, officials said.
> 
> Mr. Cui spent 90 minutes in Moscow today meeting with Mr. Burns ahead of the meeting there, said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.
> 
> Mr. McCormack said, before the meeting had ended in Moscow, that diplomats were expected to weigh various ways for the Security Council to increase pressure on Iran, "whether that's sanctions or asset freezes or travel restrictions" on diplomats. He said there was also talk of ways that individual countries could increase the pressure on Iran.
> 
> Mr. Bush urged a united effort by countries "who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon." The United States has been working closely with Britain, France and Germany on the issue.
> 
> The president's comment that "all options are on the table" came after a reporter asked whether, when Mr. Bush used those words previously, he meant to include the possibility of a nuclear strike.
> 
> "All options are on the table," Mr. Bush replied plainly, before adding, "We want to solve this issue diplomatically." The phrase has become a commonplace of administration officials since last summer in describing concerns about Iran.
> 
> It was used last month by Vice President Dick Cheney, who seemed to hint at military action or even the overthrow of the Tehran government. "We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message," Mr. Cheney said. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
> 
> He also said that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" if Iran remained in defiance.
> 
> Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech was broadcast live on state-run Iranian television, and foreign military attachés attended the parade, during which Iran displayed radar-avoiding missiles and super-fast torpedoes.
> 
> Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has issued a series of highly provocative comments since coming to office, jolted outside observers last week by saying that Iran had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges, a step that could lead either to the development of power generation or the construction of atomic bombs.
> 
> Iran also asserted that it is pursuing a far more sophisticated method of making atomic fuel, using a so-called P-2 centrifuge, which could greatly speed its progress to developing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> While Iran insists that it has the right to conduct research for civilian energy production, the United States has said that Iran lost world trust by hiding portions of its nuclear program for years.
> 
> American officials also point to Mr. Ahmadinejad's public calls for the destruction of Israel.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1145419200&en=cb696ef1f091d462&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## a_majoor

From Chaos Manor:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view409.html



> *Iran and Nuclear Weapons*
> 
> First, anyone not blind will see that the West has been teaching powerful lessons over the years:
> 
> The first lesson is: if you are a dictator, or part of an unpopular government structure, get nukes, get them quick, get them in any way you have to. Get nukes and get them now.
> 
> The second lesson is, don't let go. Even if you are a reluctant dictator, even if you hate dictatorship and wish peace and democracy to your country, do not relax your grip, and do not contemplate retirement. That way lies persecution of yourself and your family, and you will probably die in a foreign jail. If you are lucky you may be put under house arrest or seek asylum in a foreign embassy.
> 
> If you are a dictator, your only chance of survival is to hang on and get nukes. Nothing else works.
> 
> Those are the lessons we teach, and anyone with sense has learned them well.
> 
> Certainly the mullahs have. Whether they have always wanted nukes, or learned to want them from the lessons the West has been teaching, is not important. They want nukes, they want them soon, and objectively they have every reason to desire them. It's a very rational desire.
> 
> That is the first thing we must understand.
> 
> Next: the mullahs understand that time is not really on their side: *the West's cultural weapons of mass destruction are gnawing away at the vitals of fundamentalist Shiite Islam.* The Shah opened the door, and his opening to the West and the White Revolution, while partly shut down, was permanent: in Iran they know that there is more to education than sitting on the floor and memorizing an ancient book; that there is more to life than blowing yourself up.
> 
> While the mullahs may have hopes for a different sort of society for Iran than is very likely to come, they aren't entirely unrealistic. And *one way to divert this seduction of their young people is to stir the pot, make the confrontations important, go as far as they can short of provoking the West to invade*. The attractions of blue jeans and rock music are great. Islam doesn't seem to be enough to overcome them. Patriotism is needed. That may do the job. And if you can convince the young people that jihad is necessary, that the West isn't going to let you have blue jeans and iPods, that the West is going to nuke your country and steal your oil and reduce you to peasantry, occupy your land but give you no security from bandits and religious enemies: if you can convince your young people that the West isn't going to let you have its goodies because it wants to steal everything you have and give you nothing -- then you are home free.
> 
> *And that, I put it to you, is the mullah strategy.  Convince the youth of Iran that the West is their implacable enemy; that the West is coming for them*.
> 
> And if that takes provoking a tactical "surgical" nuclear strike on some Iranian facilities, why, it's a high price, but the stakes are very high.
> 
> And of course whatever we do to Iran and Syria merely confirms everyone's desires to get nukes and get them fast.
> 
> Contemplate this while trying to decide what to do about Iran and Syria.
> 
> There were a number of advocates of preventive war in the 1940's and 1950's. Patton's view, "We're going to have to fight the Russian SOB's anyway, so why don't we do it while we have a GD army over here to do it with?" was popular with many. Deterrence and containment, the long term strategy that we adopted, was less spectacular and didn't seem all that attractive. No sounding trumpets, no drums and flag. No SAC missions and flying bombs. The force would be generated and head out over the Arctic only to be called back. Plenty of drills. Men and women sitting in isolation in deep bunkers as the klaxons went off. EWO. EWO. Emergency War Orders. Emergency War Orders. I have a message in five parts. Tango. Xray.  And so forth. But it was all a drill.
> 
> *Deterrence is long, unspectacular, and often boring. Containment is frustrating. It worked, though. It contained militant Communism, a philosophy so attractive that it still claims a number of tenured professors. Communism was a lot more seductive to the West than militant Islam ever could be. Yet, in a few generations, that light failed, and Communism collapsed, not in nuclear fire but with a whimper * and some artillery shells fired at a parliament building. Yet at one time, the USSR had 26,000 nuclear weapons, most of them deliverable and aimed at the USA. How many can Iran acquire with their best efforts? How many deliverable? By what means? We contained the USSR with 26,000. We deterred the USSR and chiliastic Communism which at one time had as militant a desire to sweep the world as ever did any jihadist.
> 
> Containment says: the enemy is expansive, and one of his strengths is that he is convinced that his victory is inevitable. God, or the flywheel of history, or the objective economic factors, or the laws of history, make victory certain. March in step with the flywheel of history. But if we show the enemy this is not true, that he is not expanding, that he is stuck with his inefficient system to stew in his own juices; when there is not enough to go around, then petty temptations to corruption become irresistible. If you believe strongly enough in the underlying religion, you will put up with hardships for the cause; but if the worms of doubt set in, and there is a shortage of the good things of life, human nature takes over. Corruption sets in. Inefficiencies get worse.
> 
> If we nuke Iran to destroy their capability for making nuclear weapons, we make it legitimate to use nuclear weapons to achieve cultural goals; we make preventive war a legitimate thing to do.
> 
> The result will be a change in strategy: buy a nuke. Use terror, use bribes, use infiltration, use any means necessary to get some nukes, and do nothing to provoke the west until you have them; but get them. In the West most things are for sale. Find ways to buy them.
> 
> Containment and deterrence work. Those are not spectacular policies; but they are proven. They do work. Contain Iran, and let our Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction have time to do their work. Syria and Iran have no counter weapons. Syria is already a defensive dictatorship with no pretense of legitimacy whose sole goal is stay in power. Iran is under the control of mullahs: will they prevail over the next Iranian generation? If so, how? What are their arguments? What can we do to make them lose control? And what can we do to convince the young Iranians that they are better off following the mullahs?
> 
> Is anyone asking those questions?



The key question here is deterrence realy an option? IF the world view of the mullahs rejects the concept of deterrence, then they will attempt to strike regardless of the consequences; suicide bombing on the scale of Götterdämmerung. Myself, I would push the "Purple Finger" strategy for all its worth, redouble the "Marshall plan" for rebuilding the Iraqi and Afghanistani economies and send in container ships full of free iPODs to be distributed throughout the Middle east and SouthWest Asia, but be prepared to pull the trigger.

Also read this (long) article by Mark Styen: http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html

(edited to add link)


----------



## A O G 101

Last night on CBC ,airs again may 8,on cbc news world

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/timeline.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop

A O G 101 said:
			
		

> Last night on CBC ,airs again may 8,on cbc news world
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/timeline.html



Somebody needs a .50 cal career path reorganizer.   :sniper:


----------



## FMRWO

I believe that, as soldiers, more than anyone, we are in a position to appreciate the risks and costs of war. I dislike very much the thought of going or sending someone to fight. I would however, do so unhesitatingly when all other options have been considered and exhausted. 

We must learn from History. With hindsight, we know that the World Wars could have been averted by decisive action before the first shots were fired. I believe we are at such a crossroad.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI has made his intentions very clear. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons will have disastrous consequences for all, (the Iranian population included). It is time to act decisively and armed response must be seriously considered.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Your excellent decisive attitude seems to be in stark contrast to your UN avatar.  Hopefully they will start to feel the same way.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=4722

Iran's possible reaction to US strikes on its nuclear program.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

From the a/m article:

*Iran's Secret Plan  if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"
Asharq Al-Awsat Exclusive
27/04/2006*

Iranian Opsec is a bit lacking...

*The plan, which also includes the carrying out of suicide operations targeting US and British interests in the region, as well as their Arab and Muslim allies, in case Iran is attacked, was drawn up by a number of experts guerrilla warfare and terrorist operations, and was revealed by a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff headed by the veterinary doctor  Hassan Firouzabadi,*
You know you are getting under their skin when they start breaking out the combat veterinarians.   

*According to Iran, the latest military plan includes: 

1- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq , as soon as nuclear installations are hit. 

2- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States . 

3- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq . 

4- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel . 

According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries. 

What about the last stage in the plan? 

Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities. * 

Okay, wasn't it talk like that which got Iraq's ass kicked?  These clowns have no concept of "Shut the f-up".  Iran definitely is trying to be the big shooter now that Sadam is out of the mix.  I think the writing is on the wall for this one......


----------



## Screw

Can Iran even deny being totally in bed with terrorists? Basically everything in there is talking about go aheads for terrorists cells and organizations.

Screw


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I don't think they deny it.  In fact, it appears that terrorists are part of their ops plan to attack various parts of the planet if they get bumped.  At least they say that.  I think upwards of 60% of that is wishful thinking and flat out BS.  However, their intentions are pretty clear:  watch us get nukes, or bomb us back into the stone age.  
I'll take modern stone age cultures for $1000, Alex.


----------



## a_majoor

From reading the article and judging from their past behavior, it is my considered opinion that the only practical way of limiting the damage to the Middle East and to ourselves is to decapitate the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard. Strikes directed against their persons (government leaders, Revolutionary Guard units) as well as communications and electrical infrastructure to disable their command and control apparatus, followed by strikes directed at severing their transportation infrastructure at critical junctures will probably be the game plan, only requiring the services of SOF operators to identify and mark the high value targets for incoming planes and missiles.

"We" in the West don't need to follow up with occupation troops, simply let the Iranian people realize their oppressors have been crippled and are no longer able to exert influence over the country. This is indeed a *bad* option, plunging Iran into chaos and possible civil war, but the other alternatives seem even worse. On the plus side, without Iran as a safe haven and conduit for intelligence and funds, many terrorist groups such as the AQ, Hammas, Hezbollah etc. will find operations that much more difficult to carry out. They may be able to conduct a flurry of operations with cached supplies and manpower, but their operational information will become stale very quickly and the internal cohesion of these groups might come unglued (fighting over cached money and weapons, for example).The long term outlook will be better for us if and when this happens.

To make it as politically palatable as possible, I would not expect something like this to be launched until there is an unmistakable Iranian provocation (as if there aren't enough now) which will provide the Bush Administration political cover and allow the President to finish the job quickly and effectively. The range of choices is narrowing for both Iran and the West; dark days ahead.


----------



## paracowboy

a_majoor said:
			
		

> dark days ahead.


or job security. I'm a half-full kinda guy.


----------



## FMRWO

*Things are never as cut and dry as I've made them out to be. Iran may in fact still be quite a long ways from developping a nuclear weapon & :*

_ "Tehran says it wants nuclear energy only for electricity. It insists on a right to atomic power for peaceful use under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has unearthed no proof of a military program in three years of investigation. " _ - (Reuters: Iran confronts UN powers with nuclear fait accompli Tue May 2, 2006 9:16am ET)

*However:* 
_Iran says it will pursue industrial-scale enrichment based on 3,000 centrifuges it plans to start installing later in 2006. That many could yield enough fuel for one bomb within a year._ - (Same)

*A year would give the USA time to open dialogue with Iran (Washington severed ties with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution) - the absence of diplomatic ties does nothing to build trust & bring us closer to a peaceful resolution. But we've got to get talking & fast. Hey, they're talking with North Korea ... *


----------



## CanuckTroop

People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. Until such time as Iran gets its hands on the nukes, there will deffinately not be peace in the middle east. Israel has no reason to talk when they are the dominant power. I think the US has been sucking up to that god-aweful creation for far too long now anyway. Israel should be moved somewhere far away from the Arabs, like Russia or something. Hell we could donate somewhere in Northern Ontario for their new home. Then everybody wins. We could use more people here anyway, and they'd bring their army too so we 'd have apaches! If not we should let them deal with each other. Both sides become a glass parking lot and the rest of us can go on with business as usual. 

This whole affair smells rotten. The double standard is plain for everyone to see, except the US policy makers, who are in the pocket of the big arms dealers. Can't have world peace...oh hell no, that would be bad for business. Must keep the war with Eurasia or East Asia or wherever going to support my Haliburton shares and Lockheed.  So many are ignorant out there ...they just dont' have a clue. 

GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)


----------



## GAP

Gee, for a minute there I thought  you were going to shout "PEACE WITHIN OUR TIME"


----------



## Peacenik

"GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD"

Mutually assured destruction works only if both participants are rational.
If one side decides that God will protect them, and if not, its his will,
they punch the proverbial button.  

Would you give a bank robber a gun so that no one gets hurt... The bank 
robber has already proven he is irrational.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A good piece by William Arkin, "War by September? Not Likely."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/war_by_september_not_likely.html

Excerpts:

'In the department of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks wrote a flimsy and inflammatory article yesterday that war with Iran will start "between now and September." ..

srael is going to start this war, based, Brooks says, based on a fact she discovered that Iran is acquiring a Russian surface-to-air missile system that once deployed will make its weapons of mass destruction facilities invulnerable.

A wonder weapon, an Israeli rational calculation as to the optimum point of attack, a Bush administration "asleep at the wheel," all wrong, wrong, wrong; and irresponsible to boot.

I have been writing in this blog and in the paper Post about war planning for Iran, and about how the Iran and the United States seem intent upon building a house with no exits.

But I also think that war is not imminent, that is, it is not planned.  Iran of course out of panic or irrationally could attack.  So could the Israelis.  Irrationally...

Her argument is wrong on two counts.  First, that the Tor M1 missiles will change the calculus of anything in Iran.  Second, that Israel has an "ability" to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and thus will lose it in the future.

Since Brooks' arguments employs obscure facts to scare lay readers of the Los Angeles Times, consider these additional facts:

    * The Russian Tor M1 surface-to-air missile system (SA-15 Gauntlet in NATO parlance) is not some wonder weapon.  The first models of the Tor M1 were deployed 15 years ago, which means it is originally based on 1980's technology.  Anyone want to buy a Soviet designed missile system from the 1980's?  Get a warranty.
    * The Tor M1 has a maximum range of about 25 km and an optimum range of 14-15 km.  The system is designed primarily to protect ground forces from unmanned surveillance vehicles (drones) and attack helicopters.  It is not optimized or particularly suitable for "strategic" air defense of fixed facilities, particularly large ones.  I doubt Iran would deploy the Tor systems at is nuclear facilities anyhow.
    * The Tor M1 is outranged by most U.S. and Israeli stand-off weapons, even by standard satellite guided bombs, which can be delivered outside of its effective range.   If the Tor M1 were defending an Iranian facility, an attacking airplane wouldn't even have to come within range of the surface-to-air missile defense system in order to deliver its weapons.
    * The Tor M1 is owned by NATO member Greece.  Get it?  We own it.  We know how it works, how the guidance works, what frequencies it operates on.  We have acquired copies, reverse engineered it, built Tor M1 simulators, and programmed anti-radiation missiles to home in on Tor signals.  I bet you Israel has much of this information as well.  Most important though, it is not some wonder weapon.'..

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CanuckTroop

Peacenik said:
			
		

> "GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD"
> 
> Mutually assured destruction works only if both participants are rational.
> If one side decides that God will protect them, and if not, its his will,
> they punch the proverbial button.
> 
> Would you give a bank robber a gun so that no one gets hurt... The bank
> robber has already proven he is irrational.



Iran's leader is all BS talk. They're not going to nuke anything, and that's if they even get nukes one day. They've already said that they'd continue to allow intrusive nuclear inspections as long as they are allowed to continue research and that this will be a peaceful program. The whole thing stinks highly. The US is trying real hard to back them into a corner they can't escape from. You can't just tell a country they must "stop all research" into something as important to the future of all of us as nuclear technology- it's a joke. Has everyone forgotten about North Korea? A guy that is a true nutty dictator (the Iranian leader was ELECTED) who HAS NUKES!!! Why not go after him? (he's threatened the US with their own pre emptive strike capability numerous times).  I'll tell you why...THE WHOLE THING IS A BS US CONCOCTiON! Attacking Iran will lead to major fallout (literally) and is a joke. Don't be sucked in by the hype.
I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens



Can we help you out with the airfare?  I'm sure you would be wlecomed with open arms in Tehran... :


----------



## CanuckTroop

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Can we help you out with the airfare?  I'm sure you would be wlecomed with open arms in Tehran... :



I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I am betting I will be told to not "feed the trolls", but here goes.


			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.



Okay, first, you call yourself CanuckTroop.  You are telling us that you are a member of the CF, and even a member of the Armoured Corp?  So fill in your profile and indicate to which unit you owe allegiance.  I find it very difficult to believe anyone who has real military experience would post as you have been.  
Next, the reason to deal with Iran is because they DONT have nukes yet.  N Korea does, so it is a much more difficult situation.  In simple terms:  A country that has a nuclear bomb, can USE a nuclear bomb.  If a country does NOT have a nuclear bomb, they cannot USE a nuclear bomb.  See how that works?
The only country that is putting itself in a corner is Iran.  They are the ones that started with the anti-Israel talk and made comments about the death of that nation.  How is that supposed to be taken?  Iran is trying to take the spiritual lead in the middle east, and they are rolling some very dangerous dice.  
Last, only a complete donkey would suggest nuclear proliferation as a solution to middle east conflict.  If Iran is getting big milage with anti-Israel TALK, how "cool" would they be if they nuked Tel Aviv?  And don't forget, Israel HAS nukes.  Two decades after the end of the cold war, we really need to see a nuclear exchange?  Stick to playing HALO on your X-Box, champ.  I'm sure you are a very effective "troop" there.


----------



## Peacenik

CanuckTroop, You've bought into Iranian propaganda.  There is no doubt that they are after the bomb.  
There are several proven, and more economical routes to generate nuclear power... the fact that they 
are pursuing uranium enrichment means they want the bomb.

Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.  The only remaining question is whether we have the political will
to go, how we do it, and when...


----------



## CanuckTroop

Peacenik said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop, You've bought into Iranian propaganda.  There is no doubt that they are after the bomb.
> There are several proven, and more economical routes to generate nuclear power... the fact that they
> are pursuing uranium enrichment means they want the bomb.
> 
> Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.  The only remaining question is whether we have the political will
> to go, how we do it, and when...



You have to enrich uranium to make it useful for ANYTHING, including nuclear power (under 5%). It's all you guys that seem to be buying into US propaganda. Iran has said that they would allow "intrusive" IAEA inspections as long as can keep a peaceful program for nuclear power- so everyone would know if they were trying to make a bomb anyway. This is all US government hype and only the ignorant masses are buying into it.


----------



## tomahawk6

Actually its the ignorant folks on the left that have bought into Iran's Big Lie. Unless they are stopped they will have nuclear weapons. Based on their rhetoric they will use them or just by threatening to use nuclear weapons they could force oil prices over $100 a barrel, which is unacceptable as well.


----------



## CanuckTroop

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Actually its the ignorant folks on the left that have bought into Iran's Big Lie. Unless they are stopped they will have nuclear weapons. Based on their rhetoric they will use them or just by threatening to use nuclear weapons they could force oil prices over $100 a barrel, which is unacceptable as well.



Who cares if they get nuclear weapons? Israel has enough.


----------



## CanuckTroop

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I am betting I will be told to not "feed the trolls", but here goes.
> Okay, first, you call yourself CanuckTroop.  You are telling us that you are a member of the CF, and even a member of the Armoured Corp?  So fill in your profile and indicate to which unit you owe allegiance.  I find it very difficult to believe anyone who has real military experience would post as you have been.
> Next, the reason to deal with Iran is because they DONT have nukes yet.  N Korea does, so it is a much more difficult situation.  In simple terms:  A country that has a nuclear bomb, can USE a nuclear bomb.  If a country does NOT have a nuclear bomb, they cannot USE a nuclear bomb.  See how that works?
> The only country that is putting itself in a corner is Iran.  They are the ones that started with the anti-Israel talk and made comments about the death of that nation.  How is that supposed to be taken?  Iran is trying to take the spiritual lead in the middle east, and they are rolling some very dangerous dice.
> Last, only a complete donkey would suggest nuclear proliferation as a solution to middle east conflict.  If Iran is getting big milage with anti-Israel TALK, how "cool" would they be if they nuked Tel Aviv?  And don't forget, Israel HAS nukes.  Two decades after the end of the cold war, we really need to see a nuclear exchange?  Stick to playing HALO on your X-Box, champ.  I'm sure you are a very effective "troop" there.




I'm a former reserve infantry member. You can take it or leave it cab driver. Ask me some skill testing question if you really need to, or shut your pie hole.

As far as the topic of discussion goes. Yes I guess that makes me a donkey, because I believe Iran has the same right to nuclear power as anywhere else on earth. Fossil fuels are coming to an end in the not so distant future and every other country is ramping up it's nuclear power capabilty. Just look at the price of uranium right now, or the number of Candu reactors we're selling worldwide. How can the United States, or any other country, tell an independant nation "you are not allowed to continue research" into something that Iran and the rest of us WILL need regardless at some point. This whole Bush doctrine of attacking anywhere that threatens Israel or oil supplies thing is such a joke and it sickens me that there are so many buying into it. I thought Canadians, especially military members, were smarter than this.

As far as Israel goes, they have enough nukes to defend themselves. IMO they shouldn't be in the middle east anyway, since they are a failed concoction of the UN and not a real country. I agree with the arabs on this. Move them to Northern Ontario or something and put them out of our misery. 

I only hope there are some more enlightened CF members out there that can use their own grey matter rather than handing that over to politicians. As far as I recall, when you get your commission, you don't sign away your brain as well. Of course being an LT Zipper head oughtta know that.


----------



## Franko

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I'm a former reserve infantry member. You can take it or leave it cab driver. Ask me some skill testing question if you really need to, or shut your pie hole.



Lose the attitude or I'll punt you right now. There is no need of this type of diatribe here at all.

You don't want to fill out your profile, so be it...."Former Reserve Infanteer" it is then. 

You're attitude, thusfar, has reveiled enough that most of the senior posters will place you on ignore.

For someone who joined this site not even 2 days ago you're already on the radar of every mod here.

You're on the ramp with out a chute right now....how's that for a skill testing question.    :

Regards


----------



## CanuckTroop

Franko said:
			
		

> Lose the attitude or I'll punt you right now. There is no need of this type of diatribe here at all.
> 
> You don't want to fill out your profile, so be it...."Former Reserve Infanteer" it is then.
> 
> You're attitude, thusfar, has reveiled enough that most of the senior posters will place you on ignore.
> 
> For someone who joined this site not even 2 days ago you're already on the radar of every mod here.
> 
> You're on the ramp with out a chute right now....how's that for a skill testing question.    :
> 
> Regards



I was just returning fire..........ooh the military puns.....


----------



## Franko

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I was just returning fire..........ooh the military puns.....



Returning fire or not, this is not the first time you've acted in such a manner on this site and it will not  be tolerated.



Be more professional in your approach and responses from now on.

Next thing you will hear if this happens again will be....

*STAND-BY*

Regards


----------



## A O G 101

canuck troop.
There is absolutely no doubt that they will want to develop weapons,One can't compare Israel to Iran,Israel has been threatened by Iran,Don't need to say more about that.Iran is a very unstable country,The elected versus the non-elected ,president versus Ayatollah. For them joining the IAEA it is simply a way of making the rest of us think that they want nuclear power,So ,while inspectors are overseeing their program,they can enrich Uranium,to a point where they can build a bomb,perhaps nothing to large,say,About the size of the Hiroshima blast,By todays standards a primative device but none the less a nuclear device. So ,by joining the IAEA,has part of the non-proliferation treaty,you build your weapons grade plutonium under the noses of the inspectors,when you feel you have reached the point when you want to announce that you have done so,You declare that being part of the treaty jeopardizes the interests of the state,and you withdraw from the NPT with three months notice. North korea? I can explain how a cascade enrichment system works,But,bottom line they are attempting to upgrade their cascade system they have now,to where they will be able to make a higher grade plutonium,Do they want the plutonium for bombs?Well.If someone offers to build them a reactor that can generate power,which three countries have.And they refuse because with these types of reactors they can not refine the heavy water .what does that tell you, about what they want the plutonium for?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Who cares if they get nuclear weapons? Israel has enough.



Given the level of threat that Israel has experienced in the past, and the fact that they have used restraint in using their nuclear arsenal should suggest to most that they are a responsible nation and do not need to be disarmed.  NOBODY should have nukes.  If there was a way to strip the planet of all nukes, ours, theirs, the technology and the information to making them, I would love to see it happen.  Nukes stopped WWII, and no good since then has come of nuclear weapons.  UGH.  My long repressed inner hippie is clawing out.  BACK, FOUL IMPULSE, BACK!!



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I believe Iran has the same right to nuclear power as anywhere else on earth.



And as AOG101 pointed out, there are other ways of producing nuclear power without creating by products that can be used as weapons.  
Besides, you are in conflict with your own argument.  One one hand, you argue that Iran as a nation should have the right to pursue a legitmate power program.  Then, on the other hand, you indicate your hatred of Israel, and that Iran should in fact have nuclear weapons.  What reserve unit did you say you were in?  The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I thought Canadians, especially military members, were smarter than this.
> I only hope there are some more enlightened CF members out there that can use their own grey matter rather than handing that over to politicians. As far as I recall, when you get your commission, you don't sign away your brain as well. Of course being an LT Zipper head oughtta know that.



As Franko is already sorting out your trolling, I will not react to that.  However, to suggest that the whole of the CF is unintelligent just because they don't agree with your idea of "Nukes for Iran" as a viable peace process is, if nothing else, wildly ironic.



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> As far as Israel goes, they have enough nukes to defend themselves.



Kay, just a heads up:  you don't really defend from nukes.  The last time this was tried was in the 80's, and it was a game called Missile Command from Atari.  Not using them is a good idea.  Not having them is better.  



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> IMO they shouldn't be in the middle east anyway, since they are a failed concoction of the UN and not a real country. I agree with the arabs on this. Move them to Northern Ontario or something and put them out of our misery.



Over and above the anti-Semitic flavour of this, there have been many other threads about Israel.  This one is about Iran.  Besides that, if you had beach front Mediterranean property, would you trade it in for outside of Sudbury?  I sincerely doubt it.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens.



I hope you didn't pick teams in school in Phys Ed did you?   Win many games? :blotto:


----------



## CanuckTroop

> If there was a way to strip the planet of all nukes, ours, theirs, the technology and the information to making them, I would love to see it happen.



Superman did it in "Superman 4-The Quest for Peace".  He threw all the Nuclear Weapons into the sun....  

BTW disagreeing with the existence of Israel in the middle of a bunch of Arab states is not being anti-semetic- it's being rational. And like I said before, Iran has agreed to "intrusive inspections" so any attempt to enrich uranium to the grades necessary for producing a bomb would be found out. They would be caught in the act long before they ever got enough nuclear weapons to threaten Israel. Let's face it Israel supposedly has at least 200 weapons at this point. Iran has a long way to go and it would be a 200-1 nuclear exchange if they started launching anything- gee who wins that one? That's another thing I take issue with- The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony and the lack of Diplomacy being evidenced. There is no attempt to talk at all here, they're pushing for war asap. The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats. Threatening Iran is only making them more bold and getting the young population there on the governments side. There was talk in Iran of revolution before the West started threatening them. Now that the leadership can play innocent victim, the people are rallying to the cause of nuclear technology. 

IMO the US and UN (we're a member) cannot start another conflict in that region without disasterous results. Remember China and Russia don't even want sanctions. This is not the time to start WW3 (there is no good time for that). I don't wanna glow in the dark........how bout you?


----------



## scoutfinch

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.




Anyone who describes the Iranian government as being democratically elected has boldly indicated their ignorance. : :

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest we leave Mr. CanuckTroop to stew in his own juices because he has proven that he knows nothing of which he so loudly pontificates.


----------



## scoutfinch

CanuckTroop:

Riddle me this:  why would a nation with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world (second only to Russia) require nuclear power?

Shake your head.  Hear anything?


----------



## scoutfinch

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> ...The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats.



The fact that the US is not talking to Iran is not surprising given the history between the two countries since 1953.  I commend for your reading The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth Pollack which goes into great detail regarding the long and tortuous diplomatic relationship between Iran and the US.  I suggest you read it (or atleast something) so as to minimize your ignorance on the subject.  



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> ...There was talk in Iran of revolution before the West started threatening them. Now that the leadership can play innocent victim, the people are rallying to the cause of nuclear technology.




Wrong again.  There was not talk of revolution but of reform.  Unfortunately, Iranian reformists were effectively shut out of the last election when Khameni and Rafsanjani used the Guardians Council's power to vet all electorate candidates to all but eliminate the reformist bloc in the Seventh Majlis (2004).  But I am sure you already knew that right? :


----------



## mdh

> The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony



I'm equally concerned about US hedgemony - I don't know how the yanks managed to grow them that high, must be using the labor of the millions of illegal aliens foolishly surging into the Lair of the Great Satan. They should be surging into the "democratically elected" Islamic Republic of Iran instead.


----------



## scoutfinch

mdh:

This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).


----------



## mdh

> mdh:
> 
> This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).



I know... I was trying to make a heavy-handed play on "hedge" - oh well time to go to the air force forum


----------



## CanuckTroop

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop:
> 
> Riddle me this:  why would a nation with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world (second only to Russia) require nuclear power?
> 
> Shake your head.  Hear anything?



Does your house run on oil? That line is the biggest Neo "Con" load of crap. And in any case, Oil is finite- What do they do when it runs out?

Denying them nuclear power is denying them the right to use their resources and scientific expertise as they see fit. What would you say if GWB told us we couldn't have nuclear power? We should just tell all our nuclear scientists to forget everything they've learned and go study English so they can spell hegemon right. I don't think we'd agree to that, and neither should Iran. 

So tell us, would you support military action against Iran if they choose to continue nuclear development and, therefore, the possiblity of war with Russian and China?


----------



## scoutfinch

I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that have been posed as an answer to a previous question.  It simply illustrates the weakness of your argument by demonstrating that you have broad brushed *theories* for which you have no factual background.

Kindly demonstrate with facts/sources where Iran has ever indicated that they want nuclear power because they fear the depletion of their oil or natural gas reserves. 

Thank you.


----------



## CanuckTroop

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that have been posed as an answer to a previous question.  It simply illustrates the weakness of your argument by demonstrating that you have broad brushed *theories* for which you have no factual background.
> 
> Kindly demonstrate with facts/sources where Iran has ever indicated that they want nuclear power because they fear the depletion of their oil or natural gas reserves.
> 
> Thank you.



Not sure why I have to do your research for you- mabye you're just too lazy. Read this...it may help you attain enlighenment...



> In August 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants." Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

or mabye.....

http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060418-101133-6101r


----------



## zipperhead_cop

So hard to keep ahead of the posts!!



			
				scoutfinch said:
			
		

> mdh:
> This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).



I took it as a jab at the misspelling.  "hedge" being the key part, and the "growing them so tall" being the facetious comment.  It does loose something in the telling, though.



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> And like I said before, Iran has agreed to "intrusive inspections" so any attempt to enrich uranium to the grades necessary for producing a bomb would be found out. They would be caught in the act long before they ever got enough nuclear weapons to threaten Israel.



Were you to have taken the time and courtesy to read the  whole thread, one of the members who KNOWS what they are talking about indicated that by the time Iran had a sufficient amount of fissile matterial to run one reactor, they would have enough raw material to make several bombs.  Of course they would love to have inspectors watching.  That helps fuel the propaganda as to their nuclear threat.  Once they had the material they needed, they would punt the inspectors and crank out a bunch of bombs.  Have you ever heard of the concept of "hiding in plain view"?



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Let's face it Israel supposedly has at least 200 weapons at this point. Iran has a long way to go and it would be a 200-1 nuclear exchange if they started launching anything- gee who wins that one? That's another thing I take issue with- The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony and the lack of Diplomacy being evidenced. There is no attempt to talk at all here, they're pushing for war asap. The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats. Threatening Iran is only making them more bold and getting the young population there on the governments side.



Do you really think that if Iran has a nuclear device they will load it onto a sub orbital missile and launch it from a very identifiable ground position on a very traceable trajectory?  (Guess how it would be tracked...one guess....NORAD!! )It will be loaded onto a cargo container or in the back of a truck, and snuck into a city.  Then when it goes off, they won't claim responsibility, but there will be "leaks" that they in fact did it.  The MAD concept (and it is beyond stupidity to even suggest it) will not work when the one side does not have a sense of consequence.  If they WANT to die for their cause, then a nuke is the ultimate ride to glory.  
And BTW, the US isn't the only country that is interested in this scenario.  



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> IMO the US and UN (we're a member) cannot start another conflict in that region without disasterous results. Remember China and Russia don't even want sanctions. This is not the time to start WW3 (there is no good time for that). I don't wanna glow in the dark........how bout you?



Again with the nukes?!?!  Have you been in a time capsule since 1979?  All of the major powers have had nukes for decades and managed to get into lots of partisan dust ups without using them.  Russia is a shell of the nation it used to.  It couldn't possibly support a credible ground war at this point.  China is very concerned with getting all the Western money it can before it makes it's move.  They just like the idea of cheap oil and being chummy with a dark horse.  
Dude, you are so far out of your lane you better have off road tires on your computer.  
I think I'm just about done here.


----------



## scoutfinch

Okay... let me rephrase it so you understand... how about providing some reliable, scholarly, academic sources.  Wikipedia doesn't cut it.  

Moreover, try reading the sources upon which you do rely.  The UPI article you have cited stated that Iran claimed that there were *many obstacles to exploitation and transfer of fossil fuel in the country*.  It said nothing about the depletion of its reserves.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Further to my last, you still haven't spoken to why Iran could not have nuclear energy that would not produce weapons material by-products.  
And quoting the Shah is pretty hilarious.  That was a big "no good deed goes unpunished".


----------



## scoutfinch

Zipperhead:

This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.

Have a good one. 

scout


----------



## CanuckTroop

> China is very concerned with getting all the Western money it can before it makes it's move.  They just like the idea of cheap oil and being chummy with a dark horse.
> Dude, you are so far out of your lane you better have off road tires on your computer.
> I think I'm just about done here.



China has an economic weapon called United States treasury bills that if detonated, will cause more damage than a nuke going off in New York city. If the US decided to impose sanctions, and it appears that's the resolution that they're trying to get passed, they may well decide to use it. The fact is China now has TOO MUCH US money in their Forex reserves and want to dump it. The US is a sinking ship and pretty soon China will detach itself from the titanic. Then we'll see how much they like western money.


----------



## CanuckTroop

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Zipperhead:
> 
> This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.
> 
> Have a good one.
> 
> scout



Don't hit your ass on the way out!


----------



## aesop081

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> China has an economic weapon called United States treasury bills that if detonated, will cause more damage than a nuke going off in New York city. If the US decided to impose sanctions, and it appears that's the resolution that they're trying to get passed, they may well decide to use it. The fact is China now has TOO MUCH US money in their Forex reserves and want to dump it. The US is a sinking ship and pretty soon China will detach itself from the titanic. Then we'll see how much they like western money.





You were sleeping in economics class weren't you ?

I was trying hard to stay away from this thread since you chimed in but now......you have realy slipped off the deep end.



			
				CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Don't hit your *** on the way out!



Your attitude on this site will not win you any points...i fully expect " banned" to be besides your name by the end of the night


----------



## CanuckTroop

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Further to my last, you still haven't spoken to why Iran could not have nuclear energy that would not produce weapons material by-products.
> And quoting the Shah is pretty hilarious.  That was a big "no good deed goes unpunished".




Since you seem to know so much about nuclear power, how about the fact that you need 90% U235 to produce a nuclear weapon? Iran has just enriched it to 5%....bit of a difference math major. I've already spoken to your ignorant statement. Iran has said they will allow "intrusive inspections". You can't have a nuclear reactor producing 90% enriched uranium and not have the inspectors know about it......how do you think they know that Iran has enriched to 5%? THE INSPECTORS. I think it's time you reload bud cuz you're running outta ammo.


----------



## CanuckTroop

aesop081 said:
			
		

> You were sleeping in economics class weren't you ?
> 
> I was trying hard to stay away from this thread since you chimed in but now......you have realy slipped off the deep end.
> 
> Your attitude on this site will not win you any points...i fully expect " banned" to be besides your name by the end of the night



Please explain economics to me. My BCom is apparently not sufficient to discuss foreign debt instruments. And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.


----------



## scoutfinch

SHE called you a wanker, not he.


----------



## CanuckTroop

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> SHE called you a wanker, not he.



Thanks for the update.


----------



## aesop081

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Please explain economics to me.* My BCom * is apparently not sufficient to discuss foreign debt instruments. And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.



Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?

 :

Didnt know they had nuclear weapons classes for Bcom........

I guess my political science education will be enough to shut you up about Iranian politics then ?


----------



## scoutfinch

aesop081:

She/He/It isn't worth the effort.

scout


----------



## aesop081

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> aesop081:
> 
> She/He/It isn't worth the effort.
> 
> scout



Ack


----------



## CanuckTroop

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?
> 
> :
> 
> Didnt know they had nuclear weapons classes for Bcom........
> 
> I guess my political science education will be enough to shut you up about Iranian politics then ?



Not if all you are capable of is random insults without any supporting evidence.


----------



## A O G 101

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Ack


Don't feel bad  I have a masters in science and a masters in engineering,And I don't know what the h*ll's going on.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Zipperhead:
> 
> This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.
> 
> Have a good one.
> 
> scout



Good call.  I just keep hoping it would get back to being an informed thread, as opposed to a Mike Moore wanna be hijacking what was an interesting topic with things so stupid and untenable, it is hard to even know where to start to shoot them down.  Have you noticed the conspiracy child's tendency to only focus on semantics and rhetoric, though?  Another tool that can't answer the hard questions, or come up with reality based solutions.  
I'm sure you are a huge hit with the hairy armpit girls at your local Starbucks, CT.  

ZHC, out.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

You know...if this was the 1800's we would have already figured him for a witch and would be getting the wood ready for the burning at the stake by now...unless of course...he weighed the same as...A DUCK!

 :blotto:


----------



## CanuckTroop

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Good call.  I just keep hoping it would get back to being an informed thread, as opposed to a Mike Moore wanna be hijacking what was an interesting topic with things so stupid and untenable, it is hard to even know where to start to shoot them down.  Have you noticed the conspiracy child's tendency to only focus on semantics and rhetoric, though?  Another tool that can't answer the hard questions, or come up with reality based solutions.
> I'm sure you are a huge hit with the hairy armpit girls at your local Starbucks, CT.
> 
> ZHC, out.



You hot boxing your armor again cabbie? What have I said that is remotely Mike Moorish? or conspiracy related? You have no argument- all you have is BS. I said give Iran nuclear power- it's their right. That's it. It's my opinion. How do you back an opinion with FACTS. There is no Reuters article that says "Iran should be allowed to have Nuclear technology just like every other sovereign nation" for me to quote. So once again, what is so stupid, or untenable, about my OPINION? Facts please.

Let me know when you're done flippin' burgers at Mcdicks.


----------



## aesop081

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Let me know when you're done flippin' burgers at Mcdicks.



THAT...from a guy demanding facts and deploring insults  :

At least when i throw insults its because i dont expect anything else in return...........Thats because i'm edumacated 

Anyways , i'm just having fun at your expense and sugest that you add a Poli Sci degree or an MA in International relations to your Bcom....looking at things stricly from an economics point of view ( i am refering to your China bit) is missing half the picture and ignoring reality ( symptomatic of a large portion of university geeks).

Good day to you


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

The mark of a good tanker is to know when intimate support is required.  Let's see where Iran stands on cooperation, shall we?



> the Agency has repeatedly requested Iran to provide additional information on certain issues related to its enrichment programme. Iran declined to discuss these matters at the 12–14 February 2006 meeting in Tehran referred to in paragraph 6 of GOV/2006/15 on the grounds that, in its view, they were not within the scope of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran reasserted this position in a meeting which took place with Agency inspectors in Tehran on 8 April 2006.





> The implementation of the Additional Protocol and Iran’s full cooperation in this regard are essential for the Agency be able to provide the required assurance concerning the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.





> Iran has also said that it is unable to provide any documentation or other information about the meetings that led to its acquisition of 500 sets of P-1 centrifuge components in the mid-1990s. The Agency is still awaiting clarification of the dates and contents of the shipments containing those components.





> On 10 April 2006, the Agency met with Iranian officials to seek further explanations concerning the inconsistencies identified in that analysis.  Following that meeting, in a letter dated 17 April 2006, Iran reaffirmed its previous explanations of the inconsistencies. In the light of the Agency’s findings, the Agency cannot exclude the possibility —
> notwithstanding the explanations provided by Iran — that the plutonium analysed by the Agency was derived from source(s) other than the ones declared by Iran.





> *A.6. Voluntary Implementation of the Additional Protocol*
> 23. Since 5 February 2006, Iran has not been implementing the provisions of its Additional Protocol.





> Although Iran agreed to provide further clarifications in relation to efforts to procure balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, the Agency has yet to receive such clarifications. Further access to the procured equipment is necessary for environmental sampling. Iran has continued to decline requests by the Agency to interview the other former Head of the PHRC.





> 27. As previously reported, the Deputy Director General for the Department of Safeguards met with Iranian authorities in February 2006 to discuss alleged studies related to the so-called Green Salt Project, to high explosives testing and to the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections.
> 
> 28. As indicated in GOV/2006/15, Iran stated that the allegations with regard to the Green Salt Project “are based on false and fabricated documents so they were baseless,” and that neither such a project nor such studies exist or had existed. Iran stated that all national efforts had been devoted to the UCF project, and that it would not make sense to develop indigenous capabilities to produce UF4 when such technology had already been acquired from abroad. However, according to information provided earlier by Iran, the company alleged to have been associated with the Green Salt Project had been involved in procurement for UCF and in the design and construction of the Gchine uranium ore processing plant.
> 
> 29. The Agency is assessing the information provided by Iran during these discussions concerning the Green Salt Project, as well as other information available to it. However, Iran has yet to address the other topics of high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.





> However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.



Source:  Board of Governors, International Atomic Energy Agency, _Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran_, GOV/2006/27, *28 April 2006*  (gotta love primary sources)

So, we have a state, led by Islamic extremists, calling for the destruction of a neighbouring state, interfering in several others, squashing human rights (including participation in the torture and murder of a Canadian citizen) and actively pursuing an nuclear weapons programme and this is what passes (in the opinion of some) for cooperation?

Just sayin'... :

TR, jockeying now...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

OKay, its obvious that he DOESN'T weigh the same as a duck... :blotto:

This thread was VERY interesting and informative to me about something I know very little about quite honestly...and now...CT has turned it into a kindergarten class argument.   I did get some chuckles out of it though



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?



I laugh EVERY time I read that one!   :rofl:

What did they do to someone if they didn't weigh the same as a duck?????    ;D

CanuukTroop, 

1 question.  What is your national origin (i.e. where are you/your family from...I am guessing....Iran??)


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> 1 question.  What is your national origin (i.e. where are you/your family from...I am guessing....Iran??)



No way.  I'm betting multi generation white bread Canadian, as WASP as they come.  Only that demographic can spawn this calibre of ungrateful, narrow minded malfeasant who thinks he is owed everything for having sacrificed nothing.  Picture:  dyed jet black hair feathered across face, multiple piercings, 5'7", 132 lbs with a Phish concert shirt and $300 pre-ripped/stained/punctured Guess Jeans mock combat pants with huge wallet chain, studded wrist bands and skin so pale from lack of sun it appears as the background of the post editor.  Perma scowl and only reaction to confrontation in person; a rolling of eyes up and way over to the side, and a "PFFFF, whatever" comment, punctuated by a stop sign hand gesture at roughly waist level.
Course, I could be way off...


----------



## aesop081

Maybe he is from here....locals here i call CAPE



*C*itizens *A*gainst *P*racticaly *E*verything


----------



## CanuckTroop

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The mark of a good tanker is to know when intimate support is required.  Let's see where Iran stands on cooperation, shall we?
> 
> Source:  Board of Governors, International Atomic Energy Agency, _Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran_, GOV/2006/27, *28 April 2006*  (gotta love primary sources)
> 
> So, we have a state, led by Islamic extremists, calling for the destruction of a neighbouring state, interfering in several others, squashing human rights (including participation in the torture and murder of a Canadian citizen) and actively pursuing an nuclear weapons programme and this is what passes (in the opinion of some) for cooperation?
> 
> Just sayin'... :
> 
> 
> TR, jockeying now...



UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.


----------



## aesop081

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.



Oh just go away......... You and *Pike* can have a "meeting of the minds"


----------



## zipperhead_cop

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.



BELEIVABLE!!!  You couldn't make a useful comment on the facts.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

Teddy Ruxpin has just brought this back within our boundaries...that was good info.  So..its basically them saying "no no we aren't doing anything" while they are doing something.  And the "world" or parts of it aren't buying it.  And will eventually act on it.  So they are figuring out now...how they are going to act on it.  Got it.  Bugout kit is packed.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

oh ya...don't forget your CBRN kit!   :warstory:


----------



## Franko

Seeing as this thread has now degraded into name calling for at least the past 6 posts due to someone's inability to put forward hard evidence to backup his claim...I'm locking this one up.

If someone deems it nessisary to add something worthwhile to the real topic .....wait out for 24 hrs, I'll open it then.



> And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.









Hmmmm.... pot meet kettle.




> Don't hit your *** on the way out!



Oh...and this little jab just earned you a Verbal.


Regards


----------



## xenobard

I'm new to this forum (first post) - I'll introduce myself: I'm a civilian, Canadian, 28 single male, west coast guy, uni-grad, traveled in Asia off and on for 5 years or so.  I'm left-leaning in many regards.

Now, I'd like to say that I very much admire all of your decision to join the CF and stand up for freedom - that which I must admit too many of us Canadians take for granted.  Hats off to all of you stationed in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  

Now to Iran and the world situation: Personally, I'm frightened - frightened for what might soon become world war 3.  Come to think of it, though, I've been frightened of just that since as long as I can remember.  Vaguely, I recall looking at the world map as a kid and being so fearful of that huge menacing U.S.S.R.  Growing up, there had always been this underlying sense that a nuclear war could flare up at any moment - like a constant nagging stress, something I couldn't really put my finger on or understand but was always there.

Then the late 80's - early 90's rolled along and the Eastern European communist blocks started to unravel.  Soon thereafter that huge Soviet monster suddenly kealed over.  We all had a brief repose in those 90's as most of us recall: times were generally good and the world seemed it was finally coming together quite well.

In hindsight, we could say it was the calm before the desert storm: 911, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..

We were left in shock, many of us still are, I think, and we don't know what to make of all that's going on.  I sure don't.  Our leaders have asked us to trust them and we've gone along with it so far.

Now, will our kids grow up looking at a map with fear in their eyes?  Which countries will they be looking at?  Iran?  North Korea? Our own, Canada?  Will they grow up afraid of getting on a bus in their home town?

We had our lingering constant vague fear of some kind of world war 3 with the U.S.S.R..  If the terrorists succeed in their plan, our kids will have it far worse than we ever did.  

Let's not forget what we're fighting for, regardless of what our leaders say or do.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Xeno, welcome to the board.  
I was also one who grew up worried about Ivan the Red Commie Dog.  It was my original motivation to sign up with the Reserves when I was 17, so I could have some good training before the draft (I was young, and easily excitable.  Now I'm not young).  
That nice in between time of which you speak was just that--nice.  While we were watching Ghost Busters and listening to Depeche Mode, in another part of the planet a bunch of trained guys that had a heap of weapons looked around and said "this is our house to have fun in" and started planning.  Think of it like getting to the gym.  If you go regularly, you maintain your shape and can enjoy eating whatever you want.  However, if you enjoy yourself for a decade, and never do anything strenuous, then all of a sudden you have a problem (fat) and it is that much harder to get rid of than if you had taken care of business all along.  We were so caught up with the Soviets, and so relieved when the Wall came down, everyone (including myself) said "phew!  Maybe we will see something like world peace in our lifetimes".  And we rested, drank, and got politically "fat", ignoring a critical part of the world.  Hindsight is 20-20, but now that we realize what has transpired while we were kicking back, and it is going to be harder to solve the problems than if we had been on top of them from the get-go.  
Again, welcome.  It will be refreshing to have someone from the left coast who has an appreciation for the CF.


----------



## Franko

Opened for buisness.

Now that everyone has cooled off, keep the thread on topic.

*Any unwarrented personal attacks from here on out will be dealt with.
*
Regards


----------



## Long in the tooth

Although Iran may not have nukes (deliverable) for 10 years, is it unavoidable that we become adversarial?  Democracies have trusted each other as employment is the kiss of death; even China has not used them.  Is it simply that Iran is a non-elected Theocracy and therefore not really accountable to its own people?

I would like to think that the internet and Iran's youthful population (30 million out of 60 million under 25 years) will promote democracy.  Perhaps I'm being too optimistic. How close is Iran to a democratic government?

"Victory is not final, Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that matters" - Winston Churchill


----------



## A O G 101

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Although Iran may not have nukes (deliverable) for 10 years, is it unavoidable that we become adversarial?  Democracies have trusted each other as employment is the kiss of death; even China has not used them.


This is old ,so not a big thing anymore, when we were developing one of the missiles for the chinese,One asked me with a large grin on his face.Will it  reach Taiwan?


----------



## a_majoor

From my reading on the subject (relatively second hand) Iran is a potential target for the "Purple Finger" strategy. The median age of the Iranian population is @ 24 years old, all they have ever known is the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, the resurgence of the Revolutionary Guard and religious police to enforce various religious edicts, banning of "western" music, television, books, TV and films and attempts to monitor or censor the Internet (they ought to talk to their pals in China about that) would suggest the Theocracy who make up the Supreme leader and Council of Guardians are rather worried that their brand of Islamic society isn't very popular.

Unfortunately, rather than form "Orange Power" or "Cedar Revolution" type mass demonstrations to express displeasure with the government, Iranians seem to have withdrawn into a sort of sullen passivity (as expressed by the low turnouts for the last elections. After all, if the only candidates who can run are hand picked by the Council of Guardians, why bother). Of course I can't really sit here and blame them, a protesting crowd is likely to be met with gunfire from the Revolutionary Guardsmen, for a Persian replay of Tienanmen Square.

There does not seem to be a well organized opposition or Government in Exile which could be tapped to create a nucleus for a real revolution (although I could be wrong about this), so if direct action needs to be taken, then a decapitating head shot at the Theocracy and Revolutionary Guard is a "must", once they have been crippled the Iranian people will be less constrained by fear and oppression and can finish the job. Let them find the hidden centrifuge cascades and destroy them (or we can offer to buy the centrifuges and contents for a good sum).

Just as a BTW, for the non nuclearly enlightened, mildly enriched uranium is good for running reactors, and the reactors supply irradiated fuel rods which are reprocessed for Plutonium, which doesn't need enriching. While all fission reactors produce Plutonium, natural Uranium reactors (i.e. CANDU) produce far less. I would bet a lot of money that the Iranians are working on some sort of "breeder" reactor which pumps out loads of Plutonium, which isn't very good for producing nuclear energy in a slow, controlled reaction, but excellent for the very rapid (on the order of milliseconds) uncontrolled type.

_edit for spelling_


----------



## A O G 101

I may be wrong but wasn't the Bushehr reactor,capable?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

Thanks Franko...this thread was "learnin'" me lots of stuff I had no insight on.  Just went off the boundaries of the trace.


----------



## Franko

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Thanks Franko...this thread was "learnin'" me lots of stuff I had no insight on.  Just went off the boundaries of the trace.



No problem....it happens from time to time, hence the 24 hr lock.

Regards


----------



## xenobard

Zipper,

Are you in the CF now?  I would be interested in hearing what you and other members of the CF think about the possibility of a war with Iran.  From what I've read in prior posts on this topic, it seems that many think that a war with Iran would not pose too much a problem other than the occasional terrorist attack domestically, a few torpedos, and maybe a period of guerrilla resistance. 

But from the civilian's point of view, a terrorist attack on domestic soil is rather frightening. If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran.  If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper.  

That being said, if Iran attacked with a WMD, we'd rally behind the CF in an all-out declaration of war.  Hell, I'd even say bring on the draft in that case.  I'd go.


----------



## paracowboy

xenobard said:
			
		

> If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran.  If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper.


I disagree. I have more faith in our citizen's courage. I do not believe that Canadian citizens would ever bow down to bullies. We have never done so before, and I doubt that some Newfie fisherman, BC logger, Prairie farm boy, or Ontario city boy would tolerate ANYONE threatening, let alone attacking, their family.

When 911 happened, recruits flocked in. Canadians know what is Right, and will fight for it. And they will never bow to a tyrant, or capitulate to a terrorist.

We're a quiet people, but there is nothing more scary than a quiet man who finally loses his temper. And there is no way to stop a Good man who knows he is Right, and will not quit.


----------



## Armymatters

The thing is with Iran, Ahmadinjad, the president really has no real power on foreign or security policy, and in fact, the Iranian government and the ruling mulahs have actually moved to *reduce* the amount of power he wields because frankly, he has become a liability to the Iranian regime, as he is constantly shooting himself in the feet or putting his foot in the mouth. They did this by placing the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in a position overseeing him, as Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran. His fiery rhetoric is not endearing him to the leaders of Iran, indeed it is becoming more and more apparent he is little more than a minor player in Iran, who is seeking to establish a base of support to observers of Iranian politics.

To do a comparison between Iran and say, the United States, the opposite number of the American President in Iran is actually the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini has final say on all matters of security and foreign policy — including and especially the nuclear issue — although he typically abides by the consensus of the National Security Council. The Council is led by Ali Larijani, appointed by and answerable to the Supreme Leader, and a man who also ran for president against Ahmadinejad.

What is of note is that it is Larijani (who is seen as a moderate compared to Ahmadinejad) rather than Ahmadinejad who is managing the negotiations over the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has only one vote — out of around a dozen — on the Security Council. So as much as he rattles his metaphorical saber at the West, the President is in no position to act on any of this threats. He is in short, taking pot shots at the West with blanks; makes a whole lot of noise, but does zip. He has to lobby for his position within a power structure in which his is not the dominant voice. And while Ahmadinejad thunders against compromise, Larijani and other elements of the regime have made clear that Iran still seeks a deal, preferably in direct face-to-face talks with Washington. 

Also important is that while Ahmadinejad has been rattling his saber against the West, the *true* leaders of Iran that acutally have any real power in Iran, namely, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has acutally issued a fatwa on August 9, 2005 declaring nuclear weapons to be forbidden under Islam, and as such, the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons are against Islam.

Right now, I am inclided to believe Iran in that they sincerely do not wish to seek nuclear weaponry and right now, the information from the IAEA inspections and reports back that position up. The analysis of the facts known indicate that there is no military nuclear activity, and no nuclear weapons program. Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire; right now we don't have any smoke, so therefore we don't have any fire. All I am inclined to do is to at least keep Iran under watch under the provisions of the NPT, and the issue is pretty much closed. If there is any real, solid evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and/or are developing them, then yes, do something about it. In short, I don't freaking care about what Ahmadinejad is spouting off; I am only interested in what Iran is actually doing. Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## xenobard

Certainly many Canadians would be - and indeed now are - willing and ready to join the fight for what is right.  Many others, on the otherhand, are still very quiet, at least for now.  This quietness is multifaceted: in many cases it is a 'wait and see' quietness, in others it is an apathetic quietness, in others it is a temper-brooding quietness, in others it is a tentative quietness.  We're Canadian, and so pride ourselves in not making decisions too quickly, we pride ourselves in what we don't say rather than what we say; and we take pride in our reserve.  I agree that it is a sign of hidden strength, indeed.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Xeno
I am on the supplementary reserve list for the Reserves.  That is kind of like being on the bench in sports.  I have put in my papers to go from supp Reserve to active Reserve [although, for how long it is taking, the process must be horribly difficult  : ]
If a terrorist strike is going to happen in this country, it will happen.  The terrorists are well established here, and it is a question of not "if" but "when".  Fear of a strike is what the terrorists are hoping for (insert map of France:  here

We must take the fight to them.  Have you ever known anyone who had to spray for cockroaches?  You can spray a room in a house, but the pesky buggers just go to another room and wait out.  Same deal with terrorists.  We have to go where they are, corner them, and exterminate them before they can do more damage.  They of course have the option of joining the 20th century and avoiding all that burdensome high speed lead poisoning if they choose to.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Things could be pretty unsettling if this NY Times story is reliable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/washington/07goss.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=9bad9826e017cfd2&ex=1147579200

Excerpts:
'...
But an array of former intelligence officials said the holes in American knowledge are numerous.

"Whenever the C.I.A. says 5 to 10 years, that means they don't know," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iran specialist in the clandestine service of the C.I.A. He said French and Israeli experts believe an Iranian bomb may be as little as one to three years off.

Flynt L. Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said American military planners clearly lack the detailed data needed to be able to cripple the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes should such a step be ordered.

"It's likely there are facilities we don't know about," Mr. Leverett said. "And if we knocked out the facilities we do know about, we wouldn't really know how much we'd set back their nuclear program."..'

This is especially disturbing--how did the Iranians learn it?

'The National Security Agency's efforts to intercept Iranian government communications were hampered in the last two years because Iran learned that the United States had broken its codes and changed them. Satellite photography has provided detailed images of suspected nuclear facilities, but such photographs leave many unanswered questions. Unmanned aerial vehicles are flown into Iran to sniff for gases that would provide clues to nuclear processing, former intelligence officials said.

But such technology cannot remedy Americans' ignorance of Persian language and Iranian culture, said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland, where some intelligence officers will begin immersion language classes this summer. Just 300 to 400 university students nationwide are studying Persian, he estimated, and most of those will drop out before becoming fluent...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## xenobard

I have to admi that I was quite surprised by the latest news headlines public opinion poll on our deployment in Afghanistan.  According to 

CTV news May 06, 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/conservative_poll_060506/20060506?hub=TopStories

Excerpts:
"The poll, which was conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found 54 per cent of Canadians are against the deployment of troops. Of those, 23 per cent are strongly opposed -- an increase of eight percentage points from the previous survey."

"The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

I don't think support is waning because we have lost faith in the mission.  In fact, Canadians understand that what we are doing there is necessary and important.   What I think we just have a lot of trouble with, however, is the casualties.  

Just hoped you all knew that Canada DOES support what the CF is doing there, but is just now coming to grips with the realities of combat, I think.  This poll can't really be considered an acurate indication of how Canadians really think.

What does this have to do with Iran?  Well, it ties in to what I said in my previous post about how we'd be split on whether to get involved with Iran, again not because we are spineless, not because we aren't willing to stand up for what's right, but because we just care about our soldiers too much to see them getting hurt and all that.


----------



## paracowboy

> I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.
> 
> Who were asked?
> Where do they live?
> What demographics were approached?
> What questions were asked?
> How were the questions phrased?
> Were they leading questions?
> Was Occam’s Razor employed?
> Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?
> 
> And on, and on…


a great quote by a brilliant man.


----------



## George Wallace

Could it have been a cowboy who jumps outa airplanes?


----------



## tomahawk6

To read the news articles one must conclude that the CIA is a bumbling inept organization and that the US due to the lack of intelligence cannot possibly take military action against Iran. If we want to lull the Iranian's into a false sense of security the news media is doing a great job of disinformation.


----------



## Armymatters

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To read the news articles one must conclude that the CIA is a bumbling inept organization and that the US due to the lack of intelligence cannot possibly take military action against Iran. If we want to lull the Iranian's into a false sense of security the news media is doing a great job of disinformation.



I am inclinded to say that there is no chance that the US can acutally shut down all of the nuclear sites by force unless the US goes in with ground troops. Air strikes won't cut it, some of the facilities are deeply burried and well fortified, which will more than easily take a normal bunker buster, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are a public relations and ecological nightmare. Sure, we can probally bomb the enterance to these facilities with conventional weapons, but it will be only a matter of time before the Iranians manage to clear away the enterances and resume production. That if we know ALL of the facilities, it would be a shame to miss one.


----------



## 1feral1

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)



At least Isreal has a 21 century mentality with matching technology, Iran and similar places are still thinking 13th century mentality, and with modern technology (nuclear wpns) that spells disaster, plus the fact that certain extremists within their governments (look what the political leader of Iran has recently publically stated about Israel for example), would love not only to use such weapons on the USA and Israel, but view the entire western world as enemies, including Canada (look what ratbags have been arrested there already), and would just as soon vapourise you just as much as The Great Satan south of the 49th.

Just who's side are you on anyway?

Theirs or a professional troller?

Your points are meaningless, and not well thought. I have read every post of yours in this thread, and its very one sided. I sniff a hidden agenda?


Wes


----------



## cobbler

> People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)



But the problem is Iran doesn't want nukes for MAD. It wants nukes to do in one day what Hitler tried to do for 12 years.


----------



## George Wallace

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am inclinded to say that there is no chance that the US can acutally shut down all of the nuclear sites by force unless the US goes in with ground troops. Air strikes won't cut it, some of the facilities are deeply burried and well fortified, which will more than easily take a normal bunker buster, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are a public relations and ecological nightmare. Sure, we can probally bomb the enterance to these facilities with conventional weapons, but it will be only a matter of time before the Iranians manage to clear away the enterances and resume production. That if we know ALL of the facilities, it would be a shame to miss one.



After all the quotes you have given in other threads and the 'research' you have done, this post catches me by surprise.  You really don't have any comprehension of the capabilities that the US and NATO Forces have available to them do you?  I am sure that it would be a relatively simple matter these days to close down the entrances, and then keep closing them down as they are in the process of being reopened.  Those capabilities have been demonstrated already in previous offensives.  Today we also have Thermobaric munitions, which would preclude the use of nuclear weapons.  I wouldn't overlook the possiblilities that lay out there, should the requirement arise for actions to be taken against a hostile Iran.


----------



## a_majoor

Armymatters, look up the concept of *"economy of effort". * 

Does it make sense for the Coalition to attempt to locate and destroy hundreds or potentially thousands of potential sites associated with the dispersion and hardening of the nuclear weapons program, or would the same effect be achieved by decapitating a few hundred sites associated with the Ruling council and Revolutionary Guard? What about messing up the Iranian financial system? Would the technical staffs be very motivated without pay or the ability to buy groceries? (Or would the various French, Russian and Chinese companies eager to do business in Iran be so gung ho if they are no longer getting paid?). What about the power grid? Centrifuges require a lot of energy to run, and they are not powered by old Dodge Charger 440 Hemi engines. (This would also affect Iran's ability to pump and distribute oil as well, a big negative for their customers like China). What about beaming radio programs and delivering iPODs with pro democracy messages, uncensored news content and assurances of our love and support to the Iranian people?

Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.



So, deliver Ronald McDonald to them to be stoned in a courtyard, in order to satisfy Jihad?   

No?  Something else?


----------



## a_majoor

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> So, deliver Ronald McDonald to them to be stoned in a courtyard, in order to satisfy Jihad?
> 
> No?  Something else?



Not the Happy Meal Box!


----------



## couchcommander

We'll have to wait until Strategic Council posts the full detailed report on their website I suppose.


----------



## xenobard

Certainly, coalition forces have the military capability to knock out even the most hardened and deepest of WMD installations with enough bomber sorties.  The problem is that there would be no way of knowing whether or not we'd destroyed them all.  

Without a fully entrenched intelligence network inside Iran - of which there apparently isn't at the moment - we'd simply never know if it was mission accomplished.

Let's say coalition bombing runs did in fact take out 99/100 Iranian WMD installations; the one we didn't know about would produce enough plutonium for the bomb; and within 5 years they'd have a nuke anyway.  Now, having been pummelled by the coalition previously, wouldn't Iran have all the more desire - and perhaps even justification in certain eyes of certain members of the international stage - to actually use their precious nuke?  Therefore, prior to any airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, we'd have to make sure we weren't going to miss any of them.

But can we ever be 100% sure we'll be safe from a WMD attack, even with good intelligence inside Iran, and even after successfully destroying Iran's WMD facilities?  I don't think so.  WMD weapon technology and components from other countries - Pakistan, N. Korea, China, Russia, Israel, Libya, or even western countries, etc. - might find their way onto the black market and eventually be assembled and used by terrorists anyway.

The only thing we can really do in my honest opinion is to continue with coalition reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  By doing so, we can show people throughout the region that the west is there to help improve people's lives, not kill them.  If successful in this regard, the young angry men that seem to abound throughout the region will be far less likely to join Al Queda and will most likely just end up settling down, working hard at the jobs they manage to get, and raising good happy children.

WMDs will only be more plentiful and more easily come by in the future.  So, in my opinion, the best we can do is continue helping people in the region.  It's the only sure way to know there'll be fewer terrorists who'd want to use WMDs against us tommorow.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World?


----------



## xenobard

Are you saying that in your opinion such a reconstruction / humanitarian mission is not feasible?  

I stand by my opinion that proving the west's benevolent intentions in the region to the citizens of the region is tantamount.  If coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were not only to provide security but also facilitate the avergage person's ability to maintain their homes with electricity and clean running water, food, health care, etc., it would have a spill-over effect, proving to the Iranian people next door that we are not the "Big Red Satan" we are claimed to be.  If such were to occur, other measures such as propaganda, internet freedom initiatives, media broadcasts - all of which would subtly bolster support for moderate political forces inside Iran - might have more of an effect in the long term than surgical strikes.


----------



## TCBF

I don't see a big problem with Iran 'having' the bomb.  If they want to squander vast sums on the development  of high maintenance warheads and delivery systems - fine.  It would, however, be cheaper and faster just to buy some of the old Soviet stuff, if all you wanted was a 'terror' device.  So, obviously, all of this hype is just that.

There are a lot of practical issues that point towards the declaration of an INTENT to develop nukes being far more of a domestic and foriegn policy tool than the actual ACQUISITION and OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY of nukes.  Nukes, in all aspects, are expensive and suck up a lot of budget. If you want to just get people mad at you, a stolen Arty Shell or MIRV warhead is fine.  Building your own SS-18 with a 20 megaton RV is another matter.

What they need to stay in power is another war.  Let's not give it to them.

Tom


----------



## paracowboy

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World?


I agree with the kid.



> Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
> Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
> Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.





> Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.
> Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver is the height of stupidity.
> One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his cause, no master of victory. Thus, what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.
> Whether the object be to crush an enemy, to storm a territory, or to kill an enemy general, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.
> The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become double agents and available for our service. It is through the information brought by the double agent that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
> Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the double agent . Hence it is essential that the double agent be treated with the utmost liberality.
> Hence it is only the enlightened and wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are the most important asset, because on them depends an army's ability to march.


so does Sun Tzu. Good enough for me.

By continuing to establish democratic nations on each side of Iran, by continuing with economic pressure and political marginalization, by openly supporting legitimate Opposition groups within it's borders, and covertly creating/supporting insurrection both inside and outside it's borders, we stand a much better chance of success.

This whole nuke thing is smoke and mirrors, with Iran trying to establish itself as the Big Dog taking the fight to the Great Satan. What it really wants is to achieve domination over the 'Muslim World' (for lack of a better term), to keep the US busy outside it's borders so it can't affect events inside them, and to ensure that none of its' neighbours become strong enough to threaten it again.

It's all just the Theocracy trying desperately to maintain it's stranglehold on its' own citizens. 

We have the President (a powerless puppet) screaming fiery rhetoric, while the Ayatollah (the true power) has already issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. If they really wanted one, they'd have one.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting article comparing the Sun Tzu approach against the Von Clauswitz approach. I think at least some of this is going on in the shadows even as we speak.

http://op-for.com/2006/05/sun_tzu_vs_iran.html



> Sun Tzu vs. Iran
> By Charlie
> 
> Tonight, I am in the mood for Chinese food. That being said, I’ll serve up some Sun-Tzu-inspired strategic commentary on the Iran crisis for the noble readership of the blog.
> 
> Says Sun on warfare:
> 
> _3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities._
> 
> What I take from this is that if your opponent can be “led” to accept your position without fighting, it is the “highest” form of generalship. This can be done by attacking his plans, or disrupting his strategy; Clausewitz, for an opposing view, says this:
> 
> _"The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . . --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant
> 
> --- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity
> 
> --- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he."
> _
> Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in today’s parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more “symmetrical” or “conventional” way of waging war.)
> 
> Comes now Iran. The basic “beef” we’ve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.
> 
> A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Iran’s deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.
> 
> A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran –and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go –and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.
> 
> So how would America implement a “Tzu”-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we “balk his plans” best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we don’t always need a 100% solution to our problems –sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and –this is important- assuming regime irrationality, let’s take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.
> 
> Politically, we should take the Kim Jong Il nuclear acquisition model Iran is currently pursuing and turn it on its head. There’s been lots of liberal talk about negotiating with Iran proper: Let’s extend the invitation to talk to the Iranians, but tie negotiations to 3 goals. Iran must stop uranium enrichment, stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas, and cool it on the “Death to Israel” speeches –then we will gladly talk to them. By extending this offer (which Iran will certainly not comply with), the international diplomatic chess board will be upset –Iran will be exposed by having to stand by its activities, which even by UN standards aren’t up to snuff.
> 
> Economically, Iran is vulnerable. It possesses little ability to refine its top export: oil. According to the World Fact Book, Iran’s top exports are “petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, [and] carpets.” Its imports are “industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies” and its main import providers are “Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4.1% (2004).” There is an ability to economically pressure Iran, its exports, its imports, and its import providers.
> 
> Finally, Politically (…by other means…) Iran’s regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the country’s oil fields.) In the vein of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraq’s border –as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight “the man,” and as long as we make it clear that they can’t carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: “look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth –how much are you getting from your regime?”
> 
> Fomenting domestic troubles in Iran, economically pressuring them, and giving them a way out (ala Libya) through negotiation and compromise (read: acquiescence to US demands) would be a dramatic change of course in US policy. It may be the course of action Sun Tzu would recommend, while Clausewitz may simply recommend launching the IBCMs.
> May 17, 2006 04:14 PM


----------



## a_majoor

If these reports are reliable, then *maybe* the situation isn't as bleak as we think:

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/05/anti-regime-protests-on-rise-in-iran.html



> I am reading different reports (also here) of unrest through out Iran, mainly in cities of Tabriz and Tehran these days.
> "An Iranian blogger says: So far I have not heard of any casualties, only that Revolutionary Guards of the Islamic Republic opened fire on the demonstrations..."
> Iran va Jahan reports, via NYTimes, the massive protests by the Azeri Iranians, in north west of the country, against the regime.
> 
> Reuters picks up the story / Link to original NYTimes article / Persian language Gooya.com also reports via Iran labor news agency that thousands are protesting against the Islamic regime in city of Tabriz, and many were shot at and there are unconfirmed numbers of dead & wounded.
> 
> I have also been viewing images of student protests in Tehran: Tehran University of Amir Kabir (formerly known as Poly-Technic Uni) & University of Tehran 1 & University of Tehran 2
> 
> Students are demonstrating, mainly, against the militarization of their schools and the anti-democratic path that regime is taking. I understand that there were similar protests around the country and many more students have joined the rallies to voice their anger through their demonstrations.
> 
> Their main slogans were: Down with Tyranny, Down with Dictator
> 
> One of the banners reads: Leave the nukes, Take care of us!
> 
> These two banner read: This is University, not a religious madrassa and the other one reads: University is not a military garrison
> 
> Also, Jane's Defense tells us that there is some sort of insurgency going on in south eastern parts of Iran
> 
> I guess this is the beginning of an end! We'll see...


----------



## GAP

It might be a realistic scenario that the Iranian Government is stirring the pot, hoping the US or others do something precipitous enough to create a threat the government can then use to get the people to forget their troubles and come together to beat off the invaders...or some such...add your own conspiracy theme...but it worked before, why not now?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I thought the Azeri's were protesting yet another cartoon fiasco, wherein they were compared to cockroaches in an Iranian newspaper?  Different protest?   ???
Where is my usher, I need a program.


----------



## aluc

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."


He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.


----------



## 1feral1

Octavianus said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News
> 
> 
> Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
> Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM
> 
> DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.
> 
> Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."
> 
> "That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."
> 
> 
> He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.



I think if they carry on the way they are, he should be concerned about the sun rising two, three or maybe even four times before 9 am! ;D

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor

The cult of death in Iran. This is a very long article, but well worth the read:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world



> *Ahmadinejad's World*
> The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime · By Matthias Küntzel
> 
> In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.
> 
> “In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela’at, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela’at assured its readers. “Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”[1]
> 
> The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass “Basij” movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The Basij Mostazafan – the “mobilization of the oppressed” – consisted of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically and by the thousands to their own destruction. “The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies,” a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, “It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first.”[2]
> 
> The western media showed little interest for the Basiji – perhaps because journalists could not be present during the hostilities or perhaps because they did not believe the reports. Such disinterest has persisted to this day. The 5000 dead of Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja have remained in our memory. History has forgotten the children of the minefields.
> 
> Today, however, Ahmadinejad appears in public in his Basiji uniform. During the war, he served as one of the Basiji instructors who turned children into martyrs. The generation that fought in the Iran-Iraq War has come to power along with Ahmadinejad. He owed his election in Summer 2005 to the contemporary Basiji movement. In Fall, he announced a “Basiji Week.” According to a report in the newspaper Kayan, some 9 million Basiji heeded the call, “forming a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long…. In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out.”[3] In his speeches, Ahmadinejad praises the “Basiji culture” and the “Basiji power” with which “Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage.” Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Chair of the Guardian Council, goes so far as to describe the very existence of Iran’s nuclear program as a triumph of those Iranians who “serve the Basiji movement and possess the Basiji-psyche and Basiji-culture.”[4]
> 
> Far from being the subject of criticism, the sacrifice made of the Basiji in the war against Iraq is celebrated nowadays more than ever before. Already in one of his first television interviews, the new President enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”[5] The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, held up the war against Iraq, on account of the fearlessness of the Basiji, as a model for future conflicts.
> 
> This would already be reason enough for us to be interested in the history of the Basiji. But there is another reason. The deployment of the Basiji in the Iran-Iraq War is the primordial crime of political Islam: here the cult of the religiously-motivated suicide attack finds its origins. If we want to understand why a woman sits in the Palestinian parliament who is honored, above all, because she sent three of her five sons to martyrs’ deaths, if we want to know why still today 50,000 young Iranians volunteer for suicide missions – there is no avoiding the Basiji.
> 
> The Child-Basiji in War
> 
> In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a “divine blessing.” The war provided the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. Within no time, Khomeini’s fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard – the Pasdaran – had been transformed into a proper army in its own right, complete with navy and air force. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop a popular militia: the Basij Mostazafan.
> 
> Within just a few weeks, teenage boys between 12 and 17 – as well as men over 45 – had been prepared for war. During training, lack of weaponry was compensated by a surplus of religious propaganda. When their training was done, each Basij received a blood-red headband that designated him a “Volunteer for Martyrdom.”
> 
> On the battlefield, the Basiji, representing 30% of the armed forces as such, constituted the greater part of the infantry. The Pasdaran represented some 40% of the armed forces and the regular army the remaining 30%.[6] The members of the Pasdaran had generally obtained a higher level of education than the Basiji, who mostly came from the countryside and were often illiterate. While the Basiji were sent to the frontlines, the Pasdaran brought up the rear. As a rule, the Pasdaran would be sent into battle when successive waves of Basiji had already been killed off.[7]
> 
> The human wave tactic was implemented as follows: the barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies: the important thing was that the Basiji continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their deaths in wave after wave.[8] The tactic produced some undeniable initial successes for the Iranian side. “They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging,” an Iraqi officer complained in Summer 1982, “You can shoot down the first wave, and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!”[9] By Spring 1983, the Pasdaran had sent some 450,000 Basiji in shifts to the front. After three months, whoever survived his deployment was sent back to his school or workplace.[10]
> 
> How were the Basiji recruited? Principally, in the schools: the Pasdaran sent “special” educators who hand-picked their martyrs from the obligatory paramilitary exercises. Propaganda films – like the 1986 television film “A Contribution to the War” – praised this alliance between students and the regime against those parents who tried to save their children’s lives.[11]
> 
> Secondly, the regime employed incentives. Thus, in a campaign called “Sacrifice a Child for the Imam”, every family that lost a child on the battle field was offered interest-free credit and other generous benefits. Moreover, enrollment in the Basij gave the poorest of the poor a chance for social advancement. Basiji reservists are still today treated as protégés of the Mullah-regime.[12]
> 
> Thirdly, the regime employed coercive measures. The following story of young Hossein, which was documented by the German weekly der Spiegel in 1982, is merely one among thousands:
> 
> “Why did you enlist?” The youngster in the camouflage fatigues, with both sleeves and pants legs rolled up, doesn’t answer. “His name is Hossein. He doesn’t know his family name,” the translator says. The boy is twelve at most. His face is gaunt, his body is bent forward, he breathes in spurts. One can see that he has trouble staying on his feet. “Polio,” the translator says. …Hossein comes from Mostalbar, a tiny spot somewhere between Shiraz and Bandar Abbas. …One day some unknown Imams turned up in the village. They called the whole population to the plaza in front of the police station and they announced that they came with good news from Imam Khomeini: the Islamic Army of Iran had been chosen to liberate the holy city Al-Quds – Jerusalem – from the infidels. …Hossein had no choice. The local Mullah had decided that every family with children would have to furnish one soldier of God. Because Hossein was the most easily expendable for his family and because, in light of his illness, he could in any case not expect much happiness in this life, he was chosen by his father to represent the family in the struggle against the infidel devils.[13]
> 
> Of the twenty children that went into battle with Hossein, only he and two others survived.
> 
> In 1982, during the retaking of the city of Khorramshahr, 10,000 Iranians died. Following “Operation Kheiber”, in February 1984, the corpses of some 20,000 fallen Iranians were left on the battle field. The “Karbala Four” Offensive in 1986 cost the lives of more than 10,000 Iranians. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during the Basiji operations.[14] Why did the Basiji rush with such fervor to their own destruction?



Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Marytodom...These guys are just as hypocritical as any Westerner.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.



Unfortunately, the solution will likely involve lots of ammo, and many barrel changes.


----------



## a_majoor

Mark your calendar:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768



> *August 22*
> Does Iran have something in store?
> 
> BY BERNARD LEWIS
> Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m.
> 
> During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.
> 
> It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
> 
> Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
> 
> There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
> 
> Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
> 
> The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
> 
> A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
> 
> The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
> 
> In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
> 
> What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
> 
> A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
> 
> In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
> 
> How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.
> 
> Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).


----------



## LeonTheNeon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_re_eu/romania_iran_shooting

Excerpt:


> BUCHAREST, Romania - Romania said Iranian troops opened fire from a warship and seized a Romanian oil rig Tuesday off the coast of Iran, holding its workers in an incident stemming from a commercial dispute.
> 
> Sergiu Medar, a national security adviser to Romanian President Traian Basescu, said the seizure resulted from a commercial dispute Iran is treating "in an extreme way." He gave no details.
> 
> Romania's Foreign Ministry called on Iranian authorities to immediately free Romanian crew members being held by the troops who took over the rig. The rig operator said seven Indian crew members had been released but 20 Romanians were still detained.


----------



## FredDaHead

This is bad. Like, war-provoking bad. Can we nuke them, now?


----------



## geo

Hmmm... guess that the Iranians are looking after trade disputes using alternative techniques......
And we're waiting for them to anounce their decision on how they will deal with the Enrichment of Uranium?

Is there any doubt how they will answer?

:???


----------



## FredDaHead

geo said:
			
		

> Is there any doubt how they will answer?



I think you forget who leads the UN: terrorist-loving, peace-hating, _cojones_-less leftist peacenik remnants of the '60s. Of course we'll wait and see!


----------



## karl28

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm           I did a search on google and came up with this web site and it list Romania as being a member of NATO  isn't it supposed to say that an attack on  one NATO  country is an attack on all of them ?  That's a pretty foolish move for the Iranians I wonder what kind of response they will receive?


----------



## geo

Karl...
There is no Romanian land / territory in the Persian gulf.
The Oil rig is in Iranian territorial waters based on contracts between two commercial partners.....

Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school


----------



## Bo

Wow! CNN reports that an Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig with absolutely no details as to WHY they fired, what the causes were, etc, and everyone loses their ability to actually think and just reacts.



> Eugen Chira, the political consul at the Romanian Embassy in Tehran confirmed the incident, but provided few details.
> 
> "Some forces opened fire. That an incident has happened is true. We have no details or the reason yet," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/


Come on people, use some common sense. This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  :


----------



## FredDaHead

geo said:
			
		

> Karl...
> There is no Romanian land / territory in the Persian gulf.
> The Oil rig is in Iranian territorial waters based on contracts between two commercial partners.....
> 
> Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school



If it's a Romanian-owned oil rig, wouldn't attacking it be somewhat (not completely alike) like attacking, say, an embassy, or perhaps more accurately, a ship? Either way, firing on foreign nationals is just asking for crap to happen.



			
				Bo said:
			
		

> Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  :



I dunno, why would people fly planes into buildings?


----------



## karl28

"Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school "
Diplomacy ?? ?? ??    ;D


----------



## probum non poenitet

Bo said:
			
		

> This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason?



Nobody knows the reasons for sure, but there are two things of which you can *almost  * be certain:

1) This attack was carried out with the approval of the top levels of the Iranian government
2) The Iranian government is well aware of the diplomatic shockwaves it will send out, regardless of the attack being '_justified'_ or not

For reasons big or small, they are rocking a fragile boat.
The Iranians have been unpredictable recently, and unpredictable is a bad thing internationally.


----------



## GAP

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Nobody knows the reasons for sure, but there are two things of which you can *almost  * be certain:
> 
> 1) This attack was carried out with the approval of the top levels of the Iranian government
> 2) The Iranian government is well aware of the diplomatic shockwaves it will send out, regardless of the attack being '_justified'_ or not
> 
> For reasons big or small, they are rocking a fragile boat.
> The Iranians have been unpredictable recently, and unpredictable is a bad thing internationally.



Not really. Like they are going to get invaded by Romania? No, it's attention getting, vaudeville, call it what you will, but essentially it will bring no harm to them, so they will get away with it. 

Why do it? I still maintain that everything that Iran has done externally both physical and verbally, has had one aim. It stifles internal dissent. Everyone forgets that a year ago there were demonstrations in the streets in Tehran, how many do you see now. They are crazy like a fox.


----------



## geo

The Romanian oil rig is the prperty of a comercial company - not the Romanian Gov't
The Romanian rig was built or positioned, with Iranian permision (?) in Iranian waters.
If the Iranian Gov't dissagrees with the presence of Romanian business interests, then they will express their displeasure in some way or the other....

Embassies are deemed to be sovereign land within the borders of a country
An oil rig in the Gulf of Persia is located on Iranian sovereign land / water.


----------



## probum non poenitet

GAP said:
			
		

> Not really. Like they are going to get invaded by Romania? No, it's attention getting, vaudeville, call it what you will, but essentially it will bring no harm to them, so they will get away with it.
> 
> Why do it? I still maintain that everything that Iran has done externally both physical and verbally, has had one aim. It stifles internal dissent. Everyone forgets that a year ago there were demonstrations in the streets in Tehran, how many do you see now. They are crazy like a fox.



I agree ... they will *probably  * get away with it, and I sincerely doubt they are trying to start World War III.

But with the region as unstable as it is, and Iran being the U.S.'s #1 boogie-man, every time you pull a stunt like this you are playing "Wheel of Nuclear Fortune"

I would file it under "not clever"


----------



## FredDaHead

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> I agree ... they will *probably  * get away with it, and I sincerely doubt they are trying to start World War III."



I'm going to disagree here. Iran has been working for years at provoking the international community--particularly the US--through any means possible.

They, or at least the Iranian leaders, think the Twelfth Imam is coming; do you think they care if fire starts raining in Tehran? If anything they'll be happy!


----------



## aesop081

Bo said:
			
		

> Wow! CNN reports that an Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig with absolutely no details as to WHY they fired, what the causes were, etc, and everyone loses their ability to actually think and just reacts.
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/
> 
> 
> Come on people, use some common sense. This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  :



I see you make your arguments as convincing as always....... :


----------



## FredDaHead

From Starfor (fair use et al)


Iran: The Romanian Oil Rig Move
August 22, 2006 11 39  GMT

*Summary*

Iran seized control of an oil rig operated by a Romanian company in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, just hours before Tehran's national security chief planned to deliver the Iranian counteroffer to the incentives package from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany on its nuclear issue. Tehran is demonstrating that it is willing to go to extreme lengths should the West respond harshly to its refusal to give up its nuclear ambitions. 

*Analysis*

Iran occupied an oil rig operated by Romanian company GSP near Kish Island in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, a company spokesman said. The Iranians fired warning shots over the rig and then boarded it, after which GSP lost contact with its workers. An Iranian official claimed the seizure was due to contractual issues with the Romanian firm. GSP had recently begun moving three rigs it was operating in the area, while the Iranian oil company PetroIran protestd the move. 

The seizure comes hours before Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Council and top nuclear negotiator, is expected to deliver Tehran's formal response to the incentives package from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. This is not a coincidence. The Iranians are signaling that they can be expected to respond harshly if any punitive action is taken against them for refusing to comply with the demand to halt enrichment. The takeover of the rig sends the message that there can be repercussions for the energy sector if Iran is sanctioned or subject to a military attack.

In essence the Iranians are expressing their willingness to negotiate, but with a gun in their hand.


----------



## DBA

Lets not read too much into firing some shots which can be a show of force and intent more often than a direct attack. A example would be Canada firing across the bow of the Spanish trawler Estai during the Turbot War in the 90's. It's a worrying development but there is currently little information of what the dispute is and why it has escalated.


----------



## Centurian1985

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Iran occupied an oil rig operated by Romanian company GSP near Kish Island in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, a company spokesman said. The Iranians fired warning shots over the rig and then boarded it, after which GSP lost contact with its workers. An Iranian official claimed the seizure was due to contractual issues with the Romanian firm. GSP had recently begun moving three rigs it was operating in the area, while the Iranian oil company PetroIran protestd the move.



Some Iranian military officers are reputed to conduct actions wthout the approval of their government, especially if it involves extortion or 'protection'...


----------



## Popurhedoff

The only question that remains in my opinion is...

"How thick do they want the glass?"

Cheers
Pop


----------



## FredDaHead

Popurhedoff said:
			
		

> The only question that remains in my opinion is...
> 
> "How thick do they want the glass?"
> 
> Cheers
> Pop



Wow, for a zoomie you sure are hardcore!

I do agree, though.


----------



## tomahawk6

Possibly Pasdaran Navy responsible for this incident. Look for the SEALs to go in and free these guys unless they have been transported to an Iranian port.


----------



## geo

Hmmm...
the US navy to the rescue?
Oy..... why is it that I have this impression the Iranians are counting on exactly that reaction?


----------



## tomahawk6

Who else would be able to ride to the rescue ?


----------



## geo

yeah...... 
it's just that the Iranians know that too.... and although they might be acting in a provocative way - they have not drawn blood.


----------



## tomahawk6

I guess its ok then. :


----------



## geo

didn't say that.


----------



## tomahawk6

Whats your position then ?


----------



## geo

At this time, unless you've heard something that I haven't, Romania has not asked for assistance and any action initiated by the US would be premature.


----------



## tomahawk6

Ya let's let diplomacy work. ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows

Given up hope, have you?


----------



## FredDaHead

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Given up hope, have you?



Haven't you?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

More evidence that Iran wants to be seen as the big shooter in the region.  I'm betting that Iran is quite bent that Israel didn't turn Lebanon into a major war zone, and they had some convoluted battle plan to start a massive regional conflict.  Now that things are settling down (I know, just let it slide for now) they are all ramped up and no war to fight.  
So why not dick around with a minor NATO ally, and see what sort of reaction they can get?  Wars have started over less, have they not?  
Is there any chance that the oil rig is a dual purpose device, and actually is some sort of listening station?  Or is that too Bond-ish?  
Hopefully they can figure out what Iranian Pres. Gearbox is up to and work around it.


----------



## probum non poenitet

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Is there any chance that the oil rig is a dual purpose device, and actually is some sort of listening station?  Or is that too Bond-ish?



Too Bond-ish? No way ... maybe the Iranians are shooting a remake of _Diamonds are Forever_? Any reports of a bald guy with a cat escaping the oil rig on a submarine, and I'm reassessing the whole thing.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before Israel splits from the whole effin' program and just preemptively nukes Tehran, Damascus, and anyone else in dire need of an Old Testament type crap kicking.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before Israel splits from the whole effin' program and just preemptively nukes Tehran, Damascus, and anyone else in dire need of an Old Testament type crap kicking.



I'm in.


----------



## Bo

> Iran Denies Seizing Romanian Oil Rig
> 
> August 23, 2006 -- The Iranian Foreign Ministry today denied that Iranian troops have occupied a Romanian rig in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> 
> However, it said Iranian police prevented materials belonging to the Orizont rig from being transferred, and will do so as long as a legal dispute between Iranian and Romanian companies remains unsettled.
> 
> The Romanian Embassy in Tehran says Iranian military forces on August 22 attacked and occupied the rig, which belongs to the Romanian group Servicii Petroliere.



Who's to believe? Has anyone else found info on this topic? There doesn't seem to be much reported on the matter.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html


----------



## Hunter

I have a friend with parents in Romania, and according to them the Romanian media isn't saying much at all other than that there has been an 'incident' due to an economic dispute.  According to them the Iranians have withdrawn all the military pers but left 3 police on the rig as observers.  No word on whether the military has rigged the rig (pardon the awkward wording) it to explode if attacked.


----------



## FredDaHead

Bo said:
			
		

> Who's to believe? Has anyone else found info on this topic? There doesn't seem to be much reported on the matter.
> 
> 
> http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html



I'll believe what Iran says when they stop lying and trying to deceive everyone. Until then, everything they say is lies and propaganda.

Trying to believe Iran is like going into a maximum-security prison, talking to a guy who's in jail for embezzlement and murder, and saying "hmm, maybe I should believe HIM instead of his victims."


----------



## geo

If Iran has withdrawn it's troops and both countries admit that this is a COMMERCIAL dispute, imagine the fine mess we'd be in if the SEALS had gone in fightin - without an invite or a howdie-doo..........


----------



## FredDaHead

geo said:
			
		

> If Iran has withdrawn it's troops and both countries admit that this is a COMMERCIAL dispute, imagine the fine mess we'd be in if the SEALS had gone in fightin - without an invite or a howdie-doo..........



Yeah but now that Iran knows nobody will react--even by talking--if they start shooting at civilians (even just warning shots), do you think they'll let things go on? No, every time they get involved in a trade/commercial dispute, they're gonna go in guns blazing and strongarm their way into whatever they want.

Let's not wait until they're too bold and powerful to act; make sure Iran knows not to screw up and attack civilians. Now.


----------



## paracowboy

If Iran keeps up with this sort of tactic, they'll simply lose out on all their revenue, since few companies will deal with them. They're lunatics with an agenda, but it'll bite them in the ass commercially, just as it did with Uncle Moammar. Iran needs to be jerked up by they short and curlies, but not over COMMERCIAL reasons.


----------



## geo

Frederick,

While I am a firm believer that something has to be done to bring the Iranian gov't to heed warnings AND work with international bodies, I don't think it is appropriate, fair or reasonnable to have the US NAVY, SEALS, MARINES & DELTA go storming in to Iran, a sovereign country, without the involvment of someone directly & intimately involved in the incident .... (in this case - the Romanians)

In this case, it appears to have been a commercial dispute between Servicii Petroliere AND the Iranian state petroleum company.....


----------



## geo

PC....
Unfortunately, China is so hungry for oil that they will gladly accept to take delivery of all of Iran's oil production...... guess you'll have to find another way to bite them on the a**


----------



## paracowboy

no worries. They're going down. Just a question of when, and how many innocents they slaughter in the meantime.


----------



## FredDaHead

geo said:
			
		

> Frederick,
> 
> While I am a firm believer that something has to be done to bring the Iranian gov't to heed warnings AND work with international bodies, I don't think it is appropriate, fair or reasonnable to have the US NAVY, SEALS, MARINES & DELTA go storming in to Iran, a sovereign country, without the involvment of someone directly & intimately involved in the incident .... (in this case - the Romanians)
> 
> In this case, it appears to have been a commercial dispute between Servicii Petroliere AND the Iranian state petroleum company.....



I agree the US (and the West in general) shouldn't go storming into sovereign countries, but someone should at least say something. Y'know, tell Iran "hey, that's not right, don't do it again."

Besides, as you pointed out, it was a dispute between two companies, so why did Iran need to involve their military?


----------



## geo

Ayup


----------



## paracowboy

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Besides, as you pointed out, it was a dispute between two companies, so why did Iran need to involve their military?


two most likely reasons:
1. Sending a message. They're just itchin' to show they're the big dogs. Usual tactics for them, really. Negotiation through intimidation. Thugs cloaking themselves in religion.

2. Rogue element using a private army to gain a better footing for mo' money. Less likely, though. Odds of pulling it off without superiours finding out are minimal, and independent action in Iran gets you real dead, real fast.


----------



## nowhere_man

Mabey we should tell the UN and get them to write a letter to Iran saying there being bad and if it happens again the UN will be very angry ;D.


----------



## FredDaHead

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> Mabey we should tell the UN and get them to write a letter to Iran saying there being bad and if it happens again the UN will be very angry ;D.



The UN, angry? Oh please! They only get angry when the US shows how useless the UN has become.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is not reassuring.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm?csp=34



> Iran's hard-line president on Saturday inaugurated a heavy-water production plant, a facility the West fears will be used to develop a nuclear bomb, as Tehran remained defiant ahead of a U.N. deadline that could lead to sanctions.
> 
> The U.N. has called on Tehran to stop the separate process of uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — by Thursday or face economic and political sanctions...
> 
> Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated...
> 
> The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb...



And three years ago Iran was talking about a CANDU connection.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/nuke2003.htm



> In a letter dated May 5 [2003], Mr. Aghazadeh informed the IAEA of Iran's intention to build a heavy water power reactor using Canadian CANDU reactor technology. The announcement complemented Iran's numerous statements of its intention to build additional reactors in order to generate about 6,000 megawatts of electricity. Immediately following this announcement, Canadian officials vigorously denied any intention of selling CANDU technology to Iran.



More here.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/iran_june03.asp

One wonders how many Iranian-origin scientists have been working at AECL or Ontario Power Generation.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JBP

Very interesting to say the least... I really hope we can recruit as fast as the Conservatives hope we can because it looks like we might need every single body we can muster in about 2-3 years time.... If that long, if things keep going the way they are. They're just not letting up it seems. 

I ask this question to those of you who have far better situational awareness than I. Is it inevatible that we will soon be going to war on a large scale with Iran and/or other Middle Eastern nations in say, perhaps the next 5 years or so? I know this has partially been discussed in other threads on here, but does it not seem inevatible really? When they keep pushing every button they can?

Practice marksmanship principles anyone?


----------



## 1feral1

My spider senses are tingling!!!!! A feel a surgical airstrike is coming?

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## bubba

I think its comin shortly myself because if not i think Isreal will be a 9 hours long by 6 hours wide parkin lot if Iran developes there bomb.


----------



## McG

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Iran opens heavy water plant: CANDU connection?


Maybe, but even the Nazi experiments with nuclear technology were dependant on heavy water.  Over the years, most countries have gone to other moderators because of the challenges of producing heavy water.  However, the idea is not uniquely Canadian.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Iranians will not be stopped by diplomacy.We need to hurt Iran in the pocket book. Force her to spend valuable resources on rebuilding their oil facilities rather than nuclear weapons.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Causes of spidey sense for a coming strike?

*Israel Prepares for War with Iran*
Jim Kouri, NewsLog, 26 Aug 06
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/26/israel-prepares-for-war-with-iran/

The Israeli military estabishment reports that they’ve created a new command to deal exclusively with Iran.  Basically, according to Israeli officials, Israel has expanded its military command structure to include an “Iran Command” as prospects of war with the radical Islamic country appear inevitable.  According *to Ha’aretz, Israeli Air Force commander Major General Elyezer Shkedy was appointed as “GOC Iran Command” (commanding officer) and will be tasked with coordinating all military and intelligence efforts in the event of a war with Iran* . . . .


*Israel May Have To 'Go It Alone' Against Iran*
Ryan Jones, All Headline News, 24 Aug 06
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004638537

Iran's ongoing defiance of international demands regarding its nuclear program and the world's failure to do anything about it but talk may compel Israel to take matters into its own hands, senior government sources in Jerusalem warned Wednesday .  . . . Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, one official said Tehran's written response Tuesday to international incentives to stop its uranium enrichment efforts was a clear rejection that Iran knew perfectly well would carry no consequences . . . . The source added, "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."  He said that *if things continued like this very much longer, Israel would have to be prepared to use the means at its disposal to "slow down" Iran's nuclear program* . . . .


*Israel beefs up its fleet of subs:  The purchase of two more nuclear submarines sends a message to Iran*
Associated Press, 25 Aug 06
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/08/25/100wir_a7israel001.cfm

With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.  The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" . . . . 

_*LATEST ON SUBS, THOUGH....*_

*A deal under which Germany will sell Israel two submarines foresees the vessels being delivered starting in 2010, and they are not being equipped to fire nuclear weapons*, an official said Friday.   The sale of the submarines was first reported by The Jerusalem Post on August 22.  The German government said earlier this week that the HDW shipyard signed a contract with Israeli authorities July 6 to build the two Dolphin-class submarines. Israel already has three of that type submarine.  "The delivery of these two Dolphin class submarines is foreseen for 2010, not earlier, according to current planning," and therefore the vessels have "no relevance" to the current conflict in the Middle East, government spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters . . . . 
(Jerusalem Post, 25 Aug 06 at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525945057&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )


----------



## Mike Baker

Something bad is bound to happen. Airstricks, Iran retaliation in Iraq and Afghanistan and a strike against Israel. It's not good.


----------



## DSB

India and Pakistan went at it like cats and dogs for years.  Once they both got nukes they really did settle down, (for the most part).   Will finally having the nuke get the chip off their shoulder and let them calm the **** down?


DSB


----------



## DSB

Perhaps having a nuke might get people to hear out their grievances, (all their issues/beefs can't be BS).  It's hard not to take anyone seriously if they got atomic weapons.

DSB


----------



## 1feral1

DSB said:
			
		

> India and Pakistan went at it like cats and dogs for years.  Once they both got nukes they really did settle down, (for the most part).   Will finally having the nuke get the chip off their shoulder and let them calm the **** down?
> 
> 
> DSB



Sorry DSB, if you think that, pigs can fly. We must remember, the whole country is radicalised, and helll bent on destroying Israel and the Great Satan, and anyone else who stands in their way. Iran is the new 'Nazi Germany of 1939' in the region, and they are dangerous beyond a joke. They are nuts enough nuke us (the west) too. 

Sadly, any sort of nuclear tinkering must be stopped NOW, not later, and how its stopped is only going to be in the form of HE. No $$$ or anything else will do it. As time is wasted they get stronger by our weakness, as far as I am concerned, dimplomacy is over. 

Giving a tin pot radical islamic backward-arse country living with 21 century technology, and the mentality of the 13th century authorisation for nuclear technology spells 100's of thousands of casualties and worse for us.



Wait for it.

Wes


----------



## sdimock

And despite the political fallout, an air strike can't happen soon enough, yesterday would have been good.


----------



## Magravan

Perhaps this is naive of me, but why do they not simply create the reactors elsewhere, and offer the Iranian's energy for cheap? It gives them the energy they claim to want, and forces them to either admit that they are not only interested in the energy, or to stop doing what they are doing because that is what they want. The international community is already willing to make deals and spend money to get them to stop...

I'll admit, it's probably naive..


----------



## Bo

This for all those people who keep trying to justify attacking Iran because he threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map".



> Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?
> 
> To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.
> 
> But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:
> 
> *"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."*
> (source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)
> 
> 
> It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm


----------



## tomahawk6

Ahmadinejad has said on a number of occaisions that Irael must be destroyed or moved.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1251269&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


----------



## Old Guy

Nice try, Bo.  I don't know who you are, but Ahmadinejad has said time and again he wants the "destruction and downfall" of Israel.  So have other prominent Iranian speakers.

It took me five minutes of Internet searching and a few minutes of reading to find no less than three examples.  Misinformation only works where people aren't intelligent enough to check the sources.  Few people at Army.ca fall into the category of willing believers of such tripe, whether dispensed by the western media or by a useful idiot.

jim


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know T6 and Old Guy.  I think Bo has performed a service here.  

We now have a text that he believes accurately reflects the position of the Iranian Government.  I read the text and still see Ahmedinajad calling for the establishment of an Islamic World the elimination of the occupying power, the stain that is Israel.

But that's just me. One juror in a jury of 6,000,000,000.

Funny, I didn't think smart lawyers introduced into evidence statements that tended to condemn their clients.


----------



## tomahawk6

;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

IMHO, this was simply put up as one of Bo's trolls. He watched it for awhile and didn't respond to the factual rebuttals. I see no need to continue this. The normal caveat applies.


----------



## Jack O.

Your point has been partially discussed I believe, when the Russians offered to build some non-threatening reactors for the Iranians, but they said no thankyou. So I think that sums it up.


----------



## Pieman

> Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated...
> 
> The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb...



Heavy water is the major component in how a Hydrogen bomb functions too.


----------



## tomahawk6

A bit embarassing for Merkle I am sure. :

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506060558


----------



## Kirkhill

Amazing - It should be interesting to see Merckel's response.


----------



## Haggis

Verbose, isn't he!


----------



## Cloud Cover

I'd like to know if that letter is even authentic. As far as I know, that man would gut her like a fish at the very first instance.


----------



## Spr.Earl

I think he is relying on that they would like to win one at least once seeing as they have lost twice. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I think he is relying on that they would like to win one at least once seeing as they have lost twice. ;D



Seems it was theirs to lose in both cases as well. I don't think this particular Frau will back a demon possessed dark horse trying to pass itself off as merely an ass.


----------



## goodform

Agreed, Germany didn't do well when it was at war with or loosely allied to any country in the Asian continent.    

Honestly though, I can't imagine that he may have thought any tangible gains could be made in a political/economic sense. Those that would be lasting anyway.


----------



## warspite

Careful the U.N. may hear you ;D


----------



## North Star

Wow - the diplomatic version of the famous "Nigerian Scam" letter. After reading his letter to Bush, it's pretty hard to take this guy seriously. 

I suspect this is merely an attempt to leverage differences in policy towards Iran between the EU and US, with a secondary aim of trying to acquire German diplomatic channels to the US for indirect negotiations in the nuclear issue. Not much new here except something to chuckle at.


----------



## pbi

And I have to wonder what the real purpose of this is....

Did he (or anybody advising him...) think that this was going to sway Germany, with clumsy (and sometimes glaringly wrong) references to history? Or was it really released as much for Iranian internal consumption as for our benefit? ("Look at me, Iranian people: see how diplomatically and nicely I talk to these European fools. I've tried to be reasonable with them-whatever comes next certainly isn't _my_ fault...)

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Might be something in that pbi -

There does seem to be an uptick in the number of public hangings in the Kurdish, Arab and Baloch areas of the country (around the borders) as the administration eliminates "smugglers" and "disruptive influences".   As well there was at least one bombing in the South West.  And Ahmedinajad is calling for a new student uprising and the shutting down of the secular faculty at universities.

There was also a report about Ahmedinajad being locally accused of corruption.

He is not unpressured.


----------



## wotan

I think PBI has hit on it and that this is for public consumption.

  Then again, maybe Ahmadijenad thinks that Herr Joachim v. Ribbentrop is still Foreign Minister.  Or just wishes he was.


----------



## probum non poenitet

North Star said:
			
		

> Wow - the diplomatic version of the famous "Nigerian Scam" letter.



That's funny ...

... from the people who brought you The Zimmerman Telegram, Hess' Flight to Scotland, and The Premature Recognition of Croatia ... 

... it's Germany's Diplomatic Bloopers and Practical Jokes.

Maybe Iran will attack Pearl Harbor, and Germany will jump on board three days later?
Just spitballin'  ;D


----------



## wannabe SF member

I think that the letter is authentic.

Ahmadinejad is the kind of person to do something like that ;D


----------



## Shec

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Amazing - It should be interesting to see Merckel's response.



Could this be the start of a new army.ca game called  _Lets draft Angela's response_.  Allow me to get it started.  Please add to it:

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

I am writing in reply to your recent letter expressing your interest in the Federal German Republic...


----------



## Infanteer

_...Unfortuantely, we tried rocking the boat before; my advice from one leader to another, don't do it, because the free-world will bring some whoop-ass on you.

Signed, 
Angela_


----------



## paracowboy

p.s.
I love your dresses. Where do you get them?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061002-102008-6971r.htm



> If and when Bush 'Iraqs' Iran
> By Arnaud de Borchgrave
> October 3, 2006
> 
> 
> A strategic thinker who called all the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says, started a year ago when the U.S. began conducting secret recon missions inside Iran.
> Sam Gardiner, 67, has taught strategy at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. The retired Air Force colonel recently published as a Century Foundation Report "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing the U.S. Military Option on Iran."
> President Bush and his national security council believe seven "key truths" that eliminate all but the military option, according to Mr. Gardiner, who adds his own comments:
> (1) Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction -- "that is most likely true."
> (2) Iran is ignoring the international community -- "true."
> (3) Iran supports Hezbollah and terrorism -- "true."
> (4) Iran is increasingly inserting itself in Iraq and beginning to get involved in Afghanistan -- "true."
> (5) The people of Iran want a regime change -- "most likely an exaggeration."
> (6) Sanctions won't work -- "most likely true."
> (7) You cannot negotiate with these people -- "not proven." .....



This has the ring of a real possibility to it.



> ....Congressional approval? When Democratic members of Congress offered an amendment to the Defense bill in June that would have required the president to get authorization before taking military action, the amendment failed. A strike on Iran, as seen by the White House, has already been authorized. It's part of the global war on terrorism. So the strike on Iran could be ordered any time in the next two years.



G.W.'s  hands will be untied after November.  More to Follow.

As for the caveat mentioned in the article that Iran will become the permanent enemy of the US: What is it now?
And as for multiple aim points 1 B2 can simultaneously drop 80 500lb JDAMS (16 2000lb JDAMS) on multiple aim points without crossing the targets.  It doesn't take too many sorties to reach 400 aim points.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-specs.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

And in a potentially related development.....not only would Israel have to go through French "Peace Keepers" to get to Hezbollah but the US would have to go through French Nuclear Techs to get to Iran's nuke programme.



> Iran pushes France nuclear deal
> 
> Iran has suggested that France monitor its nuclear programme, by setting up a nuclear fuel consortium inside Iran.
> 
> ....... The deputy director of Iran's atomic energy agency, Mohammad Saeedi, told French radio that a solution to the nuclear issue could be a consortium with France to enrich uranium in Iran.
> 
> "That way France... could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told France-Info radio. ......



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5401828.stm

More to follow no doubt......


----------



## a_majoor

Of course, the French had technical staff at the Osirik reactor just outside Bagdad in 1981 as well. They were lucky then, apparently only one person ended up playing "catch" with an Israeli bomb.......................


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And in a potentially related development.....not only would Israel have to go through French "Peace Keepers" to get to Hezbollah but the US would have to go through French Nuclear Techs to get to Iran's nuke programme.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5401828.stm
> 
> More to follow no doubt......



Oh, well then.  The *French* will be trusted with the security of the middle east.  **PHEW!!** Thank god we have that problem sorted out.   : Olive vinyards and flowers in the desert to follow.


----------



## tomahawk6

Some experts feel that Israel will strike Iran with their Jericho missiles - conventional warheads.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Some experts feel that Israel will strike Iran with their Jericho missiles - conventional warheads.



If that happens, it's gonna get real ugly, real fast.   :-\


----------



## Kirkhill

One more sign of chipping at the foundations.



> Popular Iranian cleric opposed to mixing religion and politics is detained
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A popular Shiite Muslim cleric who opposes mixing religion and politics was detained Sunday after his supporters clashed with police outside his home in the capital Tehran, news reports said.
> 
> Hossein Kazemeini Boroujerdi, a mid-ranking cleric, receives hundreds of visitors at home every day asking for his blessing but he is not favoured among Iran's hardline clerics under Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because he does not support politicizing Islam.
> 
> About 200 demonstrators gathered beginning Saturday at Boroujerdi's home, fearing he could be arrested. The Interior Ministry said the demonstrators had blocked roads using swords and acid.
> 
> The demonstrators clashed with police and authorities fired back with tear gas to scatter the crowd, several nongovernment newspapers reported.
> 
> Later Sunday, the Interior Ministry said authorities detained several members of a "religious cult" after they attacked people with knives and acid. The ministry, in a statement posted on its Web site, did not name any of those arrested. But the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported that one of those detained was 50-year-old Boroujerdi.
> 
> Telephone calls to Iranian authorities were not immediately returned Sunday.
> 
> In August, police failed to detain Boroujerdi when his supporters clashed with police in front of his home. He was detained twice in 1995 and 2000.



http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/10/08/1984745-ap.html

That is in addition to this:



> Ayatollah's grandson calls for US overthrow of Iran



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That is in addition to this:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html



Very interesting article.  I wonder if he is paying into some other agenda, or if he really is trying to get a war going.  And why the US?  Seems they have enough on their plate.  You would think he would be calling for the world to come in, not just the Americans.   ???


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Okay, so WTF is Russia playing at?

Russia says believes Iran's nuke program peaceful  
2 hours, 24 minutes ago

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday it believed Iran's nuclear program was peaceful, and a political dialogue, not sanctions, must be used in talks with Tehran.

"We do not have information that would suggest that Iran is carrying out a non-peaceful (nuclear) program," Russian Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov told a news conference in Moscow.

"We believe that the possibilities for continuing political discussion around this problem (Iran's nuclear program) have not been exhausted," he said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in a telephone conversation on Monday that talks over Iran's nuclear dispute were being hindered because the European side did not have enough authority.

"The most important problem in continuing Iran and Europe's negotiations (over the nuclear issue) is the European side's lack of enough authority (to take decisions)," an Iranian television report quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Putin.

In a statement on Monday, the Kremlin said Putin had told the Iranian leader that Moscow favored further talks.

Iran says negotiations are the only way to resolve the dispute. But Iran's failure to meet a U.N. deadline to halt enrichment has opened up the possibility of U.N. sanctions.

European states have prepared a draft sanctions resolution but Russia has voiced misgivings.

"Sanctions should not be adopted for their own sake," Ivanov said.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana held months of talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. But those talks did not reach a deal and Solana said this month it was up to Iran to decide if talks should continue.

"Some Western countries create obstacles and prevent a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear case," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has often blamed the United States, its arch-foe, for seeking to sway others against Iran. Washington has been seeking to toughen the sanctions resolution

Are they just trying to score some cheap oil, or is there some other dynamic going on here?


----------



## McG

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Are they just trying to score some cheap oil, or is there some other dynamic going on here?


No, but it is still commercial interest.  They are making money supporting Iran's reactors and selling the technology.


----------



## a_majoor

Russia is trying to assert regional influence in SW Asia, and by extension, limit or reduce American influence. Playing the "enemy of my enemy" card is not very smart in the mid to long term for Russia or Europe; Iran and Radical Islam is hostile to Christendom and Mother Russia, and with nuclear weaponry will be able to become even more assertive and aggressive than they are now.

Just imagine if a nuclear Iran decides it has interests in the French riots or Chechnya, and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

People here are giving such good postings,  I almost feel bad for wanting to bring some levity to the thread.

 :rofl:
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1359741

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1359561

(I put these here only out of humour,  please don't flame - I think it is funny)


----------



## tomahawk6

The issue is do we believe Tehran that their program is peaceful or do we strike Iran in an attempt to delay or curtail their program. Once Tehran has nuclear weapons then we are in a completely different game - a much more deadly one. The Iranians will figure that few countries would go nuclear on the behalf of say Israel. They probably can scare europe into compliance. The Gulf oil states will be under the nuclear protection of the US - so Tehran's approach here will be one of subversion. There are large shia minorities throughout this region that can be used to force these governments into collapse. In this way Tehran can avoid US nuclear retaliation because they know that all of these governments are built on sand. Tehran will settle for nothing less than shia domination of the region with their hand on the oil spiggot of the west.


----------



## jonoxford

Sounds like a case for Moab if Israel and the US have the guts. This war is going to be very scarey. I think it will change the world. War in the straits of Hormuz = Oil at at least 150-300 a barrel. This is all we need for a peak oil scenario.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

jonoxford said:
			
		

> This is all we need for a peak oil scenario.



Well,  an argument could be made that it wouldn't be such a bad thing. We need to get off of the oil addiction.  Besides,  I know many Albertians would become overnight trillionairs if the price doubled.  ;D  Remember Canada produces more oil than we consume.


----------



## tomahawk6

High oil prices will spur soy diesel, ethanol, tar sands and coal liquification. Short term pain but long term gain. You have to remember that Iran is as dependent on oil revenue as we are to oil. The Chinese wont be able to afford sky high oil prices and may decide they would rather side with the west.


----------



## Kirkhill

I found it interesting that Tehran was claiming during their recent missile test/show-of-strength that they had cluster munitions for their IRBMs. It seems like an awfully expensive way to terrorize a civilian population - and a particularly ineffective one.  There is a relatively small number of vehicles, which give a fair amount of advance warning of their trajectory and target.  The SRBMs and Katyushas that Hezbollah was firing had limited effect because even with their relatively short times of flight, and an effective evacuation, their ball bearings didn't do much damage although they did shut down the economy.  Militarily they seem to have been of very limited value and I would guess that an IRBM with cluster munitions would be similarly disadvantaged.

So, is Tehran telling the truth about the cluster munitions?  In which case is the entire stunt a propaganda ploy to show Israel that it can reach out and touch them?  Is that necessary because Hezbollah's abilities to hit Israel HAVE been significantly degraded?  Does it indicate that Tehran doesn't yet have anything else to put on the IRBMs?  Or, more bothersome, is it a plausible excuse for developing and deploying long range capabilities without having to announce the nature of the warhead they actually intend to use? (ie They actually have or intend to have CBRN warheads but this allows them the fiction that the IRBMS are "conventional" weapons to keep the UN/US at bay a little longer.)

PS, interesting point about China tomahawk6.  Besides, if they destroy the US economy who is going to buy all the clothes and toys they are currently selling to the US (and us) at inflated prices.  China's wealth is as dependent on the US as Ontario's.  They sell labour - not resources.  No wealthy customers - no wealthy Chinese.


----------



## GAP

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> High oil prices will spur soy diesel, ethanol, tar sands and coal liquification. Short term pain but long term gain. You have to remember that Iran is as dependent on oil revenue as we are to oil. *The Chinese wont be able to afford sky high oil prices and may decide they would rather side with the west.*



Or they just might decide to include Iran in their little retinue of countries they own. 
Remember it does not have to be a Chinese face at the helm for them to be answerable to the Chinese.


----------



## couchcommander

MCG said:
			
		

> No, but it is still commercial interest.  They are making money supporting Iran's reactors and selling the technology.



Indeed. For those who don't think Russia knows exactly what is going on, lest we forget:


----------



## Stirling N6123

Just searching on Wikidpedia for information on Irans Military. Not a great source of Information, but all the same.....

What gets me is the reference to the peoples militia, or the Baseej......



> It also has a people's militia called the Basij, or Baseej paramilitary volunteer forces. There are about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members and up to 300,000 reservists. The Basij can mobilize up to 11 million men and women




11'000'000 million people, that's alot of guns.


----------



## a_majoor

The Basij was actually the source of the children who led human wave attacks against the Iraqi's in the Iran Iraq war during the 1980's. Their primary purpose in today's Iran is to preach the twisted message of martyrdom and influence the upcoming generation of Iranians (which I suspect they can do with great success in rural Iran; in the cities people have access to outside media and influences, hence the recent crack downs on everything from radios to fashion). With such a large and indoctrinated base, the Theocracy has the ability to crack down on internal dissidents and the Basji would also be a source of recruits for any insurgency raised by the theocracy after their overthrow (from any cause).

Google Basji and learn more


----------



## a_majoor

Luckily we have one ally who NEVER rests and always contributes (although sometimes it is difficult to see the direct results, the indirect approach is often favored): Adam Smith!

The mismanagement of the oil industry by the State reduces the overall financial position of Iran, and I would expect there are a lot of knock off and follow through effects throughout the economy which compound the problem. Iran's leadership does not have full access to the economic resources they desire to fulfill their goals (including becoming regional Hegemons and destroying Israel), and the fact it is self inflicted makes it even better. Maybe we don't need to "Light up the sky" if "we" in the West can maintain our patience and resolve for a few more years in Iraq and Afghanistan. A close read of the article indicates several possible pressure points, including petrolium inports to Iran(!), disinvensting in companies which deal with Iran and putting immediate financial pressure on internal spending which is designed to promote loyalty to the regime (or at least keep people quiet).

http://www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/nov2006/gb20061130_396971.htm



> *Surprise: Oil Woes In Iran*
> Flagging output from its vast reserves could diminish Tehran's influence
> by Stanley Reed
> 
> Few countries can match Iran in its ability to generate angst among Westerners. It appears determined to become a nuclear power. Tehran's Islamic leaders aid radical groups across the Middle East. And as the U.S. gets bogged down in Iraq, Iran's influence in the region is on the rise, fueled in large part by its vast energy wealth.
> 
> Yet Iran has a surprising weakness: Its oil and gas industry, the lifeblood of its economy, is showing serious signs of distress. As domestic energy consumption skyrockets, Iran is struggling to produce enough oil and gas for export. Unless Tehran overhauls its policies, its primary source of revenue and the basis of its geopolitical muscle could start to wane. Within a decade, says Saad Rahim, an analyst at Washington consultancy PFC Energy, "Iran's net crude exports could fall to zero."
> 
> That's not to say Iran doesn't have abundant resources. The country's 137 billion barrels of oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, and its supply of gas trails only Russia's, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Getting it all out of the ground, though, is another matter. Iran has been producing just 3.9 million barrels of oil a day this year, 5% below its OPEC quota, because of delays in new projects and a shortage of technical skills. By contrast, in 1974, five years before the Islamic Revolution, Iran pumped 6.1 million barrels daily.
> 
> The situation could get even tougher for the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC), which is responsible for all of Iran's output. Without substantial upgrades in facilities, production at Iran's core fields, several of which date from the 1920s, could go into a precipitous decline. In September, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh suggested that with no new investment, output from Iran's fields would fall by about 13% a year, roughly twice the rate that outside oil experts had expected. "NIOC is likely to find that even maintaining the status quo is a mounting challenge," says PFC Energy's Rahim.
> 
> STATE HANDOUTS
> 
> *Iran's looming crisis is the result of years of neglect and underinvestment. As in other oil-producing countries such as Venezuela and Mexico, the government treats the oil industry as a cash cow, milking its revenues for social programs. It allocates only $3 billion a year for investment, less than a third of what's needed to get production growing again.*
> 
> Compounding the pressure are policies that encourage profligate energy use. Gasoline prices are set at 35 cents a gallon, which has helped fuel 10%-plus annual growth in consumption, PFC Energy figures. The national thirst for gasoline far outstrips domestic refining capacity, so Iran will import about $5 billion in gasoline this year, or about 40% of its needs. The government is planning a $16 billion refinery building program to boost capacity by 60%. But unless Iran raises fuel prices, the new plants will just mean more consumption.
> 
> An oil squeeze could spell trouble for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. *The populist leader has won backing at home through generous handouts.* Ahmadinejad has ratcheted up public spending this year by 21%, to $213 billion, on everything from aid to rural areas to housing loans for newlyweds. He has also promised some $16 billion in outlays from a special $30 billion fund set up to tide Iranians through future hard times. Without a healthy oil sector, Iran's social spending could bust the national budget--and reignite inflation.
> 
> Iran badly needs fresh foreign investment to shore up the oil industry.* Tehran has attracted some $20 billion in funding for oil and gas projects since 1995 from overseas companies including Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD), France's Total (TOT), and Norway's Statoil.* But new investment has largely dried up in recent years because of lingering worries about the risk of war with the U.S. and disenchantment with Iran's tightfisted terms. Outsiders are offered contracts only to drill wells--rather than operate fields--and get just a small share of profits from output. For instance, Italian oil giant ENI (ENI), a fixture in Iran since 1957, produces about 35,000 barrels per day but doesn't expect to get any bigger. "Unless international sanctions are imposed on Iran and the Italian government directs ENI to abide by them, we are committed to staying," says ENI Chief Executive Paolo Scaroni. "However, in order to increase our presence there, contractual terms for oil companies need to change."
> 
> Endless haggling and delays have set back some of Iran's biggest oil initiatives. One top priority had been the Azagedan field in southern Iran, which is expected eventually to produce 260,000 barrels a day. But in October, Tehran scrapped a $2 billion contract, agreed to in 2004, with Japan's Inpex to develop the project. And Shell's $800 million Soroush/Nowrooz project in the Persian Gulf has been plagued by cost overruns and technical glitches. In January, meanwhile, Statoil wrote down the entire $329 million book value of its South Pars project because of "productivity and quality problems" with a local contractor.
> 
> GLACIAL PACE
> 
> It's not just oil that Iran is failing to exploit. The glacial pace of negotiations is also making it fall behind neighboring Qatar in exploiting the huge offshore gas field that the two countries share. While Qatar has signed up the likes of ExxonMobil (XOM) and Shell to develop the site, Iran's talks with Total and Shell have progressed far more slowly. Iran is now a net importer of gas, a situation not expected to reverse before 2010.
> 
> Foreign energy companies are lobbying the Iranians to change. Executives say they would like longer contracts, which would give them more control and might boost returns. But progress is slow as many Iranian officials are reluctant to give foreigners terms that might be judged too favorable. "There are indications of movement, but how far and how deep it goes is anyone's guess," an oil executive says.
> 
> Can Iran fix its energy conundrum? Some experts are betting Tehran will get its act together sooner rather than later. Iran *was able to boost production from 1.2 million barrels a day during the 1980-88 war with Iraq to nearly 4 million barrels with almost no foreign help,* notes Bijan Khajepour, chairman of Tehran's Atieh Bahar Consulting, which advises oil companies. He thinks Iran should be able to sustain current production for the next decade. Even so, if Tehran doesn't face up to the woes of its oil industry, Iran may find itself in the unusual position of sharing the West's angst over growing dependence on imported oil.
> 
> with Babak Pirouz in Tehran
> 
> Reed is London bureau chief for BusinessWeek.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165964526796&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



Israel will be 'wiped out': Ahmadinejad
Dec. 12, 2006. 10:43 PM


TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hardline president said Tuesday that Israel will be one day be "wiped out" just like the Soviet Union was, drawing applause from participants in a world conference casting doubt on the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were likely to further fuel the outcry sparked by his hosting of the two-day gathering, which has gathered some of Europe and the United States' most well-known Holocaust deniers.
Anger over the conference could have political fallout, further isolating Iran and prompting a harder line from the West, which is considering sanctions against Tehran in the standoff of its nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad appeared to revel in his meeting Tuesday with the conference delegates, shaking hands with American delegates and sitting near six anti-Israeli Jewish participants, dressed in black ultra-Orthodox coats and hats.
Ahmadinejad repeated predictions that Israel will be "wiped out," a phrase he first used in a speech in October, raising a firestorm of international criticism.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told the participants during Tuesday's meeting in his offices, according to the official IRNA news agency.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."
"By the grace of God, the arc of the Zionist regime's life has reversed and is heading downward. This is a divine promise and the public demand of all nations of the world," he said, bringing applause from the delegates.
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and comments casting doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a "myth" used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.

Ahmadinejad announced that the conference had decided to set up a ``fact-finding commission" determine whether the Holocaust happened or not. The commission will "help end a 60-year-old dispute," the president said.

He called on Western governments "not to harrass members of this commission and allow them to carry out more research and make all issues transparent."
The Tehran conference was touted by participants and organizers as an exercise in academic free expression, a chance to openly consider whether six million Jews really died in the Holocaust far from laws in several European countries that ban questioning some details of the Nazi genocide during the Second World War.
It gathered 67 writers and researchers from 30 countries, most of whom argue that either the Holocaust did not happen or was vastly exaggerated. Many had been jailed or fined in France, Germany or Austria, which have criminalized Holocaust denial.

Participants milled around a model of the Auschwitz concentration camp brought by one speaker, Australian Frederick Toben, who uses the mock-up in lectures contending that the camp was too small to kill mass numbers of Jews. More than one million people are estimated to have been killed there.
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said American David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Rabbi Moshe David Weiss, one of six members attending from the group Jews United Against Zionism, told delegates in his address, ``We don't want to deny the killing of Jews in Second World War, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed."
"They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression," he said. His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law.

The semi-official news agency ISNA said that the fact-finding commission announced by the conference would be led by an Iranian and include members from France, Bahrain, Austria, Canada, the United States, Syria and Switzerland. It did not name the members but it appeared they would be drawn from the conference participants.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that the conference was "shocking beyond belief" and called the conference ``a symbol of sectarianism and hatred."

He said he saw little hope of engaging Iran in constructive action in the Middle East, saying, "I look around the region at the moment, and everything Iran is doing is negative."
In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called "an affront to the entire civilized world."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined the chorus of world leaders condemning the conference.
"On behalf of the government of Canada, I want to condemn, in the strongest terms, this latest example of anti-Israeli and racist statements from the president of Iran," Harper said in a statement.

Harper added the conference is an offence to all Canadians.

Its almost time for the head shot.


----------



## warspite

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/23/un-iran.html


> UN imposes sanctions on Iran
> Last Updated: Saturday, December 23, 2006 | 4:23 PM ET
> CBC News
> Following two months of debate, the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program.
> 
> The resolution — the latest version drafted on Friday by Britain, France and Germany — aims to stop Iran from enriching uranium, which could be used to build nuclear weapons.
> 
> Javad Zarif, Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, said his country's nuclear program is peaceful.
> (Frank Franklin II/Associated Press) It orders all countries to ban the sale of technology and materials that could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns the country that the council will adopt further non-military sanctions.
> 
> Shortly after the vote was announced, Iran rejected the resolution and said it would continue enriching uranium.
> 
> "Bringing Iran's peaceful nuclear program to the council by a few of its permanent members, particularly the United States, is not aimed at, nor will it help, seeking the solution or encouraging negotiations," said Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.
> 
> Talks about possible sanctions began after Iran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment.
> 
> Continue Article
> 
> Support for the resolution from China and Russia, two of the 15 council members, was in question heading into Saturday's vote. The initial draft was watered down during negotiations, mainly to win Russia's vote. Russia is building a reactor for a nuclear power plant in southern Iran.
> 
> Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, outlined his country's position before the crucial vote.
> 
> "Activities which are completely legal, valid and have nothing to do with the risk of non-proliferation can be conducted without any hindrance or interference."
> 
> Churkin said Moscow agreed to sanctions because it wanted Iran "to lift remaining concerns over its nuclear program."
> 
> He stressed that the goal must be to resume talks. If Iran suspends enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution calls for a suspension of sanctions, "which would pave the way for a negotiated solution," Churkin said.


And so the die is cast.... wonder how it will turn out.


----------



## FredDaHead

I guess they prefer being able to say "we told Iran not to do it" rather than know what's going on... Heh, maybe when Tel Aviv sees a second sunrise, followed soon after by Tehran, they'll realize just pointing an accusatory finger at Iran wasn't such a good idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy

EYEING IRAN
By RALPH PETERS

January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region, baffled the media. 

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations? - There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.  While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world. In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.) Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand. STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numerous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran. The admiral also understands China's junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime. During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed. While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose. Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He's turning to the Navy. As a  retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service. I realize that the Army's leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there's yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army's leadership has failed us at the strategic level.
After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East. Our Army is deployed globally, but our generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines, with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally). Perhaps the Army's Gen. Dave Petraeus will emerge as an incisive strategic thinker after he takes command in Baghdad, but his predecessors routinely got mired in tactical details and relied - fatally - on other arms of government to do the strategic thinking. The reasons are complex, ranging from service culture to educational traditions, but it's incontestable that the Navy long has produced our military's best strategic thinkers - captains and admirals able to transcend parochial interests to see the global security environment as a whole. Adm. Fallon's job is to avoid the tyranny of the moment, to see past the jumble of operational pieces and visualize how those pieces ultimately might fit together. NOR is the Iran problem the only Navy-first issue facing CENTCOM. As you read this, our ships are patrolling the coast of Somalia to intercept fleeing terrorists - and have been hunting pirates in the same waters for years. China's future development (and internal peace) is tied to dependable supplies of Middle-Eastern and African oil transiting Indian-Ocean sea lanes, as well as to shipping goods along the same routes. In a future confrontation with China, our ability to shut down the very routes we're now challenged to protect would be vital. Not least because of the botch-up in Iraq, there's a growing sense of the limitations of U.S. ground-force involvement in the Middle East. That doesn't mean we won't see further necessity-driven interventions and even other occupations, only that our strategic planners have begun to grasp that positive change in the region - if it comes at all - is going to take far longer than many of us hoped and won't always be amenable to boots-on-the-ground prodding. If we can't determine everything that happens in the Big Sandbox, we need to be able to control access to and from the playground - a classic Navy mission. And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world.
   

Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems. Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Iran leader's nuke diplomacy questioned By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
> Sat Jan 13, 2:42 PM ET
> 
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy — an unusual agreement across        Iran's political spectrum, with many saying his provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country.
> 
> 
> The criticism comes after the        U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Some critics view the sanctions as an indication that Iran must change its policy.
> 
> After a year of silence, reformists are demanding that Iran dispel fears that it is seeking to build atomic weapons, pressing for a return to former President        Mohammad Khatami's policy of suspending enrichment, a process that can produce the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.
> 
> "Resisting the U.N. Security Council resolution will put us in a more isolated position," said the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the largest reformist party.
> 
> Ahmadinejad's popularity already was weakened after his close conservative allies were defeated last month in local elections, which were widely seen as a referendum on his 18 months in power.
> 
> Even some conservatives warn his confrontational tactics are backfiring.
> 
> "Your language is so offensive ... that it shows that the nuclear issue is being dealt with a sort of stubbornness," the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said in a recent editorial.
> 
> Some lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum are considering impeaching Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki if the Security Council approves more resolutions against Iran.
> 
> "That all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously voted, against the claim by our diplomatic apparatus that there was no unanimity against Iran, shows the weakness of our diplomatic apparatus," said Noureddin Pirmoazzen, a reformist lawmaker.
> 
> Despite the criticism, Ahmadinejad has remained defiant, escalating Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States and its allies. He has repeatedly refused to suspend enrichment, even under pressure from its trade allies Russia and China. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, denying allegations from the U.S. and its allies that it is secretly trying to build a bomb.
> 
> On Saturday, Ahmadinejad met with fellow U.S. critic Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the start of a Latin America tour — his second such visit in four months. Critics say the trip was partly aimed at diverting attention from the disapproval at home.
> 
> Ahmadinejad has also distanced some of his conservative base by calling for        Israel to be "wiped off the map" and hosting a conference last month that cast doubt on the Holocaust. Many feel he has spent too much time defying the West and too little tackling Iran's domestic issues.
> 
> "The sanctions imposed on Iran are believed to have been partly due to Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric and the Holocaust conference," said political analyst Iraj Jamshidi.
> 
> The president's tactics, Jamshidi said, have turned Iran's nuclear program from a source of national pride to a hotbed of dispute.
> 
> "Ahmadinejad made two major claims in his presidential campaign: to bring oil revenues to the kitchen of every Iranian family and to protect Iran's nuclear achievements. He failed in both," he said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_diplomacy


So the question is:  Are Ahmadinejad and Khamenei Iran?

I have to say that,  even with their problems, the votes, the press and the opposition in Iran appear to have more strength than was ever found in the Warsaw Pact countries.  The business of separating followers and leaders seems to be fairly well advanced in Iran so the trick will be how do you complete the separation as opposed to driving the two together.


----------



## rmacqueen

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The business of separating followers and leaders seems to be fairly well advanced in Iran so the trick will be how do you complete the separation as opposed to driving the two together.


Actions in Iraq will have to be measured against this as even an overt move against Iran could be twisted to create a nationalist surge in Iran wiping out the progress that has been made.


----------



## baudspeed

I thought this was a pretty interesting read. Turns out that iran is promoting an anti american fund. Interesting in concept, but i dont think that its so good for the world.


_*Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund 
2007/1 * _​_ 

http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/ViewArticle.aspx?id=44078&source=2 < Primary Link
http://news.google.ca/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1112707835 < Secondary Google Links
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago 

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela‘s Hugo Chavez and Iran ‘s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — fiery anti-American leaders whose moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington — said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination. 

"It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the (U.S.) imperialist yoke," Chavez said. 

"Death to U.S. imperialism!" he said. 

Iran and Venezuela are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Chavez also said Saturday that they had agreed to back an oil production cut in the cartel in order to stem a recent fall in crude prices. 

"We know today there is too much crude in the market," Chavez said. "We have agreed to join our forces within OPEC ... to support a production cut and save the price of oil." 

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been increasingly united by their deep-seated antagonism toward the Bush administration. Chavez has become a leading defender of Iran‘s nuclear ambitions, accusing the Washington of using the issue as a pretext to attack Tehran. 

U.S. officials have accused Chavez — a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro — of authoritarian tendencies, and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said recently in an annual review of global threats that Venezuela‘s democracy was at risk. 

The increasingly close relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad has alarmed some Chavez critics, who accuse him of pursuing an alliance that does not serve Venezuela‘s interests and jeopardizes its ties with the United States, the country‘s top oil buyer. Venezuela is among the top five suppliers of crude to the U.S. market. 

But Chavez also said in his state of the nation address to government officials and legislators that he had personally expressed hope to a high-ranking U.S. official for better relations between their two countries. 

"We shook hands and I told him: ‘I hope that everything improves,‘" Chavez said. "I‘m not anyone‘s enemy." 

Chavez prompted a crash in Venezuelan share prices this past week when he announced he would seek special powers from the legislature to push through "revolutionary" reforms, including a string of nationalizations and unspecified changes to business laws and the commerce code. 

He also announced plans for the state to take control of the country‘s largest telecommunications company, its electricity and natural gas sectors and four heavy crude upgrading projects now controlled by some of the world‘s top oil companies. 

He said Saturday, however, that private companies would be allowed to own minority stakes in the lucrative Orinoco River basin oil projects. 

The government has already taken majority ownership of all other oil-producing operations in the country through joint ventures controlled by the state oil company. Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases. 


© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved._


----------



## peaches

socialism run amuck!!!    :skull:


----------



## CrazyCanuck

Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.

"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.

That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.

The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound Video)

Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.

"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.

The investigation has led some officials to conclude the attack was an "inside job" -- that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.

Investigators are looking particularly at how the attackers got U.S.-style military uniforms and SUVs similar to those used by U.S. troops. (Watch what could happen if the U.S. opts to strike Iran Video)

"'Who was behind it all?' was the fundamental question," the first official said.

Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, Iraq, on January 11, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday. 

The five Iranians are still in U.S. custody.

The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said Friday.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

more on link

If they were Iranian soldiers (or their operatives) who attacked could that be considered an act of war?


----------



## midget-boyd91

Even if it is, what will they (the US) be able to do about it? A military strike via air would certainly bring Iran into a war, and the US iis too thin ATM to do any ground offensive.
But thats just things playing out in my mind so sorry for any uncalled for speculation  :blotto:


----------



## Kilo_302

My friend is in the 3rd Styker Brigade, 2ID. He personally took part in a raid which resulted in the arrest of 4 of the insurgents responsible for the attack. He says "word" around his unit is that they were either Iranian, or Iranian trained.


----------



## a_majoor

And Iran is planning their response:

http://dissonanceanddisrespect.blogspot.com/2007/02/real-dr-evil.html



> *The Real Dr. Evil *
> 
> It isn't just the Liberals who are congratulating themselves on bringing a dangerous new recruit on board to launch incendiary attacks against the enemy:
> 
> 
> US officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Imad Mugniyeh, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s retaliation against western targets should President George W Bush order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
> 
> Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list for his role in a series of high-profile attacks against the West, including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and murder of one of its passengers, a US navy diver.
> 
> Now in his mid-forties, Mugniyeh is reported to have travelled with Ahmadinejad in January this year from Tehran to Damascus, where the Iranian president met leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
> 
> The meeting has been dubbed a “terror summit” because of the presence of so many groups behind attacks on Israel, which Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe from the map.
> 
> 
> "Bad-ass mofo" is not an official intelligence term of art, but nothing else quite defines Mugniyeh. He's been everywhere--the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, hijacking a TWA flight, kidnapping Westerners in Lebanon, bombing the Israeli embassy and Jewish cultural centre in Buenos Aires, the USS Cole bombing-- and is wanted by everybody.
> 
> In reality, he's been more of a presence in terrorist activity than Osama bin Laden.
> 
> Iran means business if it's been talking to Mugniyeh.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund 

Sweet.  Anything that bleeds capital only hastens the reckoning.


----------



## Kalatzi

Lost Cargo said:
			
		

> I thought this was a pretty interesting read. Turns out that iran is promoting an anti american fund. Interesting in concept, but i dont think that its so good for the world.
> 
> 
> _*Iran and Venezuela plan anti-U.S. fund
> 2007/1 * _​_
> _


_
May be a reponse to the Roosevelt anti-terrorist fund - aiming to punish companies like BP-Shell that try to have their cake and eat it too, like investing in Iran as well as supplying us. I think RATF is a great idea

More here - http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,124077,00.html

_


----------



## a_majoor

Considering the Iranian oil industry has to import gasoline and Venezuela's standard of living is imploding (or even looking at Canada's record of State owned industries), it is hard to imagine any result other than various off shore cronies getting rich off the backs of the struggling poor of these nations.

So if that is the case, then I would be their biggest cheerleader! Drain off any productive capital from these nations so they have less to invest in mischief and mayhem, and at the same time promote the conditions for revolution at home. The fact this is self induced only makes it sweeter.


----------



## DBA

The question is when they have collapsed and are economically ruined will they follow the USSR to opening up or North Korea into tighter control and misery?


----------



## a_majoor

DBA said:
			
		

> The question is when they have collapsed and are economically ruined will they follow the USSR to opening up or North Korea into tighter control and misery?



That's where clever planning and preparation come into play. Bigger heads than mine should be working on this angle..


----------



## tomahawk6

Two very insightful articles concerning Iran and its meddling in Iraq.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26865


> The terrorists are on the run for one reason only: they fear the United States.
> 
> “In Tehran, they are now referring to the United States as mar-rouye domesh vastadeh – the Cobra standing on his tail,” says Shahriar Ahy, an Iranian-born political analyst who helped build the post-war broadcasting network in Iraq.
> 
> The sea-change began on January 10, when President George W. Bush announced that the United States would no longer tolerate Iranian and Syrian intelligence officers using Iraq as a playground for their murderous games.
> 
> When he announced the troop surge in Iraq, Bush also put Iran and Syria on notice. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops,” he said. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”



Ralph Peters:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26822


> Within two weeks, four choppers go down in Iraq. Shot down. By ene mies who previously couldn't hit the Goodyear Blimp.
> 
> Attack helicopters and transport birds, military and contractor aircraft went down. Crews KIA (in one case, executed). Did the bad guys just get lucky?
> 
> No. They have new weapons. And new training. And a new strategy.
> 
> First, the strategy: In Iraq, helicopters serve as our taxis, moving personnel quickly and - until now - safely above the carnage on the ground. Attack helicopters provide quick-response fire support to the grunts, giving us a huge advantage.
> 
> Limit our freedom to fly, and you not only reduce the ability of Apache gun-ships to kill our enemies and save friendly lives, you force us onto the roads. And the roads are where bombs and ambushes can further restrict our movement.


----------



## 1feral1

Iran is a growing malignant tumour in the region.

They will literally cut their own throat sooner or later, but as in all tumours, its just a matter of time until it either takes the host, or its removed.

I don't know the fate of this radicalised nation, but if they keep travelling the path thye are on, there will be a confrontation sooner or later, and in my view, it will be sooner.

Iran is a uge country, and is in my opinion, one of the strongest in the region. Don't take what they say lightly. 

The whole region is rifle with corruption, extremism, and a seething hatred for us all. However, I have come to the conclusion that violence is a way of life in the ME, just like hockey in Canada, so if they can't fight with someone else, they'll fight with each other. Thats just how it is here. A Mars bar is worth more than a life. Too bad the entire region just doesn't implode on itself.

Just remember, Iran is dangerous, more than most people think.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Bigmac

> Iran launches three-day war games
> 
> Total of 750 missiles and canon munitions will be fired during war games held in 16 provinces.
> 
> By Aresu Eqbali – TEHRAN
> 
> Iran's ideological army, the elite Revolutionary Guards, launched three days of war games on Monday with a succession of missile tests aimed at improving defensive capabilities.
> 
> The "Power Manoeuvre" war games by the elite force in 16 of Iran's 30 provinces come at a time of mounting tension with the United States over Iran's nuclear programme and allegations it is arming militias in Iraq.
> 
> "With the firing of short-, medium- and long-range missiles by the Revolutionary Guards, 'Power Manoeuvre' has started," the state news agency IRNA reported.
> 
> It is the latest show of force by Iran's elite military in the face of Washington's increasingly tough rhetoric although US officials have been at pains to deny speculation of a planned military strike.
> 
> 
> IRNA said a total of 750 missiles and canon munitions would be fired during the exercises, being staged less than two weeks after similar manoeuvres by the Guards' air force and naval units.


http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19657

      Looks like some more sabre rattling on Iran's part.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919

Bigmac

The more they practice with, the less they have to use.


----------



## tomahawk6

More and more stories coming out about Iran's poor economy. Another interesting story yesterday was that the Russians stopped work on the nuclear reactor at Bushehr due to non-payment.


----------



## rmacqueen

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> More and more stories coming out about Iran's poor economy. Another interesting story yesterday was that the Russians stopped work on the nuclear reactor at Bushehr due to non-payment.


Shows where Russia's true allegiance is, the power of the money bomb.


----------



## a_majoor

The soft approach:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021907.html



> *Tapping Ahmadinejad’s Egg*
> by Victor Davis Hanson
> Tribune Media Services
> 
> We all know the Iranian M.O. — nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.
> 
> If that were not enough, we now learn that Iran has been sending agents into Iraq to destroy the fledgling democracy and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to blow up Americans.
> 
> Lunatic state-run media keep boasting that Iran will kidnap American soldiers, shut down the Straits of Hormuz, send out global jihadists and raise the price of oil.
> 
> Most international observers agree on two things about this loony theocracy that promises to take the world down with it: We should not yet bomb Iran, and it should not get the bomb. Yet the former forbearance could well ensure the latter reality.
> 
> What, then, should the United States do other than keep offering meaningless platitudes about "dialogue" and "talking"?
> 
> Imagine that Iran is a hardboiled egg with a thin shell. We should tap it lightly wherever we can — until tiny fissures join and shatter the shell.
> 
> We can begin to do this by pushing international accords and doggedly ratcheting up the weak United Nations sanctions. Even if they don't do much to Iran in any significant way, the resolutions seem to enrage Ahmadinejad. And when he rages at the United Nations, he only loses further support, especially in the Third World.
> 
> We should start another fissure by prodding the European Union, presently Iran's chief trading partner, to be more vocal and resolute in pressuring Iran. The so-called EU3 — Britain, France and Germany — failed completely to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. But out of that setback came a growing realization among Europeans that a nuclear-tipped missile from theocratic Iran could soon hit Europe just as easily as it could Israel. Now Europeans should adopt a complete trade embargo to prevent Iranian access to precision machinery and high technology otherwise unobtainable from mischievous Russia and China.
> 
> Americans should continue to support Iranian dissidents. We need not encourage dissidents to go into the street, where they could be shot. Instead we can offer them media help and access to the West. Americans can highlight the plight of women, minorities and liberals in Iran — just the groups that so appeal to the elite Western left.
> 
> And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.
> 
> The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.
> 
> At the same time, we need to remind the Gulf monarchies that a nuclear Shiite theocracy is far more dangerous to them than either the United States or Israel — and that America's efforts to contain Iran depend on their own to rein in Wahhabis in Iraq.
> 
> We should say nothing much about the presence of two or three U.S. carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. Iran will soon grasp on its own that the build-up of such forces might presage air strikes that the United States excels in — and not more ground fighting that the American public apparently won't any longer stomach.
> 
> We must continue to make clear that Israel is a sovereign nation with a perfect right to protect itself. Sixty years after the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister will sit still idly while seventh-century theocrats grandstand about wiping out Israel.
> 
> Let's also keep our distance and moderate our rhetoric. There's no reason to frighten average Iranians — who may share our antipathy to their country's regime — or to make therapeutic pleas to talk with those leaders in bunkers whom we know are our enemies.
> 
> Finally, and most importantly, Americans must conserve energy, gasify coal, diversify fuels, drill more petroleum and invent new energy sources. Only that can collapse the world price of petroleum.
> 
> When oil is priced at $60 a barrel, Ahmadinejad is a charismatic Third World benefactor who throws cash to every thug who wants a roadside bomb or shouldered-fired missile — and has plenty of money to buy Pakistani, North Korean or Russian nuclear components. But when oil is $30 a barrel, Ahmadinejad will be despised by his own masses, who will become enraged as state-subsidized food and gas skyrocket, and scarce Iranian petrodollars are wasted on Hezbollah and Hamas.
> 
> None of these taps alone will fracture Iran and stop it from going nuclear. But all of them together might well crack Ahmadinejad's thin shell before he gets the bomb.
> 
> So let's start tapping.
> 
> ©2007 Tribune Media Services



If that dosn't work there is always the hard approach, and people who say the US is "overstreached" and unable to carry out military action are talking through their hats.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919

Whats hapend with this missile into space thing? I heard some reports on the CBC news Tuesday morning, that they launched one but nothing else since. Nothing on the Star or CNN.


----------



## a_majoor

Missile into space? You may be thinking about the Chinese ASAT test.......

From the Jeruselum Post:

jpost.com



> Lieberman: We are capable of facing the Iranian threat alone
> By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
> 
> "This government is doing more than any other government to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue. Even if we will have to face the Iranian threat alone, we will be able to," Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman (read his JPost blog), told members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday.
> 
> According to the Israel Beiteinu leader, "If Iran manages to attain nuclear capabilities the entire region will enter a mad race to achieve similar capacities."
> 
> # US inviting Iran, Syria for Iraq talks
> 
> Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Sudan Wednesday for talks between two leaders who face strong UN Security Council pressure, Iran for its nuclear program and Sudan for the conflict in Darfur.
> 
> Ahmadinejad was met at Khartoum airport by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, a day after the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor accused a junior member of al-Bashir's cabinet of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
> 
> During his two-day visit, Ahmadinejad will deliver a lecture at a private institution in Khartoum and witness the signing of several bilateral agreements, according to Sudan's Information Ministry.
> 
> On Tuesday, the ICC chief prosecutor accused Sudan's minister of state for humanitarian affairs, Ahmed Muhammed Harun, of paying and recruiting militias responsible for murder, rape and torture in Darfur.
> 
> Harun, who is known to be a member of al-Bashir's inner circle, is alleged to have committed the crimes while a junior interior minister.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919

Found it,
Looks like the storey has changed slightly from yesterday. It was reported as being a launch, and reaching sub-orbit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6394387.stm



> Iran rocket claim raises tension
> 
> Iranian media say the country has successfully launched its first rocket capable of reaching space.
> But officials later said it was for research and would not go into orbit.
> 
> Experts say if Iran has fired a rocket into space it would cause alarm abroad as it would mean scientists had crossed important technological barriers.
> 
> Iran has made little secret of its desire to become a space power and already has a satellite in orbit launched by the Russians.
> 
> The latest launch - if confirmed - comes at a time of mounting tension between Tehran and the West over Iran's controversial nuclear programme.
> 
> The five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany are due to meet on Monday to discuss the possibility of more sanctions over the nuclear issue.
> 
> On Sunday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered another defiant speech insisting there is no going back on Iran's nuclear programme.
> 
> Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region
> 
> Sir Richard Dalton, former UK ambassador to Iran
> In a speech in Tehran, he likened his country's nuclear programme to a train with no brakes and no reverse gear.
> 
> One of his deputy foreign ministers, Manouchehr Mohammadi, said they had prepared themselves for any situation arising from the issue, even for war.
> 
> Meanwhile, foreign ministers from seven Muslim states meeting in Pakistan have called for a diplomatic solution to the "dangerous" stand-off.
> 
> "It is vital that all issues must be resolved through diplomacy and there must be no resort to use of force," said a statement issued after talks involving ministers from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
> 
> Missile technology
> 
> Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying: "The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space."
> 
> 
> Ahmadinejad has claimed Iran's right to nuclear technology
> 
> It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
> 
> However, Ali Akbar Golrou, executive director of the same facility, was later quoted by Fars news agency as saying the craft launched by was a sub-orbital rocket for scientific research.
> 
> "What was announced by the head of the research centre was the news of launching this sounding rocket," Mr Golrou said.
> 
> It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth.
> 
> No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.
> 
> Some Western diplomats suspect Iran may have backtracked on the announcement when it realised what negative publicity this would bring at a sensitive time, says the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran.
> 
> The reports come a day after Iran's Defence Minister spoke of plans to build a satellite launcher and join the space club. Also, an Iranian official quoted in Aviation Week earlier this month said Iran would soon test a new satellite launcher.
> 
> Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a launch could destabilise the Middle East.
> 
> "It is a matter of concern," he said. "Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would be in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
> 
> Military experts believe that if Iran has sent a rocket into space it means scientists have mastered the technology needed to cross the atmospheric barrier.
> 
> In practice, they say, that means there is no technological block to Iran building longer range missiles now, something that will be of great international concern.
> 
> In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
> 
> But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own, and last month they announced they were ready to test it soon.


----------



## tomahawk6

A missing Iranian intelligence General appears to have defected to the Great satan. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21344278-2703,00.html
Iranian general 'seeking asylum in US'
Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem
March 08, 2007

A RETIRED Iranian general who went missing in Turkey last month has defected and sought asylum in the US, according to a well-connected Arabic newspaper published in London.
The newspaper, al-Shark al-Awsat, cited "high-profile" sources saying former Iranian deputy defence minister and Revolutionary Guard commander Ali Reza Asghari had gone over to the West. 

Reports from Istanbul that General Asghari's family had also disappeared in Turkey support the likelihood that he defected rather than was kidnapped by either the CIA or by Israel's Mossad, as has been speculated. The general went missing from his Istanbul hotel a month ago. 

Iranian authorities, who have been silent on the disappearance until this week, claim he has been abducted. "It is likely Asghari has been abducted by Western intelligence services," said Iran's top police officer, General Esmaeil Ahmadi Moghaddam. 

Defection of such a high-ranking figure would leave no external enemy to blame and would be seen as a rejection of the Islamic state by someone who well knows its inner workings. 

General Asghari's crossing of the line, whether voluntary or not, is a resounding blow for the Iranian Government since he is privy to its most intimate secrets, particularly those concerning its nuclear capabilities and plans. 

He served until two years ago as deputy defence minister, a post he held for eight years and which presumably offered an uninhibited view of virtually every aspect of Iran's security apparatus. 

He was reportedly closely associated with Iran's activities in support of the Shi'ites in Iraq. 

US intelligence analysts contend that Iran has been providing armaments to Iraqi Shia fighters that have been used with deadly effect against coalition forces, particularly highly lethal roadside bombs. 

General Asghari would presumably be able to address the question of whether these shipments have been made with "approval from top leaders in Iran", as a senior US intelligence officer has claimed. 

Israel's Shin Bet security service, which is responsible for protecting Israeli diplomatic missions abroad and senior Israeli officials on their travels, has reportedly boosted its activity abroad in anticipation of a possible Iranian attempt to kidnap an Israeli official. 

"We formulate our security arrangements according to developments in the field and intelligence information," said a Shin Bet spokesman yesterday. 

Israel has denied any connection to the missing general. Israeli officials, however, would clearly like to hear what General Asghari has to say about the disappearance of a downed Israeli navigator, Ron Arad, who was reportedly transferred by Lebanese Shi'ites to Iran in the 1980s when General Asghari was commander of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard detachment posted in Lebanon to liaise with Hezbollah.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's more on the Iranian Tomahawk 6 was talking about....an article by Amir Taheri

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iran__big_fish_gone_missing_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm



> ....Always in the shadows, Askari was in charge of a program to train foreign Islamist militants as part of Tehran's strategy of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution.
> 
> In 1982-83, Askari (along with Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohatashami-Pour) founded the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah and helped set up its first military units. The two men supervised the 1983 suicide attacks on the U.S. Embassy and on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut - killing more than 300 Americans, including 241 Marines. Iranian sources say Askari was part of a triumvirate of Revolutionary Guard officers that controlled Hezbollah's armed units until the end of the '90s.
> 
> Askari led the 500-man Iranian military mission in Beirut from 1998 to 2000 before returning home to work for the Strategic Defense Procurement Committee. In that capacity, he often traveled abroad to negotiate arms deals.
> 
> Tehran sources claim that Askari was also involved in Iran's controversial nuclear program, which, although presented as a civilian project, is controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. They also say that last November he was appointed a member of the Strategic Defense Planning Commission set up by Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide."




He apparently was in Turkey on his way back from Syria



> ....The Iranian mission's task was to lay the foundations for a Syrian armament industry, licensed to manufacture Iranian-designed weapons. The 30 or so experts that had accompanied Askari remained in Syria to work out the technical details.
> 
> According to some reports, Askari had stopped over in Istanbul to meet with an unidentified Syrian arms dealer who lives in Paris.



That is interesting because it suggests that Iran may be coming to terms with a change in its supply lines.  It now finds that is cannot supply its markets in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.  That prompts two further suggestions:

1. They are now concerned that Iraq is lost to them as a conduit because of either the US or Iraqi Government 

2. That Iraq has been a reliable conduit in the past, both during the current period of instability since the fall of Saddam, and notably previously, during the build-up of Hezbollah in South Lebanon from 1980.   This further prompts notice that that would have happened while Saddam was fighting Iran but that when the US liberated Kuwait Saddam flew his Air Force to refuge in Iran.  Some very convoluted state-craft going on in that part of the world.

Finally:



> Askari's disappearance fits an emerging pattern. Since December, the United States and its allies appear to have moved onto the offensive against the Islamic Republic's networks of influence in the Middle East:
> 
> * Jordan has seized 17 Iranian agents, accused of trying to smuggle arms to Hamas, and deported them quietly after routine debriefing.
> 
> * A number of Islamic Republic agents have been identified and deported in Pakistan and Tunisia.
> 
> * At least six other Iranian agents have been picked up in Gaza, where they were helping Hamas set up armament factories.
> 
> * In the past three months, some 30 senior Iranian officials, including at least two generals of Revolutionary Guards, have been captured in Iraq.
> 
> All but five of the Islamic Republic agents seized in Iraq appear to have been released. One of those released was Hassan Abbasi, nicknamed "the Kissinger of Islam," who is believed to be President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategic advisor.
> 
> Among those still held by the Americans is one Muhammad Jaafari Sahraroudi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander wanted by the Austrian police in connection with the murder of three Iranian Kurdish leaders in Vienna in 1989.
> 
> All this looks like a message to Tehran that its opponents may be moving on to the offensive in what looks like a revival of tactics used in the Cold War.



If it is a revival of Cold War tactics it can only be possible because the US has finally developed a critical mass of trusted personnel that can operate in the middle eastern environment.  With that mass in place Iran and the other regimes are in much more fragile circumstances than the old Soviet Union ever was.  It had the means to control its borders and people and isolate the people from both the physical presence of foreigners and their message.  In addition, for the longest while it offered its people the prospect of the western material culture by different means.  It fell when it failed to deliver.

The middle east can't control its borders or its people.  That is its single defining historical character.  The Arabs in particular with their raiding and trading culture of nomadic pastoralism cheerfully ignore borders.  Just take a look at the Clan affiliations in Western Iraq and Eastern Syria.  As well, despite their "abhorrence" for the west,  middle easterners show a remarkable affinity for western products - including pick-ups, complete with gun-racks, for their camels, lacy undies and cosmetics for the women, and a good bottle of Scotch.  

It suggests to me an environment reminiscent of the US in the 1920s or possibly even the 1950s.  Good church going people recovering in the pews from the hangovers inflicted the night before at the local "speak-easy" in the 1920s.  The children of those same church-goers in the 1950s going to the same churches as their parents while contributing to making Hugh Hefner rich and making Las Vegas very profitable as "Sin City".  Dubai and Kuwait City, amongst others, seem to be vying to be a combination of Las Vegas and Disneyworld.

It is an environment that can be very easily penetrated and with a population that is susceptible to rumour-mongering.  The right message by the right people could cause the governments' no end of problems.   

Iran is in a lot weaker position than the USSR ever was and will not survive 40 years of that kind of pressure.

And in a PS - to further cement the tendency to wander that Old Sweat identified - Iran is still likely to lose even if the Democrats win in 2008.  

The Democrats are arguing for a change in strategy, to pull combat troops out of Iraq and relocate them in Afghanistan.

President Bush is arguing to stay the course and veto any precipitous move.

President Bush will stay the course until he leaves office in 22 months.  That gives him ample time to continue disruption of  the ACMs in Iraq, build a stronger Iraqi internal security apparatus and realign Iraqi politics.
At the same time 'agents provocateurs' can become more numerous in Iran creating problems with minorities, students and labour - all the usual suspects.

When Bush leaves the Democrats  will come in and declare a change in strategy - shift troops to Iran's eastern front in Afghanistan and Baluchistan, pursue a policy of Hot Trod in Baluchistan and Pashtunistan to get the terrorists, announce a containment policy with respect to Iran and shift the remainder of American troops from the internal security role in Iraq to the borders, with particular attention being paid to the Iranian border.

Thus US domestic politics are satisfied while US foreign policy, as it has done over the years, survives largely intact.  I believe that Vietnam was a salutory lesson to the American political establishment on the dangers of a "discontinuous" foreign policy.  Parties change, and they need to present new policies to win elections, but the interests of the state don't change.

Afghanistan was right to the jaw of Iran to get their attention.  Iraq has been a series of jabs with the left as the US and Iraq spar during the wearing down phase.  By 2009, a nice strong body blow from the right might just be enough to finish the match.  Coincidental timing as far as Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is concerned.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US ran into this problem in the 70's but we were able to pull out of the stagflation with the free market,something the mullah's dont have.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/wiran11.xml

Iran votes to impose petrol rationing
By Gethin Chamberlain and Kay Biouki in Teheran, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007


Iranians are bracing themselves for a fresh round of belt tightening after their government voted to impose petrol rationing coupled with sharp rises in the price of fuel.

The rationing system will limit Iranians to 22 gallons (100 litres) of petrol a month, two full tanks for a typical family car. It is a direct result of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's adherence to an economic model, based on Iranian self-sufficiency, that has caused housing and other living costs to soar.

The basic price of petrol will rise by 25 per cent, but Iranians who need to use more than the permitted amount will be hit by rises of up to 450 per cent.

Economists predict that the knock-on effect on the average Iranian will be dramatic, with retailers expected to pass on the additional costs to consumers.

Iran is the second largest producer of oil in the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries but it imports 40 per cent of its petrol - worth about $3 billion a year - after its refining capacity was wrecked in the war with Iraq. It currently sells the petrol at subsidised prices.

Mr Ahmadinejad had publicly argued against the abolition of subsidies and advocated persuading consumers to switch to other fuel sources such as natural gas, which do not rely on foreign imports. But critics say his opposition was manufactured for public consumption. They point out that the price increases had already been factored into his government's budget.

Some Iranians suspect that the move is also a precautionary measure against further possible sanctions which may be imposed on Iran for pressing ahead with its nuclear programme in defiance of the United Nations security council.

Under the new rules, which will take effect in late spring, motorists will be given coupons entitling them to 100 litres of petrol a month at the increased price of 1,000 rial (about 5p) per litre. Additional petrol will have to be bought at open market prices of between 14p and 22p per litre.

The plan was due to be introduced on March 21 but has been delayed for three months to allow time for the distribution of ration cards. Some drivers have been issued with the cards but at least half are still waiting to receive them. Work to fit the nation's petrol pumps with card readers is not yet complete.

Iranian consumers said the changes would push up inflation. Djamile Ershadi, 70, a retired government clerk, said: "Everything has gone up. You cannot live on an ordinary salary any more. Life has become much harder."


----------



## sober_ruski

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070314191923payn.nb/newsblaze/IRAN0001/Iran.html

Sooo.... taking bets on how long before that/those facility/ies are a burning pile of rubble?


----------



## rz350

Will, I've that news at more sites(like normal sites from AP and reuters, that Russian expertshave left Iran), and given Iran's "expert" care of assets like the F-14, which are much simpler and smaller then Nuclear reactors, I give them less then a year before their Nuclear facilities are beyond use.


----------



## TN2IC

It sure sends off alarm bells in my ears.  Thanks for the intresting post.

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## Mike Baker

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> taking bets on how long before that/those facility/ies are a burning pile of rubble?


5 to 15 months. Perhaps it will be a lot longer, or perhaps it will be in a few hours time.


----------



## TN2IC

Just watch CNN.. and shall find out.


----------



## Mike Baker

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Just watch CNN.. and shall find out.


I rather FOX News a tad bit more


----------



## midget-boyd91

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.nuclear/index.html

 Security Council approves new sanctions on Iran
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iran's foreign minister rejected a unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

Speaking to the 15-member council in measured tones after the vote, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran presents no threat to international peace and security and therefore falls outside the council's charter mandate."

Western nations, including the United States, contend Iran is using the uranium program to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran says the technology will only be for civilian use.

"As we have stressed time and again, Iran's nuclear program is completely peaceful," Mottaki said.

Despite his denial that the Security Council has any power over Iran, Mottaki offered hope that the impasse can be resolved.

"We have expressed our readiness to take unprecedented steps and offered several proposals to allay possible concern in this regard," he said. 
MORE ON LINK
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.nuclear/index.html



> "Iran* presents no threat to international peace and security* and, therefore, falls outside the council's charter mandate,"



NO THREAT??? I can recall a ceratin thing said by the president of Iran that says something about Israel being wiped off the face of the earth in on great storm.  HMMM...... That sounds rather threatening to me.


----------



## tomahawk6

The banking restrictions will hurt them the most.


----------



## mckee19

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The banking restrictions will hurt them the most.


agreed


----------



## Mike Baker

Hmmm, what will happen next I wonder.


----------



## Kirkhill

Under the heading of coincidences --

Last summer, when the UN was due to debate sanctions on Iran, Hezbollah captured Israeli hostages, Israel retaliated militarily, Iran got shuffled aside in the dust storm.
This spring, when the UN is due to debate sanctions on Iran, Iran captures British hostages.......Britain doesn't retaliate, UN authorizes sanctions.

IIRC both times Ahmadinejad was scheduled to appear at the UN at the same time the hostages were taken..... 

Or is my memory playing me false again?


----------



## GAP

These "sanctions" are so watered down under the threat of Chinese and Russion veto, they will do little to hurt Iran...


----------



## Mike Baker

GAP said:
			
		

> These "sanctions" are so watered down under the threat of Chinese and Russion veto, they will do little to hurt Iran...


So, in other words, basically nothing is being done to get Iran to let the Brits go?   I don't like these politics.


----------



## GAP

The two are separate issues.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> So, in other words, basically nothing is being done to get Iran to let the Brits go?   I don't like these politics.



I wouldn't say NOTHING is being done. You have to remember that almost immediately after the arrests (kidnaps is a much better word) the Iranian and British were already in discussions with each other. There are the "behind the curtains" discussions which are trying vigorously to come up with the release of the Brits, but.... unfortunately many (if not most) of the factors that come up with the end results have to do with the way the medias play with the story. And Iran has already reported to its people that they were arrested in Iranian waters, and due to political unpopularity the government is not going to be able to appear weak and back down.


----------



## Mike Baker

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say NOTHING is being done. You have to remember that almost immediately after the arrests (kidnaps is a much better word) the Iranian and British were already in discussions with each other. There are the "behind the curtains" discussions which are trying vigorously to come up with the release of the Brits, but.... unfortunately many (if not most) of the factors that come up with the end results have to do with the way the medias play with the story. And Iran has already reported to its people that they were arrested in Iranian waters, and due to political unpopularity the government is not going to be able to appear weak and back down.


That's what I figured, though not much has happened so far.


----------



## aesop081

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> So, in other words, basically nothing is being done to get Iran to let the Brits go?   I don't like these politics.



As GAP already said, those are 2 seperate issues.  The sanctions are in response to Iran's nuclear program not recent events .


----------



## Mike Baker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> As GAP already said, those are 2 seperate issues.  The sanctions are in response to Iran's nuclear program not recent events .


Yes I know that, now.


----------



## Kirkhill

My point was that I found it coincidental that the last time that it looked likely that Iran was to be "sanctioned" a hostage taking crisis removed the issue from the table for a while.

I was merely wondering allowed if this was an attempt to go back to the same well to achieve the same result - try and provoke a reaction that  would change the focus from Iran as culprit to Iran as victim of an "inappropriate response".

As to "not liking these politics" I am afraid that is the role of the soldier.....to put themselves at the service of politicians.


----------



## tomahawk6

Right now the UN is trying to discourage Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through sanctions. Its the same game plan we used against Saddam to get him to give up his WMD. Ultimately military action may be required if that day comes at least all the diplomatic avenues were explored.

This was posted on an Iranian news site in December.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53577



> An official state media website in Iran has posted a message heralding the coming of the Shiite messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, noting he could arrive with Jesus by the spring equinox.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Right now the UN is trying to discourage Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through sanctions. Its the same game plan we used against Saddam to get him to give up his WMD. Ultimately military action may be required if that day comes at least all the diplomatic avenues were explored.
> 
> This was posted on an Iranian news site in December.
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53577



Nice to have a "date certain" for planning purposes.  I suppose I had better pick a religion and by my ringside seats for Armageddon............. :


----------



## The Bread Guy

Don't know if this is too much of a diversion, but anyone want to assess the chances of Iran's newest "guests":
http://kdka.com/topstories/topstories_story_085070101.html

may end up getting accomodations at some of these plants?


----------



## TN2IC

Says error on the site.


----------



## Mike Baker

Can't get the link working, it says there is an error.


----------



## GAP

Iranian-Made Arms Seized in Afghanistan, Pace Says (Update1) 
By Tony Capacco April 17 (Bloomberg) 
Article Link

 Iranian-made arms bound for the Taliban were intercepted by coalition forces in Afghanistan within the past month, General Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said today. 

U.S. and coalition forces seized mortars and explosives in Kandahar, a city in southeast Afghanistan near Pakistan, Pace told reporters at a breakfast meeting in Washington. He said it's not known if the Iranian government was involved in the transfer. 

It ``is not as clear in Afghanistan, which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran,'' Pace said. 

His remarks are the first to disclose that Iranian weapons are showing up in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters have increased attacks in an effort to destabilize the government of President Hamid Karzai. The U.S. since last year has accused Iran of supplying weapons and technology to Shiite insurgents in Iraq. 

Assuming Pace's remarks are accurate and the arms transfers are sanctioned by the Iranian government, the disclosure ``is highly significant'' because it indicates that Iran is becoming ``more aggressive'' in it attempts to inflict damage on U.S. troops in the region, said Ken Katzman, a terrorism analyst with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. 

Iran, for example, doesn't have ``a natural alliance'' with the largely Sunni Taliban, Katzman said. 
More on link


----------



## Armymedic

> U.S. and coalition forces seized mortars and explosives in Kandahar, a city in southeast Afghanistan near Pakistan



Would it not be ironic, given the recent incident between Iran and Britian, if British forces captured these arms. Can you say "powder keg"?


----------



## CougarKing

Surprise, Surprise... : - though it's really surprising to most of you; it would be ignorance to admit that Iran is just involved in Iraq and not in Afghanistan as well, though the evidence as stated by this article is little lacking so far.

(BTW, isn't it about time all these other threads about Iran such as "Top Iranian General to defect?" and "Iranian Economy headed for collapse" all be merged with this thread to make a giant Iran superthread? It would make sense, IMHO.)

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132610,00.html?wh=wh




> Iranian Weapons Found in Afghanistan
> Associated Press  |  April 17, 2007
> WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Afghanistan recently intercepted Iranian-made mortars and other weaponry in Afghanistan, although it is not clear they were shipped directly from Iran, the military's top general said Tuesday.
> 
> Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.
> 
> "It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.
> 
> He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time Americans forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.
> 
> Asked about Pace's remarks, a Pentagon spokesman, Army Col. Gary Keck, said he had not heard of previous instances of Iranian weaponry being found in Afghanistan but he was not certain this was the first time.
> 
> With regard to Iranian activities in Iraq, Pace said it is clear that Quds Force members are involved in the network that supplies materials to make roadside bombs, which are a leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.
> 
> "We know that there are munitions that were made in Iran that are in Iraq and in Afghanistan," he said, adding that it also is clear that the Quds Force reports to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which reports directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> "We surmise from that one of two things: Either the leadership of the country knows what their armed forces are doing, or they don't know. In either case that's a problem," Pace said.
> 
> Learn more about available Special Operations opportunities.


----------



## Trooper Hale

The Iranians wouldnt do that. They'r a friendly, peace loving nation with no inclination to affect the politics of the rest of the middle east....I heard their President say it so it must be true.

Seriously though, something really has to be done. We know that the Iranians are supplying insurgents in Iraq, now Afghanistan. Its a joke that they can get away with this. People are being killed by Iranian made weapons but nothing is being done. The UN needs to pull its finger out, the media need to publicise this and people need to rip into the Iranians. Make it clear we dont agree or something. At least something.


----------



## CrazyCanuck

Not gonna happen Hale, the western public has gone soft and the rest of the playground is grabbing sticks and stones while we fidget with words. We're not gonna drop a single propaganda leaflet on Iran much less a bomb.


----------



## geo

To date, the Iranian politico types have been all smiley and nice conciliatory behavior.  You<d need a smoking gun and even then, I feel that the international public won<t believe the evidence as presented...........

Sigh!


----------



## KevinB

Smoking gun -- dude -- we've been seizing this shit for years.

I've seen crates of BRAND new AK's, RPG's grenades and even Suface to Air missles.

The fact is the sheeple of the west dont want (nor have the guts) to confront the menace that is Iran.

IMHO Bush should have gone into Iran way before Iraq.


----------



## geo

+1 I6

also... if Bush had gone into Iran, Sadam would have volunteered to help


----------



## KevinB

Saddam's help = USS Stark...

 Dont get me wrong I am a firm beleiver in OIF, I would have prefered to do in Iran first though.  I'm planning for OOIF (Operation Other I Freedom) - I plan on getting in on the ground floor of that one


----------



## midget-boyd91

Hale said:
			
		

> They'r a friendly, peace loving nation with no inclination to affect the politics of the rest of the middle east....I heard their President say it so it must be true.



I've also heard him say that Israel will be "removed" from the map in one great storm. 



> To date, the Iranian politico types have been all smiley and nice



Arresting and confining (or giving the orders to do so) British sailors and Marines is hardly something that I could call nice.



> The fact is the sheeple of the west dont want (nor have the guts) to confront the menace that is Iran.------I'm planning for OOIF (Operation Other I Freedom) - I plan on getting in on the ground floor of that one



The west right now is obviously on the edge with Iran. Polls taken withing the first 2-3 days of the arrest of the British last month showed that more than half of the population who took the polls would have supported direct military action. I know polls aren't usually something to base a statement on, but when 9 polls out of 10 are against any military action anywhere and then this one shows up with the majority supporting, It stands out.

 Now, about OOIF and your plans on getting in on the ground floor..... Would you be remaining as a "long haired civy" for that one too?


----------



## midget-boyd91

Picked up off of Cnn.com  
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.army.reut/index.html



> TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's army will "cut off the hand" of any attacker and is at the ready to fulfil its defensive duties, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday during an annual military parade.
> 
> Iran is embroiled in a row with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The United States, which says Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, has said it wants a diplomatic resolution to the standoff but has not ruled out military action if that fails.
> 
> "The army stands against any aggressor and will cut off its hand," the president said in a televised address before a parade involving troops, tanks, missiles and other military hardware.



MORE ON LINK


----------



## a_majoor

Getting in on the ground floor for OOIF will probably involve aircraft, cruise missiles and membership in various "ski teams". Don't get your hopes up too much one way or the other........


----------



## KevinB

Art -- I know some guys who drove into Iraq on day 1 -- softskin cars and no weapons, they addapted and overcame.
  Between Morpheus32, BigRed and I, I am fairly positive we can source everything one would need to run 1) PMC 2) an Insurgency in Iran  ;D


----------



## Mike Baker

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Between Morpheus32, BigRed and I, I am fairly positive we can source everything one would need to run 1) PMC 2) an Insurgency in Iran  ;D


Can I help  

Saw this on yahoo news



> VIENNA, Austria -  Iran has started enriching small amounts of uranium gas at its underground nuclear plant and is running more than 1,300 of the centrifuges used in the process, according to a U.N. nuclear watchdog document obtained Wednesday.


Here is the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_iran


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... They've started to show on the news, flashbacks of the time when Israel settled the nuclear issue with Syria... is this some subliminal way of preparing us for the day when someone does it again?


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why “when they call Iraq a success, they mean it.”
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_with_iran/



 Not sure how much credence this story holds, but a good read just the same.


----------



## Benny

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I've also heard him say that Israel will be "removed" from the map in one great storm.


...and they are walking down the track to getting their nuclear eraser.

God help Israel and the middle east in general if they succeed. The UN is near useless, the US isn't about to go after Iran with Iraq still going on, and the Iranians know it. Sheesh, the UN can't even properly handle Sudan, what is the likelyhood of effectively handling Iran?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote from: tomahawk6 on May 19, 2007, 10:02:10
> I wonder if Iran has a part to play in this incident ?
> 
> 
> Perhaps it has something to do with this:
> 
> 
> Quote
> From The TimesMay 19, 2007
> 
> Afghan soldiers mass on border, ready and willing to take on old foe
> 
> ..... in the remote border district of ’Ali Kheyl in eastern Afghanistan, Afghan security forces have found themselves pitted against an older and bigger enemy: Pakistan.
> 
> Clashes between the two neighbours – two of the West’s biggest allies in the War on Terror – began here last Sunday morning when Paki-stani forces fired on an Afghan post at Toorgawe, a strategic point on the border. The fighting is the most serious of its kind for years.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1811094.ece
> 
> Which in turn maybe related to:
> France negotiating the release of its hostage (and its hostage alone) by promising to withdraw
> And German indicating it thought we were too tough on the Taliban
> An Offer of 10,000 fighters loyal to a Northern Warlord in the defence ministry to go clean out the Taliban in Pakistani tribal areas
> Afghans and Pakistanis clashing over the Durand Line fence the Pakistanis are building
> Canadians moving M777s to Spin Boldak on the Border
> Musharraf losing control
> Urdu speaking Pakistanis from India and Musharraf supporters clashing with Punjabi speaking muslims and supporters of the Chief Justice all clashing with ISI and the Pashtuns and the Tribes fighting for advantage and Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif angling to come back out of exile and the Sikhs still looking for a homeland and Kashmir-Jammu still in dispute and the Baluchis looking to break away from both Tehran and Islamabad and the Marsh Arabs  of Iran and Iraq looking to reestablish local ties and fighting amongst themselves and blowing up Tehran facilities and Tehran students and labour and women demonstrating against Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and Kurds fighting in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey to establish a state of their own and Shiites and Sunnis in Al Anbar and Diyalla forming their own US sponsored "official" militias to take on Al Qaeda in Iraq and thugs in general and Hezbollah in Lebanon siding with the Baathists in Syria and the Christians in Lebanon siding with the Sunnis and the Israeli government siding with Fatah in Gaza against Hamas which in turn gets support from some of the more fundamentalist Jewish sects and Canadian left wing Christian church groups and radical socialist groups with ties to Moscow and Peking.............



I wrote the above out of frustration.  It has been running through my mind ever since.

Rather than being a stream-of-consciousness litany of confusion and chaos is this actually the phase that Churchill might have described as the "End of the Beginning"?

From Turkey to Pakistan (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) none of the governments can be sure of the "respect" of their subjects.  The fear of authority has gone.  Smaller entities and junior leaders in the communities now have a voice - even if it is a violent voice.  

At a less philosophical level, a more practical level, those local junior leaders include many that are willing to make deals and some are idealistic enough to want to cooperate for a new future.  As well, in the chaos it becomes easier for our own agitators and intelligence agents to operate.  Borders have virtually disappeared.

As much as the Iraqis are concerned about the activities of the Iranians in Basrah the Tehran Iranians are concerned about family and tribal ties eliminating the border between their Arabs and the Basrah Arabs.  While they may be blowing up British troops in Basrah they are also hanging "anti-social criminals" in Abadan as well as most of their other border towns.  Coincidentally these areas also are reporting bombings of government buildings and assassination attempts on local officials.  Not to mention demonstrations in the street.

In Iraq "Al Qaeda" seems to be in the process of being squeezed into Diyallah with the Tribes taking a hand against them.

In Syria the government seems to be very worried about this Hariri investigation - the lengths to which they have gone to derail appear to include fomenting one war and trying to foment another.

Lebanon's Army is pushing back and Hezbollah hasn't yet taken a firm position.

Turkey seems to be very unlikely to be going far down the Islamist path.

In Afghanistan the game's in the balance.

In Pakistan it seems there might be room for a rebalancing there.

In this case maybe chaos isn't a bad thing..... On the other hand maybe that is me just whistling past the graveyard.

One thing that seems likely - any successful attempt to bring order out of chaos is not going to happen as a result of a grand plan and a glorious leader - its going to be more like polishing boots.....small circles.


----------



## exspy

Kirkhill,

I wish I had seen this thread earlier because I today wrote a quick and short response to your initial note at its original location.  My response went something like this;
QUOTE:

Kirkhill,

I am quickly becoming a fan.  You have provided yet another brilliant analysis (which simply means that I agree with you).  While most observers want to look at the situation in SW Asia and the Middle East as a high stakes game of poker it is, in reality, an unsupervised round of 52 pick-up.  Poker has rules, strategies and a definable winner.  The other is unorganized, sophomoric and ambiguous.  This is why, in my opinion, western political solutions based on sound foreign relation principles and rationally thought out compromises do not necessarily succeed.  The proponents are playing the wrong game.  Think tribalism and not nationalism.  At the end of the round it's not the best hand who wins but the one with the most cards who 'believes' they won.

PS:  Kirkhill, did you at one time work for one of our Cousin's?

UNQUOTE.

I know my response is not in the same league as your postings (including this one), but it brought to mind an observation that I would like to share with you.  Would an editorial writer sitting in London, England about 100 years ago not have written almost the exact same thing about the exact same regions of the world as we are writing about today?  With the exception of the existence of Israel weren't all of the conflicts, hatreds and prejudices that are practiced today in existence then?  Conversely won't they be in existence 100 years from now?

Our generation was raised in an era of great wars, both hot and cold.  We have come to believe that this was the norm of international conflict; wars fought by mass armies resulting in unconditional surrenders and complete and total victories.  Nations and coalitions of nations lead by great statesman determining the future of other nations through their great actions.  The true nature of human existence has been however, what we are finding ourselves faced with now; the continuing conflict of tribe versus tribe.  We as a society sit and remain bewildered asking ourselves not only why do these people fight each other but also our obviously well intentioned attempts to foster peace and bring democracy to them, or rather to their country.  We ask why they continue to ignore the western concept of, and the inherent benefits of, nationalism, never for one moment even considering that perhaps by doing so we insult what they consider to be of utmost importance.

Most of the examples of conflict provided in your two articles can be be viewed as tribe vs tribe as opposed to nation vs nation.

Maybe Kipling was, after all, right?

I'm not sure how to end this because I do not have any suggestions on how to end hatred in the fertile crescent.  But I have begun to ask myself the following question with regard to improving the lot of the Afghan people; 'if there is no nation to build, than what good can nation building do?'.  Like you I think any progress in the area will come, as you so aptly put it, from making 'small circles'.  I also think these small circles will have to be applied at the tribal level because regardless of what we hold to be true for ourselves, that is the reality which the West is facing.


----------



## Chilly

Kirkhill and exspy,

While that may indeed be one of the longest run on sentences that I have ever read, it does more or less sum up the situation(s) that remains at the heart of said region.

In my own preparation's for a upcoming deployment, I read an article titled _It's the Tribes, Stupid_ in it Mr. Steven Pressfield the author makes the following statement and I believe it to be an extremely important one for anyone to try to understand what is exactly going on the region. 

"For two years I've been researching a book about Alexander the Great's counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we're fighting today – even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic."

Although Mr. Pressfield appears to be American (my opinion only), I think that he is very accurate in his other statements within the article as well. Despite the fact that it is only his commentary on the situation and not an academic article I would be interested to see what other people think of the article. 

Furthermore, I believe that you are also right in your assessment exspy; we are in the middle of something that has nothing to do with a nation, despite what the media and governments say. Since the drawing of the Durand line on a map by Sir Mortimer Durand in 1893. It has been a sore point for not only the Pashtun and their idea of a greater Pashtunistan, but it also separated the Baluch tribe.  We have seen that this is still a sore point, in recent weeks as Pakistan has tried to erect a fence along the line; while the Afghans are at the same time pulling it down in some areas resulting in more cross border fighting. something that I don't think Afghanistan or even Pakistan can afford to deal with just right now.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pressfield_tribes.htm 

Chilly


----------



## Kirkhill

exspy - you are over kind.  But I believe firmly that this is the way of that part of the world - over 5000 years of invasion and counter-invasion, coupled with defensible terrain and/or mobility has resulted in a fractured society where the only thing you can count on is your immediate family.  Even if they stab you in the back you understand them.

You brought up Kipling - this is one of his - originally written in a Canadian context.

"The Stranger within my gate, 
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk-
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

"The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

"The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control-
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

"The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf-
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine."

Canada has spent more than 150 years fighting against those sentiments - however I believe that those verses fairly represent the sentiments of those people of the ancient cultures of those mountains and deserts.

And chilly - my apologies for the run on sentence - James Joyce got the better of me.  

PS Pressfield looks like one to add to my reading list. Thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Forgive me one and all.  I am going to take advantage of Mike's generosity and your patience and post this blurb/rant I have spent the last day playing with.
I swear that the statements made without qualification come from articles I have read.  I don't swear to the authenticity of every article but most were from what I consider reputable sources.
If you want to challenge me on a point I shall endeavour to find the reference.

Short form for those disinclined to read the whole thing - I don't think things are nearly as bad as the press would have it seem.  

Ignore at your pleasure.


*Pollyanna’s Small Circles – Order out of Chaos*

*The Centre: Iraq*

*Principal Problems in Iraq*

*Al Sadr and the Shiite Mehdi Army*
Concentrated in Tigris Valley
Primary areas of operations: Sadr City and Basra
Iranian Backed – but which Iranians?

Sadr News

Sadr lost control of his many splinter groups
Left Iraq for Iran
Exposed his splinter groups to Coalition and ISF forces
Withdraws his Ministers from Maliki’s Government
Returns to Iraq
Immediately his principle lieutenant in Basra is killed by Brits and ISF
Anti-Mehdi army activity by Brits and ISF picks up
Brits commended by Iraqis for success in their primary mission – keeping the pipeline open
70 Iraqi Policemen in Kut resign because “they are not sufficiently equipped” to handle Mehdi threats.
Raids in Sadr City by US and ISF since Sadr’s return have resulted in lost commanders, intelligence and operating bases.
Maliki replaces Sadr’s ministers with his own “Technocrats”
People close to Sadr are offering opinions to the press that are at odds with his own words

Sadr calling for his army to stop targeting the ISF
Also calls for Sunni-Shia resolution
Also calls for a new model of operations for the Sadrist movement

He has been undercut by 2nd Tier sheikhs in Anbar and Diyalla organizing their  Awakenings of the tribes to support Maliki.

These Sheikhs (guesswork) are seeing their opportunity because the 1st tier Sheikhs with whom Saddam worked have forfeited much of their authority by bugging out to Jordan and Syria and leaving their tribesmen to face the violence themselves – much of the violence stirred up by allies of their own Sheikhs.  

Some “In Country” Sheikhs are burying the hatchet on decades old quarrels that have absolutely nothing to do with Americans, Saddam or religion – more of a combination of Hatfield and McCoy  feuds and the Sopranos. 

Because many of the tribes have both Sunni and Shia members, particularly true in Diyalla apparently, then these “Sunni” Sheikhs have influence amongst potential supporters of Sadr.

Sadr is losing ground.

Sheikhs are acting because political opportunity presents itself (can move up and displace out-of-country superiors) and continuing violence is bad for business.

They are being actively supported by General Petraeus and a British sidekick name of Lamb.
Principle aim is to allow locals to control local turf and keep out “foreigners”.  Deal with the natural leaders.

The Sheikhs will work with Maliki and the Coalition to mutual advantage.

*Al Qaeda in Iraq * 
Concentrated in the Euphrates Valley
Primary areas of operations: Al Anbar, Diyalla, Sulaymaniyah and Baghdad
Syrian Backed?

This is the principle organization for “foreigners”,  especially Sunni Wahhabists.
Claimed associations and affiliations with Bin Laden and Zawahari.
Noted for the most gruesome crimes.
Never took a Dale Carnegie course
Successfully manage to alienate all allies
Especially true of the Anbar Sheikhs.

These are the people that the Sheikhs organized against, with the support of Petraeus, to form their own protected communities with their own authorized police forces.  
From these secure bases Al Qaeda in Iraq appears to have been backed into Diyalla and separated from Syria.  
Al Qaeda in Iraq is affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq.

The Islamic State in Iraq is dedicated to Wahhabist Sharia law.  Likewise it makes no friends amongst the tribes.

*Al Duri Baathists * 
Concentrated in the Euphrates Valley
Primary areas of operations: Al Anbar, Diyalla, Sulaymaniyah and Baghdad
Syrian Backed?

At the time of the invasion the US issued a deck of 55 cards with the names of the most wanted Baathists on them.
These are the people still at large:

(6/55)  Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri  Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Vice-Chairman / Northern Region Commander / Inner Circle/ Deputy Secretary General, Ba’th Party Regional Command / Deputy Commander, Armed Forces
(7/55) Hani abd al-Latif al-Tilfah al-Tikriti  Director, Special Security Organization (SSO) And Responsible For Security And Investigations (MUDIRIYAH NUMBER TWO); Assistant To Qusay; Saddam's Nephew
(14/55) Sayf al-Din Fulayyih Hasan Taha al-Rawi  Iraqi Republican Guard (RG) Chief Of Staff 
(15/55) Rafi abd al-Latif Tilfah al-Tikriti  Director, Directorate Of General Security (DGS)
(16/55) Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti  Director, Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS)
(21/55) Rukan Razuki abd al-Ghafar Sulayman al-Majid al-Tikriti (A.K.A. Rukan Razuki abd al-Ghafar Sulayman al-Nasiri) Saddam’s Senior Bodyguard/head-Tribal Affairs/inner Circle
(40/55) abd al-Baqi abd al-Karim al-Abdallah al-Sadun Central Ba'ath Party Regional Command Chairman, Diyala Region
(49/55) Rashid Taan Kazim Central Ba'ath Party Regional Chairman, Anbar Governorate

One of the more useful aspects of Iraqi naming systems is the identification of hometowns in the names.  Here we see 4 people from Saddam’s home town of Tikrit and one from Dur (a village near Tikrit) in Salahudin.  The list includes Saddam’s No. 2 and Northern Region Commander, the Directors of the Special Security Organization, General Security and the Iraqi Intelligence Service as well as the Chief of Staff of the Republican Guard and the heads of the Diyala and Anbar regions as well as the head of Tribal Affairs.

And where have many of the current problems been?  With the Tribes of Salahudin, Diyala and Anbar.  Coincidence in geography suggests commonality of interests between Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Army, the Baathists and the Council of Muslim Scholars (mouthpiece of the out-of-country Sheikhs?)

A couple of recent developments in the area:  Al Duri is rumoured to be in discussion with Al Maliki on how to come to a conclusion on this;  and today there is a report of Red on Red fighting in Amiriyah, Baghdad between Al Qaeda in Iraq and their allies in the Islamic State in Iraq as they are taken on by the Islamic Army and JAM, both organizations known to have heavy representation from the Baathist Intelligence and Military communities.  In other words the organizations represented by Al Duri and the Tikrit buddies that are still at large.

Suggestion (Guess): Having been undercut by the Awakenings in Anbar, Salahudin and Diyalla, and being trapped in Diyalla with only an Iranian escape route, Al Duri is looking to cut a deal.  Part of Maliki’s price?  “Help to clean up the mess with all these foreign thugs you sponsored.”  Al Duri may have started on it ahead of a rumoured set-piece clean up of Diyalla by the ISF and Coalition forces and, more importantly, The Salvation Fronts.  Locals playing by “house” rules.

*PKK*
Concentrated on the Turkish Border
Primary areas of operations: Turkey
Independent Kurds?

Apparently some 5000 Kurds of which some 2000 are active in Turkey against the Turkish Government.  They are a problem to the US, to Iraq, to the Kurdish Governments in Iraq and to Turkey (as well as NATO and Europe).  About the only people these Kurds would not be a problem too would be the Russians.  The Iranians may be willing to risk long term pain for short term gain by working with these people in the near term.

As a counter, and in line with turning Anbar security over to local Sunni Sheikhs, the Iraqi Government and the Coalition have turned security in the three Kurdish provinces of Iraq to the local governments and the Kurdish Peshmergas.  

Presumably the Americans would rather have Kurds killing Kurds to keep the peace up there so that the Turks aren’t “required” to intervene.

Which brings us round to the situation in the Left Flank nations.


----------



## Kirkhill

Part II

*Left Flank: Turkey*

In addition to the aforementioned problems with the PKK and the build up by the Turkish Army on the Kurdish border Turkey has other problems.

The Islamic government and the Seculars, strongly backed by the Army, don’t get along.  There is a political and constitutional struggle under way with mass demonstrations in Istanbul against the government.  Unfortunately for government propagandists its support base is dispersed through out the hinterlands and can only get to the cameras in Istanbul over roads controlled by the Army.

Perhaps that is why the Government has only invited the Army to take what measures it sees fit on the border.  If it gave an order to assault into Iraq would the Army obey it?  Which is a greater threat to the Army?  The Kurds, the Islamists or loss of “contact” with the Americans?

Interestingly, by moving to the Iraqi border the Turks may also be close to the Syrian border.

*Left Flank: Lebanon*

The big news out of Lebanon is the fact that the Hariri Investigation is going ahead, much to the chagrin of Syria.  Despite a successful dodge last summer by employing Hezbollah against Israel, and an unsuccessful attempt this summer by inserting a group of Al-Qaeda foreigners into Lebanon. The investigation will proceed.  Assad is apparently annoyed and suggesting a dire future for Lebanon.

The “foreigners” are a few hundred Wahhabists with ties to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and the other usual suspects.  What is most interesting though is that Lebanon is claiming to have captured a double agent with both Syrian and Al Qaeda ties as well as a lot of intelligence connecting Syria and the group of “foreigners” that seem to have taken the name Fatah – Al Qaeda.  At least some of them are believed to be Jordanian Palestinians that have splintered from the Palestinian Fatah and are also geographically associated with the late Al-Zarqawi.

Meanwhile in all of this Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, are being vewwy, vewwy quiet.  I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the French troops sitting on top of their bunkers in Southern Lebanon have a new Commander.  I have no doubt that the French troops will shoot whoever they are told to shoot.  And Sarkozy is leaving little doubt of where he stands.

As are the Americans (supplying military aid to the Lebanese Army) and as importantly, if not moreso, the Arabs are supplying moral support to the Army that is seen to be Christian dominated.  Another group that is notable by their absence are the Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon.

*Left Flank: Israel/Palestine*

Over the border in Israel/Palestine/West Bank/Gaza the usual chaos continues with some minor nuances.  Hamas seems to have worn out its welcome on the street.  Fatah and Hamas are fighting in the streets.  Israel’s actions are supporting Fatah (the locals) against Hamas (the Syrian supported locals). They are arresting or killing Hamas officials.  Egypt is also supporting Fatah and thus implicitly supporting Israel.  Hamas, and Syria, can’t really expect any let up because while Olmert is under pressure to do more his rivals (Netanyahu and Barak) are even more inclined than him to be hawks.

Which brings us to Syria itself.

*Left Flank: Syria*

As noted previously Syria seems none too pleased about the Hariri investigation going ahead.  Apparently it was deserted at the UN by Russia and China, who decided to abstain. The turn-around vote seems to have been France’s.  With Sarkozy in charge now it seems that the veto count is 3-2 for the West.

The old Frenchman seems to be heading for a date with the judges in France for past indiscretions.   That trial could be interesting – but there again maybe not – one of his co-conspirators (tried, convicted, sentenced and served) Alain Juppe is now Sarkozy’s Environment Minister.  By the way Sarkozy used to be an “associate” of Chirac’s as well.  Some things are better left unsaid.

Interestingly one of the abstentions by the non-permanent members of the Security Council was by South Africa: the same country that routinely comes between Zimbabwe and sanctions.  Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a Chinese client of very long standing.

And as if this isn’t enough yet another Al Qaeda clone has sprung up.  This time targeting the Alawites and Druze of Syria as apostates even more vile than Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Shia (I do hope I have the order of vileness correct – I wouldn’t want to offend anyone).  Unfortunately for President Assad – he and his clan are Alawites.

I guess that is the problem with franchising. Unless you have strong contracts with strong enforcement you never know who will end up using your brand name.  A sure way to lose market share.

For a change of pace we will shift to the right flank countries. 

*Right Flank: Pakistan*

India and Pakistan are still juggling Kashmir (although now it seems China might want to get back into the game directly – more later).

Poor old Musharraf seems to be being assaulted by Judges, Lawyers, Punjabis and Sindis for being too Islamic and the ISI and the Pashtuns for not being Islamic enough.  The Baluchis don’t want to be Pakistanis (or Iranians) at all.  And the mountains, including the Pashtuns, are as they ever were.  Ungovernable.

Riots in the streets.  Assassination attempts.  Loss of influence in Afghanistan.  That Chinese port at Gwadar is looking more tenuous by the day.

*Right Flank: Afghanistan*

North and West stable.  Eastern mountains a mess.  The South in the process of being pacified.  At least there is a functioning plan for three-quarters of the country.  

The Taliban and Warlords will likely fold when they decide, like the Sheikhs of Iraq, that they can no longer afford the additional costs associated with doing business in an unsettled environment.  Progress is being made village by village.

NATO is having to move out to try and secure the borders.

*Right Flank: Pashtunistan*

As noted the mountains are chaotic but even here change is happening.  Afghan friendly Pashtuns appear to be pushing back against ISI support Taliban Pashtuns in the mountains and towns claimed by Pakistan.  More troubles for Musharraf than Karzai.

And then back to the Centre.

*Centre: Iran*

Ahmadinejad is the face of Iran.  Unfortunately his party couldn’t carry local elections.  He also has problems with support in the Council of Guardians.  His parliament voted to reduce his term in office from five years to four.  Not exactly an endorsement.  In parts of Iraq he can’t fill a stadium even when the schools are turned out for him.

Internally he has students and teachers demonstrating against laws on campus, labour demonstrating against high unemployment, women demonstrating against the crackdown on attire, people generally demonstrating against high gas prices and corruption and, of course, he has to deal with border unrest. 

He has Baluchis to the east, Arabs to the south, Kurds and Turkmen to the north, not to mention the displaced Afghan refugees Iran has been sheltering these past years.  Apparently the refugees have become more trouble than they are worth and are being returned to an Afghanistan not ready to receive them.  I believe the Pakistanis are doing something the same in the east of Afghanistan.

Externally his allies Syria (Hamas) and Hezbollah are nowhere near as useful as they have been and it looks like a whole bunch of people in Iraq are in the process of going "hands up".  Even Sadr and Hakami are proving unreliable.

In the middle of all of this his ambassador gets invited to the one thing he has been waiting for: a face to face meeting with an American ambassador.  27 years and his ambassador finally gets an invite. 

I wonder if coffee was served.  The fact that the Theatre Commander, Admiral Fallon, arranged an old-fashioned display of gun-boat diplomacy by stuffing two carriers (Stennis and Nimitz) along with the Bonhomme Richard through the Straits of Hormuz suggests “maybe not”.

That and the fact that there was that “leak” about the President authorizing “covert activities short of lethal” by the CIA suggests it wasn’t necessarily friendly.  The Iranians seem to be taking it seriously.  They arrested three Iranians with American passports as spies, claiming they were working for George Soros and trying to stage another “Velvet Revolution” (see Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Georgia, Ukraine and Lebanon for examples – primary tactic: lots of flags and good looking young girls – hey, that fits with enforcing a coverup by Iranian girls – they are more deadly than guns).

I would suggest that Iran is being pressed on all fronts.  It doesn’t have the cash reserves to compete with the US in the long haul (and neither do its supporters). 

Consequently there is little they can do except make loud noises to little real effect.  Remember the last act of the invasion of Iraq:  Comical Ali denying the presence of Americans in Baghdad as a Bradley drove along the riverbank behind him.

Which brings us to the Support.

*Support: Russia*

Russia sat out the Hariri decision.  I wonder if things would have gone the same way with Chirac calling the shots?  Would it be too blatant to outright oppose “the west” without the cover of France?

What would Russia do in the event that it found itself to be losing influence?  Might it resort to making loud noises?  Threatening a new arms race? Threatening to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty? 

Would those noises become louder if there seemed the likelihood that they weren’t going to be able to cash in on those Kyoto Carbon Credits after all?  Now Europe and Russia are not of one mind and on this issue China (and India) find themselves aligned with the US.

*Support: China*

And like Russia, China, Chirac’s other good pal, sat out the Hariri decision.  And it took South Africa with it.  Unlike Russia, I don’t believe that China is inclined to become noisy when thwarted.  I seem to recall either Mao or Sun Tzu advising to advance with steel until you encounter steel, then retire.  I think that China’s likely response to a set back would be to gracefully retire and wait for the next opportunity.

However, just to remind the neighbours to maintain good manners, and possibly to redirect some pent up military tension at home, they seem to be rattling sabres with the Indians in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, not to mention ongoing activity by Maoists in Nepal.

*Summation:*

As stated in the title – this may be a pollyannaish view of the current state of affairs – it leaves the US and the West with a fairly good looking hand – if they have the time to play it.

Personally I think that the true tipping point occurred on May 25 with the vote on the supplementary bill on war funding.
The House voted 280 to 142 in favour of George Bush.
The Senate voted 80 to 14 in favour of George Bush.

Whatever the Sturm and Drang in the press might be, whatever games presidential candidates might play, I believe that the power brokers in the US delivered a cold shower to the power brokers in the opposing camps.

The opposition believed that by turning the people they could turn the state.  That is the essence of “true” democracy.
That is democracy as Cindy Sheehan and Moveon.org understood it.

However the power brokers in the US demonstrated the difference between mob rule, which the enemies of the US believed ran the country, and a functioning, managed, democracy, where the institutions are in place to ensure that the security of the nation comes first, last and always.

And that strength, I believe,  people like Al Duri, Khamenei and Putin understand.   Cindy may not understand the value of that strength, but she understands the strength – and has gone home.

Thank you for allowing me the pleasure of speculating.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace

Links to your sources from which you are making your assessments would be nice.


----------



## Kirkhill

Understood George - unfortunately each line would have at least two links

If required I am willing to go through the exercise but it might take another two or three days to get them all.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Understood George - unfortunately each line would have at least two links
> 
> If required I am willing to go through the exercise but it might take another two or three days to get them all.



I'm not coming down on you.  I just think that it would give us an idea of where you are coming from in order to reach the conclusions that you have made.


----------



## GAP

Kinda put things in prespective.....overall, the big picture does not seem as bad as the "doom and gloom" sayers are going on about.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'm not coming down on you.  I just think that it would give us an idea of where you are coming from in order to reach the conclusions that you have made.



C'mon, George ... he explained that at the beginning.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> I swear that the statements made without qualification come from articles I have read.  I don't swear to the authenticity of every article but most were from what I consider reputable sources.
> If you want to challenge me on a point I shall endeavour to find the reference ...



There must be limits to how many references we demand.  I use I think over and over again - as often as not just to avoid having to go search for citations.


----------



## George Wallace

I'm not insisting on 'footnotes'.  I am just wondering what kind of sources he has been using.  He doesn't have to qualify every sentence, just give us an idea of where he was finding his research materials; what publications - not necessarily the exact quotes/notes.


----------



## Kirkhill

George, I apologize to you for getting you in the middle of a discussion you didn't deserve.  There are rules to this site and the requirement you put forward is fair.

I bottled on this one.  To be honest the task of looking through the references was interfering with my train of thought and I was losing the thread.  That's why I said I could deliver the references but it would take a few days.

As far as the sources themselves are concerned all the data is open source and gleaned from various press outlets.  In some cases I have found links on blogs but I don't use blog material unless they can come back to a widely published article.  I am restricted to English language press but I review English language versions of non-english language papers.

And to the other chaps that have come to my defence......many thanks.

Cheers all.


----------



## Kirkhill

As a first instalment on my promised references - herewith my reading list:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/home.html
http://www.thestar.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/section/0,,2,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.strykernews.com/

Blogs
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ (on this site I trust the contributions by the authors Omar and Mohammed, and one of their regulars Hameed - I ignore the rest of the commentary but often find interesting links to real articles amongst the comments.

Real Clear Politics and the Iraq the Model links lead to articles that seem to be under-reported in my view.

Another interesting blog is that of Michael Yon
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

As an example - gleaned from today's Iraq The Model (ITM) - this link:

http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/24hour/religion/story/2557567p-10964919c.html



> Muslim scholars consider who can issue fatwas
> 
> The Associated Press
> Thursday, July 14th, 2005 09:18 AM (PDT)
> 
> 
> AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - A major international meeting of Muslim scholars agreed that religious edicts called fatwas should be issued only by clerics bearing recognized authority - a position that implicitly opposes calls for violence from militants like those spearheading Iraq's insurgency.
> The three-day meeting of some 180 experts from 40 nations was said to be the first representing Islam's eight major Sunni and Shiite schools of thought.
> 
> "The issuance of religious edicts is limited to qualified Muslim clerics in the eight schools of jurisprudence," according to a conference statement released July 6.
> 
> The Amman meeting also said believers cannot label other Muslims as "apostates," as Iraq extremists have done to justify killing police and civilians.
> 
> Jordan's King Abdullah II called the meeting to implement last November's "Amman Message," a Jordanian initiative urging Muslims to reject extremism and tolerate other religions. The meeting was sponsored by a foundation partly financed by Jordan's ruling dynasty, which claims direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad.
> 
> Prior to this month's conference, 10 top Muslim clergymen, including Egypt's Grand Imam Sheik al Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi and Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had also ruled that fatwas must only be issued by qualified clerics recognized by the eight schools.



Based on my biases and prism this could perhaps be seen as having an equivalent in the British experience in the meetings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland that finally decided that the state had an interest in the staffing of the church and the message it preached.  It signalled the end of the wars between the "purely democratic" Covenanters (who recognized democracy only within terms of their own small parish or village) and the "divinely inspired" Episcopalians who demanded that the message be controlled from above - either by the King or by the Peers.  The compromise (that still left Catholics and the Wee Free out of the equation) set the stage for the Scottish Enlightenment which in turn set the stage for the British Empires and America.....over the next few centuries.

I don't claim that this is a momentous occasion, or that things will all turn out right in the end, I just look for signs of change.   And you don't find those in the "bleed to lead" stories that dominate the press and public debate.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's another example of rapprochement.
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf

It is the Muslim response to Pope Benedict's reference to a discussion stating that Mohammed had nothing to offer.  In contrast to the press reports of the time that inflamed Islamic opinion, and in fact created the situation by selectively quoting the Pope, this is a reasoned conciliatory response.

These people are not all Wahhabis and they are respected voices in their communities.  ALL of their words - not just the inflammatory words of some - need to be taken into account.

And here are another couple of articles about operations:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070531-1552-iraq.html 
"U.S. battles al-Qaeda gunmen in west Baghdad after Sunnis revolt against terror group" - This references that Red on Red situation (Mohammed and Omar - they live in Baghdad - are apparently of the understanding that "the Sunnis" that revolted are actually Al Duri's Baathists - http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)

Edit: Further comment on this battle from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18950252/

And on reviewing my sources I realize that through the links this has become one of my regular reads:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
The Multi National Force Iraq site.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12109&Itemid=1
"Joint operation successful in Al Kut" 
This comes right after 70 policemen in Kut "resigned" claiming they were at risk from the Mehdi Army.  
Seeing a losing cause - they step out of the line of fire, switch sides, supply intelligence to take out the "bosses"  and wait for developments?  Pure supposition but when you see enough of these types of incidents with a constant drip of 3 or 4 incidents a day where 2-40 insurgents are engaged and killed or detained, where caches of a couple thousands rounds of SAA as well as a couple of 155mm, a drum of ANFO and a bunch of det cord and caps are discovered one gets a different sense of things than listening to the latest bang on the news.

As long as there is one idiot with access to fertilizer and diesel there will be bangs - Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as well as the buggers at Omagh.  These do not indicate a society out of control.

What I find most noteworthy is:

The size of the parties being engaged are decreasing - Corps and Armies in 2003, Battalions and Companies as recently as 2006, Platoons, Sections and Teams currently.

In addition the weapons hauls are decreasing - WMDs and Army Distribution Points in 2003, stores for multiple IEDs and Battalion/Company assaults in 2006, and now they caches consist of scrounged and improvised explosives, single artillery and rocket rounds, more mortar fuses than bombs, RPGs with more tubes than sights and more motors than warheads and 1-2000 rounds of SAA for a group of 40 men.  I would suggest that a number of our members on this site blat through those allotments on a weekend for personal enjoyment.

It isn't much to sustain an insurgency.

Anyway - hope that gives some insite into my thinking on how I came up with my appreciation.

Oh, by the way, another regular read for me is this:
http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm
In addition to having a personal interest in archaeology - it also impacts on the global warming debate - it helps me keep track of the culture wars.  Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Iran (Iraq's kind of quiet right now) are all fighting for bragging rights on who is the oldest and who has the longest continuous occupancy.  Israel is in the fight with China and India coming up hard on the outside.
Russia, the West, North American Natives and Australian Aborigines are all in the game as well.  History is just another round in the arsenal.

Edit: and another blog I am finding to be an interesting source of links is http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


----------



## exspy

Kirkhill,

You know when you've become good at what you do when the criticism, not the praise, begins.  I agree with ER Campbell and will add this rejoinder; please don't take heed of your critics.  Those of us who've read your threads already know your work and I, for one, can attest to the sincerity and thoughtfulness of your writing.  I used to do the exact same thing for a living.

As to the use of footnotes, I agree they are of importance.  If this had been your first posting on the site I too would have been concerned as to your veracity.  However, this was not your first time ashore, as it were.  You have footnoted before and, to be fair, this was your first try at such a magnus opus.  On the plus side however, no one seems to have any trouble with your thread's content, so you must have done something right.

I can add nothing more than to say 'keep it up'.

PS:  To quote the Pride of Orange County, California: "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness."


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to both the discussion on this thread and on "Turkey keeps nervous eye on Kirkuk" (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56384.0.html)

Some more indicators of improvements in Iraq and increasing pressure on Al Qaeda and its allies that suggest both American successes (not Coalition - everyone is laying failure at the feet of the Americans - they may as well get the credit when things are moving in the right direction)

Compare the size of the crowd that Sadr is able to command 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/06/iraq_report_sadrs_small_samarr.asp



> Iraq Report: Sadr's Small Samarra Protest
> Violence in Baghdad and greater Iraq remains low as the Iraqi government is enforcing a curfew in the major population centers where the threat of sectarian backlash from the Samarra mosque bombing remains high. There have been one confirmed report of a mosque attack and no major clashes on the streets. A Sunni mosque in Basra was destroyed on Friday, and a curfew is now in place in the city. The Iraqi Security Forces, along with a Coalition advisory team, have deployed an additional 650 soldiers and police to Samarra, including "Approximately 300 Iraqi Army soldiers from 4th Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division, 140 National Policemen from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd National Police, and 150 other National Policemen," noted Multinational Forces Iraq.
> 
> The supporters of Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the fractured Mahdi Army, held a protest today in Sadr City, home to an estimated 2 million Shia. The protests drew "more than 2,000 eastern Baghdad residents," according to Multinational Forces Iraq, which closely monitors large gatherings. The poor turnout for today's demonstration speaks volumes about Sadr's power on the street. One year ago, Sadr drew hundreds of thousands into the streets....



And this from Bill Roggio on Securing East Anbar (Fallujah and the suburbs of Baghdad)  They are trying to build on the success in developing relations with the Tribes in the rural areas as they push in towards Baghdad.  The same method is being applied in Diyalla, Salahudin and Babil.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/securing_eastern_anb.php

And finally, with respect to the Kurdish/Turkish situation - Iraq has reassigned a Kurdish Brigade to Diyalla to control/protect local Kurdish population centres mixed amongst the Arabs, both Sunni and Shia.  That isn't suggestive of tensions on the Kurdish border.

I think that this is the push year.  Ahmadinejad is running as thin on the ground for support as Bush.  More importantly he doesn't have the weight to push back in a militarily significant fashion.  The best he can hope for is to play for a Tet victory and create the impression of chaos with low level attacks in multiple places.  He can't do it as effectively in Iraq as he could because there is  a more effective employment of American, Coalition and Local forces concentrated in Iraq.  Accordingly he has to act more peripherally, hopefully dispersing the American effort or, as I said, playing for a Tet win.

Edit: and this isn't going to help Ahmadinejad's popularity.



> Oil giant Iran begins fuel rationing with official cars
> EDMUND BLAIR
> IN TEHRAN
> IRAN started its first phase of petrol rationing yesterday, limiting the fuel that drivers of government cars can buy, but many Iranians are still confused about how and when the full rationing plan would be in place.
> 
> Filling station workers said they were now limiting government-owned cars to 300 litres a month. But one said he was not sure what would happen if drivers of such cars wanted to buy fuel above that amount.
> 
> Despite big energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity to meet domestic fuel demand, which analysts say is rising at about 10 per cent a year. Heavy subsidies which drain state coffers make fuel so cheap it encourages waste, analysts say. ....



http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=936272007

From "The Scotsman" via  Bill Roggios Fourth Rail.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another sign of progress - from Memri - A Qatari defending the American presence in Iraq on the same grounds that the Gulf Cooperation Council justifies hosting American bases.  He also criticizes all suicide bombing ..... 




> (Al-Ansari: ...) Have suicide operations, throughout their long history here and elsewhere, achieved any political goal? Never. Suicide operations have never achieved any political goal or benefited the Muslims.
> 
> Interviewer: At the very least, they strike terror in the hearts of the enemies.
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: On the contrary, they become even more vicious, and we lose our good reputation, the image of Islam, and the sympathy of world public opinion. The American presence [in the Persian Gulf] is legal.
> 
> Interviewer: You believe that the American presence in Iraq is legitimate...
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: It is legitimate and legal, because of the Security Council resolution, and the consent of all the countries in the region.
> 
> Interviewer: You don’t consider it occupation?
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: No, I don’t consider it to be occupation now, because it is not in the interests of the Gulf countries or of the Iraqis for the Americans to leave now. In addition, when can you call it occupation? When it runs counter to the will of the people. If ten million Iraqis elected the current government, it is a legitimate government, whether you support it or not. This legitimate government invited the Americans, and it renews this invitation every year. The American presence in Iraq is exactly like the American presence in the Gulf countries. I wrote an article about it, and I say so here too. Iraq needs the American presence for its stability and defense more than we, in the Gulf, need the American bases to protect our interests.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Interviewer: You, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, a lecturer on Islamic law in the law faculty of Qatar University, have often been called as an American collaborator. Forgive me for saying so, but you have been described sometimes as one of the writers of the Marines Corps, who spread the "good tidings" of the American presence.
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: I don’t know what to say. Look, the tendency to blame anybody who disagrees with you...
> 
> Interviewer: But this view...
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: No, it is the nature of our culture...
> 
> Interviewer: But you support the Americans more than they support themselves.
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: Let me be honest with you.
> 
> Interviewer: It is not about the culture, because there are reasons...
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: We are all being accused... Why should I be prevented from being a collaborator, if it serves the interests of my country, and stems from patriotic motives? I am one of the supporters of the alliance with America. If you want to call this “collaboration”... I support the strengthening of the alliance with America – military, cultural, and economic alliance – because I believe that the Gulf has no future without this alliance. All the leaders of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have declared that their alliance with America is strategic.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Am I supposed to be a collaborator with Bin Laden? If they accuse me of being a collaborator, I accuse them that by defending terrorism and justifying it, they are collaborators with Al-Qaeda.
> 
> Interviewer: In your opinion, collaborating with America is better with Bin Laden?
> 
> Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari: Of course, if it serves the interests of my country. Am I supposed to be a collaborator with backward people?



http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1450


----------



## Edward Campbell

And so it continues …

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a story about how some senior Arab leaders plan to implement their _governance_ plan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070616.wgazaplan16/BNStory/International/home


> Fatah planning Iraq-style insurgency against Hamas
> 
> MARK MACKINNON
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> June 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM EDT
> 
> RAMALLAH, WEST BANK — Hunched forward on a couch in the lobby of Ramallah's Grand Park Hotel Friday, his cellphones buzzing with updates from Gaza and his hands quivering with rage, Colonel Baha Balusha plotted his bloody revenge on Hamas.
> 
> The battered Fatah movement's strategy, revealed in a series of interviews, is two-pronged. On one front, the Palestine Liberation Organization will appeal to the United Nations Security Council to rapidly dispatch international troops into Gaza to forcibly put the coastal territory back under the control of president Mahmoud Abbas.
> 
> But while they wait hoping the international community will act, Fatah fighters plan to wage a violent Iraq-style insurgency against the Islamists who now control Gaza.
> 
> The task will fall to men like Col. Balusha, a top officer in the Palestinian Authority's intelligence apparatus in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> “Fatah is not done with in Gaza yet. When the Baath Party fell in Iraq, the resistance continued,” he said, making an effort to keep his voice level as his shaking hands nearly dropped a cup of tea. “Gaza is a minefield. In every house there are five rifles, not one. If Hamas owns one rifle, there are four others.”
> 
> A lot of Fatah supporters are furious with Hamas in the wake of their swift military takeover of the Gaza Strip. But no one can quite match the depths of Col. Balusha's hatred. His war with Hamas started last September, when Hamas militants tried to kill him, and escalated three months later when they shot and killed his three young sons – aged 6, 7 and 9 – on their way to school.
> 
> Now they've seized control of the place that Col. Balusha calls home. And he's planning to take it back.
> 
> He said that Hamas won the recent round of fighting by paying thousands of mercenaries – essentially, poor, unemployed Gazans willing to fight for any cause that pays – to supplement their own forces in the strip, and by remaining mobile while Fatah forces defended police stations and other stationary positions.
> 
> Those same tactics can now be used against Hamas, he said, since the Islamists are the ones who will have to defend their bases. With international financial aid expected to come pouring in to the new crisis government appointed by Mr. Abbas, Fatah can use some of that money to buy back the loyalty of fighters who turned against them this week.
> 
> Col. Balusha harshly criticized the West for freezing the flow of funds to the Palestinian Authority for the past 1½ years. With the PA bankrupt and unable to pay salaries to its security services, tens of thousands of armed men were left angry and desperate for money. And while the West froze Gaza out, Iran smuggled in as much as $1-billion over the past 18 months, Col. Balusha said, allowing Hamas to pay and equip more men than ever in preparation for this week's battle.
> 
> “Hamas bought the people who did not have anything to eat. Many joined Hamas just because they wanted to live. The thousands who surrounded the Palestinian security positions, didn't come from Hamas, they were just mercenaries.”
> 
> Col. Balusha refused to speculate on how many fighters he might be able to mobilize to counter Hamas, but said that most of the 58,000 members of the PA's formal security services had no interest in living in a Hamas-run Gaza. He suggested the tables could turn as quickly against Hamas as they had against Fatah.
> 
> “Hamas took over the Palestinian security positions because we were in fixed positions, while Hamas was mobile. Now it is the opposite – Hamas is fixed and we are mobile. Nothing is safe in Gaza, I know that from experience.”
> 
> It was clear that Col. Balusha would have powerful friends as he planned his counterattack. He fielded calls all afternoon from his men still in Gaza, and with Israeli help, managed to get a half dozen of his top operatives out of the strip – which Israel had completely sealed off because of the violence – and across Israeli territory to Ramallah for an evening strategy session.
> 
> The Fatah counterattack will proceed simultaneously with a diplomatic push by the PLO, an umbrella group of Palestinian organizations that Hamas never joined, to get the UN to take action. The plans were rapidly being assembled in the smoke-filled lobby of Ramallah's three-star Grand Park Hotel, where more than 20 Fatah-affiliated exiles from Gaza are currently lodged, their families still trapped in the war zone of Gaza.
> 
> “We want a UN force under Chapter 7, as they did in Kosovo,” said Abu Ali Shaheen, a senior Fatah leader in Gaza who, like Col. Balusha, was out of the territory when the recent violence began. Chapter 7 resolutions give the Security Council the option of using military force to deal with “threats to the peace” or “acts of aggression.”
> 
> “Many states have contacted Abu Mazen [Mr. Abbas] and said ‘we are with you.' Anyone who is with Abu Mazen must send international troops to Gaza, because this is a coup d'état.”
> 
> Mr. Shaheen, a founding member of the PLO and a key adviser to the Palestinian president, said that Mr. Abbas's decision Thursday to fire prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas member, and declare a 30-day state of emergency in the West Bank and Gaza, was intended to remove any legal ambiguity for the United Nations about which forces were legitimate and which were illegal in the power struggle. Hamas won legislative elections early last year, but Palestinian basic law gives Mr. Abbas, who was elected separately in a 2005 vote, the power to fire the prime minister.
> 
> Mr. Shaheen, who survived a Hamas assassination attempt last fall, acknowledged that any international force would likely suffer heavy casualties trying to wrest control of Gaza from Hamas guerrillas embedded in the population. But he argued that a single, hopefully decisive, battle was better than the “many battles” he predicted would lie ahead if the Islamic militants were allowed to retain control of the strip.
> 
> Sitting separately from the other Fatah men in the Grand Park's lobby, Col. Balusha made it clear that the fighting in Gaza would go on, whatever the politicians decided.
> 
> “The Palestinian infighting has caused 1,000 deaths since 2006, and the Palestinian society has a habit of revenge. Will anyone just overlook losing a relative, a mother, a child, a friend?” he asked.
> 
> His angry glare made clear that his answer was no.



I am having a bit of difficulty imagining that countries like France and Italy, which might have said to Abbas _‘we are with you,'_ are interested inserting themselves into the middle of another Iraq style civil war – no matter how much their domestic anti-Israel constituents might plead.

I think Col. Balusha is right: when the West, led by Canada, cut off aid in the wake of a Hamas electoral victory we left the door open for Iranian funded Hamas to buy ‘fighters’ willing to gun down eight year old boys.  That being said it would be quite wrong for the West, especially Canada, to turn the financial taps back on so that Fatah can shoot sever year olds. 

I have argued that the Arabs (and Persians) are about to embark on their very own _Thirty Years War_ – probably bloodier and, in the end, just as historically important as its 350 year old European counterpart.  I think we should look on this turn of events with equanimity – pity, to be sure, but equanimity all the same because it is an essential step towards creating the sorts of socio-political structures which will allow the Arabs/Persians and West/Central Asian to survive in and beyond the 21st century.  If the Arabs, Persians and West Asians persist in embracing a medieval-theocratic socio-political system then I believe they will be destroyed – largely by their own internal conflicts.

In any event, I am sure there will be calls, from all the usual suspects, for a Chapter 7 UN force.  I am equally sure that all the nations capable of contributing, effectively, to such a force will roll their eyes and hide under the tables in the UNSC meeting room.


----------



## a_majoor

I think we have to do a bit of splitting between "Cause" and "Effect"

There are lots of stressors in Dar-al-Islam; a demographic surge which is stressing internal economies and resources (primarily fresh water), changes in the external environment caused by globalization and the rise of regional powers like India and China, and the communications revolution (Internet, cell phones, global media like CNN), which bring disruptive new influences into Dar-al-Islam.

These factors are present to one degree or another in every part of the world, but social chaos and collapse into inter or intrastate war is not the response in the West, the Anglosphere, China, India or Edwards "Conservative Democracies" in Asia. The cause of the chaos is the brittle and authoritarian regimes present in most of Dar-al-Isam. You will notice that the regimes least affected are also the least authoritarian, such as Turkey and Indonesia..

As stresses mount, the authoritarian regimes (be they dictatorships, monarchies or theocracies) are less and less able to come up with solutions to the problems, and with the communications revolution are now unable to deflect blame on foreign powers with the ease they did in the past. 

The growth of sub-national and supra national movements (groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and the more general squaring off between the Shiite and Sunni divisions of Islam) can be seen in one sense as an attempt to get inside the "Boyd cycle" of the national governmentsand deliver some sort of solution to the followers of these groups (mostly at the expense of everyone else). This means that _even if_ there was never a 9/11 or some alternate US Administration had taken no action in SW Asia, the region of Dar-al-Islam would still be sliding into chaos and war. Only the details would change.

The US actions served two purposes: they were the trigger that broke the entire mess into the open, rather than seeing an ongoing series of conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war dragging out over decades, and the overarching "Purple Finger" strategy provides a purpose and direction not only for the West, but also for the people of  Dar-al-Islam itself. we know that there are many people in the region fighting against their local tyrants, and the mass turn out of voters in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon provides a glimpse of what might be, so long as we do not turn our backs on the region and offer political, economic and sometimes military help to back the democratic tide. Leaving these internal wars to fester will only create end by creatiing a powerful, embittered and determined winner who will challenge the West and the other regional powers, leading to a greater cycle of war and conflict.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree that the environment in which the current "discussion" is being had is one of "brittle" governments,  as glass is brittle.  Hitting glass results in random crazing, random effects, a chaos of broken glass that inflicts damage on all that come in contact with it.

My sense is that Ahmadinejad seeks chaos.  He sees himself as an agent of chaos because once the world is suitably chaotic then the 12th Imam will appear and set the world right.  Allah will be served and he will get his reward in the next world.

It doesn't matter to Ahmadinejad that the Great Satan is defeated by Iran, in fact that may be counter-productive as it may delay the appearance of the Iman, as that disorder prevails.  

He hopes to meet the 12th Imam in this life - I believe.

From this Ahmadinejad is capable of anything, as long as he can get everybody shooting at everybody, and incapable of being trusted on negotiations.


I do think  that this Agent of Chaos is having the effect of precipitating Edward's Islamic (dare I say Arab) Reformation.  And equally that, like the Reformation and Counter-Reformation it will be an incomplete process of decades if not centuries with no clearly definable end state.

However rather than standing by pityingly, watching people kill themselves and praying that they don't bring the fight to our homes I think  we need to get involved.  

Not in the centre though but on the periphery.  

Employ the inkblot/oilspot strategy by operating from the periphery and moving towards the centre.  Operate from secure locations and establish safehavens to which refugees can walk or drive.  Protect the routes they travel, supply cover, bring them into clean, safe, secure locations where they can raise their families - attract them away from the chaos.  Suck the support out from under the leadership.

Iraq is not a bad place to try and set up a "safe haven" except that it is too big, too isolated and has too many undefended borders. It reeks of "Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle".  

Perhaps a better strategy for engagement between the west and Islam would have been to engage Gaza and Lebanon First and prosecute the Basra safe-have/no fly zone as vigorously as the Kurdistan zone was defended.  Does anybody doubt that Gaza (smaller than Toronto) couldn't have been secured by a NATO force similar to that employed in Kabul?  Or that if the UN force in Lebanon in 1983 had had the same rules of engagement that  the troops in Kandahar and Helmand have currently that Lebanon could have been stabilized?

Yes, it might have caused Saddam and Hafez/Bashar Assad and Khomenei to come to us.  But we would be fighting a defensive battle in a just cause on ground of our on choosing with protected flanks. Turkey, Egypt and Israel would all be best served just to mass on their borders and sit out the fight.  There would be secure lines of communications across the Atlantic and through the Med with bases in Spain and Italy, not to mention Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus.

Similar moves could be taken along the coasts of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.  We might not be able to occupy the whole of Dar-al-Islam until they complete their current spasm but I think we could certainly establish and hold a number of Gibraltar/Gaza size "oilspots" around the region that would act as refuges for those seeking to escape the chaos.

But most importantly, as Ruxted pointed out it is necessary to recognize that this "war" will not end.  In fact I dislike even calling it a war.  This is not a struggle between two defined entities struggling over a bit of land or water or treasure, or even a body of people.  

This is not a limited engagement.  This is conducting operations necessary to maintain normal society - just like operating a police force, taking out the garbage, cutting the lawn or vacuuming the house.  And it has to be "budgeted" accordingly.


----------



## Kirkhill

PS - just re-reading my last.  My comments are not meant to suggest that Iraq is unwinnable - just that by biting off a big chunk in the centre of the pie it has become messy and hard to chew.  I prefer to eat my pie with dainty little nibbles around the edges - leaving no crumbs behind.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Also I found this - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28774 via the comments on Iraq the Model - about the formation of a Solidarity Iran.

What is interesting is that, if true, it follows a pattern seen with Charter 77 in Hungary, Solidarnosc in Poland, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia,  the Otpor demonstrations in Bosnia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange in Ukraine and the Cedar in Lebanon.  There have been less successful ventures in Russia and Belarus amongst other places but the attempts have been made.  There is also the Hong Kong based franchise.  It has been suggested that there is common backing - whether from George Soros, the Bilderbergers or the CIA is up for grabs.  

It is the pattern that intrigues.



> June 14, 2007 – When you read these lines I will be in Paris, attending what promises to be a historic conference of Iranian opposition groups where they plan to announce a new initiative to support pro-democracy forces inside Iran.
> 
> They call themselves Solidarity Iran, a conscious reminder of the defiant labor movement inside Poland that helped bring about the end of the Cold War.
> 
> Solidarity’s leader, Lech Walesa, went on to become the first freely-elected president of liberated Poland. While the Solidarity Iran organizers do not plan to elect a single leader, they do anticipate the election this weekend of a representative council to represent the group in the months to come as it tours world capitals to build support for the freedom struggle inside Iran.....


----------



## a_majoor

Adopting the _tache d’huile_ strategy does not require forming cantonments unless we either want to or are operating in out of the way areas like Afghanistan. Looking around Dar-al-Islam we see many areas which are relatively stable and under control of non brittle moderate governments (although not "Liberal" or "Conservative" democracies). Places like the UAE and Kuwait are in reasonable distance for the Gulf area and already take people in through a guest worker program.

Adapting that slightly to allow refugees into these nations so they have the opportunity to get employment and skills while sheltering is one part of the equation, these nations have a military force sufficient to defend their own interests, and they will have selfish reasons to support stability operations in Dar-al-Islam both to protect themselves and to send the refugees home.

On a larger scale, shoring up the legitimate government of Lebanon and giving them the opportunity of ejecting Hezbollah from the south and Syrian influence from the rest of the country to secure the Cedar Revolution would secure the Mediterranean flank, and Lebanon would serve as a magnet and example to Syria and (to a lesser extant) Iraq. Lebanese merchants already roam Dar-al-Islam so they are perfect agents of influence/agents of change even without explicit government direction, just their presence is a powerful example of what is possible.

Something similar on the Pacific flank to take advantage of the relative stability and prosperity of Indonesia would work a "sandwitch" on Central and SW Asia, and Eygpt is probably key to both North and East Africa, although I am not quite sure how to make that work.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree that cantonments are not the sole solution.  We should absolutely make best use of those malleable and robust societies in the area - and permitting trade is a big part of that.

We could do more on the 3D approach by financially supporting those friendly countries that border conflict zones and take in refugees. Make it financially rewarding to do the right thing.  Often the refugees from the neighbouring countries are relatives but the "safe" country is as poor as the battleground.

I am not a big believer in root causes but I am a big believer in people acting in their own best interest.  It is in our best interest to work with a country like Chad for example (corruption bedamned) and pay off the government of Chad so that we can build small self-sustaining communities.  I know it is subsidization but it would be cheaper in blood and money than conducting an endless campaign of Iraqs.  As well we would get the opportunity to acculturate the refugees so that they would be a better fit for a non-chaotic society.  We should also be prepared to deploy troops alongside the Kuwaitis and the Chadians etc - that way we strengthen their defences improving the quality of the safehaven,.  We add international legitimacy to the cause (with or without UN sanction - we are now helping a threatened country do a noble thing).  And we get an opportunity to improve the quality of operations of the defending force so that it is more compatible with non-chaotic values.

At the same time I do thing that cantonments can be part of an "aggressive" oil spot strategy - especially useful to get right in amongst the refugees and to get up the nose of offending government.  A useful provocation if you will.  

Also, once secured and accepted, like Hong Kong for example, we can expand outwards.

Often, as in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, and for that matter Dubai, the cantonment itself acts as a magnet that doesn't just attract refugees but also realigns the power structure in the neighbouring country.  I think we can agree that despite the handover that Hong Kong has had a considerable impact on official thinking in Mainland China.  It certainly seems to have been studied and copied in places like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing.  The same could be said for Taiwan and Japan: cantonments of different sizes if you like.


----------



## Kirkhill

It strikes me that someone has already created a perfectly acceptable term to describe the arrangement I am thinking of - "CoDominium" - coined by Arthur's hero Jerry Pournelle.  It sounds suitably Canadian AND lefty - although Mr. Pournelle might not be pleased to have it co-opted that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoDominium

Now we just need to find King David's Spaceship and all our problems are solved.


----------



## Edward Campbell

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Adopting the _tache d’huile_ strategy does not require forming cantonments unless we either want to or are operating in out of the way areas like Afghanistan. Looking around Dar-al-Islam we see many areas which are relatively stable and under control of non brittle moderate governments (although not "Liberal" or "Conservative" democracies). Places like the UAE and Kuwait are in reasonable distance for the Gulf area and already take people in through a guest worker program.
> ...



I wonder if the (few) relatively _stable_ regimes in the 'Islamic Crescent,' especially those near its Arab/Persian _heartland_ can survive the chaos which has been/is being unleashed in Iraq, Palestine (if that word still makes any sense at all) and which seethes, just barely below the surface, in countries from Algeria through Pakistan's _North West Frontier_ to Indonesia.

I am especially intrigued by the role of religion - being something of a fan of  Sam Harris and his End of Faith thesis.  *Beliefs*, being essentially irrational, are capable of igniting great and (consequential to their nature) mindless violence – that’s one of the reasons I persists in holding up the Thirty Years War as my model for the near future of the Middle East.  (The other is that the Thirty Years War gave Europe (and the world) an enduring model for international relations – the ideas of nationhood and sovereignty enshrined in the Peace of Westphalia (1648).) I think that Ahmadinejad’s _messianic_ or _end of days_ rhetoric does reflect his sincere *belief* – and I suspect (fear) he’s not alone.  I think folks like Muqtada al-Sadr are similarly motivated.

If I’m right I cannot see how their war might be contained – they have no rational reasons to want peace, with anyone.

(It leads to the interesting, albeit parenthetical, matter of Iran’s nukes – at what point must Israel launch pre-emptive strikes (massive? surgical?) to send the programme back towards square one?  Will that act, which I regard as being strategically inescapable for Israel, forge a _de facto_ (albeit temporary) alliance with some of the Sunni regimes or will it provoke pan-Islamic rage?  How will Europe react?  What about Russia?  How will America react to Europe’s outrage?  China will go “_tsk, tsk_” but will be secretly pleased at the damage done to a Muslim theocracy; China has its own quite significant Muslim problem with the Uigar separatists whose _ideas_ are financed by Central Asian drug money and Iranian _philosophy_.)

The advantage, for us – the West, is that it refocuses Muslim/Arab-Persian rage inwards, where we want it.  _Containment_, as it were, but bad days for King Abdullah.


----------



## Old Sweat

Better minds than mine, including many on this site, have wrestled with this challenge to the "West" without success. Let's look at it from a different perspective. In Burma the Japanese used to infiltrate through the 14th Army lines and suddenly start shooting up rear areas. This quite natually led to major panics and often hasty withdrawals. General Bill Slim got the thinking back on the right track when he noted that if the enemy is around behind you, that means you are around behind him. 

In my opinion we have the 'enemy' surrounded, and any infiltrations that pop up in our homeland can be handled relatively easily. That is not to say that we will not suffer grevious injury, but the aim is to contain the Islamist movement in all its various forms in the crescent. To do this, perhaps it is a case of encouraging overtly or covertly various movements be they ethnic or religious, thus dividing but not conquering. Medieval kings were quite good at this sort of thing, although they also were quite ruthless, which the West is not.

The Iranian nuclear program is worrisome. Does the Israeli air force have the capability to knock out the major or vital parts of it? Informed opinion is all over the place. In any case, no one else is apt to have a go. It should/must be neutralized. Bribery will not work - as Kipling wrote word to the effect that once you begin to pay Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane - especially with fanatics. Group hugs suck for the same reason. 

Where are the next Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan when we need them the most? The American presidential hopefuls are an uninspiring lot, and the British leadership is worse. The leadership in both countries over the past 15 years or so reduced their armed forces to dangerously low levels, and there are not many indications that the course will be reversed, especially in the UK.

A last thought, we stand in danger of becoming fixated on the wrong enemy - climate change or whatever becomes the next fashionable threat of the month - while the real enemy plans to break out of his bridgehead.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris,

I want to thank you for a most interesting read... lot's of food for thought here.  I think that you have done a bang up job in open source analysis of a monsterously complex situation.

I have to agree with Ed here: at what point must Israel act against Iran's nuclear program?  How will they do it?  Will we see some interesting temporary alliances formed the day it happens (ie will the House of Saud just happens to make sure all of the Saudi Air Force is given that day off...)?  Publically, I can see the Arab league members expressing outrage, while privately breathing a huge sigh of relief.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> The Iranian nuclear program is worrisome. Does the Israeli air force have the capability to knock out the major or vital parts of it? Informed opinion is all over the place. In any case, no one else is apt to have a go. It should/must be neutralized. Bribery will not work - as Kipling wrote word to the effect that once you begin to pay Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane - especially with fanatics. Group hugs suck for the same reason.
> ...



*I don't know* ... but these fellows (Raas and Long, both MIT grad students when they worked on this analysis) *think* they know and they *think* it's do_able_ but other analysts think its harder than it looks.

For me, the issue comes down to: can Israel avoid doing it?  If the answer is "No.  Israel cannot have any confidence in its ability to continue to exist in the face of a nuclear armed Iran," then they will have to find ways and means to strike - effectively.


----------



## a_majoor

Two points:

The CoDominium in Jerry Pournell's fiction was a monster forged out of the desire for power and stability forged by the rulers of the US and USSR in order to suppress any and all potential challengers to their hegemony on Earth (and eventually in space as well). To apply that sort of power to suppress Dar-al-Islam wold be barely possible by the West using all our resources (which leaves a free hand to the other regional powers who are disinclined to join that project). The other danger (which ended the fictional CoDominium in nuclear fire) was the CoDominium itself became a brittle and authoritarian regime, and the ultimate enemies that overthrew the rulers of the Unitred States and USSR were not the Brazilians and Chinese but rather nationalists within their home territories.

I sort of agree with Edward that the issue will probably be settled internally by force of arms in a decades long conflict; our main roles will be containment, moderation and direction.

We must contain the chaos of Dar-al-Islam inside its own heartland, and not let it spread into China, India or the Metropolitan West (particularly Europe)

We must moderate the violence, and especially try to prevent the use of WMD in these inter and intra state conflicts. Israel may or may not take action on its own, the possible downsides are very great and they may have to take the "least worst" decision. I personally don't think a crippling strike is possible unless it is in conjunction with a "head shot" aimed at decapitating the organs of power in Iran; a very tall job indeed.

By protecting cantonments (either allied nations or ones we create ourselves) and continuing to support the Purple Finger strategy as our overarching objective, we offer some hope of creating conditions acceptable to both Dar-al-Islam and the West. To allow a war to the knife without intercession will create a powerful, ruthless and dangerous Dar-al-Islam through Darwinian selection, probably requiring total war on our part to contain and defeat in the middle of this century. Once again, our rivals may be disinclined to intercede, knowing the West will be distracted at worst and fatally weakened at best.

We are facing a situation where we will be forced to make a series of "least worst" choices, Realpolitik will no longer be a reliable guide and every step will be fraught with danger. We will live in interesting times


----------



## Flip

Wow!
Here's a dense thread! A good read though!


> I think Col. Balusha is right: when the West, led by Canada, cut off aid in the wake of a Hamas electoral victory we left the door open for Iranian funded Hamas to buy ‘fighters’ willing to gun down eight year old boys.  That being said it would be quite wrong for the West, especially Canada, to turn the financial taps back on so that Fatah can shoot sever year olds.



I have to disagree here. The people who cast the vote that empowered
Hamas were getting their hand slapped.  Hamas would have grown into
a larger menace - aid or no aid.  Hezbollah was in a peaceful and prosperous
environment and look at what happened last summer.



> The US actions served two purposes: they were the trigger that broke the entire mess into the open, rather than seeing an ongoing series of conflicts like the Iran-Iraq war dragging out over decades, and the overarching "Purple Finger" strategy provides a purpose and direction not only for the West, but also for the people of  Dar-al-Islam itself. we know that there are many people in the region fighting against their local tyrants, and the mass turn out of voters in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon provides a glimpse of what might be, so long as we do not turn our backs on the region and offer political, economic and sometimes military help to back the democratic tide. Leaving these internal wars to fester will only create end by creatiing a powerful, embittered and determined winner who will challenge the West and the other regional powers, leading to a greater cycle of war and conflict.



I have to agree here.
US actions can be seen as lancing a boil before to much east/west polarization occurs.
Iraq was in my opinion was the perfect place in spite of the outcome so far.

Irans' hand has been forced - Al Qaeda is starting to piss everyone off and 
the US is no longer the great Satan to potentialy the whole Arab world.

After a generation or two things are bound to cool off  ;D

Making Friends and influencing people the way they are, I suspect sympathy for Irans'  government going to be zero when something finally happens.

Yup, .............progress.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good conversation going here.

Arthur - I read Jerry's books and am a strong believer in Falkenberg's Legion (also published as The Mercenary). I wasn't suggesting creating Pournelle's CoDominium (the US and the USSR jointly running the world between them).  I was more thinking along the lines of co-opting the word alone for exactly the reason that Pournelle did.  It is a feel good, non-threatening name  redolent of the Co-Operative movement and the Dominion of Canada.  

In practice what I was thinking of was kind of joint custody arrangement, or a co-signing arrangement, where countries or parts of countries (with central government's approval) could enter into an agreement with Canada, or other OECD countries or perhaps even the whole of the OECD or NATO to work together with the developed member assisting with the 3Ds and guiding the Central Government towards western standards.  A more formalized version of what is already underway in Afghanistan.  

The benefits to the developed country are manifold:
leaching support from the hotheads
contributing to stability and consequently trade
reducing the impetus that creates refugees and drives them to unfamiliar environments where they have difficulty adjusting
and - frankly - supplying a pool of cheap labour to supply goods 
that also serves the problem of declining birth rates in the north resulting in fewer workers to do the available jobs.

By creating these refuges then it creates an adaptation space (for the science-fiction buffs - an airlock) that ultimately will ease the culture shock between west and east and eventually permit an easier flow of people.  Again,  Hong Kong really is my model here.  100 years of exposure to Victorian Britain and many Chinese Hong Kongers are as British as the British while still being Chinese.

As to the Iranian Nuclear strike - more questions than answers.

How Stealthy are Stealth Bombers?
If unstealthy Israeli bombers are bombing low would stealthy bombers be seen bombing high?
If the Israelis are using American made ordinance would the After Action Report be able to determine if there had been other "truckers" out there?

On the defensive side:
The CIWS/CRAM systems seem to be gaining more credibility against Mortars, Shells and Missiles.  
Israel is a leader in this field but has not yet deployed the capability.
Some work is being done with the CIWS system being melded with a Tactical Laser.
The Israelis are also ahead of the field in this regard but have not yet announced a capability.
Would it be in Israel's interest to keep an operational capability like that quiet or would it be better to announce it?
Announcement  might disincline a rational person from attacking but also give the attacker opportunity to develop counters.
Keeping quiet might be beneficial if the potential attacker only has a few missiles and warheads.  Allow him his best shot and "defang" him.
But you would want to be fairly sure of your ground to rely on that strategy I would think.


----------



## Kirkhill

Current defence options:

Phalanx
- CIWS-CRAM - 4Search-Track Radars/4x20mm guns with 6 barrels each - 4500 rpm
>1.5 km range reported

Rheinmetall solution 
- Skyshield - 1 CP/1Search-Track Radar/4x35mm guns with 1 barrel each - 1000 rpm - 152 x 3.3g tungsten sub-particles/rd = 152,000 subs/min
15-10 km ranges reported

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1547&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1548&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1549&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1550&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1533&lang=3&pdb=1

Lockheed Martin 
- High Energy Laser - 1? Search-Track Radar - 1 target/second - continuous engagement
10 km range reported

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/skyguard-laser.htm
http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=1960&MenuID=603&ThreadID=1014010

Interesting Laser/Mortar video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5T5yEMMiDs&mode=related&search

Phalanx is a point system at 15 MUSD per point
Skyshield and Skyguard are area systems
Skyshield costs 15 MUSD per area (1 CP and 1 Sensor and 4 cannons) - high hit probability - kill probability disputed
Skyguard costs 250-300 MUSD per area (3-4 systems) - high hit? - high kill? - high readiness?


----------



## a_majoor

The difficulty in creating a CoDominium arrangement in the fashion that you suggest is the host nation government might not agree with the stated goals, and either refuse, or publicly agree and spend the time milking the accord for all they can get while sabotaging actions on the ground (even if just by dragging their heels). This would be a very complex agreement and require a great deal of hands on management in order for it to work.

WRT defense, Israel has the potential to establish a layered system, since they have the Arrow tactical ABM, and have also demonstrated a laser system optimised for use against smaller targets like artillery rockets. CIWS and Skyguard/Ahead are options as well. The big problem here is time and resources; if Israel were to expend the resources to create Arrow batteries and cover sensitive installations with laser, cannon and Gatling gun batteries would she have resources to maintain the other parts of her military at the high efficiency needed to make the counterstroke? Also, how much time would be needed to buy/build and install the shield? This is not to say Israel should not do this, just like everything else, we are now making calculations for the "least worst" outcome. 

On a global scale, the United States would need a decade to build a fleet of Aegis cruisers (or follow on designs) to provide the mobile shield needed to protect theater assets and shift coverage to meet the changing global situation. A fleet of airborn lasers would probably require a similar amount of time (and ideally the US should field both options), but with an Aegis costing a billion dollars a pop and a laser armed 747 probably coming in close you can see the choice between sword and shield will be important for the Americans as well.

Of course, we may end up having to try all of these options, and many others. Kinetic actions can only go so far, "Development" and "Diplomacy" presuppose a receptive audience, but the Islamic radicals are too numerous and wide spread to defeat with just kinetic effects, and we only have so much time and resources to apply to the three D's. "Cultural engineering" will also have to be an option (hinted at in other threads); right now we have a very effective if unfocused (and unintentional) program going with access to Western media and marketing. Perhaps the most cost effective means of "disaggregating" the radicals from the masses might be to simply build cellular networks and provide free cell phones to the masses with the web browsers pre programmed by "us".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Phalanx is a point system at 15 MUSD per point
> Skyshield and Skyguard are area systems
> Skyshield costs 15 MUSD per area (1 CP and 1 Sensor and 4 cannons) - high hit probability - kill probability disputed
> Skyguard costs 250-300 MUSD per area (3-4 systems) - high hit? - high kill? - high readiness?



Not be pedantic Chris, but Skyguard is also a point defence system (I have some experience with it). An example of an area air defence system would be Patriot or Standard.

Cheers!


----------



## Edward Campbell

I wonder if the Israelis are thinking of "least worst" scenarios.

A technology based defence might be seen as being problematical because it's unproven - a good, solid air attack, on the other hand, is a well understood, proven, _comfortabler_ tactic.  One knows (I don't but I'm assuming they do) that it can work.

The Israelis still face the old dilemma: they have to win every time, time after time after time.  The Arabs need win only once.

I also don't think the measure of success is to destroy Iran's nuclear programme - setting it back by a few years might be sufficient, for now.  What I cannot see is any way in which Israel can 'live' (in the most basic sense of that word) with a nuclear capable (warheads mated to missiles) Iran.

What happens, one asks, when some 'enemy' eventually gets nukes?  Israel loses - strategically, at least, because its strategic leverage is diminished, maybe even reduced to zero.  Israel might, also, lose in every way because a nuclear armed enemy coalition must, I think, sooner rather than later, win the war and slaughter the Jews.  The question becomes: how many will the Israelis 'take down' with themselves?  Will they give the 'true believers' an _Armageddon_?


----------



## Kirkhill

No worries on the pedanticism SKT - (another ism to add to the list) - that's why I am here.  To be corrected by those that know better than me.

And as you remind me of that I just realized that we have a Javelin/Javelin issue here.

There are two Skyguards just like there are two Javelins.

Lockheed-Martin is calling their High Energy Laser system Skyguard - just to confuse us all with the older Oerlikon system with the GDF-005s and ADATS.  Just like they screwed up by giving their Medium Range Anti-Tank Missile the same name as the older Brit Anti-Aircraft Missile that I believe you are also familiar with.

Having said that - the Oerlikon-Rheinmetall Skyshield system, would YOU classify that as local or tactical area defence?   I am wondering if with one CP and one sensor (or maybe multiple sensors?) and 2-4 distributed launch platforms (gun or missile) per CP then is it possilble to create a large enough bubble to qualify it as an area?

Might interest in these types of systems is, pretty obviously I guess, the thought that if we can use automation to reduce the number of people necessary to maintain a secure bubble, and increase the strength of that security then we can use the saved manpower on more aggressive roles.  Perhaps put that whole defensive system, complete with "gate guards" under the command of a revitalized Garrison Artillery.   In 1914 line was held by riflemen standing shoulder to shoulder.  By 1918 the same amount of line was held by a much smaller number of men with machine guns and field guns.  Now we can hold the line with the same number of guns manned by still fewer gunners operating with remote weapons and sensors from a centralized CP

But digging too deep on the details here perhaps -  is this one worth discussing in a separate thread?  Then we can continue to try and stand back and look at the whole map on this thread.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris,

You are stretching me back to my IG days- 11 years ago, but I'll take a shot at it.  (BTW, I forgot about the whole Skyguard/Skyguard thing- why can't arms manufacturers copyright friggin names like everyone else...).

Point Defence vs Area Defence:  As I dimly recall, the difference is this- An Area Defence System is one that possesses sufficient kinetic energy and lethality to intercept and destroy targets that are not essentially aimed at the launcher itself out to some distance X.  Obviously, closing targets can be engaged and defeated farther out; crossing targets must be engaged closer in. Area Defence systems do not necessarily have to be located near the defended object: the defended object just has to be within the Area Defence system's template. A Point defence system is essentially stationed on the defended object: it sort of becomes part of the target.  It can only (practically speaking) defend against weapons shot directly at it.

In Canadian Service, examples of Point Systems are/have been:

Javelin (The Air Defence Missile)
CIWS
Sea Sparrow

Area Systems are/have been:

Standard SM-2

Interestingly, a bunch of netted and properly sited ADATS could do an Area Defence, even though each system alone is only really a point defence missile.

Clear as mud?

Kincanucks can now come by and correct my errors/misrememberings  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Ta Much SKT  

Edward - Perhaps the Israelis might also be considering a "belts and braces" solution.  They have a strong offense and, supposedly, a strong local MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) capability.  But, unless you are inclined toward expansionist tendencies, a strong offence is of little value unless the threat is convinced that the offence can survive the best they throw at it - otherwise it can be neutralized - and that it is effective enough that retaliation will result in them losing the secondary engagement.  This is particularly true of MAD doctrine.   But both of those pre-suppose a rational opponent.  That is ultimately why the Cold War MADD programme was successful.  While both sides feared a Stalin or a Hitler ending up with the button in their hands both sides were satisfied that the people that actually had the power were not raving loonies.

I don't think the same can necessarily be said for the current crop of wannabes.

To that end perhaps Israel is thinking that, in the event deterrence doesn't work, they need to look at adding a stronger defence to increase survivability - let alone leave enough of a retaliatory force in place (conventional or "Special").

We know that the Israelis are not making friends by resorting to pre-emptive activities - and unfortunately we all need friends.

PS - just in case some are unfamiliar with "belt and braces": braces (or galluses) in my homeland are what you lot call suspenders.  A really cautious man uses both to keep his troosers up. 

And PPS Arthur - granted it would be messy but what isn't?  Have you considered the constant negotiations necessary to raise a kid these days?


----------



## Kirkhill

And still on the subject of Israel and the Left Flank - it seems that some Palestinians launched a few rockets at Israel from Lebanon (causing no casualties) causing Israel to fire five rounds into an uninhabited hillside (likewise no casualties).  Hezbollah denied involvement and that seems likely given what appears to be primitive launch facilities.

What I found interesting is that THIS summer the UN observers and the Lebanese Army are quick off the mark with condemning the act against Israel and not mentioning the Israeli response beyond encouraging moderation by all parties.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/israel-fires-back-on-southern-lebanon.html


----------



## a_majoor

There are a multiplicity of divisions in Dar-al-Islam, which probably make the dream of a unified Caliphate unobtainable, but provide some areas of traction if we are smart enough to take advantage of them.

The example of the Lebanese Army moving against Hezbollah is one example; Hezbollah is a creature of Iran, and Arab people of Dar-al-Islam view Iranians as "Persians", quite separatly from any co-religious affinities. The divide between Sunni and Shiite is also there across Dar-al-Islam, but Islam has almost as many sects and subdivisions as Christianity.

We have lots of room to move, if we are careful and clever


----------



## Kirkhill

a_majoor said:
			
		

> There are a multiplicity of divisions in Dar-al-Islam, which probably make the dream of a unified Caliphate unobtainable, but provide some areas of traction if we are smart enough to take advantage of them.
> 
> The example of the Lebanese Army moving against Hezbollah is one example; Hezbollah is a creature of Iran, and Arab people of Dar-al-Islam view Iranians as "Persians", quite separatly from any co-religious affinities. The divide between Sunni and Shiite is also there across Dar-al-Islam, but Islam has almost as many sects and subdivisions as Christianity.
> 
> We have lots of room to move, if we are careful and clever



Agreed on all points with the exception of the Caliphacy.   As well as many natural divisions that can be exploited there are also many cultural similarities than can likewise be exploited.

You can't impose an autocratic authoritarian solution across Dar-al-Islam any more than you can across Europe or Canada.  On the other hand treating the whole region as a series of autonomous fiefdoms leads to the Holy Roman Empire as perceived by Churchill.  Some sort of union, or confederation or association amongst the states might be both possible and advantageous.


----------



## a_majoor

The "Holy Roman Caliphate" model may be what comes into being after the Thirty years war, but right now, we do see Iran attempting to establish hegemony over Dar-al-Islam through force and the threat of force. Before them was Iraq's Ba'athist's, who were working on a secular and mostly fascist model (Syria's Ba'athists are probably still nursing dreams of absorbing Lebanon). The Wahhabi's (with backing from Saudi Arabia) also inspire armed Jihad against apostate regimes, and are doing so through a "stealth" program of establishhing Wahhabi mosques and schools wherever they can gain entry. 

Many other subdivisions exist in Islam: (partial list)

      [+] Ahmadiyya

      [+] Salafi

      [+] Shi'a Islam
  
      [+] Sufism
  
      [+] Sunni Islam

      [+] Wahhabism

      [+] Zaydi

Much of Dar-al-Islam is built on tribal divisions (as Afghanistan can attest), which cut across religious boundaries as well. There are also many "stranded" groups of Christians, Jews, Zostarians and others and minority peoples like the Assyrians and Kurds, which makes the region look like a glass mossaic that someone dropped. Each micro region needs to be treated differently.


----------



## Kirkhill

How about, rather than a mosaic a kaleidoscope?  

Everytime you tap the region all the parts reset into something else. They never form longlasting patterns.  There is no final stable solution like a Rubik's Cube or a tiled floor. It is never possible to recapture a previous setting.

You point out two interesting alternative strategies to effect change.  The covert, longterm, directed activities of the Saudi and Yemeni Wahhabis that stayed under the radar until 9/11 and what I perceive may be a more impatient scattergun approach by Ahmadinejad.

If I assume that Ahmadinejad wants to create chaos and see the 12th Imam create the Holy Roman Caliphacy in his lifetime (should that be the Holy Tehranic Caliphacy?) then a policy of blatting across the international stage, stirring up trouble, might suit him. 

However shot guns are notorious because the more you scatter the less damage you do.  Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners.  

The tactic is also used in marketing by some companies.  But the result is often a market that is a mile wide and an inch deep and is very difficult for the marketer to sustain.  The marketing equivalent of "he who defends everything defends nothing".  You raise expectations in the market place,  people buy once and you can't deliver the followup to sustain the loyalty.  That makes the market easy pickings for a competitor with better logistics, support and brand loyalty to take your new market, bit by bit, and mop it up.

Of course that assumes that the product you are selling isn't so vile that it turns the market off the concept entirely.  That appears to have happened in Russia with "democracy".  The concept was oversold and poorly executed now a large percentage of the market wants nothing to do with it.  The same prospect face Dar-al-Islam if people like Ahmadinejad and well meaning but unqualified people, as found in other countries, manage to co-opt the "democracy" brand name and besmirch it.

Osama and Zawahiri (Ahmadinejad's Sunni counter parts) seem to be also in the business of sowing dischord.

Can we say that these people are in "spray and pray" school of strategic thought?  Make a mess and then pray that Allah will clean it up?

What I find interesting, now that you bring it up, is why 9/11 happened at all.  The Wahhabi infiltration plan was obviously paying dividends internationally.  Look at the support base they have created.  It was working much the way the old Socialist Internationals and Comintern worked - picking up friends here and there.  But it seems to me that anybody that was spending that much time building up that type of influence intended to do more with it than just bring down a couple of office buildings.  

Likewise, for all the noise out of Iran, they have played a reasonably low key hand internationally.  They haven't picked any open fights that I can think of since the war with Iraq.

Is it likely that in the case of the Wahhabis they lost control of the brand name when Osama went off half-cocked ahead of schedule?
And the fact that Ahmadinejad had his term cut by a year does that indicate that the parents on the Guardian Council discovered too late that this guy was another loose cannon?  They can't pull him back in because he got the blessing of the Grand Ayatollah himself how is guided by the will of Allah.  To admit that they were wrong in accepting/promoting him would suggest that either Allah was wrong, an untenable position, or the Grand Ayatollah doesn't hear so well when he talks to Allah.  That not only affects the credibility of the Ayatollah but of all those divinely guided clerics in the Council of Guardians.

To me that would be in line with a continually fracturing Iran.  Originally it was the conservative clerics vs the reform clerics.  Now it seems like Ahmadinejad, the Republican Guard with their Al Quds force, the Basaji and the Pasdaran might be a third element supported by Twelvers like Ahmadinejad.  And the face of this high level dischord that is leaving room for "activists (a nice word in this situation - I don't like domestic activists for exactly the same reason I like activists in Iran)", "autonomists" and "nationalists" to kick up their heels.

This current situation is extremely messy, like a shot gun blast, but perhaps  it hasn't penetrated deeply - as the number of times that the "Arab Street" has not risen to provocations would seem to suggest.  It took months to organize the "spontaneous" demonstrations over the Danish cartoons that were deemed to be insulting to the prophet.  And even then the cartoons had to be doctored to ensure they were sufficiently offensive.  Beyond that there seems to have been very few days when people all across Dar-al-Islam took to the streets to protest anything - including Abu Ghraib and the hanging of Saddam.

I don't think most Arabs are any different to most Westerners.  They are what most radicals would define as apathetic.  They are too busy surviving to take up a life's mission of revolution.  

The mission remains what it has always been - to separate leaders from followers - to separate the radicals from the "apathetic" and protect the 'apathetic" so that they can carry on with their lives.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> I don't think most Arabs are any different to most Westerners.  They are what most radicals would define as apathetic.  They are too busy surviving to take up a life's mission of revolution.
> 
> The mission remains what it has always been - to separate leaders from followers - to separate the radicals from the "apathetic" and protect the 'apathetic" so that they can carry on with their lives.



Right.  Just ask Abbie Hoffman  and Stokey Charmichael what sort of America they wanted back in the '60s.  (I know they're dead!)

Both mixed social and religious 'ideas' in their _chaotic_ world views.


----------



## kincanucks

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Chris,
> 
> You are stretching me back to my IG days- 11 years ago, but I'll take a shot at it.  (BTW, I forgot about the whole Skyguard/Skyguard thing- why can't arms manufacturers copyright friggin names like everyone else...).
> 
> Point Defence vs Area Defence:  As I dimly recall, the difference is this- An Area Defence System is one that possesses sufficient kinetic energy and lethality to intercept and destroy targets that are not essentially aimed at the launcher itself out to some distance X.  Obviously, closing targets can be engaged and defeated farther out; crossing targets must be engaged closer in. Area Defence systems do not necessarily have to be located near the defended object: the defended object just has to be within the Area Defence system's template. A Point defence system is essentially stationed on the defended object: it sort of becomes part of the target.  It can only (practically speaking) defend against weapons shot directly at it.
> 
> In Canadian Service, examples of Point Systems are/have been:
> 
> Javelin (The Air Defence Missile)
> CIWS
> Sea Sparrow
> 
> Area Systems are/have been:
> 
> Standard SM-2
> 
> Interestingly, a bunch of netted and properly sited ADATS could do an Area Defence, even though each system alone is only really a point defence missile.
> 
> Clear as mud?
> 
> Kincanucks can now come by and correct my errors/misrememberings  ;D



As good as a recent IG grad could give.  Just one addition.  ADATS was always an area defence system hence its being a Div resource.  Now we consider employing them in a point defence role whenever required but for a system that has never been deployed in a real scenario (G8 conferences don't count) who the hell knows what it can really do.  Skyshield, Skyguard, C-RAM, Skymuffin, whatever are designed for point defence (FOBs, etc).  Even SLAMRAAM when it comes on line is limited in range and is designed to replace Avenger.  There is another version of it that will be used for missile defence and that will have have a greater range.  Vital point defence is the flavour of the month for AD and AD system design given the COE we and others find ourselves in. With the Air Force required to provide the area defence with CAP.  This may bite us in the ass in the future when the COE is not the dominant factor and traditional combat returns with the invasion of the world by the Chinese.  Just my .02.  Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the round up kincanucks.

Back to the original thesis.  This from Iraq The Model today:



> Mr. *Ahmadinejad told the foreign minister of France * a year or so ago *something like "The path to God has to go through chaos" * and I'm positive that Mr. Ahmadinejad wasn't speaking of the "creative chaos" that some western leaders talk about. I believe he was speaking of the kind of chaos based on the religious myth which says the rise of the savior Imam could be accelerated by wars and destruction that engulf the region.



http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/


----------



## Kirkhill

I think this comes under the heading of  "Signs of Success".

From Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail "The Battle of Baqubah II"  http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/the_battle_of_baquba.php



> The Battle of Baqubah II
> 
> The Baqubah region. Click map to view.
> 
> Major offensive in al Qaeda's so-called capital of the Islamic State of Iraq
> 
> The Diyala Campaign is underway. As part of major offensive operations throughout the belts regions of Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched a large scale operation in the city of Baqubah, the provincial capital of Diyala. Dubbed Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the offensive is massive. This is a division sized operation of "approximately 10,000 Soldiers, with a full complement of attack helicopters, close air support, Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles." Over 30 al Qaeda operatives have been killed since the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division kicked off the operation with a "quick-strike nighttime air assault." .....



Much more on the link and some of the comments include interesting sitreps for other provinces.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/06/petrol-crisis.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243644.stm

Rioting in Tehran as a result of gas rationing being imposed by surprise. Apparently the police are refusing to intervene.  Gas stations and cars being torched.

Also there is this:  An Arab mullah shot in Qom - Rafsanjani is pointing the finger at Arab separatists and Bin Laden.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/iranian_regimes_heavyweight_gu.php  (apparently translated from the Iranian RASA news agency).


----------



## a_majoor

Of course our everlasting hope is that the people can make liberation a "self help" project, but history really isn't on our side with that one. The people of Zimbabwe are under a vast amount of provocation by their own government, but haven't brought down the house yet. Venezuela may yet evolve into a Cuba, with a vast repressive secret police apparatus (and how come the Cubans haven't overthrown Fidel yet?).

The really successful revolutions are the ones where the leading role was taken by the middle class, who have the most to gain by changing the established order, and the most to loose under the current regime. (Poor people really have nothing left to loose, hence a peasant's revolt usually only leads to burning the manor house and chaos, while the rich have nothing to gain by changes, hence their resistance to reforms and change and support of repression).

Since the various societies in Dar-al-Islam (including Iran) haven't produced a large and prosperous middle class, I suspect we are going to watch a series of revolts and government crackdowns with the most ruthless side taking the prize rather than a real revolution.

A really speculative idea might be to harness the Arab diaspora, since they have been exposed to a working secular society and some of them have assimilated "our" values. The first order of business would be to ensure that the vast majority of people coming to the West are assimilated; their strength is added to our own and they can become our voice and example abroad.


----------



## tomahawk6

Gas rationing has begun in Iran sparking attacks on gas stations.Perhaps this may tip the people towards revolution ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/27/wiran127.xml


----------



## Edward Campbell

I apologize for a long, poorly edited ramble but I’m _waaaay_ too lazy (and a bit too busy) to do a better job and bring this down to 10,000 words.

*Part 1 of 2*

I’m going to beat, yet again, upon an old familiar drum: Culture Matters!*

Caution: I’m going to make some ‘value’ laden statements.  I’m afraid that a few people may be offended and a few more will say my words are unnecessarily are _provocative._  *Apologies* in advance: I’m certainly not trying to offend anyone and while I don’t mind being provocative my goal is only to inform.

What is culture?

The more or less standard definition is that culture is that mix of _learned_ behaviours, values, attitudes and ‘tastes’ which condition our response to a wide variety of social, political and economic stimuli.

We each have a culture of our own.  I (and many others) would argue that each of us has one unique culture and while we can, and constantly do, _modify_ it we cannot change it into another nor can we acquire another.  Thus, I was born with one of the subsets of the *English-liberal* culture; try as I might I cannot change myself into a person with a *Mandarin Chinese-Confucian* culture.

It is important to point out that culture ≠ race.

Race is the result of some very minor genetic variants amongst members of the human family – eye shape, hair colour, skin tone, etc.  In my experience†  people of all races are come in exactly the same proportions of smart to stupid, industrious to lazy and brave to craven.  There are honest, intelligent hard working people, in equal proportion, in *A*ccra, Ghana, *B*eijing, China and *C*ambridge, Ontario.  The difference is that the honest, hardworking, intelligent person in *D*enmark is going to have a much better chance to exploit her attributes than is her counterpart in *E*gypt.  The difference, despite Jared Diamond, is not defined by geography or genetics.  If geography dictated outcome then Russia would rule the world and England would never have amounted to much; if genetics was the prime determinant then Africans would be ‘top of the heap.’  The *determining*difference is how our society supports or inhibits the ways we can and may exploit our own attributes – that’s *culture*.

While each culture is the result of an almost infinite variety of ‘drivers’ the three main ones, those which account for most of our cultural values are:

1.	Language; 

2.	Religion; and

3.	History.

The key linguistic issue is what is some call the ‘milk tongue’ – that is the language each of us learned at his mother’s breast.  Our ‘milk tongue’ can inculcate us some key cultural values.  Consider Mandarin Chinese.  As his mother’s breast a Chinese baby learns that he is ‘different’ from his sister; he learns that his dad’s mother has a different, slightly superior, designation than his mom’s mother and that his auntie on his mom’s side of the family is not quite the same, in ‘status,’ as his auntie on his dad’s side.  The ‘milk tongue’ *teaches* that even within the tightly knit family there is a well defined hierarchy; not surprisingly Chinese culture has a _learned_ value of respecting hierarchies.  This  learned behaviour also exists, to a far lesser degree, in those born into the French or Spanish cultures which also have hierarchical languages.  It barely exists in the Dutch or English cultures – their languages did away with their hierarchical elements 300± years ago.  When did you last say ‘thee’ or ‘thou’ – other than in church?‡

Which brings us to religion.

Religion can be an immensely powerful cultural *force*.

Not all societies are especially religious and I think that societies which have failed to develop sophisticated religions might be those which have also failed to develop other important cultural institutions.  Monotheism, à la Christianity or Islam are not, necessarily, the most sophisticated or _advanced_ religions.  I think early man developed religions to answer a small handful of specific questions: the big one being, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or, put another way, “Why, despite all my hard work did the flood come and wash away my crop?”  I think most _primitive_ animist religions were invented to address this question.  (The answer, by the way, is: “Because we failed to propitiate the river god.”

As societies grew more complex it became necessary to address more complex social, political and, indeed, economic questions and societies developed more complex gods, and pantheons of gods, to set and _standards_ of behaviours.  Some polytheistic systems were, indeed still are quite successful at providing specific gods to whom one can turn for guidance on specific issues.

Despite the beliefs of a small band of European Protestants, religion is, generally, a highly _collective_ affair.  It tries to teach society – everyone – what to think (believe) and how to behave.  Insofar as it is a _collective_ institution religion is also a very, very *conservative* force.  When, as is the case in some religions, it is taught that the religion also provides *political* (and even economic) rules which are, in and of themselves, sufficient for the whole people then the result is extreme _conservatism_.  But, in the case of those North European Protestants, and essentially conservative religion can be reshaped into a force for _liberal_ social, political and economic development. 

Which brings us to Max Weber.
  


> The religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means of asceticism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of . . . the spirit of capitalism.
> 
> Max Weber
> (Weber, Max, _From Max Weber_.  Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills.  New York, 1946).



Weber theorized that the _Calvinists_ spawned a wholly unintended ‘revolution.’  They intended, he tells us, that, for the Calvinist, _” The world exists to serve the glorification of God and for that purpose alone. The elected Christian is in the world only to increase this glory of god by fulfilling His commandments to the best of his ability.  But God requires social achievement of the Christian because He will that social life shall be organized according to His commandments, in accordance with that purpose"_  Thus, God *required* the strict Protestants of Northern Europe, including John Knox’s Presbyterians  to be more and more productive.  Now neither the Protestants nor the Scots and not even the Scots Protestants invented capitalism but their _learned_ religious beliefs led them to redevelop capitalism into its modern form.

The obvious corollary to Weber’s _Protestant work ethic_ is that other religious traditions or systems can inhibit economic development and the socio-political development which tends to accompany it.  Given the history of the 20th century it is not surprising that Weber’s theories remain popular.

Weber was concerned with societal organization (his is the father of modern sociology, after all) and he was fascinated by the contrast between *rational* and *dysfunctional* societies.  He noted that the most rational societies were also the most successful by 19th/20th century standards and that they were also, overwhelmingly, Protestant.  It’s a good think for Weber’s reputation that everyone understands that he couldn’t, in his time, study Asian societies in the same way he was able to study Europe.

Weber didn’t look deeply enough.  Religion, in and of itself, is insufficient to make the sorts of changes Weber observed.  It could only happen when the ‘new’ religious beliefs were firmly rooted in a historically *liberal* society.


Edit: sundry typos, throughout.


----------



## Edward Campbell

*Part 2 of 2*

Although not exact fits, the well documented histories of 11th century England and 11th century Normandy tend to mirror the histories of Britain and Scandinavia, on the one hand, and _Romano-Europe_ (France, the Rhineland, Spain and Italy) on the other.  The two societal groups had very different social orders.

The Anglo-Saxon (and related) people were, in the main, of four classes: slaves, cottagers, _villeins_ (vile or _ordinary_ people) and _thegns_ (thanes – but NOT the way Shakespeare used that word in Macbeth).  Of these the thanes were fewest, next were slaves while the overwhelming majority were cottagers and villeins.  The ratios were something like 1:2:5:20+ (thanes:slaves:cottagers:villeins).  It *appears* that, in Anglo-Saxon England, _villeins_ were freemen; cottagers, on the other hand, were tied to the _thane_ by stronger feudal duties.  Most of the obligatory military service in 11th century England was undertaken by the few thousand _thegns_ who were (partially) trained and equipped fighting men and made up the _fyrd_.  It was rare (very rare?) for _villains_ to be called up –armed, as they would be, with a few axes and rakes.  (It might have happened at Stamford Bridge when Harold (Godwinson) (England) defeated Harald (Hardrada) (Norway) who, like William of Normandy also made a claim to Harold’s throne.)   

In Normandy and France things were different.  Slaves, cottagers and _villains_ existed but, while slaves were slaves – a pretty low condition anywhere – cottagers and _villains_ were, quite clearly, serfs – some might have been called ‘free’ but their feudal ties were so strong as to make that terms senseless.  The French and Normans also had chivalry (_chevalier_ – knight or mounted warrior) which added another layer to the nobility.  There was still a local ‘lord’ of the manor (_manoir_) (a proto _seigneur_), very much like the English _thegn_ but above him was the mounted (expensive) knight – who had to be maintained by the serfs.

Normandy was ‘better’ organized (for war) and _managed_ than England – because William was, essentially, an absolute monarch, unconstrained by anything like a Constitution.  He was very good at what he did: decisive, visionary, disciplined, ruthless, etc.  Harold Godwinson, on the other hand, had to answer to the _witan_ a proto-council, for sure, maybe even a proto-parliament (one already existed in Iceland – the _Althingi_ (established in 930 – it is inconceivable that England did not know of their Icelandic cousins political system.)  The _witan_ *elected* Harold king – as was its *right* and *duty* to do.  English kings did not, unlike their Romano-European counterparts (including the French and Normans) inherit a _*divine right*_ to rule – each king was elected by the _witan_, as they had been since the 7th century.

The point of this long history, overfilled with _ Englisc_ words, is to point out that England was a becoming an inherently *liberal* society as Normandy, like most of Romano-Europe, was becoming more and more *illiberal*.  It is interesting to note that this _liberalism_ existed prior to the 7th century, in e.g. the Celtic Church, and it survived the Norman conquest.  Henry II (100 years after William the Conqueror), whose English _kingdom_ was far less rich and ‘important’ than his various French duchies (Anjou, Aquitaine, Gascony,  Nantes and Normandy), was able to introduces his system of standardized ‘courts’ in England – as he had to in order to pacify his English barons who wanted a *return* to trial by jury, but it came much slower and harder in his French (Angevin) ‘emprire.’  It was not the ‘jury’ which was novel – the French had that, it was the composition of the jury and the application of the King’s law in a standardized manner which mattered.  The French jury consisted of 12 *knights* – men who owed loyalty to the king.  The English _assizes_ had a jury of 24 free men – a huge difference. 

Thus, 1,000 years before Max Weber, and, in Iceland, before the arrival of Christianity, English, Icelandic and other North European peoples were developing the *liberal* base onto which the Calvinists and Presbyterians would graft their doctrine of productivity.  The result would be an increasing (still present, I think) gulf between Northern European liberal _rationalism_ and Romano-European dysfunctional, illiberal _statism_.

What about China?

China’s political and social histories are at least as long and complex (arguably longer and more complex) than Europe’s.

The society is socially and politically *conservative*.

(Conservatism is at the opposite end of a political spectrum from *liberalism*.  Illiberal cultures do *not* appear in that spectrum.  Illiberal systems are just as foreign to conservative systems as they are to liberals ones.  We use _illiberal_ because, thankfully, American political scientists Fareed Zakaria decided not to try to invent a word to describe authoritarian systems which poorly mirrored some of the aspects of conservative democracies.)
  
The society is also economically _liberal_.

The recent rise of the *Red Dynasty* has not interfered with innate _conservatism_ in China.  In fact communism (like socialism) is a highly conservative political philosophy – placing, as it does, the w3elfare of the collective over the rights of the individual.  The problem, for the Chinese Communist Party, is that while the Chinese don’t mind a highly conservative, far less than democratic central government, they object – sometimes quite strenuously - to any government, central or local, which intrudes too much into the _family_’s affairs.

Chinese economic liberalism does not focus on the individual – it is tied to the family.  Individuals are expected to sacrifice for the sake of the family.  Sometimes even second cousins can make a powerful claim on family support.   This is in sharp contrast to our, European, view of _liberalism_.

So we have this potent mix: socio-political conservatism and economic liberalism, of a sort.  The outcome, for the Chinese, for 2,500 years, has been a relatively stable system in which a central government _acquires_ a mandate – which is, _de facto_, *not objected to by the people*.  When, eventually, the government’s mandate is withdrawn there may be a brief interregnum but, as often as not a new mandate is acquired by a new dynasty – sometimes the new dynasty doesn’t last very long but it is replaced by a long-lived, stable dynasty.  China’s long history has made the people comfortable with this system – just as North Europeans were accustomed to liberalism before the Protestant Reformation and the rise of modern capitalism and just as Roman-Europeans were accustomed to *illiberal* governments long before e.g. the rise of the modern papacy.

It is economics more than socio-political issues which threaten the Chinese current _*Red* Dynasty_.  The people will accept strong, remote central governments so long as more local governments have more local, direct, popular (democratic) input and, more important, so long as all governments leave most people ‘free’ to pursue economic _rationalism_.  Socialism is not ‘natural’ for the Chinese – not above the family level, anyway.


Culture Matters!

I see the cultural ‘universe’ as being something akin to a rugby ball.  At the two ends we have to ‘ superior’ systems: English liberalism and Chinese Confucianism.  Moving towards the middle – but staying on the centre line – we find a range of progressively less liberal and less conservative systems.  When we get off the centre line, near the middle and out towards the ‘skin’ of the ball we find the vast array of illiberal socio-political and economic systems: the preferred systems of about 175+ of the UN’s 200± members.

Amongst the most illiberal regimes are those in which very conservative Islam religious values, equally conservative Arab/Persian social and linguistic values and valueless oligarchy based economic practices (governments practicing this are often referred to as _kleptocracies_).  Most North African, Middle Eastern and West and Central Asian governments fall into this category.  We cannot expect to impose anything like democracy, in any form, on them or even ‘lead’ them to experiment with democracy unless and until they *all* undergo a huge (probably long and bloody) religious _reformation_ followed by a social-economic _enlightenment_.  Only then – maybe in 2050 – will some people in some of those countries begin to talk about democracy.  Right now they cannot because their culture does not permit it.

Africa is worse off.

Latin America is, relatively, well off.  It is more illiberal than Romano-Europe – maybe they are culturally close to the *level* of the Balkans and Russia, which is to say not quite hopeless.

Asia, broadly, is _enlightened_ – and has been for 1,000 years.  Asia is also *irreligious*.  It is not that they lack religious values – far from it.  Being irreligious means that they are not slaves to imposed values – they are, essentially religious and economic liberals even as they are, otherwise, socially conservative.  I think this applies to India as well as to China.  Malaysia and Indonesia, being Muslim and The Philippines, being Christian, are less irreligious and, therefore, will have a harder time in adapting to 21st century globalization.

The biggest and most immediate cultural problem for us, the American led, democratic West, is unreformed Islam – which sees itself as both/simultaneously a religion and a system of government.  There are other problems on the horizon.  Africa cannot be sustained in it current social, cultural, political or economic forms.  I have no idea how to solve Africa’s many, HUGE problems but some smart people need to bring some ideas forward or unreformed Islam will take over, magnifying our existing problem.

Latin America and Asia can, in the case of Asia, must be left to their own devices without too much danger to us.

The bottom line.

Culture matters.  Military solutions to cultural problems are possible – but only if we understand that *culture* drives people’s social, political and economic values.  If we ignore cultural we will fail.  If we misunderstand culture we will fail.  If we try to impose our cultural values on another we will fail.

To win we must understand other cultures.  That does *not* mean we need to support or even condone some cultural values.  We should not tolerate slavery or female genital mutilation or women being treated as property.  But we must understand why it happens and we must understand that only ‘they’ – the people who hold such values – can change those values.

Most Western politicians and the leaders of most NGOs are on a course headed towards failure in Africa and Asia.  Soldiers will end up paying the price.

  

----------
* And see the book of the same name (New York, 2000) edited by Lawrence E Harrison and Samuel P Huntington.  It ought to be required reading at our Staff College and for all senior officials in DFAIT.

† Comprising 65+ years, a goodly proportion spent living and working in a large handful of countries on several continents and archipelagos – working with people from different races and cultures. 

‡ Maybe, it’s not one of the languages I can speak much beyond ordering beer, one would use the formal *‘u’* rather than the less formal but far more common *’ji’*to address a superior in the army.


----------



## Kirkhill

Somethings just can't be said in less than 10,000 words Edward.  Great piece.

I have a minor quibble on the Normans and their cultural affinities.  Rollo, their founder, who secured Normandy from Charles the Simple of Paris on the same terms as the Danelaw was secured in England, was a Viking.  Harold, Harald and William were all members of the same ruling clan. As for that matter so was Henry II and the Angevins who were related to Hugh Capet - sire of the Bourbon line.

Just to expand on your thoughts a little to see if I am tracking you here.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Reformation, and the Wars of Religion, was the way in which the Huguenots, the French Protestants, were most strongly represented in two separate cultures: the coastal culture and the "Burgundian" culture.

The coastal culture - based between La Rochelle and St-Malo - incorporating Normandy, Brittany, Perche and Poitou - was dominated by a merchant class.  Curiously this class was the driving force behind the Canadian colonies.  Their success and wealth were what both attracted and threatened Cardinal Richelieu and the Florence-Paris axis, leading to the imposition on strict controls on belief.

The other culture - the "Burgundian" culture, also defined as the Visigothic culture of Iberia and Aquitaine, and still having resonance in the Provencale and Occitane cultures - was typified by a loose, confederational style of governance, typical of the Holy Roman Empire.  

These two cultures also contributed to the Grand Alliance that opposed the Divinely apppointed Capetians of Paris and Stewarts of Edinburgh.  Many of the foreign regiments that Britain raised were formed from Huguenots and from the Palatines of the Rhine, the Savoyards of the Piedmont and also from Portugal.  Areas that were harried by the centralists.  They fought in British colours for two to three centuries. They also shaped the British economy and American society - Faneuil Hall in Boston and New Rochelle in New York are two of their more well known legacies.

Interestingly the Visigoths and Burgundians both had their roots in the Baltic sea area.

By contrast the Franks, which also came from the same area as the Frisians, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Lombards - essentially Hamburg and Denmark - and generated Clovis, Charlemagne, Hugh Capet and the Bourbons, seem to have succumbed to the centralizing tendency.  Perhaps it had to do with their strong association with the horse cultures (the ruling class claimed to be descended from the Scythians and so did that of the Scots and Irish).  Perhaps it is because they found themselves trying to dominate a land-based, neolithic, agricultural community that could trace its roots back to Anatolia and Sumer.   

In Britain no place is more than 40 miles from salt water.  It is entirely coastal.  Although it adopted neolithic ways it could never be anything but a coastal, maritime culture looking to the constantly changing sea rather than the permanence of land. 

As you said - cultures are varied, and highly individualized.  But you can't devise a culture without input.

In William Johnson's translation of the Nemni's "Young Trudeau" ".....almost all the students (at Trudeau's alma mater St-Jean de Brebeuf), including Trudeau, ended up with identical values with respect to Catholicism and French-Canadian nationalism.  And they were convinced that they reached these values of their own free will.  How did the Jesuits of Brebeuf succeed in putting their distinctive imprint on students like Pierre Trudeau?.......The school libraries were notable above all for the important works of literature that, censored by the Church, were missing from the shelves.  To bring any book into the college premises required written approval by the college authority, unless the book was on the program.  Any book without that approval was confiscated.  "The bad book: that was enemy number one," recalled Georges-Emile Lapalme, who in 1961 would become Quebec's first minister of culture."  pp 48-49.

I particularly like this book for the insight that it gives into the culture of Quebec as much as what it says about Trudeau.  It defines "the other side of the hill" for someone that was brought up in a Scots Protestant household.  It gives me insight into the culture of Quebec, and by extension the later stages of the Reformation wars which concluded, in my view with Pope John 23, the 2nd Vatican Council and the election of President Kennedy.  Wars which continued to play out as sub-text in World Wars 1 and 2.

We use books to transmit culture and to learn about other cultures.  The knowledge that we acquire, from books, lecture or experience, drives our own individual culture.  That we pass on.  

Trudeau and Quebecois generally, had fewer cultural inputs in order to influence their own individual cultures.  Hence their identities hewed closer together and were more in line with the culture of their parents. 

Adam Smith was one of the authors denied to Trudeau.  His teacher quoted the "necessary" paragraphs.  Trudeau ultimately had to request permission of his priest and even the Pope to read authors like Smith.  He was only authorised if it was deemed that he was a sufficiently trustworthy individual who wouldn't promulgate the wrong message.

The fewer inputs we have the more likely it is that our culture will remain unchanged.  Central authorities do their best to control both the environment of their subjects  - limiting their exposure to "challenges" that would require an adaptational change - and the information that their subjects receive - limiting their exposure to other ideas would might encourage their subjects to want to change just because it looked like a good idea.  The conservative wishes to conserve the status quo at all costs.  This drives them to look for order, impose one if they can't find it, and then seek to maintain it at all costs.   This imposed order is characteristic of all the agricultural based city states that dot the foothills of the mountain ridge that extends from Lisbon to Seoul.

These city-states are dominated by the notion of permanence and securiy and Hammorabi's Code carved into rock (or Moses 10 commandments).

They have had trouble learning to live with people on the fringes of their society - hill people, sailors and the horsemen of the plains.  These peoples are more likely to eschew order and security, accept things as they come.  

Because their "rulers" can't impose order in the same way - the subjects are not tied to the community for survival, they can always walk to the next valley, or head off by sea or on horseback - then there is both a greater sense of individualism and self-reliance and a greater need for consensus and confederation.  This, in my opinion, results in a more liberal, not to mention freebooting, culture.

My sense is that the conservative Sumerian view of Paris and Beijing, founded on permanence and order, and a view held by the Constitutionally inclined US and the EU, is struggling with a chaotic and disordered world.  They are having more trouble dealing with accepting that the liberal views of the Anglo-Saxons might be the only solution to disorder because, from their point of view, liberal order is no order at all.

Our Conservatives wish to conserve the liberal order of accomodation and trade.  Our Liberals and socialists wish to conserve the conservative order of order.  Their version of progress is the progressive imposition of order.

To take this back to Dar-al-Islam.  Sumer is dead.  Catastrophes, wars and global warming killed it.  Although some people fled the area (to places like France and possibly China, definitely India) many more stayed and had to adapt to the changes.  I am inclined to believe that after many cycles of changes, and many attempts by many wise people over the millenia to protect society and order from all of the above their is a tendency towards acceptance of the inevitable - fatalism - and a determination that the only thing you can rely on is yourself and the only duty you have is towards your family.  China, with its long memory of disasters probably sees the world in the same terms - giving rise to the off quoted mid-east expression "my tribe against the world, my family against my tribe, me and my brother against my family, me against my brother."

I believe it will be very difficult to get Dar-al-Islam to accept the imposition of a Franco-Sumerian order.  They might be more willing to accept the more liberal order of the Anglo-Saxons in the same way that the Indians have.

Dar-al-Islam is a land of many tribes and few cities.


----------



## a_majoor

In regards to Western culture, I will stand with Victor Davis Hansen and say the roots go all the way back to classical Greece, with the combination of property rights, Individual rights and the Rule of Law being the foundation of everything we believe about Western culture.

The argument is fairly straightforward; small landholders in Greece had farms of about the same size (since a family could only muster up enough labour to cultivate a certain amount of land. These equal landholders learned to band together in mass formations to defeat the predatory aristocrats (who were rich pastoralists and fought mounted with javelins and other missile weapons) and the poor (who could not close with armed and armoured farmers) who tried to take their land. As equals in war and peace, they also acted as equals when it came to administering their society, hence the growth of assemblies and jury trials.

The grave danger to us is not so much external forces (even in the Middle Ages, it was the Saracens who had to worry about Normans, Franks and Englishmen invading, not the other way around) as our own abandonment of the fundamental factors of Western culture. The displacement of individual rights by the concept of "group rights", the predatory powers of the State used to take property from owners and the arbitrary use of the law to selectively aid or punish various groups are attacks on the very concepts that make the West a strong cultural unit. We had best work to mend the foundations of our own house, before it comes crashing down upon us.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don't think you can use *conservative* to describe Québec – not 20th century Québec, anyway.

It is, to me, the classic *illiberal* society: backward, stunted, slow and unimaginative.  The normal end result of illiberal values is some sort of oligarchy, or worse; Duplessis fits the bill.

The Chinese are conservative, ditto the Japanese and Malaysians – that’s why Malaysia can have a functioning democracy in an Islamic state: its *conservative cultural* values are stronger than the sort of illiberalism which any and all (I think) religion based governments must engender.

I have a simpler theory of why England worked: rich people and poor kings.  We can thank that idiot Richard for that – he frittered away his empire and left good old John in charge.  John was so inept that he freed the English from French influence by the simple expedient of losing the bits Richard left to him.  Thanks the gods for John Lackland!

English kings were forced back to the country’s *liberal* traditions – traditions which never existed on most of the continent South of Schleswig Holstein.

By the time of the War of the Roses it was pretty much established that princes were contesting for a ‘managed’ throne – Elizabeth understood, clearly I think, that she ‘ruled’ as part of a _compact_ with her people, an idea beyond the ken of any French or Spanish  king, ever.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am afraid that I am still having trouble with illiberal concept.  I can conceive of a spectrum with liberal at one end and illiberal at the other.  I can even conceive of conservatives as being a species of illiberals.  I am having difficulty putting the three together.  

To my mind a conservative society is one that is easy prey to the autocrat and the oligarchs because they want somebody to tell them there is a solution to all their ills (liberal or otherwise).  Any instability is a cause of fear and trepidation.  Anyone that promises stability is likely to be seen as a saviour. I see Quebec and the rest of Piux XII's favourite societies as conservative cultures ruled by an oligarchy or oligarchies that certainly could be described, I think, as illiberal, if not anti-liberal.

I'll come back to this later - but in the mean time I ran across this from Arthur's buddy Victor Davis Hanson.  It seems appropriate to the "success amidst chaos" meme.  

Hmm maybe that is our cultural advantage.  Do liberals handle chaos better than conservatives (classic definitions - not Canadian party designations).



> Our Enemy’s Attrition
> Reasons to reexamine the Middle East’s negative prognosis.
> 
> By Victor Davis Hanson
> 
> The majority opinion is that the occupation in Iraq has been so bungled that the blowback has ruined American efforts at promoting positive change throughout the Middle East.
> 
> Perhaps. But for all the justifiable criticism of the Iraqi reconstruction, two truths still remain — the United States is taking an enormous toll on jihadists, and despite the terrible cost in blood and treasure, has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq.
> 
> The Sunni front-line states, who subsidized jihadists and still enjoy our misery in Iraq , , but they are now terrified that these killers, in league with the Iranians, will turn on them. The net result is not just that some Sunnis are helping us in Iraq, but that they are being urged to for the first time by those in the Arab world, who would prefer to see the Iraqi government, rather than the terrorists, succeed. And if Iraq is still a terrible disappointment, Kurdistan is emerging as a success few envisioned, refuting some conventional wisdom about the incompatibility of capitalism and constitutional government with Middle Eastern Islam.
> ... more on link


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNhNGQ4MzBlMzk3ZWMzNzRkZDY2ZjkxNGE3NzI0NGM=

Other NRO articles on the same theme - 
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEwYzEyMmE4YjFjNDM5YjQ4NGNjODRjZWUwZWZjOTA=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGE5YmU4OTkxYzBlZDczMDk0ODAyNDQ3MDhmMGJlYjI=

And one from the Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/769bdqeo.asp

All links courtesy of Iraq the Model comments and The Tank.


----------



## a_majoor

I think what Edward is talking about resembles an inverted Bell Curve, with the "Liberal" and "Conservative" positions being the far left and right of the graph. This is a good analogy since it takes effort to maintain positions on the high ends of this curve, while the "minimum effort" position is down in the weeds with Thomas Hobbes ("Nasty, Brutish and Short"). If you want to add more shades, look at this like one of those 3D diagrams of a gravity well. Well organized societies can exist higher up the gravity well (with various degrees of Liberality or Conservatism), but once the organizing prnciples become corrupted the society can get sucked deeper into the gravity well (Failed States and anarchy represent the singularity at the centre of a political Black Hole).

Liberal equates to "Classical Liberal" with the emphasis on individual human rights, property rights and rule of law, while the Conservative position is based on a broad based and formalized hierarchical society with well understood rules (unlike a Kleptocracy where the hierarchy can be upset by movements of various strongmen).


----------



## Edward Campbell

The inverted curve, maybe a hyperbolic curve as in a gravity well, is a better analog than my rugby ball (see: Culture does Matter!   ) but let's put a hole in the bottom.

Next: Let's put 'English liberalism' and Chinese Confucianism' (neither of which exist in anything like a pure form, of course) very near the top of the 'well' but at opposite ends - maybe we can use Norway, Iceland or Australia as (Nos 1, 2 and 3 on the 2006 UN Human Development Index and, surprise, surprise countries with deeply rooted *liberal* democratic traditions) as examples of 'English liberalism.'  We might use and Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore (all well above 0.9 in the Index) as our 'Chinese Confucian' examples.

Then: Let's, just for the sake of argument, put Niger at the bottom.  It is at the bottom of the 2006 UN index.  Niger _*'developed'*_ (if we can call it that) under the tutelage of the French.  It is a classic example of what Zakariah was talking about in the oft cited (by me) November/December 1997 _Foreign Affairs_ article: _The Rise of Illiberal Democracy_.  (His 2003 book, _The Future of Freedom_ was an expansion of the article - much as Samuel Huntington expanded his _Clash of Civilizations_ article (also in _Foreign Affairs_) into a book.)

Niger is, I think, in danger of collapsing.  I don't know what happens when a country 'collapses' and drops through the hole in the bottom of the curve.  Will the UN revive some sort of 'trusteeship' system? - hardly likely, in my view.  Will (a) neighbour(s) take over and form a new, larger, failing state?  Will China step in and offer massive aid programmes and projects including 'help' with government and administration?


----------



## a_majoor

I think we have seen the singularity ourselves; Somalia, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe in Africa, Afghanistan and "Palestine" in SW Asia, and the disintegrating remains of Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

Farther in the past was the immolation of Lebanon in the 1970's,  "Killing Fields" period of Cambodia, and the spasms of the "Red Guards" in the PRC; China during the "warlords" period in the 1920's and 30's, the Russian Civil War in the 'teens and 1920's and the end period of Weirmar Germany.....

Based on just recent history, the "gravitational attraction" at the bottom of the political gravity well is very powerful indeed.


----------



## Kirkhill

And coming soon to a television near you...... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Current activity - giving away tractors to non-farmers, slapping on price controls, nationalizing the mines (I wonder how that will go down with the Chinese.  Don't they already own the mines?)


----------



## Trinity

Just watching CNN.  Apparently Iran is having their own fair share of gas problems.
CNN quoted it being approximately .38 cents a gallon and people are very upset about that.

This makes Iran either that much more vulnerable and/or that much more dangerous!?!?!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



> TEHRAN, June 27 *— Angry drivers set fire to at least two gas stations overnight* in Tehran after the government announced that gasoline rationing would begin Wednesday just after midnight.
> 
> The state television news said Wednesday that “several gas stations and public places had been attacked by vandals.” While there were some reports that a large number of gas stations had been set on fire, only two fires were confirmed.
> 
> The government had been planning for a year to put rationing into effect but held off because of concerns that it could cause unrest. Some officials indicated it might have been started now because of the threat of stronger economic sanctions by the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear program.
> 
> Iran contends that its nuclear enrichment program is for civilian energy purposes, while the United States and some other Western nations contend that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> Under the new regulations announced by the Oil Ministry on Tuesday evening, private cars will be able to buy a maximum of 26 gallons of gasoline a month at the subsidized price of 34 cents per gallon. Taxis will be allowed 211 gallons a month. Parliament would have to determine whether individuals would be allowed to buy more at market rates.
> 
> There were long lines at gas stations in Tehran on Wednesday, causing traffic jams, and the police moved in to control the lines.
> 
> Iran is OPEC’s second-largest exporter of oil. But it needs to import half of its gasoline — at a cost of $5 billion a year — because of high consumption and low refining capabilities.
> 
> Inflation in Iran had already been high, as a result of a combination of economic factors and government decisions. The price of dairy products like milk, butter and yogurt increased this week by at least 20 percent.
> 
> Analysts had warned that the decision could have a direct impact on inflation.
> 
> It was unclear what would happen to many unemployed people who use their private cars as taxis.
> 
> The daily Ham-Mihan, a reformist newspaper, wrote on Wednesday that because of the many ambiguities in the new regulations, the decision could have a major effect on the economy and on people’s lives.
> 
> Parliament met behind closed doors with the ministers of oil and intelligence on Wednesday to examine the consequences of the decision.
> 
> The speaker of Parliament, Gholamali Hadad Adel, told reporters after the meeting that Parliament was determined to back the government.
> 
> “The rationing can help reduce consumption,” he said, according to Parliament’s Web site. “It can also make us more independent and become less vulnerable in the international community against world powers.”
> More Articles in International »


----------



## Mike Baker

Hmm, I think that they are more dangerous now then in previous weeks. We will just have to waite an see what, if anything, will happen.


----------



## 1feral1

Ya, we got this on the news yesterday.

Thats about 10 cents a litre! Here right now its about 1.10 a litre.



Cheers,

Wes


----------



## CBH99

Just watched a documentary about this very thing actually....called "A Crude Awakening".  Very informative, very educational - learned a lot about oil & oil supply that I didn't know - a good rent if anybody's interested.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced from today’s _Globe and Mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is a comment from Canadian author/journalist, broadcaster, _activist_, self-styled ‘Muslim _refusenik_’ and all ‘round _gadfly_ Irshad Manji:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070704.wxcomanji04/BNStory/International/home


> Moderate Muslims must do more than preach moderation
> 
> IRSHAD MANJI
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> July 4, 2007 at 3:26 AM EDT
> 
> The dramatis personae arrested in the wake of the failed British terror plots include medical professionals. This seeming paradox has many scratching their heads. Aren't Muslim martyrs supposed to be poor, dispossessed and resentful about both?
> 
> The 9/11 attacks should have stripped us of that simplification. The hijackers came from means. Mohamed Atta, their ringleader, had an engineering degree. He then moved to the West, doing his postgraduate studies in Germany. No aggrieved goat herder, that one.
> 
> In 2003, I interviewed Mohammed al-Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. A physician himself, he explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," he diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."
> 
> In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else.
> 
> Time and again, that something else has been articulated by the very people committing these acts: their religion. Consider Mohammed Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who masterminded the July 7, 2005, transit bombings in London. In taped testimony, he railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Tony Blair, he emphasized that "Islam is our religion" and "the Prophet is our role model." In short, he gave priority to God.
> 
> Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Mr. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into Mr. van Gogh. So why didn't he stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate Mr. van Gogh? Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with seventh-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into Mr. van Gogh's body, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry. Let's credit Mr. Bouyeri with honesty: At his trial, he proudly acknowledged acting from "religious conviction."
> 
> Despite integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Parliament and behead politicians. They apparently called their campaign Operation Badr. This refers to the Battle of Badr, the first decisive military triumph achieved by the Prophet Mohammed. Clearly, the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.
> 
> For people with big hearts and goodwill, this has to be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words. If guardians of our safety intend such silence to be a form of sensitivity, they risk airbrushing the role that religion plays in the violence carried out under its banner.
> 
> They're in fine company: Moderate Muslims do the same. While the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, a more important distinction must start being made - one between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones.
> 
> Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions - effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be to admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there. Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice their monopoly is over.
> 
> Reinterpreting doesn't mean rewriting. It means rethinking words and practices that already exist - removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a 21st-century pluralistic context. Un-Islamic? God, no. The Koran contains three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, analyze and reflect than passages that dictate what's absolutely right or wrong. In that sense, reform-minded Muslims are as authentic as moderates, and quite possibly more constructive.
> 
> This week, a former jihadist wrote in a British newspaper that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology." Months ago, he told me that, as a militant, he raised most of his war chest from dentists.
> 
> Islamist violence - it's not just for doctors any more. Tackling Islamist violence - it can't be left to moderates any more.
> 
> http://www.muslim-refusenik.com



As I understand Manji she has problems with both Islam, _per se_, and with how it is interpreted and practised.  I think she sees the keys to Islamic _reform_ within Islam, itself – as, arguably, early Protestant Christians and later Roman Catholic Christians saw the keys to Christian _reformation_ and _counter-reformation_ within Christianity, itself.

But I also think her biggest problem is with *culture*.  She says, _“It_ [reinterpreting Islam]_ means rethinking words and practices that already exist - removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a 21st-century pluralistic context._”  It is the *culture* – a _foreign_, medieval, theistic, illiberal culture - imported to modern, secular, liberal Australia, Britain and Canada which needs to be changed.

All of us, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, animists, whatevers, have a shared interest in the _reformation_ of the *cultures* which support radical Islamist* ‘philosophies’ from Morocco, across Africa, throughout the Middle East and throughout West and Central Asia.  But, we animists, Buddhists, Christians and whatevers cannot effect the requisite cultural changes: only Muslims, the peoples of those regions can do that.  I say ‘requisite’ because I believe that Sam Huntington is right, we are seeing a _Clash of Civilizations_ and I do not doubt the outcome.  The medieval, illiberal Islamist ‘civilization’ (*culture*) is fighting a two front war: one against the modern, liberal West and the other against the modern, conservative East.  In an eventual ‘clash’ the Islamist civilization is bound to lose and may be destroyed.  That’s not, necessarily, a desirable outcome.  Religious _reformation_ followed by socio-economic _enlightenment_ is the best, I think the only way for Islam, _proper_, and the cultures which embrace it to find a way out of the ‘clash.’  


----------
* I remind readers that I don’t especially like the word _Islamist_ but it is the least objectionable way to describe a whole hockey sock full of cultural impedimentia which characterize the societies in which we find the toxic mix of medieval Arab/Persian/Asian culture and fundamentalist Islam.


----------



## GAP

You have done an excellent job of pointing out the Islamist POV, but to put it into context, is there not a 21st century Christian equivalent, or do we have to reach back into our far past for an equivalent?


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> You have done an excellent job of pointing out the Islamist POV, but to put it into context, is there not a 21st century Christian equivalent, or do we have to reach back into our far past for an equivalent?



I hold no brief for, or against, any religion, including Islam.  For a start, I am ignorant.  I know little, beyond childish nursery rhymes,* about any of them.  I am not convinced that religion, in an of itself, has done (or is doing) either *great* good or *great* harm.  I doubt that a belief in a pantheon of gods jump started civilizations in Asia or Europe and I doubt that Christianity, _per se_ led to the Holocaust. 

That being said I’m less than thrilled by:

1. The _relativistic_ view of morality which many, many _traditional_ Christians embrace; and

2. The strict moral views of religion fundamentalists.

And, yes, I recognize the inherent problem with that _position_, and no, I don’t have any answers.

I think that the West, despite a strong (but not overwhelming) _reaction_ in the USA, is, essentially, a secular ‘civilization.’  That doesn’t have to mean irreligious, it can mean _tolerant_ of all religions as a *private* matter but *intolerant* of any intrusion of any religion in the public affairs of the state and the people (as France, for example, tries to be, constitutionally).  The ‘Islamic Crescent’‡, on the other hand, consists, *mainly* of theocratic governments – those, and there are several, which do not use the Koran as a constitutional base do embrace Islam as a ‘state religion.’  I think that is a quite fundamental and important distinction.  Not as important, however, as liberal and conservative, at the top (but opposite ends) of the socio-politiocal inverted bell curve, to illiberal at the bottom of it.

Uncivilized behaviour is not unique to Muslims; Buddhists managed in e.g. Cambodia and Myanmar and Christians did, too, in Germany, Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc, etc, etc.


----------
* “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so” etc, etc

‡ A geographic expression, with which not everyone agrees, describing the countries from Morocco, across North Africa, through the Middle East, West and Central Asia and down through Malaysia to Indonesia.  It is, at best, a pretty rough crescent and it is not all Islamic, but I like the term as shorthand.


----------



## GAP

I keep thinking of Islamic dominated countries, similar to those mentioned, but nothing specific, as countries who, for the most part, the powerful have worked towards keeping the population poor and ignorant, thus able to be manipulated either through religion/carrot-stick promises/ or by fear of a state controlled security machine. ( or any combination of the above) 

That said, I also think that much of the Islamic fundamentalism going on now, is those very regimes bursting out at the seams. Just because they are doing something in  the name of, does not mean they actually believe what they are saying, so much as using their interpretation as a motivating force behind change/no change/change of the guard only.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I deleted a comment which may have been gratuitously provocative, even insulting, and did not add much to the 'conversation.'


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually Islam was the first real and sustained attempt to counter the Arab culture. Which was based on strong tribal customs and animist beliefs. Muhammad as a trader had a lot contact with Christians, Jews and others in the region, he borrowed heavily from them to create Islam, which he saw as a unifying voice to enable the Arab tribes to be equal to the other groups. He also for the first time codified the rights of woman, slaves and men which was a step up from their previous existence.

Much of Islam’s rituals predate Islam and are centered around the Kaba which was purportedly built by Abraham, to gain acceptance he had to incorporate the existing rituals into the new religion. The Kaba and the area around it was considered holy ground and a meeting place for the tribes where warfare and raiding was not allowed.

Much of what is wrong with Islam can be based on 2 things.

Lack of a evolving religious doctrine

The takeover of Islamic culture by tribal customs

In other words Muhammad failed to contain tribalism and his predications of the weakness of tribalism and it’s effect on Arab unity has come true. He could not have predicted the oil wealth which has artificially sustained the unsustainable.


----------



## GAP

Hmmmm....you learn something every day..


----------



## Kirkhill

You do indeed GAP.   Thanks Colin.


----------



## Flip

Bravo Colin! and thanks.

As an aside, I think it's safe to point out a few things.

Darfur is an excellent example.-Arab muslims attacking african muslims.
This can only be explained by culture. Not justified in any faith. 

Irshad Manji has stated point blank in interviews that her primary beef with the 
muslim community is Arab Culture and tribalism.
I think "honour killings" were something she mentioned in her discussion
a few months ago on CBC.

One could say that trouble with religion starts when there is a departure
from the "faith" that is, when religion becomes manipulated into
an excercise in social engineering.  The intolerance toward Jews in the 
middle east has been a work in progress for a hundred years or so.
European intolerance of Jews can reasonably be described as a european thing.

We should note - In the Bible nearly eveyone is Jewish! 

Wahabism is the current movement back toward the bronze age
that has caused the formation of Al Qaida.  The Shia theocracy
in Iran of course, competes for influence and Islam per-se is left in the dust.
Moderates have been a little too quiet in my opinion.

Yes, we have been sucked into "their" civil war as Western society is 
their common enemy.  Who ever beats "the great Satan" - wins.

Humans seem to come by tolerance and reason the hard way.
I suspect the struggles will continue until moderate muslims
say "enough!".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A rather "pro-Muhammad" website but useful background information. I take the comments in this site with a grain of salt. He was known to extracted revenge on the Jews of Mediana for not helping him and what he felt was betrayal.

 http://muhammad.net/j/index.php


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.ismaili.net/page4b.html

Another slant on the culture vs religion debate.

The Aga Khan is a Shia muslim that has had a very positive and high profile in Britain for as long as I have been around.  I knew of him before I came to Canada (ie very young) and he was noted for modernity, western friendly attitude and most importantly his charitable works.  I don't think that profile has changed.  Although he can't be called a supporter of regime change and intervention that doesn't stop him from being moderate and calming in his tone - and still conducting his charitable work.

Unfortunately, from what I can gather: he is Shia, so anathema to immoderate Sunni like Bin Laden; he is Ismaili so anathema to Twelvers like Ahmadinejad; and there is some element of "mysticism" within the body of his followers that distances them from the more "rational" muslims.  Rational in this sense meaning those that disown "faith" and rely on "knowledge".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Found this quote



> Two trends are at work here: humiliation and atomization. Islam's self-identity is that it is the most perfect and complete expression of God's monotheistic message, and the Koran is God's last and most perfect word. To put it another way, young Muslims are raised on the view that Islam is God 3.0. Christianity is God 2.0. Judaism is God 1.0. And Hinduism and all others are God 0.0.
> 
> One of the factors driving Muslim males, particularly educated ones, into these acts of extreme, expressive violence is that while they were taught that they have the most perfect and complete operating system, every day they're confronted with the reality that people living by God 2.0., God 1.0 and God 0.0 are generally living much more prosperously, powerfully and democratically than those living under Islam.



by: Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yep, "No compulsion under Islam" 

Malaysia claims to be a secular state, but if you are born or convert to Islam, no more secularism for you.


Malaysia 'convert' claims cruelty 
By Jonathan Kent 
BBC News, Kuala Lumpur  



A Malaysian woman held for months in an Islamic rehabilitation centre says she was subjected to mental torture for insisting her religion is Hinduism. 
Revathi Massosai, the name by which she wants to be known, says she was forced to eat beef despite being a Hindu. 

Miss Massosai was seized by the Islamic authorities in January when she went to court to ask that she be registered as a Hindu rather than a Muslim. 

The case is one of a number that have raised religious tensions in Malaysia. 

Miss Massosai was born to Muslim converts and given a Muslim name, but she was raised as a Hindu by her grandmother and has always practised that faith. 

However, under Malaysia's Islamic law, having Muslim parents makes one a Muslim and, as such, one is not allowed to change one's faith or marry a non-Muslim. 

But Miss Massosai married a Hindu man in 2004 and the couple have a young daughter. 

Headscarf 

When in January she asked a court to officially designate her a Hindu she was detained and taken to an Islamic rehabilitation centre. 


Her detention was twice extended to six months, during which time she says religious officials tried to make her pray as a Muslim and wear a headscarf. 

However, the claim that will particularly shock Hindus is that the camp authorities tried to force her to eat beef. 

A lawyer representing the Malacca state Islamic department responsible for Miss Revathi's arrest, rejected her allegations and said officials believe that she can still be persuaded to embrace Islam. 

She is adamant that she will remain a Hindu. In the meantime, Miss Revathi and her daughter have been placed in the custody of her Muslim parents. 

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278568.stm


----------



## Kirkhill

Money quote from a Forbes article on Iranian oil production



> ......a quote from Mohammed Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, Iran's deputy oil minister for international affairs: "If the government does not control the consumption of oil products in Iran  ... and at the same time, if the projects for increasing the capacity of the oil and protection of the oil wells will not happen, *within 10 years, there will not be any oil for export*." That's from their guy, not a Western academic.



And in the same report from Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University (NOT Sir Nicholas Stern of IPCC infamy)



> "A more probable scenario is that, absent some change in Irani policy ... * [we will see] exports declining to zero by 2014 to 2015*. Energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment and inefficiencies of its state-planned economy underlie Iran's problem, which has no relation to 'peak oil.' "



http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/05/iran-gasoline-rationing-pf-guru-ii-in_jm_0705soapbox_inl.html?partner=alerts

Hence the "hurry up" offense and the need for nuclear power.  They are rapidly approaching the point (if they haven't reached it already) where they can no longer supply cheap gasoline that drives the local economy.



> Gasoline costs about $.34 cents a gallon in Iran, or 9 cents a liter. You can fill up your Honda Civic for $4.49. In the U.S. it costs almost $40. In neighboring Turkey it costs almost $95. Iran is spending 38% of its national budget (almost 15% of gross domestic product) on gasoline subsidies!



They have reached the point where the masses can't be supplied with "bread and circuses".  With history as a guide revolution usually follows.


----------



## a_majoor

Since Iran imports almost all its gasoline, there is an obvious pressure point, without even opening hostilities. Holding tankers in international waters for "environmental inspections" comes to mind. (Don't want tankers leaking into the Gulf, now, do we  >)


----------



## Kirkhill

There is a line in the Forbes article about when an enemy is defeating himself just stand back and watch it happen.

In this case I don't think any more pressure is needed. It seems to me that pressure is a safe strategy if you are dealing with rational actors whose reactions you can predict and/or you can seal off the "experiment" to contain the fallout.  I don't think we have rational actors here in Iran nor can we contain the consequences with any degree of surety.

In this case I think it is better to concentrate on the existing trouble areas and keep beating down the flare ups.  If I can use a poorly understood fire-fighting analogy (poorly understood by me that is), it appears to me as if we have a forest fire in the middle east just now.  We are managing the fire by beating down flare ups and have instituted a couple of controlled burns that we are having trouble containing.  Still for all of that the fire is under control. The proof of that is that most people aren't affected by the war/fire unless the press tells them of the latest casualties.  It could be a lot worse if the fire expands because we don't seem to have the resources to deal with more than is on our plate just now.


Apologies for mixed metaphors.


----------



## Flip

Colin P.


> To put it another way, young Muslims are raised on the view that Islam is God 3.0. Christianity is God 2.0. Judaism is God 1.0. And Hinduism and all others are God 0.0.


Loved that one!  ;D

So I guess that would make B'Hai into God XP?

Personally, my processor can't anything above 2.0 maybe 2.5


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced from today’s _National Post_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is more on the *Culture matters!* front:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=32e4731b-96d3-4fea-8f5b-ea6b91fd5136


> History offers little chance for Arab democracy
> *Regional, Tribal Influences Still Dominate*
> 
> *Matthew Fisher, National Post*
> 
> Published: Monday, July 09, 2007
> 
> JERUSALEM -In an absorbing discourse last week, one of Israel's greatest thinkers, Shlomo Avineri, sketched out the bleak history of democracy in the Middle East and what he called Palestine.
> 
> This history explained why the 74-year old Polish-born intellectual is deeply skeptical that it will take root any time soon except, curiously, perhaps in Iran, which at the moment is threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation.
> 
> After noting that Iran is not, of course, Arab, and that the ideas of the current government repel him, Avineri told a small group of foreign journalists that Iran can nevertheless be defined as a "civil society" because it holds elections including presidential runoffs, that women can drive, vote and sit in a parliament that is not controlled by the president.
> 
> This is not true of the Arab League. Big or small, monarchy or republic, not one of its 21 states has taken many step towards democracy except Lebanon, which has what might be described as a non-functioning party system.
> 
> Why, Avineri asked rhetorically, has there been monumental political change in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and eastern Europe over the past 20 years while the Middle East has been immune to the trend?
> 
> "This is not because of Islam. That is a total red herring," the usually soft-spoken emeritus professor of political science at Hebrew University thundered scornfully.
> 
> "Turkey has industrialized, is democratic and has an Islamic-based party. Bangladesh and Indonesia are more-or-less free countries. In Iran there is Islamic representation and there are political debates."
> 
> What is absent in the Middle East is a history of democracy. There has been no inspirational figure such as Ataturk, who forged modern democratic Turkey out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. As a result there have been no democratic building blocks for Arab nations to copy.
> 
> "Those countries in eastern Europe that became democratic such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, had had long democratic traditions before communism," Avineri said. "There was no such democratization in Russian because it had had a long history of authoritarian regimes."
> 
> Instead of democracy, what Arab countries have are pre-modern institutions where tribal and regional allegiances are paramount, the British-educated academic said, citing the example of Iraq. "There was a history of Sunni hegemony because the British put them in power," he said. After Saddam was overthrown the Shia-majority used the country's first elections to come to power, but neither Iraq's majority nor its minority knew how to behave in a democracy with chaos and carnage being the grim result.
> 
> Something similar has taken place more recently in Gaza and the West Bank. After Hamas defeated Fatah in elections in January, 2007, the first response of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who leads Fatah, was to take over some of the security services. Hamas countered by creating a rival militia known as Executive Force.
> 
> "Abu Mazen [Abbas] says he doesn't want a civil war. That is not an abstract idea. If you look at the history of Palestine, what you have is a failure of nation-building."
> 
> As was seen again when BBC journalist Alan Johnston was freed after 114 days as a hostage when Hamas fighters surrounded members of another Gaza faction that had kidnapped him, their differences were "settled through the barrel of a gun."
> 
> As part of his 75-minute tutorial, Avineri detailed how the Arab Revolt against Britain and Palestine's Jews that lasted from 1936 to 1939 had fizzled out because of internal divisions that resulted in Arabs killing more of their own than Britons or Jews. Similar problems surfaced again when during the war that created Israel in 1947 and 1948 because, unlike the Jews, the Arabs continued to operate as region-based clans rather than under a unified command.
> 
> The direction the Jewish and Arab communities who share what was British Palestine were to take on governance was already apparent in the 1930s, Avineri said.
> 
> Because it was a Mandate and not a colony, the British allowed some institutions of self-government.
> 
> "At the time there were 120,000 Jews in Palestine and they held an Assembly of Jews," chuckling at the fact that it had 17 different parties. "What the Arabs did was the opposite. They set up a High Committee of notables who were never elected."
> 
> Such deeply rooted historical attitudes are crucial to understanding why achieving democracy in the Middle East is so problematic and so unlikely.
> 
> © National Post 2007



Although many Army.ca members will not like the idea, I think we must accept that we are not going to bring ‘democracy’ – in any form – to Iraq or Afghanistan.  We can *help* Afghanistan give itself enough security to allow its own people to make their own political decisions in their own way, but democracy?  It is to laugh, and to cry.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward, I think you are overly hard on the middle east tribal culture.

It is precisely BECAUSE of that culture that I believe that the only real solution for that part of the world is Parliamentary Democracy based on the Westminster model of Lords and Commons.  Forget all the flim flammery of constitutions.  They mean nothing at all.  Nor should law making be up to intellectuals with the right credentials.

Parliaments are about balancing powers.  They give strong leaders the tools to balance one group against the other.  They are pragmatic expressions of power struggles.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both well positioned to support an early model parliament.  They have both a class of Lords (Spiritual, Temporal and Law) that represent the traditional predominantly rural culture, and they have a class of Burgers, a class of commoners from the increasingly secular, modernizing cities.  Given Kabul, Qandahar and Herat's position on historic trade routes they have an exploitable, if modest, history of cosmopolitanism.

We can't get them to the apogee of  democracy (Which constitution defines that exactly: the Russian? the French versions 1,2, 3, 4,5,6,7 or 8? or the US one which is constantly being amended and reinterpreted?)

Perhaps we can get them to the level of democracy enjoyed by the Swiss where, until recently, you needed a sword to vote and you had to be a man.  A primal example of the pragmatism of their democracy.  Votes were an alternative to fighting by making it clear that the alternative to abiding by the decision of the majority was to take the fight to the streets - and probably lose.

I think we can establish the institutions (In Afghanistan they have an upper an lower house - let's stop fretting about the upper house being comprised of unsavoury characters - that is a good thing - they are inside the discussion).  We can train the troops and police. We can support the leadership - Karzai or his successor.  We can bring stability.  Then we have to leave it up to the locals, the commoners, to bring the barons into line.  I think that will take a lot less time than it did in Britain because the locals have working examples of what they want to achieve......US.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don’t disagree with you, Kirkhill, so long as we stipulate that the ‘democracy’ will look something like that which existed in England under Henry VII, 500_ish_ years ago – when the _Lords Spiritual_ still vastly outnumbered the _Lords Temporal_ and the _Commons_, combined.

If it was good enough for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I then I suppose it’s good enough for whatever medieval thugs emerge as leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and their neighbours – after the chaos spreads.

‘Democracy’ (liberal or conservative) is a lot more than elections and legislatures.  It depends, at its base, on respect for the rule of law, applied equally to all, governors and governed alike – something which did not come into full flower, anywhere in the world, until New Jersey (1776) in a restricted form and, properly, not until 1894 (South Australia).


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed Edward - It will be Tudor democracy.  (The Stewart's are a problematic bunch and with any luck at all the middle east can more easily move to Hanoverian democracy (prior to the reform bills)).  At least it would be a landing stage and a point of departure.  Perhaps they can collapse 400 years of history into 4 or 5 decades seeing as how we in the west have set such a sterling example for them to follow.  

Chris.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My sister in-law has been hired by government over there to “re-educate” hardcore Immans. I asked her the question:

What is fundamentalist Islam opinion on trade Unions? (brought about by certain labour orgs marching side by side with certain ME groups in Canada)


Her response, which I found amusing:

Let's start with the easy one first. If it was first mooted in the bad West, then it is haram. This I think is self evident. 

But if we can find some authority in Muslim history that points to a group of a minimum of 3 people (which thereby constitutes a Crowd) approaching either the Prophet or the four Imams or the 4 Caliphs on how to reclaim your stolen dates from your unscrupulous landowners (minimum of two as two's a Company) , then trade unionism is A ok. 

Cause then Muslims would have thought about it FIRST.  Collective bargaining can take the form of screaming your demands really loudly in union unison at the Company, or setting it down in writing on parchment, sand or on the back of your hand. One male (or the exact equivalent of 2 and a half women) shall represent the Crowd. 
I hope my fatwa has been of assistance to you, young grasshopper. (otherwise I might have to issue another fatwa for not having taken my first fatwa seriously - and let's just say you really DO want to take my first one VERY seriously).

Imamah Toni Von al-Fatty Fatwa


----------



## a_majoor

Although there is a lot of complaints about the cost of WW IV to the West, VDH suggests that Dar-al-Islam has even less ability to carry the burden of war and is possibly close to cracking under the pressure. We should not forget that "we" havn't mobilized for war the same way we did in the Great War, WW II or the opening rounds of WW III, if anything there is lots of slack in the system and we could bring vastly more resorces to bear if we have the will or desire to do so:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070407.html



> July 4, 2007
> *Our Enemy’s Attrition*
> Reasons to reexamine the Middle East’s negative prognosis.
> by Victor Davis Hanson
> National Review Online
> 
> The majority opinion is that the occupation in Iraq has been so bungled that the blowback has ruined American efforts at promoting positive change throughout the Middle East.
> 
> Perhaps. But for all the justifiable criticism of the Iraqi reconstruction, two truths still remain — the United States is taking an enormous toll on jihadists, and despite the terrible cost in blood and treasure, has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq.
> 
> The Sunni front-line states, who subsidized jihadists and still enjoy our misery in Iraq, are now terrified that these killers, in league with the Iranians, will turn on them. The net result is not just that some Sunnis are helping us in Iraq, but that they are being urged to for the first time by those in the Arab world, who would prefer to see the Iraqi government, rather than the terrorists, succeed. And if Iraq is still a terrible disappointment, Kurdistan is emerging as a success few envisioned, refuting some conventional wisdom about the incompatibility of capitalism and constitutional government with Middle Eastern Islam.
> 
> Theocratic Iran is not exactly as “empowered” as is generally alleged, but in the greatest crisis of its miserable existence. As the mullahs up the ante in the region, they could very soon not only lose Iraq, but also their own dictatorship. Trying to oppose the West in Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank is taking an enormous financial toll, as is the general isolation from the world community.
> 
> With oil prices at an all-time high, Iran can't provide gasoline for its own people, who resent the billions spent instead on Arab terrorists abroad. If oil were to dip from near $70 to $50-55 a barrel, the regime would face abject bankruptcy. For all the criticism of the U.S. position, from the left and right, we have now found the right blend of military determination not to let Teheran go nuclear, combined with economic and political efforts at containment. There is an array of future options — stronger embargoes, blockades, and military strikes on infrastructure — still on the table. The social unrest the mullahs desire in Iraq is starting to spill over the border into their own Iran, and its magnitude and final course are still unpredictable.
> 
> Syria for all its terror still can't overthrow the government in Lebanon, but has managed the impossible: Not only does the Arab world seek to isolate it, but France and the United States are cooperating to thwart it in Lebanon. The last thing we want to do is to give its terror industry the legitimacy it craves by sending any more officials over to Damascus.
> 
> Hamas is high on victory in Gaza for now, but all it has accomplished is to further concentrate its nexus of terror into one small miserable — and quite vulnerable — locale in the midst of Jordan, Israel, and Egypt, while sacrificing the Palestinians’ greatest advantage: deniability of culpability. It will be harder now for the tired good cop/bad cop excuses, “militant wing,” etc. and all the other justifications for terror that the Palestinians use. Since Hamas bragged that it had routed (it matters less whether true or false) the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, the next barrage of rocket attacks from there, rightly or wrongly, will liberate Israel in its response from the past worries of collateral damage. For all the talk of losing the Lebanon War, it is Iran and Syria, not Israel, that are stuck with billions in reconstruction costs for their battered Shiite pawns on the front lines.
> 
> After four years of war and acrimony, things are starting to reach a point of resolution. Both the resources of the United States and its enemies are becoming strained, but so far they are rioting in oil-exporting Iran over gasoline, not we in the U.S. Europe has gravitated more in the last four years to our views than we to theirs, especially in regard to the dangers of radical Islam. Israel lost some of its precious capital of deterrence in the last war, but ultimately the real loser was a bankrupt Iran who lost far more materially than did a far wealthier Israel. Iran unleashed terror in the region, but found its own terrorist credentials no exemption from what it wrought.
> 
> Because violence per se is the only narrative from the Middle East, and often editorialized as deriving from U.S. blunders, we are in a state of constant depression. But things are not as bad as they seem and could still turn out far better than anyone might imagine — if we give the gifted Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker the support and time they need to make the necessary military and diplomatic changes.
> 
> ©2007 Victor Davis Hanson


----------



## Kirkhill

One of the "baseline" books that I  keep referring to is Ken O'Connor's "Ghost Force" about his time in the SAS and his reckoning that his SAS was out of the game these days.

His SAS was a combination of "Green Ops" as I believe you call the "conventional" military role and what I will call "under the radar" conventional ops.  Small units, militarily equipped, inserted into Operations Other Than War.  

He reckoned that in future people in his business wouldn't be flying around the world with kitbags full of Small Arms and C4.  They would fly in in suits with American Express cards.  If they wanted to take down a refinery they would use their skills to enter undetected, use a locally purchased adjustable wrench to unbolt the appropriate critical gizmo and leave the way they came.  The refinery gets taken down but no one is to blame.  Likewise with power grids.  Slacken off the plug that keeps the cooling oil in the transformer then watch it drip away and the transformer overheats.  Careless maintenance, not an act of war.

Seems likely to result in people being mad at their government rather than the government that dropped the bomb or slapped on the embargo.


----------



## Kirkhill

It seems the Saudis at least are catching up.  Their clock has advanced from 17th Century Scotland to 19th , or maybe even 20th Century Rome. 

This from the July 9th Daily Times of Pakistan.



> Saudi fatwa on liberalism raises fears of violence
> 
> RIYADH: A fatwa issued by a prominent Saudi cleric suggesting liberals are not real Muslims has enflamed debate over reforms in the conservative Islamic state, with self-professed liberals fearing they will be attacked.
> 
> Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries that rules by strict application of Islamic law, giving clerics a powerful position in society, but Islamists fear that liberal reformers are gaining ground under the rule of King Abdullah.
> 
> Responding to an online request for a fatwa, Sheikh Saleh Al-Fozan said last month, “Calling oneself a liberal Muslim is a contradiction in terms...one should repent before God for such ideas in order to be a real Muslim.”
> 
> The fatwa stated that liberal in this context referred to “freedom which is not subject to the bounds of sharia, and which rejects sharia laws, especially concerning women”. “He who wants freedom with only the controls of man-made laws has rebelled against the law of God,” it added. Fozan was recently forced to issue a clarification in Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh after Islamists hailed the fatwa as a declaration that liberals are infidels. He said pronouncing someone an infidel was a separate issue in Islamic law.
> 
> “Radicals say ‘Sheikh Fozan has issued the fatwa and we should act accordingly’, which is a little alarming,” said Hamza Mozainy, a well-known critic of the Saudi system, referring to Islamist websites that welcomed the fatwa. Novelist Turki Al-Hamad, a long-time target of Saudi Islamists, also said the fatwa could lead to violence.
> 
> “When they hear ‘liberalism’ they perceive it as a form of moral corruption. They don’t know it’s a whole philosophy concerning freedom of the individual,” Hamad said. “These fatwas are a kind of defence mechanism against this spreading idea.” reuters



http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C09%5Cstory_9-7-2007_pg7_6



Compare this fatwa on Liberalism to an Encyclical of 1832 by Pope Gregory XVI “Mirari Vos” condemning Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism (some call it religious tolerance).   http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm

And perhaps this of 1931 – Quadragessimo Anno by Pope Pius XI on the 40th anniversary of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum on the Condition of Workers.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11QUADR.HTM
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

QA-10 “….He (Leo XIII) sought no help from either Liberalism or Socialism, for the one had proved that it was utterly unable to solve the social problem aright, and the other, proposing a remedy far worse than the evil itself,…”

QA-14 “…..it (Rerum Novarum) boldly attacked and overturned the idols of Liberalism…”

QA-27 “…..while the principles of Liberalism were tottering, which had long prevented effective action by those governing the State…”

And for a slight change of pace but in a similar vein:

QA-120 “…..Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (you also couldn't be a good Catholic and a Communist or Liberal - funny how times change).


Before I start getting hate mail from the Catholics around here I note that that was then and this is now.
The Catholic Church, and the Protestant States, has moved on a lot since 1931.  We can only hope that the Islamic community moves faster seeing that they have working models to strive for.

Liberalism in all of the above Encyclicals, Bulls and Fatwas is understood in terms that John Stuart Mill would have recognized, not the modern sense of socialism-lite.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A-majoor 
Good points, not to forget that AQ is now asking Muslims to attack Iran for it’s involvement in Iraq, Hardcore Islamist in the NWF are now turning their attention openly against Islamabad over the Red Mosque, I suspect they feel they must revenge this or lose face. 

I also wonder if the rather strong French contingent of the UNFIL will move to a more of a expeditionary force aligned with the present Lebanese government going by the comments of the new French president who seems to be making the protection of Lebanon a priority. This backing might give the Lebanese government enough time to ramp up their forces into an effective fighting machine able to match Hezbollah and other internal threats. I also wonder what would happen if Lebanon expelled the Palestinians or set much lower refuge levels in order to rid themselves of the headache.  

With any luck we might be able to sit back and  op: 
while our enemies kill each other.


----------



## a_majoor

Colin P said:
			
		

> With any luck we might be able to sit back and  op:
> while our enemies kill each other.



I am opposed to the "vulture" strategy (let them kill each other then we swoop in and feast on the remains). There are several reasons to remain engaged (althought we don't have to be engaged in the ways we are now; read some of Kirkhill's posts on establishing cantonments and fostering social and governmental changes).

1. The eventual winner in an inter Islamic war will be very smart, agressive and powerful through Darwinian selection. I'd rather not be dealing with packs of _Raptors_ when I have enough trouble with a "_ball of snakes_".

2. In the drive to crush their domestic and easy to reach enemies (i.e. Israel, secular Turkey, the defacto nation of Kurdistan, "apostate" co religionists), the various sides will escalate, and there seems no limits to what they will do. Gaining and using nuclear weapons will be part of that, and that is the one thing we cannot allow. (once they cross the nuclear threshhold against Isreal, what is to stop them from going after Kashmir or Paris next?)

3. We and our children will need to deal with Dar-al-Islam, so we have a stake in guiding the outcome to something acceptable to us. This means a respect for the Rule of Law as a minimmum. Human rights and consensual governments are to be desired, but as Edward always reminds us, these may take forms we are not familier with or might not like too much. Singapore, with its tough law and order approach (flogging people who spit gum on the sidewalks) and seeming hereditary elected government comes to mind as one possible example.

We need a combination of steadfast resolve to contain and moderate the implosion inside Dar-al-Islam, and also be prepared to move in and assist in the rebuilding and reworking of these societies when the time comes.


----------



## Kirkhill

No prognostications on Friday the 13th.  Not that I am superstitious.

Just really interesting that after taking down this Red Mosque, virtually next door neighbour to Musharraf, and new incursions planned into Taliban strongholds of Swat and Waziristan that bombings and attacks are down and that the largest Mob they could find to count was 1200 in Karachi and 200 in Quetta.

It'll be interesting to see what activity level in Afghanistan is like in the near future.

I wonder what the trigger was?  Chinese workers being killed?  Or Musharraf being shot at one too many times?

An apparent lack of Chaos.




> Friday, July 13, 2007
> 
> Security tight in Pakistan after mosque siege; protests smaller than expected
> 
> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Thousands of soldiers rolled across northwestern Pakistan on Friday, a day after President Gen. Pervez Musharraf vowed to follow the storming of Islamabad's Red Mosque by eliminating extremism from "every corner" of the country.
> 
> Anti-Musharraf protesters took to the streets of every major city to blame the U.S.-backed leader for the violence at the mosque, some chanting slogans in favour of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
> 
> But the rallies were smaller than expected, and there was a lull in the violent backlash from militant groups that had staged suicide bombings and attacks on foreign aid groups in reaction to the mosque siege.
> 
> Officials said thousands of soldiers were deploying to various parts of North West Frontier Province, which borders Afghanistan and where militant groups are increasingly active.
> 
> An army brigade was heading up the Swat Valley, 120 kilometres northeast of Peshawar, where a suicide car bomber killed three policeman at a checkpoint Thursday, said Mohammed Javed, the valley's top administrator.
> 
> That attack raised to 35 the number of people killed in bombings and shootings in the northwest since the Red Mosque crisis began July 3.
> 
> Television footage showed army trucks, some pulling heavy artillery, lined up on a road in the area.
> 
> The Swat Valley is a stronghold of a radical cleric who has pressed for the imposition of Taliban-style rule, much like the leaders of the Red Mosque.
> 
> Maulana Fazlullah, who has close links to a militant group outlawed for sending followers to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001, reportedly told supporters to prepare for holy war in response to the battle in the capital.
> 
> 
> Asif Iqbal Daudzai, spokesman for the provincial government, said Fazlullah had broken an agreement to stop using FM radio broadcasts for anti-government agitation. If he does so again, security forces "will react," Daudzai told Dawn News television.
> 
> Troops were also sent to Dera Ismail Khan, a town near the tribally governed Waziristan border region, a Taliban stronghold where Washington says al-Qaida is regrouping.
> 
> Police said they raided a house in Dera Ismail Khan on Friday, arresting three suspected suicide bombers and seizing five explosives vests.
> 
> The military said it also deployed soldiers near Battagram, a northern town badly affected by a 2005 earthquake. According to aid workers and media reports, mobs broke off from a Thursday protest against the Red Mosque raid to loot and set fire to the offices of several international aid groups.
> 
> "Extremism and terrorism will be defeated in every corner of the country," Musharraf said. Madrassas, or religious schools, like the Red Mosque that inculcate violence among students will not be tolerated, he said.
> 
> More than 1,200 people chanted slogans denouncing Musharraf after they emerged from mosques following afternoon prayers in Karachi, the country's largest city.
> 
> In Quetta, about 200 protesters chanted "Long live Osama!" and "Long live Taliban!" as well as anti-Musharraf slogans. "It is an insult to dogs to call Musharraf a dog," one man shouted out.
> 
> Small rallies were also held in Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar and Islamabad.
> 
> © The Canadian Press, 2007



http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=home&articleID=2720548


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is columnist Jonathan Kay’s take on the Islamic civil war and the _vulture_ strategy:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=9615ee8a-b3dc-4668-9ab0-fa05a0be5769


> Managing Islam's civil war
> 
> *Jonathan Kay, National Post*
> 
> Published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
> 
> Less than six years after 9/11, the great Clash of Civilizations has fizzled out. It's been replaced by a civil war within a single civilization. Consider these news events from recent weeks, and the pattern becomes clear: - In Pakistan, government troops laid bloody siege to the Red Mosque in the centre of Islamabad, precipitating a string of retaliatory suicide bombings in other parts of the country. On Wednesday, Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, urged revenge against Pakistan's government. ("This crime can only be washed by repentance or blood.")A secret Pakistani interior ministry document recently disclosed by The New York Times warns that Islamist insurgents in the country's northwest tribal areas -- the same ones fuelling the civil war in Afghanistan--may soon threaten Pakistan's central government.
> 
> - In Gaza, Islamists loyal to Hamas decisively routed Fatah, the once-unrivalled Palestinian movement founded by Yasser Arafat. Fatah-affiliated President Mahmoud Abbas described Hamas as "terrorists" (a word familiar to us, but taboo within Palestinian society -- until now).
> 
> - In Lebanon, government troops waged war on remnants of the extremist Islamist group Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. The country's governing coalition is also confronting an ongoing political challenge from Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah.
> 
> - In Iraq, sectarian killings between Shiite and Sunni death squads continue apace. Last week, more than 100 people were killed when a jihadi-driven truck filled with tons of explosives blew up in the town of Amirli, in a region claimed by both Arab and Kurdish Muslims. Meanwhile, American troops are waging war against al-Qaeda-linked death squads, fighting in collaboration with Sunni sheikhs who, until recently, were considered terrorists themselves.
> 
> - In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-line theocrat who is seeking to summon Shiite Islam's "12th Imam" from his ethereal slumber, is facing mounting criticism from disenchanted citizens amidst a brutal state campaign to enforce Sharia law --including the death by stoning of adulterers.
> 
> - In Somalia, a grenade attack against soldiers loyal to the Ethiopian-backed interim government prompted troops to open fire on civilians. The army has since closed down Mogadishu's main market and is rooting out the Islamist insurgents that infest it.
> 
> - In Algeria, which this month hosted the Africa Games, a suicide bomber blew up a refrigerator truck full of explosives outside a military post, killing 10. Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility.
> 
> Everywhere, the basic plot is the same: traditional Muslim sheiks and autocrats battling with murderous jihadis for control of Muslim lands. In each case, it is Muslims themselves -- not Western soldiers or politicians -- who will decide the outcome.
> 
> Of course, Muslims are still trying to blow up infidels in London and Glasgow, not to mention Tel Aviv, Kashmir and a hundred other places. But with every passing month, Muslim violence becomes more self-directed. By the time Iran gets its Shiite Bomb, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia may be as much at risk as Israel.
> 
> In an obvious sense, this is good news for the West. But the trend also means that we are losing our ability to shape events. After 9/11, George W. Bush and his international supporters were swept up in a grand Wilsonian project to revamp the political culture of the Muslim world. But six years later, we're largely back on the sidelines, feebly exhorting our chosen autocrats -- Pervez Musharraf, Mahmoud Abbas, Fouad Siniora, Nouri al-Maliki, King Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah -- to "do more to fight terrorism." Without realizing it, we have gone from realists to democratic utopians back to realists again.
> 
> The trend will be hard to reverse. In democracies, voters support wars when they see clear, morally compelling arguments for waging them. That wasn't a problem when the stakes were credibly cast as between good and evil. But the war now is murkier. Most of the Muslim leaders we now are supporting are not democratic folk heroes, but compromised autocrats. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai, by all accounts a decent fellow, is beholden to drug dealers and local warlords to maintain power.
> 
> These men are a lot saner than the Islamists they're fighting, of course. But in the long run, Western voters won't risk the lives of their sons and daughters to prop up a lesser evil fighting one side of an alien, often barbaric civil war.
> 
> jkay@nationalpost.com
> 
> © National Post 2007



I am less worried about the Darwinian _natural selection_ process which a_majoor fears will give us a bigger, better enemy – still hell bent on our destruction.  My read of the Thirty Years War (which is my analog to what’s going on, now, in and around the Middle East) is that the victors were not emboldened to wreak havoc on their neighbours.  They were, rather, more interested in _reforming_ their own internal affairs and rebuilding their shattered economies. 

I think Kay is telling us the truth, here: _“Western voters won't risk the lives of their sons and daughters to prop up a lesser evil fighting one side of an alien, often barbaric civil war.”_  As he said, even though he was properly, fairly and democratically elected, President Karzai is seen as being very much a *lesser evil*.


----------



## GAP

interesting article....I agree, probably a pretty good read on the situation....


----------



## Kirkhill

> By the time Iran gets its Shiite Bomb, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia may be as much at risk as Israel.



I think that the Arab League has already come to that conclusion.  In fact that was the probably the driver behind Abu Mousr's comment in 2004 or thereabouts that "the gates of He*ll were now open" as a result of the US intervention in Iraq.  It has just taken them a long time to figure out on which side their bread was buttered.

Accepting E.R.'s 30 years wars analogy,  which I do whole-heartedly, the outcome of that conflict (which actually started in 1525 with "Major Operations" concluding in 1815) was the establishment of those Westfalian boundaries that the EU is so desperate to erase.

It also resulted in the pirates and shopkeepers of the north, without moral principles to overly burden them, creating the greatest trading empires of all time (Brits, Dutch and to a lesser extent Danes).  

So, if the voters won't permit government intervention, will they turn their attention back to hockey and beer and permit the establishment of commercial colonies defended by PSCs that are subject to the same laws as the Canadian Forces?

I believe that China is already moving down that road, that Russia is heading down that road with Gazprom and that many multi-nationals operating in the third world and latin america have been operating on that principle for some time.

Historical Actors in the relevant post-Westfalian period include the Dutch East India Company, the Danish East India Company, the Honourable East India Company, the Virginia Company and our own Hudson's Bay Company.  All of whom had their own private armies and navies and fortified settlements.  The Hudson's Bay Company started with Fort Nelson in 1670s and locally we have Fort Langley here from the 1850s.  And it should be remembered that Port Royal and Quebec were both established as fortified trading settlements by armed traders.

I do expect though that the transition of Dar-al-Islam towards enlightened toleration will be a lot speedier than ours was.  We no longer see a need to fight for immutable principles.  Both we and arab traders have that in common.  Principles are bad for business.


----------



## Pikache

What does everyone make of this Pakistan vs Taliban thing?


----------



## a_majoor

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> What does everyone make of this Pakistan vs Taliban thing?



It is a case of the monster slipping off the leash and out of control. Pakistan, or at least elements of the ISI always supported "fundimentalist" warlords in Afghanistan, even back in the 1980's against the USSR. The primary driver for this was Afghanistan was a fairly moderate state with friendly ties to Pakistan's arch rival India, and the secondary reason was Afghan politicians would occasionally suggest the Durrand line be erased so the Pushtan people on the "other side" could rejoin Afghanistan (Pakistani politicians feel the same way, only in the other direction).

The Taliban were a post war organization (if they can be called that), and the ISI seems to have chosen them for special favor because the Muhajadeen warlords were too independent for the ISI's liking. Since the Afghan people in general are very independent minded, it should have occured to the ISI that the Taliban would go the way of the other groups.

Now the Taliban have access to drug money, international money and information flowing inito Wahhabi Madrassas, Iranian weapons and IED technology, and foreign "fighters", so thier need for ISI support is diminished and the radical Wahhabi Islam they follow is hostile to much of what Pakistan stands for, so the Taliban are lashing out against preceived enemies in all directions. Pakistan must now fight to prevent the Taliban from destabilizing their own state, rather than worry about destabilizing Afghanistan.


----------



## Flip

> What does everyone make of this Pakistan vs Taliban thing?



Musharaff is off the fence - and the Taliban have an "eastern front".
Escalation isn't always a bad thing....... >

What would be best for the west is if somewhat moderate muslim
groups step into the breach.  This seems to be happening.


----------



## GAP

Russia blames late payments for Iran reactor delay
Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:57PM IST By Afet Mehtiyeva
Article Link

BAKU (Reuters) - Moscow has delayed the start-up of Iran's first nuclear power station to 2008 because Tehran has fallen behind with payments for the Bushehr plant, a top Russian official said on Thursday.

The timing of the plant's start-up is significant as it is viewed by Israel and the United States as an important element in a nuclear drive which they suspect is a front for developing nuclear weapons. Iran says the programme is entirely peaceful.

Russia has repeatedly delayed the plant which under the latest schedule was due to be started up in September 2007. A Russian sub-contractor said on Wednesday the plant, in southwest Iran, had no chance of being launched before autumn 2008.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said in Baku that Tehran was still behind in payments for the plant and that the delay was not political.

"It will clearly not be possible to start-up the atomic station this year so it will be moved to the next year," Kislyak told reporters, citing the payment problems.

"We are fully determined to take Bushehr to its logical conclusion and launch the atomic power station," he said.

The Itar-Tass news agency earlier reported Kislyak had said Bushehr would be inaugurated in early 2008.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

Mark Styen is at it again; an Islamic counteroffensive using our tools as weapons against the free exchange of ideas (especially about Islam and Islamic radicalism):

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006777.html&TITLE=Sued%20Into%20Silence



> Sued Into Silence
> 
> Mark Steyn;
> 
> The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?
> 
> For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
> 
> Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons...
> 
> Counterterrorism Blog;
> 
> Two news flashes on August 1, 2007. First, the lawyers representing the so-called Flying Imams in their lawsuit against US Airways announced that they were not going after the unnamed passengers whose concerns prompted the men to be pulled off the Arizona-bound flight (here). I suppose that is good to know, now that the long-term policy implications of their lawsuit are about to justify (literally) an act of Congress. Second, Cambridge University Press announced that it was going to destroy all copies of the 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, in response to a libel claim filed in England by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker (here).
> 
> Connected? Absolutely.
> 
> 
> Read them both.


----------



## tomahawk6

Interesting article. Could the US destroy Iran's military in 3 days ? Yes and no. I believe any air campaign would focus on the nuclear sites and the IRG and security forces. If the IRG and security forces were seen to be seriously degraded ,this might encourage the regular army to stage a coup. In any event this would seriously weaken the regime. If we wanted to destroy the entire military capability of Iran it would take weeks. Destroying Iran's ability to refine gasoline and follow that up with an embargo would be devestating. The USAF and USN are not overstretched by Afghanistan and Iraq. Attacking Iran is a political decision though and one that is not easy for Bush and once embarked on must show success.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Sarah Baxter, Washington 

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months � “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Flip

Hmmmm,

Will it come sooner - like when the "surge report" comes out this month,
Or later - like just before GWB leaves office?


----------



## 1feral1

Whats Bush got to do with it? Do I sense a bit of an anti-Bush agenda here?

Like it or not, the problem in Iran is simmering, but sooner or later it will boil over, and whoever is in the US President's chair at the time will have make a decision. Republican or Democrat regardless.

...And what about the surge report? 

Do tell us what you know about Iraq and the surge, besides what you see on a one sided media report 

Wes


----------



## foo32

This is tough one.  I think it is fairly obvious the Bush administration wants to attack Iran, and is doing everything it can to try and drum up (especially) domestic support.  But it is hard to conceive of how the American administration has enough support left at home to further extend its current war commitments to yet another country.

That said, while I'm reluctant to agree with Bush administration about anything (call me anti-Bush if you like), it looks to me like this may be a necessary war. Too much of a delay due to the unpopularity of this administration may prove to be a bad thing for the world. Iran might be playing by IAEC rules right now, but I think you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe they only want peaceful access to atomic power.  A fundamentalist Islamic regime controlling atomic weapons seems like a recipe for disaster to me (and we may well only be coup away from this occurring in Pakistan as it is).


----------



## RCD

This will probable happen.When is the question?
But who will be Prime Minister of Canada when it happen's?


----------



## foo32

RECON-MAN said:
			
		

> This will probable happen.When is the question?
> But who will be Prime Minister of Canada when it happen's?



Out of curiosity, assuming this war does occur, do you think there will be a Canadian (military) role?


----------



## 1feral1

foo32 said:
			
		

> I think it is fairly obvious the Bush administration wants to attack Iran...,



I don't think any rational western power wants to see an aggressive Iran with nuclear weapons. Its well beyond the Bush debate.

It will be a similar strike like the IDF did in the region to destroy a nuke plant some time back. 

Iran is huge, with a large population, and I don't think it could ever be taken without total war (high Allied casualties and high civilian casualties too), not the PC one they are trying to fight in Iraq.

However airstrikes on selected targets is likely and is reality. The sooner Iran is put out of nuclear business, the better.

My opinion anyways.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Flip

> Whats Bush got to do with it? Do I sense a bit of an anti-Bush agenda here?


 No, not at all.....Bush is likely to be the guy who decides.



> Like it or not, the problem in Iran is simmering, but sooner or later it will boil over, and whoever is in the US President's chair at the time will have make a decision. Republican or Democrat regardless.


I agree,



> ...And what about the surge report?


If General Patreaus identifies Iran as a problem
I would guess there would be action sooner, rather than later.


----------



## Flip

> However airstrikes on selected targets is likely and is reality. The sooner Iran is put out of nuclear business, the better.



And again, I agree.

I think the Iranian population would love to have a reason to get rid of their
current government. -This might be it.

My opinion only.............


----------



## KevinB

Flip said:
			
		

> I think the Iranian population would love to have a reason to get rid of their
> current government.



They have many reasons already -- they are just too apathetic to do anything - kinda like Canadian voters.


----------



## foo32

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> It will be a similar strike like the IDF did in the region to destroy a nuke plant some time back.



As long as such a large American force is sitting on the ground right next door, I don't believe for a second an American attack would be limited to just a nuclear plant ... it wouldn't be prudent.  To me, this makes the plan to trash the Iranian armed forces that much more believable. 

On another note, I do think the Americans could reduce the vast majority of the Iranian military to twisted metal in only a few days, but this would just mark the beginning of the war.  One that will surely leave the Iranian population miserable.  They might want to get rid of their current government, but not this way!


----------



## karl28

Man what a scary thought the possibility of  Iran with nuclear weapons . It's like a really bad  darned if we do,  darned if we don't situation .   I feel for the people who have to make that discion on weather or not to go to war  .  I know that I  wouldn't want that responsibility .
          I am probably being foolish but I hope that a diplomatic solution can be reached that's good for every one .


----------



## 1feral1

foo32 said:
			
		

> As long as such a large American force is sitting on the ground right next door, I don't believe for a second an American attack would be limited to just a nuclear plant ...



There might be US troops 'next door', but there is not enough on the ground to do a proper job where they are now. I don't think they can use the Iraqi placed forces for much of anything, as they are busy as hell where they are now, trying to win in Iraq. Win battles they do, but winning hearts and minds is another story, and thats both at home and in country.

Wes


----------



## foo32

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> There might be US troops 'next door', but there is not enough on the ground to do a proper job where they are now.



I didn't intend to imply the Americans would use those troops against Iran, just that they were well within the range of Iranian retaliation, if say, the Americans just attacked the nuclear plant with an air-strike.  Because of the risk to American troops, it makes a certain amount of sense to go after the Iranian military immediately.  Betting that the Iranians would not dare attack the American troops on the ground in Iraq would be too great of a risk (in my very humble chicken-hawk opinion).


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Personally I think that the situation in Iran is similar to that in Iraq. The people don't like the government that much but if you invade their country and chaos and anarchy ensue you won't be regarded in a positive light. Better the devil we knew than the devil we don't know. If the Islamists and jihadists see another place to import their violence and mayhem and inflict that on the civilian population we could be in for another quagmire.
There's another factor here too in that China has an agreement with Iran for oil. Would a military strike by the US bring China into the tensions? Is a strike against Iran going to be UN and NATO sanctioned or does the US go it alone with another so-called "coalition of the willing?"
As others have noted the tolerance for war in the states is not high right now and I'm not sure how they would sell this to the American people.


----------



## foo32

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> There's another factor here too in that China has an agreement with Iran for oil. Would a military strike by the US bring China into the tensions? Is a strike against Iran going to be UN and NATO sanctioned or does the US go it alone with another so-called "coalition of the willing?"



These are really good points.  Iran is China's biggest oil supplier. You can forget any UN sanctioning of military action for sure (China would veto it).


----------



## larry Strong

Real economic sanctions could shake Ahmadinejad's government. Iran's sick economy relies on numerous imports. But the prospect of "real sanctions" emerging from the U.N. Security Council are slim. Real sanctions ultimately mean enforced sanctions, and given the porosity of Iran's borders -- and the porosity of commitments by the likes of Russia and China -- the likelihood of enforced sanctions drops from slim to none.


----------



## GAP

If Iran is cooperating with the Atomic Energy Inspectors there is no way the UN will impose sanctions.


----------



## foo32

I don' t know how much (if any) credibility they have, but I've encountered rumours on several sites over the past day or two, that an attack on Iran by the USA is imminent.  I usually shrug rumours off (since they are usually B.S.) so I didn't pay much attention, but here is one that was just linked from digg.com:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527


----------



## tomahawk6

Dailykos the ultimate tin hat anti-Bush web site. ;D
If an attack is going to happen few will know about it in advance.


----------



## FredDaHead

GAP said:
			
		

> If Iran is cooperating with the Atomic Energy Inspectors there is no way the UN will impose sanctions.



Even if they aren't cooperating, there is no way the spineless UN will impose sanctions. Besides, even if the UN had some kind of semblance of a spine (which it doesn't), as was pointed out, Iran is one of China's oil suppliers; there is no way China would vote for or abstain from a vote on sanctions instead of vetoing it.


----------



## a_majoor

We have been down this thread before actually: "Trouble from Iran" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34696.0.html


----------



## Infanteer

As always, food for thought....

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/Sadri.pdf


----------



## Chimo

Would the USA attack a sovereign country without even a shred of legitimacy? This type of action would be very difficult to rationalize particularly without general support from friendly and aligned country. I would hope that all diplomatic efforts are used and exhausted prior to any other USA action.


----------



## Flip

> Would the USA attack a sovereign country without even a shred of legitimacy?



It's mostly just speculation at this point.

I suspect that there are those who are trying to whip up opposition
peremptorily.

I also seriously doubt that there are any invasion plans.
I would conjecture that any action would be short, sharp and directed at
nuclear facilities only.

Infanteer - That article is an interesting read. food for thought indeed.
Thanx!

P.S. - I disagree with the author's optimism toward a diplomatic solution.
Irans' support for Hezbollah pushes things out of the "Iran's just misunderstood"
range of possibilty.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran's leader feels that his country is safe from attack. ;D

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22355256-401,00.html



> PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sought to justify his confidence the US will not attack Iran, saying the proof comes from his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God, the press reported today.
> 
> Mr Ahmadinejad told academics in a speech that elements inside Iran were pressing for compromise in the nuclear standoff with the West over fears the US could launch a military strike.
> 
> "In some discussions I told them 'I am an engineer and I am examining the issue. They do not dare wage war against us and I base this on a double proof'," he said in the speech yesterday, reported by the reformist Etemad Melli and Kargozaran newspapers.
> 
> "I tell them: 'I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.
> 
> "I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."'
> 
> Mr Ahmadinejad has long expressed pride in his academic prowess. He holds a PhD on transport engineering and planning from Tehran's Science and Technology University and is the author several of scientific papers.
> 
> The deeply religious President said his second reason was: "I believe in what God says."
> 
> "God says that those who walk in the path of righteousness will be victorious. What reason can you have for believing God will not keep this promise."


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Well there you have it. we can all sleep soundly in our beds tonight knowing that this guy is on the job eh? :


----------



## R.O.S

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm) states that british blame Iran for supplying Taleban with newest chinese arms.


----------



## Flip

Hmmm, Sounds like there is evidence but no proof.

So who do the Chinese need more ? The wests' export markets
or Iran's oil?


----------



## Greymatters

Three days?  They said the same thing about Kosovo and look how that turned out.  This is not a pushover country, and the brass doing the planning shouldnt expect them to fold like paper warriors...


----------



## a_majoor

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Three days?  They said the same thing about Kosovo and look how that turned out.  This is not a pushover country, and the brass doing the planning shouldnt expect them to fold like paper warriors...



I don't expect the Americans do. The three day air campaign plan sounds somewhat like a decapitation plan (something I referred to as a "head shot" in previous threads), which takes the tools of power out of the hands of the Theocracy and allows the opposition the ability to take to the streets and overthrow the current rulers. The downside of the strategy is the reaction of the Iranian people to the air campaign, especially without some overt _casus belli_. (We can take it as a given that the MSM and "left wing" opposition will oppose action against Iran until a mushroom cloud appears over Manhattan island.

The other risk the Americans will have to accept with this plan is having only minimum influence over which faction wins the resulting civil war (although it will take a lot of pressure off other theaters with the cutoff of money, supplies and training by the Iranians to Hammas, Hezbollah and assorted other groups). The reaction of the nations which depend on Iranian oil will also have to be taken into account.

There is a very involved calculus going on here; short term gain in other theaters, long term uncertainty over the future direction of Iran and fear of the present course Iran is taking. We live in interesting times.


----------



## Greymatters

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I don't expect the Americans do. The three day air campaign plan sounds somewhat like a decapitation plan (something I referred to as a "head shot" in previous threads), which takes the tools of power out of the hands of the Theocracy and allows the opposition the ability to take to the streets and overthrow the current rulers. The downside of the strategy is the reaction of the Iranian people to the air campaign, especially without some overt _casus belli_.



The problem with the three day 'head-shot' you describe is how do you follow it up?  I hope the intelligence and coordination depicting an Iranian opposition takeover is better than the supposed opposition support prior to Iraq.  

I would further point out two other key problems with this concept: 
(1) Iran is very low tech in a lot of areas, and it is difficult to envision how a supposed opposition party is going to coordinate a national takeover if there is no means to communicate a simultaneous attack on all key positions across the country.  Especially after three days during which hundreds of attacks have wiped out phone lines, transmission towers and other communications neccesities.   
(2) The three-day attack, if used as a precursor, would only disperse the leaders and send many of them into hiding, into isolated areas, or into fortified structures that would only make it more difficult to capture or kill the current leadership.  This tends to go against the element of surprise required for a successful 'coup-d'etat'.


----------



## great_white

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> The problem with the three day 'head-shot' you describe is how do you follow it up?  I hope the intelligence and coordination depicting an Iranian opposition takeover is better than the supposed opposition support prior to Iraq.
> 
> I would further point out two other key problems with this concept:
> (1) Iran is very low tech in a lot of areas, and it is difficult to envision how a supposed opposition party is going to coordinate a national takeover if there is no means to communicate a simultaneous attack on all key positions across the country.  Especially after three days during which hundreds of attacks have wiped out phone lines, transmission towers and other communications neccesities.
> (2) The three-day attack, if used as a precursor, would only disperse the leaders and send many of them into hiding, into isolated areas, or into fortified structures that would only make it more difficult to capture or kill the current leadership.  This tends to go against the element of surprise required for a successful 'coup-d'etat'.



Agreed!
Just a thought, Their President should be the main target here!   Why not just assassinate him?  The entire nation would then see how serious the looming Nuclear programme is and how close it could come to an all out ****storm if it is not ceased.


----------



## Greymatters

great_white said:
			
		

> Just a thought, Their President should be the main target here!   Why not just assassinate him?  The entire nation would then see how serious the looming Nuclear programme is and how close it could come to an all out ****storm if it is not ceased.



Thats pretty much a taboo act between modern nations.  It is so easy to accomplish that there seems to be an unwritten agreement between countries that "we will not assasinate each other's senior leadership".  It is equal to a declaration of war...except during time of war of course...  and it doesnt seem to apply to disagreements between governments and insurgent/terrorist groups, or between opposing terrorist/insurgent groups, or between opposing criminal organizations.  Or between opposing spy agencies.  Or if you're the Pope.


----------



## tomahawk6

Well Gaddafi by a stroke of luck wasnt killed in the raid on Tripoli, although he wasnt intentionally targeted. The event seems to have scared him straight.


----------



## KevinB

The Big G lost a son in that raid - and all of a sudden felt very mortal.   He however is not a religious lunatic, and after 9/11 he sensed the way the wind was blowing and he gave up the NK/Iran/Pak Nuc info (and his stuff as he had been part of it).

To this day I believe Bush made a mistake not invading Iran prior to Iraq -- IF the war is coming is not doubt - the longer we leave it the higher the body count will be.


----------



## Flip

Perhaps a short sharp punch in the nose is a worthwhile investment?

Deterrance exist only when the other side really believes you will hurt them.
Qaddafi got it. Ahmedinejad is expendable.
Expend him!

I once heard of a theory that WW2 could have been avoided if the British 
had landed an expeditionary force in '36 or so and enforced the treaty of Versailles.
I suspect that it's correct.

My 2 shekels anyway - and what do I know? ;D


----------



## Greymatters

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Well Gaddafi by a stroke of luck wasnt killed in the raid on Tripoli, although he wasnt intentionally targeted. The event seems to have scared him straight.



Good point, I forgot about that one.


----------



## foo32

It's often occurred to me that bumping off the occasional 'leader' would be a low-bloodshed way of curtailing a lot of problems.  I'm not sure it would get at the heart of the problems we have with Iran however -- many of which pre-date Ahmedinejad. In fact in might even make things worse. Ahmedinejad has limited power -- much of the power in Iran seems to be held by religious leaders.  Ahmedinejad's domestic policies (in contrast to his inflammatory rhetoric) have, in several cases, shown him to have moderate rather than fanatical tendencies. The degree to which Islamic institutions in Iran are fueling the push for atomic weapons is an unknown I personally have no information about. However, the distrust of _their_ agenda is probably pretty high up on the list reasons the West is so nervous about Iran having nuclear capabilities.  As soon as religion gets involved, rationality and even motivated self-interest (concepts on which the whole deterant-thing depends), are in danger of going right out the window.


----------



## Flip

> As soon as religion gets involved, rationality and even motivated self-interest (concepts on which the whole deterant-thing depends), are in danger of going right out the window.



I believe you are sustantially correct.

However, there is a pressing need to do something sooner rather than later on this
new WMD threat, the President has limited power - if he's gone no biggy.

I'm not actually a fan of the "head shot" concept.
But there is a serious need to make a statement.

The nuclear facilities themselves are a more appropriate target, but they are dispersed
and some deep underground. There is likely to be some environmental cost to a strike here.  The mess may be large enough to form a deterrant from rebuilding.
I wouldn't want to sweep up and rebuild a facility that is conspicuously radioactive.  


As usual just spit balling - Getting told I'm wrong is how I learn............ ;D


----------



## foo32

As long as American (and allied) troops are protected in Iraq, I say blow that reactor (and any facilities you can find) straight to hell ASAP =)  If you accidentally hit Ahmedinejad in the process, I wouldn't cry about it ... I'm just pointing out the next guy could be worse.

Anyway, just my opinion ... if I seem too wishy-washy you'll have to forgive me, I'm a left-winger.  ;D


----------



## tech2002

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/international_iran_france_war_dc

 12 minutes ago

By Francois Murphy
ADVERTISEMENT

PARIS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear program, but he did not believe any such action was imminent.

Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting atom bombs.

He also said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.

"We must prepare for the worst," Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Asked about the preparations, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities.

"We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative (but) that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.

Tehran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology to produce electricity, but it has yet to comply with repeated U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could potentially be used in producing weapons.

Kouchner's comments follow a similarly hawkish statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said last month in his first major foreign policy speech since taking office that a diplomatic push by the world's powers was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Asked if France was involved in any planning towards war, he said: "The French army is not at the moment associated with anything at all, nor with any maneuver at all."

"PEACE IS IN YOUR INTEREST"

France has said repeatedly it wants the U.N. Security Council to pass tougher sanctions against Iran over its failure to dispel fears that it is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.

"We do not want to signal anything other than 'peace is in your interest, and in ours too,"' Kouchner said, adding that the door should be left open to negotiations with Tehran, but Paris has made a suspension of nuclear work a condition for talks.

He also said that France had asked its biggest companies, including oil giant Total and gas firm Gaz de France, not to bid for projects in Iran.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have led a diplomatic drive to punish Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program. They succeeded in persuading reluctant Russia and China to back two U.N. sanctions resolutions.

Washington says the time has to expand the penalties and has called a September 21 meeting of the six powers to discuss a third sanctions resolution to submit to the U.N. Security Council.

"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to tenders, and it is a way of signaling that we are serious," Kouchner said.

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies. But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

In addition, Paris and Berlin were preparing possible European Union economic sanctions against Tehran, Kouchner said.

"We have decided to ... prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it. We discussed it a few days ago," Kouchner said.


----------



## geo

Heh.... I think I hear sabres rattle.....


----------



## karl28

More on this from CNN  http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran.ap/index.html

I hope the above link works 

France: Prepare for war over IranStory Highlights
France's FM warns world should ready for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons

Koucher says European leaders considering economic sanctions

Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy
Next Article in World »



     
PARIS, France (AP) -- France's foreign minister warned Sunday that the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.


French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called for more effective sanctions on Iran.

 Negotiations and two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear power plants as well as material used in atomic weapons.

Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the U.S., its European allies and other world powers suspect Iranian authorities of seeking nuclear weapons.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, speaking on RTL radio, called for "more effective sanctions" against Iran if it continues to resist the demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

"We will not accept that such a bomb is made. We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said, specifying that could mean a war. He did not elaborate on what kind of preparations that would entail.

"We have decided, while negotiations are under way ... to prepare for eventual sanctions outside the United Nations, which would be European sanctions," he said.

Kouchner was not specific about what penalties Europe might impose, other than to say they could be "economic sanctions regarding financial movements."

"Our German friends proposed this. We discussed it a few days ago," he said.

Sarkozy reportedly floated the possibility of European sanctions against Iran this summer. In a major foreign policy speech last month, he mentioned the possibility of an attack on Iran, which he said would be as "catastrophic" as Tehran getting a nuclear bomb.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Bush administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.

Don't Miss
Iran 'reaches nuclear target' 
"I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using," the Pentagon chief said.

Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister was quoted as saying on state television that enriched uranium fuel is ready to be shipped from Russia to Iran's first nuclear power plant.

The project has been beset by repeated delays due to payment problems on the Iranian side, according to the Russians. Iran, however, maintains it is because Moscow has been caving into Western pressure to halt the project.

Sunday's announcement comes after talks in Moscow between Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko to address delays in completing the $1 billion Bushehr power plant.

Iran currently has the ability to enrich small amounts of uranium for nuclear fuel but still nowhere near enough to power a nuclear plant, much less create a weapon. Russian officials say the Bushehr plant cannot open until six months after the current fuel is delivered. E-mail to a friend


----------



## Mike Baker

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6998602.stm 

BBC report on it.


----------



## FredDaHead

geo said:
			
		

> Heh.... I think I hear sabres rattle.....



It's just that the French have realized that being so cowardly over the two more recent missions, they have no credibility left and they need to stop being such wussies to get taken somewhat seriosuly. I except them to turn around and bash whoever goes into Iran, when the waste material impacts the rotating apparatus.


----------



## Greymatters

Freddy G said:
			
		

> It's just that the French have realized that being so cowardly over the two more recent missions,...



Perhaps you should clarifiy... which French?  Any particular unit in mind?


----------



## KevinB

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should clarifiy... which French?  Any particular unit in mind?



FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?

  last two missions (OEF and OIF)


----------



## rz350

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?
> 
> last two missions (*OEF* and OIF)



France has 1100 troops in Afghanistan, and 3 Mirage 2000D, 2 C160 transport and 2 C135 (KC135) refueling aircraft.
they took 11 deaths in Afghanistan.

Now, they are not doing as much as Britain, Canada or USA, but they are doing more then a lot of other members of the coalition, who are only members in name, with not one soldier on the ground.

You mean they opposed OIF, and for this they are cowards, according to you. although they went off to OEF and supported it.


----------



## Greymatters

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?  last two missions (OEF and OIF)



Perhaps I should clarify...I am thinking in terms of which French units: Admin/support staff?  Recce squadrons?  Infantry? (etc...)  Or just all of them in general?


----------



## KevinB

rz350 said:
			
		

> France has 1100 troops in Afghanistan, and 3 Mirage 2000D, 2 C160 transport and 2 C135 (KC135) refueling aircraft.
> they took 11 deaths in Afghanistan.
> 
> Now, they are not doing as much as Britain, Canada or USA, but they are doing more then a lot of other members of the coalition, who are only members in name, with not one soldier on the ground.
> 
> You mean they opposed OIF, and for this they are cowards, according to you. although they went off to OEF and supported it.



WRONG

They DID NOT SUPPORT OEF AT ALL, and their troops are sitting in Kabul - I value them a few cents on the Dollar more than the Germans

  Don't mistake ISAF for OEF.


----------



## rz350

Okay, you got me there, I should of remebered the difference, as it is a big difference. But both missions are critical and good causes.
still, they are part of ISAF and are providing troops and jets and transport planes to the mission, which is a good mission.

I get sick off all the France bashing, when there are MANY countries that do a lot less then they do. its just a pet peeve.


----------



## 1feral1

I am sure the 10% muslim population in France will be impressed.  :crybaby:

France's biggest enemy is within its own borders.

I have worked with French Marines on two occasions. Seemed switched on, but their government is as limp as a gay hand.


Wes


----------



## geo

Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!

Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?


----------



## PO2FinClk

geo said:
			
		

> Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!
> 
> Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=c6f01966-2a83-4bae-8b16-199cedf01dc4


> KANDAHAR -Will France help Prime Minister Stephen Harper and give fresh impetus to NATO's mission in southern Afghanistan by sending combat troops to fight alongside the Canadian battle group here?
> 
> In a clear signal that a French government is willing for the first time in years to play a part in joint western combat operations, President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered Mirage fighter jets to Kandahar to help protect American, British and Canadian ground forces. The French warplanes are to be operational by the end of the month.
> 
> Because so much has been made of how Sarkozy is keen to improve frail relations with Washington, and as other countries that have had fighter jets at the Kandahar airfield -- the Americans, British and Dutch -- also have combat troops here, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine France sending an infantry battalion or even a brigade to join the fight.
> 
> With Germany, Spain and Italy having repeatedly refused NATO's request to join combat operations and with the Dutch parliament split over whether its forces should stay next door in Uruzgan province, the French decision to dispatch warplanes to southern Afghanistan should be a boon to Harper, who has been puzzling over what Canada's contribution to NATO's mission in southern Afghanistan should be after the current mandate expires in early 2009.
> 
> France signing on would help Harper because it would undermine opposition claims that Canada should join the Germans in refusing a combat role or get out altogether, which is what is being debated in the Netherlands.
> 
> As you might expect, Canada's future role in Afghanistan is of consuming interest to its nearly 2,500 troops in the region and senior NATO officers in Kandahar and Kabul. NATO does not want Canada to cut and run, and sees no sense in Canada switching to a largely humanitarian effort, as the New Democrats and some Liberals advocate, because such efforts will never succeed unless the operating environment is much more secure.
> 
> Although they are understandably reluctant to say so baldly in public, the overwhelming opinion of the Canadians now in Kandahar and those that have rotated out after serving tours here, is that they are making a difference. They want the current mandate extended although they acknowledge the number of troops will have to be scaled back because there are not enough fresh forces at home to maintain present troop levels beyond 2009.
> 
> Jack Layton and Stephane Dion would not want to hear it, but what Canada actually needs is more, not fewer, combat troops in Afghanistan, if only more were to be had.
> 
> To be honest, Canada's grandly named battle group in Kandahar is an enhanced infantry battalion.
> 
> What has always really been required in Canada's enormous area of responsibility has been three infantry battalions -- effectively a brigade to hold Taliban strongholds to the west of Kandahar, watch over the city and secure the province's porous eastern border with Pakistan, where the enemy rests and re-supplies every winter. As it is, the battle group has to race around a lot trying to keep as much as possible in check. If Harper elects to keep Canada's current mission more or less intact, it will undoubtedly be leaner, losing some of its robust combat capability and some of its logistical tail.
> 
> But there are other options worth contemplating, particularly if France, which has several fresh brigades available, commits to sending ground troops to the south. One possibility being actively considered is to continue with the Provincial Reconstruction (PRT) and the infantry company that now guards it, greatly increase the few Canadian soldiers now mentoring the Afghan army and, perhaps, leave Canada's new Leopard tanks -- NATO's only tanks in Afghanistan -- in theatre. Such a force, numbering perhaps 1,300, would give infantry, combat engineering and support elements the break from overseas tours they badly need.
> 
> Another option is to just keep the PRT and the infantry that are with it, increase the number of mentors and deploy CF-18 Hornet fighter jets to Kandahar. However, aside from the high cost of operating warplanes so far from home, there would probably be severe political fallout the first time a Canadian air strike killed Afghan civilians.
> 
> The ideal solution would be to maintain as many elements of the current mission as possible and hope the French will help out in Kandahar or in one of the equally restive neighbouring provinces.


----------



## geo

That's the story PO
But to me.... I don't believe it till the planes are in KAF, in the air AND providing adequate ground support.
However, before I am prepared to welcome the French fighters with open arms, lets get our IFF & CAS signals straight - I would hate to start a new relationship with a "whoopsie" incident.


----------



## karl28

Some more news on this story on Irans response to Frances statements I have provided the link. Thought that might be better than the whole story being copied 



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/18/france.iran/index.html


----------



## KevinB

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Labelling an entire country based on the actions of a few politicians is very George W.



Call my GW jr.  ;D


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!
> 
> Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?



Based upon my observations of their, ahem, "performance" during my time in Lahr in the last three years of the eighties and comments by others in another thread indicating that no improvements have been noted since then, don't bet on your first option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Current French political directions under their new President is significantly better than under the previous wanker. I am sure he has a lot of work to do to change "group think" in his government and military, but it is a good start.


----------



## Mike Baker

Russia warns againts Iran war


----------



## geo

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> Russia warns againts Iran war



Just an echo of the French declaration....


----------



## Greymatters

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> France's biggest enemy is within its own borders.  I have worked with French Marines on two occasions. Seemed switched on, but their government is as limp as a gay hand.



That was my point right there.  The French guys I worked with were pretty squared away, but others were pompous fools (and a range in between) with the competence related to what unit they were with. 

Of course, they're ALL a bit picky about food and drink standards, but you can live with that...


----------



## 2 Cdo

The French military has stepped up training in an effort to prepare for war with Iran. 
Special emphasis has been placed on: 
1. Proper technique for laying down weapons
2. More upper body PT to make the raising of arms over head easier.

Sorry folks, this was just too good of an opportunity to resist! ;D


----------



## Thorvald

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> Russia warns againts Iran war



My favourite quote from that article:

"Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that a "bombing of Iran would ... end with catastrophic consequences."

Ah "Allies", aren't they such fun...  :


----------



## Mike Baker

Thorvald said:
			
		

> My favourite quote from that article:
> 
> "Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that a "bombing of Iran would ... end with catastrophic consequences."
> 
> Ah "Allies", aren't they such fun...  :


See the mistake in that? The southern _Russian_ city of Bushehr.


----------



## Thorvald

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> See the mistake in that? The southern _Russian_ city of Bushehr.



Ah damn, you took all the fun away   I was wondering who would catch that little Free-Press slip-up....

As I recall, Bushehr is about 250 miles SOUTH of Tehran!

Will Russian aspirations never cease eh  ;D


P.S. Aren't these the same reactors that I remember the Germans building back in the mid seventies (yes I still remember what was on TV back then, I'm a cold war kid too), then they halted construction when the Iranian Revolution occurred (thank god).  Then Iraq bombed the bejesus out of them.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> "Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that a "bombing of Iran would ... end with catastrophic consequences."



In the eventuality, I wonder who's side they'll take?


----------



## Mike Baker

And now some word from Iran if the Israel attack them.

Iran 'to bomb Israel if attacked'


----------



## Fishbone Jones

1. go to - Google
2. Type - french military victories
3. Select the 'I Feel Lucky' button 

French Military Victories

French Army Knife


----------



## Greymatters

recceguy said:
			
		

> French Military Victories



Although Im not into slamming the French, that was a funny one, especially "Did you mean..." line.


----------



## NL_engineer

recceguy said:
			
		

> 1. go to - Google
> 2. Type - french military victories
> 3. Select the 'I Feel Lucky' button
> 
> French Military Victories
> 
> French Army Knife



I tried that in a number of other search engines, and came up with the same result.  I guess Iran must be worried of the French invasion :


----------



## cplcaldwell

The plot thickens, from Globe and Mail

Reproduced under the Provisions of the Ninth Intergalactic Protocol




> *Sarkozy calls for stronger sanctions against Iran
> 
> [size=10pt] ANGELA CHARLTON
> 
> THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> September 20, 2007 at 10:06 PM EDT*
> 
> PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Iran directly of seeking nuclear weapons Thursday and suggested tougher sanctions against the Mideast country.
> 
> Mr. Sarkozy, who has toughened the French position on Iran since taking office in May, called the possibility of an Iranian bomb “unacceptable.”
> 
> Mr. Sarkozy was expected to discuss sanctions with other world leaders at the UN General Assembly next week.
> 
> If current sanctions are not sufficient, Mr. Sarkozy said, “I want stronger sanctions,” he said in a televised interview. But he insisted that France does not want to see tensions lead to war.
> 
> The United States and other world powers suspect Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it only wants nuclear technology to produce electricity. Two rounds of UN sanctions have failed to end the deadlock.
> 
> “It's a very difficult matter, but France does not want war,” Mr. Sarkozy said. He said negotiations with Iran were still possible.
> 
> Mr. Sarkozy, known for his frank manner, dispensed with diplomatic niceties when referring to Iran's nuclear activities.
> 
> “Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. I say to the French, 'It's unacceptable,”' Mr. Sarkozy said.
> 
> “How can we convince (the Iranians) to renounce this project as the international community has convinced North Korea and Libya? Through discussion, dialogue, sanctions,” he said.
> 
> Mr. Sarkozy stepped back slightly from comments by Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Sunday that the world should “prepare for the worst” in Iran, specifically “war.” Amid criticism, Mr. Kouchner later softened that, insisting he just wanted to underline the gravity of the Iranian nuclear problem.
> 
> “I would not have used the word 'war,”' Mr. Sarkozy said Thursday.
> 
> “How can we convince (the Iranians) to renounce this project as the international community has convinced North Korea and Libya? Through discussion, dialogue, sanctions,” he said.
> 
> Mr. Kouchner, in a speech in Washington Thursday, expanded on the recommendation by Mr. Sarkozy for tightening sanctions.
> 
> “An Iran with a military nuclear capability is, for us, an unacceptable prospect,” he said, speaking in English. “If sanctions without dialogue can only lead to confrontation, dialogue without sanctions is unfortunately tantamount to weakness.”


----------



## Bobby Rico

I see this as all a lot of posturing by the French.  I think they still want to feel like they're involved in International affairs beyond the UN.  It will be interesting to see however whether the current French Prez is just another fence-sitter ala Chirac, or if he'll actually surprise everyone by taking a stance, getting his country involved in something, opposed to just talking about it at great length and making a stink about it in the UN.


----------



## Flip

Bobby,

Theres an old saying - At breakfast, the chicken is involved but the pig is commited.

France would not be the chicken, but the Magpie sitting on the gate.

As long as they are not opposing the good guys at the UN, I think that's the 
best we can count on.

I don't think Chirac was a fence-sitter. I think he was duplicitous.

( My opinion only) - No relevant documents..... ;D


----------



## nihilpavor

Nicolas Sarkozy isn't Jacques Chirac by any means! Not even close. 
He wants action, he wants to undertake big reforms both in internal politics and in foreign politics. In some ways it seems that he wants to generate movement and eventually successes on the foreign front in order to help the much needed internal reforms. He is very politically dominant right now in France and there isn't much political opposition in front of him, except from the usual leftist actors (unions...). He will probably align his positions more closely on US positions on many fronts...  For the next year or so, he will lead France foreign policy has he sees fit, and that might be really surprising from those of us who doesn't follow french politics up close.


----------



## geo

If Sarkozy wants to make changes, he will do them in the 1st two years of his mandate, while he still enjoys the support of a population that acknowledges that there is something rotten in the state of the state.  The unions might flex their muscle but, I figure, he stands a chance of success..... or does he?


----------



## GAP

watch what happens when the left encourage the minorities and unions to oppose the changes coming....there's going to be royal hell to pay, and I think in the end Sarkozy will triumph, but at what price?


----------



## geo

well... as a template against which we can compare
Mrs Thatcher & the coal miners
Mr Reagan and the Air traffic controllers


----------



## GAP

I think we are going to find his approach much like his approach when he was "Security Minister"(?) and there was rioting in the streets. It could get pretty brutal with the minorities, especially if they push back.....read "deportation".


----------



## geo

probably will break a few eggs before things are straightened up BUT, if you wait... it'll only get worse


----------



## midget-boyd91

I think I'll post this here, rather than start a new thread. 



> *Iran's parliament votes to label CIA, U.S. Army 'terrorist' groups*
> 
> (CNN) -- The Iranian parliament on Saturday voted to designate the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations, IRNA, the country's state-run news agency, reported.
> 
> The CIA and the U.S. Army "trained terrorists and supported terrorism, and they themselves are terrorists," the parliament said, according to IRNA.
> 
> The Iranian parliament said the condemnation was based on "known and accepted" standards of terrorism from international regulations, including the U.N. charter.
> 
> The parliament said it condemns the "aggressions by the U.S. Army, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan" and calls on the United Nations to "intervene in the global problem of U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret jails in other countries," IRNA reported, quoting a statement from Iranian lawmakers.
> 
> The Iranian parliament also decried the CIA's and U.S. Army's involvement in the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, U.S. *involvement in the Balkans*, Vietnam and the U.S. support of Israel.
> 
> Of the condemnation, Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said, "There are some things that don't even deserve comment. This is one."
> 
> National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he declined to comment "on non-binding resolutions passed by parliaments in countries with dubious records on human rights, democracy and that are state sponsors of terror."
> 
> There was no immediate response from the U.S. State Department.
> 
> Washington and U.S. military leaders have long accused Iran of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq. The United States and Iran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1980 after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.
> 
> The Iranian lawmakers' condemnation was in apparent retaliation for the U.S. Senate's resolution Wednesday requesting that the United States designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or Quds Force, as a foreign terrorist organization.
> 
> The Senate resolution passed a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly that an agreement reached last month between his country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its disputed nuclear program has, in the Iranian view, settled the matter.
> 
> Iran says its nuclear program is necessary for civilian energy production. The United States and other Western nations have accused Tehran of trying to build a nuclear weapon.



Hmm... so now army.ca's U.S military members are "terrorists."   :

_Edit: edited to put a section of the article in bold letters.
 So does this mean that the Iranian parliment considers Canadians, French, British......etc .. who served in the Balkans terrorists also?_


----------



## 1feral1

Sabre rattling, however Iran's day is coming, and sooner than later.


Wes


----------



## Flip

Obfuscation - they do it badly.

The Iranian government don't know or care to know their target
audience very well.  Unless - wait a minute - it's for the home audience!

It's all still ....ahem .... obfuscation.  ;D


----------



## 1feral1

Their only audience and/or followers is the radical extreme side of their religion ( I hope). Sure we can throw in a few lunitic lefties too in our out societies, who hate our governments for some twisted reason. 

I certainlly hope mainstreamers in these tortured states of terrorism, don't follow, and actually can think with proper reason, rather than being brainwashed by their regimes. If not, they too will reach their allah long before their time.

Followers such such crap beileve all what is said, and they are inspired by such ideals. Sadly, many in our own cities also do to.

Truly dangerous times are ahead for a long long time to come for us all.


Wes


----------



## Flip

> Truly dangerous times are ahead for a long long time to come for us all.



Sadly - I agree.

The real danger is that the relatively liberal west will only catch on after it 
gets really really painful.


----------



## Long in the tooth

The CIA spokesman who said it didn't deserve comment had better start to learn about propaganda and the 'hearts & minds' aspect.  This is another part of 'total war', and to leave the field free to your enemy in any aspect is a failure.

The Iranian's control of Nuclear Weapons is a critical issue.  Although conventional weapons (fuel air mixtures, Cruise missiles) can have terrible effects, just the prospect of an enemy having Nukes has an incredible effect on friends and enemies.  Should the Iranians announce a 'Nuclear Cap' against Israel for any real or perceived transgression, the Israeli Government would have to weigh that threat against any conventional action against Syria, Ha-mas or other power that has conventionally threatened it.

Destabilization of the region is not in the best interest for Syria, Jordan, Turkey or Egypt.  Israel will be accepting new variants of the F18 with better range and avionics soon (the first foreign deliveries from the US).  It's calculated that a 50 plane raid could set the Iranian plan back, even thought they are protected and dispersed.  Be prepared of problems with Turkish and Syrian radar problems when Israeli Jets 'surreptitiously' cross there borders.

Remember, the Israelis can win all the time - but cannot afford to lose once.


----------



## a_majoor

The NY Sun reports on further escalation by Islamic radicals on the internal organs of their home states. While in the short term the takeover would provide direct access to State power, the mid to long term results would be a further collapse of education, the economy and civil society in these nations:

http://www.nysun.com/article/64000?page_no=1



> *In ‘The Kingdom,' Darkness Deepens*
> 
> By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
> October 5, 2007
> 
> A new movie is playing in theaters, and I recommend you see it. It's called "The Kingdom," and it reminds us of the scale of terror visited upon the world by Saudi Arabia's Islamist priesthood, its ruling family, its army, and many of its citizens.
> 
> Although it is an action picture, "The Kingdom," remarkably well-directed by Peter Berg, goes far beyond the usual fare and delves into the deep dysfunctions of Saudi society. Based on actual events surrounding the June 1996 terror bombings that left 19 American servicemen dead and seriously injured 372 other expatriates at a residential complex near Dhahran, the film captures the shocking degree of jihadist penetration into Saudi life — particularly into the Saudi National Guard, an army branch personally commanded by the country's current monarch, King Abdullah.
> 
> But in addition to the "The Kingdom," we got another glimpse into Saudi society this week — and an insight into how one step toward reform in that country is almost always accompanied by two steps back — when the grand mufti, Sheik Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Sheik, issued a fatwa decreeing that Saudi Muslims should not fight in other people's wars — unless, of course, they are in "defense of Islam."
> 
> Given the fact that for two decades, Saudis have been fighting — and killing — in various countries, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Lebanon, and Iraq, the grand mufti's effete decree left even residents of the kingdom wondering whether he lives on the planet Earth.
> 
> "Oh, grand sheik, what took you so long?" a pundit in a Saudi daily, Asharq al-Awsat, sarcastically exclaimed.
> 
> Another special moment was Monday's grandiose unveiling of Abdullah's much-anticipated judicial reform program. It dramatically expands the size and number of tribunals and courts in Saudi Arabia, adds judges, and opens new avenues for justice in civil and business matters.
> 
> There is just one hiccup: The reform failed to tackle the reason for all the current problems; namely, that Saudi judges are not lawyers nor even students of civil law, but religious priests who must be graduates of Islamic theological schools. In other words, the same folks who gave you broken justice can now expand it into new areas such as business and women's rights.
> 
> The move leaves the keys to modernization — in one of the richest countries, one sitting on nearly half the world's oil and natural gas reserves, and that has a thriving business community and a rapidly growing population of about 25 million men and women — firmly in the hands of bearded, sandaled men whose only knowledge consists of arcane interpretations of the Koran.
> 
> Elsewhere in the Arab world's steady march backward, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which represents the Islamists' most significant political opposition force, finally published its first detailed political program. The manifesto sent Arab progressives into deep shock.
> 
> Among its highlights:
> 
> • The revision of "every article" of Egypt's constitution in order to replace civil laws with Islamic sharia laws in "material, spiritual, financial, economic, psychological, and societal matters."
> 
> • The restriction of the government's top posts, including the presidency, the premiership, top army and police commands, and judicial posts to Muslim men.
> 
> Should the program be adopted, it would dispossess the 9 million Egyptians who are Christians (the largest such minority in the Arab world today) as well as nearly 40 million women, who are half the population.
> 
> But what really takes the cake in the Brotherhood's program, however, is its definition of who will arbitrate all laws and legislation: only "a committee of religious scholars as elders and guides" are qualified, the manifesto insists. And those "elders" are to be selected — as you might have guessed — by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood (which itself is to be elected or chosen by none other than itself). There is no need to delve further into the entire 108-page document. If you've read Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kämpf," you have the idea.
> 
> ymibrahim@gmail.com


----------



## Flip

A_Majoor,

Nice post! I particularly like the punchline;





> If you've read Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kämpf," you have the idea.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran's nuclear negotiator has resigned. It appears that Iran doesnt care what the rest of the world thinks they are determined to obtain nuclear weapons. The US is at a crossroad. Do nothing and risk taking the road to nuclear war or take action against Iran with the potential for unintended consequences. If a decision is made to strike Iran then for the President timing is everything as we are heading into our primary season. I would favor striking in the Nov-Dec time frame so that the action has minimal impact on the race. If we dont strike now then the next best time would be next Nov-Dec after the election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071020/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc


----------



## Flip

If the new "negotiator" is so hard-line that negotiations fail..........

Might this not accelerate the sanction cycle?

As Iran's strategy has been more about stalling and doing it's own thing 
regardless of the UN, sanctions, and negotiations etc.

Maybe this is progress...........no more nonsense. 
The talking can be appropriately blunt......Hmmmm.


----------



## tomahawk6

Great column by Jim Hoagland in the WP about how the Democrats,Russians and Chinese are forcing the military option on the administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201781.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

How to Rein in Iran Without War

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B07 


Iran is working to produce a 20-to-50-pound stockpile of enriched uranium that it can use to build atomic weapons within eight to 10 weeks, once it decides to do so -- and has consistently lied to the United Nations about those efforts. 

That headline conclusion is one of two basic points that I draw from a series of private meetings on Iran's nuclear ambitions involving diplomats, leading academic experts, senior military officers and experienced analysts from around the globe. The other: The impressive unity that the Bush administration has established in imposing sanctions on Iran is fraying because of war fears and commercial pressures and temptations.

Held over the course of this year in Europe, China and Russia, these unofficial traveling seminars provide a snapshot of international reaction to the unmistakable effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons and to the threats by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to prevent that from happening. 

The conversations, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), have dealt in mind-numbing detail with Iran's uranium-enrichment program, diplomatic and military options open to the West, and more. In Moscow two weeks ago, I was treated to several hours of explication on precisely how a subclause in a recent Russia-Kazakhstan nuclear power treaty prevents Russia from demanding that Iran forsake enriching uranium on its own territory. 

I feel like one of those poor geese on a foie gras farm in Alsace. Perversely, though, this information-stuffing has underlined for me the need to focus on the basic pieces of the complex Iranian mosaic. This is the time not to rush past the obvious -- not to get lost in self-interested political rhetoric, heavy-breathing sensationalist "reporting" about looming invasions or diplomatic flimflams such as the implausible Russian-Kazakh ploy offered in Moscow. It is a month to keep your hand on your wallet, your eye on the cards.

Bush holds talks on Iran with French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- another war-is-an-option fellow -- in Washington and then with German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- a firm waverer on military strikes -- in Crawford, Tex., this week. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin follows up on his mid-October visit to Iran, where he reportedly told the Iranians that he needed some concession from them, and fast, to enable him to keep protecting them from new U.N. condemnation. 

And by mid-November, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will report on whether the Iranians will now admit that they received and then developed P-2 centrifuges and got other nuclear technology from Pakistan, as was reported in this column in 1995 and as the IAEA has charged since 2002. 

This is one basic that Bush critics frequently overlook -- in part because it gets lost in the overheated "World War III" rhetoric of the president: The IAEA and the U.N. Security Council have determined that Iran has lied about its nuclear activities and has therefore at least temporarily forfeited its right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. That Iran has gone to great, secretive lengths to create and push forward a bomb-building capability is not a Bush delusion. 

But neither is it fantasy to say, as do Russia and China, that the Iranians have had great difficulty in getting their system of 2,952 centrifuges at Natanz, south of Tehran, to work effectively. The scenarios provided to Bush by U.S. and Israeli intelligence some years ago on what date Iran would get the bomb have not been validated. Bush does not face the pressure that he once anticipated for a binary, strike or no-strike, decision before he leaves office. 

Paradoxically, time is running out on the diplomatic track, where Russia and China are blocking a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran. This allows Cheney and other hawks to argue that waiting on diplomatic results is a waste of time. Blocking sanctions actually increases the pressure on Bush to move unilaterally and militarily. 

China, blithely ignoring the potentially perverse effect of its actions, wants to maintain financial advantage and access to Iran's energy. Chinese participants emphasized that basic point to me at an IISS-sponsored gathering in Beijing in June. China would expect to be compensated if sanctions cost it business -- an attitude that would appall Germany's Merkel, Italy's leaders and other Europeans who have seen their trade with Iran plummet as a result of joining the U.S. financial campaign against Tehran. 

The administration has too often pitched the confrontation with Iran as one that Bush alone will decide. Russia, China and Europe should do everything they can to prevent this from becoming necessary. Not backing the new U.N. sanctions brings it a scary step closer.


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Great column by Jim Hoagland in the WP about how the Democrats,Russians and Chinese are forcing the military option on the administration.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201781.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
> 
> How to Rein in Iran Without War
> 
> By Jim Hoagland
> Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B07
> 
> 
> Iran is working to produce a 20-to-50-pound stockpile of enriched uranium that it can use to build atomic weapons within eight to 10 weeks, once it decides to do so -- and has consistently lied to the United Nations about those efforts.
> 
> That headline conclusion is one of two basic points that I draw from a series of private meetings on Iran's nuclear ambitions involving diplomats, leading academic experts, senior military officers and experienced analysts from around the globe. The other: The impressive unity that the Bush administration has established in imposing sanctions on Iran is fraying because of war fears and commercial pressures and temptations.
> 
> Held over the course of this year in Europe, China and Russia, these unofficial traveling seminars provide a snapshot of international reaction to the unmistakable effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons and to the threats by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to prevent that from happening.
> 
> The conversations, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), have dealt in mind-numbing detail with Iran's uranium-enrichment program, diplomatic and military options open to the West, and more. In Moscow two weeks ago, I was treated to several hours of explication on precisely how a subclause in a recent Russia-Kazakhstan nuclear power treaty prevents Russia from demanding that Iran forsake enriching uranium on its own territory.
> 
> I feel like one of those poor geese on a foie gras farm in Alsace. Perversely, though, this information-stuffing has underlined for me the need to focus on the basic pieces of the complex Iranian mosaic. This is the time not to rush past the obvious -- not to get lost in self-interested political rhetoric, heavy-breathing sensationalist "reporting" about looming invasions or diplomatic flimflams such as the implausible Russian-Kazakh ploy offered in Moscow. It is a month to keep your hand on your wallet, your eye on the cards.
> 
> Bush holds talks on Iran with French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- another war-is-an-option fellow -- in Washington and then with German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- a firm waverer on military strikes -- in Crawford, Tex., this week. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin follows up on his mid-October visit to Iran, where he reportedly told the Iranians that he needed some concession from them, and fast, to enable him to keep protecting them from new U.N. condemnation.
> 
> And by mid-November, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will report on whether the Iranians will now admit that they received and then developed P-2 centrifuges and got other nuclear technology from Pakistan, as was reported in this column in 1995 and as the IAEA has charged since 2002.
> 
> This is one basic that Bush critics frequently overlook -- in part because it gets lost in the overheated "World War III" rhetoric of the president:  The IAEA and the U.N. Security Council have determined that Iran has lied about its nuclear activities and has therefore at least temporarily forfeited its right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. That Iran has gone to great, secretive lengths to create and push forward a bomb-building capability is not a Bush delusion.



Hmm, the article only mentions "Bush critics"- who may not necessarily always be US Democrats. But the part about the Chinese and the Russians trying to prevent UN sanctions on Iran is true and may push the Bush administration to the brink again, since we cannot have another nuclear-armed Islamic nation under the helm of nutbars like Iranian President Ahmedijinad. 

The Russians obviously are siding with Iran partially because the Iranian military is still a customer for Russia's arms industry, while China's increasing demand for energy means they have to make sure one of their steady sources-Iran oil- is not threatened.


----------



## FutureQYR

To true, seems like the shit just keeps on comin' lately. I think alot of people don't see the bigger picture though, as was previously mentioned, it's hard to say what kind of a reaction allies of Iran (china, Russia) would have if the U.S and the rest of NATO invaded, and or bombed the ever loving s#!t out of Iran. Russia may place troops in Iran, and see an oportunity to "confinscate" the Arctic, China may take back Taiwan, nobody know, but the country's in question, that's the point. It's not so much the imminent threat of Iran's nuclear program that scares the Bush Administration it's the consequences of their actions to prevent set crisis, while the majority of their troops would already tied up in Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

Apparently, the US DoD has finished planning for possible attacks on Iran. Let's now wait and stay tuned on further developments and whether that nutbar Ahmedinjinad will continue past the point of no return...



http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155821,00.html?wh=wh



> U.S. Says Attack Plans for Iran Ready
> Associated Press  |  November 08, 2007
> WASHINGTON - U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.
> 
> The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.
> 
> Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil.
> 
> The Navy has an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area with about 60 fighters and other aircraft that likely would feature prominently in a bombing campaign. And a contingent of about 2,200 Marines are on a standard deployment to the Gulf region aboard ships led by the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship. Air Force fighters and bombers are available elsewhere in the Gulf area, including a variety of warplanes in Iraq and at a regional air operations center in Qatar.
> 
> But there has been no new buildup of U.S. firepower in the region. In fact there has been some shrinkage in recent months. After adding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf early this year - a move that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said was designed to underscore U.S. long-term stakes in the region - the Navy has quietly returned to a one-carrier presence.
> 
> Talk of a possible U.S. attack on Iran has surfaced frequently this year, prompted in some cases by hard-line statements by White House officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, stated on Oct. 21 that the United States would "not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and that Iran would face "serious consequences" if it continued in that direction. Gates, on the other hand, has emphasized diplomacy.
> 
> Bush suggested on Oct. 17 that Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear arms could lead to "World War III." Yet on Wednesday, in discussing Iran at a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush made no reference to the military option.
> 
> "The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and, therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem," Bush said, adding that Sarkozy also wants a peaceful solution.
> 
> Iran's conventional military forces are generally viewed as limited, not among the strongest in the Middle East. But a leading expert on the subject, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it would be a mistake to view the Islamic republic as a military weakling.
> 
> "Its strengths in overt conflict are more defensive than offensive, but Iran has already shown it has great capability to resist outside pressure and any form of invasion and done so under far more adverse and divisive conditions than exist in Iran today," Cordesman wrote earlier this year.
> 
> Cordesman estimates that Iran's army has an active strength of around 350,000 men.
> 
> At the moment, there are few indications of U.S. military leaders either advising offensive action against Iran or taking new steps to prepare for that possibility. Gates has repeatedly emphasized that while military action cannot be ruled out, the focus is on diplomacy and tougher economic sanctions.
> 
> Asked in late October whether war planning had been ramped up or was simply undergoing routine updates, Gates replied, "I would characterize it as routine." His description of new U.S. sanctions announced on Oct. 25 suggested they are not a harbinger of war, but an alternative.
> 
> A long-standing responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to maintain and update what are called contingency plans for potential military action that a president might order against any conceivable foe. The secret plans, with a range of timelines and troop numbers, are based on a variety of potential scenarios - from an all-out invasion like the March 2003 march on Baghdad to less demanding missions.
> 
> Another military option for Washington would be limited, clandestine action by U.S. special operations commandos, such as Delta Force soldiers, against a small number of key nuclear installations.
> 
> The man whose responsibility it would be to design any conventional military action against Iran - and execute it if ordered by Bush - is Adm. William Fallon, the Central Command chief. He is playing down prospects of conflict, saying in a late September interview that there is too much talk of war.
> 
> "This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Fallon told Al-Jazeera television, adding that he does not expect a war against Iran. During a recent tour of the Gulf region, Fallon made a point of telling U.S. allies that Iran is not as strong as it portrays itself.
> 
> "Not militarily, economically or politically," he said.
> 
> Fallon's immediate predecessor, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, raised eyebrows in September when he suggested that initiating a war against Iran would be a mistake. He urged vigorous efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but failing that, he said, "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran." He also said he believed Iran's leaders could be dissuaded from using nuclear arms, once acquired.
> 
> The possibility of U.S. military action raises many tough questions, beginning perhaps with the practical issue of whether the United States knows enough about Iran's network of nuclear sites - declared sites as well as possible clandestine ones - to sufficiently set back or destroy their program.
> 
> Among other unknowns: Iran's capacity to retaliate by unleashing terrorist strikes against U.S. targets.
> 
> Nonmilitary specialists who have studied Iran's nuclear program are doubtful of U.S. military action.
> 
> "There is a nontrivial chance that there will be an attack, but it's not likely," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of a nuclear strategy project at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy group.


----------



## midget-boyd91

> Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil.
> 
> The Navy has an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area with about 60 fighters and other aircraft that likely would feature prominently in a bombing campaign. And a contingent of about 2,200 Marines are on a standard deployment to the Gulf region aboard ships led by the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship. Air Force fighters and bombers are available elsewhere in the Gulf area, including a variety of warplanes in Iraq and at a regional air operations center in Qatar.
> 
> But there has been no new buildup of U.S. firepower in the region. In fact there has been some shrinkage in recent months. After adding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf early this year - a move that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said was designed to underscore U.S. long-term stakes in the region - the Navy has quietly returned to a one-carrier presence.



Does the AP not know about ''loose lips?''


----------



## duckman777

uncle-midget-boyd said:
			
		

> Does the AP not know about ''loose lips?''



Of course they do! "Loose lips sink ships...and then we get a scoop."


----------



## a_majoor

Ralph Peters on the situation in Iraq. So long as these myths are propagated by the Left wing  "establishment" and the Jihadis to the mass audience, the Info Ops campaign will be firmly on their side. Many of the same tropes are parroted by Canadian groups, so this is good reading (in two parts):





> This article by Ralph Peters in The American Legion Magazine struck me as useful reading for every American. I’ve pasted the entire article directly from The American Legion Magazine.
> 
> *12 Myths of 21st-Century War*
> 
> Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever’s comfortable
> By Ralph Peters
> 
> We’re in trouble. We’re in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven’t forgotten how to fight. We’ve never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.
> 
> Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we’ve lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.
> 
> Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.
> 
> Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.
> 
> Second, we’ve stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.
> 
> This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn’t been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever’s comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.
> 
> *Myth No. 1: War doesn’t change anything*.
> 
> This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can’t pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.
> Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?
> 
> Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won’t be deterred by bumper stickers.
> 
> *Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.*
> 
> Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don’t need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.
> And you can’t win if you won’t fight. We’re at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy’s feelings.
> 
> One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It’s an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher’s bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn’t want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.
> 
> Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today’s opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.”
> 
> And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, “It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.”
> 
> *Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated*.
> 
> Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.
> 
> The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.
> 
> Myth No. 4: There’s no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
> 
> In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we’re the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.
> 
> The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.
> 
> *Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.*
> 
> When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don’t fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.
> Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn’t work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We’ve allowed far too many myths about the “innate goodness of humanity” to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we’re unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that’s evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we’ll face even grimmer conflicts.
> 
> *Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs*.
> 
> It’s an anomaly of today’s Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban’s Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven’t yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi’s dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher’s memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they’re dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don’t kill.


----------



## a_majoor

Part two:



> *Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we’re no better than them.*
> 
> Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?
> 
> The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.
> 
> *Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.*
> 
> Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today’s let’s-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we’d had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.
> The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn’t stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I’ve traveled around the globe since 9/11, I’ve found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.
> On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today’s America really more fractured than it was in 1968?
> 
> *Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.*
> 
> This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.
> Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda’s Vietnam, not ours.
> Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.
> 
> The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there’s nothing more we can do. But we’re not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that’s what the developing situation warrants. But it’s grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.
> 
> *Myth No. 11: It’s all Israel’s fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: “The Saudis are our friends.”*
> 
> Israel is the Muslim world’s excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn’t support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.
> 
> As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.
> 
> *Myth No. 12: The Middle East’s problems are all America’s fault.*
> 
> Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn’t true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West’s progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.
> 
> None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.
> 
> 
> _Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent “Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century._


----------



## tomahawk6

The IAEA finally got their head out of the sand to announce that Iran had 3000 centrifuges at Natanz, something the Iranians already had announced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html



> Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night.
> 
> The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict.
> 
> The installation of 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they are capable of producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium (enriched to over 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year.


----------



## TacticalW

Looking over the news and seeing Russia, China and Iran get in so much conflict with the west is pretty worrying. With recent news of Chinas media being cut off from Western News, China having the ability to knock off satellites from the ground and the massive amounts of cash set to modernizing their military I can say it's pretty easy to start getting concerned. We see Russia supporting Iran and being close to allies, as well as China constantly pressuring Iran to go through with production on nuclear bombs and to me it seems like the staging grounds for another World War. Hell, the cold war has already rebooted and watching CNN is becoming mighty interesting as we see ourselves enter the same situation pre-WW1/2. From what I've read my perception is that the east is almost forcing us into more conflict using Iran and remembering how not only they supplied arms to insurgents in Iraq - but also Chinese and Russian arms were found. US is plunging into a recession and that is making things look a little more sour for our side as they are "the" key ally in all of this. Christ, considering Canada is sitting on very good rights to the oil opening up in the Arctic in times that energy is getting in dangerous demand - we "should" be pretty damn cautious. It seems like Russia and China are almost looking for a good excuse and any excuse to attack and get that precious energy which would turn them into "the" superpowers. 

It really is getting fairly hostile out there and there are without a doubt some very dark times ahead.


----------



## CougarKing

Surprise, Surprise! The world's two greatest douchebags- aside from Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro- unite. Well it's not a total loss, since King Juan Carlos I of Spain essentially did tell Hugo Chavez to essentially STHU when he went wouldn't shut up at some Pan-Hispanic countries' conference recently.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,156658,00.html?wh=news



> Chavez, Ahmadinejad Unite Against U.S.
> Associated Press  |  November 20, 2007
> TEHRAN, Iran - The presidents of Venezuela and Iran boasted Monday that they will defeat U.S. imperialism together, saying the fall of the dollar is a prelude to the end of Washington's global dominance.
> 
> Hugo Chavez's visit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran followed a failed weekend attempt by the firebrand duo to push the Organization of Petroleum Exporting States away from trading in the slumping greenback.
> 
> Their proposal at an OPEC summit was overruled by other cartel members led by Saudi Arabia, a strong U.S. ally. But the cartel agreed to have OPEC finance ministers discuss the idea, and the two allies' move showed their potential for stirring up problems for the U.S.
> 
> The alliance between Chavez and Ahmadinejad has blossomed with several exchanged visits - Monday's was Chavez's fourth time in Tehran in two years - a string of technical agreements and a torrent of rhetoric presenting their two countries as an example of how smaller nations can stand up to the superpower.
> 
> "Here are two brother countries, united like a single fist," Chavez said upon his arrival in Tehran, according to Venezuela's state-run Bolivarian News Agency.
> 
> "God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible, too," Chavez said after a two-hour closed meeting with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian state news agency IRNA reported.
> 
> As the dollar weakens, oil prices have soared toward $100 a barrel. Chavez said over the weekend at the OPEC meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that prices would more than double to $200 if the U.S. attacked Iran or Venezuela.
> 
> "The U.S. empire is coming down," Chavez told Venezuelan TV, calling the European Union's euro a better option and saying Latin American nations were also considering a common currency.
> 
> The leftist Venezuelan is a fierce critic of President Bush, and Iran's Islamic government is in a bitter standoff with Washington over Tehran's nuclear program. The U.S. accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a claim Tehran denies, and Iran has been hit with two rounds of U.N. sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
> 
> Ahmadinejad backed his "dear brother" Chavez in their joint fight with the Bush administration.
> 
> "We have common viewpoints and we will stand by each other until we capture the high peaks. God is with us and victory is awaiting us," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by IRNA. He said he and Chavez would stick together to defend their "nations and ideals to the end."
> 
> During the OPEC meeting, Iran and Venezuela proposed that the cartel begins pricing its oil in a basket of currencies, rather than just the dollar, and wanted the summit to specifically express concern over the dollar's slide in its final statement.
> 
> Saudi Arabia blocked those moves. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister cautioned that even talking publicly about the currency's decline could further hurt its value.
> 
> Chavez repeated his warnings that attacking Iran would further increase oil prices. "It's very important that they leave us in peace, the major oil-producing countries," he said.
> 
> "If it occurs to Bush to invade Iran, I'm sure the Iranians will resist, and they aren't going to allow them to take away their oil, just as we Venezuelans wouldn't allow it," he said.
> 
> In Tehran, the two presidents signed four memorandums of understanding Monday to create a joint bank, a fund, an oil industry technical training program and an industrial agreement, Iranian state television said. It said Chavez then left after an official farewell ceremony.
> 
> On Chavez's previous visit in July, the two leaders broke ground for construction of a jointly owned petrochemical complex in Iran, with 51 percent of it in Iranian ownership and 49 percent to be owned by Venezuela. The two nations also began construction of a second petrochemical complex in Venezuela, at a total combined cost of $1.4 billion.
> 
> Chavez and Ahmadinejad believe their petrochemical partnership will help Iran win markets in Latin America and Venezuela to gain access to Asia's energy market, especially India.
> 
> Since 2001, the two countries have signed more than 180 trade agreements, worth more than $20 billion in potential investment, according to official reports.
> 
> Iran has partnered with Venezuela on several industrial projects in the South American nation, including the production of cars, tractors and plastic goods.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chavez is an economic dolt.  What, exactly, does he figure is going to happen to his customers (and his cash flow) if oil goes to $200/barrel overnight?  And what is he going to do with his "worthless" US Dollars then?


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Chavez is an economic dolt.  What, exactly, does he figure is going to happen to his customers (and his cash flow) if oil goes to $200/barrel overnight?  And what is he going to do with his "worthless" US Dollars then?



He doesn't.  Figure, that is.


----------



## Flip

There's an intesting layout in the Globe on pg. A12

Graphics, pictures, words and everthing.

Sorry, I can't provide a link.

Describes the "death from above ", likely strategy
for how that nuclear hardware will disappear.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

I caught that today, too. Very interesting.

Here's the article sans-pictures:

*A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above*

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071122.wiran22/BNStory/International/

*A bombing campaign has been in the works for months - a blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to two weeks*
_PAUL KORING
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 22, 2007 at 5:11 AM EST_

WASHINGTON — Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose of "shock and awe" with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military planners and uber-hawks.

Although air strikes don't seem imminent as the U.S.-Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied military and political councils for months.

No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay Iran's entry into the nuclear-weapons club.

Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran's ruling mullahs can't be allowed to go nuclear. "Iran would be very sure if I were president of the United States that I would not allow them to become nuclear," said Mr. Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.

Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a military confrontation with Tehran - as they appear to have done with North Korea - other Western leaders are openly warning that bombing may be needed.

Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead), the world will be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.

Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy pickings for the U.S. warplanes.

But effectively destroying Iran's widely scattered and deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder, although achievable, according to air-power experts. But the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East, would be impossible to calculate.

Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances, against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted regimes howled but did nothing.

The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S. warplanes would need to kneecap Iran's far larger nuclear network.

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq," said John Pike, director at Globalsecurity.org, a leading defence and security group.

"Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States," along with warplanes from land bases in the region and carriers at sea, at least two-dozen suspected nuclear sites would be targeted, he said.

Although U.S. ground forces are stretched thin with nearly 200,000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the firepower of the U.S. air force and the warplanes aboard aircraft carriers could easily overwhelm Iran's defences, leaving U.S. warplanes in complete command of the skies and free to pound targets at will.

With air bases close by in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, including Kandahar, and naval-carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, hundreds of U.S. warplanes serviced by scores of airborne refuellers could deliver a near constant hail of high explosives.

Fighter-bombers and radar-jammers would spearhead any attack. B-2 bombers, each capable of delivering 20 four-tonne bunker-busting bombs, along with smaller stealth bombers and streams of F-18s from the carriers could maintain an open-ended bombing campaign.

"They could keep it up until the end of time, which might be hastened by the bombing," Mr. Pike said. "They could make the rubble jump; there's plenty of stuff to bomb," he added, a reference to the now famous line from former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Afghanistan was a "target-poor" country.

Mr. Pike believes it could all be over in a single night. Others predict days, or even weeks, of sustained bombing.

Unidentified Pentagon planners have been cited talking of "1,500 aim points." What is clear is that a score or more known nuclear sites would be destroyed. Some, in remote deserts, would present little risk of "collateral damage," military jargon for unintended civilian causalities. Others, like laboratories at the University of Tehran, in the heart of a teeming capital city, would be hard to destroy without killing innocent Iranians.

What would likely unfold would be weeks of escalating tension, following a breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

The next crisis point may come later this month if the UN Security Council becomes deadlocked over further sanctions.

"China and Russia are more concerned about the prospect of the U.S. bombing Iran than of Iran getting a nuclear bomb," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Tehran remains defiant. Our enemies "must know that Iran will not give the slightest concession ... to any power," Iran's fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday. For his part, Mr. Bush has pointedly refused to rule out resorting to war. Last month, another U.S. naval battle group - including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman with 100 warplanes on board and the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown as one of its screen of smaller warships - left for the Persian Gulf. At least one, and often two, carrier battle groups are always in the region.

Whether even weeks of bombing would cripple Iran's nuclear program cannot be known. Mr. Pike believes it would set back, by a decade or more, the time Tehran needs to develop a nuclear warhead. But Iran's clandestine program - international inspectors were completely clueless as to the existence of several major sites until exiles ratted out the mullahs - may be so extensive that even the longest target list will miss some.

"It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective," retired Marine general Anthony Zinni told Time magazine. "It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?"

Attacked and humiliated, Iran might be tempted, as Mr. Ahmadinejad has suggested, to strike back, although Iran has limited military options.

At least some Sunni governments in the region, not least Saudi Arabia, would be secretly delighted to see the Shia mullahs in Tehran bloodied. But the grave risk of any military action spiralling into a regional war, especially if Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to make good on his threat to attack Israel, remains.

"Arab leaders would like to see Iran taken down a notch," said Steven Cook, an analyst specializing in the Arab world at the Council on Foreign Relations, "but their citizens will see this as what they perceive to be America's ongoing war on Islam."



*Building tension*

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program has been simmering for more than five years. These are some of the key flashpoints.

August, 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.

December, 2002: The existence of the sites is confirmed by satellite photographs shown on U.S. television. The United States accuses Tehran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction." Iran agrees to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

June, 2003: IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei accuses Iran of not revealing the extent of its nuclear work and urges leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.

October, 2003: After meeting French, German and British foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment.

November, 2003: Mr. ElBaradei says there is "no evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The United States disagrees.

February, 2004: An IAEA report says Iran experimented with polonium-210, which can be used to trigger the chain reaction in a nuclear bomb. Iran did not explain the experiments. Iran again agrees to suspend enrichment, but again does not do so.

March, 2004: Iran is urged to reveal its entire nuclear program to the IAEA by June 1, 2004.

September, 2004: The IAEA orders Iran to stop preparations for large-scale uranium enrichment. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell labels Iran a growing danger and calls for the UN Security Council to impose sanctions.

August, 2005: Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is installed as Iranian President as Tehran pledges an "irreversible" resumption of enrichment.

Jan. 10, 2006: Iran removes UN seals at the Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

February, 2006: The IAEA votes to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran ends snap UN nuclear inspections the next day.

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council demands that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31.

Aug. 31, 2006: The UN Security Council deadline for Iran to halt its work on nuclear fuel passes. IAEA says Tehran has failed to suspend the program.

Dec. 23, 2006: The 15-member UN Security Council unanimously adopts a binding resolution that imposes some sanctions and calls on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities and to comply with its IAEA obligations.

March 24, 2007: The Security Council unanimously approves a resolution broadening UN sanctions against Iran for its continuing failure to halt uranium enrichment. Iranian officials call the new measures "unnecessary and unjustified."

April 10, 2007: Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs says Iran will not accept any suspension of its uranium-enrichment activities and urges world powers to accept the "new reality" of the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

May 23, 2007: The IAEA says in a new report, issued to coincide with the expiration of a Security Council deadline for Tehran, that Iran continues to defy UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment and has expanded such work. The report adds that the UN nuclear agency's ability to monitor nuclear activities in Iran has declined due to lack of access to sites.

Oct. 24, 2007: The United States imposes new sanctions on Iran and accuses the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps of spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Sources: BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, Radio Free Europe



*Target: Iran*

Despite continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran. In addition to nuclear installations, other likely targets include ballistic missile sites, Revolutionary Guard bases, and naval assets.



Syria: Earlier this year, Israel bombed a site in Syria's Deir ez-Zor region that it suspected was part of a nascent nuclear program.

Osirak: Israel in 1981 had its aircraft bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor before it became operational.

Natanz: Believed to be Iran's primary uranium-enrichment site and a key target of any attack.



B1: A supersonic, intercontinental bomber, capable of penetrating deep into defended airspace and dropping more than 50-tonnes of conventional bombs on a single mission.

B2: America's biggest stealthy long-range bomber, capable of flying half-way around the globe to deliver up to 23 tonnes of bombs on multiple targets.

F-117: The original stealth fighter, almost invisible on radar, was used to drop the first bombs in both Iraq invasions.

F-18: Carrier-borne fighter-bomber capable of many roles from air combat to bombing missions.

EGBU-28: The newest of the U.S. "bunker busters," it uses a GPS guidance system and can penetrate six metres of concrete to deliver four tonnes of high explosives.

SOURCES: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, GLOBAL SECURITY.ORG, ASSOCIATED PRESS


----------



## Kirkhill

Is there a sense of "The Great ZOT" in the air?  

Apologies to Johnny Hart and BC.


----------



## Bane

To get things back on topic a bit...               
            China no doubt has very significant energy interests in Iran, this is common knowledge.  It is also true that China now holds more international 'weight' than it has in the past couple hundered years, also common knowledge.  It is important, however, to note the precarious nature of the Chinese political system, it's environment and it's economic system. It is a colossus with it's feet in cement blocks.  There is a very good reason that the CCP does not have an 'expansionistic' policy, (save for Taiwan which is a special case), and that is because it is difficult, in the extreme, to govern as it stands now.  Any problem multiplied by 1.3 billion is a very difficult one indeed to solve. China is also tied much more closely with the U.S. than Iran, they desire improved standing internationally and are better at negotiating than many give them credit for. 
             IMHO, China's role in the near to mid-term would be more of a 'positive' peace broker (in that they may put some back room pressure on Iran) role rather than an agitator.  China needs oil for stability and would likely wish to avoid any further conflict in the region if it can be helped.  That said, either way they are in no position to intervene directly in any meaningful stragtegic manner on Iran's behalf in the near to mid term even if they wanted.  Long term, who knows what would happen.  So I must agree with CDN Aviator, China in Iran's corner is not going to happen.  China is a very delicate crossroads in its development and is practically chocking on its own success; a major external conflict is not what they want or need. Again, my money is on them 'expressing concern' to both the U.S. and Iran and using back-channels to massage the situation to avoid conflict. 
           As to Russia, I have not studied modern Russia so I can't comment with much authority, but off hand it again seems unlikely for direct strategic support.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians were more concerned about a nuclear Iran than the U.S. A nuclear Iran would provide an impetus for many other nations to 'go nuclear' too, right in their backyard (Turkey then Greece, Egypt, - those from Janice Stein)  In anycase, it seems Iran is several years, at the earliest, from a viable homemade nuclear weapon, so there's lots of time to debate.


----------



## CougarKing

Bane said:
			
		

> There is a very good reason that the CCP does not have an 'expansionistic' policy, (save for Taiwan which is a special case), and that is because it is difficult, in the extreme, to govern as it stands now.



Bane, 

Speaking of "expansionism" under the aegis/aim of Chinese nationalism, you probably forgot to mention Hong Kong, Macau, Xinjiang and Tibet, though the PRC has direct control of the latter two though the first two are more like Special Administrative Regions (SARs). The PRC might also want to influence Singapore as well because of the large ethnic Han Chinese living there, but who speak the _Fukien/Hokien _ and Cantonese dialects like many members of the Chinese diaspora/_Hua Qiao_ community scattered all over the world.

Of course they will have an interest in Iranian oil, since their growing population and economy will have an energy demand that is directly proportional to both of these two characteristics of this nation. America/the West's fear of a nuclear-armed Iran and their seeking to disarm Iran would be interpreted by the PRC govt. as "meddling" in the domestic affairs of another nation, and would argue against such action against Iran in the UN partially because the PRC also doesn't want other nations to meddle in the Taiwan issue, which they see as "domestic" issue even if Taiwan/the ROC is a de-facto independent country.


----------



## Bane

Hong Kong and Macau aren't like SAR's, they are SAR's.  And the PRC does have direct control over them, but they are permited to maintain their current system for 50 years post assimilation under the 'one country two system's ' addition to the 1982 constitution ( made BTW with an aim to coax Taiwan a little closer). The top leader in HK is effectively picked by Beijing.  Also, trying to 'influence' is not a militarily expansionistic posture I don't think.  You are absolutely right that they have a huge stake in Iranian oil, I said that. That's why they don't want a conflict of any sort. How are you supposed to buy oil from a country that's just been pounded to dust?  And of course the Chinese would be upset if the U.S./West sought to disarm Iran ( a great euphamism for pound to dust). And yes they would likely protest to high hell at the U.N. But I was trying to pick some meat from the ugly bone that Braveheart threw out, . direct military support by the Chinese on behalf of Iran in the near to mid term is unlikely. 


edited for spelling, and to remove the underlining from the entire post  :-[


----------



## CougarKing

Bane said:
			
		

> Hong Kong and Macau aren't like SAR's, they are SAR's.  And the PRC does have direct control over them, but they are permited to maintain their current system for 50 years post assimilation under the 'one country two system's ' addition to the 1982 constitution ( made BTW with an aim to coax Taiwan a little closer). The top leader in HK is effectively picked by Beijing.  Also, trying to 'influence' is not a militarily expansionistic posture I don't think.  You are absolutely right that they have a huge stake in Iranian oil, I said that. That's why they don't want a conflict of any sort. How are you supposed to buy oil from a country that's just been pounded to dust?  And of course the Chinese would be upset if the U.S./West sought to disarm Iran ( a great euphamism for pound to dust). And yes they would likely protest to high hell at the U.N. But I was trying to pick some meat from the ugly bone that Braveheart threw out, . direct military support by the Chinese on behalf of Iran in the near to mid term is unlikely.
> 
> 
> edited for spelling, and to remove the underlining from the entire post  :-[



Yes I am quite well aware that both HK and Macau are SARs- I used to live in HK for 3 years myself as an expatriate when I was younger.  The "One Country Two systems" in place in both territories can be seen as a motivation for the Taiwanese to possibly consider reunification with the mainland- with implications for the future of the _Waishengren _ (who have strong roots in the mainland) and the _Benshengren _ of Taiwan(local Taiwanese whose roots in Taiwan go back beyond the 50-year Japanese occupation of Formosa) as well as the Aboriginal Minority population of the island.

Sorry for straying off topic, folks.


----------



## Bane

What do you do you think CougarDaddy? As you say there may be some latent 'expansionistic' tendencies within CCP leadeship, there is certainly mistrust of the U.S. inside the PLA and the Military Commision .  As I noted, I'm not convinced that there is any potential for serious, direct, military support for Iran in the near future. You think perhaps it is not so certain? 
        Part of the reason I'm so sceptical of the strenght of CCP rule and desire to engage in that type of military venture, ability to do so aside, is that I've been writing a research paper on the environment generally; and specifically on water pollution and access in the Huai River basin and in the Beijing-Tianjin region.  It seems that the internal problems in China are so numerous and serious that significant and direct support for Iran just wouldn't fly.  Though one could make an argument that conflict would galvanize the populace, I just don't see that as happening.  I must admit I've spent the past few months looking at internal problems and that my perspective may have become biased. Still, I think that there are serious internal weaknesses within China, and I don't think a war would help any of them. I would also have to guess that CCP leadership would come to the same conclusion, prefering to use it's very substantial financial stake in Iranian oil to try to cool their heels a bit.  Can't buy oil from burning rigs. Thoughts? 



My apologies also, I didn't mean to drag the thread down too far down the China road, but it was brought up in a series of posts that have, by the mercy of the maker, dissappeared. At any rate, it is a worthy topic to explore vis-a-vis Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

Bane,

What I know of Chinese politics is already somewhat dated since I've last been to China, though I still pay close attention to current events revolving around China. The Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) led by Pres. Hu Jintao is certainly different from the one led by Jiang Zhemin with other members of his "Shanghai clique". This clique included members such as former Premier Zhu Rhongji whom he brought to_ Zhongnanhai _ (the Chinese "White House") in Beijing in the time Jiang gained favor from Deng Xiaoping and eventually ascended to the presidency. 

Beijing and Tianjin are two seperate municipalities that have equal status to every one of China's 30 or so larger provinces. However,  a former, though recent, PBSC member that has one of the largest power bases in that area is possibly Li Ruihuan, a supposed "liberal rival" to Jiang Zhemin before both ascended to the PBSC. I'm not sure about his positions on the environment, but he has been known to be a "pragmatic leader". It can be inferred he can be more of a reformist within the CCP instead of a party conservative because of he had emphasized the right for people to criticize the govt. once in a while without fear of retaliation, though ironically, he was put in charge of the govt.'s propaganda dept. for a time. He is a former carpenter and long-time party cadre, but I think it's a place for you to start if you want to find out issues that affect the Beijing-Tianjin area directly. 

BTW, it's the Central* Military Commission (CMC), not just Military Commission and last I checked Hu Jintao was still the chair especially after Jiang gave up its chairmanship. Note that there is BOTH a State CMC and a party CMC and there have been times within party history when the members of both did NOT coincide. 

English language sources you could use which I'm sure will help you when it comes to the environment there and other internal problems of China include:

 Nathan, Andrew and Gilley, Bruce China's New Rulers
 New York: New York Review books, 2002 (.)

  "China beware", _The Economist_
   Oct.13-19 issue, Volume 385, Number 8550, p. 15, 27-28, 43 (.)

  http://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Li_Ruihuan/bio -some basic info about Li Ruihuan to get you started

  The article "China: Dysfunctional Nation" which I posted a link to in the China megathread.

Internal problems you'd especially like to focus that affect the environment include the increasing numbers of rural migrants to the cities, who come to China's burgeoning new urban areas only to find menial jobs as the only ones they can take because they lack the education for better ones. This floating population of migrants has had their access to local social services such as education for their children restricted partially because they do not possess a resident ID card of the place they migrated to; it is very had to get one and they usually only possess such resident IDs from their home provinces only. Thus, this growing number of floating poor in China's cities will become a bigger problem, while the tycoons such as those in Shanghai and Guangzhou prosper.

You must have heard of the "Three Gorges Dam" project, though it's in another province; how the Chinese govt. handled the situation with respect to resettling the residents of the areas flooded for the dam's resevoir- reportedly in many cases with little compensation- should also be studied, aside from the environmental hazards created by the dam's construction and the dam itself.

As for anything on the Chinese military/the PLA, there are many books in English by Sinologists such as David Shambaugh which I'm sure will give you a better insight. 

I hope this helps. Sorry for straying off topic folks; mods, please do not repost to the China megathread.


----------



## Bane

Thanks for the info. Did you have any further thoughts related to Iran?


----------



## CougarKing

Not much at this time. I'm not familiar with the extent of the relationship between the PLA and the Iranian military. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iran purchase some missile-armed patrol boats from China? The _Hou Dong_ class patrol boats similar to those Russian _Osa_ class vessels? I'm not sure if they purchased anything else.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think we should understand that China is pursuing its own self-interests. Amongst them are:

1. Acquiring secure, long term energy supplies, which requires good relations with oil producers in the Middle East, Africa and Russia. If good relations are difficult then _pressure_ may/can be applied, very selectively;

2. _Somewhat contradictorily_, suppressing Muslim (mostly Uighur) _separatists_ in Western China - _separatists_ supported by the people who supply China with oil; and

3. Doing whatever it can to discomfit the USA, especially in the energy producing regions.

China matters in West Asia, the Middle East and Africa and failing to consider how China works and what it sees as its own interests in very, very shortsighted.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. _Somewhat contradictorily_, suppressing Muslim (mostly Uighur) _separatists_ in Western China - _separatists_ supported by the people who supply China with oil; and



This may be a very important point that many of you have missed or overlooked, and may in fact be a very decisive factor in how their relationships in the Region develop.


----------



## CougarKing

Well the Uighurs are just one of the Islamic ethnic groups within China and they are mainly concentrated in China's Xinjiang Province. They are mainly composed of Turkmen, Tajik, Kazakh and other Central Asian ethnic groups who are just a minority in Western China. 

George,

You must be aware that the Uighurs are not the only Islamic group in China though. There is this group called the _Hui Ren_ who are ethnically Han Chinese, but who practice Islam. They are scattered all over China, though their population density obviously gets larger as you travel further West. Their mosques look more like Taoist/Buddhist temples though those buildings are bound to have both writing in Arabic and Mandarin characters and you can even find _Hui Ren_ mosques are far east as Beijing and Xian. They practice certain Muslim traditions such as not eating pork, etc. and their men and women wear head dress similar to Uighurs and other Central Asian Muslim groups. However, it is expected that those who live in the larger cities are increasingly living a secular lifestyle and are sometimes indistinguishable from the mainstream Han Chinese society. 

_Hui Ren_ means "returning person", which can be inferred to mean that these were just Han Chinese who converted to Islam, but still chose to live among non-Muslim Han Chinese. I assume they are Sunni Muslim just like most Central Asian groups. Still, it is possible that their loyalty to the State/CCP may also be questionable, especially if the govt. clamps down more on their fellow Sunnis- the Uighurs- in the West, even if the _Hui Ren_ are ethnically Chinese.

As for the Uighurs, there has been nothing recently in the news about Uighur seperatists lately; please correct me if I'm wrong. Still, China's involvement in the Shanghai Cooperative Organization or the Shanghai Six alliance with Russia and all these other former Soviet satellites in Central Asia was probably partially done to act as a deterrent against both these seperatists or any radical Islamic threat that might rise in the region, such as in a scenario where a fundamentalist govt. may overthrow one of the more moderate govts. in those Central Asian republics. The huge joint military exercises the SCO has held recently could possibly signal that this alliance is indeed a solid, active one.

I am not sure how Iran views the SCO- whether as a threat or as a possible alliance that Iran itself might join in the future as protection against the United States and its allies.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I am not sure how Iran views the SCO- whether as a threat or as a possible alliance that Iran itself might join in the future as protection against the United States and its allies.



That's a very interesting point.

I must ask some Chinese acquaintances what they think about Iran in or versus SCO.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Re: the Uighurs - I think the Chinese remain quite "tolerant" of _minorities_ who are 'well integrated' onto the mainstream.

While I noticed a lot of Muslims in, for example, Shaanxi Province they were, except for some religious practices and a very few 'dress code' issues, indistinguishable from most other Chinese. That's different in the Xinjian AR. There, I believe, a lot of Chinese men in offices in Beijing believe there is a real _separatist_ threat. And that's not something the Chinese _centre_ will accept.

We may find Uighur _separatism_ pretty tame when compared to the FLQ _circa_ 1970, but it's still a real problem for _official_ China.


----------



## Bane

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we should understand that China is pursuing its own self-interests. Amongst them are:
> 1. Acquiring secure, long term energy supplies, which requires good relations with oil producers in the Middle East, Africa and Russia. If good relations are difficult then _pressure_ may/can be applied, very selectively;
> 2. _Somewhat contradictorily_, suppressing Muslim (mostly Uighur) _separatists_ in Western China - _separatists_ supported by the people who supply China with oil; and
> 3. Doing whatever it can to discomfit the USA, especially in the energy producing regions.
> China matters in West Asia, the Middle East and Africa and failing to consider how China works and what it sees as its own interests in very, very shortsighted.



Edward,
       I agree that they will attempt to pursue national interests, but the process by which those are choosen is not always very straight forward, you allude to this tension in your first and second points.  Regarding the third point, can you flesh that out a bit. I don't see destabalizing the U.S. as an obivious foreign policy goal, or in the national interest.  Indeed turmoil in the U.S. markets has already caused the largest financial default in history with the drop in the USD. Does it follow that the Chinese would, indirectly, want to 'discomfort' a currency of which they hold a substantial stake in?  If you are looking at it in zero sum terms, sure the U.S. and China are  rivals, but both would be vastly better served through co-operation.  Recall several decades ago Japans booming economy was the growing asian threat, but today it is an important U.S. ally. Thoughts on this?

David


edited for spelling


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bane said:
			
		

> Edward,
> I agree that they will attempt to pursue national interests, but the process by which those are choosen is not always very straight forward, you allude to this tension in your first and second points.  Regarding the third point, can you flesh that out a bit. I don't see destabalizing the U.S. as an obivious foreign policy goal, or in the national interest.  Indeed turmoil in the U.S. markets has already caused the largest financial default in history with the drop in the USD. Does it follow that the Chinese would, indirectly, want to 'discomfort' a currency of which they hold a substantial stake in?  If you are looking at it in zero sum terms, sure the U.S. and China are  rivals, but both would be vastly better served through co-operation.  Recall several decades ago Japans booming economy was the growing asian threat, but today it is an important U.S. ally. Thoughts on this?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> edited for spelling



I didn't say _"destabilize"_ - that's a few long steps beyond _"discomfit"_.

While, in medieval English, _discomfit_ meant to defeat in battle, now it means to _disconcert_ and that is almost exactly what I think the Chinese want to do and are doing.

China has no interest in making enemies, but it has little use for friends, either. It wants reliable and _respectful_ trading partners and, maybe, some compliant _clients_.

China is America's most important creditor - not a situation in which the Chinese find overwhelming comfort; they want, have traditionally _craved_, stability, internally and externally. I see nothing in the 21st century to challenge twenty other centuries of tradition.


----------



## Kirkhill

How well does China learn from its own history?

The concern over the USD reflects the trade imbalance as China exports goods in return for money.   The last time that that happened, IIRC, Hong Kong was the result.

The Chinese were trading goods for Sterling Silver, depleting European and British silver reserves. They wouldn't accept European goods for their goods and drugs (tea is addictive) trade had to be in cash.  The Brits consequently created their own supply of tea in India and found something that the Chinese WOULD buy: opium.   Hence the "pirates' lair" at Hong Kong, the opium wars and the 99 year lease.  At least that is the way that I remember being taught the story.


----------



## CougarKing

Kirkhill,

If you read a little bit more, you will realize that the 99 year lease of Hong Kong territory by the Qing Dynasty to the Brits only extended to the New Territories area/Kowloon Peninsula on the mainland, but that the actual "lease" of Hong Kong Island itself by the Brits was indefinite. Ironically, if the UK govt. had decided to keep just Hong Kong Island and not the rest of the territory when the lease expired, they would be at a disadvantage, supposedly because they would be cut off from the freshwater supply from the mainland. That was one of the reasons I heard was behind their deciding to give up the WHOLE territory when then PM Margaret Thatcher and a UK delegation when to Beijing sometime in the early 1980s to try to extend the lease. 

I also find that hard to swallow considering the size of Tai Tam resevoir that I saw on Hong Kong Island- please don't tell me that's not enough to sustain the people of the island for some time? How about building desalination plants? Personally, I think giving the territory "back" was a mistake; also technically they weren't giving it "back" since the lease had been made with the Qing Dynasty and NOT with the current CCP-led govt. The Qing Dynasty doesn't exist anymore today, but of course one can argue that the PRC/CCP govt. is the status quo govt. of China and thus the rightful successor to the Qing.  :

What does that make the ROC/Taiwan then? Hmm...chopped liver? Mashed tofu? The ROC was the immediate successor to the Qing Dynasty, and the seat of the original ROC is just in Taiwan province, although in the 1980s, Chiang-Kai Shek's son Chiang-Ching Kuo supposedly gave up his father's dream of liberating the mainland from the reds after his father passed away. Under other successors like Lee-Tung Hui and Chen Shui Bian, they recently got rid of the level of provincial govt. there because there didn't need to be an extra layer of govt. between the ROC National govt. and the county govt.s of Taiwan province. Remember, during WW2, the ROC was one of the members of the Allied powers that defeated the Axis(in the form of _Guo Min Dang _ forces continuing the fight against Japanese forces), and it was with the ROC that the govt.s of powers like Britian negotiated an end to all those "unfair treaties" made during the Qing Dynasty, such as returning the control of the Shanghai International Settlement back to China. But of course, giving Hong Kong to the ROC govt. now is also impractical.

Sorry for going off again about China, folks- I just had to share my thoughts about this.

Campbell,

Thinking again about Iran vis-a-vis the SCO, I would guess that Iran might be suspicious of an organization that has allowed other Muslim nations into membership- but which are Sunni Muslim instead of Shia. And we all know that Iran is a Shia nation. However, Iran has attended conferences of some Pan-Muslim organizations- is the Arab League one of them? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting stuff on Hong Kong Cougardaddy but I suspect that the ultimate reason for "relinquishing" Hong Kong was a fear of a repeat of 1941-42 and as was concurrently demonstrated at Singapore.  A lack of money, will and capability to hold the place if challenged.


----------



## CougarKing

No offence to anyone who thinks differently, but I think Singapore could have been held until relieved- it was all because of General Percival who overestimated the Japanese threat and thus gave the order to surrender the base and the city.

Anyways, that was yet another topic hijack.

BTW, doesn't Iran use the same kind/specific flight of Kilo class submarines as China or what? I await the professionals' comments on this.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> ...
> Campbell,
> 
> Thinking again about Iran vis-a-vis the SCO, I would guess that Iran might be suspicious of an organization that has allowed other Muslim nations into membership- but which are Sunni Muslim instead of Shia. And we all know that Iran is a Shia nation. However, Iran has attended conferences of some Pan-Muslim organizations- is the Arab League one of them? Please correct me if I'm wrong.



I don't know.

I'm asking some acquaintances who might know, or who might think they know, but the beggars always put doing their jobs ahead of answering my questions.


----------



## Kirkhill

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> No offence to anyone who thinks differently, but I think Singapore could have been held until relieved- it was all because of General Percival who overestimated the Japanese threat and thus gave the order to surrender the base and the city.
> 
> Anyways, that was yet another topic hijack.
> 
> BTW, doesn't Iran use the same kind/specific flight of Kilo class submarines as China or what? I await the professionals' comments on this.



It won't be me taking offence.  And I think there were a fair number of Brits, Aussies and Indians, as well as Burmese, Singaporeans and Malayans, that might have felt the same way you do.


----------



## Mike Baker

LINK



> WASHINGTON - Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, senior intelligence officials said Monday.


----------



## aesop081

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> BTW, doesn't Iran use the same kind/specific flight of Kilo class submarines as China or what? I await the professionals' comments on this.



China has 2 different sub-types of the KILO ( 636 and 877EKM ) while Iran operates only one (the 877EKM )


----------



## MarkOttawa

Maybe not so soon:

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login



> A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
> 
> The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
> 
> The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”
> 
> “Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, 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 [emphasis added],” the estimate states...
> 
> The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”..
> 
> The N.I.E. concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.
> 
> Instead, today’s report concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Courtesy of David Blair at the Telegraph



> A *newly declassified "National Intelligence Estimate",* representing the considered judgment of all 16 US spy agencies, plays down Teheran's nuclear ambitions and says that Iran may be eight years away from mastering the technology needed to build a Bomb.
> 
> Under the heading "Key Judgments", the document says: * "We judge with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons programme." *
> This freeze came when Iran stopped enriching uranium and signed an "Additional Protocol" giving more powers to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
> 
> The combined effect of these two agreements, reached after a diplomatic drive led by Britain, France and Germany, was to render it extremely difficult for Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
> 
> * In effect, American intelligence believes that Teheran's regime decided to put the entire programme on hold.
> 
> Yet these deals collapsed after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won power in 2005.  *
> 
> Even so, America's intelligence agencies "assess with moderate confidence" that "Teheran had not restarted its nuclear weapons programme as of mid-2007".
> 
> They add: "But we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
> 
> Instead, US intelligence believes "with moderate-to-high confidence" that "Teheran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons".
> 
> As for Iran's intentions, the intelligence estimate notes that Teheran's decision to freeze its bomb programme "suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.
> 
> "Our assessment that the programme probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously".
> 
> Iran is presently enriching uranium inside the underground nuclear plant in Natanz.
> 
> This highly sensitive procedure – which breaches three United Nations Resolutions – could be used for either civilian or military purposes.
> 
> If uranium is enriched to 4.5 per cent purity, it can be used to generate electricity in power stations.
> 
> But if Iran chooses to enrich it to 87.5 per cent purity, the uranium reaches weapons grade and become the key ingredient for a bomb.
> 
> America's intelligence agencies believe that Iran will not reach this threshold until the period between 2010 and 2015. There is a "possibility that this capability may not be attained



So we seem to have a circumstance that the Mullahs had plans for the bomb and were dissuaded from pursuing it by "international pressure" by 2003.  That coincides with them co-operating against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In 2005 Ahmadinejad comes out of nowhere against Rafsanjani and resparks the nuclear programme.  The Mullahs have been worried ever since.  They tried to clip Ahmadinejad's wings by shortening his term by a year but he still seems to be threatening a street fight.   His term is up in August 2009.

Interestingly CNN just ran a documentary from Iran about "A Nation Divided", essentially about the divide between Ahmadinejad's conservative peasants and the elite reformers of Tehran.   Given CNN's history of not hurting the feelings of the governments of the countries it reports from it might be a worthwhile suggestion that the Mullahs approved the message.

Given the previously reported great concern over the potential of an American strike, and the Syrian "demonstration" I wonder if it is possible that the Mullahs are trying to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad and the nukes at the same time trying to avoid riots in the streets.

If that is true then the Iranians could be considered to have blinked.  

What was it Sun Tzu said about effective generals never fighting battles?

Ahmadinejad is a liability. 

Tangentially Related - The Annapolis Meetings: Talking heads are noting that yet another US President is making a late term attempt at a Mid East Legacy.  A BBC panel openly laughed at the prospect of Bush the Peacemaker.  However even they had to admit that something changed between Clinton's attempts and Bush's attempt: the Arabs and Syria came to the table as well, in public, against the Iranians.  And that never happened under Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower or Truman.    To crib a Mulroneyism, if nothing else Bush has re-rolled the dice.


----------



## CougarKing

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> China has 2 different sub-types of the KILO ( 636 and 877EKM ) while Iran operates only one (the 877EKM )



Thanks for the reply. Correct me if I'm wrong but the latter type- the type 877- is the one equipped with a SAM launcher on its conning tower, right? If this is true, it will probably be a threat to ASW planes and helos searching for them in the event of a conflict with Iran, but you and others in your line of work are probably already well aware of that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It is a threat...once.

It also marks the datum quite nicely and the remaining members of the ASW team will be Weapons Free and in a mood to stomp some ass.


----------



## Procrast

Hey i am not backing up what i'm about to say with sources....this is purely an opinion but....attacking Iran would be a mistake....this would really irritate the moderate islamics.Like i said this is just an opinion but i believe this would really give terrorists a boost when it comes to support.


Procrast.


----------



## aesop081

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply. Correct me if I'm wrong but the latter type- the type 877- is the one equipped with a SAM launcher on its conning tower, right? If this is true, it will probably be a threat to ASW planes and helos searching for them in the event of a conflict with Iran, but you and others in your line of work are probably already well aware of that.



SA-N-8 and SA-N-10 

Both are shoulder-Launched SAMs. Like SKT said, it would take a rather stupid sub commander to surface in order to use such weapons.


----------



## The Bread Guy

For the word straight from the horse's mouth, here's the National Int Estimate (.pdf), and here's the Key Judgements:




> Key Judgments
> 
> A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
> program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
> keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence
> that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
> enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
> Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
> international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously
> undeclared nuclear work.
> 
> • We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
> working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
> • We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
> intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
> assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
> to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
> • We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
> program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
> nuclear weapons.
> • We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
> have a nuclear weapon.
> • 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. Our assessment
> that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
> suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
> previously.
> 
> B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least
> some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it
> has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired
> from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material
> for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would
> need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge
> with high confidence it has not yet done.
> 
> C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough
> fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge
> enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons
> program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we
> judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating
> them.
> • We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be
> technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this
> is very unlikely.
> • We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of
> producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
> (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of
> foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the
> possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
> 
> D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
> be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
> Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
> confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
> projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would
> also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
> 
> E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing
> to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its
> options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt
> it to restart the program.
> • 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 pressures, 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. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
> • We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo
> the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many
> within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s
> key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable
> effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment,
> only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would
> plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision
> is inherently reversible.
> 
> F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—
> rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a
> weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium
> conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably
> were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been
> restarted through at least mid-2007.
> 
> G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing
> and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
> 
> H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial
> capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
> 
> 1 - For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.


----------



## tomahawk6

This recent NIE is BS !! Its more political than anything else. Here is a great article about Iran's ratlines into Iraq. Hopefully we are attacking these lines into Iraq and disrupting their efforts to subvert Iraq.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/irans_ramazan_corps.php


----------



## Nemo888

We lost the moral high ground in Iran when Kermit Roosevelt drove out Mossadeq and crushed the Middle East’s first fledgling modern Democracy and installed the Shah. The West has been pretty scummy to Iran and treated their national resources like we owned them for quite some time. I think its time to apologize and start diplomacy. We have no moral right to tell them anything until we do that. I understand we have strategic interests, but I’d rather be poorer with honour than repeat colonialism’s and later the Cold War’s hubris.


----------



## aesop081

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We lost the moral high ground in Iran when Kermit Roosevelt drove out Mossadeq and crushed the Middle East’s first fledgling modern Democracy and installed the Shah. The West has been pretty scummy to Iran and treated their national resources like we owned them for quite some time. I think its time to apologize and start diplomacy. We have no moral right to tell them anything until we do that. I understand we have strategic interests, but I’d rather be poorer with honour than repeat colonialism’s and later the Cold War’s hubris.



F**k Iran........then and now


----------



## CougarKing

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We lost the moral high ground in Iran when Kermit Roosevelt drove out Mossadeq and crushed the Middle East’s first fledgling modern Democracy and installed the Shah.



Nemo888,
"Kermit Roosevelt"? You must be talking about Pres. FDR of the US, right? That's the first time I've heard him called that. 

You may resent him for doing that to Iran, aside from resenting him for being a Democrat, but the joint Allied-Soviet occupation of Iran was necessary to prevent that nation from possibly leaning to help the Axis, as what happened with neighboring Iraq during WW2. The nearest Axis troops were those Vichy French troops in Syria/Lebanon at the time and the Allies were taking no chances. 

Here's an excerpt from wikipedia about Iran during WW2 and the early 1950s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran



> In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
> 
> In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000



It was Eisenhower who authorized the CIA's plot to overthrow Mossadegh, not FDR. Get your facts straight.


----------



## Kirkhill

This from the Wall Street Journal is interesting.  Regardless of the allegations about individuals the "politicization" of this process is, as the WSJ rightly points out at the end, "dangerous".

....... Even if it is human nature to communicate and act independently (see my remarks on DND and its budget)



> 'High Confidence' Games
> The CIA's flip-flop on Iran is hardly reassuring.
> 
> Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
> 
> In his press conference yesterday, President Bush went out of his way to praise the "good work" of the intelligence community, whose latest National Intelligence Estimate claims the mullahs of Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003. "This is heartening news," Mr. Bush said. "To me, it's a way for us to rally our partners."
> 
> We wish we could be as sanguine, both about the quality of U.S. intelligence and its implications for U.S. diplomacy. For years, senior Administration officials, including Condoleezza Rice, have stressed to us how little the government knows about what goes on inside Iran. In 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report underscored that "Across the board, the Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors." And *as our liberal friends used to remind us, you can never trust the CIA. (Only later did they figure out the agency was usually on their side.)*
> 
> *As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks was that "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons" and do so "despite its international obligations and international pressure." This was a "high confidence" judgment. * *The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 "in response to increasing international scrutiny." This too is a "high confidence" conclusion.* *One of the two conclusions is wrong*, and casts considerable doubt on the entire process by which these "estimates"--the consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies--are conducted and accorded gospel status.
> *Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).*
> 
> For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull--.'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
> 
> No less odd is the NIE's conclusion that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to "international pressure." The only serious pressure we can recall from that year was the U.S. invasion of Iraq. At the time, an Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of a covert Iranian nuclear program to mill and enrich uranium and produce heavy water at sites previously unknown to U.S. intelligence. The Bush Administration's response was to punt the issue to the Europeans, who in 2003 were just beginning years of fruitless diplomacy before the matter was turned over to the U.N. Security Council.
> 
> Mr. Bush implied yesterday that the new estimate was based on "some new information," which remains classified. We can only hope so. But the indications that the Bush Administration was surprised by this NIE, and the way it scrambled yesterday to contain its diplomatic consequences, hardly inspire even "medium confidence" that our spooks have achieved some epic breakthrough. The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy--not that it ever had much.
> 
> In any case, the real issue is not Iran's nuclear weapons program, but its nuclear program, period. As the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale--that is, build the capability to make the fuel for a potential bomb. And it is doing so in open defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. No less a source than the IAEA recently confirmed that Iran already has blueprints to cast uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core.
> 
> The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile. And there is considerable evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion at the weapons testing facility in Parchin. Even assuming that Iran is not seeking a bomb right now, it is hardly reassuring that they are developing technologies that could bring them within a screw's twist of one.
> 
> Mr. Bush's efforts to further sanction Iran at the U.N. were stalled even before the NIE's release. Those efforts will now be on life support. The NIE's judgments also complicate Treasury's efforts to persuade foreign companies to divest from Iran. Why should they lose out on lucrative business opportunities when even U.S. intelligence absolves the Iranians of evil intent? Calls by Democrats and their media friends to negotiate with Tehran "without preconditions" will surely grow louder.
> 
> The larger worry here is how little we seem to have learned from our previous intelligence failures. Over the course of a decade, our intelligence services badly underestimated Saddam's nuclear ambitions, then overestimated them. Now they have done a 180-degree turn on Iran, and in such a way that will contribute to a complacency that will make it easier for Iran to build a weapon. Our intelligence services are supposed to inform the policies of elected officials, but increasingly their judgments seem to be setting policy. This is dangerous.



By the way I think Nemo888 might be a bit confused....Roosevelt died in 45.  Truman took over until 53 when he handed off to Eisenhower.  Mossadeq was turfed in 1952 under Truman's CIA.   And we have nothing to apologize for.  Ask the Afghans and Iraqis about Persian interference in their internal affairs - point of origin seems to be somewhere around 5000 BC.  

Edited to bow to Cougar Daddy.


----------



## Nemo888

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Nemo888,
> "Kermit Roosevelt"? You must be talking about Pres. FDR of the US, right? That's the first time I've heard him called that.
> 
> You may resent him for doing that to Iran, aside from resenting him for being a Democrat, but the joint Allied-Soviet occupation of Iran was necessary to prevent that nation from possibly leaning to help the Axis, as what happened with neighboring Iraq during WW2. The nearest Axis troops were those Vichy French troops in Syria/Lebanon at the time and the Allies were taking no chances.
> 
> Here's an excerpt from wikipedia about Iran during WW2 and the early 1950s:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
> 
> It was Eisenhower who authorized the CIA's plot to overthrow Mossadegh, not FDR. Get your facts straight.


]

Kermit Roosevelt was his granson get YOUR facts straight. The plan to oust Mossadeq didn't start till after the war. It began when Mossadeq wanted Iran to have some revenues from all the oil being pumped out of it by British Petroleum.


----------



## CougarKing

Nemo888,

It was still Eisenhower who had the final say in Operation Ajax, the CIA operation to oust Mossadegh from the Iranian govt. And btw, Kermit Roosevelt died from a self-inflicted gunshot in 1943, LONG before such a coup would have happened.



> [edit] World War II Service
> Early in 1940, when Britain was at war with Germany, Kermit negotiated a commission in the British Army with the assistance of his friend, Winston Churchill — who was by then Prime Minister of Britain.[2] His first task was to lead a contingent of British volunteers for the Winter War in Finland.[3] According to a contemporary story published in Picture Post, he had resigned from the British Army to lead the expedition.[4] This story was probably a necessary cover so that he would be able to travel with the volunteers through neutral countries. However, before the expedition could be launched, Finland was forced to make peace with Russia. Kermit served with distinction in a raid into Norway and was later sent to North Africa, where there was little action at the time.[5] He resumed drinking and was debilitated by an enlarged liver complicated by a resurgence of malaria. At the end of 1940, he was returned to England and was discharged from the army early in the following year.[6] Kermit appealed this discharge all the way to the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. But Churchill, after reviewing his record, upheld the medical discharge.[citation needed]
> 
> When he returned to the US, he turned to drinking to forget his problems. So worried was his wife, about his deteriorating condition, that she went to the extreme of seeking the help of Kermit's cousin, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (also known as FDR). FDR ordered the FBI to track him down and he was brought back to his family. FDR thought it would be best if he were moved as far as possible from some of his friends who were such a negative influence on him. FDR had given him a commission as a major in the United States Army, and had him transferred and posted to Fort Richardson, Alaska, where he worked as an intelligence officer and helped establish a territorial militia of Eskimos and Aleuts.[edit] Battle with Depression and Related Alcoholism
> Kermit's paternal grandmother, Theodore Roosevelt's mother, Martha Bulloch had led a life with supreme highs as well as debilitating lows. His paternal uncle, Elliott Roosevelt was afflicted with chronic bouts of depression and died of alcoholism and drug abuse. His maternal grandfather, meanwhile, had been an alcoholic. Alcoholism plagued Kermit through much of his adult life.
> 
> 
> [edit] Death
> In Alaska, far from home, Kermit continued to fight his life-long battle with chronic depression and alcohol. He committed suicide on June 4, 1943, by a self-inflicted gunshot.[7] His death was reported to his mother, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, whose favorite son he was, as a heart attack. Given the sensitive nature of his tragic demise, for many years, the cause of death continued to be described as heart disease. Only in later years did the true circumstances of his death become known. He was interred in Fort Richardson National Cemetery near Anchorage, where a memorial stone gateway was erected in his honor in 1949.
> 
> He was survived by his wife Belle and four children: Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, Jr., Joseph Willard Roosevelt, Belle Wyatt Roosevelt, and Dirck Roosevelt



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt

So far there is nothing in this source that points to any link between Kermit Roosevelt and Iran.


----------



## Nemo888

That was his father. His son took the Kermit Jr. Epitaph

Sr. died of a self inflicted gunshot wound and was not a maker of world events. I think he was a soldier in Alaska and died before he was even 30, but no promises. edit: I looked it up, he did write a book about his father so maybe that will make him remembered.

Kermit Roosevelt, Head of the CIA. Controller of world events. Mastermind of Operation Ajax

Kermit Roosevelt Jr., DC lawyer, did nothing of note as far as I know.

Just own your mistake and move on you look silly.


----------



## CougarKing

You still did not acknowledge or confirm whether Eisenhower had the final say in such an operation or not. Don't tell me Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA did so independently, without the US President's knowledge?


----------



## tomahawk6

I can say that current sentiment against Iran favors air strikes according to an Oct. poll. Some people think this NIE written by 3 State Dept. officials was intended to tie Bush's hands with regard to Iran. The public remembers the hostage crisis and more recently Iran's agents actively working against US troops in Iraq. The Israelis strongly disagree with the NIE and so do the folks in NSA/DIA.


----------



## Nemo888

Kermit Roosevelt recieved 1 Million USD funding from the President, but without his expert  planning I doubt Ajax would have been successful. Kermit was an intelligence expert without peer. With the rare mix of great understanding of culture, character judgement, cunning and boundlessly creativity. 

Here is a link to some declassified CIA docs on the operation. The story is actually much more interesting. I thought it would make an amazing movie, but these give a general idea. I think General Schwarzkopf's dad was also a major player in the Middle East and Operation Ajax, if I remember correctly. Give this dude a suitcase full of money and he brings you a frickin nation.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents


----------



## CougarKing

I see. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Flip

Having read Milnewstbay's post and Kirkhills post....

Two thoughts come to mind - If that's the best the liberal left 
anti-war crowd have....It's not much.

And perhaps more importantly - what if the program is in
some sort of stealth mode until GWB is out of the whitehouse?

What's the truth about these things? Most Iranians don't know.

If Iran has a civilian nuclear program how long would it take to 
go military once they felt safe?

2 Possibilities occur..... The US might wait until a short time before
the election before acting  Or The US "allows " Israel to hit some key sites.

I doubt this'll be over anytime soon.
Anybody else care to guess wildly?


----------



## tomahawk6

The authors of the NIE issued a political report and not an intelligence report. One of the authors Thomas Fingar told Congress just 4 months ago that Iran was developing nukes.Makes you wonder why he changed his mind.Second this report sandbagged Bush as he didnt know about the contents until the same day it was released.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp


----------



## Flip

Tomahawk - I think you're roughly right on.

Not suprized a bit..........


----------



## Nemo888

But why a military strike as a first choice? Military success does not equal political success. Well, ok it does if your dense, but that is beside the point. Kermit Roosevelt took the country with his brains and a million bucks. I suppose they don't make CIA directors like they used too. It makes me think the administration understood the Middle East better back then. And perhaps rhetoric about attacking Iran is more for domestic consumption for political ends than achieving long term Middle East stability.


----------



## a_majoor

If you stopped about actions in 1953 and concentrated on activities between 2003 and today, you would realize that a concerted multi-lateral diplomatic effort has resulted in exactly nothing; the Iranians have essentially told the UN, the EU and anyone else to pound sand; they will carry on with their nuclear program regardless.

Given the astounding lack of political and diplomatic success to date, coupled with the very high danger factor in allowing the program to come to a successful conclusion, only someone who is _dense_ would believe that military options should not be on the table.


----------



## Kirkhill

Didn't I hear this "military strike as first option" somewhere before?  Afghanistan? Iran?  

In all cases, Afghanistan included, there was a period of years of negotiation with ample opportunity for the parties involved to make their intentions transparent and to comply with the will of the international community.  The military strike is most assuredly NOT the FIRST option.  It is most assuredly a very real option.

As to the 1950s era - you will find a very strong body of literature that suggests that far from American administrations of the time having a firmer grip on the middle east than currently they were neophytes driven by ideology and the authors of much of the modern mess.


----------



## CougarKing

Kirkhill,

Interestingly, the US govt. did consider the "First Strike" option before, but with China, believe it or not. If you do some research- I believe on the JFK or LBJ administrations- at least one of those administrations did consider a massive air strike using the USAF's SAC against targets in China to eliminate China's nuclear arms arsenal. I believe this was not long after China exploded its first atomic bomb (around 1962). This was definitely before the Bejing-Moscow schism of the mid-Cold War and the Nixon overtures toward China.

Mao Zedong actually feared such an attack from the US or some other Western country, and initiated the building of so-called "Third-Line Industries" or a sort of a backup industrial base in the countryside to keep the PLA well supplied in any foreign invasion/strike scenario, when the  "First-Line Industries" within China's industrial heartland of Manchuria/Northeast China would presumably be destroyed by aerial bombardment. These "Third-Line" Industries were presumably a part of the disastrous "Great Leap Forward" in China in the late 1950s.

Read the ff. source if you want to get a better idea of how these so-called "Third-Line Industries" were established at the time: (Even if this source focuses more on the economic reforms from the 80s onward, China's past economic failures such as the "Great Leap Forward" are recounted)

Naughton, Barry  Growing Out of the Plan, Chinese Economic Reform, 1978-1993
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996(.)

Sorry folks for the tangent again, but I thought it was important to point out this instance.


----------



## Kirkhill

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> Interestingly, the US govt. did consider the "First Strike" option before, but with China, believe it or not. If you do some research- I believe on the JFK or LBJ administrations- at least one of those administrations did consider a massive air strike using the USAF's SAC against targets in China to eliminate China's nuclear arms arsenal. I believe this was not long after China exploded its first atomic bomb (around 1962). This was definitely before the Bejing-Moscow schism of the mid-Cold War and the Nixon overtures toward China.
> 
> Mao Zedong actually feared such an attack from the US or some other Western country, and initiated the building of so-called "Third-Line Industries" or a sort of a backup industrial base in the countryside to keep the PLA well supplied in any foreign invasion/strike scenario, when the  "First-Line Industries" within China's industrial heartland of Manchuria/Northeast China would presumably be destroyed by aerial bombardment. These "Third-Line" Industries were presumably a part of the disastrous "Great Leap Forward" in China in the late 1950s.
> 
> Read the ff. source if you want to get a better idea of how these so-called "Third-Line Industries" were established at the time: (Even if this source focuses more on the economic reforms from the 80s onward, China's past economic failures such as the "Great Leap Forward" are recounted)
> 
> Naughton, Barry  Growing Out of the Plan, Chinese Economic Reform, 1978-1993
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996(.)
> 
> Sorry folks for the tangent again, but I thought it was important to point out this instance.



CougarDaddy - perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here.

I am not suggesting the "First Strike" option as was commonly know during the Cold War MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) days where, as I am sure you are aware, the debate was whether or not to go with a launch first before the enemy launched (First Strike) or wait until the enemy launched so that you could claim the moral high-ground (radio-active by that time) of having only launched a retaliatory strike in self-defence. The risk of course was that by waiting you might not be able to get your rounds out of the silos in time.

What I was responding to was my understanding of Nemo888's suggestion that military action, in the case of Iran, was the first thing that the Bush administration was considering instead of diplomacy.  I was suggesting that successive American administrations have been engaged in "diplomacy" with Iran since 1979  and the Bush administration since 2003.  There has been much discussion but little action.  In the continued absence of action on the part of the Iranians then the military option has to be left on the table as a viable alternative.

Having said that your reference looks interesting.  I'll try and get ahold of it.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Nemo888

This situation does not necessarily need Western *military * intervention. Whining at the UN is not the only other option. Kermit Roosevelt took control of Iran covertly with only $7,094,339.85 in inflation adjusted dollars. Crushing the first Middle Eastern democracy was immoral, but still I admire his effectiveness. This is a situation that needs smarts not sabre rattling and brute force.


----------



## aesop081

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This situation does not necessarily need Western *military * intervention. Whining at the UN is not the only other option. Kermit Roosevelt took control of Iran covertly with only $7,094,339.85 in inflation adjusted dollars. Crushing the first Middle Eastern democracy was immoral, but still I admire his effectiveness. This is a situation that needs smarts not sabre rattling and brute force.



WOW...you realy like to focus on only a single event.


----------



## cameron

I've always felt that Iran was the real threat in the region not Iraq, pity the Bush administration waited until they were bogged down in Iraq to find out ( I don't care who says i'm anti Bush).


----------



## Bane

More like one country to the west, not to the east.  


        If anyone's really interested in arms control and proliferation and the such, there is an excellent blog www.armscontrolwonk.com written by a guy from Harvard some other colleagues.


----------



## Nemo888

Many Iranians still remember the glory days of the Shah when Iran was almost a first world nation. They had excellent medical care, near full employment, financial prosperity, and world-class chemists and computer scientists. The Shah was a ruthless bastard, but the new ruthless bastards are worse.

 The theocracy controlling Iran is another story though. Thanks to the gutting of the education system we are now the Great Satan to many youngsters who are too ignorant to know otherwise. The theocrats hold on the people is shaky though. So a Western military attack would be mana from heaven to the ruling elite. The perfect distraction from the internal destruction they wrought. I wouldn’t be too happy with my government if I went from a Mercedes to an ox cart either. The Islamic fundamentalists were not even a majority of the revolutionaries if what Iranians here tell me is true. They merely hijacked the revolution after the Shah was removed. Average Iranians may not love us, but they don’t love the fundamentalist wack jobs either. (Yes they actually think they are wack jobs too.)

  Ahmendinejad was an unlikely election winner. He ran on a platform of reforming the theocrats and sharing oil revenues. Being unable to accomplish either and fearing house arrest for disparaging the Mullahs he turned to anti-Israel rhetoric and pushing America’s buttons to distract and misdirect his voters. He is a paper tiger and holds little real power. The Revolutionary Council is the real power in Iran. The Russian connection looks interesting. I really wonder what they were promised. With Russian and some European support attacking would just make us look bad and help prop up the bad guys we want to get rid of. I think we should just try to contain them and let then collapse like the Soviet Union. Most especially containing their huge intelligence network. Iran is pretty broken already, war would not have any readily available victory conditions. The biggest problem being that once you take Iran the economy is so screwed up you’d need 20+ years to get it moving again. We tried that already. You get blamed for the past dictator’s horrendous fiscal management and are expected to fix it. No thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Nemo888:

I can't disagree with most of your points although I do wonder if you have any direct proof that the younger generation actually thinks of the US as the Great Satan.  My sense of open source reports is that it is Ahmadinejad's generation of "Student" radicals that is stuck in that mindset.  The current 20-somethings seem to be very Western friendly, including US-friendly and not at all supportive of the theocrats.

I agree entirely about your points on military intervention and the prospect of either dismantling Iran as happened to Iraq in GW1 1990 or of invading as in the case of GW2 does not seem to me to be a particularly necessary or viable option. As you say we would only get the blame for the Mullah's problems.

My sense is that it is time to try just removing Iran's ability to create mischief - forcible disarmament if you like.  If we/the US can knock out the Air Defence system and establish a No-Fly Zone over Iran, as happened in Kurdistan and the Basra area, then we can indulge in a combination of striking HQs and Nuclear Plants, perhaps the some tank plinking,  harbours and docks.  Harassing fire any where that people in uniform go to work.  Perform a slow motion bombardment staying away from residential areas, hospitals, infrastructure....... Separate the people from the government. 

Effectively I am talking about a forcible disarmament of the Iranian state - not an invasion or a dismantling.

Let the Iranians realize that once they have been disarmed nobody is going to force anything on them at all - who would do it?  Afghanistan? Iraq? Turkey? Any of the Arab States (They can't organize a tea party much less an invasion)?  The sole problem would be the Russians and I think the Americans would be a good guarantor of good behaviour by the Russians.  Any problems they are going to have are internal instability - and there your containment concept works fine.


----------



## Nemo888

We could try it the other way too. We need a plan to look good to the average Iranian while sowing internal discontent with the theocracy. Those military forces would then be tied up internally and we look like the good guys. I think the trick in the Middle East is getting the locals to fight for you and keeping plausible deniability. This guns a blazin stuff backfires politically. I liked Bush Sr's play both sides against each other strategies better. He totally hamstrung the fundamentalists and increased America's international credibility in the process. 

If we want facitilities destroyed I'd much rather pay local contractors through back channels.


----------



## Long in the tooth

I think the recent US policy to meet with Iran on any issue is the right one.  A military strike is a trump card that really can only be played once; not because the US can't muster the force but because public opinion inside and out of Iran will become sympathetic to it.  I think the age of totalitarian state is coming to an end.  My 16 year old hardly acknowledges me with more than one syllable responses and is constantly engaged in 'texting' and 'Iming' (whatever they are).  Half of Iran's population is under 30 - do we expect them to be different from our kids and march willingly to war?

This regimes' days are numbered.


----------



## Kirkhill

I also don't disagree with continuing to talk with Iran: Mullahs, Opposition and Followers of the Hidden Imam.  All I am saying is that carrying a 10lb hammer and expressing an eagerness to use it is likely to focus the conversation.  Put the hammer away and the conversation is likely to drift off topic.

Edit: And I agree with Otto Fest on the kids and totalitarian states.  Communication.


----------



## Martino

I can't help but feel that any military action against Iran would be a mistake at this point in time. If you look at what happened during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian leadership used the deaths of their soldiers to galvanize public support. Creating more 'Martyrs' would only do the same thing, and ultimately would strengthen the grip of the current regime.

The current government is already rotting from the inside out, and it's only a matter of time before it collapses. At most, we should be trying to give it a push in the direction we want by supporting groups that represent our interests.


----------



## a_majoor

Before we all pat ourselves on the backs:

1. The theocracy is fairly ruthless in controlling information flows from outside Iran. Regardless of how their population thinks about them, as long as there are limited references to choose from, I don't think we will be seeing crowds of "Democracy Babes" in the streets of Tehran anytime soon. 

2. Coupled with point one, they are also running their own "Info Ops" campaign on the local population, especially the uneducated rural masses who would provide the bulk of the cannon fodder and are the bedrock of support for the current regeime.

3. Our own "official" efforts are pretty pathetic, particularly when stacked up against Al Jezeera and similar media conduits. Our unofficial efforts are far superior, only instead of focusing the people on their desire for freedom it is focusing people on their desire for jeans and t-shirts.........

4. Although the regime is rotting from within, in almost every historical example I can find, the rotten structure will stand for many years until it is given a swift kick from an external source. Barbarian invaders seem in short supply right now (at least the ones who might work in our favor), and we don't hold an ace card like some means to collapse the global price of oil overnight; at least not yet.........

Now, there are potential means of overcoming these limitations, although the western bureaucracies seem unable to change their course. I personally would favor flooding the entire SW Asia region with cheap cellphones who's browsers have been pre programmed by "us", followed by a crash program to create enough biodiesel to satisfy the import needs of the United States.

Still, the timelines to do these things are running out; a nuclear Iran would be a terrible danger to the entire region, fuel the "30 years war" for Islam to a higher pitch, as well as disrupting global energy markets (this would directly affect the EU and China, put their competition for oil in your strategic calculations). Military action must be an available option, and as Kirkhill said, it is the second last available option (most people will probably find "Surrender" an unacceptable option.).


----------



## Long in the tooth

Thucydides - We are still at the mercy of the middle east when it comes to oil, no doubt about that (the term '*****' comes to mind).  Alternatives should be pursued vigorously, just had a quote done for full solar ($20,000 to start).  Petroleum should be used for plastics and pharmaceuticals and not burning up for internal combustion.

I do have a humble question... how does a rotting regime get a kick from without and not be an overt act of war?  The cold war was fought economically at the margins and by proxies and proxies of proxies....

Personally, I'm a sit in the bush kind of guy who will wait until the enemy commits.  After I've TTF out of you by provocation (not ta ta for now).

I've been over there (in general) a few times.  Once the kids start driving shiny cars, expensive or not, they're reluctant to give it up for a T55.

Cheers


----------



## Cheshire

> This regimes' days are numbered



Otto fest,

I would like to agree with you on that one. But, those same kids are still at the whim of the old salts/Mullahs, who run the show. And you don;t have to look to far to see an example of that. The peace movement during Vietnam. While there was a vast social change from it, the congress and administration of the White House remained unchanged. Remember the draft? You go to war, or you go to jail. The same I think will apply to Iran. While the majority of youngsters enjoy their cell phones, and shiny cars, the Iranian regime is still in control, and always will be. I cannot see a Woodstock happening anytime soon in that country.


----------



## a_majoor

There may lots of triangulation going on in the background.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/388926/the-thousand-volt-farce.thtml



> *The thousand volt farce*
> Wednesday, 5th December 2007
> 
> 
> How Iran is laughing. Ahmadinejad declares that yesterday’s US National Intelligence Estimate is
> 
> announcing a victory for the Iranian nation in the nuclear issue against all international powers.
> 
> Indeed, with this report America has achieved the remarkable feat of dealing a terrible blow to all those fighting to defend civilisation. It has actually strengthened Ahmadinejad, whose grip on power had until yesterday been looking ever more fragile. But then the US handed him a priceless gift in the form of the NIE report which says, in effect, that US intelligence hasn’t got a clue about the Iranian nuclear threat. We can all see from its ludicrously threadbare reasoning — much of merely using guesswork to assess Iran’s intentions, in the absence of reliable information on the ground — that intelligence of any sort is clearly in short supply in the US security world.
> 
> The statement by President Bush that the report is
> 
> a very important product…
> 
> is clearly nonsense. Despite the reforms to the intelligence community which he claims have worked, the US clearly continues to have a major problem with both the competence and good faith of its intelligence services. They must now be considered themselves to represent a threat to the west that they ostensibly serve — and Bush’s pathetic attempt to square the circle of the Iran assessments merely reinforces America’s humiliation.
> 
> As reported below, the Israelis don’t buy the NIE assessment. No-one with a functioning brain — let alone the country in Iran’s sights — could surely do so. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn’t buy it — the body which is usually at the end of an American kicking for not being bullish enough. The New York Times reports:
> 
> 'To be frank, we are more skeptical,’ a senior official close to the agency said. ‘We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.’ The official called the American assertion that Iran had ‘halted’ its weapons program in 2003 ‘somewhat surprising'.
> 
> To put it mildly. As things stand at present, America has abandoned everything it has stood for since 9/11. It has now prostrated itself before Ahmadinejad and invited him to stamp on its head. It has given up on the fight against Syrian despotism in Lebanon where the new president, General Michel Suleiman, is a pro-Syria Hezbollah puppet. And it has betrayed Israel at Annapolis: as I said in a previous post, America’s Munich with Israel in the role of Czechoslovakia.
> 
> What is the explanation for this? I am beginning to think that it might be all about Iraq.
> 
> The line coming out of the Israeli government after Annapolis was that this wasn’t about Israel and the Arabs at all. It was instead about bringing Saudi Arabia and others on board to construct an alliance against Iran, and building international capital in order that Israel might convince a sceptical world that Iran really was an unconscionable threat.
> 
> It is surely no accident, therefore, that the NIE volte-face was published after Annapolis. Had the US declared beforehand that Iran wasn’t really a danger after all, Israel surely would never have taken part in that farce.* As it is, Israel has now been absolutely betrayed. Having been humiliated at Annapolis and pushed by the US into a process in which it is expected to make suicidal concessions to people who will not even recognise the Jews’ right to their own homeland and are trying every day to kill its citizens, it now finds that, far from persuading the world that Iran is a mortal threat that must be stopped, America has actually told the world that it has no idea whether Iran is now a threat at all.
> 
> So why has America done this? Maybe because it has sold Israel to the devil, in the shape of Iran and Saudi Arabia, in order to save its skin in Iraq.
> 
> As we know, it is of overwhelming importance to President Bush that peace comes to Iraq by November’s presidential election. The situation in Iraq over the past few months has dramatically improved. This has been assumed to be because, under the shrewd strategic leadership of General Petraeus, the previously terror-supporting and fratricidal tribal leaders finally turned against al Qaeda and decided to unite to reclaim their country from the endless spiral of mass murder.
> 
> _But there may be another explanation. The Samson Blinded blog suggests the US did a deal with Iran, in which Iran wound down its support for terror in Iraq — in return for which the US promised not to bomb Iran. The NIE was published to cloak this decision in the convenient if implausible fiction of the scaling down by the US intelligence community of the Iranian threat.
> 
> The major player at Annapolis was Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi’s ‘peace plan’ to destroy Israel which the US was trying to force Israel to accept. My own sources suggest that at the heart of Annapolis was another deal done with Saudi Arabia by the US.
> 
> Saudi is absolutely terrified by the power of Iran, which it perceives as a major threat to itself and its role in the entire region. Saudi well understands that for Iran, the destruction of Israel is the core goal of goals which is driving Iran’s nuclear weapons programme — a programme that also directly threatens Saudi itself. So it made a deal with the US. Saudi would tell its terror puppets in Iraq to back off — and as a quid pro quo the US would force Israel to the negotiating table with the Palestinians and set in train a process to force it into concessions that would deal it a mortal blow. Thus two birds would be killed with one stone: Iran’s frenzied impulse to build a nuclear weapon — and Israel itself._
> 
> If this analysis is correct, Israel’s existence and the safety of the world have thus been bargained away in exchange for the ability of a US president to declare success in Iraq. On the other hand, as I said in my post below, it may be that Bush has simply been out-manoeuvred by both the spooks and the State Department.
> 
> The NIE report is of course being cheered on by all who see America (and Israel) rather than Iran as the major threat to the world. Those who believe the poisonous fiction about the ‘neocon conspiracy’ will once again be unable to grasp what is staring them in the face. Indeed, madness over Iraq is now broadening into madness over Iran. Those whose truncated brain processes tell them that the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves that they never existed now claim that the Iranian threat is no more than a malevolently constructed fiction. Neocon ‘warmongers’, they say, believe US intelligence when it says there is a threat but not when it says there isn’t.
> 
> This ignores the context of that intelligence. All intelligence should be regarded with a degree of circumspection. It has to be assessed in the light of everything else that we know about the given situation. Given what we knew back in the 1990s about Saddam -- his regional ambitions, ties to terror and WMD efforts -- it is reasonable to conclude that US intelligence first failed to assess correctly the threat he posed to the west; then got part of it right; and then devoted the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq to putting out disinformation in order to cover up their own past incompetence. And given what we know about Iran, the NIE’s volte-face simply isn’t credible.
> 
> The report states as firmly as it can that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon until 2003. Is it really likely that it would have stopped and not re-started? If so, why is it continuing to defy the international community by enriching weapons grade uranium in 3,000 centrifuges? Why doesn’t it open up all its nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors? Why has it gone to such lengths to scatter and bury its nuclear installations? Why would a country whose president has said: ‘We must get ready to rule the world… the Islamic government in Iran is the pre-requisite for a world wide Islamic state’, which has committed itself publicly to the destruction of Israel and which is responsible for blowing up coalition soldiers in Iraq as part of its three decade-war against the west, want to restrict its nuclear technology to the blameless production of electricity?
> 
> Those who bat such questions away would believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. The west is signing its own death warrant. With its ignorance and stupidity exceeded only by its arrogance, it is unable to see that it is being played for suckers.
> 
> Pull yourself together, Mr President. You may score temporarily in Iraq, but at what terrible cost?
> 
> * Update: Amos Harel on the Ha'aretz website reports that Israel was told about the NIE report well before Annapolis. Baffling.
> The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved


----------



## TCBF

The Persians are a proud and ancient race who wear their heavy sacrifice in the 1980s war with Saddam like a crown of thorns.  Attacking them would serve to unite them stronger than any mullah ever could.  

This is another society that views itself as at least culturally superior to it's neighbours, if not the rest of the planet.  

I have no doubt they believe that Iran's natural boundaries should stretch from the Mediterranian to the Indus River.


----------



## tomahawk6

Unfortunately we have a number of leftists entrenched in the bureaucracy. When Bush came into office he thought he could work with the dem's and left many of these political appointees in place at State,DoD and CIA to name just a few departments. These people have been responsible for a number of damaging leaks.
The authors of this NIE crafted this report pretty much out of whole cloth. The findings are at odds with known intel on Iran's nuclear program. Clearly the Israelis disagree with the report and our allies have been quiet on this issue. Intelligence analysis should present known/suspected facts and options for the decision makers and not make policy.

One reason we might have a disparity is the result of the "defection" in March of IRG General Ali-Reza Ashgari. There are now strong suspicions that he is a double agent.The Russians used double agents to tie the CIA in knots. Ashgari left his family behind in Iran without any seeming repercussions by the regime.He may have told the spooks that Iran suspended their nuclear program in 03. Anyway CIA is taking another look at the intel and Director Hayden is going to Israel to see what Mossad has.


----------



## TCBF

You mean "..to see what Mossad wants to tell him."

 8)


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel has pretty good intel sources in Iran and they devote alot of resources to the task.They cannot afford to be wrong. I wouldnt let your personal bias get in the way of being objective.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm glad you highlighted the text you did Thucydides.  While I like to consider myself open-minded on intentions and motives this Spectator speculation whips a few too many "loose ends" together.  I don't doubt that it is POSSIBLE that this report is connected to Annapolis, the timing suggests that if nothing else.  That and the fact that President Bush approved its release.  But to go from there to suggest a complete, if covert, surrender....I can't bring myself to believe that.  On the other hand I can believe that there are many people wedded to positions to such an extent that any "trade" would be considered defeat.

Based on a comment from Senator Joe Biden yesterday



> ...I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.
> 
> I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.
> 
> I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.



I think President Bush is cutting his losses domestically.  He can't bring the Democrats onside.  He is having trouble bringing the general public onside.  He can't get his fellow countrymen to sustain the effort.  I think, despite his tough talk about not wanting to be held responsible if Iran does get the bomb, he has decided to punt.

With the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan he has materially advanced the yardsticks.  The situation is vastly different than it was before he came to power and while others may argue the point I think the change has been beneficial - any change had to be for the better.  The Dems will not be withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan.  That ground will be held.  Israel, Kuwait and Jordan are in improved positions.  Iran is in a worse position.  

If he can't get the Dems and the peepul to accept the necessity of action then he must wait until a casus belli presents itself.  And that is likely to happen on the next President's watch.  So if the Dems want to buy that project more power to them.....

There was this little gem from Future-President Biden's analysis:



> ...And let's not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major. Don't be fooled by talk of a "surgical" strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
> 
> It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond. What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war. There's only one thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.
> 
> Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it.
> 
> Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation. In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office.
> ....




Let's break this down:

"It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks."  And?  That is doable.  In fact a constant air patrol was maintained over Iraq for the best part of decade under President Bill.

"It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force,"  Yep

"repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country," Yep

"securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf," Well I thought that the oil facilities already had to be secured in the area and the prospect of creating a cordon sanitaire on the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz shouldn't be impossible. Couldn't it be done by air patrols eliminating subs, boats and missile launch sites?

"and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond"  And? Aren't they already at risk?  Weren't they at risk before 9/11?  Weren't they at risk in 1993? 1982?

"What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war" Yep. But what tools does Iran have to launch a general war?  How long would it take to dismantle what little capability they have to conduct conventional war - or at least degrade their capabilities and keep up the harassing fire to keep them unable to build the tools of war.

"Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it."  And in the long run Toronto can't be held.  Air strikes setting back Iran's nuclear program is possible sez Senator Joe.  Well then, keep launching air strikes and setting them back every time they look to be advancing.  Eventually they are likely to get the message.  Lasting solution, forever, never, utopia - all nonsense.  Military power provides the opportunity for continuous action.  The only problem with any control system occurs when activity stops.  Kate and Anna McGarigle have a song about log drivers "burling down and down the whitewater, that's where the log driver learns to step lightly..."  if he stops dancing from log to log he sinks and drowns.  Military power can provide a longterm control.  God himself might be able to provide a lasting solution but he isn't volunteering.  


"Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation."  By whom? The Iranians? I thought they were already "retaliating" against US troops.

"In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed."  And?  Actually you could only see them as being unleashed if you see them as being leashed by Iran just now. With Iran otherwise engaged I can't see them acting out for any length of time - beans, bullets and bandages would be hard to come by.

"In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office."  It seems unlikely that the non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan would be bothered about Persians, particularly the Baluchis.  As to the Pashtuns of Pakistan - how much more enraged can they get?  Musharaff has already lost control.  The Arab Street - dead quiet now, dead quiet then and likely to remain dead quiet if it is those nasty apostate Persians that are being discomfited.

But fair dues to Senator Joe - he knows a saleable product when he sees it and "Peace in our time" is always saleable.

September 1938 to September 1939
December 2007 to December 2008

I wonder Senator Joe's, or Hilary's first order of business will be?


----------



## CougarKing

[quote author=Kirkhill ] 

If he can't get the Dems and the *peepul * to accept the necessity of action then he must wait until a casus belli presents itself.  And that is likely to happen on the next President's watch.[/quote]

Peepul? hehe  ;D



> Let's break this down:
> 
> "It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks."  And?  That is doable.  In fact a constant air patrol was maintained over Iraq for the best part of decade under President Bill.
> 
> "It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force,"  Yep
> 
> "repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country," Yep
> 
> "securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf," Well I thought that the oil facilities already had to be secured in the area and the prospect of creating a cordon sanitaire on the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz shouldn't be impossible. Couldn't it be done by air patrols eliminating subs, boats and missile launch sites?
> 
> "and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond"  And? Aren't they already at risk?  Weren't they at risk before 9/11?  Weren't they at risk in 1993? 1982?
> 
> "What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war" Yep. But what tools does Iran have to launch a general war?  How long would it take to dismantle what little capability they have to conduct conventional war - or at least degrade their capabilities and keep up the harassing fire to keep them unable to build the tools of war.
> 
> "Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it."  And in the long run Toronto can't be held.  Air strikes setting back Iran's nuclear program is possible sez Senator Joe.  Well then, keep launching air strikes and setting them back every time they look to be advancing.  Eventually they are likely to get the message.  Lasting solution, forever, never, utopia - all nonsense.  Military power provides the opportunity for continuous action.  The only problem with any control system occurs when activity stops.  Kate and Anna McGarigle have a song about log drivers "burling down and down the whitewater, that's where the log driver learns to step lightly..."  if he stops dancing from log to log he sinks and drowns.  Military power can provide a longterm control.  God himself might be able to provide a lasting solution but he isn't volunteering.
> 
> 
> "Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation."  By whom? The Iranians? I thought they were already "retaliating" against US troops.
> 
> "In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed."  And?  Actually you could only see them as being unleashed if you see them as being leashed by Iran just now. With Iran otherwise engaged I can't see them acting out for any length of time - beans, bullets and bandages would be hard to come by.
> 
> "In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office."  It seems unlikely that the non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan would be bothered about Persians, particularly the Baluchis.  As to the Pashtuns of Pakistan - how much more enraged can they get?  Musharaff has already lost control.  The Arab Street - dead quiet now, dead quiet then and likely to remain dead quiet if it is those nasty apostate Persians that are being discomfited.
> 
> But fair dues to Senator Joe - he knows a saleable product when he sees it and *"Peace in our time"* is always saleable.
> 
> September 1938 to September 1939
> December 2007 to December 2008
> 
> I wonder Senator Joe's, or Hilary's first order of business will be?



+1 Kirkhill. Still, if I can recall correctly, then British PM Chamberlain used the "Peace in our time" quote to justify appeasement to Hitler's Nazi Germany, and we all know what that led to...though I am not suggesting that you want appeasement.

However, I did watch the Democratic debate on CNN a couple of weeks ago and yes US Senator Biden did seem to have quite a grasp on the issues of that region. BTW, on a little sidenote, did he not say during the debate that he did call Pervez Musharaf and actually told him not to relinquish at least one of his two positions, before the Pakistani leader stepped down as head of the Pakistani military?

I doubt Biden will be elected, but he is certainly a less polarizing figure than Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Flip

Ok,  I've read the Spec-tater article and I have a few thoughts.

The underlying premise seems to be that "America" is a single minded
entity under GWB's complete and total control that does what it does to suit him.

As most publications and rants from that side - they forget that 
"America" is the dizzying swirl that it is, with competing factions and
multiple intents. 

Ultimately the "intelligence report" is just paper.
I think T6 is correct in pointing out that it's paper with a political
reason to exist.  I think Kirkhill has it exactly right ( his whole post )
Why worry about agitating an already engaged enemy?

Maybe Ahmedinejad is feeling lucky............
Their long game approach is the most worrisome.
Step 1. Get nuclear "peaceful" nuclear power
Step 2. Let everyone get used to the idea that it's OK
Step 3. When noboby's looking - throw together a few nukes
from stockpiled Uranium or Plutonium.........

OF COURSE THERE'S NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM RIGHT NOW!!!   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

A pessimistic view from the _Wall St. Journal_:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010965



> ...The very first sentence of this week's national intelligence estimate (NIE) is written in a way that damages U.S. diplomacy: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Only in a footnote below does the NIE say that this definition of "nuclear weapons program" does "not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."
> 
> In fact, the main reason to be concerned about Iran is that we can't trust this distinction between civilian and military. That distinction is real in a country like Japan. But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr. The NIE buries the potential danger from this enrichment, even though this enrichment has been the main focus of U.S. diplomacy against Iran...
> 
> The result is that we now have NIE judgments substituting for policy in a dangerous way. For one thing, these judgments are never certain, and policy in a dangerous world has to account for those uncertainties. We know from our own sources that not everyone in American intelligence agrees with this NIE "consensus," and the Israelis have already made clear they don't either. The Jerusalem Post reported this week that Israeli defense officials are exercised enough that they will present their Iran evidence to Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visits that country tomorrow.
> 
> For that matter, not even the diplomats at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency agree with the NIE. "To be frank, we are more skeptical," a senior official close to the agency told the New York Times this week. "We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran."..
> 
> All the more so because the NIE heard 'round the world is already harming U.S. policy. The Chinese are backing away from whatever support they might have provided for tougher sanctions against Iran, while Russia has used the NIE as another reason to oppose them. Most delighted are the Iranians, who called the NIE a "victory" and reasserted their intention to proceed full-speed ahead with uranium enrichment. Behind the scenes, we can expect Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to expand their nuclear efforts as they conclude that the U.S. will now be unable to stop Iran from getting the bomb...



The text of the NIE is here (pdf):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20071203_release.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Nemo888

Iran has had the brainpower to develop nuclear energy for decades. Till baby Bush tied up all his military resources they were too scared. Now they have out manoeuvred America, most especially by sowing rebellion in Iraq. They see a chance to join the nuclear club or at least use it as a bargaining chip for something they want.

Iran has at least three known uranium mines and probably more like 10 in reality. Eventually when the oil runs out they will need to get power from somewhere or go back to being an agrarian society. The only way long term (30 years +) to keep nukes away from them is to give them free electricity or destroy their civilization.  Petro won’t last forever and will be too expensive soon to use domestically to generate electricity. They actually need nuclear power in about 30 years. 

If you are in favour of the destroy Iran option then you have just made the best argument for them needing a nuclear deterrent. If we want Iran not to develop nukes military options will only give us a few extra years and create and enemy with a valid grudge. We need a carrot, not just a stick. 

Bush Sr. never would have been outfoxed like this. Israel really can’t get to all the sites without heavy looses. If they could I think they would have done it already. No wonder Ahmediejad is always smiling lately.


----------



## Flip

Nemo - No-one wants to destroy Iran.

Just the current regime that makes them dangerous.

There is a very large distinction between Iran's government
and Iran's people.

The lady who cuts my hair is Iranian, I've had neighbours
who are Iranian.  I have no beef with the people.

I would like to see them liberated.


----------



## Nemo888

That is nice to hear. Though some people did want to destroy every single military resouce Iran has. I don't think those soldiers, most of them conscripts, had anything to do wtih the current administrations political decisions. No one hates the current fundamentalists in control there more that the Iranians I've met in Canada. 

Most of that is for domestic American consumption anyway. Like Ahmedinejads anti-Israel speeches. I fell for it completely the last time the drums of war were beaten with patriotic fervour. I actually feel a bit like a fool for believing it the first time. Now I just nod and play the game at work but I think it's all BS.


----------



## Kirkhill

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Though some people did want to destroy every single military resouce Iran has.



I presume that's me.  That would be a fair assessment.  But you seem to have missed the "IF".

IF Iran continues to allow itself to be governed by a raving loonie who wants to create havoc in order to bring him closer to paradise, and in the course of his activities threaten his neighbours, our friends and us, THEN I would consider it right, reasonable and proper to take the weapons out of his hands.  As far as possible civilians would be avoided.  Power and Water would beol avoided.

Headquarters would not be avoided.  Tank parks, submarine and patrol boat sally ports would not be avoided.  Airfields and missile launch sites would not be avoided. Air Defences would not be avoided.  And needless to say any weapons manufacturing facilities would not be avoided.

Men, with guns, in the streets.....they are up to the Iranians to handle.  They pose no threat Iran's neighbours.


----------



## CougarKing

Here's a little update on the situation: US DoD Sec. Gates urges Arab leaders to confront Iran.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157838,00.html



> Gates: Gulf States Must Confront Iran
> Associated Press  |  December 08, 2007
> MANAMA, Bahrain - Persian Gulf nations must demand that Iran come clean about its past nuclear ambitions and openly vow to not develop such weapons in the future, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.
> 
> In a broad call to diplomatic arms, Gates exhorted leaders from the Gulf to band together to force Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program and to help the fragile Iraqi government.
> 
> "Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike," Gates said in a keynote address at an international security conference.
> 
> "There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing," he continued.
> 
> And in a sarcastic riff, he goaded Iran to acknowledge its bad behavior - from arming terrorists in Iraq to its support for militant organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.
> 
> Some questioners challenged his thinking on Iran, underscoring the divide among Arab nations over America's tough stance on Tehran. Asked if the United States would be willing to talk with Iran, Gates said the behavior of Iran's new leadership "has not given one confidence that a dialogue would be productive."
> 
> Noting that Iran embraced the recent U.S. intelligence estimate that concluded it had actually stopped atomic weapons development in 2003, Gates drew chuckles from the crowd when he suggested that Iran should accept that all other intelligence conclusions about its conduct are true. Earlier this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed it as a "declaration of victory" for his country.
> 
> "In reality, you cannot pick and choose only the conclusions you like of this National Intelligence Estimate," Gates said. "Since that government now acknowledges the quality of American intelligence assessments, I assume that it also will embrace as valid American intelligence assessments of its funding and training of militia groups in Iraq."
> 
> Gates said Iran should also acknowledge it delivers weapons to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, supports terror groups and continues to develop ballistic missiles that could be used to carry weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Gates' rebukes didn't reach any Iranian ears directly, since Iran abruptly decided not to attend the gathering, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
> 
> While Gates used the intelligence estimate as a hammer against Iran here, the report has bruised the Bush administration. The findings were in stark contrast to a 2005 estimate that said Tehran was continuing its weapons development.
> 
> And it flies in the face of President Bush's rhetoric on Iran, such as when he said in October that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.
> 
> The administration has acknowledged that the report may make it harder to build international support to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. When asked about it, Gates agreed the report came at an awkward time and "it has annoyed a number of our good friends, it has confused a lot of people around the world in terms of what we are trying to accomplish."
> 
> *Gates' speech followed efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to press for new sanctions against Iran.
> 
> Rice asserted Friday in Brussels, Belgium, that Washington would continue pressing for new sanctions against Iran while holding talks to convince Tehran to come clean about its nuclear program.
> 
> But Russia ignored her calls to punish Iran. Despite continued support from NATO and other European allies, Rice was unable to convince Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that fresh sanctions were urgently needed.
> 
> Gates, in his speech, pressed Gulf nations to back sanctions to force Iran to suspend enrichment, and to demand that Iran "openly affirm that it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons in the future." * In a complex region where partnerships do not come easy, Gates said the countries need to pull together and develop regional air and missile defense systems.
> 
> Gates, who was in Iraq earlier this week, also issued a stern call for the Gulf nations to cast aside their sectarian differences and support the struggling new government there.
> 
> "The progress is real. But it is also fragile," he said. "The Iraqi government must use this breathing space bought with the blood of American, Coalition and Iraqi troops to pass critical legislation."
> 
> He told the gathering that the decline in violence is due to new military tactics, the improved Iraqi military, the decision by some militants to reject terrorism and the "groundswell of ordinary citizens who have risen up to fight against al-Qaida."
> 
> Nations in the Middle East, he said, have the most to lose if Iraq dissolves in chaos, and the most to gain if it becomes a stable, secure trading partner.
> 
> "I urge you to exercise your influence with the Iraqis and encourage them to meet their own goals and expectations, to live up to their own promises," said Gates. "For other Arabs to withhold support and friendship because of the composition of Iraq's government ... is to increase the risk of the very outcome many in the region fear."
> 
> Gates ended his speech with a grim warning against underestimating the United States.
> 
> Some countries, he said, "may believe our resolve has been corroded by the challenges we face at home and abroad. This would be a grave misconception."
> 
> Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and the former Soviet Union all made that miscalculation, Gates said. "All paid the price. All are on the ash heap of history."
> 
> Gates' stop in Bahrain is the last stop on a frenetic, weeklong tour of the region, which included meetings with military commanders on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## a_majoor

As the dust settles, more information and speculation comes out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3022188.ece



> From The Sunday Times
> December 9, 2007
> *Iran ‘nuclear bombshell’ splits US*
> Backlash over intelligence U-turn
> Sarah Baxter, Washington
> 
> For two days in London in February 2004, top American defence and intelligence officials huddled with senior officers from MI6. They were there to discuss Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction with General Ihor Smeshko, head of the Ukrainian secret service, but he also had some riveting information to pass on about Iran.
> 
> The Iranian regime, Smeshko revealed, was pestering Ukraine, a postSoviet nuclear power, for access to its nuclear technology.
> 
> The meeting with MI6 had been arranged by John Shaw, who was the Pentagon’s deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
> 
> “There was no doubt that the Iranians were focused on developing a nuclear weapons capability,” Shaw recalled last week. “It wasn’t about keeping the lights burning in Tehran.”
> 
> American intelligence agencies startled the world last week by judging “with high confidence” that while Tehran continued to enrich uranium – which could be used for nuclear power or bombs – it had halted its nuclear “weaponisation” programme in 2003, before the MI6 meeting.
> 
> The declassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran not only ran contrary to its insistence two years earlier that Iran was “determined” to develop nuclear weapons, but flew in the face of accepted facts among western intelligence agencies.
> 
> President George W Bush, who warned recently that a nuclear-armed Iran could provoke a third world war, was left with a dollop of egg on his face.
> 
> When Dick Cheney, the vice-president and leading Iran hawk, was briefed on the about-turn a couple of weeks ago, there was a “pretty vivid exchange” with intelligence officials in the White House, one participant told The New York Times.
> 
> According to an intelligence source, Cheney sought to block the NIE’s release, but was overruled.
> 
> Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former counterterrorism chief, believes the view expressed by Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was: “Whatever the intelligence shows, it shows – we won’t influence it, but it should be released.”
> 
> In an interview last week, Cheney conceded that “there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out – that it was not likely to stay classified for long, anyway.” He added, “Everything leaks”, a wry admission of the in-fighting that has divided the Bush administration.
> 
> War with Iran now appears to be off the agenda and it will be difficult to persuade the international community to approve harsher United Nations sanctions against Iran. But was American intelligence really fooled for four years? Or is it being undermined from within?
> 
> Some American officials believe the NIE’s findings could present a historic opportunity to open direct negotiations with Tehran.
> 
> Robert Kagan, an influential neoconservative writer, argued that “with its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favour, by opening direct talks”.
> 
> But other neoconservatives and Iran hawks mounted a ferocious counterattack, insisting the report was payback by a trio of antiBush former state department officials, who opposed the Iraq war and sanctions on Iran.
> 
> David Wurmser, Cheney’s former Middle East adviser, charged: “One has to look at the authors of this report to judge how much it can really be banked on.”
> 
> The “guilty men” were named as Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill and Vann Van Diepen, all now in top US intelligence posts, who had seethed at Bush policies for years and were said to have executed a triumphant revenge.
> 
> One “very senior intelligence official” who was privy to the same classified information on Iran described the NIE’s conclusions as “a piece of crap”, according to Jed Babbin, a senior defence official under the first President George Bush. “The ‘high confidence’ that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme was not justified by the data he had seen,” Babbin said.
> 
> Yet there was an infusion of new information about Iran that persuaded all 16 American intelligence agencies to back the NIE.
> 
> Israeli sources told The Sunday Times that a key part of the jigsaw was supplied by General Ali Reza Asghari, 63, a former Iranian deputy defence minister who is believed to have defected after disappearing from his hotel room in Istanbul in February.
> 
> The Iranian regime accused Washington of kidnapping him, but western intelligence sources say he is in America of his own accord. His debriefing was so secretive that information went directly to the director of the CIA, rather than to senior officials. “People who would normally know, and should know, are completely out of the loop,” said one informed source.
> 
> American intelligence agencies also received a trove of information last summer, including intercepts of Iranian phone calls by GCHQ, the British listening station, which suggested that Iranian military officials were angered by a decision in late 2003 to halt a project to design nuclear weapons. The suspicion that the revelations might be a complex hoax were discounted.
> 
> After the report was released, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, exulted that a “fatal blow” had been delivered to America’s war party.
> 
> Yet some American intelligence experts remain baffled by the black and white picture presented by the NIE. Former CIA official Paul Pillar, who helped to compile the 2005 NIE on Iran, believes the difference with the 2007 report has been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> “It’s described as a dramatic 180-degree reversal but it’s not. The key ‘pacing element’ about when Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon is the uranium enrichment issue and that hasn’t changed,” he said.
> 
> As before, the NIE suggests “with moderate confidence” that the Iranians could be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by 2010-2015.
> 
> “You can differ with the president on his policy direction but the issue remains the same,” said Pillar. He maintains that the intelligence community has “shot itself in the foot” by oversimplifying the debate.
> 
> Additional reporting: Marie Colvin and Kayvon Biouki, Tehran


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120702418_pf.html

Diving Deep, Unearthing a Surprise
How a Search for Iran's Nuclear Arms Program Turned Up an Unexpected Conclusion

By Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 8, 2007; A09


They call them "deep dives," special briefings for President Bush to meet with not just his advisers but also the analysts who study Iran in the bowels of the intelligence world. Starting last year, aides arranged a series of sessions for Bush to "get his hands dirty," in the White House vernacular for digging into intelligence to understand what is known and not known.

Preparing for what might be the defining foreign policy challenge of his final years in office, Bush was struck by the limited intelligence on Tehran's nuclear program and pressed for more, said officials familiar with the sessions. But if Bush hoped for solid evidence that Iran was trying to build nuclear bombs, what came back proved more surprising -- Iran did have a nuclear weapons program but shut it down four years ago.

The new report on Iran released this week underscored the fluid nature of U.S. intelligence and its uncomfortable marriage with the nation's foreign policy. Five years after the botched assessment of Iraq's weapons programs, the new information posed profound challenges to the Bush administration: How could officials be sure it was right this time? What would it mean for Bush's policy of international confrontation with Tehran? And should it be revealed to Congress, U.S. allies and the public at large?

While deeply sensitive to any suggestion of improperly influencing intelligence, White House officials were initially skeptical of the new data. "You want to make sure it's not disinformation," Bush said at a news conference. The intelligence agencies created a special "red team" of analysts who set out to determine whether the information could be fake. They concluded it was not.

As they digested the new findings, Bush and his aides chose to focus on the part that confirmed their suspicions -- that Iran previously had a secret weapons program and might still restart it. In their discussions at the White House, officials said, no one suggested Bush tone down his public rhetoric or change his policy.

Still, they understood the sensitivity of the new conclusions. At first, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, decided to keep the new findings secret, but reluctantly reversed course in a flurry of discussions last weekend out of fear of leaks and charges of a coverup, officials said. At that point, only the Israelis had gotten a heads-up. Congress, European allies and the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency were not given full briefings about the report until hours before it was released.

That irritated European allies. "The administration is going to pay a price for not allowing allies in on it at an earlier date," said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department nonproliferation official. "The French had carried the administration's water on this issue and really went out on a limb to get the European Union to adopt tough sanctions. And now the rug has been pulled out from under them."

The origin of the latest intelligence can be traced to the summer of 2004, when an Iranian man turned up in Turkey with a laptop computer and the phone number of a German intelligence officer. He called the number, and within 24 hours, analysts at CIA headquarters in Langley were poring over thousands of pages of drawings and information stored on the computer indicating that Iran had been trying to retrofit its longest-range missile, the Shahab III, to carry a nuclear payload. It was designated Project 1-11 and seemed to confirm a nuclear weapons program.

The information retrieved from the laptop formed the backbone of a National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2005 that declared "with high confidence" that Iran was working to build a bomb. Armed with that, the Bush administration spent the past two years pressing European allies, Russia and China to sanction Iran if it did not give up its uranium enrichment program, despite Tehran's insistence that it was only for civilian energy.

With tension rising, Congress asked last year for a new NIE. Bush was pushing for more information as well during his deep-dive sessions. "We've got to get more information on Iran so we know what they're up to," one official paraphrased Bush saying.

As analysts scrambled to finish by April, they were reaching the conclusion that Iran was still a decade away from nuclear weapons, senior intelligence and administration officials said. For three years, the intelligence community had not obtained new information on Project 1-11, vexing administration officials who worried that a cold trail would lead to doubts about the reliability of the laptop's information. "They just wouldn't budge," complained one such official, who declined to be identified to speak candidly.

By June, analysts had an almost complete draft of a new NIE, and it provoked a sharp debate. "The less data you have, the more you argue," said a source familiar with the discussions. Some officials pressed the CIA's Iran desk to follow up on Project 1-11. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and National Security Agency Director Keith B. Alexander responded by directing vast manpower and technology toward spying on Iranians who may have been involved in the warhead effort.

With Bush pressing for more information, the intelligence community finally came up with something new -- a series of communications intercepts, including snippets of conversations between key Iranian officials, one of them a military officer whose name appeared on the laptop. Two sources said the Iranians complained that the nuclear weapons program had been shuttered four years earlier and argued about whether it would ever be restarted.

There had been clues for those willing to see them. For one thing, the laptop contained no new drawings on its hard drive after February 2003, said officials familiar with it. And during a dinner in Tehran with visiting American experts in 2005, Iranian leaders Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani flatly declared that the country's nuclear weapons research had been halted because Iran felt it did not need the actual bombs, only the ability to show the world it could.

"Look, as long as we can enrich uranium and master the [nuclear] fuel cycle, we don't need anything else," Rafsanjani said at the dinner, according to George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Our neighbors will be able to draw the proper conclusions."

The evolving NIE bore the imprint of McConnell and his deputies, Thomas Fingar and Donald M. Kerr, friends with decades of national security experience. Fingar in 2005 began changing how information was gathered, filtered and analyzed, and McConnell formalized the new rules after becoming director of national intelligence in February. "He quickly got the mantra down: 'We must make a clear distinction between what we know and don't know and what we judge to be the case,' " said an official present at the time.

As a result, the internal debate over the meaning of the new Iran intelligence was intense and often contentious, with different agencies and individuals clashing over everything from the fine points to the broad conclusions, participants said.

McConnell told Bush about the new information in August during a daily intelligence briefing, but did not provide much detail or anything on paper, White House officials said. Bush periodically asked McConnell for updates. "The president and his advisers were regularly and continuously appraised on new information as we acquired it," an intelligence official said.

Officials also informed House intelligence committee members and key Senate intelligence committee staff members in September, although they were circumspect. "They said, 'We've got new information. We want to make sure we get this thing as close to right as possible,' " said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the House panel's senior Republican.

One intelligence official said Bush's team expressed concern that the intercepts might be disinformation, so analysts tested that thesis. "They tried to figure out what exactly it would take to perpetrate that kind of deception, how many people would be involved, how they would go about doing it, when it would have been set up and so forth," the official said. Analysts "scrubbed and rescrubbed" more than 1,000 pieces of evidence but concluded Iran's program really had been shut down.

A new draft NIE was prepared in September that was radically different from the June version. As part of the testing process, Hayden and his deputy, Stephen Kappes, convened a murder board of sorts, grilling analysts about their data and conclusions. They "had them in a room and it was kind of 'show me,' " one official said. "And they were a skeptical audience." A similar session was conducted in front of Fingar in late October or early November.

By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary briefing Nov. 15 in the Situation Room to Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others briefed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

By last weekend, an intense discussion broke out about whether to keep it secret. "We knew it would leak, so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking," said a top intelligence official. So McConnell reversed himself, and analysts scrambled over the weekend to draft a declassified version.

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called counterparts in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, which have been negotiating a new set of sanctions against Iran. Foreign officials groused about how it was handled. Had they known before the summit, a senior Israeli official said, "I'm not sure we would have shown up."

Among those Kerr called that morning was Hoekstra. He was exasperated at the turnaround and not at all persuaded. To him, it was another example of the tenuous nature of intelligence. "This is not about I don't like the conclusion," he said. "We didn't know enough in 2005, and we don't know enough today."

Staff writers Walter Pincus, Joby Warrick and Robin Wright contributed to this report.


----------



## Kirkhill

Intention:


> ...And during a dinner in Tehran with visiting American experts in 2005, Iranian leaders Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani flatly declared that the country's nuclear weapons research had been halted because Iran felt it did not need the actual bombs, only the ability to show the world it could.
> 
> "*Look, as long as we can enrich uranium and master the [nuclear] fuel cycle, we don't need anything else," Rafsanjani said at the dinner, according to George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Our neighbors will be able to draw the proper conclusions*."



Capability:


> As analysts scrambled to finish by April, they were reaching the conclusion that Iran was still a decade away from nuclear weapons




Problems:



> The evolving NIE bore the imprint of McConnell and his deputies, Thomas Fingar and Donald M. Kerr, *friends * with decades of national security experience. Fingar in 2005 began *changing how information was gathered, filtered and analyzed*, and McConnell formalized the new rules after becoming director of national intelligence in February.





> "The less data you have, the more you argue,"





> "We didn't know enough in 2005, and we don't know enough today."



And, of course, the timing........this thing was in the works since April and Fingar's process demanded that the most damaging reveal time was the only possible release date.


----------



## a_majoor

The British are skeptical as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wiran109.xml



> *Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans*
> 
> By Tim Shipman in Washington, Philip Sherwell and Carolynne Wheeler
> Last Updated: 2:13am GMT 10/12/2007
> 
> British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.
> 
> Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans
> Analysts believe that Iranian staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation
> 
> The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
> 
> The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.
> 
> The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.
> 
> A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.
> advertisement
> 
> The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. "We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.
> 
> "It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq."
> 
> A US intelligence source has revealed that some American spies share the concerns of the British and the Israelis. "Many middle- ranking CIA veterans believe Iran is still committed to producing nuclear weapons and are concerned that the agency lost a number of its best sources in Iran in 2004," the official said.
> 
> The Foreign Office is studying a new text of a third United Nations Security Council resolution that would impose tough travel bans on regime figures and penalise banks that do business with Iran.
> 
> But diplomats say the chances of winning Chinese and Russian support for the move are in freefall. A Western diplomat said: "It's created a lot of difficulties because of the timing, just as we were about to go for a third resolution."
> 
> Bruce Reidel, who spent 25 years on the Middle East desks at the CIA and the National Security Council, said: "By going public they have embarrassed our friends, particularly the British and the Israelis. They have given our foes insights into our most secret intelligence and taken most of the options off the table."
> 
> Ephraim Sneh, until recently Israel's deputy minister of defence, warned that military action would be the only option if the world community did not institute robust sanctions. "No one can rule out with high confidence that somewhere in Iran, 70 times the size of Israel, there is one lab working on the weapons programme," Mr Sneh told The Sunday Telegraph.
> 
> "[Military action] is not a desired option; it is a last resort. That's why sanctions are so important. We have to urge the international community to be serious about sanctions and to take necessary measures to defend the civilian population."
> 
> Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright


----------



## Kirkhill

This is curious ......if true
A swing by the Mullahs away from Ahmadinejad and back to Rafsanjani?  I wonder if Rafsanjanin is more "palatable" to the Whitehouse than Ahmadinejad?

Via The Gateway Pundit
Link on Headline



> Paper Hints at Ahmadinejad Prosecution   ‎
> Mahboubeh Niknahad - 2007.12.03
> 
> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last week speech at the Science and Technology ‎University, in which he made unprecedented accusations against the faction close to ‎Hashemi Rafsanjani, has raised an uproar among clerics close to Rafsanjani. Yesterday, ‎the former head of the Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, accused the ‎president of breaking the law by assuming guilt before trial, and the conservative ‎‎“Jomhouri Eslami” daily called for Ahmadinejad’s prosecution in its main editorial. ‎
> 
> Last Friday, Hojattoleslam Doagoo, Shemiran’s Friday prayer leader, who is known for ‎his attacks on reformists, criticized Ahmadinejad and accused him of taking credit for ‎Rafsanjani’s achievements in reinitiating Iran’s nuclear program following the Iran-Iraq ‎War. ‎
> 
> Ahmadinejad and his supporters have increased their attacks on the faction close to ‎Rafsanjani in recent days. During his speech at the Science and Technology University, ‎Ahmadinejad accused the Azad University system – of which Rafsanjani is a board ‎member – of corruption and criticized “domestic opponents” of pressuring the judiciary ‎into clearing espionage charges against former top nuclear negotiator, Mousavian. ‎
> 
> Officials from the Azad University and judiciary immediately denied Ahmadinejad’s ‎accusations. The Azad University released a statement accusing Ahmadinejad of ‎presenting false and fabricated figures, and officials from the judiciary denied having ‎been pressured to clear Mousavian of charges. ‎
> 
> In its main editorial yesterday, Jomhouri Eslami daily published its harshest attacks yet ‎on President Ahmadinejad. The daily’s editorial was even harsher than one published a ‎few months ago in which Ahmadinejad was accused of lacking a “stable behavior.” ‎
> 
> The Jomhouri Eslami daily is one of the oldest papers in the Islamic Republic and is ‎known to be affiliated closely with the supreme leader. ‎
> 
> In its editorial yesterday, Jomhouri Eslami criticized the judiciary for not defending the ‎reputation of people against false accusations, implicitly calling for Ahmadinejad’s ‎prosecution. The editorial criticized Ahmadinejad’s remarks about the Azad University ‎and Mousavian’s case and accused the President of interfering in the affairs of the ‎judiciary and undermining the principle of separation of powers. ‎
> 
> Ahmadinejad’s supporters have not yet responded to the recent attacks on Ahmadinejad. ‎Unless high Islamic Republic officials intrude and force a compromise like last time, it is ‎unlikely that Ahmadinejad will drop his calls for the prosecution of Azad University ‎officials. ‎


----------



## Kirkhill

Question: Is Bush craftier than I allowed?
By authorizing the release of this NIE has he merely said to the world "See what I have to put up with?"
I find it curious that more women than men still fear that Iran is working towards the Bomb.  Perhaps the Dems shouldn't have been so quick to start laughing.

From Rasmussen Reports



> Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program
> Friday, December 07, 2007
> 
> Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women (see crosstabs).
> 
> The survey was conducted following release of a government report saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
> 
> The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure.
> 
> Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe that the United States should continue sanctions against Iran. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and 21% are not sure.
> 
> Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is Very Likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the future and another 34% believe Iran is Somewhat Likely to do so.
> 
> Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree.
> 
> Among conservatives, just 8% believe Iran has stopped and 81% disagree.
> 
> Despite the Iranian government's protestations to the contrary, an earlier survey found that 67% believed that Iran’s nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy.
> 
> Another survey found that, most voters doubt the United States can count on its European allies when dealing with Iran. Just 1% of Americans view Iran as an ally of the United States. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States.
> 
> Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure.
> 
> See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.
> 
> Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
> 
> The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
> 
> Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade


----------



## CougarKing

In all this talk about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, have anyone hear thought about Iran's capabilities when it comes to other kinds of WMD- namely biological and chemical weapons?  One such Iraqi attack during Saddam's rule against the Kurds in Northern Iraq comes to mind; didn't both sides use Chemical/biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s?

Hopefully Ahmedinijerk would think twice before using the Q'ods force or the Badr Corps or any of these Iranian govt.-backed groups to use such weapons in the even of war with the US and its allies.

Still, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iran at least developing such multi-stage delivery systems for such weapons in the same fashion North Korea tested its delivery systems, though certainly with not same amount of press coverage the DPRK gave each of its missile tests? The Iraqi Scud attacks on Israel in the First Gulf War of the early 1990s, fortunately shot down by US Patriot Missile batteries, also come to mind.


----------



## aesop081

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> The Iraqi Scud attacks on Israel in the First Gulf War of the early 1990s, fortunately shot down by US Patriot Missile batteries, also come to mind.



Well, lets just be clear here. Although the missiles were in fact hit ( or by proximity) by the Patriots, it only served to demonstrate the issues that exist with trying to defend against SS missiles in the terminal stage of flight. The missiles were destroyed but the warheads kept going, often hitting populated areas.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sign of Success?  Might be a bit tainted in that it was announced from an Egyptian jail cell.  Still...........

*Zawahri's mentor says Qaeda to blame for Afghan invasion
Egypt's Jihad Group leader wants end to violence*

Article Link 

Review of position 

DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)

*The leader of an Islamic fundamentalist group in Egypt that was responsible for a string of terror attacks in the1980s and 1990s has publicly severed his ties with al-Qaeda and denounced its leaders*.

Sayed Imam, the founder and first emir of Egypt's Jihad Group, said al-Qaeda is to blame for the invasion of Afghanistan, which came as a direct reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Speaking to the London-based daily Al-Hayat from his high-security prison cell in Cairo, Imam lashed out at al-Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, his student and long-time friend who once led the group.

"I didn't know him for what he really is until the assassination of President Anwar Al-Sadat," said Imam, whose relationship with Zawahiri goes back some 30 years. "He was behind the arrest of many of his friends and testified against them in the investigations," he said.

The Jihad Group was partly responsible for killing former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. 

When they re-established the Jihad Group in Afghanistan, Zawahiri brought youth from Egypt and asked Imam to be their spiritual guide. 

"I agreed, but bit by bit their problems grew with their numbers, and Zawahiri kept washing his hands of them and involving me in all the problems. That is why Egyptian authorities considered me the Emir while my job was only spiritual guidance."

Imam severed ties with Al-Zawahiri and the whole group in 1992 after they insisted on carrying out terror attacks in Egypt. 

"He and his followers betrayed Mullah Omar and dragged the U.S. to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime."

Imam said that the Egyptians are the actual founders of Al-Qaeda and that they tried to tone down bin Laden's extremes.

"Al-Qaeda has no ideology apart from bin Laden's personal whims. Whoever objects gets kicked out. This approach is what led to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Imam added that the Jihad decided to dismiss Al-Zawahiri when he joined the International Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders in 1998: "This was an explicit pact between him and bin Laden." 

The Jihad Group is publishing this "review of its positions" in two Arabic language newspapers, renouncing violent activities and calling for ceasing all armed operations in Egypt and in other Arab or Muslim countries. 

Imam was the first Emir (leader) of Jihad in the 1970s, as well as the first leader of an armed cell who decided to fight fellow Muslims. He authored "The Principle Book for Preparations," a reference book that al-Qaeda uses to justify its operations and win new recruits on religious grounds. 

The Jihad Group is responsible for a bloody campaign against the authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak in the1980s and 1990s that drew in hundreds of young recruits and cost dozens of lives. 

For decades, Imam's writings have also formed the backbone for the philosophical arguments touted by several other armed groups to validate their attacks. 

But *in the new review, he said his group "erred enormously from an Islamic point of view" by allowing "killing based on nationality, color of skin and hair or based on religious doctrine." 

"Those are actually the methods of secular revolutionaries and not the methods of Islam. There's no such a thing as 'the goal justifies the means' in Islam, even when the goals are noble are legitimate. Muslims worship God by using legitimate methods too," he wrote.  

Imam is now contending that those who target innocent people are working outside the parameters of Sharia, or Islamic law. *

"They place their own desires and will before that of Allah's," he wrote in this new treatise. 

Imam said he was prompted to write the review after noticing persistent "violations" by members of the Jihad Group in its decades-long fight with authorities -- a fight that has included excessive bloodshed, random killings and targeting of civilians. 

The al-Jihad Group has traditionally been the most militant of the Islamic groups, refusing for the past 10 years to follow in the foot-steps of al-Gamaa al-Islamia, another militant group that renounced violence years ago. 

This change has dealt a severe blow to al-Qaeda, whose deputy chief, Zawahri, headed the al-Jihad group in Afghanistan after his teacher, Imam, was arrested in Egypt. 

Al-Zawahri is widely expected to come out strongly against the plan known as "the nonviolent initiative." 

The documents that are being serialized simultaneously in a local newspaper and a Kuwait newspaper are also important because they are expected to rekindle a debate in the Muslim world that is likely to include academic scholars, religious scholars and political activists regarding the methods employed by some of the militant groups and the true meaning of armed Jihad in Islam. 


(Translated from Arabic by Sonia Farid).


----------



## CougarKing

Gentlemen,

Patriots aside, haven't the USN's SM2 SAM systems on a number of their warships been tested for a similar task, as demonstrated with the interception of a simulated ICBM by an SM2 fired from a USN cruiser just off Hawaii? Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

BTW, here's yet another update on the continuing US approach with Iran/the latest meeting to be held between the two nations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22179472/



> MSNBC.com
> US, Iran to meet on Iraq security
> Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari says meeting to be held Dec. 18
> Reuters
> updated 2:10 a.m. PT, Mon., Dec. 10, 2007
> BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iranian officials will hold another round of talks on Iraq's security on Dec. 18, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Monday.
> 
> "As for the U.S.-Iran talks, we have agreement from both sides to resume the fourth round of talks. This is a fact and we've heard it as early as yesterday," Zebari told a news conference in Baghdad.
> 
> "We have a new date. That is the 18th of December. This will be a technical meeting, a follow-up to the last meeting of security experts, not at the level of the ambassadors but (deputy chiefs of missions) and security experts," he said.
> 
> U.S. and Iranian officials have met three times during the past year in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq in talks arranged by the Iraqi government.
> 
> Washington has accused Iran of supplying weapons and training for militias in Iraq, including bombs and missiles used to kill U.S. troops, although U.S. forces say attacks that they link to Iran have declined over the past few months.
> 
> Tehran denies the accusations.
> 
> This year's Iranian-U.S. talks on Iraq's security situation eased a diplomatic freeze that lasted almost three decades, even though Tehran and Washington are embroiled in a row over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
> 
> 
> Copyright 2007 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
> URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22179472/
> © 2007 MSNBC.com


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran has tested their new ballictic missile called the Ashoura with a 2000-2500km range which puts Warsaw and Moscow in range of Iran. Its clear that they keep working on longer range missiles I wonder why ?


----------



## aesop081

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Patriots aside,



My response not what you wanted to hear or what ?



> haven't the USN's SM2 SAM systems on a number of their warships been tested for a similar task, as demonstrated with the interception of a simulated ICBM by an SM2 fired from a USN cruiser just off Hawaii? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Patriot or SM-2, the problem remains the same. Unless the target ICBM/IRBM/MRBM/whateverBM is hit in the boost phase, the warhead (unless hit by some gigantic stroke of luck) will continue to the ground. It may not hit its intended target but it will hit something. If the warhead is nuclear, then its going to do alot of damage regardless. An ICBM worthy of the name has a MIRV payload with decoys complicating the problem of interception in the terminal phase.


----------



## CougarKing

CDNAviator,

Thanks for your responses. Hopefully the Americans can work out the problem with getting the warhead as well, aside from just hitting the missile carrying the warheads and decoys. It's good there is at least one system that can possibly intercept ICBMs out there, which is better than nothing. Still, I haven't heard about the airborne laser lately, which makes me wonder...


----------



## Infanteer

Well, since US Intelligence was wrong on Iraq, it's probably wrong again and Iran is overflowing with warheads it just can't wait to launch in the name of the 12th Imam.  The Bush Administration can safely launch a campaign aimed at furthering democracy in the Mid-East knowing that Iran does indeed possess WMD's.  Hey, maybe they can even get Colin Powell to head to the UN to sell it to the International Community - huzzah!


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm volunteering Infanteer to lead the Advance to Contact into Iran to check out all its peaceful nuclear sites... ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

Peace through nuclear energy. ;D


----------



## Cheshire

What difference does it make anyhow. The Russians have just given them fuel......

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/russia.iran/index.html


----------



## a_majoor

Newt Gingrich gave a pretty clear analysis of the situation in this speech:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail496.html#Newt



> *Sleepwalking Into a Nightmare *
> 
> Speech by Newt Gingrich
> 
> Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered the following remarks to a Jewish National Fund meeting Nov. 15 at the Selig Center.
> 
> I just want to talk to you from the heart for a few minutes and share with you where I think we are.
> 
> I think it is very stark. I don't think it is yet desperate, but it is very stark. And if I had a title for today's talk, it would be sleepwalking into a nightmare. 'Cause that's what I think we're doing.
> 
> I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute Sept. 10th at which I gave an alternative history of the last six years, because the more I thought about how much we're failing, the more I concluded you couldn't just nitpick individual places and talk about individual changes because it didn't capture the scale of the disaster. And I had been particularly impressed by a new book that came out called "Troublesome Young Men," which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain. It's a very revealing book and a very powerful book because we tend to look backwards and we tend to overstate Churchill's role in that period. And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness, as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn't craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the world, and he was very ruthless domestically. And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into they war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don't want to offend the German people. And you read this book, and it makes you want to weep because, interestingly, the younger Tories who were most opposed to appeasement were the combat veterans of World War I, who had lost all of their friends in the war but who understood that the failure of appeasement would result in a worse war and that the longer you lied about reality, the greater the disaster.
> 
> And they were severely punished and isolated by Chamberlain and the Conservative machine, and as I read that, I realized that that's really where we are today. Our current problem is tragic. You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political Left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody prepared to talk about the policy we need. Because we are told if you are for a strong America, you should back the Bush policy even if it's inadequate, and so you end up making an argument in favor of something that can't work. So your choice is to defend something which isn't working or to oppose it by being for an even weaker policy. So this is a catastrophe for this country and a catastrophe for freedom around the world. Because we have refused to be honest about the scale of the prob lem.
> 
> Let me work back. I'm going to get to Iran since that's the topic, but I'm going to get to it eventually.
> 
> Let me work back from Pakistan. The dictatorship in Pakistan has never had control over Wiziristan. Not for a day. So we've now spent six years since 9/11 with a sanctuary for al Qaeda and a sanctuary for the Taliban, and every time we pick up people in Great Britain who are terrorists, they were trained in Pakistan.
> 
> And our answer is to praise Musharraf because at least he's not as bad as the others. But the truth is Musharraf has not gotten control of terrorism in Pakistan. Musharraf doesn't have full control over his own government. The odds are even money we're going to drift into a disastrous dictatorship at some point in Pakistan. And while we worry about the Iranians acquiring a nuclear weapon, the Pakistanis already have 'em, So why would you feel secure in a world where you could presently have an Islamist dictatorship in Pakistan with a hundred-plus nuclear weapons? What's our grand strategy for that?
> 
> Then you look at Afghanistan. Here's a country that's small, poor, isolated, and in six years we have not been able to build roads, create economic opportunity, wean people off of growing drugs. A third of the GDP is from drugs. We haven't been able to end the sanctuary for the Taliban in Pakistan. And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary. So the people who rely on the West are out-bribed by the criminals, outgunned by the criminals, and faced with a militant force across the border which practiced earlier defeating the Soviet empire and which has a time horizon of three or four generations. NATO has a time horizon of each quarter or at best a year, facing an opponent whose time horizon is literally three or four generations. It's a total mismatch.
> 
> Then you come to the direct threat to the United States, which is al Qaeda. Which, by the way, we just published polls. One of the sites I commend to you is AmericanSolutions.com. Last Wednesday we posted six national surveys, $428,000 worth of data. We gave it away. I found myself in the unique position of calling Howard Dean to tell him I was giving him $400,000 worth of polling. We have given it away to both Democrats and Republicans. It is fundamentally different from the national news media. When asked the question "Do we have an obligation to defend the United States and her allies?" the answer is 85 percent yes. When asked a further question "Should we defeat our enemies?" ? it's very strong language ? the answer i s 75% yes, 75 to 16.
> 
> The complaint about Iraq is a performance complaint, not a values complaint.
> 
> When asked whether or not al Qaeda is a threat, 89% of the country says yes. And they think you have to defeat it, you can't negotiate with it. So now let's look at al Qaeda and the rise of Islamist terrorism.
> 
> And let's be honest: What's the primary source of money for al Qaeda? It's you, re-circulated through Saudi Arabia. Because we have no national energy strategy, when clearly if you really cared about liberating the United States from the Middle East and if you really cared about the survival of Israel, one of your highest goals would be to move to a hydrogen economy and to eliminate petroleum as a primary source of energy.



Part 2 to follow


----------



## a_majoor

Newt Gingrich's speech, part 2:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail496.html#Newt



> Now that's what a serious national strategy would look like, but that would require real change.
> 
> So then you look at Saudi Arabia. The fact that we tolerate a country saying no Christian and no Jew can go to Mecca, and we start with the presumption that that's true while they attack Israel for being a religious state is a sign of our timidity, our confusion, our cowardice that is stunning.
> 
> It's not complicated. We're inviting Saudi Arabia to come to Annapolis to talk about rights for Palestinians when nobody is saying, "Let's talk about rights for Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. Let's talk about rights for women in Saudi Arabia."
> 
> So we accept this totally one-sided definition of the world in which our enemies can cheerfully lie on television every day, and we don't even have the nerve to insist on the truth. We pretend their lies are reasonable. This is a very fundamental problem. And if you look at who some of the largest owners of some of our largest banks are today, they're Saudis.
> 
> You keep pumping billions of dollars a year into countries like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and you are presently going to have created people who oppose you who have lots of money. And they're then going to come back to your own country and finance, for example, Arab study institutes whose only requirement is that they never tell the truth. So you have all sorts of Ph.D.s who now show up quite cheerfully prepared to say whatever it is that makes their funders happy ? in the name, of course, of academic freedom. So why wouldn't Columbia host a gen ocidal madman? It's just part of political correctness. I mean, Ahmadinejad may say terrible things, he may lock up students, he may kill journalists, he may say, "We should wipe out Israel," he may say, "We should defeat the United States," but after all, what has he done that's inappropriate? What has he done that wouldn't be repeated at a Hollywood cocktail party or a nice gathering in Europe?
> 
> And nobody says this is totally, utterly, absolutely unacceptable. Why is it that the number one threat in intelligence movies is the CIA?
> 
> I happened the other night to be watching an old movie, ?To Live and Die in L.A.,? which is about counterfeiting. But the movie starts with a Secret Service agent who is defending Ronald Reagan in 1985, and the person he is defending Ronald Reagan from is a suicide bomber who is actually, overtly a Muslim fanatic. Now, six years after 9/11, you could not get that scene made in Hollywood today.
> 
> Just look at the movies. Why is it that the bad person is either a Right-wing crazed billionaire, or the CIA as a government agency? Go look at "The Bourne Ultimatum." Or a movie like the one that George Clooney made, which was an absolute lie, in which it implied that if you were a reformist Arab prince, that probably the CIA would kill you. It's a total lie. We actually have SEALs protecting people all over the world. We actually risk American lives protecting reformers all over the world, and yet Hollywood can't bring itself to tell the truth, (a) because it's ideologically so opposed to the American government and the American military, and (b), because it's terrified that if it said something really openly, honestly true about Muslim terrorists, they might show up in Hollywood. And you might have somebody killed as the Dutch producer was killed.
> 
> And so we're living a life of cowardice, and in that life of cowardice we're sleepwalking into a nightmare.
> 
> And then you come to Iran. There's a terrific book. Mark Bowden is a remarkable writer who wrote "Black Hawk Down," has enormous personal courage. He's a Philadelphia newspaper writer, actually got the money out of the Philadelphia newspaper to go to Somalia to interview the Somalian side of "Black Hawk Down." It's a remarkable achievement. Tells a great story about getting to Somalia, paying lots of cash, having the local warlord protect him, and after about two weeks the warlord came to him and said, "You know, we've decided that we're very uncomfortable with you being here, and you should leave."
> 
> And so he goes to the hotel, where he is the only hard-currency guest, and says, "I've got to check out two weeks early because the warlord has told me that he no longer will protect me." And the hotel owner, who wants to keep his only hard-currency guest, says, "Well, why are you listening to him? He's not the government. There is no government." And Bowden says, "Well, what will I do?" And he says, "You hire a bigger warlord with more guns," which he did. But then he could only stay one week because he ran out of money.
> 
> But this is a guy with real courage. I mean, imagine trying to go out and be a journalist in that kind of world, OK? So Bowden came back and wrote "Guests of the Ayatollah," which is the Iranian hostage of 1979, which he entitled, "The First Shots in Iran's War Against America." So in the Bowden worldview, the current Iranian dictatorship has been at war with the United States since 1979. Violated international law. Every conceivable tenet of international law was violated when they seized the American Embassy and they seized the diplomats. Killed Americans in Lebanon in the early '80s. Killed Americans at Khobar Towers in '95 and had the Clinton administration deliberately avoid revealing the information, as Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI, has said publicly, because they didn't want to have to confront the Iranian complicity.
> 
> And so you have an Iranian regime which is cited annually as the leading supporter of state terrorism in the world. Every year the State Department says that. It's an extraordinary act of lucidity on the part of an institution which seeks to avoid it as often as possible.
> 
> And you have Gen. Petraeus come to the U.S. Congress and say publicly in an open session, "The Iranians are waging a proxy war against Americans in Iraq."
> 
> I was so deeply offended by this, it's hard for me to express it without sounding irrational. I'm an Army brat. My dad served 27 years in the infantry. The idea that an American general would come to the American Congress, testify in public that our young men and women are being killed by Iran, and we have done nothing, I find absolutely abhorrent.
> 
> So I'm preparing to come and talk today. I got up this morning, and a friend had sent me yesterday's Jerusalem Post editorial, which if you haven't read, I recommend to you. It has, for example, the following quote: "On Monday, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, 'The problem of the content of the document setting out joint principles for peace-making post-Annapolis has not been resolved. One of the more pressing problems is the Zionist regime's insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state. We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined.' "
> 
> What truly bothers me is the shallowness and the sophistry of the Western governments, starting with our own. When a person says to you, "I don't recognize that you exist," you don't start a negotiation. The person says, "I literally do not recognize" and then lies to you. I mean the first thing you say to this guy is "Terrific. Let's go visit Mecca. Since clearly there's no other state except Israel that is based on religion, the fact that I happen to be Christian won't bother anybody." And then he'll say, "Well, that's different."
> 
> We tolerate this. We have created our own nightmare because we refuse to tell the truth. We refuse to tell the truth to our politicians. Our State Department refuses to tell the truth to the country. If the president of the United States, and again, we're now so bitterly partisan, we're so committed to red vs. blue hostility, that George W. Bush doesn't have the capacity to give an address from the Oval Office that has any meaning for half the country. And the anti-war Left is so strong in the Democratic primary that I think it's almost impossible for any Democratic presidential candidate to tell the truth about the situation.
> 
> And so the Republicans are isolated and trying to defend incompetence. The Democrats are isolated and trying to find a way to say, "I'm really for strength as long as I can have peace, but I'd really like to have peace, except I don't want to recognize these people who aren't very peaceful."
> 
> I just want to share with you, as a grandfather, as a citizen, as a historian, as somebody who was once speaker of the House, this is a serious national crisis. This is 1935 or 1936, and it's getting worse every year.
> 
> None of our enemies are confused. Our enemies don't get up each morning and go, "Oh, gosh, I think I'll have an existential crisis of identity in which I will try to think through whether or not we can be friends while you're killing me." Our enemies get up every morning and say, "We hate the West. We hate freedom." They would not allow a meeting with women in the room.
> 
> I was once interviewed by a BBC reporter, a nice young lady who was only about as anti-American as she had to be to keep her job. Since it was a live interview, I turned to her halfway through the interview and I said, "Do you like your job?" And it was summertime, and she's wearing a short-sleeve dress. And she said, "Well, yes." She was confused because I had just reversed roles. I said, "Well, then you should hope we win." She said, "What do you mean?" And I said, "Well, if the enemy wins, you won't be allowed to be on television."
> 
> I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.
> 
> Now what do we need?
> 
> We need first of all to recognize this is a real war. Our enemies are peaceful when they're weak, are ruthless when they're strong, demand mercy when they're losing, show no mercy when they're winning. They understand exactly what this is, and anybody who reads Sun Tzu will understand exactly what we're living through. This is a total war. One side is going to win. One side is going to lose. You'll be able to tell who won and who lost by who's still standing. Most of Islam is not in this war, but most of Islam isn't going to stop this war. They're just going to sit to one side and tell you how sorry they are that this happened. We had better design grand strategies that are radically bigger and radically tougher and radically more honest than anything currently going on, and that includes winning the argument in Europe, and it include s winning the argument in the rest of the world. And it includes being very clear, and I'll just give you one simple example because we're now muscle-bound by our own inability to talk honestly.
> 
> Iran produces 60% of its own gasoline. It produces lots of crude oil but only has one refinery. It imports 40% of its gasoline. The entire 60% is produced at one huge refinery.
> 
> In 1981, Ronald Reagan decided to break the Soviet empire. He was asked, ?What's your vision of the Cold War?? He said, "Four words: We win; they lose." He was clearly seen by The New York Times as an out-of-touch, reactionary, right-wing cowboy from California who had no idea what was going on in the world. And 11 years later the Soviet Union disappeared, but obviously that had nothing to do with Reagan because that would have meant he was right. So it's just a random accident the Soviet Union disappeared.
> 
> Part of the war we waged on the Soviet Union involved their natural gas supply because we wanted to cut off their hard currency. The Soviets were desperate to get better equipment for their pipeline. We managed to sell them through third parties very, very sophisticated American pipeline equipment, which they were thrilled to buy and thought they had pulled off a huge coup. Now we weren't playing fair. We did not tell them that the equipment was designed to blow up. One day in 1982, there was an explosion in Siberia so large that the initial reflection on the satellites looked like there was a tactical nuclear weapon. One part of the White House was genuinely worried, and the other part of the White House had to calm them down. They said, "No, no, that's our equipment blowing up."
> 
> In the 28 years since the Iranians declared war on us, in the six years since 9/11, in the months since Gen. Petraeus publicly said they are killing young Americans, we have not been able to figure out how to take down one refinery. Covertly, quietly, without overt war. And we have not been able to figure out how to use the most powerful navy in the world to simply stop the tankers and say, "Look, you want to kill young Americans, you're going to walk to the battlefield, but you're not going to ride in the car because you're not going to have any gasoline."
> 
> We don't have to be stupid. The choice is not cowardice or total war. Reagan unlocked Poland without firing a shot in an alliance with the pope, with the labor unions and with the British. We have every possibility if we're prepared to be honest to shape the world. It'll be a very big project. It's much closer to World War II than it is to anything we've tried recently. It will require real effort, real intensity and real determination. We're either going to do it now, while we're still extraordinarily powerful, or we're going to do it later under much more desperate circumstances after we've lost several cities.
> 
> We had better take this seriously because we are not very many mistakes away from a second Holocaust. Three nuclear weapons is a second Holocaust. Our enemies would like to get those weapons as soon as they can, and they promise to use them as soon as they can.
> 
> I suggest we defeat our enemies and create a different situation long before they have that power.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_“Sleepwalking into a Nightmare”_ – great title! And, despite evidence of a seriously disjointed thought process (I hope they didn’t have to pay him too much – but he probably charges $50,000 per speech) he has some of the right answers.

His first mistake is in failing, utterly and miserably, to identify the enemy.

As much as almost every respectable politician in the West hates to admit it, Sam Huntington is right, although he made an unfortunate choice of words. It’s not a *Clash of Civilizations*, because, arguably, by any sensible standards, the enemy isn’t _civilized_. What is it? It’s a *Clash of Cultures* – all the higher mammals, even the rats, have some sore of _culture_. Huntington is right because his thesis explains what we see. No one likes it because it implies that we have to go to war with Islam. That’s not quite true. We have to go to war – no, we will be dragged into war with Afro-Arabian and Persian Islam. Now, that means a whole lot of it but we can, almost certainly, isolate and _immunize_ the most populous and dynamic Islamic societies (in East Asia) and focus our attention (wrath) on the medieval, Afro-Arab/Persian branches.

His second failure is in suggesting that America has an important strategic interest in Israel’s survival. Lots of Americans (and Canadians), not just Jews by any means, have a very powerful *moral* interest in Israel’s survival and some of them have made Israel’s survival into an important political matter but, *strategically* Israel is not a big deal. There is an _Islamic bomb_, as Gingrich points out, already – it *will* fall into radical hands as soon as (not if) Pakistan falls into radical hands – Gingrich is right about _”Mushy”_, too. Iran will have another soon enough, followed by heaven alone knows who else. Israel has a huge and growing strategic problem which, in my own (dark) view leads to only two options:

1. Israel falls to the Arabs – resulting another mass slaughter of the Jews; or

2. Israel strikes pre-emptively – resulting in a mass slaughter of the Arabs, which will be repaid, eventually, after they crawl out of the rubble.

He’s right that we have to fight and win a financial (oil revenue) war with the Arabs and Iranians. This war is between Barnett’s _connected core_ – which needs lots and lots and then even more oil – and *part* of Barnett’s _disconnected gap_* which has too much of it. The problem is that oil is a fungible product. But, even so, we need to ensure that the _core_ (including China and India) has (just) enough oil to meet its needs when (not if) the supplies from the Arabs are cut off – perhaps because the fields are burning away under a nuclear cloud. That means we need to get Russia’s considerable oil on line and into pipelines to China, Europe and India soon. We needn’t worry too much, I think, about Russia using our money to become powerful I have full confidence in Russian socio-political ineptitude and deeply rooted corruption to protect us for another generation, maybe, with a little bit of luck, even two.

We need to brace ourselves for a very long, very hard, very dirty war – one which we are *culturally* unprepared to wage.

One of the huge problems is that we may have to find ways to wage the war here, on our own soil, against our fellow-citizens. The Kadhr clan is only the tip of the iceberg, I think, and I have no idea how we differentiate between the hundreds of thousands of good, loyal, honest hard working people of Middle Eastern ethnicity/origin and the thousands (tens of thousands?) of enemy _fifth columnists_. But: we must meet and defeat the internal threats, too.

We want _proxy_ combatants, if we can find them. I’m going back to what  Thucydides calls the _vulture_ strategy whereby we encourage civil wars and regional, internecine conflicts and the like. I understand his concern that, at the end, we have a smarter, tougher, braver enemy who hates us even more (survival of the fittest, and all that) but I think the risk is worth the effort if we can keep those internecine disputes running for a century or more.

Another front is financial. We have to disrupt the unregulated, nearly invisible system through which billions and billions of dollars from North America and Europe to heaven alone knows where.

Finally, there is a *cultural* front. We – liberals, democrats, intellectual and spiritual descendants of Locke, Hume, Smith, Burke, Mill and Berlin - must find ways to re-instil the _ideals_ and _ideas_ of liberalism into an intellectually overfed, complacent, lazy populace.

----------
* I disagree with Barnett’s map. I believe Russia is in the _gap_ while Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam , Indonesia, the Pacific islands and even PNG have joined the _core_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Having been to Malaysia and hung out with my wife’s Muslim family, my opinion is that the Malays will only remain radical as long as the fire is under their feet. They are by nature a laid back people and I suspect many a radical Fundy is driven nuts by his bored & madly texting students. 

The other problem is the 6 million+ Muslims in the US and growing, so far the diverse nature of the group and the cultural tendency to keep their heads down has prevented them from using their number as a voting bloc, but f they do, it will impact on the US resolve even more.

Also never forget that despite the rhetoric about the “Muslim Brotherhood” there are 2 distinct groups within (plus a bunch of minor sects) who hate each other with a passion, whatever they do, they will always have to keep one eye and one hand free to protect themselves from the other group. In fact the Iranian bomb will be more important as a regional blackmail threat, (read Saudi Arabia) than as a tool for the downfall of the West.


----------



## a_majoor

There is a certain convergence of events that can work in our favor, should we have leaders with the wit and will to take action.

1. Capitalizing on "Green" hysteria to force a switch to alternative forms of energy. The only realistic alternatives right now are nuclear for electrical baseline power and unconventional or synthetic hydrocarbon fuels for mobile use (this includes things like biodiesel, tarsands or oil shale, methane hydrates and synthetic natural gas generated from garbage in plasma furnaces). This cuts off the money supply and at the same time reduces the ability of the oil producing nations to threaten the supply to the "core". This is totally under our own control.

2. Rearranging the "team". Readers of the news will know there are groupings of nations outside of the "Core and Gap" models, and many of the old alignments have lost there relevance in today's world. NATO demonstrates the stresses, with the split between the "Anglosphere" and "Old Europe" as to who is actually doing the heavy lifting. Nations like the Netherlands, India, Japan and Australia as well as the "Partnership for Peace" nations in "New Europe" seem to have the will, if not always the skill or resources, and creating coalitions of the willing (including the dynamic Asian Islamic nations where appropriate) will probably get things done faster and more effectively rather than pushing against national "caveats" that disrupt operations within the outdated alliance structures.

3. Some nudges within Dar al Islam will probably trigger a chain reaction of religious conflict between the various subsets of Islam and competing power structures (like secular Ba'athist ideology). This "30 years war" will keep their attention focused inwards rather than outwards, however we need to remain engaged to prevent unacceptable outcomes including the wars spilling over into our boundaries or the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. This also provides a means to shape the outcome in ways more to our liking rather than accept some Darwinian monster arising from the ashes. This is in fact the current strategy, and the most contentious.

4. Being prepared to deal with multiple threats. Russia, China and the EU have competing interests with each other and the "Anglosphere", so what might work to our advantage (like using energy independence to remove the financial muscle from radical Islam) will set off alarms in other Cultures (Russia will not appreciate the global collapse of oil prices and may work to protect their financial interests, for example. See their provision of nuclear fuel to Iran in that light).

5. Being prepared to go "big" in military terms. As the Oceanic power, the United States can occupy the Indian Ocean and use that as interior lines of communication to apply pressure throughout the arc of Dar al Islam (From East Africa to Indonesia), disrupting trade and communications to launching raids and offensive operations as appropriate. Allied powers like Australia and Japan, and potential allies like India make this possible and relatively easy to do.

We will live in interesting times. How WW IV will turn out may well depend on a Curchill or FDR turning up on the world stage, and as Edward says, our weakest area is the cultural front at home; do we have the collective will power to see this through to the end?


----------



## Flip

> The Russians have just given them fuel......



Perfect!

Now they can potentially make a bomb with Uranium or Plutonium.
That should speed things up a little.


----------



## Flip

Hmmmm.
This is new-not that new actually.......



> Canada accuses Iran of being weapons pipeline
> Allison Lampert, CanWest News Service
> Published: Tuesday, December 25th
> 
> KANDAHAR AIR FIELD, Afghanistan -- Canada has challenged the Iranian government over concerns that weapons and bomb-making equipment are slipping across the border to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday.
> 
> "We're very concerned that weapons are coming in from Iran," MacKay told reporters, while visiting Canadian troops with Gen. Rick Hillier in Kandahar province.
> 
> We're very concerned that these weapons are going to the insurgents and are keeping this issue alive. We've certainly made our views to the Iranian government about this known."
> 
> Improvised explosive devices, responsible for the majority of the deaths of the 73 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, were particularly a concern, he said.
> 
> "It's so difficult to cut these supply lines when you have people from other countries giving out weapons that are being used against Canadian Forces and troops from other countries."



Read it all here!


----------



## Mike Baker

Russia denies missiles to Iran  



> MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The federal agency overseeing Russia's military exports on Friday denied reports that the country is planning to deliver a powerful new anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.
> 
> Iran's defense minister had said earlier this week that Russia was preparing to equip Iran with the S-300 missile system, which would dramatically increase the country's ability to repel an attack.
> 
> But Russia's Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service denied the claim in a brief statement.
> 
> "The question of deliveries of S-300 systems to Iran, which has now arisen in the mass media, is not currently taking place, is not being considered and is not being discussed at this time with the Iranian side," said the agency, known by its Russian initials, FSVTS.
> 
> The system is capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of over 90 miles and at altitudes of about 90,000 feet. Russian military officials boast that its capabilities outstrip the U.S. Patriot missile system.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A piece by William Arkin of the_ Washington Post_ Dec. 27, one day before the denial in the CNN story above:

Russia Lends a Hand
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/the_cold_war_returns_in_iran.html#more



> There were echoes of the cold war yesterday, as Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced that Russia would supply his country with an S-300 air defense system, capable of shooting down aircraft, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles.
> 
> The White House, of course, expressed concern about the agreement, coming at a time when it has asked for a new round of United Nations sanctions on Iran. Russia, meanwhile, hasn't acknowledged the sale. But earlier this month, Russian military cooperation chief Mikhail Dmitriev argued that defense ties between Russia and Iran "reinforces stability in the region."
> 
> While there's a certain amount of nose-thumbing in Russia's position, there's also some merit. An improved Iranian air defense system could improve security in the region, particularly by deterring a unilateral Israeli attack. But while there are some upsides to Russian-Iranian cooperation on defensive systems, cooperation on offensive military equipment is something to worry about.
> 
> With a 90-mile maximum range, the S-300 is similar to the U.S. Patriot system. Along with the short-range Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile system that Russia delivered to Iran earlier this year, it would modernize Iranian air defenses -- previously based largely on deteriorating 1970s American technology.
> 
> And it would pretty much put the kibosh on Israel's ability to attack Iran on its own. Former Israeli Air Force Commander Eitan Ben-Eliyahu has said that the Russian missiles would make it significantly harder for Israel to attack from the air. And, even if an Iranian nuclear weapons program some day crossed a line that justified preemptive attack, the world would be far safer if there were technological and other constraints on unilateral action.
> 
> Adopting these systems would also make the Iranian military somewhat more transparent and make Iran more dependent on outside sources of military goods, both of which could be positive in the long-run if U.S.-Russian relations stay warm.
> 
> But those benefits are counterbalanced, though, when you move from talking about defensive military systems to offensive ones. And, indeed, Iran and Russia are in negotiations to expand military cooperation beyond air defenses, including attack helicopters and jet engines for a fleet of indigenous Iranian fighters. There have also been reports that Iran intends to purchase Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighters.
> 
> Despite the cold-war-like response to the S-300 announcement, these other negotiations have gone on without much notice. But the buildup of Iranian military capabilities is far more likely than the buildup of its air defenses to be the spark of future conflict.
> 
> By William M. Arkin |  December 27, 2007; 8:01 AM ET



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 1feral1

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The West has been pretty scummy to Iran and treated their national resources like we owned them for quite some time. I think its time to apologize and start diplomacy. We have no moral right to tell them anything until we do that.



What planet are you on? Do you want this western hating country to have nuke capability? Your posts never cease to amaze me.

If we are going to be all touchy feely-snivel-libertarian, why don't we kiss them too, and on their arse for that mattter.

The country is radicalised, they hate us, and if you went there to say 'gee, I am sorry' you would be butt stroked with their G3 rifles, until you were a red pulp!

Iran is a savage land, ran by a savage radical government, who will continue on the sly and in our faces to develop nuclear strength, putting their 13th century mentality along side with 21 century technology, with the west 1st on their hit list. They would either sell or give a warhead to a radical pro-islamc group for direct action against us. If you think not, you got your head in the sand, and are in complete denial of whats really going on.

As for the 'every day' sheeple of Iran, do you really think they are going to have any direct anti-government action against the current regime? Thats not going to happen. The one's which speak out are NOT living there, as this would equate to a quick 7.62mm ball rd in the back of the head (along your internal/external family dissappearing), of course that would be after some terrible torture of some kind.

Their capibilities for such energy must be quashed at any price, if not, its our children's generation who will have to deal with it, and by then it could be too late.

Its a matter of time, and sooner, not later that Iran will be in the crosshairs from the air. Delaying this will only complicate things as they are advancing in the technology as you read this.


----------



## Cheshire

"Iran is a savage land, ran by a savage radical government, who will continue on the sly and in our faces to develop nuclear strength, putting their 13th century mentality along side with 21 century technology, with the west 1st on their hit list."


+5


----------



## Flip

> Their capibilities for such energy must be quashed at any price, if not, its our children's generation who will have to deal with it, and by then it could be too late.



Sorry old boy.

I doubt it would keep that long.

I think WE need to deal with it now or WE will deal with it later.
Or, God forbid, It will deal with us. :'(


----------



## xo31@711ret

think WE need to deal with it now or WE will deal with it later.
Or, God forbid, It will deal with us.  
  


+5


----------



## 1feral1

Flip said:
			
		

> Sorry old boy.
> 
> I doubt it would keep that long.
> 
> I think WE need to deal with it now or WE will deal with it later.
> Or, God forbid, It will deal with us. :'(



Old Boy, ha, I like that one.

I still feel like a 30 yr old, locked up in a 48 yr old body, which at times feels like a 30 yr old body, at times 

cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kirkhill

While I am as anxious as anybody to see the Iranian regime neutered - ie forcibly disarmed - I don't think it is fair to say that all Iranians qualify as "sheeple"

This from Iraqi News via Gateway Pundit



> Over 240 large protests have been held against the regime in Iran this last month alone. At several of the protests they called for the death of the dictator, etc....
> 
> Iraqi-American Haider Ajina sent this news from The Iraqi News Agency.
> Thanks to BG here is the rough translation:
> 
> 
> Iranians are showing their discontent to the government in Iran with more than 240 protests in one month.
> 
> According to the figures recorded that Iran witnessed during the past Iranian month more than 240 protests organized by various groups and segments of Iranian society against the policies of the Iranian government. The Mujahideen Khalq announced that the various Iranian cities witnessed during the month and despite the increasing pace of executions and police raids more than 240 cases of strikes, picketing and protest demonstrations gathering in adverse to the regime and government policies.
> 
> Students scored more than 60 demonstrations. The most prominent demonstration was held during which students chanted "Death to the dictator", "Freedom our unwavering," and "We are women and men of fighting."
> 
> The workers have continued protesting against government policies which have registered about 40 cases of strikes and picketing.



Although this source doesn't have a long history to establish its credentials it is in line with the general tenor of reports coming out of Iran in the past and appearing in more reputable media.  We are talking about bombings in border states and riots in Tehran by all segments of society, both urban and rural.

Ahmadinejad may have the support of his Basij and the Republican Guard, but they are not Iran, nor are they even the Mullahs.  I think it is not inconceivable that the Mullahs are as frightened of Ahmadinejad as the "West" is.  Hence the rapprochement between the Khamenei and the Khatami forces in trying to limit Ahmadinejad's term and reducing his influence in city and national elections.


----------



## CougarKing

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> While I am as anxious as anybody to see the Iranian regime neutered - ie forcibly disarmed - I don't think it is fair to say that all Iranians qualify as "sheeple".
> 
> 
> Ahmadinejad may have the support of his Basij and the* Republican Guard*, but they are not Iran, nor are they even the Mullahs.  I think it is not inconceivable that the Mullahs are as frightened of Ahmadinejad as the "West" is.  Hence the rapprochement between the Khamenei and the Khatami forces in trying to limit Ahmadinejad's term and reducing his influence in city and national elections.



Kirkhill, 

Don't you mean the "Revolutionary Guard"? Or is the Farsi translation of that entity similar to the translation for the Arabic word for "Republican Guard" of Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolutionary_Guard

As for calling all Iranians as "sheeple", I hope whoever called them "sheeple" didn't mean to include Iranian exiles living in North America, Europe and elsewhere since quite a number who have been living here and elsewhere outside of Iran for decades would not support Ahmadinejad.


----------



## 1feral1

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> While I am as anxious as anybody to see the Iranian regime neutered - ie forcibly disarmed - I don't think it is fair to say that all Iranians qualify as "sheeple"



Sheeple as in the general public, nothing more, as in the sheeple of Australia etc. These are the people who jsut go with the flow, and carry out their daily business, it is not to be taken as ofensive.

Wes


----------



## tomahawk6

Sheeple ? 
Bet you cant pick out the non-photo shop pic. 8)


























Actually they were all photo shopped. But the top one was included in a news story run by a State owned publication, which makes it even funnier.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R3ZZm74wglI/AAAAAAAAKIQ/NZH0GEg6O2Y/s1600-h/iranian+press+tv.JPG


----------



## 1feral1

For some stupid reason Defence is blocking these pics, and I can't see them. I am on duty for another 48h and 17mins, so I'll have to wait until I get home.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## tomahawk6

Try this link the original place I stole the pic;s from. ;D

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


----------



## Shec

Gotta love that first pic in the context of this  headline from last weeK:

*Iranian Jews escape to Israel in covert journey, fearing hardline regime*

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/071225/w122572A.html

One more piece chipped away from the credibility of the Islying Republic of Iran


----------



## Mike Baker

LINK

*Report: Iran nuclear plant to launch in 2008*



> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran said Sunday that it will begin operation of the country's first nuclear power plant in the summer of 2008 using half its 1,000 megawatt capacity, the official news agency IRNA reported.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the Russians, who are helping build the light-water reactor in the southern Iranian town of Bushehr, will have completed nuclear fuel shipments by the summer, paving the way for its launch.
> 
> "Half of the capacity of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be launched in the summer of the coming year," IRNA quoted Mottaki as saying.
> 
> After months of delay, Russia began shipping nuclear fuel to Bushehr in mid-December and completed its second delivery on Friday. The Iranians have said Russia will send a total of 82 tons of nuclear fuel in eight shipments.
> 
> The process was held up by Russian claims that Iran had delayed construction payments for the reactor, but many observers suggested Moscow also was unhappy with Tehran's unwillingness to assure the international community that it was not developing nuclear arms.
> 
> Tehran heralded the initial shipment as a victory, saying it proved its nuclear program was peaceful, not a cover for weapons development as claimed by the U.S. and some of its allies.


----------



## gordjenkins

_Iran said Sunday that it will begin operation of the country's first nuclear power plant _

A  great reason to go to war! 

An announcement by whom ? 

As Edward R Murrow would say "_steady"_ - check your sources before you act.

Mr George  Bush wish had now with Iraq!


----------



## Kirkhill

This article  from the LA Times (via PrairiePundit) is intriguing.  It discusses the "who's in charge?" question.



> BEIRUT -- Iran's supreme leader spoke not with the thunder of a man regarded in his country as God's representative on Earth, but with the exasperated tone of a corporate manager chastising his employees.
> 
> Ali Khamenei had ordered his deputies to start privatizing state-owned businesses: the telephone company, three banks and dozens of small oil and petrochemical enterprises.
> 
> Related Stories
> - Iran reports air defense purchase
> - Iran plans 19 more nuclear plants
> - U.S. releases Iranian detained in Kurdish city in 2004
> 
> Jealously guarding their own sources of power and patronage, however, his underlings all but ignored him.
> 
> Months passed. Then Khamenei gathered the country's elite for an extraordinary meeting. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Cabinet ministers were there, as were important clerics, the leader of parliament and provincial governors, and the heads of state broadcasting and the Iranian chamber of commerce.
> 
> With television cameras rolling, Khamenei told them to pass some laws, sell off some businesses -- and be quick about it. "Those who are hostile to these policies are the ones who are going to lose their interests and influence," he declared.
> 
> The system shrugged. By November, nine months after his public scolding and almost a year and a half after Khamenei had first issued his order, almost nothing had happened. According to the Middle East Economic Digest, only two out of 240 state-owned businesses Khamenei targeted had been sold off......
> Concentric circles of influence and power that emanate from the supreme leader include the clergy, government and military officials -- and at their farthest fringes, militiamen and well-connected bazaar merchants -- altogether perhaps 15% of Iran's 70 million people.
> 
> Even the man regarded in Iran as the highest-ranking cleric in Shiite Islam finds himself constrained and challenged.
> 
> Those inside Iran's circle of power, says Ali Afshari, an analyst and former student activist now living in Washington, operate according to unique rules.
> 
> "It is not a democracy or an absolute totalitarian regime," he said. "Nor is it a communist system or monarchy or dictatorship. It is a mixture."
> 
> Those who matter
> 
> In the parlance of Iran's ruling elite, those who truly matter are referred to as khodi, Persian for "one of us."........


----------



## gordjenkins

_Lets get our minds clouded by some facts_
not
some ramblings of an LA Newspaper

The following from an interesting* Fact Book * put out by the CIA
- after all
-if you cant trust CIA
who can you trust??

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html



- 


*Political parties and leaders:
	Definition Field Listing*[/b]
formal political parties are a relatively new phenomenon in Iran and most conservatives still prefer to work through political pressure groups rather than parties, and often political parties or groups are formed prior to elections and disbanded soon thereafter; a loose pro-reform coalition called the 2nd Khordad Front, which includes political parties as well as less formal pressure groups and organizations, achieved considerable success at elections to the sixth Majles in early 2000; groups in the coalition include: Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF), Executives of Construction Party (Kargozaran), Solidarity Party, Islamic Labor Party, Mardom Salari, Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization (MIRO), and Militant Clerics Society (Ruhaniyun); the coalition participated in the seventh Majles elections in early 2004; following his defeat in the 2005 presidential elections, former MCS Secretary General Mehdi KARUBI formed the National Trust Party; a new apparently conservative group, the Builders of Islamic Iran, took a leading position in the new Majles after winning a majority of the seats in February 2004
Political pressure groups and leaders:

The Islamic Revolutionary Party (IRP) was Iran's sole political party until its dissolution in 1987; Iran now has a variety of groups engaged in political activity; some are oriented along political lines or based on an identity group; others are more akin to professional political parties seeking members and recommending candidates for office; some are active participants in the Revolution's political life while others reject the state; political pressure groups conduct most of Iran's political activities; groups that generally support the Islamic Republic include Ansar-e Hizballah, Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam, Tehran Militant Clergy Association (Ruhaniyat), Islamic Coalition Party (Motalefeh), and Islamic Engineers Society; active pro-reform student groups include the Office of Strengthening Unity (OSU); opposition groups include Freedom Movement of Iran, the National Front, Marz-e Por Gohar, and various ethnic and Monarchist organizations; armed political groups that have been repressed by the government include Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO), People's Fedayeen, Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), and Komala



*Disputes - international:
	Definition Field Listing*
Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors


----------



## Greymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This article  from the LA Times (via PrairiePundit) is intriguing.  It discusses the "who's in charge?" question.



Reads more like 'one man's perspective'...


----------



## Kirkhill

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Reads more like 'one man's perspective'...



Agreed


----------



## Cheshire

Radioactive material trying to be smuggled into Iran via train.....

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/01/460cd9d5-93ea-424a-a68a-316142bcf3e1.html

I guess this was a CIA fabrication that Iran will report on state run media as being "A normal Occurrence"......my big toe.


----------



## geo

Ahhhh......

Iran may or may not have anything to do with this current incident.... Iran just happened to be the train's destination.

Parts of the former Soviet Union are still littered with sites where lethal radioactive materials remain largely unsecured.

The cargo train belonged to a Tajik firm but the cargo was loaded by Kyrgyzstan's state railway company Temir in Kyrgyzstan with other material and was bound for Iran. Noruzbaev questioned how the train made it so far before being detected by Uzbek border guards.

"It passed through our border, the Kyrgyz border [and] it passed through two border checkpoints in Kazakhstan, entering and exiting [Kazakhstan]," Noruzbaev said. "Only on the territory of Uzbekistan was it discovered, and they [the Uzbeks] sent the train back to us."

Noruzbaev said the radioactive material should have been discovered long before the train arrived in Uzbekistan.

does everyone have a warm and fuzzy feeling yet?


----------



## Flip

Nice post Cheshire!

Hardly a smoking gun, but the only way I would feel "warm and fuzzy" about 
Iran in all this, would be if Iran had turned it back at their border.

Yea - that would happen.....


----------



## Kirkhill

President Bush has been trucking around the Middle East the past few days. Not so much as you'd notice though.  Apparently he has been to more places than Israel/Palestine.   Hard to pick that up on the TV.

He visited Kuwait and the UAE. He talked to troops and women.  He seems to be in the process of arranging a permanent status of forces agreement with Iraq along the lines of those with Kuwait. This is on top of the news that the Iraqis have passed one of Congress's benchmarks - the reconciliation law and the Shiite clerics are calling for more rapid movement by the politicians on the rest of the benchmarks.  

Bush seems favourably inclined towards Jordan, Oman, Bahrain and Morocco as evidenced by Free Trade Agreements......

And in the middle of all this Iran sends out a couple of speed boats to tackle the US Navy.

Meanwhile, next door, in Iraq, the US launches a "massive U.S. military raid  south of the capital Thursday, two B1-B bombers and four F-16 fighters dropped 48 precision-guided bombs on 47 targets,"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080113-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080112-3.html

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080112/FOREIGN/842215912/1003/foreign
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

And in Iran, apparently, people are burning townhalls  when they run out of fuel.....in Iran.

All in all I wouldn't want to be trying to play Ahmadinejad's hand.  Internal instability.  Changed relations with the neighbours.  The US ensconced next door.  And it has had an opportunity to brush up its game and employ new technology and tactics.

Massive air strike.  2 Bombers and 4 Fighters.   48 Bombs. 47 Targets.
How many Bombers, Fighters and Bombs available?


----------



## tomahawk6

You dont need very many aircraft when using PGM's.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Sounds like a good plot for a new bond movie


----------



## GAP

They may have detected it, but did they secure it?


----------



## a_majoor

Un-spinning some American political manouevres:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010809.html



> *It all depends on what the meaning of "nuclear weapons program" is
> *
> John Bolton takes on the US Director of National Intelligence:
> 
> Today [Feb. 5], Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee (and Thursday on the House side) to give the intelligence community's annual global threat analysis. These hearings are always significant, but the stakes are especially high now because of the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
> 
> [...]
> 
> There are (at least) three things he should do:
> 
> - Explain how the NIE was distorted, and rewrite it objectively to reflect the status of Iran's nuclear programs. The NIE's first key judgment is "we judge with high confidence that in fall, 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Most of the world, predictably, never got beyond that opinion. Only inveterate footnote hunters noticed the extraordinary accompanying footnote which redefined Iran's "nuclear weapons program" to mean only its "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work," and undeclared uranium conversion and enrichment activities. Card sharks -- not intelligence professionals -- could be proud of this sleight of hand, which grossly mischaracterizes what Iran actually needs for a weapons program.
> 
> The NIE later makes clear that Iran's nuclear efforts and capabilities are continuing and growing, that many activities are "dual use" (i.e., for either civil or military purposes), and that Iran's real intentions are unknown. Substantively, therefore, the NIE is not far different from the 2005 NIE, but its first sentence gives a radically different impression.
> 
> Here is the first question for Congress: Was the NIE's opening salvo intended to produce policy consequences congenial to Mr. McConnell's own sentiments? If not, how did he miss the obvious consequences that flowed from the NIE within minutes of its public release?
> 
> [...]
> 
> If, on the other hand, Mr. McConnell and others missed the NIE's explosive nature, then this is at best a sin of omission, and perhaps far worse. Will Mr. McConnell say he saw nothing significant in how the NIE was written? Does he believe in fact that the first sentence is the NIE's single most important point? If not, why was it the first sentence?
> 
> Why not start by using the NIE's very last key judgment, "we assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so." Who decided which sentence should be first and which last? This is not an exercise in style, but a matter of critical importance for American national security.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, 2007).
> 
> Ambassador Bolton's view of the NIE receives support in an odd place--a piece (full text subscriber only) in the leftish London Review of Books by a professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex:
> 
> The US defence and intelligence community launched a pre-emptive strike at George Bush and Richard Cheney on 3 December. The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released that day concluded: ‘We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme.’ So Iran will not be the next target of this administration after all. The politicians’ attempt to blame the intelligence community for the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003 has rebounded: this time around the intelligence agencies have acted decisively to outflank those wanting to bomb Iran...
> 
> More, including a worrying estimate, after the jump.
> 
> Mark C.
> 
> Norman Dombey's assessment:
> 
> A year ago I wrote that it would probably take two years for Iran to get its centrifuges running and another two years to enrich sufficient uranium to make a bomb.[†] I was wrong. In November 2007 the IAEA confirmed that all three thousand machines had been installed and tested with uranium hexafluoride gas. At present Iran is enriching to a level of about 4 per cent, which is appropriate for use in nuclear reactors. If the cascades were slightly modified, a store of 750 kg of low enriched uranium (LEU) could be used to produce a critical mass of 30 kg of highly enriched uranium within three months. Making reasonable assumptions about the efficiency of the centrifuges, Iran would need to feed between nine and 13 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride into the cascades to obtain this amount of LEU.
> 
> The IAEA reported that between the end of August and the beginning of November Iran enriched 550 kg of uranium hexafluoride using 12 cascades. With the full 18 cascades Iran should be able to enrich five tonnes per year and thus accumulate 750 kg of LEU by 2010 or 2011 – earlier if it does better. These are my estimates, but they agree with those given in the NIE [emphasis added]...
> 
> Posted by markc at February 5, 2008 06:39 PM


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thucydides: Exactly.

Then there would only be the problem of boring out a three inch gun--the whole first link below is worth reading if one wants to know about basic HEU bombs (implosion plutonium ones are much more complex-second link).
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/FirstNuclWeapons/LittleBoy.htm
http://www.lanl.gov/history/atomicbomb/littleboyandfatman.shtml

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Here is an artist's line drawing and a photo of the new Iranian "Peykaap" class fast missile boat, according to the ff. link: (the original poster of the photos at the ff.site didn't disclose his source)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3066937&postcount=1

I'll leave it to the experts here to determine whether it poses a threat at all to the CPFs or any coalition nation's warships.












specs, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_vessels

Displacement: 13.75 tons 
Dimensions: L 16.3 m, W 3.75m, Dr 0.67 m H 1.93m 
Crew: 3 
Endurance: 320 nm 
Speed: 52kt 
Powerplant: 2 x 1,200 hp (890 kW) 
Armament: 2 x 324 mm (12.75”) torpedo tubes, small-arms, (missiles not specified in wiki)


----------



## tomahawk6

Those industrious Iranians keep turning out hi tech weapons. ;D


----------



## Mike Baker

Looks pretty sleek doesn't it? Dare I say, pretty


----------



## midget-boyd91

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> Looks pretty sleek doesn't it? Dare I say, pretty



Looks photoshopped to me.  Well, at least the missile launching pods do.

Midget


----------



## Flip

Another small bit of news concerning Iran and it's internal stresses.

National Post article link 

Shared with the usual disclaimers;

Canada silent on 'death to heretics'
Steven Edwards, National Post  
Published: Friday, February 29, 2008

UNITED NATIONS -Canada has shown international leadership by working within the UN to focus world attention on Iran's appalling human rights record.

Which makes it all the more regrettable Ottawa bureaucrats dropped the ball this week by letting the European Union speak out first against Iran's latest bid to persecute its people.

The outrage in question is draft legislation to impose the death penalty on men who seek to leave Islam and life imprisonment coupled with "hardship" on women who do.

Witchcraft and heresy would also be capital crimes if parliament approves the draft, as seems likely.

While death for apostasy is already mandated in Iran under shariah law, the EU points out parliamentary approval will formalize the punishment in Iran's criminal code.

"These articles clearly violate the Islamic Republic of Iran's commitments under the international human rights conventions to which Iran is party," the 27-nation bloc said in a statement on Monday.

From Ottawa, silence, even though Canada has distinguished itself since 2003 by driving through annual UN censures of the Islamic republic for human rights abuses.

Those efforts made Canada the point man for applying pressure on Iran's ruling mullahs. They have run as an important parallel to U.S.-and European-led efforts to strong-arm Iran into rolling back its nuclear program.

Maintaining pressure on the human rights front is arguably more crucial than ever. For many experts, the draft law is one of several recent regressive measures -- enforcing the Islamic dress code and press crackdowns are others -- that suggest the mullahs are under more pressure than at any time since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini replaced the Shah in 1979.

"The question is why now, 30 years after the revolution?" asked Payam Akhavan, a professor at McGill University and co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre in Connecticut.

"It's a reaction in part to a rising tide of reformism in Iran, where the vast majority of people are 30 years of age and under. They are largely a post-ideological, pragmatic generation that wants economic prosperity, freedom and open society.

"Against this, the hardliners sense they are losing their grip on power. So these various measures -- reinstating the wearing of the hijab for women, cracking down on human rights organizations and now reinstating shariah law with even greater vigour --are part of a desperate attempt to retrench their powers."

Canada took up the torch in 2003 after Zahra Kazemi, 54, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, was murdered in a Tehran jail.

Representatives of Canada's 30,000 Baha'is have met Foreign Affairs officials to point out one of the draft law's most worrisome provisions, which they believe targets their coreligionists in Iran.

This prescribes death for anyone claiming to be a prophet and says "any Muslim who invents heresy in the religion and creates a [contrary] sect" is considered an apostate.

According to Baha'i teachings, religious history has unfolded through a series of God's messengers, with Baha'i founder Baha'u'llah the most recent in 19th-century Persia, now Iran.

Islam considers Muhammad God's final prophet.

The Baha'i delegation gave the Ottawa bureaucrats a translation of the draft law. Where is Canada's condemnation?


The woman who cuts my hair is an Iranian B'hai
Makes you wonder where this world is going doesn't it?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Looks photoshopped to me.  Well, at least the missile launching pods do.
> 
> Midget



Nope- it is not "shopped".


----------



## TCBF

- Does everyone remember when South Africa was 'cut off' from Western aid, trade and technology because of Aparthied?  They came up with a lot of unique defence solutions to inventing or acquiring the stuff they needed.  Necessity is the mother of invention, after all, and where there is a will, there is a way.

- We are seeing that in Iran now.


----------



## a_majoor

Amazingly, much of this was predicted as far back as the 1950's!

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3051



> Malraux On Islam
> From the desk of Tiberge on Sun, 2008-03-02 12:52
> 
> Nicolas Sarkozy brought up the name of André Malraux in a recent interview with Le Parisien. Malraux was a well-known name in the 1960's in America. Novelist, art critic, adventurer, he became Charles de Gaulle's first minister of culture and it was in that capacity that he met President John F. Kennedy and Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy when they visited France in 1961, and later in 1963 in Washington, when Malraux arranged for the Mona Lisa to be brought to America for a special exhibit. Read the details of those "Camelot" days here.
> 
> President Sarkozy was careful not to quote another famous passage by Malraux on Islam that has made the rounds of the French websites many times over. It is posted in French at Armées (along with a picture of Malraux on the cover of Time):
> 
> _The outstanding event of our time is the violence of the advance of Islam. Underestimated by most of our contemporaries, the ascendancy of Islam is analogically comparable to the beginnings of communism at the time of Lenin.
> 
> The consequences of this phenomenon are still unpredictable. At the outset of the Marxist revolution, people thought they could stem its tide through partial solutions. Neither Christianity nor organizations such as corporations or labor unions found a solution.
> 
> Likewise today the Western world is hardly prepared to confront the problem of Islam. In theory, the solution does indeed seem extremely difficult. Perhaps it would be possible in practice, if, limiting ourselves to the French aspect of this question, the solution were thought out and applied by a genuine statesman.
> 
> The current known facts of the problem lead one to believe that the various forms of Muslim dictatorship are soon to be established successively throughout the Arab world. When I say "Muslim", I'm thinking less of religious structures than of the temporal structures that flow from Mahomet's doctrine. As of now, the sultan of Morocco is out-dated and Bourguiba will only stay in power by becoming a dictator of sorts. Perhaps partial solutions would have been sufficient to stem the tide of Islam, if they had been applied in time...Now it is too late! The "wretched ones" have nothing to lose. They would rather preserve their wretchedness within the Muslim community. Their fate will probably not change. We have a vision of them that is too Western. To the benefits we claim to be able to bring them, they prefer the future of their race. Black Africa will not remain much longer untouched by this process. All that we can do is to become conscious of the gravity of the phenomenon and to try to slow down its progression.
> 
> André Malraux, June 3, 1956_
> 
> Note: Bourguiba was president of Tunisia until 1987.
> 
> Notice that he points to the need for a "genuine statesman". One can only imagine what he would think of Sarkozy. He also limits the spread of Muslim dictatorships to the "Arab world." Possibly in 1956 he did not envisage the spread of Islam into Europe and America (it was almost unthinkable back then). Or possibly he did somehow foresee that the spread of violent Islam in the Arab countries would eventually spill over into France. Which is why he warns of the need to stop its progress.
> 
> Malraux was no angel. He led a tumultuous and tragic life, engaged in left-wing politics, but eventually denounced communism. His first marriage ended in divorce, his second wife was killed in an accident as were his two sons, his third marriage also ended. He became addicted to drugs towards the end of his life. But he established a reputation as a man of many talents, a kind of Renaissance figure who did not indulge in false hope or Utopian fantasies. His most famous novel is Man's Fate (La Condition Humaine).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is an interesting take on the future of _al qaeda_ and other _Islamist_ movements:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=efcf2cba-cdd5-4e69-8673-995942d308cf&k=53356


> Next wave of terrorists could destroy jihadist movement: expert
> 
> Ian MacLeod, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Published: Monday, March 10, 2008
> 
> Al-Qaeda as we know it is dead, replaced by a leaderless generation of ever-younger homegrown jihadists whose venomous beliefs could poison the movement from within, says a leading al-Qaeda scholar.
> 
> Marc Sageman, a medical doctor and Central Intelligence Agency officer turned forensic psychiatrist and noted al-Qaeda researcher, rejects conventional thinking that "al-Qaeda Central" - Osama bin Laden and an estimated 200 high command and hard-core followers holed up in northwest Pakistan - is resurgent.
> 
> "Those days are long over, but the social movement they inspired is as strong and dangerous as ever," he writes in the current issue of Foreign Policy, encapsulating his new book, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century.
> 
> A "third wave" of self-recruited "wannabe" radicals, many from middle-class secular families, now forms the core of a dispersed movement, globally connected through Islamist websites that offer a semblance of unity and purpose.
> 
> The devolution of al-Qaeda Central has been noted by others. Mr. Sageman, however, says the wannabe movement that has taken its place is inherently self-limiting, since by their very nature, the disconnected groups have no unified goals, strategies or a leader. If the movement's appeal to its young, core membership Muslims diminishes, the threat will recede as well, and it may eventually kill itself off with its own increasingly toxic, blood-thirsty message that even many radicals won't embrace.
> 
> The alleged "Toronto 18" terror cell, young men and youths charged with plotting to bomb Toronto landmarks and storm the Parliament Buildings, is a prime example of the new third wave, says Mr. Sageman, who holds a doctorate in sociology.
> 
> "The individuals we should fear most haven't been trained in terrorist camps, and they don't answer to Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri. They often do not even adhere to the most austere and dogmatic tenets of radical Islam.
> 
> "They are young people seeking thrills and a sense of significance and belonging in their lives. And their lack of structure and organizing principles makes them even more terrifying and volatile than their terrorist forebears."
> 
> The ease with which they are able to translate their frustrations into acts of terrorism, often on the back of professed solidarity with terrorists halfway around the world whom they have never met, is especially frightening, he writes.
> 
> "They seek to belong to a movement larger than themselves, and their violent actions and plans are hatched locally, with advice from others on the web. Their mode of communication also suggests that they will increasingly evade detection. Without links to known terrorists, this new generation is more difficult to discover through traditional intelligence gathering. Of course, their lack of training and experience could limit their effectiveness. But that's cold comfort for their victims."
> 
> As a CIA case officer who ran spies in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, Mr. Sageman met many of the Soviet-fighting mujahedeen who later formed al-Qaeda. After 9/11, he collected biographical material on about 150 Islamic radicals to write his influential first book, Understanding Terror Networks. After analysing hundreds of additional biographies, he wrote the just-released Leaderless Jihad.
> 
> He found a process of radicalization that commonly begins with a sense of moral outrage at the killings of Muslims, whether it be in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, the Palestinian intifada or Iraq, as well as the humiliations of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> "Feeling marginalized is, of course, no simple springboard to violence. Many people feel they don't belong, but don't aspire to wage violent jihad. What transforms a very small number to become terrorists is mobilization by networks."
> 
> Former face-to-face groups that once acted as an echo chamber, amplifying grievances, intensifying bonds to each other, have been largely replaced by forums of online radicalization, "which promote the image of the terrorist hero, link users to the online social movement, give them guidance, and instruct them in tactics. These forums, virtual marketplaces for extremist ideas, have become the 'invisible hand' that organizes terrorist activities worldwide.
> 
> "The true leader of this violent social movement is the collective discourse on half a dozen influential forums. They are transforming the terrorist movement, attracting ever younger members and now women, who can participate in the discussions."
> 
> Because al-Qaeda Central cannot impose discipline on these anonymous third-wave wannabes, "each disconnected network acts according to its own understanding and capability, but their collective actions do not amount to any unified long-term goal or strategy. These separate groups cannot coalesce into a physical movement, leaving them condemned to remain leaderless, an online aspiration."
> 
> That makes them difficult to detect, but also offers "a tantalizing strategy for those who wish to defeat these dangerous individuals: The very seeds of the movement's demise are within the movement itself."
> 
> Terrorist acts must be stripped of glory and reduced to common criminality; terrorists who are arrested or killed must not be placed in the limelight; terrorism convictions must be exploited by the authorities, he says.
> 
> "There is no glory in being taken to prison in handcuffs. No jihadi website publishes such pictures. Arrested terrorists fade into oblivion; martyrs live on in popular memory."
> 
> "This is very much a battle for young Muslims' hearts and minds," especially with the advent of the Internet. The web is "where young Muslims share their hopes, dreams, and grievances. That offers an opportunity to encourage voices that reject violence. Only then will the leaderless jihad expire, poisoned by its own toxic message."
> 
> © Ottawa Citizen 2008​



So, if the good doctor is correct we have as our enemy _”young people [Canadians] seeking thrills and a sense of significance and belonging in their lives,”_ who _“seek to belong to a movement larger than themselves”_ and are led by _”the collective discourse on half a dozen influential [dispersed, internet based] forums_.

There is, also, a tie into the reports of  terrorist camps in the UK. I am 99.9% certain that we have similar camps here in Canada, as, I’m nearly as certain, do our American and Australian friends. We have failed to _integrate_ generation*s* of immigrations into ‘our’ society leaving them rudderless and, _de facto_, forcing them to create ‘grafted’ versions of the ‘old country’ society here in Canada (and America and Australia and Britain and, and, and ...). Sometimes this was a rather benign (albeit racist) inaction, as with the Chinese in Canada who, by and large, prospered despite and, perhaps even because of the indifference of the _mainstream_, while ate other times it has been the result of ill-considered action: our post 1970 _multi-culturalism_ policy that explicitly said that ‘our’ culture was not superior to that of the ‘old country’ – suggesting that economics was the only good and valid reason for anyone to have come to Canada and become Canadians. It was, and remains, a stupid idea that, explicitly, denigrates our own country but it remains, along with Stalinist healthcare programmes, part of what makes us better different than our American neighbours.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let us hope that the politicans do not use this new threat as an excuse to extinguish more rights within our own society while attempting to deal with them.


----------



## OkotoksRookie

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We have failed to _integrate_ generation*s* of immigrations into ‘our’ society leaving them rudderless and, _de facto_, forcing them to create ‘grafted’ versions of the ‘old country’ society here in Canada (and America and Australia and Britain and, and, and ...).



I agree with you except for I think a little clarification. We do offer several programs to help immigrants integrate into Canadian life. However those who come here illegally or those who have no desire to integrate will never take advantage of these programs. I don't really see this as a failure on our part but I do think that maybe there is some room for improvement in our immigration policies. Some actions should be taken (as for what exactly, I don't know) or we may find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the Danish.


----------



## a_majoor

E.R. Campbell is speaking about something far different from the inane government programs we see today. What is required is a very powerful and all encompassing movement similar to what existed in the United States (at least until the beginning of the "Progressive era" in the late 1920's) which sought every means possible to not _integrate_ new arrivals but to _assimilate_ them.

The civic nationalist movement documented in Samuel Huntington's book "Who are we?" recounts how not just public schools but every institution from churches to social clubs to private enterprise provided positive and negative reinforcement of the "American Creed". Night school classes to teach English were a popular and inexpensive innovation favored by industry looking for a work force which could clearly communicate. American patriotic tales were a favorite means of teaching English.....you get the idea.

Since Canada, Australia and the United States are nations peopled by settlers (i.e. large groups who arrived with common values and goals), and continued to allow the arrival of immigrants (i.e. small groups who were willing to adopt these values), creating a form of Civic Nationalism was easy and effective in the past. 

Our problem today is "we" are facing an onslaught of settlers rather than immigrants, and they are creating enclaves within our own nations (read Wesley Down Under's reports on the Muslim situation in Australia, or consider the huge influx of Hispanic people's in the United States, where there are large urban districts in places like Miami or Los Angeles where everything from media to day to day conversation is entirely in Spanish, or the Pakistani enclaves growing in the UK, or even the huge Indian and Chinese enclaves in Vancouver). For the most part, this isn't an end of the world situation, Hispanic Barrios or Indian neighbourhoods in Vancouver are no physical threat to us, but some enclaves do harbour violent and radical groups who do oppose our values, and the presence of any exclusionary enclaves do provide potential breeding grounds for this behaviour.

The only way to diffuse this situation is to embrace or re embrace the idea of civic nationalism, retell the national myths and make them a part of everyone who lives and works in this country, and politely show the door to people who are unwilling to adapt to our ways.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The only way to diffuse this situation is to embrace or re embrace the idea of civic nationalism, retell the national myths and make them a part of everyone who lives and works in this country, and politely show the door to people who are unwilling to adapt to our ways.



Our problem is a lack of a National Myth.  We have at least two and more likely multiple traditional myths, when you include the natives.  We haven't been well served by them.  They are all mutually exclusive.  Haida don't get along with Tlingit.  Dogrib fight with Eskimo.  Blackfoot and Assiniboine.  Algonquin and Iroquois.  French and Engish.  Scots and Irish.  Protestants and Catholics.

Nor have we been well served by the modern Trudeaunian non-myth of a people without history.

We need to find a new Myth.  One that resonates with all.  

IIRC John A MacDonald said Canada was a land cursed with too much geography and too little history.  He was only partly right.  Every individual in Canada brings their own myths, their own history, with them.  We are as cursed with history as any country.  

Ignoring history, as that perennial teenager Trudeau promoted doesn't solve things.  We need to find an acceptable history.  The old histories were written to generate followers for leaders and to cut them out from the rest of the herd of humanity.  They were designed to establish and strengthen differences.

We now have a State of peoples from many nations all of whom know themselves to be unique, different and often superior.

We need a history that finds the common ground - seeing as how everybody can't be Scots.

The good news is that merely studying all the national myths and histories quickly demonstrates how much common ground there is - at least in terms of problems.  There is often much common ground in terms of failed solutions.

Disagreement comes when trying to describe succesful solutions.  Often one person's paradise is another's drudgery.


----------



## Flip

> We need to find a new Myth.  One that resonates with all.



I think this is why we have UN peacekeepers on our money.
In the Canada I was brought up in, the United Empire loyalist tradition was slowly  displaced and deemed to be non-PC.  Nothing could replace it exept a new Trudeau-esq Canadian self image that has also grown some warts.

What to do?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some multicultural or even _acultural_ attributes that might animate an acceptable Canadian _myth_ include being, in no particular order:

•	*Robust* – able to _tame_ or exist in a harsh land – stop whining about the snow, folks! _This was part of pur 19th and early to mid 20th century national myth – think of lumberjacks _(No! Not the _Monty Python_ one!)_ and ‘voyageurs,’ ‘les raftsmen’ and the March West, and, and, and ... _

•	*Prudent* – fiscally conservative, able to _manage_ despite the slings and arrows of outrageous fate and international finance; _this was part of our 19th and early to mid 20th century national myth – think dour (Montreal) Scots bankers and _Hudson’s Bay_ factors_

•	*Brave* – traditionally and still willing to share the dangerous burden on securing and keeping the peace for ourselves, our children, our friends and neighbours and those less fortunate than us; _this was part of our early to mid 20th century national myth – think _Parrdeberg, Vimy_ the _Battle of the Atlantic_ and _Kapyong

•	*Generous* – within prudent limits, willing to share our bounty with one another, our children, our friends and neighbours and those less fortunate than us; _this_ *is*_ part of our late 20th/early 21st century national myth – but it is_ myth_ with little basis in fact_

•	*Trustworthy* – in business and in politics and diplomacy; _this was part of our mid 20th century national myth, but it was smashed in 1970 with Trudeau’s foreign policy and a national neglect of monetary policy_

These are attributes to which any immigrant should want to subscribe and pass on to her children. They make Canada ‘better’ – qualitatively and quantitatively – than the ‘old country.’

Back to the topic: According to the article I posted earlier today leaders like _Osama bin Laden_ and his friends and cohorts, may, like the tough, brave, trustworthy Canadian of 20th century myth, have been supplanted by a new, weaker, unstable _team_ of followers. Perhaps this new generation can, as I have suggested would be desirable, be _turned_, inwards, to do battle with apostate Muslims and corrupt, money-grubbing, Western teat-sucking Arab regimes. If we are a little bit smart and a little bit lucky we might be able to manage a couple of generations of internecine warfare amongst the people of the Islamic Crescent – at least of the part that stretches from Morocco across North Africa, through Egypt and Arabia and throughout West and South West Asia. 

Meanwhile we could work at restoring our national myth to something which all Canadians, regardless of race or creed, will see as worthy of themselves.


----------



## a_majoor

More on Iran's nuclear program:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031003097_pf.html



> *U.N. Alleges Nuclear Work By Iran's Civilian Scientists*
> 
> By Joby Warrick
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, March 11, 2008; A01
> 
> Iranian nuclear engineer Mohsen Fakhrizadeh lectures weekly on physics at Tehran's Imam Hossein University. Yet for more than a decade, according to documents attracting interest among Western governments, he also ran secret programs aimed at acquiring sensitive nuclear technology for his government.
> 
> Experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have repeatedly invited Fakhrizadeh to tea and a chat about Iran's nuclear work. But for two years, the government in Tehran has barred any contact with the scientist, who U.S. officials say recently moved to a new lab in a heavily guarded compound also off-limits to U.N. inspectors.
> 
> *The exact nature of his research -- past and present -- remains a mystery, as does the work of other key Iranian scientists whose names appear in documents detailing what U.N. officials say is a years-long, clandestine effort to expand the country's nuclear capability.* The documents, which were provided to the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear agency, in recent months by two countries other than the United States, partly match information in a stolen Iranian laptop turned over by Washington.
> 
> IAEA officials say these documents identify Fakhrizadeh and other civilian scientists as central figures in a secret nuclear research program that operated as recently as 2003. So far, however, Iran is refusing to shed light on their work or allow U.N. officials to question them. After being presented with copies of some of the new documents, Tehran denied that some of the scientists exist.
> 
> "When the allegations are raised, Iran simply dismisses them," said a Western diplomatic official familiar with the agency's dealings with Iran. "It insists that the documents are mostly fakes."
> 
> The standoff over interview requests has cast a shadow over a five-year U.N. effort to excavate the truth about Iran's nuclear past. In that search, Western anxieties have been compounded by Tehran's reluctance to clarify the history of its interest in technologies that could be used for either nuclear power or weapons.
> 
> A similar set of uncertainties helped provoke the U.S. war with Iraq, which the Bush administration justified partly by positing that Baghdad was deliberately concealing nuclear weapons research from U.N. inspectors. The outcome of that invasion suggests caution, however, since U.S. troops were unable to find any convincing evidence of banned weapons work, and deposed Iraqi officials said they had been secretive to conceal from regional opponents that they had ended such work, not continued it.
> 
> In Iran's case, U.N. officials say, the new evidence does not prove that the scientists carried out plans to build a nuclear device, but shows that Fakhrizadeh and other scientists struggled to master associated technologies. Several of the scientists, including Fakhrizadeh, appear to have moved freely between military and civilian research venues.
> 
> The documents purport to show advanced research into a variety of nuclear-related technologies, including uranium ore processing, warhead modification and the precision-firing of high explosives of the type used to detonate a nuclear device. Other documents point to attempts by civilian scientists to purchase sensitive equipment of the kind Iran would eventually use in its uranium enrichment plants.
> 
> Some of the new documents came from inside Iran, according to European officials familiar with them. None specifically include the word "nuclear," and IAEA officials say there is no evidence that any of the plans advanced beyond the paper stage.
> 
> The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a major opposition group that claims to have informants inside Iran's government, contends in materials provided to The Washington Post that nuclear weapons design work persists and has migrated to universities and schools. But U.S. and U.N. officials say they cannot corroborate the group's claim.
> 
> Instead, U.S. intelligence officials have said that Iran worked on weapons design in the past but halted the research in 2003. But government officials and weapons experts acknowledge concerns over Iran's refusal to answer questions or explain what key scientists are doing now.
> 
> "It's not the first time we've seen individuals who seem to wear white hats but are working on very different projects behind the scenes," said Leonard Spector, a former Energy Department nonproliferation official who is now deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. He noted that other countries, particularly Pakistan, have used civilian scientists as cover for secret nuclear research.
> 
> Although the IAEA has not publicly described the contents of the new documents, the U.N. Security Council adopted new sanctions against Iran last week, in part because of what European leaders described as Tehran's "abysmal" performance in answering the IAEA's questions about past nuclear research.
> 
> "As long as Iran's choice remains one of non-cooperation, we for our part will remain determined to demonstrate the costs and consequences of that choice," British Ambassador Simon Smith said in a statement last week on behalf of Britain, Germany and France, which have taken the lead in trying to persuade Iran to stop making enriched uranium, a critical ingredient used in both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
> 
> Calls placed to Iran's U.N. mission in New York were not returned.
> 
> Fakhrizadeh is prominent in several of the documents, according to two officials who have seen them. A personnel chart listed him as the senior authority overseeing all the research projects. Another paper, purportedly signed by Fakhrizadeh, establishes spending guidelines for the research programs, while a third sets rules for communication among scientists, suggesting, for example, that researchers avoid putting their names on correspondence that might eventually become public, according to a Europe-based diplomat who viewed the documents.
> 
> Fakhrizadeh, 47, who became a Revolutionary Guard Corps member after the overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979, is a former leader of the Physics Research Center, which U.N. officials say was heavily involved in drawing up plans and acquiring parts for Iran's first uranium enrichment plant. He was among eight Iranians placed under international travel and financial restrictions under the terms of a U.N. resolution adopted last year because of his alleged ties to "nuclear or ballistic missile" research, U.N. records show.
> 
> According to the Iranian opposition group, in addition to holding the university post, Fakhrizadeh recently was appointed the director of a new Center for Readiness and New Defense Technology, which is in Tehran and is under direct military command. Several of his deputies have been reassigned to nuclear departments at ostensibly civilian schools such as Shahid Beheshti University, also in Tehran.
> 
> "Fakhrizadeh is a key person, but he is not the only player," said Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the opposition group's foreign affairs committee.


----------



## a_majoor

The mythology of iraq will also be very interesting to future historians:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYyN2JhMmQyMDdkN2Y4MmNkMGZkMzU1M2Y2ZWJlYmI=&w=Mg==



> *Mirror, Mirror ...*
> Looking at Iraq.
> 
> By Victor Davis Hanson
> 
> By now everyone sees what he wishes in Iraq — a disaster of many proportions, a necessary war that will still be won. Liberals who used to demand that we promote democracy abroad are fierce critics of Iraqi democracy; conservatives, who want an iron hand dealing with a hostile Middle East, support spending hundreds of billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraqi society.
> 
> So it will be left to historians, as has been true in the case of the far-more-costly Korean and Vietnam wars, to adjudicate the final verdict.
> 
> Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has entered yet another manifestation. The fickle American public and its media have switched and flipped on the war as much as they have on Hillary Clinton’s chances — in the last two months she’s been a shoo-in, a has-been, a comeback kid, a loser, and now a contender.
> 
> In late 2003, Iraq transmogrified suddenly, from an overwhelmingly popular and brilliant three-week war to remove a genocidal Saddam Hussein, into a bitterly divisive effort of four years to defeat an insurgency that threatened to topple the postwar elected government.
> 
> Now, despite the obligatory throat-clearing epithets used by journalists and politicians — “the worst,” “nightmare,” “disaster,” “fiasco,” “catastrophe,” “quagmire” — Iraq is beginning to be seen as something that just might work after all, as the violence subsides and a stable constitutional government hangs on.
> 
> Once promised to be the singular issue of the current presidential campaign, the war has receded to background noise of the primaries. An ascendant Barack Obama pounded home the fact that, unlike Senator Clinton, he never supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and always wanted to get Americans out of there as fast as he could; it may well prove that a more circumspect Obama soon won’t want to mention the war and, as hinted by aides, wouldn’t jerk the troops out should he be the next president.
> 
> Rarely in American history has a war been so often spun, praised, renounced, disowned, and finally neglected. And the result is that a number of questions remain not just unanswered, but unasked. We have not been hit since 9/11, despite the dire predictions from almost everyone of serial attacks to come. Today if a Marine recruitment center is bombed, we automatically assume the terrorist to represent a domestic anti-war group, not al-Qaeda — a perverse conjecture impossible to have imagined in autumn 2001.
> 
> In response to that calm, the communis opinio is that we hyped the threat, needlessly went to war, mortgaged the Constitution — just collate the rhetoric from the Obama and Clinton campaigns — when there was never much of a post-9/11 threat from a rag-tag bunch of jihadists in the first place.
> 
> What is never discussed is how many Islamists flocked to Iraq, determined to defeat the U.S. military — and never got out alive. Or, more bluntly, how many jihadists did the U.S. Army and Marines kill in Iraq rather than in Manhattan?
> 
> And what was the effect of that defeat not only on the jihadists, but also on those who were watching carefully to see whether the terrorists should be joined in victory or abandoned in defeat? Who really took his eye off the ball — the United States by going into Iraq, as alleged, or Osama bin Laden and his jihadist lieutenants by diverting thousands there to their deaths, as is never mentioned?
> 
> When the war started, contrary to the current rhetoric, Osama bin Laden was popular in the Middle East, and the tactic of suicide bombing had won a sizable following. But after the war was fought, and despite years of anti-American rhetoric, bin Laden has never polled lower while support for suicide murdering in the Muslim Middle East continues to decline.
> 
> In 2001, the Arab street apparently thought, for all the macabre nature of suicide bombing, that it at least had brought the United States to its knees and such a takedown was considered a good thing; in the latter reflection of 2007 and 2008, it worried that such a tactic brought the United States military to its region, and guaranteed the defeat of jihadists along with any who joined them.
> 
> Iraq, as no one ever imagined, ended up as a landscape in which the United States and al-Qaeda would battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab world on the world stage. And in Anbar Province, the jihadists are losing — losing militarily and losing the support of the local Sunni population. Again, whereas the conventional wisdom holds that we have radicalized an entire generation of young Muslims, it may turn out instead that we have convinced a generation that it is not wise after 9/11 to wage war against the United States. In any case, there is no other constitutional Arab government in the Middle East that actively hunts down and kills al-Qaeda terrorists.
> 
> *When the insurgency took off in late 2003, Europe immediately triangulated against the United States, courted the Arab world, and hoped to deflect jihadists by loudly proclaiming they were vehemently against the war in Iraq. This is in itself was quite remarkable, since the entire recent expansion of the European Union to the south and east had been predicated only on a partnership agreement with the United States to extend NATO membership — alone ensuring these weak new European affiliates American military protection.
> 
> Irony abounds: Since 2003, Europe — not the United States — has experienced a series of attacks, and near-constant threats, ranging from bombed subways and rail stations to Islamic demands to censor cartoons, operas, films, and papal exegeses.*
> 
> It is in Europe, not in post-Iraq Kansas, where a Turkish prime minister announces to Muslim expatriate residents that they must remain forever Turks and assimilation is a crime; it is in post-Iraq Europe, not Los Angeles, where politicians and churchmen talk of the inevitability of Sharia law; and it is in post-Iraq Europe, not the United States, where honor killings and Islamic rioting are common occurrences.
> 
> Why? A number of reasons, but despite all the misrepresentation and propaganda, the message has filtered through the Middle East that the United States will go after and punish jihadists — but also, alone of the Western nations, it will risk its own blood and treasure to work with Arab nations to find some alternative to the extremes of dictatorship and theocracy. Europe, in contrast to its utopian rhetoric, will trade with and profit from, but most surely never challenge, a Middle Eastern thug.
> 
> Iraq is purportedly a mess left to the next president. In fact, by January 2009 it may well be far less a strategic problem than was Saddam Hussein’s regime, the no-fly zones, Oil for Food, and the punishing UN embargoes. And the next president may well see a stabilized country in which periodic steady American withdrawals, not an insurgency, are the norm — and far fewer jihadists with far fewer supporters worldwide.
> 
> George Bush will be blamed for getting us into Iraq and staying there — he’s already seen some of the lowest poll ratings since Harry Truman or Richard Nixon. The next president will be praised for beginning to withdraw troops in 2009 on a schedule established in late 2008. After all, if a pundit’s column these days has a headline blaring “A Plan for a Way Out” or “Quagmire,” we automatically assume a way to unlock the Democratic primary mess, not leave Iraq. In the first ten days of March, before the most recent losses, there was one American combat fatality among 160,000 troops at war.
> 
> Iraqi was always an optional war, one that could either do great harm to our national interest and security or offer great advantage to the United States and the region, depending on its costs and the ultimate outcome. Between 2005 and 2006, public support for the war was mostly lost — trisection of the country and American withdrawal were considered our options. In 2008 there is instead a real chance that the original aims of the war — establishing a constitutional government, defeating terrorism militarily, and convincing the Arab population to reject terrorism — are at last possible.
> 
> It is the nature of this strange war that we know far more about who failed and what went wrong, *far less about who succeeded and what went right. We believe that the dividends of the war — a constitutional government in Iraq and a stunning defeat of radical Islamic jihadists — happened by accident, while the 4,000 dead are the responsibility of our leaders, not the tenacity of the enemy or the costs of waging war in general.* The more that the violence subsides and the costs wind down, the more Americans in a near recession will complain of the expense. The more the Iraqis finally begin to exercise responsible political power, the more Americans will lament there is no way to translate tactical victory into long-term strategic advantage.
> 
> Iraq, you see, long ago has become a mirror in which we all see only what we want.
> 
> National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYyN2JhMmQyMDdkN2Y4MmNkMGZkMzU1M2Y2ZWJlYmI=


----------



## a_majoor

Since the purported motivation of the Jihadis is religion, this should cause some ripples, especially among the second and third tier supporters who are motivated by Jihadi propaganda. (Since the true Root Causetm is power and control over others, this will have little effect on the first tier, except perhaps to spur them on before their support bleeds away)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120640588050061101.html?mod=todays_columnists



> *How al Qaeda Will Perish*
> March 25, 2008; Page A22
> 
> Do minors require their parents' consent to become suicide bombers? Believe it or not, this is the subject of an illuminating and bitter debate among the leading theoreticians of global jihad, with consequences that could be far-reaching.
> 
> On March 6, Al-Sahab, the media arm of al Qaeda, released a 46-minute video statement titled "They Lied: Now Is the Time to Fight." The speaker is Mustafa Ahmed Muhammad Uthman Abu-al-Yazid, 52, an Egyptian who runs al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan, and the speech is in most respects the usual mix of earthly grievances, heavenly promises and militant exhortations. It's also an urgent call for recruits.
> 
> "We call on the fathers and mothers not to become a barrier between their children and paradise," says Abu-Al-Yazid. "If they disagree who should first join the jihad to go to paradise, let them compete, meaning the fathers and the children. . . . Also, we say to the Muslim wives, do not be a barrier between your husbands and paradise." Elsewhere in the message, he makes a "special call to the scholars and students seeking knowledge. . . . The jihad arenas are in dire need of your knowledge and the doors are open before you to bring about the virtue of teaching and jihad."
> 
> These particular appeals are no accident. *Last year, imprisoned Egyptian radical Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, a.k.a. "Dr. Fadl," published "The Document of Right Guidance for Jihad Activity in Egypt and the World." It is a systematic refutation of al Qaeda's theology and methods, which is all the more extraordinary considering the source.* Sayyed Imam, 57, was the first "emir" of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, many of whose members (including his longtime associate Ayman al-Zawahiri) later merged with Osama bin Laden and his minions to become al Qaeda. His 1988 book, "Foundations of Preparation for Holy War," is widely considered the bible of Salafist jihadis.
> 
> Now he has recanted his former views. "The alternative" to violent jihadism, he says in an interview with the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat (translated by Memri), "is not to kill civilians, foreigners and tourists, destroy property and commit aggression against the lives and property of those who are inviolable under the pretext of jihad. All of this is forbidden."
> 
> Sayyed Imam is emphatic on the subject of the moral obligations of the would-be jihadist. "One who lacks the resources [to fight jihad] is forbidden to acquire money through forbidden means, like [burglary]," he says, adding that "Allah does not accept martyrdom as atonement for a mujahid's debts." As for a child's obligations toward his parents, he adds that "it is not permitted to go out to fight jihad without the permission of both parents . . . because acting rightly with one's parents is an individual obligation, and they have rights over their sons."
> 
> "This has become pandemic in our times," he adds in a pointedly non-theological aside. "We find parents who only learn that their son has gone to fight jihad after his picture is published in the newspapers as a fatality or a prisoner."
> 
> These "Revisions," as Sayyed Imam's book is widely known in Arab intellectual circles, elicited a harsh and immediate response from unreconstructed jihadists. "What kind of guidance does the 'Document' offer?" asked al Qaeda commander Abu Yahyha Al-Libi in a March 9 Internet posting. "Is it guidance that tells the mujahadeen and the Muslims: 'Restrain yourselves and [allow] us [Arab regimes] to shed your blood'?"
> [Ayman Al-Zawahiri]
> 
> Even more sarcastic was Zawahiri himself. "Do they now have fax machines in Egyptian jail cells?" he asked. "I wonder if they're connected to the same line as the electric-shock machines." Zawahiri then penned a 215-page rebuttal to Sayyed Imam, whom he accuses of serving "the interests of the Crusader-Zionist alliance with the Arab leaders."
> 
> The gravamen of the hardliners' case against Sayyed Imam is that he has capitulated (either through force or persuasion) to the demands of his captors, and has become, in effect, their stooge. The suspicion seems partly borne out by Sayyed Imam's conspicuous renunciation of any desire to overthrow the Egyptian regime. One Turkish commentator, Dogu Ergil, notes that "in prison many jihadist inmates were encouraged by the Interior Ministry and security apparatus to engage in religious dialogue with clerics from al-Azhar," a Sunni religious university overseen by the state. Mr. Ergil calls this part of a deliberate "counter-radicalization program" by the Egyptian government.
> 
> But whatever Sayyed Imam's motives, it is the neuralgic response by his erstwhile fellow travelers that matters most. *There really is a broad rethink sweeping the Muslim world about the practical utility -- and moral defensibility -- of terrorism*, particularly since al Qaeda began targeting fellow Sunni Muslims, as it did with the 2005 suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman, Jordan. Al Qaeda knows this. Osama bin Laden is no longer quite the folk hero he was in 2001. Reports of al Qaeda's torture chambers in Iraq have also percolated through Arab consciousness, replacing, to some extent, the images of Abu Ghraib. Even among Saudis, a recent survey by Terror Free Tomorrow finds that "less than one in ten Saudis have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda, and 88 percent approve the Saudi military and police pursuing Al Qaeda fighters."
> 
> *No less significant is that the rejection of al Qaeda is not a liberal phenomenon, in the sense that it represents a more tolerant mindset or a better opinion of the U.S. On the contrary, this is a revolt of the elders, whether among the tribal chiefs of Anbar province or Islamist godfathers like Sayyed Imam. They have seen through (or punctured) the al Qaeda mythology of standing for an older, supposedly truer form of Islam. Rather, they have come to know al Qaeda as fundamentally a radical movement -- the antithesis of the traditional social order represented by the local sovereign, the religious establishment, the head of the clan and, not least, the father who expects to know the whereabouts of his children.*
> 
> It would be a delightful irony if militant Islam were ultimately undone by a conservative, Thermidor-style reaction. That may not be the kind of progress most of us imagined or hoped for. But it is progress of a kind.
> 
> Write to bstephens@wsj.com


----------



## a_majoor

What is the motivation of the Chinese government on this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/wiran102.xml



> *China reveals Iran's nuclear secrets to UN*
> 
> By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
> Last Updated: 3:46pm BST 03/04/2008
> 
> China has betrayed one its closest allies by providing the United Nations with intelligence on Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear technology, diplomats have revealed.
> 
> Concern over Tehran's secretive research programme has increased in recent weeks after officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, discovered that Iran had obtained information on how to manufacture nuclear-armed weapons.
> 
> China reveals Iran's nuclear secrets to UN inspectors
> 
> Beijing is believed to have decided to assist the inspectors after documents seized from Iranian officials included blueprints for "shaping" uranium metal into warheads, the testing of high explosives used to detonate radioactive material and the procurement of dual-use technology.
> 
> Much of the new material was presented to the governors of the Vienna-based IAEA in February. That meeting is said to have triggered China's change of heart.
> 
> Diplomats described Beijing's decision to provide material related to Iran to the IAEA as a potentially significant breakthrough.
> 
> Chinese designs for centrifuges that refine uranium into a "weaponised" state have been found in Iran but these are thought to have come through a network controlled by the disgraced Pakistani scientist AQ Khan.
> 
> John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, said suspicions over the leakage of technology from China to Iran had long centred on uranium enrichment technology and their bilateral ballistic missile trade.
> 
> A spokesman for the IAEA said it did not comment on intelligence it received from its members.
> 
> Beijing has long-established ties with Iran's clerical regime and has emerged as one of the country's biggest customers for oil and gas.
> 
> It has allied itself with Tehran's attempts to prevent the IAEA referring Iran to the UN Security Council, which can impose sanctions.
> 
> China has not used its veto powers to block US and British sponsored sanctions but it has ensured the measures were watered down.
> advertisement
> 
> The council has levied three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force the country to declare all its nuclear activities.
> 
> IAEA weapons inspectors report that Iran has not provided full co-operation.
> 
> An American intelligence assessment judged it likely that Iran stopped efforts to produce a nuclear weapon in 2003 but there are strong fears it has resumed the work under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, said this week that he believed that Iran is still developing a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Meanwhile, Israel has accused Iran of setting up listening stations in Syria to eavesdrop on its military communications network.
> 
> Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright


----------



## CougarKing

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What is the motivation of the Chinese government on this?



This could very well answer Mr. Campbell's question earlier in the thread on whether the PRC or the SCO views Iran as more of a threat:



> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very interesting point.
> 
> I must ask some Chinese acquaintances what they think about Iran in or versus SCO.
Click to expand...


As discussed before, maintaining stability-both internal and external- is the CCP's foremost current priority, which includes stability of the region where the PRC draws a fraction of its oil to drive its growing economy. Furthermore, this is not the first time the PRC has betrayed an ally, since the PRC invaded Vietnam in 1979 (though they did that more for the reason that Hanoi was siding with Beijing's rival Moscow with the current schism in the communist world at the time between the two most powerful Communist countries in the Cold War) and even tempoarily cut an oil/gas pipeline leading into North Korea during one of Kim Jong Il's most recent saber-rattling episodes that came with a missile launch earlier in this decade; they wanted to show the DPRK leader who had him on a leash if things got out of hand, IIRC.

No doubt that the People's Daily/_Renmin Ribao_ or _Xinhua_ may tout this latest action by China in the UN as a "selfless" goodwill gesture for the world community for PR purposes.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> ...
> No doubt that the People's Daily/_Renmin Ribao_ or _Xinhua_ may tout this latest action by China in the UN as a "selfless" goodwill gesture for the world community for PR purposes.  :



I have no doubt they will but we must all remember that the Chinese are _grown ups_; they act, always and exclusively in *their own best interests*. Now, now and again, their own best interests and the best interests of others coincide; when they do the Chinese will act in a way that benefits others, too.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have no doubt they will but we must all remember that the Chinese are _grown ups_; they act, always and exclusively in *their own best interests*. Now, now and again, their own best interests and the best interests of others coincide; when they do the Chinese will act in a way that benefits others, too.



Edward, I'm afraid that I can't share your optimism when it comes to assessing the maturity of the CCP.  It, like every other human agency, is formed from individuals and each one of them is at least as likely to pursue their own agenda as the collective agenda.  If for no other reason than a belief that the individual is uniquely qualified to lead the collective some one will always seek to work their way to the top and create factions, or parties, within the party.

I do agree, entirely, with your comment "they act, always and exclusively in *their own best interests*" but I question whether or not we can rely on the collective to continually adopt a coherent course of policy....Or, on occasion, do we see the external manifestation of internal faction fights when policy suddenly takes an unusual bounce.

I would also point out that I would rather that vehicles sharing the road with me travelled parallel to my line of travel.  Coincidence, or intersection, is not likely to be beneficial to my health.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## CougarKing

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would also point out that I would rather that vehicles sharing the road with me travelled parallel to my line of travel.  Coincidence, or intersection, is not likely to be beneficial to my health.



Well vehicles travelling behind you in the same direction are not likely to be a threat. Unless one of them is being chased by the RCMP in a car chase. ;D

If I can recall correctly, a ship is the more common metaphor for national interest than a car when it comes to propaganda posters in Bolshevik-era Russia or early Maoist China, with Lenin or Mao depicted as the "Great Helmsman". In the same sense, no one wants a miscalculation of the other nation's self-interests to lead to a collision course in the same way that RMS _Queen Mary_ rammed and sank HMS _Curacao_ by accident.


----------



## Kirkhill

Better metaphor CougarDaddy.  Congrats.


----------



## tomahawk6

Quds Force involvement in Iraq is a provocation and should merit a response that Iran will understand.The result of inaction is Iranian control of Basra, which isnt an option in my opinion.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.ece

IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.

Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.

Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.

Dr Daniel Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said: “There is no question that Petraeus will be tough on Iran. It is one thing to withdraw troops when there is purely sectarian fighting but it is another thing if it leaves the Iranians to move in.”

US defence chiefs are concerned that the troop surge has overstretched the military. Admiral Mike McMullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warned that the army and marines were at risk of crossing an “invisible red line” if the burden on forces remained. He said deployments of 15 months had to be reduced to a year “as fast as possible”.

Petraeus is likely to announce that combat tours will be reduced from 15 months to 12 months.

The number of US troops in Iraq is set to fall from 160,000 to 140,000 by July, but Petraeus is expected to recommend an indefinite pause in further troop cuts.

Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric, has called for 1m people to march on Baghdad on Wednesday – the fifth anniversary of the fall of the capital – when Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, will be briefing Congress.

A senior Iraqi official who met Petraeus last week said, “It will be difficult to show that the situation is improving.” Another Iraqi source described the US general as “furious” that al-Maliki moved against the militias into Basra without consultation and had to rely on US forces to bail him out.

Abu Ahmed, a senior military commander with the Awakening, the Sunni tribal movement cooperating with US forces, said progress was largely the result of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army ceasefire.

“When the Mahdi Army decides to resume its activities, neither the American troops nor the Iraqi government will be able to stop it,” he said.

Additional reporting: Hala Jaber


----------



## KevinB

Quite honestly I'm revising my thinking of recent - and I have decided that yes Iran would look good paved as a parking lot...


----------



## CougarKing

Here we go again. 

http://www.military.com/news/article/iranian-speedboat-...n-tests-us-navy.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.us/index.html



> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- *The USS Typhoon fired a warning flare during a confrontation Thursday night with three small Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf, a U.S. military official said.*
> The Typhoon, a small patrol craft, was approached by the Iranian boats in a "taunting manner," the official said.
> 
> U.S. Navy officers conducted bridge-to-bridge communications with the Iranian boats and two then turned away, the official said. But one came within 200 yards of the Typhoon, prompting it to fire a warning flare. The Iranian boat then turned away.
> 
> The confrontation is not considered serious, the U.S. official said.


----------



## 1feral1

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Here we go again.



Patience Lads, they're on borrowed time.

You'll feel the heat wave from Clair, Saskatchewan on a cold winter's night.


----------



## Yrys

BBC :

Ahmadinejad ; 9/11 "suspect event : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7350830.stm

Iran anti-vice chief "in brothel" : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7350165.stm


----------



## 1feral1

WRT your para two...

Quote from the BBC article..

Iran has tough punishments for unmarried couples who have sex or behave in a manner considered immoral.  - I WOULD BE EXECUTED

Young people have been jailed or flogged for dancing together at house parties.  - TWISTED

The public dress code can be tightly enforced, with women barred from showing their hair or wearing make up or colourful clothes and men from wearing their hair long.  HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THERE?

For years the hardline Iranian establishment never admitted that prostitution existed.  - ITS THE OLDEST PROFESSION, HA!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Obviously, the Chief was just doing some undercover work.


----------



## Yrys

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Obviously, the Chief was just doing some undercover work.



"General Reza Zarei was found with *six* naked women"

He was taking his job to much at heart  !


----------



## BernDawg

And I'll just bet it was all "on the house" too!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that what you are seeing is political maneuvering to get rid of him by someone in power, likely he was deemed a threat to somebody and therefore his habits wee exposed to eliminate him as a threat.


----------



## 1feral1

Cost of trial, minimal

Cost of bullet, a matter of pennies.

His days are done, and no doubt the embarassment caused, he will pay with his life. Who knows how his family will pay.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of he Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a column by Daniel Pipes with which I largely agree:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=462003


> Can democracy and Islam coexist?
> 
> Daniel Pipes,
> National Post  Published: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
> 
> There's an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs and various other strongmen - and it's accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?) concludes, "In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights."
> 
> The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy.
> 
> I disagree with that conclusion. Today's Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.
> 
> Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church's political role was painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published _Defensor pacis_ in the year 1324, it took another seven centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam's transition be smoother or easier?
> 
> To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the _Shari'a_, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God's will over popular sovereignty and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam's borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females and free persons over slaves.
> 
> For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari'a's public aspects. Turkey's first president Mustafa Ataturk frontally did just that in his country, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.
> 
> Ataturk's efforts and Taha's ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran "is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn't want."
> 
> Islam's problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun. Muslims can modernize their religion, but that requires major changes: Out go waging jihad to impose Muslim rule, second-class citizenship for non-Muslims and death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy. In come individual freedoms, civil rights, political participation, popular sovereignty, equality before the law and representative elections.
> 
> Two obstacles stand in the way of these changes, however. In the Middle East especially, tribal affiliations remain of paramount importance. As explained by Philip Carl Salzman in his recent book, Culture and Conflict in theMiddle East, these ties create a complex pattern of tribal autonomy and tyrannical centralism that obstructs the development of constitutionalism, the rule of law, citizenship, gender equality and the other prerequisites of a democratic state. Not until this archaic social system based on the family is dispatched can democracy make real headway in the Middle East.
> 
> Globally, the compelling and powerful Islamist movement obstructs democracy. It seeks the opposite of reform and modernization -- namely, the reassertion of the Shari'a in its entirety. A jihadist like Osama bin Laden may spell out this goal more explicitly than an establishment politician like Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but both seek to create a thoroughly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian, order.
> 
> Islamists respond two ways to democracy. First, they denounce it as unIslamic. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna considered democracy a betrayal of Islamic values. Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb rejected popular sovereignty, as did Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Jamaate-Islami political party. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Jazeera television's imam, argues that elections are heretical.
> 
> Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdogan has revealingly explained, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."
> 
> Hard work can one day make Islam democratic. In the meanwhile, Islamism represents the world's leading anti-democratic force.
> 
> _Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the Taube/Diller Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University._
> 
> ©All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes.
> 
> www.danielpipes.org



First, I would mention that 15th century Christendom roughly mirrored 21st century Islam; to paraphrase Pipes: _it presumed autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasized God's will over popular sovereignty and encouraged violent wars to expand Christianity's borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileged Christians over non-Christians, males over females and free persons over slaves._

Pipes says: _”Islam's problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun.”_ The process by which the modern, secular, liberal (well, mostly liberal) West was created required a long, painful often violent _reformation_ followed by an equally long and painful _enlightenment_. I have proposed that we, seving our own self-interest, need to help Islam to initiate both.

It is important to recall that what “we” did was no less than to push religion, the _faith of our fathers_ and all that, out of civic life and into the private realm. It was a difficult process in he West and, I think, for many good Muslims it is a terrifying, even soul threatening prospect.

The prospect is, however, in my opinion, *mandatory*; Islam must undergo a complete _reformation_ and the African Arabic, Persian and Central and West Asian Muslim societies must also be _enlightened_ – or destroyed, because, heaven knows, we cannot coexist with them as they are because, as they are, they threaten our very existence and we must preserve our _civilization_ (as Huntington might see it).

Chaos in _Dar al Islam_ will be part of the process.


----------



## Kirkhill

Continuing your line of thought Edward, and at risk of being labelled an Orangeman, I think that the same question about democracy and religion could have been asked about any Catholic country up until the 1960s and the election of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Many inhabitants of the modern Anglosphere would have argued strenuously that those Priest Ridden States were not ready for democracy. That includes places like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Quebec, and French communities on the Prairies.  Our forebears fought vigorously against that form of totalitarianism in wars big and small and including the Manitoba Schools question and the Metis rebellions.

All the Popes of the 19th Century and early 20th Century expressed grave reservations about "bottom up governance" to put it mildly.  And given the outcome (WW1, WW2, Communism, Fascism, Wars of Liberation, Cultural Revolutions.....) their concerns weren't misplaced. They too, just like their fellow religious arbiters the Caliphs argued vigorously about the need for central authority.

The ongoing debate of course is whose...Maoists, Communists, Fascists, Social Democrats, Catholics, Swedish Lutherans or German Lutherans, Canterbury Anglicans or New Westminster Anglicans, Shia or Sunni?

I am comfortable as Napoleon described my Nation.... a nation of shopkeepers.  What you believe is your affair.  Let me believe as I believe and we'll get along fine.  In the meantime can we both focus on the important issue of putting bread on our tables for our families?


----------



## MarkOttawa

US pressure going up:

U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html



> The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.
> 
> Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said *a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force* [emphasis added].
> 
> "It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."
> 
> Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.
> 
> Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.
> 
> In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."
> 
> Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.
> 
> "The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.
> 
> But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Patience Lads, they're on borrowed time.



Well they don't seem to have much time with the way they are trying to provoke Coalition warships in the Gulf...the Iranians really seem to be spoiling for a fight, or at least posturing.



Here's a little update, albeit a little late (first posted yesterday):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_iran_navy_dc;_ylt=AnlvqjBnzckPdlKQCVnZiFKs0NUE



> By Kristin Roberts
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *A cargo ship hired by the U.S. military fired warning shots at boats suspected to be Iranian, the U.S. Navy said on Friday, underscoring tension in the Gulf as the Pentagon sharpened its warnings to Tehran.
> 
> According to American defense officials, the Westward Venture cargo ship chartered by the U.S. Defense Department was traveling in international waters when two unidentified small boats approached on Thursday.
> 
> After the boats failed to respond to radio queries and a warning flare, the cargo ship's onboard security team fired "a few bursts" of machine gun and rifle warning shots, according to Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet.
> 
> "The small boats left the area a short time later," she said by telephone. "They were able to avoid a serious incident by following the procedures that we use."*
> The news helped push oil prices up more than $3 to $119.50 a barrel -- within striking distance of the record $119.90 hit earlier this week -- as traders worried escalating tensions in the region could eventually disrupt crude shipments.
> 
> In Tehran, an Iranian navy source denied that any confrontation had occurred with a U.S. ship in the Gulf. But the source, quoted by a journalist for Iran's state-owned Arabic Al-Alam TV channel, said any shooting that may have occurred could have targeted a non-Iranian vessel.
> 
> U.S. defense officials said they suspected the boats were Iranian. "We don't have complete confirmation of that but we suspect it," one official said.
> 
> The incident was reported as America's top military officer charged Iran with increasing its support for Iraqi militias with weapons and training used to kill U.S. troops.
> 
> Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen said the United States would continue to rely on diplomatic and economic methods to encourage Iran to change, but stressed the Pentagon had military options.
> 
> "When I say I don't want to take any military options off the table, that certainly more than implies that we have military options," Mullen told reporters. "That kind of planning activity has been going on for a long time. I think it will go on for some time into the future."
> 
> Tensions in the region have risen this year. In January, the United States said Iranian boats aggressively approached three U.S. Navy battle ships, warning them they would explode in minutes.
> 
> In March, another U.S. military-chartered ship preparing to cross the Suez Canal fired warning shots at a small boat, killing an Egyptian on board.
> 
> (Reporting by Kristin Roberts and Andrew Gray, Editing by Chris Wilson)


----------



## 1feral1

Instead of warning shots, sink the bastards! Give them their one way ticket to pardise they want so badly.

Hey remember that Eddy Money song 'Two Tickets to Paradise', so lets start handing them out, by the book  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

Every time they create an incident oil prices go up.


----------



## a_majoor

Someone is showing their hand early:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29nuke.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all



> A Tantalizing Look at Iran’s Nuclear Program
> By WILLIAM J. BROAD
> 
> Barbed wire and antiaircraft guns ring a maze of buildings in the Iranian desert that lie at the heart of the West’s five-year standoff with Tehran over its program to enrich uranium.
> 
> It is a place of secrets that Iran loves to boast about, clouding the effort’s real status and making Western analysts all the more eager for solid details and clues. Tehran insists that its plans are peaceful. But Washington and its allies see a looming threat.
> 
> The sprawling site, known as Natanz, made headlines recently because Iran is testing a new generation of centrifuges there that spin faster and, in theory, can more rapidly turn natural uranium into fuel for reactors or nuclear arms. The new machines are also meant to be more reliable than their forerunners, which often failed catastrophically.
> 
> On April 8, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the desert site, and Iran released 48 photographs of the tour, providing the first significant look inside the atomic riddle.
> 
> “They’re remarkable,” Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said of the photographs. “We’re learning things.”
> 
> Most important, the pictures give the first public glimpse of the new centrifuge, known as the IR-2, for Iranian second generation. There were no captions with the photographs, so nuclear analysts around the globe are scrutinizing the visual evidence to size up the new machine, its probable efficiency and its readiness for the tough job of uranium enrichment. They see the photos as an intelligence boon.
> 
> “This is intel to die for,” Andreas Persbo, an analyst in London at the Verification Research, Training and Information Center, a private group that promotes arms control, said in a comment on the blog site Arms Control Wonk.
> 
> *One surprise of the tour was the presence of Iran’s defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts as odd given Iran’s claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, appears to lead the presidential retinue.*
> 
> Nuclear analysts say the tour opened a window into a hidden world previously known only to the Iranians and a few international inspectors.
> 
> “I don’t see anything to suggest this is propaganda,” Houston G. Wood III, a centrifuge expert at the University of Virginia, said in an interview. “They seem to be working on an advanced machine.”
> 
> Such judgments rest not only on the photographic clues, but also on the Iranian record of successful, if limited, enrichment, as well as the reports of international inspectors, who have tracked Iran’s effort to develop the new centrifuges.
> 
> Engineers use centrifuges for many applications other than enriching uranium. In general, the devices spin fast to separate all kinds of objects of differing mass and density — for instance, milk from cream and impurities from wine. To that end, centrifuges exploit simple laws of physics, doing so in ways that echo common experience.
> 
> A car that veers around a corner throws its passengers to one side. So, too, a centrifuge throws its contents off what would normally be a forward course. But it does so relentlessly.
> 
> Why do the contents separate? As Newton explained in his second law of motion, the more massive the object, the greater the tug. In the lurching car, an adult feels the force more than a child. In the centrifuge, heavy objects feel it more than light ones and, if possible, they move more vigorously toward the outer wall.
> 
> Nuclear centrifuges apply the same principle to uranium mined from the earth’s inner recesses, spinning it into constituent parts.
> 
> Iran is separating U-235 from U-238. Rare in nature, U-235 easily splits in two to produce bursts of atomic energy. It also has three fewer neutrons than its cousin, making it slightly lighter and thus a candidate for centrifuge separation.
> 
> First, engineers turn the natural mix of uranium (0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively) into a gas. Then, the centrifuge throws the heavier U-238 atoms toward the wall, letting the rare U-235 ones accumulate near the center. The results get scooped up continually. Rows of centrifuges repeat the process to slowly raise the rare isotope’s concentration.
> 
> It seems easy. But the centrifuges spin at about the speed of sound, must work day and night for months or years on end and can easily lose their balance, tearing themselves apart.
> 
> “Our machines broke down frequently” in the program’s early days, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, recalled in a 2006 interview on state television. He said a study had traced the failures to centrifuge assembly when technicians with bare hands inadvertently left behind clusters of microbes.
> 
> “This little amount of germs,” Mr. Aghazadeh said, was enough to throw the whirling devices off balance, leaving them in ruins. “When we say a machine is destroyed,” he added, “we mean that it turns into powder.”
> 
> In great secrecy, Iran began its centrifuge program in 1985, according to inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It copied a Pakistani design, known as the P-1. Today, the Iranian version stands more than six feet tall. Inside, a hollow rotor of aluminum spins the uranium gas to blinding speeds. Iran has installed 3,000 of the temperamental machines at Natanz, and recently began expanding that setup to 9,000.
> 
> In recent years, Iran has tried to move ahead in sophistication with a newer centrifuge design based on Pakistan’s second-generation model, known as the P-2. Its rotor is made of superhard steel that can spin faster, speeding the pace of enrichment while lowering the risk of breakdown.
> 
> But Iran had great difficulty building the machines and obtaining the special steel. Mostly in secret, it instead developed its own version, the IR-2. It is partly indigenous, signaling that the Iranians have achieved new levels of technical skill. If perfected, the IR-2 could accelerate Iran’s production of fuel for reactors or bombs.
> 
> Western experts say demonstration models of the IR-2 stand about three feet high — half the height of the P-1. But they spin twice as fast.
> 
> “That’s a lot,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation. “It would produce about four times the enrichment.”
> 
> The secret is carbon fibers, say international inspectors. The IR-2’s rotor is made not of steel or aluminum but black carbon that forms an incredibly strong tube for its weight. Experts say it is also cheaper to make than steel tubes.
> 
> Of the 48 photographs Iran released, Western analysts gave special scrutiny to one showing Mr. Ahmadinejad and his entourage viewing a disassembled IR-2, its guts arrayed on a table. Clearly visible are its casing, inner rotor, motor and several other critical parts.
> 
> Arms Control Wonk, which Dr. Lewis of the New America Foundation runs, led a discussion of the photo. Most comments focused on parts. But Geoffrey E. Forden, an arms expert at M.I.T., noted that the table also held an Iranian flag.
> 
> “Indigenous manufacturing of sophisticated components is something to be very proud of,” he wrote. “And showing them with an Iranian flag is a very good way of graphically proclaiming it.”
> 
> Several photos gave glimpses of what Western analysts consider the part of a nuclear centrifuge usually kept most secret — its bottom bearing. That sounds prosaic. But the bearing is critical to battling the bane of relentless spinning: friction, which can slow, cripple or destroy machines meant to work flawlessly for years.
> 
> Iran’s centrifuges, as is standard practice, have no physical support at the top. In an effort to eliminate friction, they have a magnetic bearing that holds the upper end of the rotor steady with invisible fields.
> 
> The rotor’s entire weight rests on the bottom bearing, which consists of a single, thin, needlelike projection, its rounded head etched with spiral grooves to promote the quick flow of lubricating fluid.
> 
> One picture showed a young woman with a black Islamic shawl showing a bottom bearing to Mr. Ahmadinejad, who wore a lab coat and what seemed like a pleased expression. Another bearing sat on the table between them.
> 
> Dr. Lewis said the presence of the tiny part appeared noteworthy, since Iran once abandoned trying to build advanced centrifuges because of problems in making the bottom bearing.
> 
> Other photos showed rows of P-1 centrifuges as well as the new IR-2 model, apparently ready for testing.
> 
> A European centrifuge expert who closely follows the Iranian program, including the evaluations of international inspectors, said difficult work remained on the IR-2. “They obviously have months, if not a year, of test work to do before they can consider proceeding with mass production,” the expert said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.
> 
> More generally, analysts say, Iran is slowly but steadily gaining the industrial experience needed to make reactor fuel, or, with the same equipment and a little more effort, bomb fuel — the hardest part of the weapons equation.
> 
> Uranium enriched to about 4 percent uranium 235 can fuel most reactors; to 90 percent, atom bombs.
> 
> Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said that in one year 3,000 flawlessly running P-1 centrifuges could produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon. Or, he added, the same could be achieved with 1,200 IR-2 machines.
> 
> American intelligence agencies say the earliest Iran could make a nuclear weapon is 2009, but consider 2010 to 2015 a more likely time frame. Iran insists it wants to make only reactor fuel for producing electricity.
> 
> Given the high stakes and international jitters, why did Iran release the photos? Analysts cite everything from a spirit of cooperation to blasts of disdain.
> 
> “Maybe it’s an invitation for engagement, or maybe it’s just to show off their achievement,” said R. Scott Kemp, a centrifuge expert at Princeton.
> 
> Dr. Wood of the University of Virginia said the episode smelled of hubris. “It was amazing to me that they put the pictures out there,” he said. “It’s sort of a cocky thing. I would think they had more to gain by keeping their cards close to their chests.”
> 
> By this analysis, the move trumpets Iran’s defiance of the West and the United Nations Security Council, which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to halt the uranium enrichment.
> 
> Some analysts see the centrifuges, despite the disclosures of the presidential tour, as a continuing enigma.
> 
> Ultimately, Tehran could use them for good or ill, for lighting cities or destroying them. Only time, they say, is likely to reveal Iran’s true intentions.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting comparison. It is also interesting to note that while we fight for freedom of speech in Afghanistan, we also allow HRCs to have free reign to attack free speech here at home. While we fight and die to build roads, Canadian city councils allow their roads to deteriorate and infrastructure crumble.................

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/winning-in-afghanistan-losing-at-home.html



> 01 May 2008
> *Winning in Afghanistan; Losing at Home*
> 
> The War on Islamic Totalitarianism is being won in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if polls are any indication, a growing number of Muslim hearts may be turning as well. The smoldering corpses of barbarians number in the many thousands ... who knows ... other than to say that the 72 virgins servicing the bits and pieces of jihadist must be getting mighty worn out. The point is, thousands of the scum went to Iraq and Afghanistan and are never going home.
> 
> Sure, a steady stream of the degenerates keep arriving from just about every corner of the world ... but* Muslim public opinion seems to be shifting ... and that, in any context, is a win. It also means that fewer Islamic countries will laud the exploits ... or rather explosions ... of their suicide-bent countrymen*. The chief barbarian himself, good'ol Mo, must be quivering with rage, to watch Afghan children and women cluster adoringly around Western crusaders ... or worse yet, shed their hijabs for blue jeans in newly liberated Basra and Ramadi. There is change in the air ... and it ain't good for the barbarians.
> 
> So, with the War on Barbarism slowly moving toward a victory, where next must we cast our eye to crush it's last vestiges? As we scan the planet for a good place to invade ... with or without Noam Chomsky's permission, our gaze falls on Europe and North America ... where barbarism is, in fact, making gains:
> 
> And that brings us to the bad news. We still censor ourselves in fears of terrorist threats, mortgaging the Enlightenment tradition of free and unfettered speech. In Europe, cartoonists, novelists, opera producers, filmmakers, and even the pope are choosing their words very carefully about Islam — in fear they will become the targets of riots and death threats.
> 
> Here at home, our State Department is advising its officials to avoid perfectly descriptive terms for our enemies like “jihadist” and “Islamo-fascist” in favor of vague terms like “violent extremist” or “terrorist” — as if we could just as easily be fighting Basque separatists.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can convince the USMC to invade Canada's HRCs ... that'd be good start, don't you think? Or, how about sending our chief traitor to Guantanamo for a cool down ... I'm sure he wouldn't mind rooming with thugs for a bit:
> 
> 
> Dear Muneeza Sheikh,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your letter on behalf of the students and graduates who launched human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against MacLean’s Magazine.
> 
> The NDP appreciates the battle you are waging against mainstream media’s portrayal of Muslim Canadians and the intolerance and hatred against other communities such as Arabs and South Asians.
> 
> The NDP holds the view that intolerance and the promotion of hate speech and action has no right to thrive and grow in Canada. We believe all citizens deserve to live in a country where their culture, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation and lifestyle should be respected and celebrated. There is no room for Islamophobia, racism or discrimination in a country such as ours.
> 
> As you continue to find a resolution, I encourage you to stay strong in your fight for justice. Please keep me updated on your efforts.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Jack Layton, MP (Toronto–Danforth)
> 
> 
> I doubt though, that even Jackie is up to the Gitmo shuffle. What's that you ask?
> 
> It's acquiescence to leftist whining over Gitmo ... with the following predictable result:
> 
> A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.
> 
> Posted by Paul at 6:24 PM


----------



## TCBF

- Give the next generation of Iranians time to sort themselves out and they will.  The present powers that be will try to provoke a war with the West to stay in power.  We should not fall for that.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.

PS bush hates queers.


----------



## slowmode

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
> I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.
> 
> PS bush hates queers.



First of all what kind of response is this? Your grammar and spelling is disgusting. This is not MSN talk this is army.ca forums.  

Second..."PS bush hates queers", Is that really necessary to put in this topic? If your going to respond I suggest you respond civilly.


----------



## TCBF

slowmode said:
			
		

> First of all what kind of response is this? Your grammar and spelling is disgusting. This is not MSN talk this is army.ca forums.  ...



- They let them write papers like that in university nowadays.  Insisting on the proper use of the English language is considered an act of colonial elitism (or elite colonialism, depending on the wind...) and getting a doctorate using MSN speak is worth points for sticking it to The Man.

 8)


----------



## George Wallace

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
> I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.
> 
> PS bush hates queers.



A prime example of: "Why people should post NOT on the internet when they are hammered."




[Edit:  Left out the most important word.......Sorry]


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A prime example of: "Why people should post on the internet when they are hammered."



- I got the impression that a bottle of Jameson might do the lad some good.


----------



## 1feral1

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
> I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.
> 
> PS bush hates queers.



The stupid post award for the month. Seething with anti US and anti Bush crap.

I would like to suggest this is 'tongue in cheek' (but there is nothing to base that on), or are you serious, on drugs or pissed with a bottle of JD (now empty of almost empty) in your hand?

Maybe someone got your log on, and password?

On the other hand, if you want to sit back and live by the way the above posts tells us you suggest you are, then you favour Iran obtaining nukes, the regime, and support whatever they do with them, including attacking the west. If they don't do that directly, they will be providing a faction, the tools to do so.

Your post is pure unadulterated silliness at its finest.

Its your integerity, not ours at stake.

Iran must be prevented for developing such power and weapons, and by force if necessary. if you cannot realise this, then you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

EDITed for spelling and clarity


----------



## Fusaki

He must have been drunk.  Check out the last posts of his profile. Between 0354 and 0401 on May 3rd he has 7 posts, none of which are very coherent. My guess is that he was at the bars untill close on Friday night, then came home and figured he had something to say on army.ca.  A classic case of black-out drive.

It's elementry, Watson. :


----------



## CougarKing

Drunk posters aside,  ;D, I am surprised that no one has posted this article from a week ago, which discusses the sending of a 2nd USN carrier to the Gulf:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166814,00.html (here's the link at the other source I got the article from, but it seems to have been changed/moved)



> *Gates: 2nd Gulf Carrier a 'Reminder' to Iran*
> 
> Associated Press | April 30, 2008
> 
> MEXICO CITY - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a "reminder" to Iran, but he said it's not an escalation of force.
> 
> Speaking to reporters after meeting with Mexican leaders, Gates said heightening U.S. criticism of Iran and its support for terror groups is not a signal that the administration is laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran.
> 
> Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> 
> "I do not have a sense at this point of a significant increase in Iranian support for the Taliban and others opposing the government in Afghanistan," Gates said. "There is, as best I can tell, a continuing flow, but I would still characterize it as relatively modest."
> 
> His comments contrasted with those from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last week that he had not seen any new signs of Iranian support for the Taliban.
> 
> *Gates played down the addition of a second carrier to the Gulf, saying that the number of ships there rises and falls continuously. He said he doesn't expect there to two carriers there for a long time.
> 
> Asked if the carrier move went hand in hand with the rising U.S. rhetoric against Iran, Gates said, "I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."
> 
> In the past, military officials have said that beefing up the Navy's presence in the Gulf was a way to show that that the U.S. remains committed to the region. And they have acknowledged it also serves as a show of force for other countries there, such as Iran. *
> 
> In recent weeks, U.S. officials have ratcheted up their complaints that Iran is increasing its efforts to supply weapons and training to militants in Iraq.
> 
> Military commanders in Baghdad are expected to roll out evidence of that support soon - including date stamps on newly found weapons caches showing that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.
> 
> Another senior military official said the evidence will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives - known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - that troops have discovered in caches in recent months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public, said that dates on some of the weapons were well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.


----------



## KevinB

I for one am all for wiping a Iranian city off the map, nice and neat as an example of why you should not conduct warfare against us.

If the people of Iran are so peace loving, then they should stop their gov't and elements of it from arming, training insurgents in Iraq, and sometimes conducting raids themselves.  Now that by anyone but a drunken idiot is an act of war, and I for one am all for massive responce.


----------



## TCBF

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I for one am all for wiping a Iranian city off the map, nice and neat as an example of why you should not conduct warfare against us.
> 
> If the people of Iran are so peace loving, then they should stop their gov't and elements of it from arming, training insurgents in Iraq, and sometimes conducting raids themselves.  Now that by anyone but a drunken idiot is an act of war, and I for one am all for massive responce.



- Peace loving Germans never stopped Hitler, peace loving Russians never stopped Stalin, peace loving Chinese never stopped Mao, peace loving Khmers never stopped Pol Pot, peace loving Zimbabweans haven't stopped Bobby Mugabe (yet)...

- The only country capable of unifying Iran in a war against the west is the USA.


----------



## tomahawk6

> The only country capable of unifying Iran in a war against the west is the USA.



The Iranian people will get one shot at freedom and that will come after the US air strikes degrade Iran's security forces and the IRG. They are what keeps the regime in power. There has to be a response to Hizbollah's coup in Lebanon and putting direct pressure on Iran may be whats needed to get Hizbollah to pull back.


----------



## TCBF

- Bound to work ... worked in Iraq, right?


----------



## tomahawk6

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Bound to work ... worked in Iraq, right?



Actually it has.The Iraqi people have a shot at freedom and they are bleeding so they can stay that way. If it werent for the help of France the US would never had gotten our independence. We gave the Koreans an opportunity for freedom and they rose to the challenge,the Vietnamese didnt.We helped to save the people of Europe from the Nazi's and then the Russians.If they want to stay free they have to be ready to fight and die.


----------



## TCBF

- I agree with that part.  You can't buy freedom, you can only rent it, and the only acceptable currency is the blood of patriots.

- What dismays me is the modern equivalent of a "Two Front War" becoming a three front war with Iran.  Then a four front war when another regional thug siezes the initiative.  There is such a thing as biting off more than we can chew.  

- One tyrant at a time.


----------



## TCBF

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... they rose to the challenge,the Vietnamese didnt.



- From a historical stanpoint, I disagree.  They needed another five years.  They didn't get it.


----------



## tomahawk6

We gave them 10 years and +58000 of our sons and daughters.I dont think another 5 years would have made a difference. An invasion of North Korea would have been the only way IMO and that wasnt practical from a political standpoint.


----------



## TCBF

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We gave them 10 years and +58000 of our sons and daughters.I dont think another 5 years would have made a difference. An invasion of North Korea would have been the only way IMO and that wasnt practical from a political standpoint.



- You bombed them to the peace table.  Victory.  Then Congress starved SVN of armaments, ammunition and air cover.  The ARVN fought well in the last two years.  They did not not fold as quick as 'puppets',  like the North thought they would.   My apologies for the (another...) hi-jack.


----------



## a_majoor

This seems to becoming a cyclical thing, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34696/post-374177.html#msg374177

So far, the US has played its hand well; Iran blusters and postures, but the United States retains all its options, while allowing internal friction and economic pressure to grind the gears in Iran. The political changes happening in Iraq and Afghanistan also apply a great lever against the regime, who is expending resources in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine as well as on military posturing with little return on investment. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Iran is slowing down its attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, so this is still a wash.


----------



## KevinB

RVN is a terrible analogy - as the US was effectively propping up a corrupt and archaic system, that was out of touch religiously, and politically ideology with its people.  The ARVN did crumble in waves when not supported by US Air power, and advisors.  While Tet may have destroyed the Viet Cong, it broke American politcal will.

 The recent focus of Iranian bombs and rockets onto the green zone in Iraq is a example of the attempts of Iran via its proxies to wage their own Tet in Iraq, I feel it is a mistake not to move against Iran.  As well keep in mind Iranians are masters of rhetoric, they teach it in schools.  They are also shrewd and calculating -- and will give illusions of some popular democratic movement - they know that they can play a shell gave that will fool the majority of the western public.


----------



## a_majoor

The al Qaeda networks own assessment of Iraq. It is getting hardeer and harder to declare America's invasion and COIN operations a failure when the enemy is declaring it a sucess:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011334.html



> *"Involuntary Martyrs"*
> 
> StrategyPage says Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been a victim of its own success (in killing other Muslims, that is):
> 
> Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.
> 
> Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This "betrayal" is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.
> 
> *This defeat was not as sudden as it appeared to be, and some Islamic terrorist web sites have been discussing the problem for several years. The primary cause has been Moslems killed as a side effect of attacks on infidel troops, Iraqi security forces and non-Sunnis. Al Qaeda plays down the impact of this, calling the Moslem victims "involuntary martyrs." But that's a minority opinion. Most Moslems, and many other Islamic terrorists, see this as a surefire way to turn the Moslem population against the Islamic radicals. That's what happened earlier in Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other places. It's really got nothing to do with religion. The phenomenon hits non-Islamic terrorists as well (like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA).*
> 
> The senior al Qaeda leadership saw the problem, and tried to convince the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership to cool it. That didn't work. As early as 2004, some Sunni Arabs were turning on al Qaeda because of the "involuntary martyrs" problem. The many dead Shia Arab civilians led to a major terror campaign by the Shia majority. They controlled the government, had the Americans covering their backs, and soon half the Sunni Arab population were refugees.
> 
> Meanwhile, the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership was out of control. Most of these guys are really out there, at least in terms of fanaticism and extremism. This led to another fatal error. They declared the establishment of the "Islamic State of Iraq" in late 2006. ...When al Qaeda could not, in 2007, exercise any real control over the parts of Iraq they claimed as part of the new Islamic State, it was the last straw. (via Hot Air)
> 
> Islamic fascism is kind of like Communism - it gets a lot of sympathy and support in some parts of the world, until it's actually implemented.


----------



## Trauma22

Ive been browsing these forums for a long time, never feeling the need to post since you all do such a fine job of it.  In this case however I will step out of the shadows to voice my confusion over the lack of interest in this topic.  
In my view, the Iran issue could spark the tensions that have been building around the world since 9/11, and could lead to a scenario far scarier than Iraq/Astan x10.   Why has noone posted on this in almost a month?  Is it not important that a high level Israeli cabinet minister has said an attack is now inevitable (even if it wasnt a official statement).     ???


----------



## DBA

Trauma22 said:
			
		

> In my view, the Iran issue could spark the tensions that have been building around the world since 9/11, and could lead to a scenario far scarier than Iraq/Astan x10.   Why has noone posted on this in almost a month?  Is it not important that a high level Israeli cabinet minister has said an attack is now inevitable (even if it wasnt a official statement).     ???



Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel. That Israel will attack a hostile nation to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't news. They did it against Iraq's Osirak reactor and also very likely against a Syrian reactor more recently.


----------



## Shockwave

If/when Iran is bombed, the retaliation will be severe and on a scale the general population may find staggering.   Estimates to when Iran could manufacture a bomb point to 2009 right?  ...Action will need to be taken in the next several months, I agree people should be talking about how bad this could get, in my opinion things will get very bad very soon.


----------



## TacticalW

I personally think that overall the western forces are pretty close to reaching their limit with Iraq and Afghanistan and another war with Iran would certainly cause a lot more trouble depending on how things turn out. The bottom line is though that they "did" make threats to our ally Israel and they are a key ally that we have to protect. Letting Iran get their hands on WMD's could be "much" more disastrous than taking military action against them, we'd be letting our allies get in a "very" bad situation. We don't have too much of a choice unless they drop their nuclear program. 

Let's hope negotiations are enough but if they aren't we'll have to make sure they don't get them by other means.


----------



## Kirkhill

But TacW:

Would Iran be another war?  Or are the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts merely shaping operations on the left and right flank?  If the troops are in place and conditioned, if there is a strategic reserve of troops available and if the primary bombardment forces of the US (Navy and Air Force) are not currently heavily engaged, is it not possible to envisage further "local" action in Central Command's theater of operations?

The only question in my mind would be the strategic reserve of troops....however I would argue that those troops that have rotated out recently are available as a reserve  eg, even Canada, which is struggling to maintain a garrison of 2500 on continuous service in Afghanistan, could likely find another 2500 or so for a single deployment (2 months or 2 years - they could only manage one rotation).  But having said that -if threat removal is the issue then invasion is not required to degrade capabilities.  Better just to bombard and quarantine.


----------



## Old Sweat

Part of the challenge posed by Iran is that US cupboard is getting bare. There probably is more than enough strike power from air and naval forces to deal a very harsh blow to the country, but there is not enough to reduce a large, dispersed country's military to impotence and there certainly is not enough ground combat power to move in and enforce the will of the US (or the UN) until a friendly regime can be installed. Whoops, check that, a force could probably be cobbled together, but that leaves the first world without a meaningful reserve


----------



## Trauma22

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Part of the challenge posed by Iran is that US cupboard is getting bare. There probably is more than enough strike power from air and naval forces to deal a very harsh blow to the country, but there is not enough to reduce a large, dispersed country's military to impotence and there certainly is not enough ground combat power to move in and enforce the will of the US (or the UN) until a friendly regime can be installed. Whoops, check that, a force could probably be cobbled together, but that leaves the first world without a meaningful reserve



An invasion scenario like Iraq is out of the question with Iran right now.  This time, the US should stick to an easily achievable goal...to cripple Irans nuclear program...and put all other forces on the defensive for the inevitable upsurge in violence everywhere...


----------



## Flip

I6 said:


> As well keep in mind Iranians are masters of rhetoric, they teach it in schools.  They are also shrewd and calculating -- and will give illusions of some popular democratic movement - they know that they can play a shell gave that will fool the majority of the western public.



Here's the real problem.  The west is war weary, even if they haven't melted down their pots and pans.  The common leftward mis-perception is that Barack Hussein Obama will scare all the monsters out from under the bed once he's elected.  The US would need a pretext, and no matter how good, it would be suspect.  Israel's goals would have to be limited. Take out the reactor and Ahmedinejad during the ribbon cutting.

The real long term danger ( in my civilian opinion ) is that Iran will BS their way through this and be an example to all who would try similar crap.
Every time someone demonstrates a weakness in the West's resolve, someone else moves to exploit it. I'm thinking of Somalia

One more observation - Liberals seem to hate history, all that talk of "appeasment" really pickles their onions. ;D


----------



## TacticalW

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But TacW:
> 
> Would Iran be another war?  Or are the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts merely shaping operations on the left and right flank?  If the troops are in place and conditioned, if there is a strategic reserve of troops available and if the primary bombardment forces of the US (Navy and Air Force) are not currently heavily engaged, is it not possible to envisage further "local" action in Central Command's theater of operations?
> 
> The only question in my mind would be the strategic reserve of troops....however I would argue that those troops that have rotated out recently are available as a reserve  eg, even Canada, which is struggling to maintain a garrison of 2500 on continuous service in Afghanistan, could likely find another 2500 or so for a single deployment (2 months or 2 years - they could only manage one rotation).  But having said that -if threat removal is the issue then invasion is not required to degrade capabilities.  Better just to bombard and quarantine.



That's true, but the chances of Iran and Venezuela retaliating are still there. Who knows, maybe it would be seen as another hit to Islam and it would further increase the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan exponentially. It would definitely tense situations with Russia and China further for obvious reasons. Well, if things go as smoothly as they did in Syria then it should be fine, but this has a "lot" more media coverage and political baggage.

Decided to brush up on my geography and I can see your first point, if you're saying what I think you're saying. I guess the old days are really back.


----------



## tomahawk6

The reactors would have to be targeted but more difficult will be the underground facilities where they run their uranium enrichment.I would bet the Iranians arent too far off from having nuclear weapons.But having a tested weapon as the NK's found out is a big hurdle.The window for derailing the Iranian nuclear program is narrow and immediate.The consequences of an attack will be felt in Iraq and might lead to war between the US and Iran.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree we are in no shape (the west) to organize an Occupation of Iran.  However I do think we could organize a limited invasion followed by the establishment of a cordon on the borders of Iran.  Likewise I think the US could organize a more broadly based bombardment that would allow it to establish a "No Fly Zone" over Iran patrolled by the west.  

Then it is a matter of waiting... and trying to keep the population focused on thinking of their Ayatollahs as the problem and not those western aircraft flying overhead.


----------



## oligarch

I don't think going to war with Iran is a good idea, regardless of whether they have nukes or not, which I am sure they don't have and won't have for at least 50 years. I mean if we want to set the entire middle east on fire, we could, but then they would set the persian gulf on fire and oil will go to 700 bucks a barrel.... we'll have to power our tanks with solar power!! Here is my rationale. There is plenty of talk on an anti-missile shield to protect Europe. Israel has nukes, so Iran would have to be insane to use their only rocket. Do we honestly think that Iran is going to fire their one, two, or three nukes at Israel and then sit there and wait to see what happened? Plus, such actions would serve only to destabilize balance of power, and increase the chance of terrorism. Saying that Iran will sit idily by while we conduct a "tactical strike" against all 80 or so of their future power plants by way of raining large amounts of explosives on people's heads, and not respond in some way seems to me to be a bit insane. Further, I am doubtful that Canada can even afford to go to this war, and we surely don't have the resources. Given that the US and Britan, and NATO are already in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as all those 'unofficial' demployments like Somalia), I doubt we can afford to go to war against a fairly strong country and succesfully occupy it. But then again, if there is a war in Iran I see such a scenario involving Israel, which has its hands full in Lebanon and Gaza. If a war happens, I think it would be at least 5+ years from now. The public is simply not ready yet. 

Are nukes the only reason we are considering going to war with them? Because there are plenty of unstable countries that have them... like Pakistan... Anyway please don't attack me like some did in the Russian thread, my intention is not to start an argument. I really think war is not something that people should take lightly, seeing as in wars people die, and we can't afford going to war on flimsy intelligence once again. The UN inspectors didn't find anything in Iran, but there is this mystical "intelligence" that says that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which reminds me a lot about the kind of intelligence that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hey, maybe those guys up there confused the 'q' with the 'n' the last time.


----------



## Flip

If the west were to adopt a "total war" outlook like the attitude that existed in both world wars there would little problem mustering the resources required for total victory.

To bring us to that point would require more than a contemporary " Pearl Harbour"
It's already been done.  her's our problem, Pre-emptive war is now out of fashion.

All of this is unlikely.  the victor is the one who masters the subtleties of the situation.
Sadly, the west and particularly our friends in the south don't do subtle.

In our system of liberal social standards, there is no win. We just hope to lose less.


----------



## Trauma22

Our friends to the south may not want this war, but our friends in the Middle East can not avoid it, if the very existance of their country is at stake.  All it would take is for Iran to smuggle one suitcase sized nuke to Hamas, and Israel would basically cease to exist.  Iran could deny any invovlment, and really without hard proof you cant justify retaliation against them.   Regime change in Iran is the best way to avoid war, but their elections are set to take in mid 2009, AFTER the earliest possible date at which they could potentially have a bomb.  

 I saw a peice recently on 60 minutes, where former members of the Israeli Airforce ( including the pilot who led the Osirik raid) commented on the Iran issue, and they were confident that Israel could, by themselves, hit all of Irans nuclear facilities.  Even if they only hit say 60-70% of it, the Iranian program would be setback many years, and they would think long and hard before trying to restart it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I actually agree with oligarch, for a change.  War with Iran would be undesirable and, likewise, with both him and Flip I don't think the west could be easily convinced to go to war.  Unfortunately I don't think that even another event like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, regardless of the country invaded, would be enough to bring a majority of the OECD to support a counter invasion.

Having said that, that speaks to intent and not capability. My earlier posts addressed capability and not intent.  There are options available, but I don't think they are likely.

If Iraq and Afghanistan continue on the same course that they are on then I can foresee an extended period of instability on Iran's borders and more and more civil disruption inside Iran. Perhaps a No Fly Zone might be in the offing.


----------



## a_majoor

A few things that have not been factored into these discussions:

1. The logic of MAD does not really apply here. The President of Iran and who knows how many of the senior clergy are operating under an apocalyptic religious belief system (the emergence of the 12th or "hidden" Iman) which actually predicts the "End of Days". Nuclear Holocaust is a means to that end.

2. The Arab nations are quite wary of Iran's intentions. They see this not only in geopolitical terms (do they want to fall under an Iranian Hegemony?), but also in religious (Shiia vs Sunni and Wahhabi) and ethnic (Arab vs Persian) terms. They might not be able and willing to openly oppose Iran, but I doubt they would actively oppose such steps, and are probably making their own plans on how to exploit any such actions.

3. The internal state of Iran is open to question. Although it seems there is low level opposition to the Theocracy it seems to be in the form of "social" protest; wearing Western clothes or listening to Western music. The population does not seem to be clamouring for a wide scale adoption of Western political ideals like equal rights or political freedoms. Their economy sucks, but this only affects the urban areas. Peasant farmers are still peasant farmers.

4. While the western body politic seems hesitant to take action, what are the true intents of the Arab and Iranian bodies politic? Will they undertake long term and long range actions with uncertain prospects for success? They might not be as ready to launch as their leadership.

Questions that should be answered......


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1. The logic of MAD does not really apply here. The President of Iran and who knows how many of the senior clergy are operating under an apocalyptic religious belief system (the emergence of the 12th or "hidden" Iman) which actually predicts the "End of Days". Nuclear Holocaust is a means to that end.



You could have said something similar in the 1960's about China. Once they realised the policy implications of what they were doing, they quieted down significantly. Same thing with Pakistan and India. If Iran gets nuclear wepaons and the delivery means, they'll probably talk a lot and then shut up once they realise what can be done to them.


----------



## TCBF

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You could have said something similar in the 1960's about China. Once they realised the policy implications of what they were doing, they quieted down significantly. Same thing with Pakistan and India. If Iran gets nuclear wepaons and the delivery means, they'll probably talk a lot and then shut up once they realise what can be done to them.



- Interesting theory: How the possession of nuclear weapons promotes diplomatic sanity.


----------



## tomahawk6

Unlike the Russians or Chinese the Iranians seem to be hell bent on armageddon.They have surrounded Israel with thousands of rockets and their rhetoric is rather brazen.Their use of proxies isnt anything new but with their repeated references to wiping Israel off the map together with Iran's proxies in the region make for a dangerous mix.


----------



## faceman

Well, we know one thing for sure.  The first to strike Iran should they feel immanently threatened is Israel, and Olmert has said as much.  However Iran would be infinitely more messy than the aftermath of Iraq, also drawing Russia into the play which is perhaps the greatest risk.  Personally, any military actions taken on Iran must be after all other options have failed, including relationship building, ie, economic reform.  If the leadership of Iran is profiting from favourable tradel and taxation then they'll have no reason to burn those bridges.  The anti-American beliefs of Iranians are extremely volatile, they haven't forgotten the fact that the usa via the cia overthrew their government in the 50's because they demanded a 50/50 split for oil profits,and installed the ultra religious Shah, just to keep Iran from controlling their own oil.


----------



## KevinB

Iran is waging a very clear war against us currently in Iraq and Afghanistan both by arming and equipping anti-governmental forces in those areas and also by sending it forces into those areas to help destabilize our allies and kill our soldiers.

Like it or not -- we do have to accept this issue as fact, and proceed even with a bare cupboard against their regime.


----------



## faceman

If secondary support, for wars is a reason to invade a host country then we should attack russia and china, who supply the weaponry to much of the anti-west middle east, including Iran.  Not many people would say that's a good idea though.  The waters just  get murkier and murkier....


----------



## tomahawk6

We should be prepared for an Iranian miscalculation of biblical proportions. They actually believe they are setting the stage for the end of the world as we know it by ushering in the 12th Imam.If they can accomplish that with the nuclear destruction of Israel then they will certainly attempt it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think we need to make a distinction amongst Ahmadinejad and his 12th Imam acolytes, the Ayatollahs and the people of Iran.

I think Ahmadinejad and his buddies are raving loonies.  Bright raving loonies ,but raving nonetheless.  But I don't know how much authority he actually has. 

Sometimes I think the Ayatollahs think of him as a slavering Pit Bull on a tight leash.  Every now and then the let him yelp and occasionally nip but always bring him back to heel.  While Ahmadinejad may be ready for Paradise I think the Ayatollahs have settled for the Paradise that they have in hand rather than risking going searching the bushes for another one.  It could cause no end of embarassment if they found themselves face-to-face with Shiva.

The people, on the other hand, I don't think are any different than the average westerner, Iraqi or Afghan.  They are just looking for a quiet, undisturbed life.

The big question, in my mind, is do the Ayatollah's have a good a grip as they think? 

Sometimes the dog bites its handler.  And that really would not be good for the rest of us.


----------



## tomahawk6

There were decent people in WW2 Germany too,but that didnt stop the maniacs from starting a world war.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There were decent people in WW2 Germany too,but that didnt stop the maniacs from starting a world war.



Agreed.

And I agree with your assessement of  what's possible.  It's the probability of which I am less sure. That, of course, implies that we should be ready for your scenario as well.  Si vis pacem etc.


----------



## Flip

If we're going to trot out history, I think it's fair to mention the Falklands war.
After the Argies were " evicted" the Galtieri regime collapsed like a house of cards.

I think ( again, look at the civie ) WE ( the west ) needs to calculate with some precision what butt kicking will cause the Iranian people to consider the "revolution" over.

Considering Iraq's Stalinist dictator(Sadaam) this was never an option there but Iran (I think) is different.

Some large an inconvienient leak of radiation should put an end to any nuclear ambitions.

Ergo, if something messy should happen to the reactor we might get just the desired reaction on the Iranian street.  The devil's in the details.

Any thoughts?.... Or am I drinking wayyy too much wine?


----------



## oligarch

I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers


----------



## CougarKing

oligarch said:
			
		

> I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers



Umm- didn't cruise missiles like Tomahawks launched from submarines and surface warships even cross your mind? Then, there you have no casualties unless the Iranians somehow are able to strike the warships as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

oligarch said:
			
		

> I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers



I don't think whoever is going to do the deed - and I believe that *someone* will do it sooner rather than later - needs to bomb all 80 or so sites. I'm guessing that the strategic aim of *slowing* Iran's nuclear weapon programme while other, political, courses of action are pursued, can be accomplished by damaging or desroying some percentage of them - maybe only a very few of those that will be heavily defended or maybe 40 or so of those that, given how many missile systems Russia is reported to delivered to Iran, will be lightly or undefended.

In any event, good as the TOR-M1 *might* be, there are always countermeasures and tactics with which almost any smart attacker can overwhelm almost any defences.


----------



## KevinB

Regardless of the cost, this is an issue that will have to be addressed.

 When shell fragment are found to be from Iranian weapons, you get the understanding of the fact that they are pressing a war against us, for the amount of Iranian weapons in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to great to pass off as black market smuggling.  Adding in the nuclear threat and a Iranian government that does not seem to care about the threat of nuclear war, in fact could be explained as relishing it, then one has to consider the fact we are going to have to pay the bill now to stop them, for the bill we would pay later is simply unacceptable.

 Iran is an enemy, and a nuclear ambitious one at that.  Unless they immediately cease to be supplying training and supporting with special cadres the enemy we fight in theatre, and cease their nuclear goals the only answer to this problem is a strike at both their heads of goverment, and their nuclear sites.

 It may be bloody and costly, but think how much damage a few nuclear weapons could do to our port cities and airhubs...


----------



## Trauma22

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Regardless of the cost, this is an issue that will have to be addressed.
> 
> When shell fragment are found to be from Iranian weapons, you get the understanding of the fact that they are pressing a war against us, for the amount of Iranian weapons in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to great to pass off as black market smuggling.  Adding in the nuclear threat and a Iranian government that does not seem to care about the threat of nuclear war, in fact could be explained as relishing it, then one has to consider the fact we are going to have to pay the bill now to stop them, for the bill we would pay later is simply unacceptable.
> 
> Iran is an enemy, and a nuclear ambitious one at that.  Unless they immediately cease to be supplying training and supporting with special cadres the enemy we fight in theatre, and cease their nuclear goals the only answer to this problem is a strike at both their heads of goverment, and their nuclear sites.
> 
> It may be bloody and costly, but think how much damage a few nuclear weapons could do to our port cities and airhubs...



If Iran was going to use a nuclear device, I dont think there is any doubt it would be against Israel.  I dont know the specifics, but even 1 medium yield nuke would be more than enough to cripple Israel.    Before any "strategic strike" it would make sense to me at least, to perhaps impose a naval blockade, or take some similar action just to show the world how serious this is getting.   At least that would decrease some of the shock value people will experience when they wakeup one morning and see the news that we are now at war with Iran...


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Israel has a fairly effective BMD shield. If it works, and Israel can be convinced not to launch a nuclear strike themselves maybe a blockade is feasible. Otherise, a blockade would be the least of Iran's worries.


----------



## KevinB

The issue is not just one target for Iran -- but the rest of all of us targets out there for them...

If they are quite willing to send special units into Iraq and Afghanitan to both train and use their weapons they supply against us, why think they will be rational with a nuclear arsenal?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Doing all kinds of irrational provocational things before getting nuclear weapons and then radically calming down afterwards is a pretty established pattern with China, India and Pakistan. Possibly France too depending how you look at it.

When you get down to it, the only country that's actually used nuclear weapons is the US, and that was a somewhat exceptional situation.

Once the Iranians start targeteering their devices and realise what they've let themselves in for, they're not going to be too happy. They're going to be VERY careful about getting themselves into direct conflict with another nuclear state. It's one thing to abstractly talk about taking millions of casualties, another to whip out the piecutters and see what Iran would look like after an attack.


----------



## KevinB

Your mistaking that fact being due to those leaders where not praying for the appocalypse


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

No, that's pretty much what they were saying too. In the Chinese case they wrecked their economy trying to organise the country into self-sufficient communes that could continue when the inevitable counterstrike arrived. It was part of the "Great Leap Forward". Once Xiaoping et al figured out what Mao had set them up for, he was kicked upstairs to a figurehead position without policy influence and they calmed down.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/america/20iran.php

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

WASHINGTON: Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel."
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack," Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."

But Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mofaz's statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

"They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Much of the program's infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel's ability at this time.

But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran's ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel's attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.
For both the United States and Israel, Iran's nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran's work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a "matter of serious concern" and that the Iranians owed the agency "substantial explanations."

Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein's program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.

The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel's air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.

Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel's military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.

"They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they're ready," the Pentagon official said. "They're not taking any options off the table."

Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.


----------



## a_majoor

The problem is far wider and deeper than we seem to realize:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994834.html



> *Report: North Korea developed nukes for Iran at bombed Syrian facility*
> By DPA
> 
> Experts believe North Korea provided assistance to Iran at the Syrian facility believed bombed by Israel Air Force in September 2007, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported Saturday.
> 
> The weekly said the Syrian site at al-Kibar was used to produce nuclear material the Iranian regime needed to make a bomb.
> 
> *North Korean scientists worked alongside Syrians and Iranians at the site, where a reactor was being built to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Der Spiegel quoted the intelligence reports as saying.*
> 
> The report said Iranian scientists had made progress in enriching uranium but had no experience with plutonium and sought the help of the North Koreans.
> 
> Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, are due to travel to Syria on Sunday to investigate whether the country was building an undeclared reactor.
> 
> Syria maintains the site, which satellite images show has since been razed, was a military installation and not a nuclear facility.
> 
> Iran says its nuclear programme is not geared towards making weapons but to generating electricity for its growing population. Tehran's decision to begin enriching uranium in 2006 triggered Western sanctions.
> 
> Der Spiegel, which did not elaborate on Assad's reported change of heart, also said Iran, Syria and North Korea had apparently been cooperating in the production of chemical weapons.
> 
> It cited an explosion near the Syrian city of Aleppo in July 2007, during which many were reported to have died when quantities of mustard gas and the nerve agent Sarin escaped.
> 
> *In addition to 15 Syrian military officials, dozens of Iranian "rocket scientists" and three North Koreans were among those killed, the magazine said.*
> 
> Related articles:
> 
> Obama: Israel right to provide for its security amid Iran threat
> 
> Report: Israel held military drill as prep for attack on Iran
> 
> Iran says ready to negotiate on incentives to halt nuclear program
> 
> Ahmadinejad: West failing to halt our nuclear victory


----------



## CougarKing

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> No, that's pretty much what they were saying too. In the Chinese case they wrecked their economy trying to organise the country into self-sufficient communes that could continue when the inevitable counterstrike arrived. It was part of the "Great Leap Forward". Once Xiaoping et al figured out what Mao had set them up for, he was kicked upstairs to a figurehead position without policy influence and they calmed down.



Drunkensubmariner,

BTW, when you are describing him remember that Xiao Ping is his first name and Deng is his last name, so it would make it easier if you referred to him as Deng since many East Asian names- Chinese and Japanese- do begin with their surname first.

You are right though about what you said about the "Great Leap Forward" of the late 1950s, IIRc,  which wrecked their economy because all these peasants were out busy attending political rallies when they should have been cultivating rice, thus leading to the massive starvation which characterized the disaster that became the "Great Leap" backward. Those self-sufficient industries or communes you described are better known as "Third-Line Industries" which was also part of Mao's plan to create a back-up line of steel-producing factories to create an alternate source of steel should China's actual steel mills and other industries be wiped out in the event of a nuclear war or a more conventional attack by a Western power such as the US against the PRC. Read Barry Naughton's book, "Growing out of the Plan", which details China's economic rise, in order to confirm what I said.

As for your saying that Mao became a figurehead, he didn't stay there as a "figurehead" for long when then CCP General Secretary Deng Xiaoping and President Liu Shao Qi pushed Mao to that position in the early 1960s, IIRC. Anyways, we all know what happened in the Cultural Revolution that followed with Mao starting it mainly to try to get back into the political scene in spite of his age; even when it was all over and Mao had died by 1976, Deng still had to wrestle with the Gang of 4 including Mao's widow Jiang Qing as well as outmanuever Mao's chosen successor-Hua Gaofeng- before he was able to ascend to lead all of the CCP and China later on.  It is fortunate for the West/the US/Canada that a pragmatist like Deng eventually won that last power struggle, or else we would have seen a PRC become more like North Korea later on under Jiang Qing and her cronies.

Sorry mods for the hijack, but I just wanted to elaborate something to him. Anyways, since it appears that no one took the Iranian "Peeykap" fast missile patrol boat post from earlier in the thread seriously, I'll just assume that it would probably more of a nuisance to Coalition warships than an actual threat.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25516.750.html


----------



## CBH99

I would imagine that in the traditional sense, a small, fast missile attack boat like the Peykaap class could be quite the threat.  I think Afghanistan is a perfect example of how a cheap, simple device such as an IED or RPG can disable a multi-million dollar vehicle.  Translating that example to a naval sense...a torpedo is a torpedo, and it'll do some serious damage.  The launch platform is rather insignificant if the torpedo is able to be launched within a reasonable range, and accurately.

**Not trying to stray out of any lanes, not a naval guy here though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if iran has a bunch of sea mines that are untraceable that they could litter the Strait with, just the threat of mines alone will curtail naval movements, comercial shipping and drive up the cost of insurance. It wouldn't take many to create a perceived threat greater that the actual risk.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if iran has a bunch of sea mines that are untraceable that they could litter the Strait with, just the threat of mines alone will curtail naval movements, comercial shipping and drive up the cost of insurance. It wouldn't take many to create a perceived threat greater that the actual risk.


Abu Muza comes to mind.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran tried mining before and it didnt work out so well for them.


----------



## Flip

I found this on a blog. Interesting background, assuming it's true.

Here's the link http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/

Iran Growing Desperate, and Dangerous 
Even oil at $140 a barrel cannot save the unfortunate country of Iran, sinking under the stone aged mindset of its leadership.
Events in Iran since the Revolution are an eery echo of what has happened in Venezuela since the advent of Chavez. Skilled workers and foreign capital and technology have fled. Corruption has become rampant along with incompetence. Production of over 6 mb/d fell to below 3 mb/d after the Revolution and is currently about 3.8 mb/d. The pre-revolutionary head count of 32,000 employees has grown to 112,000. 

Since the Revolution Iran has exported $801.2 billion of oil but nobody knows where that money has gone. “Certainly none of it was invested in Iranian oil infrastructure which badly needs renovation and repair, upstream and downstream.” The author claims the Iranian petro-industry is “on the brink of bankruptcy” although such a claim is not documented. 

It is clear that Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, and Iraq together represent an enormous percentage of the world’s oil deposits and production that is being mismanaged. The political and management dysfunctions in all of these countries simultaneously is a major reason for the world’s current energy crisis. If these countries all operated in a standard capitalist mode, I suspect oil would be below $50 a barrel _


http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/


_


----------



## TheSaint

> Iran Growing Desperate, and Dangerous
> Even oil at $140 a barrel cannot save the unfortunate country of Iran, sinking under the stone aged mindset of its leadership.
> Events in Iran since the Revolution are an eery echo of what has happened in Venezuela since the advent of Chavez. Skilled workers and foreign capital and technology have fled. Corruption has become rampant along with incompetence. Production of over 6 mb/d fell to below 3 mb/d after the Revolution and is currently about 3.8 mb/d. The pre-revolutionary head count of 32,000 employees has grown to 112,000.



Echos of Venezuela? 

People are always being led by US propaganda in regards to Venezuela. I suggest watching a documentary called  "The War on Democracy" by Pilager to get a different perspective on what's happening in South America. The only thing that Chavez has done "wrong" in the eyes of the US is cut down on large multi-national corporations basically raping his people of their own wealth and exporting it for their own well being. The rich in Venezuela are the only ones that have anything to lose by having him in power (and most of them are now living in Florida). All this garbage about human rights violations etcetera is trumped up propaganda to try and oust Chavez and install a corporate friendly regime. The US sponsored  a FAILED coup in 2002....where Chavez's own people rose up and re-installed him because they know he is on their side. As we all know the US has intervened on numerous occasions to oust Democratic leadership as well as dictatorships in South America- basically ousting whomever is not friendly to foreign corporate interests. There's a list of such countries if you care to look it up. 

Here I did it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change

Maybe the article is correct in that the propaganda coming from the US is similar to that used against Venezuela. That's the only echo I see. That and the need to secure energy for BP and Exxon and any other multi-nationals. Yes, Iran has called for the end of Israel...no kidding...they don't like having a country arbitrarily placed in the middle of a bunch of Muslim countries and propped up by over 300 000 000 US$ a year in military funding from our benign Southern neighbor. Not to mention the fact that Israel was given nuke technology by them. Israel now has over 200 warheads it is estimated and are constantly threatening Iran with air strikes. Who is in the right is a pretty grey area since both sides have taken verbal potshots at each other.  I tend to look at things from an un-biased point of view. Both sides are causing me to pay much more for gas than I should have to given supply and demand oil fundamentals with their bickering. Iran could simply stop enriching uranium for whatever purpose and end things quickly, or, Israel could realize the hypocracy of asking Iran to not do something they have already done. Asking a whole Nation to stop nuclear research is a massive scientific handicap for the students and researchers of Iran, and based on paranoia. Iran isn't going to use nukes even if they had them. They're not stupid, they don't want to die. They know that no matter how many they build they won't have more than the US or the means to send them there. The only reason I can see that Iran wants nuclear weaponry, is to stall any pre-emptive strike by the US to gain control of their energy supplies. I mean they just watched the Country next door go down for that reason so if anyone should be paranoid, it's them. As you can see, Iran wants nukes for the same reason as Israel, to ensure their survival in the Middle East. If you can't see that you're blinded by the "News" (propaganda) coming out of Washington.


----------



## Scott

Methinks I have seen this line of posting before...

Further, methinks you had underscores at he beginning and end of your name before...

As well, the two accounts seem to post from the same place...

Spidey senses tingling.

Care to set my mind at ease?


----------



## vonGarvin

Using wikipedia as a source is suspect at best.


----------



## wannabe SF member

I thought this might interest some of you.

*Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers*
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080629/world/iran_military_us_israel_1


----------



## 1feral1

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Asking a whole Nation to stop nuclear research is a massive scientific handicap for the students and researchers of Iran, and based on paranoia. Iran isn't going to use nukes even if they had them. They're not stupid, they don't want to die. They know that no matter how many they build they won't have more than the US or the means to send them there. The only reason I can see that Iran wants nuclear weaponry, is to stall any pre-emptive strike by the US to gain control of their energy supplies. I mean they just watched the Country next door go down for that reason so if anyone should be paranoid, it's them. As you can see, Iran wants nukes for the same reason as Israel, to ensure their survival in the Middle East. If you can't see that you're blinded by the "News" (propaganda) coming out of Washington.



Dear Sir, without directly attacking you, which is against site policy, I will humbly admit that you seem to be one sided and full of anti US spin of life.  The 'blood for oil' died in the ass long ago. 

I am paying $AUD1.55/L.

You seem to have it all covered on leftist conspiracy theories, next you'll be saying the attack on the pentagon was done by a missle, not an aircraft.

Do you actually beleive that Iran wants nuclear weapons to guarantee their survival in the middle east? Crikey, I thought I heard it all until now.

As the regime of Iran openly says they only want nuclear enegery for peaceful purposes (which I think is crap - they want nukes) - its our lives and the lives of other westerners which are at stake. If you refuse to comprehend this, we'll thats up to you, and you can live with the consequences

Put on your tinfoil hat, because diplomacy is about to be delivered in HE. 

I rest my case.

Have a good day wherever you are.


----------



## TheSaint

> Do you actually beleive that Iran wants nuclear weapons to guarantee their survival in the middle east? Crikey, I thought I heard it all until now.



Yes, I believe that. They want them because they've seen that North Korea is being handled with kid gloves since they joined the nuclear club. Having this capability is the only insurance against US or other foreign attack. 

Do you really believe that they're going to "nuke" Israel the moment they have the means to do it? And then face a return fire that ends their way of life? 

I don't think so. Even Ahmadinejad wants to live.


----------



## 1feral1

I don't post that much anymore, but I could not resist replying. 

No, I don't think Isreal is the intended victim at first, but I will say that once a bomb is made, the sale or donation of such a device to a radical islamic front, or rogue terrorist force is very possible and likely.

That being any western city is the potential victim. Thats scares me, and it should you.

We are dealing with a mentality of 12 century, with 2007 technology (radical islam, including the current Iranian regime), and these nutcases are NOT afraid to use it, for they love death as much as you and I love life. After all, we are the Great Satan.

As much as Israel is truly hated not only by Iran, but numerous other islamic countries (even Iraq in the pre 2003 invasion).

Persons with a simple Israeli travel visa in their passports were not even allowed in Iraq, regardless where you came from, or who you were. Although I spent 7 months in post liberated Iraq in 2006-2007, I have seen and I am in possession of Iraqi governement documenation proving such. I am sure other islamic nations have the same restrictions.

I have personally seen what these people do to their own kind, through mindless cowardly slaughter of anyone who gets in their way.  I've lived it, and did not read that in any one sided paper or magazine.


----------



## wannabe SF member

TheSaint said:
			
		

> I don't think so. Even Ahmadinejad wants to live.



Do not be so sure. Ahmadinejad is part of the Ojjatieh sect. When you know that Shias have a tendency to be the more radical in this religion. The Ojjatieh are the extreme. As a matter of fact, it is a cult that is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 In Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini. 

The Hojjatieh believe that a certain deemed to be a successor to Mohamed (the prophet) called Mahdi remains in a deathless state in a well. According to their belief, when he awakes, it will usher a new era of peace for Islam as it vanquishes all of it's enemies.. But, for him to awaken, his arrival must be preceded by a state of complete chaos and destruction in the world and this destruction must be wrought by man.

Basically they believes that in order to summon Mahdi, a man-made apocalypse must first happen.

Ahmadinejad believes firmly in this ideology. He is in power and wants to acquire nuclear  capabilities. With these kinds of beliefs, I do not believe that he wants them for "peaceful purposes". I am very afraid that him and his closed cicle of  Hojjatief friends (who are all ministers of his cabinet) will try to bring about this apocalypse.

So no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is afraid to use Nukes in fear or retaliation because he believes that as a fiathful, he and his kind shall be protected.

Scary stuff people... Scary stuff


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

If Ahmadinejad is all that serious about attacking Israel, and he has authority over the missiles, why hasn't he attacked yet with special weapons? Iran has access to nerve agents, anthrax etc. A counter-population strike with those would probably work better than a small number of nuclear devices.


----------



## George Wallace

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Asking a whole Nation to stop nuclear research is a massive scientific handicap for the students and researchers of Iran, and based on paranoia. Iran isn't going to use nukes even if they had them. They're not stupid, they don't want to die. They know that no matter how many they build they won't have more than the US or the means to send them there. The only reason I can see that Iran wants nuclear weaponry, is to stall any pre-emptive strike by the US to gain control of their energy supplies. I mean they just watched the Country next door go down for that reason so if anyone should be paranoid, it's them. As you can see, Iran wants nukes for the same reason as Israel, to ensure their survival in the Middle East. If you can't see that you're blinded by the "News" (propaganda) coming out of Washington.



I guess from your post, that you have absolutely no idea about nuclear weapons.  You seem to be of the opinion that nuclear weapons are delivered solely by means of a missile system.  You are wrong.  They can be delivered by a multitude of means, including in a suitcase.  Tactically, Backpack Nukes were employed by the US from 1966 to 1988.  That is were one has to wonder to what extent the Iranians are developing their Nuclear Programs.  

As Overwatch Downunder has pointed out, these are major concerns.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The SADM device is a lot larger than a suitcase, requires extremely advanced nuclear engineering and is only good for less than a year once assembled. In terms of Iran, it's a non-threat and will be for years.

In any case, device origin can be traced through fissile isotope analysis. If "somebody" was able to smuggle a device into a city and initiate it, the country of origin would be identified inside 24 hours. It would probably cease to exist a couple of hours after that.


----------



## GAP

I suspect that if anything nuclear is going to happen it come from the former USSR stock. There are vast amounts unaccounted for and all it is going to take is $$ and the will....

These will not likely be the nice clean explosions we are all used to seeing in the documentaries....but a dirty bomb....


----------



## a_majoor

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> If Ahmadinejad is all that serious about attacking Israel, and he has authority over the missiles, why hasn't he attacked yet with special weapons? Iran has access to nerve agents, anthrax etc. A counter-population strike with those would probably work better than a small number of nuclear devices.



Sending Hammas and Hezbollah tons of cash, explosives and artillery rockets seems to be doing the trick for now, plus it has the advantage of "deniability" for Al Jezeera and certain audiences in the West..........


----------



## brihard

So what happens if the U.S. or Israel goes after Iran's program, and in retaliation Iran puts three or four supertankers at the bottom of the straights of Hormuz, and fires the rest of their missile inventory at various oil infrastructure around the Gulf? Iran is beautifully sited to cause economic disruption on an unparallelled scale should they feel the need. Imagine 1979 again, except with someone actively slinging missiles at tankers and refineries... Not a nice thought.


----------



## George Wallace

Brihard said:
			
		

> So what happens if the U.S. or Israel goes after Iran's program, and in retaliation Iran puts three or four supertankers at the bottom of the straights of Hormuz, and fires the rest of their missile inventory at various oil infrastructure around the Gulf? Iran is beautifully sited to cause economic disruption on an unparallelled scale should they feel the need. Imagine 1979 again, except with someone actively slinging missiles at tankers and refineries... Not a nice thought.



A great way to totally alienate yourself from your oil producing Arab neighbours and ruin their economies in an attempt to cripple the West, who have other oil suppliers in North and South America, the North Sea, former Warsaw Pact countries, etc.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A great way to totally alienate yourself from your oil producing Arab neighbours and ruin their economies in an attempt to cripple the West, who have other oil suppliers in North and South America, the North Sea, former Warsaw Pact countries, etc.



Most certainly- but at that point, what does Ahmedinejad (sp?) have left to lose? Any U.S. attack, regardless of the ultimate outcome, can't have good consequences for him personally. Hell, in his twisted mind he might see such an act as a focal point for a greater coalescing of Islamic radicalism, with him as a sort of hero to them. He might not even be wrong; somebody who so blatantly attacked the interests of the U.S. and of the more westernized Gulf states would have a lot of radical sympathizers.

I'm not suggesting that Iran would have anything to gain from such a scenario, but nor do I trust that her leadership is sane enough not to pursue such a course if backed into a corner. Bear in mind also that Saudi Arabia's current prosperity is a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis and the resultant spike in prices. Even a lot of the official noise in such a scenario may be just that- official noise.

Hopefully we don't have to find out- but I see the scuttling of oil tankers as one of the most likely repercussions of an attack on Iran. It's certainly within their capabilities; if the ability of a carrier group to stop a swarm of Silkworm missiles is in doubt, a lone super tanker hasn't a chance.


----------



## TheSaint

> So what happens if the U.S. or Israel goes after Iran's program, and in retaliation Iran puts three or four supertankers at the bottom of the straights of Hormuz, and fires the rest of their missile inventory at various oil infrastructure around the Gulf? Iran is beautifully sited to cause economic disruption on an unparallelled scale should they feel the need. Imagine 1979 again, except with someone actively slinging missiles at tankers and refineries... Not a nice thought.



Exactly. 

Benefits of attacking Iran:

-  MAY end POTENTIAL threat to Israel from nukes (although this may cause Iran to seek Nukes for real and some Nuclear sites may be hidden)

Negative Consequences:

-  enflames Middle East (and the World) with anti-US sentiment
-  Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated  and large scale effort (maybe even chemical or biological attack).
- Many US and Israeli planes will be shot down as Iran has much better air defense than Iraq and has been aquiring modern anti-air capability.
- the Iranian Navy seals off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area.
- cost of oil....300-400$ a barrel (maybe more who knows)
- thousands of rockets hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem fired by Hezbollah and Iran with casualties in the thousands 
- Possibly the first sinking of a US Navy ship in a loooong time with major casualties.
- becomes a never ending war as Iran has three times the population of Iraq and terrain is perfect for guerilla efforts 
- possibility of another Sept. 11th as Iran has already said in the event of such an attack it will find means to attack the US Homeland 
- sleeper cells already in strategic locations in US attack
- large Iranian population in Canada is upset and worried for relatives in their country
- Iran has had years to prepare, therefore, there will be consequences that can't be imagined 

* due to inflation OUR way of life comes to an end

**ths is all just hypothesizing, however, look what happens when you don't think of the worst case scenarios ie. Iraq

Does the one semi-tangible benefit outweigh the rest? Only the current US Administration can answer that one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Saint-

I am in no way advocating an attack on Iran (I don't think it is going to be necessary- in my experience, the whole country is a house of cards, waiting to collapse), but many of your "negative consequences" are not well thought out.



> -  enflames Middle East (and the World) with anti-US sentiment



There is absolutely no love lost from Israel to Saudi Arabia to Oman for the Iranian Govt.  In fact, If  (a big if) the Israelis ever decide to take direct action against the Iranians, count on the entire Royal Saudi Air Force having that day off.  



> -  Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated  and large scale effort (maybe even chemical or biological attack).



Maybe.  Tehran would then disappear.  Hezbollah's money would be gone.  The end.



> - Many US and Israeli planes will be shot down as Iran has much better air defense than Iraq and has been acquiring modern anti-air capability.



Yes, the very same "capability" that the Syrians had last winter when the Israelis blew up their nuclear facilities- with no losses.  Don't overcredit the Iranians.



> the Iranian Navy seals off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area.



Don't over credit the Iranian Navy.  While I found them to be a generally professional bunch, they are pretty poorly equipped and could only keep the Straits closed for a limited period against the combined weight of every Western Navy who depends on Arabian Gulf Oil and all of the Gulf State Navies who want to sell that oil.  



> cost of oil....300-400$ a barrel (maybe more who knows)



Maybe briefly.  Maybe not.



> thousands of rockets hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem fired by Hezbollah and Iran with casualties in the thousands



Thousands of rockets?  Hundreds, maybe.  Of those, how many are guided?  Or intercepted by the Israeli missile defence system?  All the while, Iran gets hit from all sides...



> Possibly the first sinking of a US Navy ship in a loooong time with major casualties.



That is always a risk for any Naval Vessel of any country...it is not a reason not to act, if the price is right.  It is kind of why you have a military in the first place.



> becomes a never ending war as Iran has three times the population of Iraq and terrain is perfect for guerrilla efforts



Where have you read any credible evidence suggesting that the US intends on invading and occupying Iran?  Sure- I have heard Presidential candidates musing about attacks...but that is a long way from an occupation.  And let's be blunt- the US has absolutely no capacity to occupy Iran, so why are we discussing mythical guerrilla wars?



> possibility of another Sept. 11th as Iran has already said in the event of such an attack it will find means to attack the US Homeland
> - sleeper cells already in strategic locations in US attack
> - large Iranian population in Canada is upset and worried for relatives in their country
> - Iran has had years to prepare, therefore, there will be consequences that can't be imagined



And Tehran disappears.  Forever.  The US is not in a very forgiving mood.



> * due to inflation OUR way of life comes to an end



Ok- that is just silly. 

Again, I in no way advocate an attack on Iran, nor do I think it necessary- I think the place will collapse under it's own shambolic weight.  Soon.


----------



## George Wallace

Scott said:
			
		

> Methinks I have seen this line of posting before...
> 
> Further, methinks you had underscores at he beginning and end of your name before...
> 
> As well, the two accounts seem to post from the same place...
> 
> Spidey senses tingling.
> 
> Care to set my mind at ease?





OK!

Enough is enough!

The Saint

Time to answer the above questions poised to you.

Your understanding of World and Military Affairs seems to be completely lacking, so we would like to have you clarify exactly who you are, and what your agenda may be.  Your "Post 'N Run" style is also in question.


Thanks.

George
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## TheSaint

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK!
> 
> Enough is enough!
> 
> The Saint
> 
> Time to answer the above questions poised to you.
> 
> Your understanding of World and Military Affairs seems to be completely lacking, so we would like to have you clarify exactly who you are, and what your agenda may be.  Your "Post 'N Run" style is also in question.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> George
> Milnet.ca Staff



Eh? What I do? What question? No I don't have underscores?


----------



## TheSaint

> Where have you read any credible evidence suggesting that the US intends on invading and occupying Iran?  Sure- I have heard Presidential candidates musing about attacks...but that is a long way from an occupation.  And let's be blunt- the US has absolutely no capacity to occupy Iran, so why are we discussing mythical guerrilla wars?



I've heard it suggested that to completely eliminate the possibility of secret nuclear facilities in Iran, some form of occupation would be necessary. There are apparently underground labs that even US mini-nukes can't touch. In any case, without sending in ground forces the results I mentioned will still occur to some unknown degree. And when your answer to what will happen if another 911 occurs is the end of Tehran....or that if Hezbollah attacks Israel it's the end of Tehran you forget that that city is filled with innocents. 11 000 000 people to be exact. That's a holocost if it's bombed. 

The best plan is no war whatsoever.


----------



## muskrat89

"suggested"
"apparently"
"unknown"



Riveting


----------



## TheSaint

> Again, I in no way advocate an attack on Iran, nor do I think it necessary- I think the place will collapse under it's own shambolic weight.  Soon.



Well then we agree.
I also think that if left their own devices the people of Iran will take care of the situation. There's an election in 2009.  All this talk of attacking Iran is accomplishing is to anger the public of that country into supporting Ahmadinejad (and maybe making some money for big oil and defense contractors). The US and Israel are the best friends the Pres of Iran could have wished for. If the planners of those countries were smart they'd use covert ops and psychological warefare instead by funding and supporting opposition groups. Maybe play one off against the other.


----------



## TheSaint

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> "suggested"
> "apparently"
> "unknown"
> 
> 
> 
> Riveting



Well nothing has happened yet. Of course everything's speculation. Can you see the future?


----------



## a_majoor

It is rather odd that you seem to have none of the same compassion for the 732,100 people of Jerusalem; 3,040,400 of Tel Aviv, 858,000 people of Haifa....do I really need to go on?

I am also concerned about the safety of the 1,130,761 people of Ottawa; 5,113,149 people of Toronto...................

Magic does not seem to be in the cards, so I will remain vigilant and trust that the adults have various contingency plans (with branches and sequels) to deal with the situation. The fact that there will be consequences to taking action is no reason not to do so, especially when we reach the point that *inaction* will have more severe consequences.


----------



## TheSaint

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It is rather odd that you seem to have none of the same compassion for the 732,100 people of Jerusalem; 3,040,400 of Tel Aviv, 858,000 people of Haifa....do I really need to go on?
> 
> I am also concerned about the safety of the 1,130,761 people of Ottawa; 5,113,149 people of Toronto...................
> 
> Magic does not seem to be in the cards, so I will remain vigilant and trust that the adults have various contingency plans (with branches and sequels) to deal with the situation. The fact that there will be consequences to taking action is no reason not to do so, especially when we reach the point that *inaction* will have more severe consequences.



 "the fact that there will be consequences to taking action is no reason not to do so"

Isn't that how making a plan works? You consider consequences? Remember your "adults" in charge of the Iraq affair. Hmm....let's fire the Iraqi Republican Guard and see what a bunch of armed and well trained people with no jobs will do. Oh wait now we have an "insurgency" to deal with. I fear you must be a poor planner if you don't consider consequences.

I have loads of compassion for the regular people in the cities you named, hence, I hope that there isn't a war between Israel and Iran, or between the US, Israel and Iran. And what do Ottawa and Toronto have to do with anything? No one has threatened them and last time I checked they're not in the Middle East. I think that without a war there is no harm to them, but with a war a lot of people here will lose jobs due to the massive worldwide recession that will occur. Also, a lot of people on both sides will die- which is bad.


----------



## TheSaint

> especially when we reach the point that inaction will have more severe consequences.



When is that point, btw?

I don't see any reason to do anything with Iran unless they threaten to attack, or actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Until that point you're being guided by the "Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive war; something that is totally illegal and typically done by rogue and non-law abiding States. (Please don't bring up Hitler and Poland and appeasement Iran has not attacked anyone yet). I'm just hoping that the US Pres and Israel keep their panties on before the election in November so that Obama can turn the ship around.  

What these groups are attempting to do is like that movie Minority Report where you try to predict what crimes people will commit in the future and arrest them today. Kind of backwards don't you think?


----------



## tomahawk6

Armageddon the final battle between good and evil. Saint you know where that will take place ? We may be on the road to Armageddon whether we like it or not.


----------



## George Wallace

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Armageddon the final battle between good and evil. Saint you know where that will take place ? We may be on the road to Armageddon whether we like it or not.



What was that old Debra Harry song?

"Go now 
pray later 
it's a lay-away plan 
free vacation in Iran 
stop and see the middle east 
miles and miles of lovely beach 
get that coppertone tan on radioactive sand"

[Militry Rap]


----------



## Edward Campbell

TheSaint said:
			
		

> When is that point, btw?
> 
> I don't see any reason to do anything with Iran unless they threaten to attack, or actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Until that point you're being guided by the "Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive war; something that is totally illegal and typically done by rogue and non-law abiding States. (Please don't bring up Hitler and Poland and appeasement Iran has not attacked anyone yet). I'm just hoping that the US Pres and Israel keep their panties on before the election in November so that Obama can turn the ship around.
> 
> What these groups are attempting to do is like that movie Minority Report where you try to predict what crimes people will commit in the future and arrest them today. Kind of backwards don't you think?



Why would Israel wait for Obama?

Israel has demonstrated, again and again, that it is not a client of the USA. It does receive huge levels of US financial and military support but Israel thumbs its nose at American policy and politicians whenever its (Israel's) vital interests are not consistent with those of the USA.

IF (maybe when) Israel determines, for itself and by itself, that Iran poses a grave threat to Israel’s security and survival then I have no doubt that it will, as it should, take whatever action it feels necessary – up to and including pre-emptive nuclear attacks on Iran (and maybe some of Iran’s friends, too).

Barack Obama is irrelevant to Israel’s security and survival appreciation – as is George W Bush.


----------



## aesop081

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Eh? What I do? What question? No I don't have underscores?



These questions :



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Methinks I have seen this line of posting before...
> 
> Further, methinks you had underscores at he beginning and end of your name before...
> 
> As well, the two accounts seem to post from the same place...
> 
> Spidey senses tingling.
> 
> Care to set my mind at ease?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Echos of Venezuela?
> 
> People are always being led by US propaganda in regards to Venezuela. I suggest watching a documentary called  "The War on Democracy" by Pilager to get a different perspective on what's happening in South America. The only thing that Chavez has done "wrong" in the eyes of the US is cut down on large multi-national corporations basically raping his people of their own wealth and exporting it for their own well being. The rich in Venezuela are the only ones that have anything to lose by having him in power (and most of them are now living in Florida). All this garbage about human rights violations etcetera is trumped up propaganda to try and oust Chavez and install a corporate friendly regime. The US sponsored  a FAILED coup in 2002....where Chavez's own people rose up and re-installed him because they know he is on their side. As we all know the US has intervened on numerous occasions to oust Democratic leadership as well as dictatorships in South America- basically ousting whomever is not friendly to foreign corporate interests. There's a list of such countries if you care to look it up.



Have you ever been there? I have prior to his takeover and know people that live under his rule, the country was run by 5 families and corruption was rampant, Chavez tossed those families and appointed his own cronies. Although things were bad in the 90's, it's far worse there, as competent people are booted to make way for the politically correct, right now the country is surviving on oil monies, but they are being poorly spent, Chavez has been blocked from total power so far, but he is dealing with people who oppose him one by one, soon there will be no way to stop him and you will end up with another president for life and perpetual revolution run on the backs of the people, thankfully he is not as organized or quite so brutal as Mao.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
by Seymour M. Hersh July 7, 2008 

Operations outside the knowledge and control of commanders have eroded “the coherence of military strategy,” one general says.

L ate last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed. 

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said. 

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy. 

The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)


----------



## tech2002

This is nothing new from Bush, this man has agenda, and it is pushing a bit too far, I think.


----------



## George Wallace

tech2002 said:
			
		

> This is nothing new from Bush, this man has agenda, and it is pushing a bit too far, I think.



An agenda to retire in six months.


----------



## MedTechStudent

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An agenda to retire in six months.



Amen


----------



## Mike Baker

> The Bush Administration steps up its _secret_ moves against Iran.



Well their not secret anymore apparently... :



-Dead


----------



## tomahawk6

We have been at war with Iran since 1979. We have captured senior IRG officers inside Iraq who remain in US custody. Iranian IFP and other weapons are smuggled into Iraq which are used on US and coalition forces.The US has demanded that Iranian meddling in Iraq stop,it hasnt. An Iranian regime with nuclear weapons wont happen on Bush's watch. The nuclear facilities wont be the only targets of an air campaign against the regime.As the Iranians are disliked there wont be much protest outside of Syria,Gaza and by our own Democrat Party. I am all for an air campaign that severely weakens the regime and besides the obvious nuclear facilities I would destroy their only oil refinery.If oil hit $400 a barrel the regime wouldnt be able to ship their oil and their economy would collapse.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> .... I am all for an air campaign that severely weakens the regime and besides the obvious nuclear facilities I would destroy their only oil refinery.If oil hit $400 a barrel the regime wouldnt be able to ship their oil and their economy would collapse.



I agree with the idea but I would prefer that a deniable "accident" were arranged at the refinery by the locals.


----------



## Duke_The_Patriot

The Iranian regime is nothing but bluffs. They know the U.S will not attack them, so they go on and on about thier "military stength". I know many Iranian Canadians personally, they all say its own citizens would help get rid of the regime if there was an invasion. I just hope somthing is done to the government of Iran, they are the source of weapons and training to the terrorists of the middle east...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Amen



Yes I do look forward to Obama trying to play with the Iranians, they will run circles around, they have forgotten more about intrigue and international politics than he knows. Hell I am sure he will make Clinton look good.


----------



## Blindspot

Duke_The_Patriot said:
			
		

> I know many Iranian Canadians personally, they all say its own citizens would help get rid of the regime if there was an invasion.



I also know many Canadians from Iran and they are scared to death at the prospect of any kind of U.S. attack against Iran. Not so much because they hate the U.S. but because they have family back there.


----------



## adaminc

The US wont go to war with Iran, Bush won't risk it, he is saber rattling to show he still has power and can attack if he wants to, but with all the US Intelligence agencies now speaking out about their reports, that Iran gave up its nuclear weapon's research a while ago, Bush has no real reason to go to war with Iran. Unless they attack Israel.


----------



## 1feral1

adaminc said:
			
		

> The US wont go to war with Iran, Bush won't risk it, he is saber rattling to show he still has power and can attack if he wants to, but with all the US Intelligence agencies now speaking out about their reports, that Iran gave up its nuclear weapon's research a while ago, Bush has no real reason to go to war with Iran. Unless they attack Israel.



I wasn't going to respond, but I had to.

Dear Mr adamic,

They aint sabre rattling mate, and if you think Iran is no longer in the prusuit of nuclear weapons or technology for such, may I suggest you move to California where the dope might be legalised (as you have posted elsewhere on here). 

Sooner than later, one day when you flick on the radio or TV, you'll hear surgical strikes on their nuclear technology centres (and possibly other areas) will have happened.

Regards, and have a nice day.

Wes


----------



## adaminc

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I wasn't going to respond, but I had to.
> 
> Dear Mr adamic,
> 
> They aint sabre rattling mate, and if you think Iran is no longer in the prusuit of nuclear weapons or technology for such, may I suggest you move to California where the dope might be legalised (as you have posted elsewhere on here).
> 
> Sooner than later, one day when you flick on the radio or TV, you'll hear surgical strikes on their nuclear technology centres (and possibly other areas) will have happened.
> 
> Regards, and have a nice day.
> 
> Wes



There is no proof that they are currently in pursuit of nuclear weapons. The US Intelligence Committee released the NIE report saying that they stopped over 4 years ago (~2003), I believe that over anything Bush and his cronies have to say on the issue. Because we all know his track record when it comes to telling the truth about a nation he wants to attack.

I'm not doubting that they are pursuing nuclear technology, just that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. Which also isn't to say that some day in the future they won't, but at this moment and in the near future, I don't believe they are, and the US intelligence committee, as well as the Director of National Intelligence agrees, or that is to say I agree with them. 

This is enough to say to Bush or more specifically Cheney, that NO you can't go to war with a nation that technically isn't a threat. Bush knew that they stopped back in December 2007, and Cheney knew in November! When Bush was told in 2007 that they stopped back in 2003, did he change his stance? No he didn't, he kept going on about how Iranian nuclear weapons program was a big threat to the US and to Israel. Sounds like he and Cheney running the same race they did when they pushed for the Iraq war.

Now, if Iran attacks Israel, that's a whole other can of worms, since the US has pledged to help Israel when they ask for it. But if the US bombs these Nuclear research centers, for no reason, all hell will break loose in the middle east, and I fear for the innocents in Iran who will get caught up in the messy aftermath of a nuclear ecological disaster. 

I have a feeling that Iran would attack Israel if the US attacked Iran without provocation, then Israel might use the bomb.


----------



## 1feral1

adaminc said:
			
		

> I believe that over anything Bush and his cronies have to say on the issue. Because we all know his track record when it comes to telling the truth about a nation he wants to attack.



Dear Sir,

Greetings from lovely Bribie Island here on the coast of the Coral Sea

It's obvious that you have an agenda of 'Bush' bashing and anti-US feelings.

On that note Sir, I think its in my best interest not to respond to your unrealistic view, as it would be a waste of band width, and what I beleive would be an exercise in futility.

Beleive what you wish. I hope you are right, but Iran's days are numbered for the advance of this technology, and as far as my thoughts are concerned, Iran with any nuclear technology is like a child in a dynamite factory with a pocket of bic lighters. The current regime is rotten and radicalised, to me that spells danger. One does not have to be a rocket scientist, or uni student for that matter to figure this out.

Have a good night, and enjoy your time on here.

EDITed for stupid spelling mistakes


----------



## Edward Campbell

adaminc said:
			
		

> There is no proof that they are currently in pursuit of nuclear weapons. The US Intelligence Committee released the NIE report saying that they stopped over 4 years ago (~2003), I believe that over anything Bush and his cronies have to say on the issue. Because we all know his track record when it comes to telling the truth about a nation he wants to attack.
> 
> I'm not doubting that they are pursuing nuclear technology, just that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. Which also isn't to say that some day in the future they won't, but at this moment and in the near future, I don't believe they are, and the US intelligence committee, as well as the Director of National Intelligence agrees, or that is to say I agree with them.
> 
> This is enough to say to Bush or more specifically Cheney, that NO you can't go to war with a nation that technically isn't a threat. Bush knew that they stopped back in December 2007, and Cheney knew in November! When Bush was told in 2007 that they stopped back in 2003, did he change his stance? No he didn't, he kept going on about how Iranian nuclear weapons program was a big threat to the US and to Israel. Sounds like he and Cheney running the same race they did when they pushed for the Iraq war.
> 
> Now, if Iran attacks Israel, that's a whole other can of worms, since the US has pledged to help Israel when they ask for it. But if the US bombs these Nuclear research centers, for no reason, all hell will break loose in the middle east, and I fear for the innocents in Iran who will get caught up in the messy aftermath of a nuclear ecological disaster.
> 
> I have a feeling that Iran would attack Israel if the US attacked Iran without provocation, then Israel might use the bomb.



I agree, broadly, with your first two paragraphs, *but* the NIE has been wrong before.

I have no comment on your third paragraph.

The issue, I believe, is in your fourth paragraph. The first sentence is clear and correct. I have some doubts about the second sentence: as others have pointed out, many Middle Eastern regimes are likely to applaud (quietly) if Iran is damaged.

The issue, for me, is that, given the flaws in American intelligence and strategy, Israel might have a different, even contrary appreciation of the situation and may feel that a preemptive (even nuclear) strike is necessary and justified under international law. Then the level of America's participation (and Islamic reaction to it) becomes a complex issue.

I agree with your last sentence.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Just saw a picture of the Iranian leader in a factory with cascading centrifuges...  he looked very pleased with the situation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Just saw a picture of the Iranian leader in a factory with cascading centrifuges...  he looked very pleased with the situation.



Maybe adamnic would explain the purpose of these centrifuges, especially as there are some significant advances in nuclear technology that does not require weapon grade materials to produce power?


----------



## adaminc

I too have seen photo's of Ahmadinejad standing around looking at the centrifuges, considering where Iran is getting their Nuclear technology from Russia, I wouldn't say that they are getting the best of the best when it comes to reactor technology.

However, I know that they have, and are going to be building, Light Water Reactors (VVR), built by Siemens AG, which uses regular water for moderation and cooling, they also require the fuel to be changed every 12 to 18 months. So maybe they need to process a lot of uranium for the current and future reactors, maybe generate a small stockpile of fuel. Sounds rational to me. These reactors are the cheapest to build and maintain, and are also not as efficient as other, more expensive, types of reactors. 

You also have to remember that the Ayatollah, who is the Supreme Leader and has final say, doesn't want nuclear weapons, and has been quoted saying as much.


----------



## aesop081

adaminc said:
			
		

> You also have to remember that the Ayatollah, who is the Supreme Leader and has final say, doesn't want nuclear weapons, and has been quoted saying as much.



And a few months ago i swore i wouldn't drink again.........


----------



## adaminc

So CDN Aviator, is there no way that Iran could sway your mind that they aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons? Should they take apart all the reactors, research facilities and centrifuges, and pledge to never delve into nuclear technology ever again, as long as terrorists, or the State of Israel exist?

Every country has the right to build whatever technology they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone in the process, which is exactly what is happening in Iran right now, and the fear-mongering that the US and Israel are doing will only make the issue worse. I don't think the fact that Russia is providing most of this nuclear technology helps the issue, but it's better than Iran trying to do all this from scratch.

The US doesn't want Iran to get the bomb because of Israel and possible theft or just giving to, of terrorists, and I can see their dilemma, but until they have proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they should just bud out. 

While i'm talking about the middle east, I figured I should finally post my stance on Israel, albeit I was afraid to before because of possible backlash, but what the hell. I think that the US should drop Israel like a sack of soggy rocks, and say 

"Since you are now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income equal to that of south korea or spain, we will be ceasing the ~3 billion dollars a year we give you. We will also be ceasing all the military assistance, unless you are directly under attack. Oh, and we are also canceling the guaranteed ~3 billion dollars (2002 dollars) worth of Oil that we said we would give you regardless of our own supplies, you must buy your own now. We will send humanitarian aid though, for use on the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and for any Israelis hurt by this feud between the IDF and Hamas, but not the illegal settlers, or anything else."


----------



## aesop081

adaminc said:
			
		

> So CDN Aviator, is there no way that Iran could sway your mind that they aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons?



Please, show me where i said that i beleived that they were.......

What i mean is that i am not willing to take the Ayathollah at his word that "he doesn't want nuclear weapons" simply because he said so or was quoted as such.

Remember, there was WMDs in Iraq.......GW was quoted as such


----------



## adaminc

Sorry for taking what you said out of context.


----------



## CougarKing

It's one thing for a politician to say this and it's another for Admiral Mullen, the current JCS, to say this. It makes me worry that the US could possibly not be able to sustain a new third front in Iran beyond initial air and naval strikes. 

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/



> *On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama
> Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force
> By Tom Curry
> National affairs writer
> updated 2:05 p.m. PT, Thurs., July. 3, 2008
> WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.
> 
> Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.
> 
> “This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.
> 
> He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.
> 
> Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.
> 
> The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.
> 
> Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”
> 
> Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.*
> It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.
> 
> “What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
> 
> Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”
> 
> *Not ruling out use of military force
> President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
> 
> But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.
> 
> He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> “From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.” *
> And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”
> 
> Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”
> 
> The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.
> 
> But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”
> 
> In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein's regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.
> 
> Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they're paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.
> 
> “The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”
> 
> In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.
> 
> But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.
> 
> © 2008 MSNBC Interactive


----------



## Trauma22

adaminc said:
			
		

> So CDN Aviator, is there no way that Iran could sway your mind that they aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons? Should they take apart all the reactors, research facilities and centrifuges, and pledge to never delve into nuclear technology ever again, as long as terrorists, or the State of Israel exist?



Its pretty clear what Iran needs to do.  All that has been asked is that Iran put a halt to enriching uranium.  No one is asking for a total liquidation of their entire nuclear program.   It has even been proposed that Iran would be able to purchase enriched fuel from other states, provided it stops its current program.  
Other M.E countries such as Jordan are working on deals with the West/EU to begin a nuclear program that is fully transparent, this should serve as an example to Iran that the path they have chosen is not one anyone wants to follow.
Also, today should be a significant day for Iran in deciding which path to take.  Check the news today for a responce from the Iranians on the package offered by the EU.   

Updated-  Seems They have rejected the package.  They are not going to freeze enrichment, so now we go back to the "stick" I guess...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

adaminc said:
			
		

> I too have seen photo's of Ahmadinejad standing around looking at the centrifuges, considering where Iran is getting their Nuclear technology from Russia, I wouldn't say that they are getting the best of the best when it comes to reactor technology.
> 
> However, I know that they have, and are going to be building, Light Water Reactors (VVR), built by Siemens AG, which uses regular water for moderation and cooling, they also require the fuel to be changed every 12 to 18 months. So maybe they need to process a lot of uranium for the current and future reactors, maybe generate a small stockpile of fuel. Sounds rational to me. These reactors are the cheapest to build and maintain, and are also not as efficient as other, more expensive, types of reactors.
> 
> You also have to remember that the Ayatollah, who is the Supreme Leader and has final say, doesn't want nuclear weapons, and has been quoted saying as much.



Toshiba is building self contained reactors with a 20 year life that can be located near the power users reducing infrastructure, although new it shows there are many options to get weapon free nuke power. I fail to see any advantage Iran gains from it's current position on it's nuclear program unless it is developing weapons. As for the Ayatollah, it's entirely plausible that they have lied in order to buy time to produce their first weapon, and buying time seems to be their main goal at present.


----------



## TheSaint

At this point in discussing an attack on Iran, I think it would be refreshing to remember where terrorists actually come from.

While there are different forms of terrorist around the world, from IRA to home grown crazies, the ones that are constantly being touted in the news and in other propaganda, are "radical muslim terrorists" from the Middle East. 

The hijackers of 9-11 imfamy were from Saudi Arabia primarily, a country "friendly" with the US admin and one that has suffered no ill consequences despite its production of the actual culprits. Afghanistan we can all agree also hosts terrorists directly implicated in that attack. The other "terrorists" we hear about seem to have bloomed spontaneously after their country, Iraq, was invaded by US forces and occupied. So we can argue about whether they are terrorists or "freedom fighters". They seem to have few political ideas other than ousting the US occupation force- so I would not brand them as terrorists hell-bent on harming the West. 

Iran, on the other hand, is a democratic nation (yes there is a supreme ayatollah in there) and not generally known for harboring terrorists. They are, however, branded by the current US administration as being the "central bank" of terrorism without much in the way of evidence. The central case for attacking Iran from a US perspective, is that they fund and support terrorists in Iraq. Do they support the fighters in Iraq trying to remove the US force there? Probably, since they are predominantly Shiite and wish to form alliances for their own security within an unstable Iraq. Evidence for this is still weak at best. Even assuming this is the case, does that give the US the right to bomb that Country or its nuclear facilities, further de-stabilizing the ME? Let's face it, Iran has a much larger stake in Iraq's well being than the US or any other foreign nation. They live right next door, and if anything, the West should be negotiatiing with Iran so that they can support the efforts to create stability. 

Iran seems to have been arbitrarily branded a "state sponsor of terrorism" by a current US admin for political ends. We all heard the propaganda coming from the Bush Admins cohorts prior to the, more or less, unilateral attack on Iraq. So why trust that their "intelligence" and instincts are right in this case? They've made so many other blunders (lies?) that I believe any attack on Iran should wait for a new admin and a much stronger case before the world at large can consider condoning it. 

Is Iran a sponsor of terror? There's no proof, only hearsay from the CFR and other far right "think tanks" in the US. As such there should be no attack, unless Iran proves itself in some way an aggressor, which they have yet to do. Common sense tells us that until a person, or a government proves themselves guilty of some offense, that there should be no punishment.


----------



## larry Strong

Take the time to buy and read a book called "Chechen Jihad" by Yossef Bodasnky. It might open your eye's a bit about Irans involvement in the jihadist holy war against Russia and the west...then again maybe they will just stay blinkered.


----------



## 1feral1

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Is Iran a sponsor of terror? There's no proof, only hearsay from the CFR and other far right "think tanks" in the US. As such there should be no attack, unless Iran proves itself in some way an aggressor, which they have yet to do. Common sense tells us that until a person, or a government proves themselves guilty of some offense, that there should be no punishment.



Dear Mr Saint, 

In your own words, we or should I say I, would like your personal definition of "sponsor", as you have me confused.

So, please Sir, first and foremost, answer the question above.

For during my time in Iraq, not only were there Iranian supplied things such as the RPG 25 (please google this if you would like to - thanks) with its unique tandem warheads, but also the manufacturing of Iranian EFPs, and even supplying small arms, ammo, mortars and other man packed weapons and related gizmos, even including "volunteer" Iranian sheite men for the JAM militias, right down to Hiapha Street in Baghdad City, and elsewhere in the country.

How do I know this, well due to OPSEC I can't tell you, but I will say the evidence was correct and overwhelming there, not only in the equipment ammo and weapons supplied, but left behind by their KIAs.

So, in my defination, Iran has been supplying and sponsoring terrorism against Coalition Forces (paying for and procuring) for many years, and will continue to do so (even in other regions), the next scale (if they are allowed to continue in their research that is) being nuclear technology and other nasty stuff which any dangerous or radical regime of any religion should never be allowed to have.

Iranian sponsored terrorism has killed, yes ended the life of many Coaltion Force members. In my view, we are already at war (unofficially of course) with Iran already

Your name too, along with mine and other infidels is in their list of hate. Don't think we, the west, including dear ole Canada are immune, for there are terrorists plotting above the 49th parrallel, right now, they just have not been caught yet.

As for the definition of sponsor, here is what the dictionary says. Sponsor: "a person or agency that undertakes certain responsibilities in connection with some other person or some group or activity, as in being a proponent, endorser, advisor, underwriter, surety, etc." Methinks that has it covered.

Unfortunatly Sir, you have chosen not to fill out your profile, leaving it blank, so I really have no idea of your experience and/or credentials, nor do I undertand your level of competence/experience of the real world, shy of MSM outlets, and publications of a nature not common to the support of the global fight against terrorism. Please feel free to google or wiki any information I have set forth in this post to enlighten and broaden your knowledge.

If you could be so kind and polite as to fill out your profile to educate us on you (allbeit brief), that way what you say will have a bit of 'backbone' (no disrepect intended using this word - if so I humbly appologise) in regards to the quality and assurance of any future posts you may decide to put forth to us. This will help enlighten us, also please feel free to take the time to read my profile and others on here too, that we hopefully, yes you Sir, can have a better understanding of just who we are. Everyone benifits   .

Sir, I thankyou for your time in reading my post.


Warm regards from a rainy dismal winter's day here in the tropics of Australia,

Keep smiling,

OWDU


----------



## a_majoor

Gentlemen, please: you are letting facts and information get in the way of the argument!

No one and nothing will convince these people until there is that blinding flash and mushroom cloud; then of course it will suddenly be all be the fault of the United States... :


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides, 

Let them carry on.  I will be fascinated to see how the The Saint responds to Overwatch Downunder.  I'm guessing that absent facts an ad hominem is in order.  But how do you attack a post like that?

Nicely argued OD.


----------



## George Wallace

As a Moderator, I am still waiting for "TheSaint" to reply to the questions put to him/her by two Moderators of this site.

TheSaint has one last post to make to clarify these questions, or it is straight up the ladder and out the Ramp.


TheSaint

Ignoring those questions, does not make them go away.


----------



## Scott

OK Saint, I see you were Last Active:  Today at 14:42:08. I am assuming that you had a peek at this thread and it is my suspicion that you are shying away from it in order to avoid the questions put to you. We'll be keeping an eye on your activity here and you can consider yourself on the clock, pony up some answers or be banned, simple.


----------



## MedTechStudent

This is no way an attempt to start a brawl.

I know people's tempers sometimes flare when others take the other side on matters.  This is compacted when that persons opinions and statements are backed by zero *apparen*t knowledge/evidence or reason.  Which appears to be the case here.  My only question is, does it really matter if we come to a unanimous opinion on a war with Iran.  In the end it will some down to one of two things.  The CF gets ordered to go and they do, or they don't.  Whether we all in here decide if its imminent or not really won't change the future outcomes, if any.  

So I just wanted to say to TheSaint, I understand where your coming from.  And I think that all that the people above are asking for is a little bit of clarification.  They're not trying to start a fight, they just want you to explain your position.  Paragraph 1 is just there to remind you how irrelevant it is, and reenforce the point that it appears we're just asking out of curiosity.  I put off reading this thread for awhile, alas its too interesting, and I'm interested in the debate.

Cheers, Kyle


----------



## TheSaint

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Dear Mr Saint,
> 
> In your own words, we or should I say I, would like your personal definition of "sponsor", as you have me confused.
> 
> So, please Sir, first and foremost, answer the question above.
> 
> For during my time in Iraq, not only were there Iranian supplied things such as the RPG 25 (please google this if you would like to - thanks) with its unique tandem warheads, but also the manufacturing of Iranian EFPs, and even supplying small arms, ammo, mortars and other man packed weapons and related gizmos, even including "volunteer" Iranian sheite men for the JAM militias, right down to Hiapha Street in Baghdad City, and elsewhere in the country.
> 
> How do I know this, well due to OPSEC I can't tell you, but I will say the evidence was correct and overwhelming there, not only in the equipment ammo and weapons supplied, but left behind by their KIAs.
> 
> So, in my defination, Iran has been supplying and sponsoring terrorism against Coalition Forces (paying for and procuring) for many years, and will continue to do so (even in other regions), the next scale (if they are allowed to continue in their research that is) being nuclear technology and other nasty stuff which any dangerous or radical regime of any religion should never be allowed to have.
> 
> Iranian sponsored terrorism has killed, yes ended the life of many Coaltion Force members. In my view, we are already at war (unofficially of course) with Iran already
> 
> Your name too, along with mine and other infidels is in their list of hate. Don't think we, the west, including dear ole Canada are immune, for there are terrorists plotting above the 49th parrallel, right now, they just have not been caught yet.
> 
> As for the definition of sponsor, here is what the dictionary says. Sponsor: "a person or agency that undertakes certain responsibilities in connection with some other person or some group or activity, as in being a proponent, endorser, advisor, underwriter, surety, etc." Methinks that has it covered.
> 
> Unfortunatly Sir, you have chosen not to fill out your profile, leaving it blank, so I really have no idea of your experience and/or credentials, nor do I undertand your level of competence/experience of the real world, shy of MSM outlets, and publications of a nature not common to the support of the global fight against terrorism. Please feel free to google or wiki any information I have set forth in this post to enlighten and broaden your knowledge.
> 
> If you could be so kind and polite as to fill out your profile to educate us on you (allbeit brief), that way what you say will have a bit of 'backbone' (no disrepect intended using this word - if so I humbly appologise) in regards to the quality and assurance of any future posts you may decide to put forth to us. This will help enlighten us, also please feel free to take the time to read my profile and others on here too, that we hopefully, yes you Sir, can have a better understanding of just who we are. Everyone benifits   .
> 
> Sir, I thankyou for your time in reading my post.
> 
> 
> Warm regards from a rainy dismal winter's day here in the tropics of Australia,
> 
> Keep smiling,
> 
> OWDU



Sure. You asked for my personal definition of "sponsor" and I'm assuming you mean my definition of "sponsor of terrorism" since, by itself, sponsor just means to support (by whatever means). I understand you're taking as fact that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism whereas that is the main point I would debate. This is a pretty sticky question and I think you're smart enough to know that. Any definition is going to be relative to the case in question. As you should have noted in my last post, I don't consider what the Iranians are doing, or potentially doing in Iraq, terrorism. It may be covert operations, or some kind of espionage, but not terrorism. Terrorism means what it says- to TERRORIZE CIVILIANS for political ends. I don't think that's what the Iranians MIGHT be doing. It is highly unfortunate that any troops are being killed or injured by Iranian or other weaponry, if that is in fact the case; and you seem to be implying you have some secret knowledge in that area, so I won't argue the point. If, however, Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq they are sponsoring an "insurrection" and not "terrorism" by its definition. Also, as my previous post pointed out the Iranians have very personal reasons for doing so, since they are the ones that must live closest to the outcome.  You see I have already suggested that they could be supplying the laundry list of weapons you mentioned- it is a real possibility. I'm not sure why you chose to make this one item the issue, unless of course, it was for the emotive value of talking about troops killed or injured. Shall I bring up the number of troops killed worldwide by US weoponry? That would be quite a list indeed.

You do bring up the deaths of coalition forces in Iraq though. You seem to forget that Canada has chosen to stay out of said war and, therefore, while you include us in your "coalition" by default, we are to my knowledge only in Afghanistan, which we know was a sponsor of REAL terrorism against CIVILIANS. We were never a part of the coalition of the willing, as our surprisingly (considering the personages) forsighted leaders elected to keep us out of a war that was in no way connected to the acts of 9-11 and which they must have predicted would be long, costly and with little upside.

I also see from your condescending response to mine that you think quote: "MSM outlets, and publications of a nature not common to the support of the global fight against terrorism" are not valid sources. You seem to be advocating a selective list of ideas that are in perfect concord to your own ones, rather than taking a more balanced approach. I was always taught in University to read between the lines, and do my own thinking, rather than have the thoughts and opinions of other individuals or groups imposed upon me. Critical thinking I believe it's called. My view is that it's better to look at both sides of any story, regardless of where those ideas originate, or who espouses them, in order to arrive at a more balanced, and more effective conclusion.  I can only hope that in between watching FOX News and downloading the arguments of those above you to your mental hard drive, that you take a moment to consider alternative views- just once in a while.

As for my credentials, I have none other than that I can read and listen, and come to my own conclusions. Not being predisposed to acts of terror and having no experience in government, I can't claim any insider dealings with the individuals involved- these being two of the three parties in your "global war on terror". I am sadly of that humble third party; a civilian who watches the news and reads books from time to time and who sometimes gets caught in the crossfire.

Anyways, please remember while using the fear word "terrorism" that lightening kills more people than such acts in North America- so I will still be sleeping tight regardless.

I thank you, Sir, for considering my differing opinions.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

TheSaint said:
			
		

> Sure. You asked for my personal definition of "sponsor" and I'm assuming you mean my definition of "sponsor of terrorism" since, by itself, sponsor just means to support (by whatever means). I understand you're taking as fact that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism whereas that is the main point I would debate. This is a pretty sticky question and I think you're smart enough to know that. Any definition is going to be relative to the case in question. As you should have noted in my last post, I don't consider what the Iranians are doing, or potentially doing in Iraq, terrorism. It may be covert operations, or some kind of espionage, but not terrorism. Terrorism means what it says- to TERRORIZE CIVILIANS for political ends. I don't think that's what the Iranians MIGHT be doing. It is highly unfortunate that any troops are being killed or injured by Iranian or other weaponry, if that is in fact the case; and you seem to be implying you have some secret knowledge in that area, so I won't argue the point. If, however, Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq they are sponsoring an "insurrection" and not "terrorism" by its definition. Also, as my previous post pointed out the Iranians have very personal reasons for doing so, since they are the ones that must live closest to the outcome.  You see I have already suggested that they could be supplying the laundry list of weapons you mentioned- it is a real possibility. I'm not sure why you chose to make this one item the issue, unless of course, it was for the emotive value of talking about troops killed or injured. Shall I bring up the number of troops killed worldwide by US weoponry? That would be quite a list indeed.



You don't consider Iranian-sponsored groups deliberately killing civilians to be terrorists?



			
				TheSaint said:
			
		

> You do bring up the deaths of coalition forces in Iraq though. You seem to forget that Canada has chosen to stay out of said war and, therefore, while you include us in your "coalition" by default, we are to my knowledge only in Afghanistan, which we know was a sponsor of REAL terrorism against CIVILIANS. We were never a part of the coalition of the willing, as our surprisingly (considering the personages) forsighted leaders elected to keep us out of a war that was in no way connected to the acts of 9-11 and which they must have predicted would be long, costly and with little upside.



What about Iranian weapons in Afghanistan? 



			
				TheSaint said:
			
		

> I also see from your condescending response to mine that you think quote: "MSM outlets, and publications of a nature not common to the support of the global fight against terrorism" are not valid sources. You seem to be advocating a selective list of ideas that are in perfect concord to your own ones, rather than taking a more balanced approach. I was always taught in University to read between the lines, and do my own thinking, rather than have the thoughts and opinions of other individuals or groups imposed upon me. Critical thinking I believe it's called. My view is that it's better to look at both sides of any story, regardless of where those ideas originate, or who espouses them, in order to arrive at a more balanced, and more effective conclusion.  I can only hope that in between watching FOX News and downloading the arguments of those above you to your mental hard drive, that you take a moment to consider alternative views- just once in a while.



A good idea and a bad idea do not add up to "balanced", they add up to "skewed towards madness".



			
				TheSaint said:
			
		

> Anyways, please remember while using the fear word "terrorism" that lightening kills more people than such acts in North America- so I will still be sleeping tight regardless.



I see. It's only "Terrorism" if it happens in North America. Nice.


----------



## Flip

I think what The Saint doesn't get, is that, for you guys in uniform, bad guys is bad guys. Insurgent, insurectionist, terrorist, so much semantic fudge.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around OWDUs new writing style. ;D  He makes the primary point. 

Real life experience trumps "liberal values" everytime.

I'm no huge fan of broadening the war on terror, but I understand and acknowledge that seems to be the way were headed.  Iran and it's government is aware of the possibilty of attack ( acutely ), yet they persist in the activities that put them in the crosshairs. Why would they do that?  The simplest answer is that they don't think they can lose.  I think that the truth is that Iran's strategic goal is not compatible with western interests.  Somehow that WILL be resolved.


----------



## Scott

No. Saint doesn't get questions asked of him. Typical of a troll and so now he'll be banned and can bring it up to Mike Bobbitt if he feels wronged by my actions. Maybe he'll answer my questions to the boss.

Buh-bye.


----------



## 1feral1

Dear Mr Saint, 

Thankyou for your opinion.

You should still be able to read this.

Although you have unfortuantly been banned, durng my time in Baghdad there was almost 17,000 citizens killed in that period. Thats almost 17,000 Baghdad citizens killed by direct individual murder, mass bombings, snipers, attacks, etc, and all at the hands of other citizens, utilising terror. Far from covert. This is not a war game, its real people, dying daily, and they still are.  The 7 months after we left, it got worse, about 36,000 citizens killed, again in Baghdad alone. These numbers are only the reported cases, much more goes on unreported. 

You would be suprised the amount of IEDs, IDF, and attacks committed in the time period I was there, just in Baghdad alone, its in the thousands. I heard it all the time, felt the concusions, seen the mushroom clouds, knowing then that many, many innocent pople at a market, getting food just to survive now all had interchangeable parts.

I do not think I need to post the dictionary definition of terrorism, do I.

To say that there is no terrorism in Iraq is the same as saying babies come from cabbage patches. You'll even find terrorism on every school playground, in the form of bullying.

As much as you have an opinion which is politically motivated, if you just would have answered the questions put forth, you would still be here. My opinion is based on my experience on the ground in Iraq, and knowing what damage radical islam can do, even in our own region the hate for our way of life is present.

I never mentioned Canada in this fight, but we as the west are in it, and Canada is fighting the same people, just in a different region. The fight is universal, and it will never end for the long haul. Remember, it is a global war, not just in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Coalition Force countries in Iraq number into the dozens, some being Georgia, some South American states, even Japanese, and European nations are invloved. I personally seen these troops, traded patches and conversation, so they are there, its not just US, UK and Australians there.

Good luck in your future endeavours.

Maybe you will be permitted to this site again? just maintain the mininum standard asked, thats not too much of a task is it?

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## a_majoor

Dr Pournelle brings up an interesting point. Free exchange of information is the true killer of all authoritarian systems (the rise of the printing press marked the decline of the Feudal system and the absolute power of the Catholic Church over Christendom). We can also see the mirror in China's desparate attempt to filter contenet throgh the "Great Firewall of China", and of course one of the goals of the Jihadis and the Iranian government is to insulate the "people" from outside (i.e. Western) influences.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q3/view526.html#Tuesday



> I am very late on getting the July column done, so that will take first priority. There were several essays and lively discussions over the weekend;  see last week's View. One matter settled was the notion of an open Forum here. It won't happen. I don't believe that it would add to the quality of reader experience (ye gods, am I learning the Microsoft patois?) and in any event would eat a lot of my time for what I believe would not be a lot of good.
> 
> One problem with day books -- I have a pretty good claim to have begun the practice of an open log book way back in BIX days -- is that if one isn't careful, the discussions tend to be what a vocal bloc of readers want, and not what the principal of the site wants to talk about. If I have anything worth subscribing for, it is enough experience to recognize topics that don't get a great deal of play elsewhere but which I think important for understanding either the screwy world we live in, or technology, or both. Recall that Richard Feynman wanted me to teach a Cal Tech senior seminar on "Technology and Civilization." I always regretted that the Cal Tech president rejected the notion largely because I was identified with "Star Wars", because I really looked forward to conducting those discussion. In any event, if there is a common theme to what goes on here, that's probably the subject. Technology brings us potentials for both good and evil, and Moore's Law makes it certain that technology will flow to us at an ever expanding rate: *can we build social and political institutions that can deal with the new technologies?*
> 
> Back about 1982 I made a prediction: that by the end of the Century, everyone in Western Civilization would be able to get the answer to any question that has an answer. Facts, dates, who said what, how to build gadgets, how to do things -- all that available to anyone. Note that I said "Western Civilization" thus excluding the Iron Curtain countries (some of you may remember when there were 26,000 nuclear warheads aimed at the United States, and young officers of both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. sat in silos with the keys to Armageddon).
> 
> *About 1986 I realized that the USSR as a totalitarian society was doomed: the only way a large nation could maintain military power and control over its citizens was to allow small computers to become ubiquitous -- but that meant free exchange of ideas within that society as well as with outsiders, and that would end the state monopoly on information. Arthur Koestler had observed that a sufficient condition for the end of totalitarian regimes was the free exchange of ideas; small computers made that free exchange inevitable.*
> 
> These were the ideas I wanted to discuss in my seminars, but alas it was not to be.
> 
> And enough rambling. I have to get the column in shape before dawn tomorrow.



Of course today the PC has been suplimented by the cell phone/iPod/Blackberry. Perhaps what we really need to do is flood the world with millions of cheap Blackberry knock offs, but ensure the browsers are programmed by "us". A certain amount of content filtering (no jihadi sites, for example) and setting the home page for the "Web Free [insert name of place]" news and information page would probably shatter the authoratarian governments and break the appeal of radical Islam faster than anything else. The only countermeasure would be to shut down all information traffic in the area and retreat to a North Korea like existance. Even defensively reserving bandwidth for the local elite is problematic; as human beings they will also suffer from temptation and might work against the regime.


----------



## karl28

I thought that I would post this here I hope that its the right spot . Its about missile test from Iran apparently the new missile has a range of 2000km .



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080709/iran_missiles_080709/20080709?hub=TopStories


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... an Israeli motivator?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... an Israeli motivator?



Oh, I could see them becoming more "motivated" but not in a way that Iran will necessarily enjoy.


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel has a first strike policy. Being a small country Israel cannot afford to allow an enemy to strike first.The old adage the best defense is a good offense suits Israel to a T. There is no doubt that if Iran has nuclear weapons they will use them so a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a no brainer. The trick is to locate the key sensitive sites and destroy them. 

From my perspective the US cannot allow Israel to carry the water for the administration.The USAF/USN is better positioned to strike Iranian targets than Israel. Who would believe that the US had no idea that Israel had mounted a raid on Iran given our domination of the air space in the region. But if such a raid is attempted I believe that the Iranian leadership and security apparatus must also be included in the hope that the population might overthrow the regime.


----------



## TCBF

- They won't overthrow the regime.  They will unite behind it.  The greatest unifier in Iran would be foriegn airstrikes.


----------



## KevinB

No WMD's in Iraq ? 







I BEG TO DIFFER.


Iran is an enemy - and it must be dealt with.


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> - They won't overthrow the regime.  They will unite behind it.  The greatest unifier in Iran would be foriegn airstrikes.



Depends on how it is done. A "Headshot" which concentrated on disrupting political leadership, Republican Guard units, C3I and transportation routes would destabilize the regime and prevent them from supressing dissent or reestablishing control over the nation. The downside of the "Headshot" is there is little means to control or influence events within Iran after the strike, so the worst case scenario is a few years breathing room while Iran descends into chaos and is unable to support Hamas, Hezbollah, long range missile development or its nuclear weapons program.

Of course a few years breathing room would take a lot of pressure off other parts of the region, so might be worth looking at on these merits alone.


----------



## GAP

How soon people forget the rioting crowds in the street of Tehran just a few years ago.....

does anyone remember what unified the country and put paid to the riots? 

The nuclear issue and all the attendant sabre rattling from all sides......


----------



## RJB

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Depends on how it is done. A "Headshot" which concentrated on disrupting political leadership, Republican Guard units, C3I and transportation routes would destabilize the regime and prevent them from supressing dissent or reestablishing control over the nation.



The Iranian regime is far from this unstable--indeed, the striking thing about Iran (in comparison to most regimes in the Middle East) is the low level of visible internal security. 

The regime also has deep roots--quite apart from the combat units of the Revolutionary Guard, there a million (or more) members of the volunteer Basij militia. Given the decentralized nature of the Basij, and the fact that they are part-time reservists, they aren't at all vulnerable to air strike.

Finally, other commenters are correct (in my view) in stressing how an attack would cause a rally-around-the-flag effect in (fiercely nationalistic) Iran. I suspect an attack, whatever its short term effect on Iran's nuclear capacity, would strengthen the regime.


----------



## a_majoor

Not that these issues are in dispute, but a "Headshot" would reduce the ability of the regime to shape, lead or even capitalize on the nationalistic "rally round the flag" response. If the "Headshot" were to include strikes against the power infrastructure and transportation nodes then the regime would loose legitamacy as being unable to fix things or respond to a crisis. Taking out the oil infrastructure would cut the financial windpipe of the regime, and so on.

Other possible outcomes can be selected by tailoring the "Headshot"; if government offices and services were to be selectively affected, but civilian targets left alone, many people might not realise that anything happened at first. You can wargame many possible scenarios, but not predict the outcomes...


----------



## RJB

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not that these issues are in dispute, but a "Headshot" would reduce the ability of the regime to shape, lead or even capitalize on the nationalistic "rally round the flag" response. If the "Headshot" were to include strikes against the power infrastructure and transportation nodes then the regime would loose legitamacy as being unable to fix things or respond to a crisis. Taking out the oil infrastructure would cut the financial windpipe of the regime, and so on.
> 
> Other possible outcomes can be selected by tailoring the "Headshot"; if government offices and services were to be selectively affected, but civilian targets left alone, many people might not realise that anything happened at first.



"Taking out" Iran's oil infrastructure would spike the price of oil, and tip much of the world into a full-blown recession. Moreover, if Iran lost its export capacity, it would have every incentive to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and choke other Gulf exports too. (It has a great many other retaliatory options beside, which I won't get into.)

Most transportation nodes, and some of the electrical grid, is repairable relatively quickly--and, in any case, it would be the US, not the regime, that would be the target of popular dissatisfaction that arose from this (much as it was Iraq that was blamed for the much, much greater damage inflicted on Iranian society in 1980-88). It should be kept in mind that Iran has a fairly impressive reconstruction and civil defence capacity, as was illustrated in its response to the 2003 Bam earthquake.

I haven't spoken to a single critic of the Iranian regime (inside Iran) who thinks that military action would result in political change... most, on the contrary, felt that it would consolidate the hardliners. It would probably also convince the regime that it needed to ramp up its current nuclear research programme into full-scale weapons production, something which--if the unclassified portion of the US National Intelligence Estimate are to be believed--they haven't yet done.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> You can wargame many possible scenarios, but not predict the outcomes...



Which, I think, is precisely why SecDef Gates, much of the US military brass, and most of the US intelligence community appear to be counseling *against* a military confrontation with Iran.


----------



## KevinB

So riddle me this.

 I come over - I punch you - rape your wife and leave.
You call the cops - they sit around and ignore it.
 I come back over etc.

How long before you take action?

Working in Iraq I can tell you the above is a perfectly clear analogy.  I dont think anyone is saying it will be nice, or it will be easy -- but sometimes you have to act.


----------



## a_majoor

WRT an oil price spike, that might come despite anything the Alliance does or does not do. Actions like this will have more impact than the Iranian government will admit....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7498902.stm



> *French firm quits Iran gas deal*
> 
> The head of French energy giant Total has said it will not invest in Iran because it is too politically risky.
> 
> The company had been planning to develop the huge South Pars gas field, but Christophe de Margerie says this will not now go ahead.
> 
> The announcement comes a day after Iran test-fired a series of missiles amid weeks of rising tensions with Israel and the US over its nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Analysts say Total's move will be a big blow to the Iranian energy industry.
> 
> *It means Iran is now unlikely to significantly increase its gas exports until late into the next decade, they add.*
> 
> In further response to the test missiles, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday that Washington would defend the interests of America and those of its allies from attacks by Iran.
> 
> Sanctions
> 
> Total has a memorandum of understanding with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company to develop Phase 11 of Iran's half of the South Pars field in the Gulf.
> 
> _Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'
> Christophe de Margerie
> Chief Executive, Total _
> 
> In May, Total said it was still interested in working on the project together with the Malaysian company, Petronas.
> 
> But Mr De Margerie's comments now cast serious doubt on whether the French firm will invest in the Islamic Republic in the near future.
> 
> "Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," he told the Finacial Times.
> 
> And later he told the France 24 television station: "It is probably necessary that things get better, that Iran can again have better relations with its neighbours and the rest of the countries that today have a harsh stance towards it."
> 
> The remarks follow increasing tension between Iran and Israel over Tehran's nuclear programme.
> 
> The US has also recently stepped up the pressure to impose tougher sanctions on the Iranian government and companies that do business with it.
> 
> Total was the last major Western energy group to have seriously considered investing in the country's huge gas reserves.
> 
> It was also one of the few companies in the world to have the technology needed to exploit Iran's huge, but untapped gas reserves.
> 
> The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says it has been particularly galling for Tehran to watch as Qatar pumps vast amounts of gas from the South Pars field to its side of the Gulf, helping it become one of the world's major energy suppliers.
> 
> *But observers say it is not just sanctions or political pressure - international banks simply are not prepared to put up the billions of dollars needed for such investments in Iran.*
> 
> 'Provocative' missile test
> 
> Mr De Margerie's remarks come a day after state media reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards test-fired a updated version of the Shahab-3 missile, said to have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles).
> 
> Gen Hoseyn Salami, the Guards' air force commander, said the tests demonstrated Iran's "resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language".
> 
> State media quoted him as saying: "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch."
> 
> Tehran has tested the Shahab-3 before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions in the region.
> 
> William Burns, the top official handling Iranian issues at the US state department, said the launch was "very disturbing, provocative and reckless".
> 
> But US officials played down suggestions that the move had brought military confrontation with Iran any closer.
> 
> "The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on, but everybody recognises what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," said Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
> 
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7498902.stm
> 
> Published: 2008/07/10 16:14:48 GMT


----------



## RJB

RAND has just released a report on Iranian vulnerabilities, prepared for the Strategic Planning Division of the US Air Force. Among its conclusions:



> Despite these authoritarian characteristics, most Iranians perceive the regime as legitimate. In the 2005 presidential elections, more than half of all eligible voters participated. Although many Iranians are dissatisfied with the authoritarianism of the regime, few have been willing or prepared to act outside the electoral process. The regime appears to be under no imminent danger of collapse or coup.
> 
> ...
> 
> A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and operation of nuclear enrichment facilities. If Iran’s facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread....
> 
> ...an attack would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The government would be able to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences. The ramifications of an attack for Iranian domestic politics are less clear. Ahmadinejad has come under fire from other politicians for baiting the United States. An attack might be perceived as his comeuppance. In our view, a more likely response would be a strong push to retaliate. Critics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent.
> 
> ...attacks on Iran proper would generate a great deal of ill will and, in our view, would be unlikely to change Iranian policy.
> 
> ...
> 
> A [oil] blockade, however, would probably do more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it.... A sharp rise in the price of oil on the world market because of a massive disruption of oil exports from the Persian Gulf would probably push the world economy into recession.
> 
> ...
> 
> At least in the near term, the Iranian regime is likely to be relatively stable and resistant to external pressures for dramatic change.



The full report is available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG693.pdf.


----------



## TrexLink

> *Iran's missiles may target Canadians*
> 
> _Matthew Fisher, National Post  Published: Monday, July 14, 2008_
> 
> Iranian missiles are thought to have enough range to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.AFP, Getty ImagesIranian missiles are thought to have enough range to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.
> 
> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -The BBC has raised the possibility that Iran may target NATO forces in Afghanistan, which include several thousand Canadian troops stationed in the province of Kandahar, with short-range missiles.
> 
> Those who focused on the possibility of Iran and Israel going to war or a strike against the U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf have overlooked the chance that attacking elsewhere might also serve Iran's strategic interests, the BBC said in an article on its Web site last week.
> 
> "People always look towards the west of Iran, but we need to look east as well," Christopher Pang, head of African and Middle Eastern research for the highly respected Royal United Services Institute, told the British network. "There are plenty of U. S. interests and international troops stationed in Afghanistan which can be targeted from the east of the country."
> 
> Worried by what Tehran describes as its power-generating civilian nuclear program, Israel has been considering if and when to try to destroy Iran's nuclear sites with air strikes and missiles launched from submarines. The Jewish state has also been improving its air defence system to protect itself against the latest variants of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which could reach Tel Aviv with a one-ton conventional payload between 11 and 14 minutes after being launched.
> 
> But Iran is thought to have far more short-range Shahab-2 and Zelzal missiles in its arsenal. Though neither rocket is considered very accurate, they have enough legs to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.
> 
> (While unconnected with developments regarding Iran, Canadian commanders in southern Afghanistan would have noted with keen interest that U. S. Marines who were rushed to Kandahar this spring were told last week their tours there had been extended by one month into November).
> 
> Months before any likely conflict between Iran and Israel or Iran and the United States, a fog of war is descending on the region causing even greater anxiety about the rising price of oil.
> 
> Iran responded last week to a major Israeli long-range bombing exercise conducted in June by test firing what it claimed were new, longer-range models of the Shahab-3. But Agence France-Presse quickly discovered that Iranian photos of the Shahabs' launch had been doctored to obscure the fact that one of them had apparently misfired.
> 
> Hours before Tehran's botched war games began, USS Abraham Lincoln slipped through the Strait of Hormuz and into the Arabian Sea, ostensibly so that the aircraft carrier's warplanes could more easily bomb Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. But it was also true that the capital ship was safer from attack in the deeper waters off Iran's southern coast than in the narrow, shallow confines of the Persian Gulf.



More at link:  www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=652649


----------



## slowmode

I think Iran is just doing this to show it has "power". I dont believe they will attack .. they know they could not win a war so why would they risk it? Lets hope nothing is aimed at our soldiers down in Afghanistan


----------



## NCRCrow

Wag the Dog or what!


----------



## PuckChaser

One missile from Iran hitting a NATO position would probably result in about 50 preplanned cruise missile strikes from the US.... I doubt the Iranians would be that stupid.


----------



## Mike Baker

slowmode said:
			
		

> I think Iran is just doing this to show it has "power". I dont believe they will attack .. they know they could not win a war so why would they risk it? Lets hope nothing is aimed at our soldiers down in Afghanistan


I agree. Why would they want to piss off the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and most every other nation, more then they already do?

If they did, I would assume there would be a lot of munitions put down range into Iran, enough that they wouldn't want to do that again.

-Deadpan


----------



## Love793

Attacking the US/NATO, would do little for them, however forcing the Israeli's into a first strike/self defence attack would however do a lot for their "street cred" in the region.


----------



## a_majoor

It has been noted in other threads that one possible effect of a NATO/US/Israeli strike against Iran would be to unite the population behind the regime, cementing their power over the nation and region for years to come. A "tit for tat" response against a launch of one or several missiles can be ridden out, and I expect that Western media and public reaction to an Iranian missile attack would be for "limited" and "proportional" response. Over all, not a bad deal for the regime, and possibly worth taking a gamble (depending on the real and perceived needs and interests of the _Iranian_ regime. Our interests don't count)

There is a reasonably high uncertainty level involved, and a much higher level response cannot be discounted (up to and including "bomb the rubble"), which may be one of the factors staying their hand for the moment. Political developments in the US, EU, Israel and even Russia and China need to be factored in. What an unholy mess....


----------



## JayJay144

Thats a very scarey prospect. If Iran was going to first strike wouldn't they have done it by now? I agree with the most recent posts that It's in their best interests to let the West or Israel go for the pre-emptive option. Although I will admit I am not an expert by any means. Just another person. 

There are more developments to this story. *www.debka.com* is a website made by retired intelligence officers and now Iran is provoking Israel to make moves. It's the top story. 

this Iran political situation has gone on for a while now but this is getting scarey.


----------



## Love793

I wasn't saying that Iran would make the first strike.  I was stating that they would likely attempt to draw the Israeli's into making a first strike, using self defence as their legal grounds. An attack on the US or NATO, would likely result in Iran having a romantic yellowish green glowing tinge for the foreseeable future.  It would be more beneficial to close the Straight of Hormuz and attack the American economy, then to try to take on the largest (controlled) nuclear force in the world.


----------



## geo

Love793 said:
			
		

> I wasn't saying that Iran would make the first strike.  I was stating that they would likely attempt to draw the Israeli's into making a first strike, using self defence as their legal grounds. An attack on the US or NATO, would likely result in Iran having a romantic yellowish green glowing tinge for the foreseeable future.  It would be more beneficial to close the Straight of Hormuz and attack the American economy, then to try to take on the largest (controlled) nuclear force in the world.



Lets face it, Iran sees the US as having their hands full coping with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their fastboat encounters with US warships have demonstrated the US terms of engagament as being sabre rattling
Their fastboat encounters with UK warships and their boarding parties.... well we all know how that turned out
It does not see the US as an immediate threat.  It does not consider the UK to be a threat


----------



## Trauma22

geo said:
			
		

> Lets face it, Iran sees the US as having their hands full coping with Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Their fastboat encounters with US warships have demonstrated the US terms of engagement as being sabre rattling
> Their fastboat encounters with UK warships and their boarding parties.... well we all know how that turned out
> It does not see the US as an immediate threat.  It does not consider the UK to be a threat



It seems by all reports they have dug their heels in on the enrichment issue, so theyve accepted the stakes regarding the threats.  Pretty foolish to underestimate a US/Israel first strike ability, I think.


----------



## Love793

I don't think the Americans would strike first, but Isreal would have a good argument in the World Courts for a Self Defence strike, as Iran has repeatedly threatened them.


----------



## a_majoor

Love793 said:
			
		

> I don't think the Americans would strike first, *but Isreal would have a good argument in the World Courts* for a Self Defence strike, as Iran has repeatedly threatened them.



 :rofl:

I hope you were joking when you suggested the State of Israel (or any other sovereign nation) needs to justify themselves to some external agency tfor the actions they can take for their self defense and survival......


----------



## Love793

No actually I was serious, and yes speaking within the context of international law the Israeli's would have to justify their actions. One sovereign state can't just attack another in a pre-emptive attack unless there is just cause, such as Self Defence/Immediate Threat. In this case I believe Israel would have a good argument for it.


----------



## TCBF

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> So riddle me this. ...
> How long before you take action?
> Working in Iraq I can tell you the above is a perfectly clear analogy.  I dont think anyone is saying it will be nice, or it will be easy -- but sometimes you have to act.



- If you are refering to the Iranian SOF activities in Iraq, all I have to say is that the West is learning the hard way that one can overthrow a regime with minimum force, but to actually 'isolate the battlespace' in that country by securing it's borders takes a lot more than a light punitive expedition.

- Know who has an army big enough to sort out Iraq?   Iran.


----------



## Kirkhill

Know who has a force big enough to stop Iran?

The US.

Strategically offensive - launch to poorly held vital ground - Iraq.
Operationally defensive - hold vital ground, Iraq, and wait for enemy, Iran-Al Qaeda, to come to you
Tactically flexible - offensive action is the key to a solid programme of defense, along with the ability to hold ground with minimal resources.

Iran's greatest fear is that the US will stay put, just as they have in Kuwait.  Obama's plan is the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as they are concerned.


----------



## a_majoor

There are still a few cards in our hands, although ones involving the EU are very weak (given their apparent triangulation between the US and Iran and their dependence on oil from the Middle East)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/time_for_an_indifferent_world.html



> Time for the World to Stand Against Iran
> By Bob Feferman
> 
> I recently returned from a trip to Israel. During my stay there, I was reminded of a lesson from my days as a political science major. It is the aphorism, "Where you stand depends upon where you sit".
> 
> When you sit in Tel Aviv and admire the beautiful seashore, you also read the local newspapers and have to imagine the unimaginable. This city could one day be the target of an Iranian Shahab-3 missile carrying a nuclear warhead. Then you instinctively understand what every Israeli already knows: An indifferent world may soon force Israel to defend its right to exist with a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. That's why the world must finally take a stand and impose tough sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
> 
> Over the past five years, representatives of the European Union have tried to negotiate a reasonable solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program. More recently, the negotiating team has expanded to include the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Iran has consistently refused to cooperate. It has turned down the most recent generous offer of incentives, and it continues to enrich uranium in total defiance of three United Nations Security Council resolutions. Yet, the world's response to Iranian defiance has been weak and ineffective.
> 
> As each day passes, it becomes more obvious that Iran's real intention is to develop nuclear weapons. Why does Iran need nuclear weapons? Iranian leaders have given us the answer- they seek the destruction of Israel- yet the world has chosen to ignore it.
> 
> Unfortunately, some analysts naively believe that Iran's threats to Israel are a recent innovation of the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The truth is that the goal of the destruction of Israel has long been a fundamental pillar of Iran's foreign policy. Iran's Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, said in a sermon on Iranian television on December 15, 2000, "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam Khomeini and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region."
> 
> However, there is no doubt that Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken this madness to a new level. His repeated calls to "wipe Israel off the map" were also accompanied by a government sponsored conference titled "A World Without Zionism" (October, 2005). His most recent outrage was calling Israel "a stinking corpse" on the occasion of its 60th birthday.
> 
> Israelis cannot ignore these threats and for good reason. They know that Iran backs its threatening words with deeds. This became evident during the summer of 2006. Following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, proceeded to fire 4,000 rockets into the cities of northern Israel. These rockets, which were supplied by Iran, sent a clear message to every Israeli: When Iranian leaders speak of the destruction of Israel, they need to be taken for their word.
> 
> That explains why Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that the international community must not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. To reinforce these warnings, the Israeli Air Force recently held a massive air exercise over the Mediterranean with 100 warplanes. The message was clear: If the international community does not effectively deal with Iran, then Israel will do it alone.
> 
> For Israelis, the Iranian nuclear threat is seen through the experience of the Nazi Holocaust. This outlook was relayed in a rare interview on the CBS program "60 Minutes", (April 27). Then commander of Israel's Air Force, General Eliezer Shkedy, the son of Holocaust survivors, shared his views on the Iranian threat in light of the Holocaust with reporter Bob Simon.
> 
> 
> "They are talking about destroying and wiping us from the earth...We should remember. We cannot forget. We should trust only ourselves."
> 
> Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the international community has turned a blind eye to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and its repeated threats to destroy Israel. With the exception of the United States, business as usual has been the guiding principle of most nations. The lure of profits from Iranian oil and natural gas has blinded the world to the immorality of doing business with the world's leading state sponsor of terror. Iran's defiance of three United Nations Security Council resolutions to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons demands a radical change in policy.
> 
> It is time for the United Nations to live up to the reason for its creation: preserving world peace. Whereas the current United Nations sanctions on Iran are weak and ineffective, strong economic sanctions can force Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program without a shot being fired. After all, Iran is highly dependent upon the outside world to develop its oil and natural gas fields and even to refine its oil into gasoline.
> 
> If Russia and China prevent effective action in the Security Council, then sanctions can be implemented outside of the U.N. by the European Union together with the United States.
> 
> In addition, the American people must demand that their state's public pension funds divest from investments in foreign companies doing business in Iran.
> 
> Israel must not be put into a situation where it has to act unilaterally. If Israel is forced to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, oil prices will skyrocket and economies will falter. If that happens, then the blame must be placed squarely on an indifferent world.
> 
> The world's leading state sponsor of terror must not be allowed to acquire the ultimate weapon of terror. If the world continues to ignore this threat, then it must understand that Israel has no alternative but to defend its right to exist, and the lesson of the Holocaust, Never Again, may be implemented very soon.
> 
> American Thinker


----------



## wannabe SF member

*Israel Readying itself?*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_striking_iran


----------



## devil39

I would hope that the US waits until they have withdrawn the majority of their forces from Iraq, ensuring that they have an overland resupply route, and limit their engagement to a bombing campaign.

Otherwise....

Is there a possibility that fast attack craft swarms in combination with mobile shore based anti-ship missile batteries could shut down the Persian Gulf?  Some think so and argue that Millennium Challenge 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 proved that.    Thus starve out a deployed army in Iraq.

Combine that with the potential of a significant Shia resurgency in Iraq?

And consider that Iran has a population 2 to 3 times that of Iraq and a much more difficult topography to conduct a ground offensive?

And even if it was just a bombing campaign, I would be concerned that a bombing campaign would end any hope of a internal regime change by coalescing public opinion defensively and nationalistically... and against the west.

Not that Iran isn't begging for a spanking, however the current situation doesn't appear favourable from anything other than the lowest tactical level.  I fear Operational and Strategic failure awaits, regardless of who attacks.


ps see Wm S Lind who is prepared to take this scenario to even greater lengths


----------



## Kirkhill

Devil39,

Welcome back.

I think there is one route into Iran that might be viable, assuming a longterm wearing strategy, and that is its traditionally weak Eastern Flank.  While most of Iran's conquerors have come from the Northeast they are also weak through Baluchistan. 

The Mountains of the West have sustained Empires and warring tribes over aeons but the Eastern Deserts and Plains have been harder to  hold.   

I think a decadal strategy of bite and hold in the Baluchi East along with similar strategies in the Kurdish mountains of the NW and the Arab swamps of the SW may pay dividends.

I do agree with your point that the Americans need to create a functional reserve by disengaging a good chunk of their deployed troops.


----------



## devil39

Hello Kirkhill,

I wouldn't argue that there are routes.... long term wearing strategy (likely an operational level campaign) combined with your approach does not get much beyond the tactical or lower operational level of war.   

We are talking about a country with an ability to unhinge us (at the least) in our two important operational theatres namely Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are also talking about a country with the myriad of fair weather friends who will feed them many many nice technologies, not unlike our assistance to the ISI/Mujhadeen in the 1980s.

If we expect to spend 10 years sorting out Iran, we should likely put our effort into the inside-out vice the outside-in.

Softly softly.... Catchee Monkey.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Agree with the inside out approach, perhaps with the occasional more kinetic activity around the loose edges.

As to the length of the engagement - Next year it will have been a 30 year long discussion.  The Cold War was 44 years long (45-89 or 72 years if you prefer the 1917 start date).  What's another decade here or there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the current state of Iran's infrastructure, the lack of investment in it's renewal, the population demographics, the government already has their hands full, a sustained and backed insurgency could push them over the top. The Insurgency would have to be careful not to alienate the people from it's cause.


----------



## CougarKing

Another headache for AESOPs and other members of the ASW community out there.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/115953/Iran-produces-mid-sized-missile-firing-submarine



> *Iran produces mid-sized, missile-firing submarine*
> 08/25/2008 | 07:06 PM
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian state TV says the country has launched *the production of an all-domestically built, mid-size submarine that will be able to fire missiles * and torpedoes.
> 
> *Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar inaugurated the production line of the sub, named Ghaem, at a ceremony Monday. According to the TV, he said Iran has made huge investments to attain self-sufficiency and equip its armed forces with modern weapons.*
> 
> *The TV also said two other submarines, named Ghdair, have been delivered to the Iranian Navy. Their production began in 2005.*
> 
> Iran occasionally announces making advanced weapons but rarely makes statements about submarines. Years ago, Tehran said it bought some Russian subs and would produce its own, smaller-sized ones. - AP


----------



## aesop081

Silly of them to do something like that. Dont they know we pronounced ASW dead ?

Oh wait..........

[/sarcasm]


----------



## a_majoor

Will anyone be surprised at this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2800255/Iran-renews-nuclear-weapons-development.html



> *Iran renews nuclear weapons development*
> Fresh evidence has emerged that suggests Iran has renewed work on developing nuclear weapons, according to Western security sources.
> 
> 
> By Con Coughlin and Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
> Last Updated: 1:08AM BST 12 Sep 2008
> 
> *Nuclear experts responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear programme have discovered that enough enriched uranium, which if processed to weapons grade level could be used to make up to six atom bombs, has disappeared from the main production facility at Isfahan.*
> 
> American spy satellites have identified a number of suspicious sites, which the Iranians have not declared to nuclear inspectors, that intelligence officials believe are being used for covert research.
> 
> The new discoveries emerged as it was revealed that Israel had asked America for military supplies, including "bunker buster" bombs and re-fuelling planes, suitable for an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
> 
> The Israeli paper Haaretz reported yesterday that Israel has also asked for permission to use an air corridor through Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by America, to Iran.
> 
> So far the requests have been turned down by Washington, which is currently not as keen as Israel to consider a military strike against Iran.
> 
> But concern that Iran has resumed work on building atom bombs has deepened following the revelation that large quantities of uranium has gone missing from Iran's conversion facility at Isfahan.
> 
> The Isfahan complex, which enriches raw uranium "yellow cake" into material that can be used for either nuclear power or atomic weapons, is supposed to be subject to close supervision by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the Iranians only allow IAEA inspectors access to the final stage of the production process, where the uranium in gas form - UF6 - is stored.
> 
> By conducting a careful study of the amount of material stored at Isfahan, and the amount of "yellow cake" known to have been processed at the plant, nuclear experts believe between 50-60 tons of uranium - which if enriched to weapons grade level would be sufficient to produce five or six atom bombs - has gone missing from the plant.
> 
> IAEA officials believe the Iranians have deliberately removed the uranium at a stage in the production process that is not under their supervision. "The inspectors only have limited access at Isfahan, and it looks as though Iranian officials have removed significant quantities of UF6 at a stage in the process that is not being monitored," said a nuclear official. "If Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful, then why are they doing this?" Nuclear inspectors have also been concerned to discover that Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, recently ordered scientists to increase the amount of UF6 being diverted from Isfahan to another storage facility.
> 
> IAEA officials have no idea where the missing uranium is being stored, but suspect it could be held at one of several suspicious installations that have been spotted by American spy satellites.
> 
> The Iranians will be asked to give a full account of the missing enriched uranium when the IAEA's board of governors meets in Vienna later this month to discuss the continuing crisis over Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.
> 
> The mounting concern over Iran's nuclear intentions has intensified Israeli efforts to prepare for a possible pre-emptive strike on Iran, which has led Jerusalem to presenting Washington with a "wish list" of military equipment.
> 
> In the past America has been prepared to provide Israel with "bunker buster" bombs, known by their serial number GBU-28. They weigh over two tons each and are designed to penetrate deep underground, even through reinforced concrete, before detonating.
> 
> Israel used them in unsuccessful attempts to take out the leadership of Hizbollah, the militant Shia group, during the war of 2006.


----------



## tomahawk6

Russian alignment with Iran and Syria almost guarantee's a US strike against Iran Nov-Dec timeframe. The Russians are about to restart work on Bushehr. There is a large USN presence near Iran so many elements of an attack are in place.


----------



## TCBF

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Russian alignment with Iran and Syria almost guarantee's a US strike against Iran Nov-Dec timeframe. The Russians are about to restart work on Bushehr. There is a large USN presence near Iran so many elements of an attack are in place.



- High risk - low payoff.


----------



## tomahawk6

For the US striking after the election takes that burden off of the next administration - although any blowback will have to be dealt with by a President McCain or President Obama. Of course we can do nothing and see what the future holds.


----------



## tomahawk6

GBU-39 sale to Israel. Would come in handy in their next blowup with Hezbollah. 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221142470441&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale of 1,000 small diameter bunker-buster missiles to Israel, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. 

The notification of the possible sale to Congress was made over the weekend by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the branch of the Pentagon responsible for evaluating foreign military sales. The bunker-buster missile Israel has asked for is called GBU-39. 

The deal is valued at $77 million and the principal contractor will be Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. 

In addition to the missiles, Israel has also asked for 150 mounting carriages, 30 guided test vehicles as well as two instructors to train the Israei Air Force how to load the missiles on its aircraft. 

In its recommendation to Congress, the DSCA wrote that Israel's strategic position was "vital to the United States' interests throughout the Middle East." 

Congress has 30 days to obstruct the deal. 

"It is vital to the US national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives," the statement read. 

The DSCA announcement came amid growing concern in Israel that the Pentagon was not willing to sell Israel advanced military platforms such as bunker-buster missiles in an effort to dissuade Jerusalem from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Bunker-buster missiles are a vital component of a potential airstrike since many of the Iranian facilities, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, have been built underground in heavily fortified bunker-like facilities. 

During the Second Lebanon War Israel reportedly received an emergency shipment of bunker-buster missiles from the US to use to attack underground Hizbullah facilities. The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to have a 50 percent chance of hitting its target within 5-8 meters, thereby minimizing collateral damage. It is also said to be capable of penetrating several meters of thick reinforced concrete


----------



## wannabe SF member

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> For the US striking after the election takes that burden off of the next administration - although any blowback will have to be dealt with by a President McCain or President Obama. Of course we can do nothing and see what the future holds.



I say the Bush administration should go out with a bang, a strike against Iran in the last day of their mandate.

Now that would be going out with style.


----------



## CougarKing

The incongruous said:
			
		

> I say the Bush administration should go out with a bang, a strike against Iran in the last day of their mandate.
> 
> Now that would be going out with style.



HA! Perhaps McCain will put on his old USN flight suit and pilot an F18 to lead the carrier air wings in air strikes against Tehran!
 ;D
Since when is old too old to fly? Retired USAF General and sound barrier breaker legend Chuck Yeager did it on an F15 a few years ago, IIRC.


----------



## a_majoor

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> HA! Perhaps McCain will put on his old USN flight suit and pilot an F18 to lead the carrier air wings in air strikes against Tehran!
> ;D
> Since when is old too old to fly? Retired USAF General and sound barrier breaker legend Chuck Yeager did it on an F15 a few years ago, IIRC.



While I am sure Senator McCain might love to do that, his injuries suffered at the hands of NVA torturers are so severe he cannot even raise his hand to salute, or use a keyboard, hence the Democrats attack on him "not able to send an email". (Usually he dictates his replies to an assistant or his wife to type).


----------



## CougarKing

So is Iran hiding secret nuclear weapons? This article explores that question:
(This comes just before Ahmedinijad actually made a clear THUMBS DOWN gesture during/after Pres. Bush's speech at the UN General Assembly yesterday, IIRC.)



> Monday, September 22, 2008 9:44 AM EDT
> The Associated Press
> By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
> 
> 
> VIENNA, Austria (AP) — *The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Monday that Iran may be hiding secret nuclear activities, comments that appeared to reflect a high level of frustration with stonewalling of his investigators.*
> 
> A senior Iranian envoy accused the United States of trying to use the IAEA as a tool in Washington's confrontation with Tehran. Iran, he said, has demonstrated full cooperation with the agency. Allegations of nuclear weapons work by Tehran is based on forged documents and the issue is closed, the envoy said.
> 
> The two men spoke at the start of a 35-nation board IAEA meeting. With time running out before Tehran develops potential nuclear weapons capacity, some worry that Israel or the U.S. might resort to military strikes if they believe all diplomatic options have been exhausted.
> 
> *And with Tehran showing no signs of giving up uranium enrichment or heeding other international demands, the diplomatic window appears to be closing.
> 
> IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran's stonewalling of his agency was a "serious concern."*
> 
> "Iran needs to give the agency substantive information" to clear up suspicions, he told the closed board meeting, in comments made available to reporters. He rejected the Iranian suggestion that the IAEA probe could expose non-nuclear military secrets, saying the IAEA "does not in any way seek to 'pry' into Iran's conventional or missile-related military activities."
> 
> "We need, however, to make use of all relevant information to be able to confirm that no nuclear material is being used for nuclear weapons purposes," he said, urging Iran to "implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program at the earliest possible date."
> 
> If Tehran fails to do so, the IAEA "will not be able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," he said.
> 
> 
> 
> source: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&rip_id=%3CD93BQ4E80%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
> 
> another source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_iran


----------



## 1feral1

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Will anyone be surprised at this?



Nope.

Their day is coming.

I do think we can agree on 'something wicked this way comes', and it will be an uphill battle from the get go.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## a_majoor

Iran may feel the effects of the "oil bubble", and this might be what does the trick:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/irans-oil-woes-threaten-the-mullahs/



> *Iran’s Oil Woes Threaten the Mullahs*
> 
> September 26, 2008 - by Meir Javedanfar
> 
> Much to the dismay of Ahmadinejad’s government, oil prices seem to be falling. From a record $147 in July, oil is now trading at around $100 per barrel. And despite Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, which usually push the price of oil up, there is talk that prices may go down to $80 or even to the [1] $70 per barrel mark.
> 
> “Oil prices are dropping because they are inflated,” says Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer, in an [2] interview with Business Week. “You cannot sustain an artificial price forever. At the end of the day supply-demand fundamentals will take over.” According to an increasing number of analysts, not even the mighty [3] Chinese economy and its insatiable appetite for oil can keep prices at current levels, because a lot of “hype” is involved in estimating future levels of demand.
> 
> The Iranians see no hype in the danger which the falling price of oil entails for them. This concern was openly expressed by Iran’s oil minister, who [4] said that as far as his government is concerned, “$100 a barrel was the lowest appropriate price.” Meanwhile, at the recent OPEC meeting, Iran failed to convince other members to [5] cut production, in order  to push oil prices up. Therefore, unless there is a serious event, the government of President Ahmadinejad may find itself facing the nightmare scenario of falling oil prices.
> 
> With presidential elections 10 months away and sanctions hurting, this is the last thing Ahmadinejad needs. High oil prices have been like a morphine injection which has kept the sick Iranian economy alive. Despite oil and gas [6] income for this year jumping to $81 billion, representing a whopping 31% increase from last year, Iranian people have seen no improvement in their economic welfare. If anything, the situation is getting worse. Inflation has reached the post-revolution record level of [7] 27%. To make matters worse, the government of Ahmadinejad is coming up with new ways to reduce subsidies which Iran’s citizens receive. First it introduced its controversial [8] petrol-rationing scheme in June 2007. This scheme failed miserably in its plans to reduce traffic and pollution.
> 
> Now the Ahmadinejad government wants to reduce government subsidies paid to Iranian families for their gas and electricity bill as well. The first part of this plan, which many Iranians find very annoying, involves each family filling out forms from the government, in which they have to declare their income and assets. Many rich people are openly saying that they are cheating, because declaring a high income could translate into a serious fall in the subsidies received. Others are withdrawing money from the banks in order to hide it from the government inspector’s prying eyes, thus leading to a fall in savings levels.
> 
> Should this plan go through, it could cause much pain to Iran’s population. The subsidy replacement plan, which involves paying the subsidy money directly into families’ bank accounts — instead of government paying the subsidy amount directly to the electricity company — is not expected to maintain its value in accordance with high inflation levels. This will mean that if inflation levels stay the same until next year, the value of the subsidy received in cash will be 27% less than last year. With falling oil prices, it is very likely that the government will have to go through with this plan. This will lead to serious damage to Ahmadinejad’s popularity. It will also antagonize Iran’s population. The revolution has not brought them edalat (justice). Now high oil prices, their only hope for better economic welfare, are failing them too.
> 
> Despite the rising unpopularity at home, what worries Iran’s leadership even more is that, as history has shown them,* lowering oil prices could mean having to be flexible with the West.* This was first shown in the mid 1980s, when Iran was fighting Iraq. Midway through the war, many countries were calling for a ceasefire, but Khomeini didn’t listen. He was confident that his forces could go on fighting and topple Saddam. In order to finance this ambition, Tehran attacked oil [9] tankers in the Persian Gulf, with the hope of pushing oil prices up. This didn’t work. By 1988, the falling oil price finally forced Ayatollah Khomeini to take the painful decision of accepting a ceasefire with Saddam Hussein, something which he likened to “drinking a chalice of poison.”
> 
> The same happened in 1997. The Asian crisis of that year, which led to [10] a crash in oil prices to less than $10 per barrel, was one of the major motivators behind Iran’s rapprochement with the West, headed by the reformist administration of Ayatollah Khatami. Low oil prices were again a factor behind Iran’s Western-friendly policy of temporarily suspending uranium enrichment in 2005. In fact one of the reasons Iran felt confident enough to stop the suspension was that oil prices started increasing sharply in August that year.
> 
> What this all could mean is that if oil prices fall to $70 per barrel or below, Ahmadinejad may find it difficult to maintain the same level of belligerence against the West. Things could get much worse for him if Obama is elected. His [11] pledge to invest $150 billion in renewable energy could very well burst more bubbles around oil prices, thus pulling them to more unbearable lows for right-wingers in Iran — so low that the words “suspension of uranium enrichment” may turn from blasphemy into a realistic option.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/irans-oil-woes-threaten-the-mullahs/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> [1] $70: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db2008092_750848.htm?chan=top+news_top+n
> ews+index+-+temp_top+story
> 
> [2] interview: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db2008092_750848.htm?chan=top+news_top+n
> ews+index+-+temp_top+story
> 
> [3] Chinese: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090702262.html?nav=rss_world
> [4] said: http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-35347420080906
> [5] cut: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D932D5F80.htm?campaign_id=alerts
> [6] income: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDWcfUDJFD6dkArtBf7VVXXq6zyA
> [7] 27%: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/530184-irans-inflation-tops-27
> [8] petrol: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/06/2008525144416665475.html
> [9] tankers: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_tanker.html
> [10] a crash: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE26Dj02.html
> [11] pledge: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MN8RSM86B.DTL


----------



## OldSolduer

I have a solution for the president of Iran....and it is NOT politically correct.


----------



## Jacqueline

They should accept what is coming to them.... it's not like they'll die.... they'll survive.


----------



## 1feral1

Miss JDro said:
			
		

> They should accept what is coming to them.... it's not like they'll die.... they'll survive.



Ma'am,

What is that supposed to mean??


----------



## George Wallace

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Ma'am,
> 
> What is that supposed to mean??



That really is a "Million Dollar Question".  We do have a Topic in Radio Chatter that her comment should be quoted in.


----------



## GAP

Bush nixed Israeli strike against Iran: report
Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service   
Published: Friday, September 26, 2008
Article Link

PARIS -- U.S. President George Bush refused to support a proposed Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year partly due to fear of failure - and possible retaliation, the British newspaper The Guardian reported Friday.

One of the concerns cited in the report, based on unidentified high-level sources, was the possibility that Iran would urge retaliation by Canada-based members of the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorist organization.

"It's over 10 years since Hezbollah's last terror strike outside Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos Aires [killing 85 people]," said one official quoted in the British newspaper.

"There is a large Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hezbollah supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised the issue with Mr. Bush in a one-to-one meeting May 14, according to The Guardian.

Mr. Bush said he would not support such a strike because of fears of retaliation, possibly on American targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and concerns that the Israelis would fail to disable Iran's nuclear facilities anyway, it said.

The newspaper noted that even if Israel had wanted to go ahead without Washington's agreement, its planes would be unable to reach Iran without passing through U.S.-controlled airspace above Iraq.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

The view that the current conflicts in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan are part of an internal power struggle inside Dar al Islam:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011992.html



> A long war...
> 
> ...to which, in the end, the West should be peripheral and which really is not a war at all. Ultimately the fight against Sunni Islamism/Shia extremism will be decided in Arab countries and Iran, and it will not be a military solution. Nonetheless, one cannot afford to let Deobandist/Salafist/Wahhabist types re-install themselves in strength in Afghanistan (or Iraq)--nor expand control in northwest Pakistan, nor take over that country (nuclear yikes!). Not that the West has that much influence over what may happen on the ground in Pakistan. Hard to see what to do.
> 
> As for extremists in the West, good intelligence/police work is the answer. Since 9/11, Madrid, and London much progress does seem to have been made. All of which is to precede a post by Michael Totten:
> 
> The War Won’t End in Afghanistan
> 
> I started: "...to which, in the end, the West is peripheral..." That is unless our countries, over time and for whatever reasons, lose the will to do what is needed, when necessary, both abroad and internally. It may equally, on the other hand, be worth considering that expansionist and all-encompassing ideologies (comfortable also with violence) seem to succeed fairly rapidly or not at all. For example: Islam, Protestantism, Bolshevism (then there was the twelve-year wonder). So far, modern Islamism has in fact had almost no success in gaining territory, Taliban Afghanistan briefly aside.
> 
> In any event, the main decisions--at least in the near term--will be made by Muslims themselves. Think about it.



We can intervene and bring about a favorable outcome by applying leverage. Kirkhill has suggested in the past that we create free trade enclaves around the edges of Dar al Islam, where we can apply economic and cultural influence. A much broader means (although harder to implement) would be to promote human rights for women in Dar al Islam (as opposed to "women's rights"); get 1/2 the population on board for our side and it is a done deal. Military power should never be discounted, and selective applications of force can keep the Deobandist/Salafist/Wahhabist axis off balance and prevent them from entrenching or expanding while our other levers are at work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The tools exist already, My now sadly deceased sister inlaw was heavily involved in "Sisters in Islam" Dedicated to changing the way Islamic societies treat woman and using woman as a conduit for information and change.

http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/


----------



## CougarKing

Thoughts, anyone? Not really that surprising. 



> from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US raid in Syria spooks Iran
> By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
> 
> *Tehran feels increasingly threatened by the United States-Iraq security agreement that will allow 50 US military bases throughout Iraq, including several in areas close to the Iran-Iraq border.
> 
> "The Status of Forces agreement permits the construction of large US forward bases near not only Iran but also Syria and as a result is a cause of serious worry by both Tehran and Damascus," said a prominent Tehran University political science professor.
> 
> In light of the incursion on Sunday by US forces inside Syrian territory, ostensibly to pursue al-Qaeda terrorists, there is suddenly concern on the part of many analysts in Tehran that the security agreement between Baghdad and Washington is not simply an internal matter for Iraqis to decide, but rather a regional issue that calls for direct input by Iraq's neighbors.
> 
> American military helicopters struck in Syrian territory bordering Iraq, killing eight people. The raid is said to have targeted a network of al-Qaeda-linked fighters using Syria to reach Iraq. The raid comes as Washington and Baghdad are negotiating a bilateral agreement that will set the terms for how US and coalition troops continue to occupy and fight in Iraq. The current United Nations mandate for the multinational forces expires on December 31. *
> "Iraq's neighbors have been asked by the international community to participate in Iraq's reconstruction and therefore by definition they should also be involved in security matters as well," another analyst at a Tehran think-tank told the author.
> 
> This is not altogether an unreasonable request. Iran and the US have participated in three rounds of dialogue on Iraq's security, and that, according to Tehran analysts, is as good a reminder as any that Washington's decision to ignore Iran's viewpoints on the security agreement is a bad error.
> 
> Simultaneously, there is a feeling that not all is lost and that the architects of this agreement have indeed taken into consideration some of Iran's vocal objections, such as the initial agreement's provisions for extraterritoriality whereby US personnel in Iraq would be immune from the Iraqi laws. That aspect has been modified, and the agreement also sets a time table for the withdrawal of US forces by no later than December 31, 2011, again something favored by Iran.



And another interesting tidbit: perhaps he got the same cold that Kim Jong Il had? ;D



> *Iranian president has fallen ill - report*
> 10/26/2008 | 04:11 PM
> 
> Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fallen ill due to his heavy workload, a close associate told the Iranian state news agency late Saturday.
> 
> Parliament member Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, a close ally of the president, told IRNA that Ahmadinejad is feeling under the weather because of the strain of his position.
> 
> "The president will eventually heal and continue his job," said Kowsari, who last September accompanied the president on his trip to the U.N. General Assembly. "Every human being can face exhaustion under such a workload."
> 
> The Iranian president reportedly works a 20 hour day and has not appeared in public since Tuesday. - AP


----------



## OldSolduer

Perhaps he's not feeling well because he has understood the implications of his actions and words.


----------



## CougarKing

From the Associated Press:



> *Nation is testing ways of recovering uranium in bid to expand nuke program
> 
> VIENNA, Austria - Iran has recently tested ways of recovering highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuel in a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press.
> 
> The intelligence, provided by a member of the 145-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, also says a report will soon be submitted to the Iranian leadership for a decision on whether to go ahead with the project.*
> 
> The alleged tests loosely replicate Saddam Hussein's attempts to build the bomb nearly two decades ago. But experts question the conclusion by those providing the intelligence that Tehran, too, is trying to reprocess the fuel to make a nuclear weapon.
> They note that the spent fuel at issue as the source of the enriched uranium is not enough to yield the approximately 30 kilograms of weapons-grade material needed for a bomb.
> 
> Alleged experiment seems plausible
> Still, they say that the alleged experiment appears plausible — if not as a fast track to weapons capability then as a step that could move it further along that path.
> 
> With Iran's nuclear program already under international scrutiny, any new efforts by Tehran to increase its nuclear expertise and its store of enriched uranium would set off alarm bells — particularly if that stock was highly enriched. The higher the enrichment the easier it is to reach the 90 percent level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
> 
> The three-page intelligence report, drawn from Iranian sources within the country, says the source material would be highly enriched — some at above 90 percent, the rest at 20 percent.


----------



## a_majoor

Someone will act; the current situation is unstable as it is. Perceived American weakness affects friends as well as real and potential enemies:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2008/11/05/the-dark-lord-weighs-in/



> *The Dark Lord weighs in*
> November 5, 2008 3:29 pm Dalwhinnie American Politics, Islam and the West
> The Dark Lord is a friend to Barrelstengthians, and I have taken the liberty of posting some of his thoughts here.
> 
> Greetings Arran Gold & All:
> 
> *I made a comment some weeks ago, that nobody picked up on, that I think that Israel has from now to the Inauguration of the Hussein (BHO) regime on Jan 20th, next year, to deal with the Iran question. After that, support from America will dwindle and soften.  Israelis are playing for keeps and cannot afford to wait and see if Iran “really” wants to wipe them off the map.  They live in the real world, the ugly world, of Islamic tyrants and nutbars.  As the only free country in the Middle East, surrounded as they are by an ocean of poverty, ignorance and repression, one wonders how long they can wait.  Or should wait?  Since I made that comment, events in Israel itself have made this option more difficult with the collapse of the governing coalition.  Elections will be held, but not until well into the New Year.  These events make their postion even less secure.
> 
> I am sure that they are not fooled by any offers of support from Europe–after all, look what Europe did to them the last time they were in trouble.  Just a thought.*
> 
> On another topic, raised by Dalwhinnie, “does the US need a British-style Conservative Party?”–one would think, looking at the parlous state of the British Conservatives, that that would be the last thing they need.  The Republican Party has taken a hit, but not as big a hit as had been touted by the Democrat media.  Frum’s article in the Post today was not bad.  But now the rebuilding work begins.
> 
> The Republicans have all sorts in their ranks, from the Nelson Rockefeller types to the Sarah Palin types.  (And yes, I do like her–lots.)  These must be united again. (I particularly admired Sarah’s ability to take, and to counter, the spite and vitriol from the Leftist media.  Now that the media’s boy is heading to the White House, perhaps there will be no need for press conferences, just a monthly grovel before the idol….)
> 
> Other Republicans that need to be heeded are the Ron Paul types.  A re-examination of how government must be built from the Constitution itself should be one of the coming tasks for the Republican Party.  I am reminded of the 1964 election when Barry Goldwater ran: “In your heart, you know he’s right” was the campaign slogan.  And he was.  Four years later, the LBJ administration and the “Great Society” was a shambles; America was losing the war in Vietnam; and LBJ was so unpopular he would not even run for re-election.
> 
> Anyway, the BHO win is not nearly as big as appears at first sight.  In fact, at first sight it still doesn’t seem that big.  It has all the assets required for media titillation of the irrelevant.  It will keep the talk shows endlessly jabbering for weeks.  However, when geopolitics asserts itself, we’ll see how the cookie crumbles.
> 
> As far as the Great White North is concerned, I can’t wait until Hussein “re-opens” NAFTA.  Imagine the squeals from the unions and the NDP and, of course, the Liberals!  “Er, Hi Canada, we just thought we’d get rid of that ole auto pact thing and a coupla other things….”  Time then for some schadenfreude fellahs.
> 
> I don’t want to wander too far off track right now, so I’ll complete this little missive with the thought that “Change” is probably the most vapid campaign slogan of all time.  Perhaps the Democrats could be reminded of the words of a great British Prime Minister: “Oh Christ, what do we do now?”
> 
> Dark Lord


----------



## tomahawk6

If Israel does not strike Iran ,then Iran is free and clear to produce nuclear weapons - if they are able. There is no way Bush will strike Iran's nuclear facilities without Obama agreeing in advance so I think that ship has sailed. The world will have to deal with a nuclear Iran.


----------



## geo

May you live in interesting times !!!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is an interesting article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, that deals with two themes we have explored in this thread: the role of culture and the presence of a unassimilated communities following cultural norms that are unacceptable in the society most of us are still trying to build:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081112.wcowent13/BNStory/specialComment/home


> To be specific is not racist
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> November 12, 2008 at 11:16 PM EST
> 
> When Mary Rogan accepted a magazine assignment from Toronto Life, she had no idea it would stir up such a hornet's nest. "The Brief Life of Aqsa Parvez," this month's cover story, is a sensitive portrait of a teenaged girl caught between the wishes of her devout family and the lure of a secular Western culture. The 16-year-old was strangled after her father allegedly threatened to kill her for ignoring his wishes. Her father and brother have been charged with her murder.
> 
> "The untold story of Toronto's first honour killing," said the cover line. And then the protests began. The magazine has been fielding a barrage of e-mail denouncing the piece as racist and Islamophobic. "The magazine created a culture of fear in perpetuating negative stereotypes," said one protester interviewed on CBC Radio.
> 
> Curiously, the protest isn't being driven by Muslim groups. Instead, it's coming from feminists who insist there is no connection between misogyny and culture. One of those speaking out against the article is Paulette Senior, CEO of YWCA Canada, which has become highly politicized in recent years. She and others argue that misogyny and sexism are universal. "Violence against women is happening in all communities," insists one.
> 
> Well, yes. But maybe in some more than others.
> 
> Ms. Rogan is dismayed that feminists have chosen to align themselves with conservative Islam to minimize the problems in some of Canada's immigrant communities. She does not regret using the phrase "honour killing" (although, please note, nothing has been proven in court). "If three white guys grab a black man and put a rope around his neck and hang him from a tree, we know what that is," she says. "We have words like 'lynching.' It's powerful. It's evocative. It's specific. To be specific is not racist."
> 
> Ms. Parvez's family lived in Mississauga, which is Canada's sixth-largest city and home to a large enclave of immigrants from Pakistan. To understand the girl's life, Ms. Rogan spent many hours getting to know her two best friends, neither of whom is Muslim. They described a girl who wanted to express herself, have a boyfriend, go to the movies, show her hair. She told them how frightened she was of her father and brother, and how desperate she was to get away from home.
> 
> The day after Ms. Parvez's death, the local imam held a press conference where he denounced honour killings. Later, in an interview, he explained to Ms. Rogan that the command for women to cover their heads comes from God.
> 
> The conflict between old-world fathers and new-world daughters (and sons) is as old as immigration itself. It's not confined to any ethnic or religious group. But honour killing - when a family member, or even the entire family, believes the murder of a girl by her relatives is justified - is a phenomenon in Muslim countries.
> 
> Plenty of feminists are in denial about cultural misogyny. But plenty of people with immigrant backgrounds think we need to do a lot more talking about it. In a letter to Toronto Life, Sarah Jafri wrote: "Unfortunately, the Muslim Indo-Pak community is primarily made up of immigrants who refuse to integrate in Canadian society and adopt a liberal and open outlook in life. They justify acts of violence against women ... as their 'given male right' through the use of religion."
> 
> Shortly after Ms. Parvez's death, the Pakistan Daily Times ran an opinion piece by Farrukh Saleem. "Honour killing is our export to Canada," he wrote, as well as to Britain, Germany and many other countries. "Denial is not an option," he warned. "Who will protect women from the laws of men?"
> 
> "I really don't believe in cultural relativism," Ms. Rogan says. "I believe there are things that are right in any culture and wrong in any culture. What happened to Aqsa Parvez was wrong. My hope is that people will learn something, and that girl will be remembered."



The problem is *NOT* honour killing – as abhorrent, indeed barbaric as they may be – they, the honour killings, are just one symptom of the real problem which is a *”Clash of Cultures* _Civilizations_ that we must NOT lose.

The problem is *NOT* Islam – even though the mainstream _sects_ within that community are in need to both _reformation_ and _enlightenment_ – it is with the Arabic/Middle Eastern and Persian/Central and West Asian *cultures* that dominate Islam in North America.

The _medieval_ Arab/Persian *cultures* are wholly incompatible with the secular, democratic and, above all *liberal* society we have built in North America over the past 350 years. We can welcome, even embrace the art, costumes and folk dancing and we need to _tolerate_ the religions but we must reform *replace* the culture that is so wholly, *fundamentally* and *extremely illiberal* – we need to assimilate immigrants by:

•	Denying, in law and by example, the validity of such customs as honour killings and genital mutilation; and

•	Offering ‘better’ cultural values – especially in our school systems.

For ourselves, the _established_ Canadians of all races, colours and creeds, that means _rediscovering_, re-evaluating and _burnishing_ our own roots and our secular, democratic and above all *liberal* values. One of our liberal values is that we tolerate others and their beliefs, even beliefs we find abhorrent. We must not stop tolerating beliefs, but we must put an abrupt and exemplary stop to many of the actions that flow from those beliefs.

This is not about race, it is not about religion, neither of those things matter in the broad flow of *liberalism*; it is all about *culture* and the rule of law, the very bedrock of liberal democracy. If we cannot win the culture _war_ then we will, soon, all learn to like the cultural norms and standards that worked so well 1,200 years ago in the Arabian desert.


----------



## chanman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _medieval_ Arab/Persian *cultures* are wholly incompatible with the secular, democratic and, above all *liberal* society we have built in North America over the past 350 years. We can welcome, even embrace the art, costumes and folk dancing and we need to _tolerate_ the religions but we must reform *replace* the culture that is so wholly, *fundamentally* and *extremely illiberal*



Although they border modern-day Iran, would the Pakistanis be considered Persian in culture, or a seperate group? (and if so, what would be the crucial aspects that differentiate them from India?)


----------



## Edward Campbell

chanman said:
			
		

> Although they border modern-day Iran, would the Pakistanis be considered Persian in culture, or a seperate group? (and if so, what would be the crucial aspects that differentiate them from India?)




That's a good question, chanman, and, early next month, I'll ask a _bona fide_ expert. I'm pretty sure they are different - which t is why I used the awkward “Persian/Central and West Asian” construct in the first instant.


----------



## Kirkhill

In the absence of an expert....... I will rush in.

As I understand it current thinking is starting to see the entire Iranian Plateau from Susa on the Persian Gulf to the Indus Valley as one contiguous cultural group that evolved back in the bad old days when the world was cold and the deserts were green.  These four sites show signs of early settlement and urbanization.

Genetically these people are somewhat different to the Dravidians of southern India although in Baluchistan there are still "remnant" populations of Dravidians

The Hindu religion appears to be the oldest religion still extant.

Over the years various other influences have washed over the Area including, but not limited to, the Altai Chariot Cultures, Zoroastrianism and most recently Mohameddanism. 

It would appear that over the millenia a "native" northern population has morphed into different nationalities based on various cultural impacts and geography with the latest impact being the Moghul Mohammedans.

The Punjab, the valley of the Indus, then becomes the battle ground between the invading Mohammedans and the Hindus that chose to fight back, fought on the turf of locals that have been there for millenia.  And interestingly gave rise to another warrior culture, that decided they didn't want to have anything to do with either of them: The Sikhs.

Pakistan can thus lay claim to be the home of the "Indians", the eastern bastion of the "Mohammedans", and the heirs of the "Aryans".  

Poor buggers, like the rest of us, they are a nation of mongrels convinced by their leaders that they are exceptional.


Susa (Western Iran) 4000 BC 



> Marvelous painted pottery from Susa I the earliest Phase -was discovered here and can be seen in the castle storerooms to the Mission (and possibly more conveniently in the Louvre). Pottery dating back to the fourth millennium BC proves that Susa was one of the oldest cities in the world.
> In fact a prehistoric settlement from at least the forth millennium BC, and an important Elamite city from about the middle of the third millennium, Susa reached its first peak under the reign of Untash Gal, who built Shush as his administrative capital and founded Chogha Zanbil as his religious center. Shush was burnt around 640 BC by the AssYrian A, at about the same time he destroyed Zanbil, but it came back to prominence and its Golden Age began with the advent of Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achaemenian Empire of Iran.
> Standing as it did between the Aryans of the east and the Semites of the west, Susa was a far more convenient administrative center for the new and rapidly growing Empire than was Pasargadae.


 Source 

Shahr-i-Sokhta aka Burnt City (Baluchistan (Eastern Iran - Western Afghanistan - Western Pakistan) 3200 BC



> Located 57 kilometers from the city of Zabol in Sistan va Baluchestan province, southeast Iran, the Burnt City covers an area of 150 hectares and was one of the world’s largest cities at the dawn of the urban era. It was built around 3200 BC and was destroyed some time around 2100 BC. The city had four stages of civilization and was burnt down three times, which is why it is called Burnt City (Shahr-e Sukhteh in Persian).


 Source

Mehrgarh (Baluchistan, Pakistan - just east of Spin Boldak) 7000-2600 BC



> Mehrgarh is a Neolithic (7000-3200 BC) site on the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan, and one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in south Asia. The site is located on the principal route between what is now Afghanistan and the Indus Valley.
> 
> The earliest settled portion of Mehrgarh was in an area called MR.3, in the northeast corner of the 495-acre occupation. It is a small farming and pastoralist village dated between 7000-5500 BC, with mud brick houses and granaries. The early Mehrgarh residents used local copper ore, basket containers lined with bitumen, and an array of bone tools. They grew six-row barley, einkorn and emmer wheat, jujubes and dates. Sheep, goats and cattle were herded at Mehrgarh beginning during this early period. The most recent studies at Mehrgarh showed they even had a pretty good grasp of evidence of dentistry, and a good thing, too: caries are a direct outgrowth of a reliance on agriculture.
> 
> Later periods included craft activities such as flint knapping, tanning, and bead production; also, a significant level of metal working. The site was occupied continuously until about 2600 BC, when it was abandoned.


 Source

Mohenjo Daro (Sindh, Pakistan) 2600 BC-1900 BC



> Mohenjo Daro, or "Mound of the Dead" is an ancient Indus Valley Civilization city that flourished between 2600 and 1900 BCE. It was one of the first world and ancient Indian cities. The site was discovered in the 1920s and lies in Pakistan's Sindh province.


Source

Andronovan Culture


> The Andronovo culture is an Old World sedentary pastoralist society of the Late Bronze Age. It dates to the latter part of the 2nd millennium BC of central Asia, and covers a wide region, especially in the Altai Region of the former USSR. Preceded by the Afanasievo culture


   Source


----------



## a_majoor

Financial action vs Iran:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20081116.aspx



> *Cut Them Off At The Bank*
> 
> November 16, 2008: Economic problems are getting worse. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where much of Iran's foreign trade is handled, local banks are refusing to do business with the 10,000 Iranian trading firms based there. This has caused delays and cancellations of Iranian imports (over $9 billion worth from the UAE last year) and exports. This is being felt by the rule elite in Iran. There, the large extended families of the clerical leadership live the good life, and the goodies come in via the UAE. The sudden shortages of iPods, flat screen TVs, automobiles and bling in general, has been noticed in Iran, and is not appreciated.
> 
> *The falling price of oil is producing another problem, national bankruptcy*. The government admits that if the price of oil falls below $60 a barrel (which it has) and stays there (which it may, at least until the current recession is over), the nation will not be able to finance foreign trade (which is already having problems with increasingly effective U.S. moves to deny Iran access to the international banking system), or even the Iranian economy itself. The latter problem is largely self-inflicted, as president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad desperately borrows money to placate his few (heavily armed and fanatical) followers (about 20 percent of the population). The rest of the population has been in recession for years, and is getting increasingly angry over Ahmadinejad's mismanagement. Some 80 percent of Iran's exports are oil.


----------



## wannabe SF member

geo said:
			
		

> May you live in interesting times !!!



Well thanks a whole bunch. I'll think about that before I get my head blown off in WW3 ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Waiting for the horse to bolt before closing the door.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/africa/20nuke.php



> *Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon *
> By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger
> 
> Thursday, November 20, 2008
> 
> Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.
> 
> The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.
> 
> Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design  a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.
> 
> "They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."
> 
> Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.
> 
> While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the IAEA believe it will avoid the risk of attempting "nuclear breakout" until it possessed a larger uranium supply.
> 
> Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.
> 
> American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.
> 
> Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."
> 
> In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran's main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges  machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency's last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report's total of 630 kilograms  an increase of about 150  shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.
> 
> That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.
> 
> "They have a weapon's worth," Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.
> 
> He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.
> 
> "It's a virtual milestone," Cochran said of Iran's stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about "where they're going."
> 
> The agency's report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran's stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the IAEA report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would "within a few months." It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.
> 
> Whatever the exact date, it added, "Iran is progressing" toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.
> 
> Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. "They're very close," he said of the Iranians in an interview. "If it isn't tomorrow, it's soon," probably a matter of months.
> 
> In its report, the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.
> 
> A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.
> 
> *The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year*.
> 
> "While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use," the report said, the building's features "along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site." Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.


----------



## CougarKing

Just a little update on the naval front for Iran.



> TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- *Iran's navy is planning to launch two new ships and a submarine later this week, the commander of the navy announced Sunday.*
> 
> All three vessels were made in Iran, the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Cmdr. Habibolalh Sayyari as saying.
> 
> *"On the occasion of Navy Day [November 27], two missile-carrying ships named Kalat and Derafsh, as well as a light submarine, will be launched," he said.*
> 
> Sayyari repeated a long-standing Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway, if Iran is threatened.
> 
> "We have never said that we will close the Strait of Hormuz. What we did say was that we do have the capability to do so in the event of any aggression or attack," he said.
> 
> The United States has said it will not let Iran close the waterway, a vital link in shipping Middle Eastern oil to the world.
> 
> *Sayyari told reporters that the Iranian navy is monitoring all the movements of foreign ships in the Sea of Oman, the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.*
> 
> He also said that Iran is not planning on expanding its military presence in the Caspian Sea, but: "We have identified 20 percent of the Caspian as our area and will fully protect that area."
> 
> *Sayyari added that the Iranian navy planned to hold naval maneuvers called "Unity 87" in early December in the Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz.
> 
> Iranian and U.S. vessels have occasionally come in close contact in the region, escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington*


----------



## CougarKing

And here are updates that focus on the S300 SAMs that T6 mentioned earlier in the thread, IIRC:



> *US warns Russia against selling missiles to Iran*
> 12/23/2008 | 06:24 AM
> 
> WASHINGTON — US officials say they want answers from Russia on whether it is selling advanced surface-to-air missiles to Iran. The US insists such a move could threaten American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A senior military intelligence official said Monday the US believes the sale of Russian long-range S-300 missiles is taking place. However, the official said it appears that no equipment has yet been delivered to Iran. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
> 
> Russia's state arms export agency said Monday it is supplying Iran with defensive weapons, including surface-to-air missiles.
> 
> State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the US is seeking clarification from Russia.






> *Russia Denies Delivering S-300 Missiles to Iran
> *
> By AGENCE PRESSE-FRANCE
> Published: 22 Dec 14:15 EST (19:15 GMT)
> 
> MOSCOW - Russia on Dec. 22 denied that it was delivering sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, following reports it was about to supply the weapons to the U.S. arch-foe.
> 
> "The information on the delivery of *S-300 air-defense systems to Iran*, which has appeared in certain media outlets, does not correspond to reality," Russia's military-technical cooperation agency said in a statement.
> 
> Any arms sales to Iran would be carried out "abiding by all international obligations," the agency added.
> 
> There have been contradictory reports about whether Russia was to supply S-300s which Iran could use to defend against an airstrike on its nuclear facilities.
> 
> Russia's state-owned arms export firm, Rosoboronexport, said in a statement that it was delivering "defensive" anti-aircraft systems to Iran while not commenting on reports it was sending S-300s.
> 
> "At present, only systems of a defensive nature are being delivered to Iran, including means of air defense," Rosoboronexport said. "Previously Tor-M1 systems were delivered to Iran."
> 
> Tor-M1 air-defence systems, which Iran has acquired, have a shorter range than the sophisticated S-300s.
> 
> However the Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed military source as saying the Russian defense ministry was preparing to hand the S-300s over to Rosoboronexport for delivery to Iran.
> 
> "The delivery of the S-300s to Iran is expected to be carried out from Defense Ministry storage sites. Currently the S-300s are being prepared for transfer to Rosoboronexport and then their shipment to the customer," he said.
> 
> The source said Russia was planning to deliver *S-300PMU1 systems*, which have a longer range than older versions of the S-300.
> 
> "This is a purely defensive weapon, intended to protect especially important sites from aerial attack," he was quoted as saying.
> 
> Last week RIA-Novosti news agency reported that Russia was selling S-300s to Iran, citing anonymous sources. Moscow had previously denied such a deal.
> 
> Also the deputy head of the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs commission, Esmaeel Kossari, said last week that Russia was in the process of delivering the S-300 systems to Iran.
> 
> The reports come amid persistent tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's disputed nuclear program, which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> The United States and its ally Israel have never ruled out an aerial attack against Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions.


----------



## SeaGully

66 pages long? Man we could talk forever about this 'situation' the press will surely not stop and everyone got their opinions on the matter....Here's a Persian's p.o.v:

Everyone freaking out because Iran is trying to build up their army. whoopdi doo, did Canada not have a chance to build ours up? 
Don't the USA have the biggest baddest weapons this side of the Atlantic? 
Why is everyone questioning Iran's motives for wanting modern 'WMD'? Doesn't anyone remember FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY? 
that's right, USA, a bomb, first ones and and no ones saying sweet f.a. about that. 
If Iran wants to build up their DEFENCE I say let them! 
Iran is highly unlikely to attack, they aren't interested in being the Big Bad Boss (like say..Russia, China...the United States..) 
Iran is not interested in invading a country and try to 'Muslimize' everything like westerners like to do. 
Every country has the right to denend their own land it's waters.
The trade or selling of weapons happens in every country and some countries even produce their own and yet everyone's shaking in
their panties over Iran following suit...throw me a kit kat..
Some criticize Iran's relations with Russia, they share the Caspian Sea they understand the need to get along.
Some criticize President Ahmadinejad's quotes...alot gets lost in translation and don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Iranians who don't agree with his blunt opinions of other countries or what he's doing in Iran but every country has had to deal with a less than stellar Leader.
And on the topic of Leadership the Commander in Chief is Khameni NOT the President, and I don't see him declaring war anytime soon..

There's an old saying we like to go by: keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
Iranians are not one to bully but don't get it twisted, if threatened we're not gonna sit there and take it.

Peace in the Middle East!


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaGully said:
			
		

> 66 pages long? Man we could talk forever about this 'situation' the press will surely not stop and everyone got their opinions on the matter....Here's a Persian's p.o.v:
> ...
> Iranians are not one to bully but don't get it twisted, if threatened we're not gonna sit there and take it ...



I notice that your profile lists your 'rank' as applicant. If you are applying to enroll in the Canadian Forces then I wonder at who you think of as "we."

The CF is a pretty _tolerant_ organization but in my experience, a bit dated now, to be sure, the one thing they demanded was that "we" meant *our mates* in *our Canadian ships, regiments, squadrons and bases*, all serving together in *our Canadian Forces* in the service of *our Canadian Queen* and *our Canadian people*.

If that's going to be a problem for you then perhaps a career change is in order.


----------



## GAP

ER....It's hard to get good logical ideas across when they are crouched under peaceloving bridges


----------



## SeaGully

E.R 
Noted.
Thanks for the reply.
I did not in any way mean to speak on Iran's behalf, I was just stating an opinion and understand that
by applying to the CF it's Canada I'm defending that is in no way a problem as I was born and raised in this country
That's the beauty of this country I can identify myself as Canadian and Iranian. 
The use of 'we' was meant to be used in general terms, I used  "we're not going to sit there and take it" 
pulling from personal experiences  how a person can be threatened and defend themselves against it.
Perhaps I should have watched my words.

If I have offended anyone, that was not my intention.


----------



## Nauticus

Oh, don't worry about that. No matter what you say around here, someone will skew it and accuse you of offending them.


----------



## 1feral1

SeaGully said:
			
		

> [size=10pt]
> 
> Here's a Persian's p.o.v:
> 
> Why is everyone questioning Iran's motives for wanting modern 'WMD'? Doesn't anyone remember FAT MAN and LITTLE BOY?
> that's right, USA, a bomb, first ones and and no ones saying sweet f.a. about that.
> 
> If Iran wants to build up their DEFENCE I say let them!
> 
> Iran is not interested in invading a country and try to 'Muslimize' everything like westerners like to do.
> 
> The trade or selling of weapons happens in every country and some countries even produce their own and yet everyone's shaking in their panties over Iran following suit...throw me a kit kat.
> 
> Some criticize President Ahmadinejad's quotes...alot gets lost in translation...
> 
> Iranians are not one to bully but don't get it twisted, if threatened we're not gonna sit there and take it.



Dear Seagully,

Firstly, I highlighted some of your quotes above which drew some of my immediate attention.

Iran has a radicalised extremist Islamic governent which openly supports terrorism, and has directly threatened Israel's existance.

Development of nuclear weapons by this terrorist state is outright dangerous. If they did not use these weapons themselves, they would ensure another radical group was given one (or sold) and thats what scares me. 

I had seen first hand at times a rather heavy Iranian influence in Iraq's Sunni militias, with tandem warheaded RPG 25's, and a host of other large and small weapons and ammunition (and Iranian insurgents to go with them) coming in, along with EFP's made in Iran and smuggled in. These weapons endangered the lives of all Allied soldiers throughout Iraq, including my own.

I consider the current government of Iran the enemy and a terrorist state, along with anyone who supports the government and it's ideals. Should a war begin against the west and Iran, would not the people overthrough the current regime, or would they stand by it? I reckon they'd stand behind it. I guess time will tell. Your last sentance pretty much sums it up, its in your own words.

The development of nuclear weapons would also increase an arms war in the region. I don't think the KSA would be very happy at all.

I look at it this way, you don't give a crazy person a loaded weapon and let him loose in a shopping centre, do you?

As for The Great Satan using their two bombs in August 1945, the Japanese public were in fact warned in advance, and quite frankly, those two bombs saved 100's of thousands of Allied lives, and in the long run perhaps even a million Japanese casualties as they would have either fought to the end or suicided, many civilans even suicided in Okinawa, as they were told the US would kill and eat them.

To compare a dangerous extreme radical islamic state to the USA is ridiculous.

You mention you are Canadian born, yet refer to yourself's POV in the above post as Persian, and use the term 'we' (as in Iranian) if threatened are not 'going to sit there and take it'. You also refer to 'us' as westerners. What are you? You're born in 'the west', grew up and currently live in the 'west'. Hummmm, I would say that makes you a westerner. What am I? Just a simple immigrant, now an Australian citizen of Canadian extraction with Irish heritage. I would call you a Canadian citizen of Persian heritage. How you can come up with an 'us' and 'them', when you are an 'us' baffles me.

If/when this war comes, and if Canada supported this in any way, shape or form, what will you do?

Your words, political stance, and train of thought not only confuse me, but causes me some concern. With this said, IMHO, I do not think you would be a suitable applicant to the CF. I am not slamming you, just stating a valid opinion. As far as I am concerned being a member of the CF is also being a patriot, and with your heart, openly supporting a terrorist regime as so stated, I find that very wrong.

Please explain yourself further if you wish, if not thats okay.

Anyways, thanking you in advance,


OWDU 

Iraq Vet

EDITed for clarity and spelling


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Oh, don't worry about that. No matter what you say around here, someone will skew it and accuse you of offending them.



You could always find another site if your not happy here and disagree with how things are run.


----------



## JayJay144

Oh the Iran topic always a good read. In my opinion Iran already has nuclear weapons. Russia has been no stranger to selling them all kinds of high tech weapons systems why not throw in a few black market stuff too. Thats why I think Israel has waited for so long to attack them personally. They've been at the war of words even before 9/11. Now that their nuclear deadline is approaching though I wonder if whats going on in Gaza now is part of a bigger picture. I feel it's a clear line that can't be undone now. 

Anyways I'm not going to get into the fist to cuffs about the issue but here's the latest with the issue. and interesting little read there. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/30/bolton-iran-israel/
www.debka.com is a good site to be checking with the situation going on.


----------



## thunderchild

Iran either has or wants to build nuclear weapons.  It has spent billions of dollars trying to build missiles that have ranges over the 7000km range, ie the Ashoura missile program.  Why go to all this trouble to deliver 2000kg HE warheads?  It would haven better to build a medium range bomber.  At least a bomber would have the chance to return to base and be rearmed where a missile is a one shot deal.  The Sahab-6 will have a range of over 10,000 km(according to global security) with a 2500kg warhead Why is it needed if not to deliver a nuclear payload?  Either way I don't think there will be an attack on Iran unless the UN can prove that they are supporting the taliban in Afghanistan or get mixed up in Iraq after the U.S. pulls out.  Even if they do detonate a test atomic weapon Or attack Israel...It would mean Iran would be bomber back to the stone age or worse by what's left of Israel's arsenal.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Why go to all this trouble to deliver 2000kg HE warheads?  It would haven better to build a medium range bomber.  At least a bomber would have the chance to return to base and be rearmed where a missile is a one shot deal.



It is considerably easier for a ballistic missile to penetrate modern IADS that it is for a bomber. Why do you think so much effort has gone into giving the B-52 a standoff capability and that the B-1 has lost its freefall nuclear weapons role. I would even go as far as to say that the development costs for their missiles are considerably lower than those of a maned bomber.





> Why is it needed if not to deliver a nuclear payload?



The risk, IMHO, is the same now as it was during GW1. Hit Israel with missiles, Israel retaliates and then you have another  Pan-Arab / Israeli conflict and everything that comes with it.



> Either way I don't think there will be an attack on Iran unless the UN can prove that they are supporting the taliban in Afghanistan or get mixed up in Iraq after the U.S. pulls out.



You are making the assumption that the US would not act unilateraly.



> Even if they do detonate a test atomic weapon Or attack Israel...It would mean Iran would be bomber back to the stone age or worse by what's left of Israel's arsenal.



You are ignoring the wider regional issues that come with any Arab - Israeli conflict. You are mistaken if you think a conflict would be limited to Israel and Iran. IMHO.


----------



## George Wallace

thunderchild said:
			
		

> ............. Either way I don't think there will be an attack on Iran unless the UN can prove that they are supporting the taliban in Afghanistan or get mixed up in Iraq after the U.S. pulls out.



Too me, this says that you really don't know what you are talking about.  What does the UN have to do with proving that the Iranians are supporting the Taliban?  The UN has nothing to do with proving this.  It is already a proven fact, with Iranian produced 'Arms' being found in Afghanistan by NATO forces.


----------



## old medic

Iranian Nobel Peace winner Shirin Ebadi threatened in her home

Young men with ties to a hardline political group shout slogans and vandalize the building where the human rights lawyer lives and works.
By Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi
January 2, 2009
LA TIMES - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-ebadi3-2009jan03,0,7406858.story



> Reporting from Tehran and Beirut -- Scores of young men gathered around the Tehran home-office of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, shouted slogans against her and vandalized her home Thursday in the latest episode by hardline political groups close to the government to intimidate the human rights lawyer.
> 
> Ebadi, 61, said in an interview today that the two police officers finally dispatched after her frantic phone calls to the authorities "just watched" as the vandals ripped the sign bearing her name off the front of her house, screamed that she was a supporter of Israel's Gaza offensive and spray-painted slogans on the front of her building.
> 
> In Iran, all demonstrations must have government permission.
> 
> "If any demonstration must be permitted by the interior ministry, where were the authorities? Why did police not disperse them?" a distraught Ebadi said in a telephone interview from an unspecified location in Tehran. "While the mobs were shouting slogans against me, the police were watching."
> 
> She added, "I am scared to go back to my home."
> 
> The apparently unarmed young men, chanting "death to the pen-pushing mercenary," did not identify themselves, though one told Iran's Iranian Students News Agency he was a member of the Basiji militia, a hardline militia that answers to the elite Revolutionary Guards, a parallel branch of the military, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the country's highest political and religious authority.
> 
> Ebadi won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her years of legal work advocating on behalf of Iranian political activists, religious and ethnic minorities, women and children.
> 
> Thursday's demonstration marks the third time in 11 days that authorities or forces close to the authorities have moved against Ebadi, whose small Center for the Defense of Human Rights compiled a report cited by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that led to a nonbinding Dec. 18 U.N. resolution calling on Iran improve its human rights record.
> 
> Three days later authorities shut down the center, accusing it of operating without a permit. On Dec. 29, authorities seized Ebadi's computer and confidential records, accusing her of tax evasion even though she has not accepted payment for her work in 15 years.
> 
> France, in its now-lapsed role as rotating president of the European Union, summoned Iran's envoy to Paris on Wednesday to protest against the "unacceptable nature of the threats" against Ebadi and her colleagues.
> 
> The demonstrators Thursday accused the human rights lawyer of not being sufficiently outspoken against the Israeli offensive into Gaza.
> 
> "Considering that Shirin Ebadi received her Nobel Peace Prize for the defense of children, we gathered in front of her office to ask whether the children of Gaza are not children," Ali-Reza Keighobadi, a Basiji activist, told the ISNA news agency.
> 
> In a Dec. 27 interview with the semiofficial Fars News Agency, Ebadi condemned the Israeli offensive into Gaza.
> 
> "In my view, the only way to resolve the disputes and ending this dire condition is to continue the peace negotiation based on mutually satisfactory terms and conditions and establishing an independent Palestinian state," she told the news outlet.
> 
> Human rights advocates say Iranian authorities are using the tumult over Gaza as an excuse to punish dissidents.
> 
> "The events in Gaza have brought about an opportunity to suppress and crack down on any human rights activities," said Khalil Bahramian, another Iranian human rights lawyer. "Gaza has provided them the chance to wash away human rights issues."


----------



## thunderchild

I don't think that an attack by the U.S. unilaterally is likely without real unmistakable proof, not if they want any kind of support from anybody.  This is due to the botch up in Iraq. I could see the U.S. attack Iran in retaliation but not without as you said causing the whole middle east  to burst into a war that nobody can win.  The U.S. would destroy Their military equipment without breaking a sweat, but they'd go broke doing it. Then what? Would there be peace, or would we have a post 1st gulf war scenario were we would control the air and occasionally drop a few cruise missiles on them when they step out of line.


----------



## 1feral1

thunderchild said:
			
		

> This is due to the botch up in Iraq.



TC, I don't think the US 'botched' anything with the info of the time in the planning for the 2003 invasion. Sooner or later something had to be done militarily. If we sat back and did noting, then something significant happend (and it would have), then the Bush administration would be criticised for no action.

From a rogue terrorist state ran by a ruthless regime which thrived on torture and fear to run it, to a now fledgling democratic country with a birth of new rights and freedoms once only dreamed of by its citizens, and all not that long ago.

In the past almost six years, there has been many difficulties and barriers, but overall the nation has come a long way, and is one step closer to being on their own, with the HO/TO of the IZ to Iraqi Forces in Baghdad the past 24 hrs. 

All Allied soldiers KIA'd have not died in vain, or for an unjust cause.

I'll be direct by saying it really turns me off (in a big way) when someone tends to cheapen the overall cause by making such a poor choice of words like you have (IMHO), but thats your opinion, isn't it, and the sacrifice of others, has earned you that right. 

Sorry, but thats how I see it, and I have earned my opinion by being there.

Regards,

OWDU

Iraq Vet

EDITed for clarity


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

OWDU,

Easy on the personal attacks.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## 1feral1

Just pointing out my opinion, no attacks, and a well worded few paragraphs.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

OWDU, you walk the line quite a bit and know exactly what you are doing.  Don't keep going there.


----------



## 1feral1

PM inbound


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I don't think that an attack by the U.S. unilaterally is likely without real unmistakable proof,



I do not share your opinion in any way. I know better than to disount it as a possibility. If the Americans can be counted on for one thing, its is to act when they want to regardless of anyone else.


  





> This is due to the botch up in Iraq.



Alot of things were done wrong in Iraq IMHO but going in and invading wasnt one of them.



> The U.S. would destroy Their military equipment without breaking a sweat, but they'd go broke doing it.



Go broke ? I hardly think so.




> Then what? Would there be peace, or would we have a post 1st gulf war scenario were we would control the air and occasionally drop a few cruise missiles on them when they step out of line.



I dont have a big issue with that. Op DESERT FOX was simply enforcing UNSC resolutions IIRC. 

Now, want to talk more about missiles and IADS ?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I could see the U.S. attack Iran in retaliation but not without as you said causing the whole middle east  to burst into a war that nobody can win.



You misread what i posted to suit the way you think of things. Please read it again. What i said applied to any Israeli retaliation to an Iranian missile attack. Pick up a few books on the ME.


----------



## thunderchild

Firstly  I want it made clear Right now that I don't think any soldier dies in vain nor would I belittle the sacrifice they and their families make.  The allied troops in Iraq did an amazing job and don't get enough credit for it they were dumped into the middle of 3 cultures that have been killing each other for centuries, they helped turn that mess into start of a country.  The decision to attack Iraq lies with politicians using questionable reasons to push an invasion when other means may have been a better option.  What other options might they have had I don't know.  Iran and Syria supply the training, supplies and money to Hamas, Hezbollah and many others as well as threatening to start the very war I mentioned in my post by Burning Israel off the map.  If you want to deal with the terrorists eliminate their source of supplies, training and money, yes it would be hard and costly but without them how would they operate?  Religious points aside if you can't buy bullets you can't fight . I know over simplified and there is far more to it than simply destroying their supply chain, but if that were to happen they may be willing to talk rather than fight, they would have few other options.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

thunderchild said:
			
		

> The decision to attack Iraq lies with politicians using questionable reasons to push an invasion when other means may have been a better option.  What other options might they have had I don't know.



Wow.  That is about as insightful as “What if they had a war and nobody showed up?“  :

There is only so much heavy lifting that Israel should be expected to do.  They fight the enemy at their door step but what would be the reaction if they projected out to Syria or Jordan?  Or Saudi Arabia? Or ultimately Iran?  Hell, the planet seems too thrilled to dog pile on them as it is for going after the mindless dolts who huck rockets into residential neighborhoods for no justifiable reason ("Justifiable" doubtless being a topic for another thread).  Doing a rear echelon manoeuvre that you are speaking of would require more support than they currently enjoy.


----------



## thunderchild

If Syria or Iran were to attack Israel I'm sure that Israel would not be fighting alone, and I doubt that more moderate states like Jordan, and Egypt would have something to say but they wouldn't get involved.  Now about dealing with hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad and the multiple number of other terrorist groups that attack Israel then yes Israel should defend it's self and should have our support in doing it.  The reasons for this are simple Syria and Iran support these organizations and use them to fight a shadow war against Israel because they wouldn't survive a open war against the Israeli military and most likely Israel wouldn't either.


----------



## a_majoor

Oh what a tangled web they weave:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/alavi-foundation-clinton-oped-cx_re_0105ehrenfeld_print.html



> *Clinton's Iranian Connection*
> Rachel Ehrenfeld 01.05.09, 12:00 AM ET
> 
> On Dec. 19, 2008. at 2 p.m., the New York-based Alavi Foundation, which supports Iranian causes, contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation. This can be best described as the ultimate chutzpah, for on the very same day, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York indicted the president of the Alavi Foundation, Farshid Jahedi, "on a charge of obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying documents required to be produced under a grand jury subpoena concerning the Alavi Foundation's relationship with Bank Melli Iran and the ownership of a Manhattan office building."
> 
> Alavi's contribution to Clinton came just two days after the Treasury Department also designated Alavi's partner, the New York-based ASSA Corp., as a terrorist entity, and the New York Southern District's attorney seized and forfeited its assets. According to the Treasury Department, "Assa ... continued to provide services to Bank Melli by maintaining Melli's interest in 650 Fifth Avenue Co. and transferring income from 650 Fifth Avenue Co. to Bank Melli." ASSA owned 650 Fifth Avenue Co. together with the Alavi Foundation. Incredibly, the government seized only 40% of the 36-story building controlled by ASSA, leaving the Alavi Foundation in charge of the remaining 60%.
> 
> The Alavi Foundation was established in 1973 by the Shah of Iran as the Pahlavi Foundation, "to pursue Iran's charitable interests in the United States." It was renamed the Mostazafan Foundation in 1981 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and renamed again in 1992 as the Alavi Foundation.
> 
> As early as 1979, the foundation and its partner Bank Melli were recognized as procurement fronts for Iran's nuclear weapons program. Twenty years later, the U.S. government recognized Bank Melli as a vehicle controlled by the Iranian Government. The bank was finally designated a terrorist entity on Oct. 25,2007. What took so long? The Alavi Foundation's Web site states that its mission is promoting and supporting Shiite educational, religious and cultural programs: in essence, delivering the mullahs' message to America. The foundation also owns and funds several mosques and educational centers in New York, Maryland, Texas and California.
> 
> In 2007, Alavi's IRS filing reported $87,899,567 in assets and $3,315, 237 that went to charity. Of this, $365,056 went to schools and universities, $328,667 was spent on book publications and distribution, and $262,325 was given to schools in the form of interest-free loans.
> 
> The Alavi Foundation continues to operate despite five different lawsuits against it in the U.S., filed by survivors of Iranian and Hezbollah terror attacks. The fact that the Iranian government appoints the board of this Iranian foundation apparently does not satisfy the courts. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Alavi takes direct orders from Tehran. Yet Alavi's function as an arm of the radical leadership of Iran is evident. In 1993, the foundation's director after Khomeini took over in 1979, Manoucher Shafie, together with his successor Mohammad Hossein Mahallati, director from 1983 to 1992, were suspected by U.S. authorities of "exporting germ-warfare toxins to Iran." Neither was convicted.
> 
> The Mahallatis are well known in revolutionary Iran. Ayatollah Fazlollah Mahallati, father of foundation director Mohammad Hossein, was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mentor and the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. He oversaw the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, killing 241 American Marines.
> 
> Mohammad Hossein Mahallati's brother, Mohammad Ja'far Mahallati, served as Iran's Ambassador to the U.N. from 1987 to 1989, during which time the foundation, run by his brother, gave at least $1.4 million to Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman's Brooklyn mosque. The blind sheikh is serving a life sentence at the Federal Correctional Complex, in Butner, N.C., for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Meanwhile, former Ambassador Mahallati has become a popular lecturer at America's elite universities and is now a visiting professor of religion at Oberlin College. His research focuses on the "ethics of friendship in Muslim cultures."
> 
> Moreover, to better spread the mullahs' dogma, in 1999, Mohammad Ja'far Mahallati co-founded his own charity, the Boston-based Ilex Foundation, of which he is a trustee. Ilex is described as "a cultural bridge-building institution." Ilex's Trustees' list reads like the who's who among Middle East academics in the U.S., with names like Richard W. Bulliet of Columbia University and Olga M. Davidson of Wellesley College.
> 
> *Although the Alavi contribution to Clinton is legal, it is malodorous. However, as long as the U.S. government continues to treat different Iranian entities as though they are separate from the state it recognizes as a sponsor of terrorism, the mullahs will be free to advance their agenda in the U.S.*
> 
> Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.


----------



## a_majoor

If this is true the Iranian regime may be in much more trouble (and be far more unstable and dangerous) than previously recognized:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/01/04/is-iran-in-trouble/



> *Is Iran in Trouble?*
> 
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On January 4, 2009 @ 5:33 pm In Uncategorized | 43 Comments
> 
> After years of refusing to see Iran’s aggressive intentions, most sensible observers of things Middle Eastern now recognize that the most important terrorist organizations, from Islamic Jihad to Hezbollah and Hamas, are essentially Iranian proxies. Figaro this weekend carries [1] a story bluntly headlined “Iran Behind Hamas’ Grad Missiles,” and flatly states that Hamas military commanders have been trained in Iran and Syria to use the deadliest missiles in their inventory.  The battle of Gaza is therefore the second between Israel and Iran in two and half years, the first being the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah (which, lest we forget, was kicked off when Hamas kidnaped three Israeli soldiers).
> 
> It follows that Iran could well lose this battle, and defeat is very dangerous to a regime like Tehran’s, which claims divine sanction for its actions and proclaims the imminent arrival of its messiah and of the triumph of global jihad.  If Allah is responsible for victory, what can be said about humiliating defeat?  The mullahs are well aware of the stakes, as we can see in their recent behavior.
> 
> For some time now, the regime in Tehran has shown signs of urgency, sometimes verging on panic.  Of late, the mullahs have organized raucus demonstrations in front of numerous embassies, including those of Egypt (with chants of “Death to Mubarak”), Jordan, Turkey, Great Britain, Germany and today (imagine!) France. These demonstrations were not mere gestures;  the regime’s seriousness was underlined on Sunday, the 4th, when it offered a million-dollar reward to anyone who killed Mubarak (the Iranians called it a “revolutionary execution”).  Significantly, the announcement came at a rally of the Basij, the most radical security force in the country, at which the Revolutionary Guards official Forooz Rejaii spoke.  The Egyptians take it seriously;  they have been on alert of late, looking for the possibility of a Mumbai-type operation in Cairo or elsewhere.
> 
> At the same time, the regime intensified its murderous assault against its own people, most notably hanging nine people on Christmas Eve, and assaulting the headquarters of Nobel Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi.
> 
> This intense tempo of activity bespeaks alarm in Tehran, which is fully justified by a number of setbacks.  *First of all, the dramatic drop in oil prices is devastating to the mullahs, who had planned to be able to fund terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, Europe and the Americas.  Suddenly their bottom line is tinged with red, and this carries over onto their domestic balance sheets, which were already demonstrably shaky (they were forced to cancel proposed new taxes when the merchant class staged nation-wide protests)*.  No wonder they seize on any international event to call for petroleum export reductions.  Just today they called for a [2] drastic reduction of oil shipments to all countries that supported the Israeli military incursion into Gaza.
> 
> No doubt, the Iranians believe the fall in oil prices is the result of satanic will, rather than the shock to demand produced by the runup to $140/barrel.  Not for them the subtleties of the free market;  given the way they view the world, they must be convinced that the same strategy that beggared the Soviet Union–Saudi cooperation with America to hold down prices–is now deployed against them.  This belief was no doubt reinforced when the recent official cut in petroleum production did not lead to markedly higher prices.
> 
> *Second, their terror strategy has not been working as well as they wished and expected.*  Most American and European analysts have not appreciated the effect of the defeat of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, but you can be sure that the high and mighty in Arab capitals have taken full notice.  The Iranians not only lost a considerable number of skilled and experienced terror leaders–Imad Mughnieh, the long-time operational chieftain of Hezbollah is the most important, and Abu Musab al Zarqawi was close behind, having created al Qaeda in Iraq alongside a network throughout Europe–but also several of their own Revolutionary Guards officers.  Some of these were captured, others have defected, and most all have provided details of the Iranian network. This sort of thing is bad for operations, bad for recruiting, and weakens the Iranians’ efforts to bully their neighbors into appeasement or more active cooperation.
> 
> *Third, despite all their efforts to crush any sign of internal rebellion, many Iranians continue to publicly oppose the mullahs*.  A few weeks ago, students at universities all over the country demonstrated in significant numbers, and as one Iranian now living in Europe put it to me, “they were surprised that the regime was unable to stop the protests, even though everyone knew they were planned.”   This is the background for the new wave of repression, accompanied by an intensification of jamming on the Internet, and an ongoing reshuffle of the instruments of repression;  Khamanei and Ahmadinejad have no confidence in the efficacy or blind loyalty of the army or of large segments of the Revolutionary Guards.  Most public actions are carried out by the Basij, who are judged more reliable, and repression is less in the hands of the traditional ministries than in new groups freshly minted in the Supreme Leader’s office.
> 
> In short, we are dealing with a regime that is very concerned about its future, and is not very comfortable with its friends, allies, and proxies.  The mullahs know that most Iranians would like to see their leaders treated the same way as the nine executed on Christmas Eve, and, like all tyrants, the Iranian despots are trying to demonstrate that they dominate both Iran and the region.  No surprise, then, that Sa’id Jalili, the very important secretary of the “Supreme National Security Council,” hit the airwaves of Al Manar TV to call on “the Arab and Islamic countries and other countries that have an independent will” to fight for a Hamas victory in Gaza and deliver a forceful blow to “the Zionist entity.”
> 
> But, significantly, when he was asked to get down to brass tacks, Jalili wimped out.  The Al Manar interviewer asked him what Iran could do in the Gaza fighting.  Jalili’s words:
> 
> We believe that the great popular solidarity with the Palestinian people as expressed all over the world should reflect on the will of the Arab and Islamic countries and other countries that have an independent will so that these will move in a concerted, cooperative, and cohesive manner to draft a collective initiative that can achieve two main things as an inevitable first step. These are putting an immediate end to aggression and second breaking the siege and quickly securing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.
> 
> In other words, the head of the Supreme Council wants to hold some meetings.  This is supposed to be the glorious jihad?
> 
> The Iranians aren’t promising much of anything to the embattled Hamas forces, unless you consider that their [3] “threat” to send boatloads of humanitarian supplies is a serious menace.  Indeed, no less a personage than the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad-Ali Ja’fari, [4] blithely said that “Hamas has enough weapons…the people in Gaza does not need the help of other armies, and it is capable of dealing with the steps taken by the Zionist regime..”  In simple English, General Ja’fari told Hamas, “you get ‘em big boy, we’re right behind you.”
> 
> To be sure, there are the occasional calls to Iranians to sacrifice themselves for the cause, but even these lack all conviction.  One Mahdi Kalhar, an adviser to President Ahmadinejad, [5] told a group of students that “Iran must take action… we must send (Hamas) aid [in the form of] boatloads of [fighters] on a one-way ticket… An Israeli attack on the boats is nothing to be afraid of – for how else are we to become martyrs?”
> 
> I don’t think many Iranian students will gobble up those one-way tickets, frankly.  Nor do I think that the Iranians have any intention of sending “fighters” to Gaza.  That’s not their way.  They send others, preferably Arabs, to martyr themselves.  Not Iranians.  I can’t think of a single Iranian suicide bomber in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia in the last seven years.  Despite Ahmadinejad’s frequent hymns to martyrdom, that fate is reserved for others, certainly not for himself and his countrymen.
> 
> Many worried that if Israel invaded Gaza, there would be a wave of terrorism against Iran’s enemies, and almost surely an assault in the north, courtesy of Hezbollah.  So far, this has not happened, and the Hezbollah-dog-that-did-not-bark goes hand in mailed glove with the Iranians’ sudden preference for conferences rather than suicidal assaults.  And as for Iran’s Syrian allies, there, too, the silence is deafening.  Those guys may have declared themselves the “winners” of the 2006 battle with Israel, but they don’t seem to be itching for a rematch.  They rather look like scaredy cats, rather like the Hamas leaders who seem to be hiding in hospitals in Gaza City rather than fighting for martyrdom.
> 
> I have long argued that the Iranian regime is fundamentally hollow, that much of its apparent strength is bluster and deception rather than real power and resolve.  At a minimum, it is a regime that must constantly fear for its own survival, not because of any willful resolve from its external enemies but because of the simmering hatred from its own people.  This is a moment when those people are, as so often in the recent past, looking for at least a few supportive actions.  If the West is now convinced that Iran is the proximate cause and chief sponsor of Hamas’ assault against Israel, it should demonstrate once and for all that we are prepared to fight back.
> 
> There’s an attractive parlay:  attack the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran, and destroy the assembly lines that produce the deadly EFPs that have killed and maimed so many Americans, Iraqis and Afghans.  It’s legitimate self-defense, it shows that we recognize the Iranian threat for what it is, and it will deliver an important message to the Iranian people.
> 
> UPDATE:  To Iran’s other troubles, add their rage at the security agreement (SOFA, or Status of Forces Agreement) signed with the United States.  You can hear Khamenei spitting in[6] this account of his recent meeting with Maliki.
> 
> UPDATE 2:  Welcome Instapunditeers!  Happy to see you on this sunny Monday.
> 
> UPDATE 3:  Welcome Powerliners!  Glad you got out of the frozen tundra, heh.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/01/04/is-iran-in-trouble/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> [1] a story: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/01/03/01003-20090103ARTFIG00152-l-iran-derriere-les-missil
> es-grad-du-hamas-.php
> 
> [2] drastic reduction of oil shipments: http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnDAH452978.html
> [3] “threat” to send boatloads of humanitarian supplies: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=384561&rel_no=1
> [4] blithely said : http://www.thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/12668.htm
> [5] told a group of students: http://www.thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/12665.htm
> [6] this account : http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=812166


----------



## thunderchild

How likely would it be to help the Iranians to overthrough their own government?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Tough call, despite how much they despise their leaders, the Iranians are a very emotional patriotic bunch and attacks might cause them to rally around the flag. However some stealth pinpoint attacks on secret installations away from civilian centres may have an effect on the administration without giving enough juice to start a public response. You would think by now the US would have "sterile" bombs and missiles to use in such cases, or even better yet bomb revolutionary guards with ordinance marked the same as used by the regular Iranian Air Force. Nothing like casting a bit of doubt between your enemies.  >


----------



## ctipz

Bush Protested Planned Israeli Strike on Iran
President Bush reportedly revealed to the Israelis that he already had authorized a covert U.S. effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities. 



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/01/10/nyt-bush-protested-israeli-planned-strike-iran/

Two well placed sources confirmed to FOX News that Israel last year made "various requests" for U.S. assistance with a planned Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Israel's plan, however, was scuttled when the United States rebuffed Israel in its request to fly through Iraqi airspace, according to a New York Times report on a covert U.S. program.

The Times story, published Saturday, cites unnamed American and foreign officials in reporting that President Bush also turned away an Israeli request for bunker-busting bombs for use in its planned attack on the Iranian nuclear complex. The president then revealed to the Israelis that he already had authorized a covert U.S. effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities, the Times reports.

The Bush administration was "particularly alarmed," the Times says, by the Israeli request for access to Iraqi airspace. 

Sources told FOX News that the Israeli requests were made directly to the White House because the Israelis were "disturbed and fearful" of leaks from the U.S. intelligence community and "did not trust" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 

One source told FOX News the Israelis approached the Bush White House at least once last summer, possibly twice, and were "slammed down" because senior administration officials felt such assistance would "unravel our position in Iraq." President Bush was convinced by aides, sources said, that any such American aid to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program would cause the Iranians "to foment great upheaval in Iraq."

One source told FOX News the Israeli emissary sent to request Washington's help was Meir Dagan, head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad.  Dagan was sent reportedly because the Israelis considered him "the only trusted channel."

Back in the summer of 2007, shortly before the Israelis' now legendary September 6, 2007 air strike on a nascent Syrian nuclear facility -- built with the help of North Korea -- it was Dagan whom the Israelis authorized to alert Washington to the impending attack. (It is this timeline that accounts for the New York Times' reference to its work on this story dating back "fifteen months.") 

Sources tell FOX News the upper echelons of the Central Intelligence Agency are "royally peeved" that the Israeli requests for assistance last summer went directly to the White House and not through Langley.  From the Israelis' point of view, that was because they believed that CIA had tried to force the Israelis to abort the 2007 Syrian strike hours before it was launched. 

According to one source: The "CIA leaked the impending raid [on Syria in 2007] the day before in order to, as the Israelis suspected, scuttle it. Israel almost called it off, but when their sources detected no heightened Syrian readiness or defensive measures, they were sure Syrian intelligence had not picked the leak up, and thus Israel decided to go ahead and do the raid.  From that experience, Israel believed that the Iran raid would need to be through even more restrictive channels -- direct to the president by Olmert's most trusted channel, Dagan. They did not trust Condi."

The refusal of the Bush administration to provide the assistance the Israelis requested occasioned sharp dispute among senior policymakers, who split along the now-familiar lines that saw Vice President Cheney and his aides favoring harsher measures against the Iranians and Secretary Rice and others opposing them. 

"It's yet another example," said one source, "of the Bush administration morphing into the Obama administration before Obama was elected."

The Times report suggests that Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Obama a more advanced operation of counteracting Iran's nuclear capabilities than has yet been made public.


----------



## a_majoor

What if they conclude they can no longer wait?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090109.wcoessay0110/BNStory/specialComment/home?pageRequested=all&print=true



> *More grave than Gaza*
> If the West does not impose real sanctions, the Israeli consensus is for pre-emptive action against Iran.
> 
> YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> 
> January 10, 2009 at 12:25 AM EST
> 
> JERUSALEM — Even as the international community remains focused on the heartbreaking images emerging from Israel's confrontation with the jihadist Hamas in Gaza, the countdown has begun for a far more devastating tragedy that could lead the Middle East toward apocalypse.
> 
> According to Israeli intelligence estimates, the time remaining before Iran is capable of producing a nuclear bomb may now be measured in months, not years. A nuclear Iran would end hopes for the eventual emergence of a sane Middle East. And if economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts fail to dissuade the mullahs from abandoning their nuclear program, Israel is likely to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. And some Arab leaders may well be hoping that Israel will do precisely that.
> 
> Shared dread of a nuclear Iran has helped create the first tacit alliance between Israel and Sunni Arab states. So desperate are some Arab leaders to forestall an Iranian bomb that they have in effect sided with Israel against Iran's proxies in the Arab world. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak has condemned Hamas for instigating the current conflict. Two years ago, during the Second Lebanon War, Jordan and Saudi Arabia joined Egypt in condemning Iran's Lebanon proxy, Hezbollah, for provoking Israel. And in 2007, when the Israeli air force destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility, reportedly intended as a future bomb factory for Iran, the silence in the Arab world was overwhelming. What was inconceivable just a few years ago — that some Arab states would side with Israel against fellow Muslims — has now become a pattern in regional politics.
> 
> Arab countries fear Iranian hegemony, fulfilment of the ancient Persian ambition of dominating the Middle East. Israel's fear is even more primal: that a lunatic regime in Tehran, driven by messianic theology and hatred of Zionism, might be tempted to launch a nuclear attack on the Jewish state. Iranian leaders have called for Israel's destruction so often that those incitements to genocide scarcely make news any more.
> 
> THE MULLAHS' LOGIC
> 
> The argument over whether or not Tehran's leaders are rational was resolved for the Israeli public in December, 2006, when Iran hosted a world conference of Holocaust deniers. Only a lunatic regime, Israelis concluded, would summon a gathering of crackpots to prove that the most documented atrocity in history never happened. Still, however demented, there was a strategic logic behind Iran's promotion of Holocaust denial: The mullahs are convinced that the West supports a Jewish state only because of guilt for the Holocaust. If the Holocaust can be unmasked as a Zionist lie, then support for Israel will disappear. The mullahs, then, weren't really interested in disproving the past destruction of the Jews, but in preparing the way for their future destruction.
> 
> What keeps Israeli strategists awake at night is fear that a new strain of apocalyptic Shia theology — positing that the Hidden Imam will return when the faithful use sufficient military force to wipe out evil — has emerged within the Iranian leadership. To be sure, not all of Iran's leaders subscribe to the new theology, which reverses the traditional Shia quietism that has relied on prayer rather than force to summon the redeemer. But the circle around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has passionately embraced that politicized messianism. And while Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the ultimate authority in Tehran, he may well be positioned to gain access, say, to a nuclear suitcase.
> 
> Some Israeli strategists believe Iran can be deterred from launching a nuclear attack against the Jewish state by Israel's own nuclear capacity. But even those optimists worry about a nuclear suitcase passed on to a terrorist proxy. Imagine a scenario like this: After months of rocket attacks launched by Hamas against Israeli towns and villages, Israel threatens to invade Gaza again. But then a previously unknown terrorist group announces that it has planted a suitcase with a nuclear device in a European capital and will detonate the bomb if Israel retaliates. Would Israel be able to protect itself against such terrorism? Would any Western state, for that matter, dare to militarily confront a jihadist threat if it risked nuclear terrorism in return?
> 
> Even if the worst-case scenarios turn out to be exaggerated, the very fact that a regime committed to Israel's destruction would now possess the means to fulfill its threats would have a chilling effect on the self-confidence of Israelis in their country's ability to protect itself. Confronting a permanent genocidal threat would effectively end the promise of Zionism to provide the Jews a safe refuge. In a poll taken last year, 7 per cent of Israelis said they would emigrate if Iran developed a bomb; another 20 per cent said they would consider leaving. The effects of a nuclear Iran on the Israeli economy would be devastating. Why would foreign investors, who are currently attracted to Israeli high-tech companies, risk investing in a country living under a death sentence?
> 
> MIDEAST ARMS RACE
> 
> No less worrying, the prospect of a nuclear Iran has triggered a process that could lead to a nuclear arms race in the world's least stable region. Several Arab countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have declared their interest in acquiring nuclear power, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, but in fact timed as a response to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Mr. Mubarak has stated explicitly that Egypt may feel a need to protect itself against Iran's nuclear threat. Although Israel's nuclear arsenal has been the region's worst-kept secret for four decades, most Arab countries didn't feel impelled to enter a nuclear arms race. Even Israel's enemies understood that it is a rational state and wouldn't launch an unprovoked nuclear strike. Few in the Middle East hold such an assurance about Iran, however.
> 
> A nuclear Iran can still be stopped by peaceful means. The decline in world oil prices has badly undermined the already fragile Iranian economy; intensifying sanctions could encourage opposition to a widely detested regime. But given the continuing opposition of Russia and China to further sanctions, and the extensive trade that Western countries such as Germany and Austria engage in with Iran, an effective sanctions effort is unlikely to emerge in time. If the sanctions efforts fail, the thankless task of militarily preventing a nuclear Iran will fall, by default, to Israel.
> 
> Israeli leaders are acutely aware of the potentially devastating consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran — devastating most of all to Israel itself. Iran has threatened to launch retaliatory missile attacks against Tel Aviv, and Hezbollah and Hamas would almost certainly join the assault. For the first time in Israel's history, the entire country is exposed to missile attack. During the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles against Tel Aviv, Israelis sought refuge in Galilee in the north. When Galilee was attacked by Hezbollah in 2006, residents there fled southward to Tel Aviv. If Israel is attacked by both Iran and its proxies, there will be nowhere to run.
> 
> Nevertheless, a rare consensus exists among Israeli leaders — from left-wing Labour to centrist Kadima to right-wing Likud — that the Jewish state must thwart a nuclear Iran, even at the risk of all-out war against the Israeli home front. As one Labour politician who is dovish on the Palestinian issue but hawkish on Iran told me, "No one knows if Iran would use the bomb or not. But I can't take the chance."
> 
> TEST FOR OBAMA
> 
> Barack Obama, the U.S. president-elect, is committed to preventing a nuclear Iran, but there is potential disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem over tactics and timetables. Although they won't say so openly, Israeli leaders are deeply skeptical of Mr. Obama's intention to diplomatically engage Iran. Israelis fear that diplomacy would only buy the Iranians time as they approach the nuclear threshold. Mr. Obama says he will back up his diplomatic overture with the threat of intensified sanctions if the Iranians persist in their nuclear efforts.
> 
> Mr. Obama's first test on the Iranian crisis will be how he responds to the Gaza crisis. Israel's operation against Iran's ally Hamas will provide the new president with an unexpected opportunity. If he backs Israel and makes sure that Hamas achieves no diplomatic gains in exchange for a ceasefire, he will deliver a strategic defeat to Iran and enter negotiations from a position of strength. If, on the other hand, he pressures Israel into easing the siege against Hamas and allows the jihadist organization to proclaim victory, the Iranians will rightly conclude that the inexperienced president poses no real obstacle to their nuclear goals.
> 
> Perhaps Mr. Obama's most compelling argument with the Iranians is that, if negotiations fail, Israel will act. And if the Israeli air force is compelled to save the Middle East from a nuclear Iran? Those likely to most vociferously condemn the Jewish state will be the very Arab leaders most grateful to it for eliminating their greatest fear.
> 
> Yossi Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a contributing editor to The New Republic.


----------



## thunderchild

The problem is not in destroying just the equipment Iran may need for a bomb but the people who would build it.  No conventional attack would do this, even if the majority of Scientist are killed the question would remain could there be enough left to re start a weapons program after the attack?
I'm beginning to think  that the only way out for this is either a civil war in Iran or the possibility of a first strike nuclear attack by Israel.(How much would it take for either to happen, is Israel really that scared?)


----------



## 1feral1

Hey TC, I think you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## thunderchild

Tom Clancy is a good writer.  The question remains How scared of Iran is Israel?  If Israel thinks that it's going to be attacked will/can it strike Iran first and prevent Iran from getting Nuclear warheads for their missiles?


----------



## George Wallace

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Tom Clancy is a good writer.  The question remains How scared of Iran is Israel?  If Israel thinks that it's going to be attacked will/can it strike Iran first and prevent Iran from getting Nuclear warheads for their missiles?



Deja vu.   I am positive I have seen the results of such a question in the past, and know of positive results by a certain Airforce.


----------



## Greymatters

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Deja vu.   I am positive I have seen the results of such a question in the past, and know of positive results by a certain Airforce.



The general population has selective memory, the news media have selective archives, and its not information that will be portrayed accurately on Wikipedia...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

ctipz said:
			
		

> Bush Protested Planned Israeli Strike on Iran
> President Bush reportedly revealed to the Israelis that he already had authorized a covert U.S. effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities.



That strikes me as grey psyops.  I'm not buying it.


----------



## thunderchild

I'm curious about everybody's opinion on weather Pres -Elect would attack Iran, if yes under what conditions would he order it?  Personally I'm not sure that he would even if Iran tested a nuc thus removing all doubt.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I'm curious about everybody's opinion on weather Pres -Elect would attack Iran, if yes under what conditions would he order it?  Personally I'm not sure that he would even if Iran tested a nuc thus removing all doubt.



Doubtless it would be a clear, sunny day.  Barometer steady with only a bit of high altitude clouds and only around a 10% chance of rain.  A high of 25c with a humidex of only 27c. Winds steady from the SE at 8km/h.  But I am certain he would want to have a good 7 day forecast.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

:rofl:  aww crap, I just spewed stir fry on my keyboard.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a somewhat different take on the Gaza conflict:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wcomideast15/BNStory/specialComment/home

Caution: this has a “point of view” and the author is not an ‘unbiased source.’

 Welcome to the new Middle East
*The conflict is no longer about Arabs and Israelis. It's about Arab nationalists and Islamists*

BARRY RUBIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 15, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

JERUSALEM — In Iran, elements from within the regime are reportedly offering a $1-million reward for the assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak because of his opposition to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In Lebanon, the leader of Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and Syria, merely calls for the Egyptian government's overthrow.

In response to this, Tariq Alhomayed, a Saudi who is editor-in-chief of the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, describes Hamas as Iran's tool, and argues that "Iran is a real threat to Arab security." Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, agrees, and he is not alone. When Arab states met to discuss the Gaza crisis, Saudi Arabia vetoed any action. Even the Palestinian Authority blames Hamas for the fighting. Activists in Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority and is Hamas's nationalist rival, make no secret of their hope that Hamas loses the war.

Welcome to the new Middle East, characterized no longer by the Arab-Israeli conflict but by an Arab nationalist-Islamist conflict. Recognizing this reality, virtually all Arab states - other than Iran's ally, Syria - and the Palestinian Authority want to see Hamas defeated in Gaza. Given their strong self-interest in thwarting Islamist revolutionary groups, especially those aligned with Iran, they are not inclined to listen to the "Arab street" - which is far quieter than it was during previous conflicts, such as the 1991 war in Kuwait, the 2000-2004 Palestinian uprising or the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Today's Middle East is very different from the old one. First, the internal politics of every Arab country revolves around a battle between Arab nationalist rulers and an Islamist opposition. In other words, Hamas's allies are the regimes' enemies. An Islamist state in Gaza would encourage those who seek to create similar entities in Egypt, Jordan and every other Arab country.

A tremendous price has already been paid for this conflict. The violence has included civil wars among Palestinians and Algerians, the bloodshed in Iraq and terrorist campaigns in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In the Palestinian case, after winning an election and making a deal with Fatah for a coalition government, Hamas turned on its rival and drove it out of Gaza by force. In return, the Palestinian Authority has been repressing Hamas in the West Bank. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been trying to bully its more moderate Sunni Muslim, Christian and Druze rivals into submission.

Second, because Arab states confront an Iranian-Syrian alliance that includes Hamas and Hezbollah, in addition to internal conflicts, there is a regional battle between these two blocs. An aspect of this is that the largely Sunni Muslim-led states face a largely Shia Muslim-led competitor for regional hegemony.

These two problems pose far greater dangers to the existing states than does any (largely fabricated) Israeli threat, and the region's rulers know it.

On the other side of the divide, Iran and its allies have put forward the banners ofjihad and "resistance." Their platform includes Islamist revolution in every country; Iran as the region's dominant state, backed up by nuclear weapons; no peace with Israel and no Palestinian state until there can be an Islamist one encompassing all of Israel (as well as the West Bank and Gaza); and the expulsion of Western influence from the region.

This is a very ambitious program, probably impossible to achieve. Nevertheless, it is a prescription for endless terrorism and war: Both pro- and anti-Iranian revolutionary Islamists believe they will win because God is on their side and their enemies are cowardly, and they are quite prepared to spend the next half-century trying to prove it.

While this seems to be a very pessimistic assessment of the regional situation, the radical Islamist side has many weaknesses. Launching losing wars may make Islamists feel good, but being defeated is a costly proposition, for their arrogance and belligerence antagonize many who might otherwise be won over to their cause.

The situation also provides a good opportunity for Western policy-makers. The emphasis should be on building coalitions among the relatively moderate states that are threatened by radical Islamist forces, and on working hard to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - a goal that is in the interests of many in the region.

The worst mistake would be to follow the opposite policy - an inevitably futile effort to appease the extremists or seek to moderate them. Such a campaign actually disheartens the relative moderates who, feeling sold out, will try to cut their own deal with Tehran.

The crisis in Gaza is only one aspect of the much wider battle shaking the region. Helping Hamas would empower radical Islamism and Iranian ambitions, while undercutting the Palestinian Authority and everyone else, not just Israel. Arab states don't want to help their worst enemy. Why should anyone else?

_Barry Rubin is director of the Israeli-based Global Research in International Affairs Center._
-------------------------

It may be that Israel is not doing as badly in the global PR war as I have suggested.

The Arabs and Persians are, as I have also long hoped, turning on one another. It’s not quite what I had in mind but it will do. It remains to be seen if these tiny flames of internecine disputes can be carefully fanned into a full scale blaze that consumes Islamist _passions_ for a while but that would, surely, be a ‘good thing.’


----------



## Flip

E.R.

I suspect the new axis upon which the middle east turns became open for discussion once the "surge" had succeeded.  That is, Arab states and Israel being on the same side of anything together, was un-speakable until Iraq was approximately decided.

Or so it seems .... :


----------



## OldSolduer

The President of Iran has stated that the state of Israel is "unfeasible" in the region. 

So much for diplomacy.


----------



## CougarKing

Another reason for Israel to worry? 



> *Iran: Satellite launch is 'source of pride'
> Story Highlights
> Iran's president hails launch of first satellite into orbit as "source of pride"
> 
> United States confirms Iran launched low-earth orbit satellite Monday night
> 
> Launch coincides with 30th anniversary of victory of Islamic revolution
> 
> In August, Iran said it tested rocket capable of launching satellite into orbit*
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran Tuesday successfully launched its first satellite into orbit, a step hailed by Iran's president as a "source of pride" for the Islamic republic, according to state-run news outlets.
> 
> U.S. Department of Defense officials confirmed the launch, and the State Department expressed "grave concern."
> 
> "Developing a space launch vehicle that could ... put a satellite into orbit could possibly lead to development of a ballistic missile system," State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood told reporters. "So that's of grave concern to us."
> 
> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to discuss Iran in meetings Tuesday with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
> 
> On Wednesday officials from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China will meet in Germany to discuss next steps on Iran. Wood said that Undersecretary William Burns, who is representing the United States, will seek input and discuss some ideas the Obama administration has about how to move forward. Watch Iran launch its first satellite »
> 
> Two U.S. officials confirmed that Iran had launched a low-earth orbit satellite, CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr said.
> 
> There were no indications of any weapons activity on the two-stage rocket, although the rocket is capable of launching long-range weapons, the officials said.
> 
> "I wouldn't think of this in terms of highly advanced technology," one U.S. official said. But it does suggest Iran's two-stage rockets are increasingly reliable.
> 
> The Pentagon said Tuesday the launch is "clearly a concern of ours."
> 
> "Although this appears to be satellite, there are dual-use capabilities that could be applied to missiles, and that's a concern to us and everybody in region," Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
> 
> The launch of the satellite Omid -- which means "Hope" in Farsi -- was timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary celebrations of the Islamic revolution in Iran, according to Iranian media reports.
> 
> Iran said the satellite had already completed its first mission -- to transmit a message from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who spoke at the launching ceremony Monday night.
> 
> In his message, Ahmadinejad congratulated the nation and said the successful launch improves Iran's status in the world, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> He stressed that both the satellite and the Safir rocket used to launch it were made entirely by Iranian technicians.
> 
> Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said that despite the small size of the Omid satellite, it will open the way for an Iranian space program. He said Tehran plans to launch another satellite in the future.
> 
> In August, Iran performed a test of a rocket capable of launching a satellite into orbit. Iranian officials declared that mission a success, but U.S. officials disputed that.
> 
> Senior U.S. officials had expressed concerned about the test of the rocket, saying Iran could use the rocket to deliver warheads.
> 
> CNN's Shirzad Bozorgmehr contributed to this report.
> 
> Find this article at:
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/03/iran.satellite/index.html


----------



## geo

And all President Ahmadjinadad had to say was....Allah Akbar - God is great!


----------



## CougarKing

Very disturbing.



> *Pentagon General: Iran On Way to Long-Range Threat*
> 
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> Published: 10 Feb 16:41 EST (21:41 GMT)
> 
> WASHINGTON - Iran displayed a "rudimentary" space launch capability when it put a satellite into orbit earlier this month, but is now on a path to having a long-range missile, a top Pentagon official said Feb. 10.
> 
> Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the launch of the Omid (Hope) satellite was of concern because the technologies involved were "compatible with, commensurate with, an intercontinental ballistic missile-type capability."
> 
> "That's not an automatic," he cautioned. "It doesn't happen in a day or two. And the work that they have done thus far is, at best, rudimentary, very low orbit, very minimal energy to get up there.
> 
> "This is not a long-range missile but it is the path toward that, so we have to worry about that," he told reporters.
> 
> Cartwright's remarks were the first of any substance by the U.S. military since the Feb. 3 launch, which was hailed in Tehran but viewed with alarm and concern in the West.
> 
> U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who joined Cartwright at a Pentagon news conference, meanwhile responded cooly to prospects of a breakthrough in relations with Iran.
> 
> "Any kind of official outreach from Ahmadinejad to the president or to other senior U.S. officials is news to me," he said.
> 
> In a speech Feb. 10, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran "will welcome true changes and is ready for dialogue in a climate of equality and mutual respect."
> 
> His comments came after U.S. President Barack Obama on Feb. 9 renewed his call for direct talks with Iran, saying he hoped to create the conditions for face-to-face dialogue in the months ahead.





> *Russia: Iranian Missiles Have 'Worldwide Reach'*
> 
> AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> Published: 5 Feb 11:27 EST (16:27 GMT)
> 
> MOSCOW - *Iran's successful launch of a satellite with its own technology shows that the country's missiles "can reach any point on the globe," a senior Russian space sector official said Feb. 5.*
> 
> *"I take my hat off to the Iranian scientists," said Vitali Lapota, manager of the RKK Energuia space construction company. "They have shown their missiles can reach any point on the globe."*
> 
> Iran's launch Monday of the Omid (Hope) satellite carried by the home-built Safir-2 rocket has set alarm bells ringing among Western powers because of the implications for the range of its ballistic missiles.
> 
> U.S. experts fear that Iran could eventually equip ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads capable of striking Europe or the U.S.
> 
> Monday's launch comes at a time when Iran has been ignoring repeated U.N. Security Council demands to freeze its uranium-enrichment activities.


----------



## CougarKing

This sounds like an admission that Iran has been aiding insurgent forces in Iraq, along with a threat. 



> *Iran Wants Giveback to Stop Iraq Attacks: Diplomat*
> 
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> Published: 21 Feb 08:19 EST (13:19 GMT)
> 
> LONDON - *Iran offered to stop attacking troops in Iraq if the West dropped opposition to its nuclear program, a top British official said in comments to be broadcast Feb. 21.*
> 
> *Sir John Sawers, Britain's current ambassador to the United Nations, told the BBC that Iranian officials had privately admitted their role in roadside bomb attacks on British and U.S. troops.*
> 
> But the proposed deal, floated in teatime meetings at London hotels, was rejected by the British government.
> 
> It was not clear exactly when it was suggested from prereleased extracts of the interview, which will appear in a documentary later Feb. 20.
> 
> *"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear program," Sawers told the BBC.*
> 
> He paraphrased the terms of the proposed deal as: "'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear program without let or hindrance.'" It was proposed in a series of meetings between Iranian and European officials, he added.
> 
> "There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other," Sawers told the broadcaster. "They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us."
> 
> The revelation is one of several in the documentary about backroom talks between the West and Iran since 2001.
> 
> Quoting Iranian and American officials, the program also says Tehran cooperated closely with the U.S. to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, even providing intelligence information to help with bombing raids.
> 
> Hillary Mann, a senior official under former U.S. President George W. Bush, told the BBC how one Iranian military official "unfurled the map on the table and started to point to targets that the U.S. needed to focus on".
> 
> Iran's then president Mohammad Khatami was reportedly willing to help get rid of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying he was also Iran's enemy.
> 
> But relations reportedly soured when Bush labeled Iran part of the "axis of evil" in 2002.
> 
> The former third-highest ranking official at the U.S. State Department, Nicholas Burns, told the documentary: "We had a very threatening posture towards Iran for a number of years. It didn't produce any movement whatsoever."


----------



## tomahawk6

As far as I know we are still holding several hundred captured members of the Quds force including a number of senior officers - all captured in Iraq.


----------



## CougarKing

So does anyone think that Israel will strike before it's completed?



> *Iran says moves closer to nuclear plant launch*
> By Hossein Jaseb, Reuters | 02/26/2009 12:41 AM
> 
> 
> BUSHEHR, Iran - Iran said on Wednesday it had carried out successful tests at its Russian-built Bushehr atom power plant in a step toward its launch, part of a nuclear program which the West fears also has military aims.
> 
> The visiting head of Russia's state nuclear company, Sergei Kiriyenko, hailed "significant improvements" in the Islamic Republic's first such plant to produce electricity.
> 
> *The West, which suspects Tehran's nuclear program is a cover for a drive to build bombs, has been critical of Russia's involvement in building Bushehr. Russia says it is purely civilian and cannot be used for any weapons program.*
> 
> Iranian officials said they had conducted tests to inject "virtual" fuel into rods, using lead instead of enriched uranium, over the past 10 days.
> 
> "We're celebrating Bushehr's pre-commissioning which means we are getting closer to the launch of the plant," Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters at the site in the country's southwest.
> 
> "This virtual fuel testing was successful," he said
> 
> Worries that Russia would not complete Bushehr for political reasons had now been removed, Aghazadeh told state television, adding further tests would be carried out in coming months.
> 
> Kiriyenko said on February 5 that Russia aimed to start up Bushehr's nuclear reactor, located on Iran's Gulf coast south of the city of the same name, by the end of the year.
> 
> The launch of Bushehr has been delayed frequently. Russia last year completed delivery of nuclear fuel to the station under a contract estimated to be worth about $1 billion.
> 
> "In recent months there have been significant improvements. I'm very satisfied with what I saw," Kiriyenko said on Wednesday at the dome-shaped Bushehr facility, which is surrounded by anti-aircraft guns.
> 
> *Nuclear dispute*
> 
> State television showed images of a fuel rod being lowered into position inside the reactor.
> 
> Analysts say Iran could become a central issue in relations between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and new U.S. President Barack Obama, who has said that the United States is prepared to talk to Tehran in a break from his predecessor's approach.
> 
> They say Russia has used Bushehr as a lever in relations with Tehran, which is suspected by the United States and some European countries of seeking to build nuclear weapons.
> 
> Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, rejects such allegations and says its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more oil and gas.
> 
> It plans to build other power plants by 2020 as part of a planned network with a capacity of 20,000 megawatt.
> 
> Tehran's refusal to halt its most sensitive nuclear work has drawn three rounds of limited U.N. sanctions since 2006.
> 
> Russia started deliveries of nuclear fuel for the plant in late 2007, a step both Washington and Moscow said removed any need for Iran to have its own uranium enrichment program.
> 
> Moscow says Iran will return all spent fuel rods to Russia.
> 
> *Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for power plants and also provide material for bombs if refined much further*.
> 
> The U.N. nuclear agency watchdog said on Thursday Iran had slowed the expansion of its own uranium enrichment plant at Natanz but that it had built up a stockpile of nuclear fuel.


----------



## CougarKing

Contradicting statements from Mullen and Gates as well as other officials?  ???



> *U.S.: Iran has material for nuclear bomb but still 'not close'*
> 
> (CNN) -- *Iran likely has enough material to make a nuclear weapon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told CNN's John King on Sunday.
> 
> "We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen said on "State of the Union," when asked whether Iran "might now have enough fissile material to make a bomb."
> 
> "Iran having a nuclear weapon, I believe, for a long time, is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world," Mullen added.
> 
> A spokesman for Mullen later emphasized that Mullen was referring to "low-grade" material, and that to be used for a weapon, it would have to be highly enriched.
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of Iran, "They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time."
> 
> Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee, "We continue to assess Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material but still judge it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon."*
> Mullen was traveling later Sunday and could not be reached immediately to clarify his statement.
> 
> Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists the country's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
> 
> Last month, a Washington think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, released a report examining the latest data from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. The institute concluded that Iran has reached "nuclear weapons breakout capability."
> 
> However, an IAEA official who asked not to be named cautioned against drawing such dramatic conclusions from the data, saying Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium would have to be turned into highly enriched uranium to qualify as weapons-grade material. That hasn't been done, the official said.
> 
> *Capt. John Kirby, Mullen's spokesman, told CNN Sunday, "There are two components here: having enough and having it highly enriched."
> 
> "The chairman concurs Iran has enough low-enriched to produce a nuclear weapon, but it's important to note it's low-grade, and to enrich it would take time," Kirby said. *
> 
> Blair testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 12, before the latest report from the IAEA and the ISIS analysis. He repeated that testimony on Wednesday for the House committee.
> 
> "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad or will acquire in the future a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon," Blair said. "Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons, it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously. We judge it has not yet done so."
> 
> Iran tested its first nuclear power plant on Wednesday.
> 
> In the test at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, "dummy" fuel rods were used, so no nuclear reaction began. Iranian officials said the next test will use enriched uranium, but it's not clear when the test will be held or when the facility will be fully operational.
> 
> On Thursday, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the U.N. Security Council that the United States "will seek to end Iran's ambition to acquire an illicit nuclear capability and its support for terrorism."
> 
> Iran's U.N. ambassador, Mohammad Khazaee, responded to Rice's remarks with a letter to the Security Council chairman, saying he rejected "the same tired, unwarranted and groundless allegations that used to be unjustifiably and futilely repeated by the previous U.S. administration."
> 
> Earlier in February, President Obama said the United States is looking for opportunities for "face to face" dialogue with Iran, even though he has "deep concerns" about Tehran's actions. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded by saying that his country welcomes talks with the United States "in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect."
> 
> During his tenure, President George W. Bush refused to meet with Iran's president or engage in diplomatic dialogue with him. Bush labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil" after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
> 
> Meanwhile, Mullen suggested Sunday that he disagrees with Afghan President Hamid Karzai's decision to move up the country's elections and questioned whether Karzai has the authority to do so.
> 
> "The elections were scheduled for August and that was a date that was set by the international elections commission and they are, as I understand it ... the final authority in this," Mullen told King.
> 
> The comments came a day after Karzai decreed the presidential and provincial elections should take place in April, instead of the August date determined by the Independent Election Commission.
> 
> Karzai, whose term ends in late May, said the constitution requires an election at least 30 days before the end of the term. But opposition groups are crying foul.
> 
> Karzai has said he intends to run for a second term.
> 
> But Mullen said the earlier date hampers his efforts to ensure the elections are secure.
> 
> "I'm on a timeline to get security forces there to provide the kind of security for the elections," he said. "So moving those dates to the left certainly generates a higher level of risk with respect to security for those elections, which we want to be free and fair as well as secure."


----------



## Xiang

> This sounds like an admission that Iran has been aiding insurgent forces in Iraq, along with a threat.



Does it really warrant retaliation based on who Iran does and does not support?  It is simply looking out for it's best interests.

The Bush administration has essentially opened up the doors for Iran to annex Iraq, and why shouldn't they?

Since when has the US ever refrained from acting in their own interests if it meant innocent people would die?

You can stop the insurgents and weapons when they come over the border, but to take any sort of action militarily against Iran would be highly hypocritical.


----------



## 1feral1

Xiang said:
			
		

> Since when has the US ever refrained from acting in their own interests if it meant innocent people would die?



Innocent? Just what are you trying to say here pal?

Being direct, what do YOU know?

I was there, and the a$$holes (JAM) carrying weapons and setting IED/EFPs were not innocent. Plenty of Iranian $$$, smuggled kit, and Iranian insurgents among them.


OWDU


----------



## Xiang

What on earth would make you think I was referring to them?  My comment concerning the US supporting their interests even when it means innocent people may die was more towards US foreign policy.  Take the Contras in Nicaragua for example.

How many innocent people died because the US supported the contras.

And please, don't try to give me any life's lessons because you were there. It doesn't change the fact that the US has supported terrorists in the name of their interests, so why should Iran be faced with conflict for doing the same?


----------



## OldSolduer

I don't know who this Xiang fellow is, but we've had a few on here who played the same game. Bait...troll....

Any ways, let's not play that game.


----------



## Xiang

So simply because I am willing to call a spade a spade, and you "don't know who I am", I am suddenly a troll trying to bait someone?

Well look, I don't know you either, but I will refrain from passing judgment, how ever poor that first impression was.


----------



## tomahawk6

How many innocents have died because of Iran's policies? Its a two way street.


----------



## TimBit

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Innocent? Just what are you trying to say here pal?
> 
> Being direct, what do YOU know?
> 
> I was there, and the a$$holes (JAM) carrying weapons and setting IED/EFPs were not innocent. Plenty of Iranian $$$, smuggled kit, and Iranian insurgents among them.
> 
> 
> OWDU



There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them. Lots of smugglers in Iran and stuff... I'm just saying, should we bomb Russia because the Taliban are using Kalashnikovs? Besides Taliban+Iran= :evil: They do not have a history of friendship.


----------



## George Wallace

Just a point.  Smugglers don't manufacture Iranian Arms.  The Iranian Government does.  If they don't keep strick accountability of what they produce, allowing graft and corruption to make deals under the table with smugglers; does that mean that they are innocent?


----------



## TimBit

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a point.  Smugglers don't manufacture Iranian Arms.  The Iranian Government does.  If they don't keep strick accountability of what they produce, allowing graft and corruption to make deals under the table with smugglers; does that mean that they are innocent?



True. But if the troops steal the weapons and sell them, we can only, in my view, accuse the manufacturing state of lax controls on its exports and on its military, not of malicious intent. Otherwise, as I said, we would have to finger Russia for the AK's in Afghanistan.

Similarly, here are some of the countries the US sells weapons to:

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, East Timor, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan (taken from U.S.Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Facts Book as of September 30,2006; and U.S. Department of State, CongressionalBudget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2009 ed., PM Annex, “TitleIV Supporting Information.” )

Not all of these are your tipically friendly neighbours. Yet these are government approved sales, not smuggling. Should we turn to the US and condemn them for any use of weapons that occur in these countries?

I'm not saying that Iran is innocent, so I agree with you. Hell they might even be happy to have smugglers do the work. I'm just saying, there is currently not enough proof of viscious intent to add this to the list of reasons to go to war with Iran. In fact as far as Iran is concerned, the US sales of arms to Saddam during the 80's (oh you ironic history) is probably better a reason for Iran to fight the US than Iran's presumed sale of weapons to Afghanistan.


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> True. But if the troops steal the weapons and sell them, we can only, in my view, accuse the manufacturing state of lax controls on its exports and on its military, not of malicious intent. Otherwise, as I said, we would have to finger Russia for the AK's in Afghanistan.



Actually, there are very few Russian AK's in Afghanistan.  There are a heck of a lot more Chinese, and other nations' knock offs than Russian.


----------



## Xiang

> How many innocents have died because of Iran's policies? Its a two way street.



Very true.  What are your views towards Iranian policy that has killed innocent people compared to your view on US policy tagged as "protecting your interests"?  The same I will assume?



> There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them.



Correct, however, should the Iranian government prove to have a hand in where these weapons ended up and what they were used for, should Iran face repercussions?   

Should the US not have faced the same repercussions for arming and training the Mujahideen against the Soviets?


----------



## George Wallace

Quite a "circular argument" we have going on here.  "They are not justified but someone else is."  I suppose one has to decide who is on the side of "Right" and who is on the side of "Evil" (or whatever one wants to call it).  Politics is a dirty game, especially international politics with opposing political agendas.

Would you much prefer that the US, as the sole remaining "Super Power", had not stepped up to the plate to be this millennium's "World Policeman", leaving the world prey to nondemocratic warmongering nations?  Who or what would you prefer?


----------



## Xiang

No, I'm quite happy the US has done what they had to do in order to remain where they are today, however, my main point was related more towards the fear mongering going on towards Iran for things other nations are also quite guilty of but suffered no consequence what so ever.

If you're going to lead, at least lead consistently. But as you said, it all depends on which side you're on, and if the past tells us anything, it's the victor that writes the history books.


----------



## George Wallace

I suppose you could take a look at it from a medical point of view.  Do you want to treat a full blown Cancer, or have had some preventative medicine done for early detection?  Choose your poison.


----------



## Xiang

Also, I would like to point to something spun out of control in the world media today regarding Iran.  The supposed remark made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He was mis-interpreted when he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Many Persian linguists tried to correct the media but were ignored.  What was ACTUALLY said was, he wants to wipe Zionism off the map, not Israel.

I really don't believe Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities.  Iran is basically in a state now where there are constant brown outs (sometimes outages that last hours) because they cannot properly generate enough energy for the countries needs.

This has lead to many issues, some more seriously being hospitals inside Iran that are not equipped with long lasting (or any at all) generators.

Iran cannot generate sufficient power through means of hydro electricity or wind power.  Coal is out of the question since it would take enormous amounts, and since Iran is not a producer of coal it would need to be shipped in.  The amount of pollution it would create for a smaller nation would be horrible as well.

Currently Iran is using its natural gas for a lot of it's power, but as we all know, Oil and natural gas is the backbone of the Iranian economy, so every day they are burning away their profits.

Nuclear energy is the only other solution in this case.  It would allow them to create huge amounts of energy with very little pollution.  

I am weary of "intelligence reports" on supposed Iranian nuclear weapons production.  Remember, this is the same "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMD, and knew where they were.

Nuclear power is really the only solution for long term energy needs and the West needs to back off with the rhetoric a little bit and put down the drums of war.


----------



## tomahawk6

I think you have to admit that the public comments by Iranian leaders to destroy Israel,their support for terror groups in the region and their push for nuclear weapons, causes many responsible leaders in the west to worry about Iran's intentions.


----------



## Xiang

> I suppose you could take a look at it from a medical point of view.  Do you want to treat a full blown Cancer, or have had some preventative medicine done for early detection?  Choose your poison.



In an ideal world, you would want to take pre-preemptive action obviously, but I think the West may be jumping the gun a little bit this time.  

Read my comment above about the need for nuclear energy in Iran.

Any problems Iran has internally should be dealt with internally.  It's true the moderate majority are controlled by the radical minority, but that is for Iran to take care of themselves.

Bombs dropping won't fix Iran.  If anything, it will simply turn a pro Western population into an anti-Western one.   Anyone who has ever visited Iran knows the people there are more Westernized than any Middle Eastern country in the whole region.  The people go to their night clubs, their bars, watch The Simpsons, you name it.

If the leaders suddenly turn into suicidal madmen and start threatening to nuke innocent countries, the people won't stand for it.  Even the Iranian military is made up of moderates.

If there is any action that I would support against Iran, it would be to help jump start any possible revolution and give the people the support they need to instill their own moderate form of government.

Pushing democracy at the end of a JDAM is not going to do it.


----------



## Xiang

> I think you have to admit that the public comments by Iranian leaders to destroy Israel,their support for terror groups in the region and their push for nuclear weapons, causes many responsible leaders in the west to worry about Iran's intentions.



This is a perfect example of the rhetoric and misinformation I am talking about.


----------



## TimBit

Xiang said:
			
		

> This is a perfect example of the rhetoric and misinformation I am talking about.



As exemplified by the fact that not one credible, un-biased and non-partisan person has come up with any solid proof of any Iranian nuclear *weapons* program. I believe that in a court of law the case against Iran would not pass the "beyond reasonnable doubt" case. Anyway we all saw how that went down last time that case was made...


----------



## 1feral1

Xiang said:
			
		

> So simply because I am willing to call a spade a spade, and you "don't know who I am", I am suddenly a troll trying to bait someone?
> 
> Well look, I don't know you either, but I will refrain from passing judgment, how ever poor that first impression was.



Yes you are a troll.

You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.

You only get ONE chance at a first impression.


----------



## 1feral1

TimBit said:
			
		

> There is no solid proof that it's government related. The US showed Iranian gear used by insurgents, but could never really prove that they are there because the Iranian govt sold them or gave them. Lots of smugglers in Iran and stuff... I'm just saying, should we bomb Russia because the Taliban are using Kalashnikovs? Besides Taliban+Iran= :evil: They do not have a history of friendship.



Whatever you want to believe Timbit.


----------



## Xiang

> Yes you are a troll.
> 
> You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.
> 
> You only get ONE chance at a first impression.



Look, we're trying to have a conversation here. There have already been some rather constructive comments added by other forum members.   If your sole purpose responding to me is going to be to try to paint be something I am not, then I would appreciate you simply not respond at all, and leave this "troll" be.

If you have something constructive to add, I am all ears.  I enjoy a good debate.

Thank you and have a good day.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Yes you are a troll.
> 
> You'll cut your own throat on here, all by yourself.
> 
> You only get ONE chance at a first impression.



Overwatch Downunder,

Welcome to a Verbal, this is the last step before banishment.


----------



## George Wallace

I find your statement very interesting.



			
				Xiang said:
			
		

> ......  What was ACTUALLY said was, he wants to wipe Zionism off the map, not Israel.



So he isn't talking about Israel, but of all Jews, no matter where they may be.  Isn't this talk of global "Genocide", much along the same lines as Hitler espoused in the 1930's?  Which is worse; a country or a religion?  I am sure that the MSM really aren't going to nitpick.


----------



## Xiang

> So he isn't talking about Israel, but of all Jews, no matter where they may be.  Isn't this talk of global "Genocide", much along the same lines as Hitler espoused in the 1930's?  Which is worse; a country or a religion?  I am sure that the MSM really aren't going to nitpick.



It's a common misconception that Zionism means the Jewish people or their faith.  Zionism is a self belief some Jewish people hold concerning what they believe their mission in life should be (to put it in layman terms)

Not all Jewish people are Zionists.  There are more moderate Torah Jews, who don't believe in a lot of the extremism Zionist Jews do.  One such movement being Neturei Karta

It may seem a little extreme, but I am posting it simply to solidify my point that eliminating Zionism does not mean the elimination of the Jewish people or their faith, but rather eliminating this extreme way of thinking which is only causing problems.

Either way, one way or another I do not agree with what he said, but I also do not agree with the way the media distorted his message.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Xiang, Zinonism was originally a secular movement. It's simply hebrew nationalism.


----------



## Xiang

Very true, but it is not the only form of Jewish nationalism.  There are other, more moderate forms.  Torah Jews come to mind.


----------



## George Wallace

The point is; do all Zionists and/or Torah Jews reside in Israel?  No.  They are spread around the globe.  This is a major concern.  This is in essence Terrorism, where selected personalities are attacked in nations around the world.


----------



## Xiang

Regardless, the quote was interpreted incorrectly.  Zionism is more on the extreme side than its more moderate ideological counterparts.  The fact still remains, for someone to advocate eliminating Zionism in no way means they want to commit genocide any more than someone saying they want to eliminate radical Islam.

The ideology does not equal the population.


----------



## OldSolduer

Lets' get one thing staright:

There were at least 6 million people of the Jewish faith put to death during WW2 at the hands of a madman that was allowed to do what he wanted. Do you really think that we should let that happen...again?
Do you blame the Jewish people for being paranoid? It's kept Israel alive since 1948.

I don't know if the President of Iran was misquoted or not, but what he said pretty much pi$$ed off the rest of the world.


----------



## Xiang

Well, to be fair, it pissed off the rest of the world BECAUSE he was misquoted.


----------



## OldSolduer

Xiang said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, it pissed off the rest of the world BECAUSE he was misquoted.


Oh really? Funny, I never heard the world up in arms because he was misquoted.

What would happen if PM Harper or President Obama were to say radical Islam must be eliminated?

I'll tell you. The press would have a field day with that, as would all of Islam.
So this the President of Iran is misquoted...and is taken to task for his anti-Semetic views. Is there something wrong with that? Do you really think this man can be trusted with a nuclear arsenal, if that ever comes to pass?


----------



## Xiang

> Oh really? Funny, I never heard the world up in arms because he was misquoted.



Point in hand.  He WAS misquoted and you said it yourself, "I don't know if the President of Iran was misquoted or not".  Now, how can you be up in arms about something you (and most of the world) don't know happened?  Like I mentioned in a previous post... Persian linguists were down right ignored.  As we all know, sensationalism will take precedence over the truth, whether that sensationalism is true or not.

If the world doesn't know, how do you think they will react?



> What would happen if PM Harper or President Obama were to say radical Islam must be eliminated?



Considering the fact that we are fighting on the side we are on, the West would have no qualms with such a comment.  Your point?



> I'll tell you. The press would have a field day with that, as would all of Islam.



I doubt it.  Radical Islam is predominately associated with terrorism (and rightfully so).  I doubt the press, or the Western world would have much to say about that.   Even I advocate the elimination of radical Islam.   It is not true Islam so it has no right to bear it's name.



> So this the President of Iran is misquoted...and is taken to task for his anti-Semetic views. Is there something wrong with that



Well, a Catholic Bishop denied the holocaust took place as well.  He is but one man that represents the most powerful religion in the world.... Should Christianity be attacked because of one man's distorted views?



> Do you really think this man can be trusted with a nuclear arsenal, if that ever comes to pass?



No.  And I would like to mention that there is absolutely no proof that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.  Everything you heard has come from bias sources and is nothing more than fear mongering and here say.

I would like you to provide one single link representing a non partisan international organization that can say with absolute certainty Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

Going to war based on paranoia would make you no better than the lunatic at the helm of North Korea.


----------



## OldSolduer

SO Iran can buy nuke fuel from Russia, am I correct?
So why do you need centrifuges to produce more?
As fore getting up in arms, I'm passionate...not up in arms. I do not think that this fellow or Kim Jong Il can be trusted with something bigger than a firecracker.

I've been around a while, and I remember very well the 444 days that several US citizens were held hostage by the Iranians.

If he was misquoted so be it. That Catholic bishop was taken to task, and so should the President of Iran for his comments about destroying Israel?
And who said I was willing to go to war with Iran over this? Maybe George W. Bush was, but I think cooler heads are prevailing.


----------



## Xiang

> SO Iran can buy nuke fuel from Russia, am I correct?
> So why do you need centrifuges to produce more?



Interesting you should say that.  Do you have a link concerning these purchases?  The last I heard, the IAEA confirmed Iran could not build a nuclear weapon with the grade of plutonium they were producing.

If what you say is true (and comes from an un-bias international body) then there is clearly cause for worry.



> If he was misquoted so be it. That Catholic bishop was taken to task, and so should the President of Iran for his comments about destroying Israel?



But he never said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.  I'm not sure how many times I need to say this.



> And who said I was willing to go to war with Iran over this? Maybe George W. Bush was, but I think cooler heads are prevailing.



I'm glad we agree.


----------



## Xiang

Here is a link for the centrifuges:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBLA05041920070710



> Centrifuges are used to make fuel for power plants, which is what Iran insists is its goal. But they can also be used to enrich uranium to a far higher level to make bomb material.



The grade of plutonium the Iranians are producing cannot be used for a nuclear weapon, so that only leaves one possible use for them right?   Nuclear power.

I'm sorry, but the production of Centrifuges does not equal building a nuclear bomb.  There are many other components to it (most of which Iran is not, or cannot produce)

After reading (if you bothered to read) my posts concerning Iran's need for nuclear energy, why is it still so hard to believe they are pursuing such a means of power for their nation?  Especially considering the absolute lack of evidence required to prove they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Come on, Im sure we can both agree another war is in neither of our best interests.  Especially when such a war would be based on opinion and here say.


----------



## a_majoor

Unlike Uranium, Plutonium is fissile in all is isotopic forms, and is therefore available to make a nuclear weapon (ither a fission bomb or as the radioactive coating of a "dirty" bomb).

Iran has demonstrated both by word and deed that it is hostile to Isreal and the Liberal Democratic "West"; the capture of Iranian operatives in Iraq the recovery of Iranian equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the capture of Iranian equipment going to Hamas and Hezbollah (both intercepted as in recent examples by Egypt and Cyprus, as well as equipment recovered by the IDF during the operations in Lebanon and Gaza), as well as repeated forays into the Persian gulf to challenge the resolve of USN and British ships patrolling in international waters (to the detriment of the UK, I might add). Vast sums of money have also been tracked from Iran to various terrorist groups as well.

When you take all these activities into account, then add the complete lack of cooperation between Iran and international agencies on issues of nuclear fuel and fuel enrichment, and also add their determined drive to develop long range delivery systems (and _any_ satellite launcher is an ICBM), then the pronouncements of their leadership take on a whole new cast.

Attempts to parse the phraseology of the Iranian leadership in order to gloss over or ignore the other factual actions of the same leadership only make people come off as delusional. While the Iranian people may be restive, and could be induced back into the arms of their government by a strike against their nuclear establishment, this is really only an example of looking for the "least bad" choice.


----------



## OldSolduer

"But he never said he wants to wipe Israel off the map." OK, what did he say? Because the world equates "Zionism" with "International Jewry" and Jewish people in general, therefore meaning Israel.

This man cannot be trusted with an arsenal any larger than the average armory.


As for centrifuges, how do we really know what grade of plutonium the Iranians are producing? Because they say they aren't? Sorry, that doesn' make me feel any better.


----------



## a_majoor

Depending on how long we can hang tough, the Iran problem may solve itself. OTOH, with the United States displaying it's new "Clueless" diplomacy, the problem may take turns for the worse:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB24Ak02.html



> *Sex, drugs and Islam*
> By Spengler
> 
> Political Islam returned to the world stage with Ruhollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution in Iran, which became the most aggressive patron of Muslim radicals outside its borders, including Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
> 
> Until very recently, an oil-price windfall gave the Iranian state ample resources to pursue its agenda at home and abroad. How, then, should we explain an eruption of social pathologies in Iran such as drug addiction and prostitution, on a scale much worse than anything observed in the West? Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears that Islamic theocracy promotes rather than represses social decay.
> 
> Iran is dying. The collapse of Iran's birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever. Demographers have sought in vain to explain Iran's population implosion through family planning policies, or through social factors such as the rise of female literacy.
> 
> But quantifiable factors do not explain the sudden collapse of fertility. It seems that a spiritual decay has overcome Iran, despite best efforts of a totalitarian theocracy. Popular morale has deteriorated much faster than in the "decadent" West against which the Khomeini revolution was directed.
> 
> "Iran is dying for a fight," I wrote in 2007 (Please see Why Iran is dying for a fight, November 13, 2007.) in the literal sense that its decline is so visible that some of its leaders think that they have nothing to lose.
> 
> Their efforts to isolate Iran from the cultural degradation of the American "great Satan" have produced social pathologies worse than those in any Western country. *With oil at barely one-fifth of its 2008 peak price, they will run out of money some time in late 2009 or early 2010. Game theory would predict that Iran's leaders will gamble on a strategic long shot.* That is not a comforting thought for Iran's neighbors.
> 
> Two indicators of Iranian morale are worth citing.
> 
> First, prostitution has become a career of choice among educated Iranian women. On February 3, the Austrian daily Der Standard published the results of two investigations conducted by the Tehran police, suppressed by the Iranian media. [1]
> 
> "More than 90% of Tehran's prostitutes have passed the university entrance exam, according to the results of one study, and more than 30% of them are registered at a university or studying," reports Der Standard. "The study was assigned to the Tehran Police Department and the Ministry of Health, and when the results were tabulated in early January no local newspaper dared to so much as mention them."
> 
> The Austrian newspaper added, "Eighty percent of the Tehran sex workers maintained that they pursue this career voluntarily and temporarily. The educated ones are waiting for better jobs. Those with university qualifications intend to study later, and the ones who already are registered at university mention the high tuition [fees] as their motive for prostitution ... they are content with their occupation and do not consider it a sin according to Islamic law."
> 
> There is an extensive trade in poor Iranian women who are trafficked to the Gulf states in huge numbers, as well as to Europe and Japan. "A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women," I wrote in a 2006 study of Iranian prostitution, Jihads and whores.
> 
> Prostitution as a response to poverty and abuse is one thing, but the results of this new study reflect something quite different. The educated women of Tehran choose prostitution in pursuit of upward mobility, as a way of sharing in the oil-based potlatch that made Tehran the world's hottest real estate market during 2006 and 2007.
> 
> A country is beaten when it sells its women, but it is damned when its women sell themselves. The popular image of the Iranian sex trade portrays tearful teenagers abused and cast out by impoverished parents. Such victims doubtless abound, but the majority of Tehran's prostitutes are educated women seeking affluence.
> 
> Only in the former Soviet Union after the collapse of communism in 1990 did educated women choose prostitution on a comparable scale, but under very different circumstances. Russians went hungry during the early 1990s as the Soviet economy dissolved and the currency collapsed. Today's Iranians suffer from shortages, but the data suggest that Tehran's prostitutes are not so much pushed into the trade by poverty as pulled into it by wealth.
> 
> A year ago I observed that prices for Tehran luxury apartments exceeded those in Paris, as Iran's kleptocracy distributed the oil windfall to tens of thousands of hangers-on of the revolution. $35 billion went missing from state oil funds, opposition newspapers charged at the time. Corruption evidently has made whores of Tehran's educated women. (Please see Worst of times for Iran, June 24, 2008.)
> 
> Second, according to a recent report from the US Council on Foreign Relations, "Iran serves as the major transport hub for opiates produced by [Afghanistan], and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts." That is, 5% of Iran's adult, non-elderly population of 35 million is addicted to opiates. That is an astonishing number, unseen since the peak of Chinese addiction during the 19th century. The closest American equivalent (from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health) found that 119,000 Americans reported using heroin within the prior month, or less than one-tenth of 1% of the non-elderly adult population.
> 
> Nineteenth-century China had comparable rates of opium addiction, after the British won two wars for the right to push the drug down China's throat. Post-communist Russia had comparable rates of prostitution, when people actually went hungry. Iran's startling rates of opium addiction and prostitution reflect popular demoralization, the implosion of an ancient culture in its encounter with the modern world. These pathologies arose not from poverty but wealth, or rather a sudden concentration of wealth in the hands of the political class. No other country in modern history has evinced this kind of demoralization.
> 
> For the majority of young Iranians, there is no way up, only a way out; 36% of Iran's youth aged 15 to 29 years want to emigrate, according to yet another unpublicized Iranian study, this time by the country's Education Ministry, Der Standard adds. Only 32% find the existing social norms acceptable, while 63% complain about unemployment, the social order or lack of money.
> 
> As I reported in the cited essay, the potlatch for the political class is balanced by widespread shortages for ordinary Iranians. This winter, widespread natural gas shortages left tens of thousands of households without heat.
> 
> The declining morale of the Iranian population helps make sense of its galloping demographic decline. Academic demographers have tried to explain collapsing fertility as a function of rising female literacy. The problem is that the Iranian regime lies about literacy data, and has admitted as much recently.
> 
> In a recent paper entitled "Education and the World's Most Raid Fertility Decline in Iran [2], American and Iranian demographers observe:
> 
> A first analysis of the Iran 2006 census results shows a sensationally low fertility level of 1.9 for the whole country and only 1.5 for the Tehran area (which has about 8 million people) ... A decline in the TFR [total fertility rate] of more than 5.0 in roughly two decades is a world record in fertility decline. This is even more surprising to many observers when one considers that it happened in one of the most Islamic societies. It forces the analyst to reconsider many of the usual stereotypes about religious fertility differentials.
> 
> The census points to a continued fall in fertility, even from today's extremely low levels, the paper maintains.
> 
> Most remarkable is the collapse of rural fertility in tandem with urban fertility, the paper adds:
> 
> The similarity of the transition in both urban and rural areas is one the main features of the fertility transition in Iran. There was a considerable gap between the fertility in rural and urban areas, but the TFR in both rural and urban areas continued to decline by the mid-1990s, and the gap has narrowed substantially. In 1980, the TFR in rural areas was 8.4 while that of urban areas was 5.6. In other words, there was a gap of 2.8 children between rural and urban areas. In 2006, the TFR in rural and urban areas was 2.1 and 1.8, respectively (a difference of only 0.3 children).
> 
> What the professors hoped to demonstrate is that as rural literacy levels in Iran caught up with urban literacy levels, the corresponding urban and rural fertility rates also converged. That is a perfectly reasonable conjecture whose only flaw is that the data on which it is founded were faked by the Iranian regime.
> 
> The Iranian government's official data claim literacy percentage levels in the high 90s for urban women and in the high 80s for rural women. That cannot be true, for Iran's Literacy Movement Organization admitted last year (according to an Agence-France Presse report of May 8, 2008) that 9,450,000 Iranians are illiterate of a population of 71 million (or an adult population of about 52 million). This suggests far higher rates of illiteracy than in the official data.
> 
> A better explanation of Iran's population implosion is that the country has undergone an existential crisis comparable to encounters of Amazon or Inuit tribes with modernity. Traditional society demands submission to the collective. Once the external constraints are removed, its members can shift from the most extreme forms of modesty to the other extreme of sexual license. Khomeini's revolution attempted to retard the disintegration of Persian society, but it appears to have accelerated the process.
> 
> Modernity implies choice, and the efforts of the Iranian mullahs to prolong the strictures of traditional society appear to have backfired. The cause of Iran's collapsing fertility is not literacy as such, but extreme pessimism about the future and an endemic materialism that leads educated Iranian women to turn their own sexuality into a salable commodity.
> 
> Theocracy subjects religion to a political test; it is hard for Iranians to repudiate the regime and remain pious, for religious piety and support for political Islam are inseparable, as a recent academic study documented from survey data [3].
> 
> As in the decline of communism, what follows on the breakdown of a state ideology is likely to be nihilism. Iran is a dying country, and it is very difficult to have a rational dialogue with a nation all of whose available choices terminate in oblivion.
> 
> [1] Der Standard, Die Wahrheit hinter der islamischen Fassade
> .
> 
> [2] Education and the World's Most Raid Fertility Decline in Iran
> .
> 
> [3] Religiosity and Islamic Rule in Iran, by Gunes Murat Tezcur and Tagh Azadarmaki.


----------



## a_majoor

A Russian general weighs in:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/03/russian-military-expert-warns-of.html



> Thursday, March 12, 2009
> *Russian Military Expert Warns Of Iranian Threat *
> 
> While the Obama administration considers pulling back on continuing to develop technology to provide a missile shield for Europe and beyond, the Iranians have made important developments in missile technology. This is not coming from Chas Freeman's dreaded Israel lobby, but from a Russian military expert during a March 12, 2009 press conference which has not been widely reported in the European or American press:
> 
> Russia and the West would be making a big mistake if they ignored or underestimated the potential missile and nuclear threat coming from Iran, a Russian military expert said on Thursday.
> 
> "Iran is actively working on a missile development program. I won't say the Iranians will be able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in the near future, but they will most likely be able to threaten the whole of Europe," said [retired] Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Moscow-based Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces....
> 
> "Iran has long abandoned outdated missile technologies and is capable of producing sophisticated missile systems," Dvorkin said at a news conference in RIA Novosti
> 
> Dvorkin also warned that Iran is only 1-2 years away from obtaining nuclear weapons capability:
> 
> "One can speak of one or two years," Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired general and veteran participant in US-Soviet disarmament talks in the 1970s and 1980s, told reporters when asked how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon.
> 
> "In the technical sense, what may be holding them back is the lack of enough weapons-grade uranium," said Dvorkin, who today heads a strategic arms research
> centre at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.
> 
> "I consider this a significant threat," said Dvorkin, who stressed that he was voicing his personal views and not those of the Russian government.
> 
> Posted by William A. Jacobson at 6:09 PM



The Russians have been playing a dangerous double game to date. Their desire for hard cash and the ability to tweak America and keep China and "the West" off balance are probably the driving forces behind their sales of nuclear fuel and technology to Iran. They are probably realizing that ballistic missiles that can reach Europe also threaten European Russia from the Gulf of Finland to the Ural Mountains, and that a nuclear Iran is probably not a stable client nation that they can manipulate for their own ends, but will take unpredictable actions that will upset the calculations and plans of Russia as well...


----------



## tomahawk6

CSIS article about a possible Israeli strike on Iran. Alot of information here you could almost plan the attack from home. 

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf


----------



## CougarKing

It seems that the Russian bear is sending mixed signals.



> *Russia confirms Iran missile contract *
> 
> 
> POSTED: 12:24 p.m. EDT, Mar 18, 2009
> 
> *MOSCOW: Russian news agencies cited a top defense official today as confirming that a contract to sell powerful air-defense missiles to Iran was signed two years ago, but saying no such weapons have yet been delivered.
> 
> Russian officials have consistently denied claims the country already has provided some of the S-300 missiles to Iran. They have not said whether a contract existed. *
> 
> The state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies and the independent Interfax quoted an unnamed top official in the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service as saying the contract was signed two years ago. Service spokesman Andrei Tarabrin told The Associated Press he could not immediately comment.
> 
> Supplying S-300s to Iran would change the military balance in the Middle East and the issue has been the subject of intense speculation and diplomatic wrangling for months.
> 
> Israel and the U.S. fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities — including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant, which is now being built by Russian contractors at Bushehr.
> 
> That would make a military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.
> 
> It was not clear why the missiles have not been delivered, but the reports cited the defense official as saying ''fulfillment of the contract will mainly depend on the current international situation and the decision of the country's leadership.''
> 
> That could indicate that Russia intends to use the contract as a bargaining chip before next month's meeting between President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama.
> 
> But the defense official said Russia does not intend to abandon the contract, estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, ITAR-Tass said,
> 
> A prominent Russian analyst, Ruslan Pukhov of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said the missile contract was seen by the Kremlin as primarily a political rather than commercial matter.
> 
> *''The S-300 contract, and cooperation with Iran in general, is regarded by Moscow only as an instrument of political bargaining with the West and not as a way of realizing the fundamental defense and commercial interests of Russia,'' he was quoted as saying by RIA-Novosti. *
> 
> http://www.ohio.com/news/world/41435987.html






> *Kissinger, Baker Visit Moscow as Obama Resets Ties *
> 
> March 18 (Bloomberg) -- Henry Kissinger and James Baker, two former U.S. secretaries of state, will fly to Moscow for talks with Russian officials after President Barack Obama pledged to “reset” relations with Russia.
> 
> Kissinger, who met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in December, is scheduled to return later this week, according to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Baker, traveling separately, will hold talks with American investors and address a conference on developing Caspian Sea energy resources.
> 
> *“These guys are building the bridge from the real diplomacy of the Bush Sr. administration to Obama,” said Nina Khrushcheva, an international affairs professor at the New School in New York. “Diplomatically inclined Republicans can make a better opening line because they come from successful relations in the past.”
> 
> Obama, a Democrat, is seeking to strengthen ties to Russia and win Kremlin support for his policies on Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear arms reduction. Vice President Joe Biden said in February it was time to “reset” relations after they reached a post-Cold War low under former President George W. Bush. *
> 
> Kissinger, 85, is among a group of U.S. “wise men,” including former Secretary of State George Shultz, 88, ex-Defense Secretary William Perry, 81, and former Senator Sam Nunn, 70, who will see Medvedev on March 20, the Kommersant newspaper reported today. They will also meet with Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and ex-Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky, Kommersant said.
> 
> (....)





http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aMiQ11h183F4&refer=us


----------



## tomahawk6

Swiss daily says retired Revolutionary Guards general Ali Reza Asghari told US Intelligence Tehran was financing secret nuclear project of Syria and North Korea; 'Israelis who were immediately informed also were completely unaware,' according to report

A top-ranked Iranian defector told the United States that Iran was financing North Korean moves to make Syria into a nuclear weapons power, leading to the Israeli air strike that destroyed a secret reactor, a report said Thursday.

The article in the daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung goes into detail about an Iranian connection and fills in gaps about Israel's Sept. 6, 2007, raid that knocked out Syria's nearly completed Al Kabir reactor in the country's eastern desert.

The February 2007 defection to the United States of Ali Reza Asgari, a retired general in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and a former deputy defense minister, provided considerable information on Iran's own nuclear program, said the article, written by Hans Ruehle, former chief of the planning staff of the German Defense Ministry.

"The biggest surprise, however, was his assertion that Iran was financing a secret nuclear project of Syria and North Korea," he said. "No one in the American intelligence scene had heard anything of it. And the Israelis who were immediately informed also were completely unaware."

Ruehle, who did not identify the sources of his information, publishes and comments on security and nuclear proliferation in different European newspapers and broadcasts and has held prominent roles in German and NATO institutions.


'Syrians were completely surprised'

US Intelligence had detected North Korean ship deliveries of construction supplies to Syria that started in 2002, and American satellites spotted the construction as early as 2003, but regarded the work as nothing unusual, in part because the Syrians had banned radio and telephones from the site and handled communications solely by messengers - "medieval but effective," Ruehle said.

Intensive investigation followed by US and Israeli intelligence services until Israel sent a 12-man commando unit in two helicopters to the site in August 2007 to take photographs and soil samples, he said. "The analysis was conclusive that it was a North Korean-type reactor," a gas graphite model, Ruehle said.

Other sources have suggested that the reactor might have been large enough to make about one nuclear weapon's worth of plutonium a year.

Just before the Israeli commando raid, a North Korean ship was intercepted en route to Syria with nuclear fuel rods, underscoring the need for fast action, he said. "On the morning of Sept. 6, 2007, seven Israeli F-15 fighter bombers took off to the north. They flew along the Mediterranean coast, brushed past Turkey and pressed on into Syria. Fifty kilometers (30 miles) from their target they fired 22 rockets at the three identified objects inside the Kibar complex.

"The Syrians were completely surprised. By the time their air defense systems were ready, the Israeli planes were well out of range. The mission was successful, the reactor destroyed," Ruehle said.

Israel estimates that Iran had paid North Korea between $1 billion and $2 billion for the project, Ruehle said. Israel has not commented on the strike, but after a delay of several months Washington presented intelligence purporting to show the target was a reactor being built with North Korean help.

Iranian officials were not available for comment because of a national holiday. In general, Iran has been silent about the Syrian facility bombed by Israel. Syrian officials could not be reached for comment. But Syria has denied the facility was a nuclear plant, saying it was an unused military building. It has also denied any nuclear cooperation with North Korea or Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency earlier this year said UN Inspectors had found processed uranium traces in samples taken from the site.

Syria has suggested the traces came from Israel ordnance used to hit the site, but the IAEA said the composition of the uranium made that unlikely. Israel has denied it was the source of the uranium.

Syria has told diplomats that it built a missile facility over the ruins of the site.  

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...689320,00.html


----------



## CougarKing

Ouch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_obama



> *Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures*
> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer
> 1 hr 3 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – *Iran's supreme leader rebuffed President Barack Obama's latest outreach on Saturday, saying Tehran was still waiting to see concrete changes in U.S. policy.
> 
> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was responding to a video message Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, and expressed hopes for an improvement in nearly 30 years of strained relations.
> 
> Khamenei holds the last word on major policy decisions, and how Iran ultimately responds to any concrete U.S. effort to engage the country will depend largely on his say.*
> 
> In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, *Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.
> 
> "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
> 
> In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community "cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
> 
> Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
> 
> Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama's language compared to that of his predecessor.
> 
> "He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
> 
> Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."*
> 
> Diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Iran were cut after the U.S. Embassy hostage-taking after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the pro-U.S. shah and brought to power a government of Islamic clerics.
> 
> *The United States cooperated with Iran in late 2001 and 2002 in the Afghanistan conflict, but the promising contacts fizzled — and were extinguished completely when Bush branded Tehran part of the "Axis of Evil."*
> 
> Khamenei enumerated a long list of Iranian grievances against the United States over the past 30 years and said the U.S. was still interfering in Iranian affairs.
> 
> He mentioned U.S. sanctions against Iran, U.S. support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during his 1980-88 war against Iran and the downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988.
> 
> He also accused the U.S. of provoking ethnic tension in Iran and said Washington's accusations that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons are a sign of U.S. hostility. Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, like energy production, not for building weapons.
> 
> "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.
> 
> Khamenei, wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted "Death to America."
> 
> Prominent political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Khamenei's comments did not amount to a rejection of better ties with the Obama administration. Rather, Iran's current hard-line leaders need to publicly maintain some degree of anti-U.S. rhetoric to bolster their own position, especially with their conservative base, he said.
> 
> "Iran's ruling Islamic establishment needs to lessen tensions with the U.S. and at the same time maintain a controlled animosity with Washington," he said. "Iran can't praise Obama all of a sudden."
> 
> Khamenei will also likely stand his ground as long as he remains concerned about the United States' ability to destabilize Iran, he said.
> 
> For its part, the Obama administration must take practical steps such as lifting a ban on selling Iran spare parts for passenger aircraft or considering unfreezing Iranian assets in the U.S., Leilaz said.
> 
> Obama has signaled a willingness to speak directly with Iran about its nuclear program and hostility toward Israel, a key U.S. ally. At his inauguration last month, the president said his administration would reach out to rival states, declaring "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
> 
> "They say we have stretched a hand toward Iran. ... If a hand is stretched covered with a velvet glove but it is cast iron inside, that makes no sense," Khamenei said.


----------



## a_majoor

Iran reacts to the stressors by removing websites. This could become an exponentially accelerating problem, with the only total solution for the Theocracy being to remove the .ir domain from the Internet root name servers and severing outside ties. (Of course they are attempting to do this already, but half steps only make the problem bigger).:

http://www.technologyreview.com/wire/22323/?nlid=1875&a=f



> *Iran dismantles unspecified number of Web sites*
> By Associated Press
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's official news agency says the country's Revolutionary Guards has dismantled an unspecified number of Web sites that allegedly received financial assistance from foreign governments.
> 
> The IRNA agency says the Guards also arrested several of the Web site's owners for allegedly operating anti-Islamic and pornographic sites.
> 
> Thursday's report didn't provide further details including the identity of those arrested or names of the dismantled Web sites.
> 
> Iran has repeatedly accused the United States and some of its allies of seeking to undermine the country's ruling system. Authorities have arrested -- and later released -- several Iranian-Americans over the past two years on charges of seeking to overthrow the government.
> 
> Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
> 
> Copyright Technology Review 2009.


----------



## CougarKing

Makes one wonder how long the Israelis will actually wait under this new government before they decide to strike.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/petraeus-israel-might-att_n_181867.html



> *Petraeus: Israel Might Attack Iran*
> The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus, warned today that Israel might attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, Bloomberg reports.
> 
> 
> Army General David Petraeus told Congress that *"the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."
> 
> 
> While Iran insists its nuclear program is intended for peaceful power generation, Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said "Iranian officials have consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification."
> 
> Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and won't give international inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities.*
> 
> 
> *Petraeus' warning comes a day after Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened to force Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program if the United States did not do so first.*
> 
> 
> In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, *Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons--and quickly--or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities itself. *


----------



## tomahawk6

I think an Israeli strike on Iran is going to happen. The Israelis though arent going to take that step unless they are prepared on the ground for a possible response from Lebanon,Syria and Gaza. If it was practical I would use the Jericho missiles against the primary targets and save the IDF for the counterattack from Iran's proxies. I just wouldnt risk losing aircraft and pilots.


----------



## GAP

I would agree....something is coming, either by internal stealth, or outward strike, but I honestly can't see Israel tolerating this in their back yard...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmmm I wonder if the uranium stockpile and mine are worthwhile targets?

Civilian use? 
It is a peaceful civilian effort to become energy independent. But a new report by government scientists reveals that Iran is either misguided or lying. Close examination of the Iranian energy market shows that this is at best a misguided quest, and far more likely a cover for a nuclear weapons program. 

Why does a country with 90 years of oil reserves and 220 years of natural gas reserves need nuclear energy? A study entitled "The Economics of Energy Independence for Iran" in the March 2007 Nonproliferation Review stated, "If energy independence is the goal, the logical strategy is conservation and stewardship of national oil and natural gas resources." 

But Iran is notably inefficient in utilizing its fossil fuels. Iran "flares" or burns off over eight percent of its natural gas, 17 times the flare rate in North America and equal to the energy output of four nuclear reactors like the one at Bushehr. Simple efficiencies in handling natural gas would make Iran more energy independent, without the political fallout from building a nuclear program. The report concludes that Iran's "investment in front-end nuclear fuel cycle facilities is not consistent with the economics of nuclear power." But it is consistent with a weapons program. 

Iran's Atomic Energy Agency claims that it has uranium to last for decades, but the available facts say otherwise. 

The Nonproliferation Review study found that Iran's uranium reserves are four-tenths of one percent of other fuel reserves. Even Iran's paltry coal reserves have six times the energy output of its uranium. Furthermore, Iran is quickly running through what limited uranium reserves it has. A February 2009 report from the Institute of Science and International Security notes that Iran is only operating one of its two uranium mines, adding "Iran could be close to exhausting its supply of uranium oxide while lacking the adequate resources to sustain indigenous commercial-scale uranium processing and enrichment." The report noted that the uranium shortfall underscored a "fundamental inconsistency" in Iran's stated intentions to construct a "commercially viable, indigenously fueled, civil nuclear power industry." But there is enough uranium to sustain a nuclear weapons program. 

Other reports underscore the fallacy of a nuclear-powered energy-independent Iran. In November 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Iran has used two-thirds of its original uranium stockpile dating back to the days of the Shah, but also noted that it is difficult to determine the precise scope of Iran's stockpile because Iran has refused to give the agency access to all of its uranium mining, milling, and enrichment facilities. The question remains why Iran would hide these and other aspects of its purportedly peaceful energy program. The report also noted that Iran has continued to defy the United Nations Security Council by continuing to enrich uranium necessary for a weapons program. 

Iran's rationale of attaining energy independence through nuclear power is clearly unsustainable in the face of other less costly domestic options. Also, Iran would not have the domestic uranium production capacity necessary to sustain an independent nuclear power program. 

We are driven to the conclusion that Iran is not seeking energy independence but desires a nuclear weapons capability. "Iran's progress in the nuclear field cannot be stopped," said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in his recent New Year's address to the nation. Maybe. But there is no credible economic justification for having started it in the first place. 

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/02/civilian-use-new-evidence-casts-doubt-on-irans-nuc/print/


----------



## Rifleman62

Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad calls President Obama and tells him, "Barack, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America , the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Obama asks. Mahmud replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN."

Obama says, "You know, Mahmud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran , and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Mahmud asks.

Obama replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."


----------



## CougarKing

So what are they waiting for?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece



> Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
> 
> Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem
> The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.
> 
> Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.
> 
> Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.
> 
> “Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.
> 
> Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.
> 
> The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.
> 
> The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.
> 
> “We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.
> 
> He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.
> 
> An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.
> 
> Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.
> 
> “The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.
> 
> A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.
> 
> “Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.
> 
> Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> “Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”
> 
> Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.
> 
> Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.
> 
> Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.
> 
> “Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.


----------



## tomahawk6

Timing is everything. You just dont do an op like this unless you are fully prepared for the blowback.


----------



## Xiang

Is there any confirmation whether or not Iran has the Russian S400?  There has been a lot of speculation.  If so, it would certainly wreak havoc on the Israeli air force.

The Israeli's had an exercise with Greece not too long ago to test their air forces ability against the S400 and it didn't turn out well.


----------



## a_majoor

Moving the goal posts closer:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/iran-launches-airstrikes-on-iraqi-villages/



> *Iran Launches Airstrikes on Iraqi Villages*
> By Noah Shachtman  May 4, 2009  |  10:18 am  |  Categories: Iraq, Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians, Rogue States, Tactics, Strategy and Logistics
> 
> Iranian aircraft attacked three villages inside Iraq over the weekend. The airstrikes — Iran’s first on Iraqi soil since the U.S. invasion — could complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Tehran.
> 
> “The bombardments appeared to have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the mountains of northern Iraq,” AFP reports. Iran has attacked the Kurdish group before, with artillery. But this is the first time the Iranians followed up, with assaults from the air.
> 
> “The incident comes a week after reports of a clash between Iranian police officers and suspected PJAK fighters in the country’s western province of Kermanshah,” Al-Jazeera reports. “At least 10 policemen and 10 fighters were killed in the gun battle.”
> 
> Details on the airstrikes remain sketchy. Voice of America says the attacks were carried out by helicopters, which remained in Iranian airspace. Al-Arabiyah television, on the other hand, says it was “Iranian planes [that] raided those villages.”
> 
> 
> It is a serious development because the Iraqi airspace is under the control of the US Air Force and under US protection.  So the raids are either approved by the United States, as was the case when a US nod was previously given to the Turkish Army, or such operation was a surprise by the Iranians.  According to eyewitnesses, the planes were flying at very low altitudes, which may indicate that they were trying to escape detection by radars. So these planes were able to attack many locations.  Eyewitnesses and official Kurdish sources said that the raids were carried out by fighter jets and not helicopters.
> 
> In February, American fighter jets shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. Such an incursion would’ve likely provoked an angry response from the previous administration. But the reaction to the drone incident was muted — perhaps in the interest of keeping the dialogue with Tehran going.



and:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/



> Funny this hasn’t gotten more attention. But maybe the press is taking its cue from this: “In February, American fighter jets shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. Such an incursion would’ve likely provoked an angry response from the previous administration. But the reaction to the drone incident was muted — perhaps in the interest of keeping the dialogue with Tehran going.”
> 
> UPDATE: Reader Fred LaSor thinks the causation works the other way: “My reading is that our ‘muted’ reaction after the drone shootdown was a consideration when the Iranians contemplated their weekend airstrikes inside Iraq. I take this action on their part to be more than a random act — it is another probe to see if Obama will react. Far from keeping dialogue going, our muted response will only encourage Iran to continue its belligerence. Not a good sign.”


----------



## Xiang

Sensational articles like these really irk me.  Iran is simply defending itself against a group that has caused the death of Iranians from terrorist attacks.  Iran saw an opportunity to strike and they took it.

Isn't this no different from the US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?  

Isn't it no different from when Turkey conducted their operation against the PKK?

Iran is not being belligerent.  They are not a threat to the world because of this.  They simply did what any responsible nation would do when threatened.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which opportunity was that, Obama?

I don't recall this group conducting any recent operations, do you have links to recent attacks they claim they have done?


----------



## Xiang

The PJAK killed 24 Iranian security forces in 2006.  These strikes against them should be considered very minor considering the scale of operations taken against Lebanon/Hezbollah at the abduction of 2 soldiers.

And if you want to talk about taking advantage of administrations (which is why you mentioned Obama isn't it?) then what are your views on the Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq during their operation against the PKK at the near end of the Bush administration?

Turkey knew Bush was quite literally a lame duck in office and used that opportunity to invade Northern Iraq.  That theory is pure speculation of course, much like your Obama theory is as well.

After all, there is no statute of limitations when going against terrorist organizations.


----------



## a_majoor

Sorry Xiang, but your arguments can be parsed down to the playground "he did it first" sort.

Consider:

Iran is defying international convention by carrying on with a clandestine nuclear program which aims to create nuclear weapons.

Iran publicly and repeatedly threatens the destruction of Israel

Iran exchanges nuclear and missile technology with the DPRK, another rogue regime

Iranian weapons, resources and members of their military and paramilitary forces have been repeatedly captures in Iraq starting with the rise of the 2003 Insurgency.

Iranian weapons have been captured in Afghanistan in use against ISAF forces

Iranian weapons, money and military and paramilitary members have been reported and captured in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel

The question boils down to do "we" sit by idly as Iran seeks to become a regional hegemon and put its foot on the oil arteries of Europe, India and China (and also destabilize the global energy markets by doing so?) Do we allow a capricious and barbarous regime to expand and grow at the expense of ourselves and others, or do we take positive steps to thwart their ambitions and prevent them from reaching their goals?


----------



## Xiang

> Iran is defying international convention by carrying on with a clandestine nuclear program which aims to create nuclear weapons.



Incorrect.  Their energy pursuit has so far been strictly peaceful.  Read some of my earlier comments in this topic regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.  They are at a point now where they need it for stability, even if that means it will tick off the US.

So far, there are no definitive conclusions of any nuclear weapons programs.  All there has been is fear mongering, war mongering and rhetoric.



> Iran publicly and repeatedly threatens the destruction of Israel



Incorrect again.  They called for the elimination of Zionism.  Again, read some of my previous entries in this thread explaining the difference.



> Iran exchanges nuclear and missile technology with the DPRK, another rogue regime



And the US trained and armed the Contras in Nicaragua.  Should the US be liberated?   The US supplied weapons and intelligence to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.  Nations will do what is in their best interests for survival, especially when you have worlds only super power itching for a go at you.



> Iranian weapons, resources and members of their military and paramilitary forces have been repeatedly captures in Iraq starting with the rise of the 2003 Insurgency



Of course they have.  The US created a wave of instability with their invasion, which in turn created a power vacuum.  It is in Iran's best interests to do what ever they can to ensure Iraq is no longer a threat, and would be working in Iran's interests.  

Remember, Iran was the victim of the Iran/Iraq war, and Iraq had already invaded its neighbors.  

I don't see anyone here complaining when, as mentioned above, the US supported "less than favorable" people in their own best interests.   It's all part of geopolitics.



> Iranian weapons have been captured in Afghanistan in use against ISAF forces



So have Chinese weapons.  There is no proof the Iranian government is directly responsible.

US weapons have been found to be in use by the FARC against Colombian forces.  Does that mean the US is responsible for arming these rebels?  No, it just means some rogue elements were able to sell these weapons to people, in turn have them fall into the wrong hands.



> Iranian weapons, money and military and paramilitary members have been reported and captured in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel



Again, this is all proxy warfare.  Nearly every nation has done this in one form or another.  It's hipocritical for one nation to do it, then call foul when another does it.

Let Iran sort itself out. The people are coming around.  My last visit to Iran was a real eye opener.  The people aren't savage, flag burning terrorists.  

The people are pro-Western.  The majority do not agree with what their government is doing.  Things will eventually change, but they will not change for the better at the end of a gun barrel.


----------



## Shec

Xiang said:
			
		

> in this
> 
> Incorrect again.  They called for the elimination of Zionism.  Again, read some of my previous entries in this thread explaining the difference.
> 
> .



Sorry Xiang.    Subtle, even pedantic, semantic distinctions aside the fact remains that Zionism = the Jewish state = Israel which to its many opponents, including the Iranian leader,  should not exist as such and should be called Palestine or Canaan or anything but a name associated with the quest for a sovereign Jewish homeland (ie. Zionism).


----------



## Xiang

> the fact remains that Zionism = the Jewish state = Israel



That's quite a bold statement considering its completely erroneous.


----------



## Shec

How so?


----------



## Xiang

Zionism is an ideology/movement, not a physical entity.  Zionism exists outside of Israel as well.


----------



## Shec

Xiang said:
			
		

> Zionism is an ideology/movement, not a physical entity.  Zionism exists outside of Israel as well.



Yes, a political movement calling for a sovereign Jewish homeland, named Israel,  and since that movement was founded in 1887 1897 it's ideology has actualized into the form of a physical entity.   The movement's existance outside of Israel consists principally of support for the state as the Jewish homeland.

The movement has several political gradations: Labor, Liberal , Religious, and Revisionist Zionism, that like political parties have varying degrees of  left or right-wing platforms.  But the commonal value is that they all call for the state of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.  So I stand by my equation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted by writer, I was out by 10 years when I referenced the formal founding at the First Zionist Congress in Basle.


----------



## Xiang

You have a very simplistic view on Zionism.


----------



## dale622

I wouldn't so much call it narrow minded....... more like a dictionary definition. Therefore it is understood by the majority to be just that!


----------



## Xiang

dale622 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't so much call it narrow minded....... more like a dictionary definition. Therefore it is understood by the majority to be just that!



One explanation hardly constitutes a full "dictionary definition", but rather a simple explanation, leaving out the complexities of it.   Zionism itself isn't even practiced by all Jews.


----------



## dale622

It may not be practiced by all Jewish people. That I can agree with.
But Zionism in itself is a majority Jewish practice.


----------



## Xiang

What are your views on these Jewish people?

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/


----------



## dale622

It's just another group of Jewish people with different views. This does nothing to change an opinion on Zionism.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have their own nation; Jewish nationalism. Zionism gained much support among Jews and others in the early twentieth century, and the hoped-for nation was established in the late 1940s in Palestine, as the state of Israel. Zionism is opposed by most Arabs.

That's all there really is to Zionism. Sure there may be slightly different opinions and form different groups of "Zionists". The ultimate goal in the end is still the same.

I'm not saying the entire Jewish community are Zionists......


----------



## Shec

Xiang said:
			
		

> You have a very simplistic view on Zionism.



And just what is your more expansive view?  I did not deny the support rendered by Christian Zionists and other sympathizers.  Nor did I deny the existance of dissenting views within Judiasm.  I merely gave a succinct and definitive description of what it is, which Dale substantiates.

Posit your thesis.  I invite you to prove how our view is "simplistic" and why.


----------



## Xiang

Interesting discussion fellas.  I like a good debate.

Unfortunately I have to hit the sac.  Gotta head out for NIAC tomorrow and Sunday.  I'll resume this on Monday, including some hard hitting points that are sure to win the "tin foil hat" awards.

Until then, have a great weekend, and keep your heads down.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Could it not be sufficient to say that in order to wipe out Zionism, you would have to destroy Israel? Or vice versa? This back and forth is pointless.  Iran wants to see Israel destroyed.  I think they've made that pretty plain.  If Iran is running it's collective mouth and spouting rhetoric about destroying Zionists, if the whole planet thinks that is what they mean then it becomes its own reality.  They aren't idiots and I'm sure they get back reaction feedback from their speeches.  If the comment was made in error and they were worried about how it was being taken, they could have made a retraction.  They meant what they said.  There is no massive academic pursuit or debate here.  It's common sense.


----------



## dale622

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo&feature=related

You can't make a statement like that in front of a mass audience like that and not mean what you say. This man denies the fact the millions were killed in concentration camps. He declares the Israel as an invasion. On top of it all a nuclear program weaponized or not, under such secret conditions is quite the suspicious behavior.

What is he trying to hide and what is he trying to prove? 

I can understand why they have built up their air defence and other key military defence initiatives..... If the states was making practice bombing runs to hit key points in the oilsands. Would we not build up our AD capability to defend it as well?

All in all I see this as another case of people using religion as an excuse to take a swing at the guy next door. Going to war for the wrong reason should be viewed as a war crime as soon as the first casualty is named as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not pleading innocence..... there was this thing back in the day.... called the crusades..... can't really say that catholicism is all good in it's own right. If all the books promote peace, then why are we still at war?

Jihad is the biggest oxymoron to kick off the 21st century.


----------



## Shec

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Could it not be sufficient to say that in order to wipe out Zionism, you would have to destroy Israel? Or vice versa? This back and forth is pointless.  Iran wants to see Israel destroyed.  I think they've made that pretty plain.  If Iran is running it's collective mouth and spouting rhetoric about destroying Zionists, if the whole planet thinks that is what they mean then it becomes its own reality.  They aren't idiots and I'm sure they get back reaction feedback from their speeches.  If the comment was made in error and they were worried about how it was being taken, they could have made a retraction.  They meant what they said.  There is no massive academic pursuit or debate here.  It's common sense.



I think it goes just a little deeper than that Zip.  Since, as Xiang does point out, it is ideology and it does have a significant base of support outside of Israel,  by extension the ideology would have to be destroyed in addition to it's physical manifestation.  And destroying an ideology entails genocide against its adherents, in this case a Holocaust II.  I do not mean to diminish the other post-Holocaust genocides of other peoples, I am using the word "Holocaust" to refer specifically to the 1933-1945 period.  Therefore,  we are talking about the destruction of Jews and very likely their non-Jewish sympathizers.  Even those non-Zionist Jews who for whatever reason be it religious convictions, social conscience, or just plain gutlessness, would be at risk, oh they might live a little longer but in the end they would probably face destruction too because that is the nature of intolerance.

You are  bang-on when you  state that what has been said should be taken at face value and when you imply that  common sense should always prevail.


----------



## CougarKing

An update: She has been released. Good.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/11/...list/index.html



> Journalist's release prompts praise from Washington
> Story Highlights
> President applauds Saberi's release but says she was wrongly accused
> 
> U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi released from jail, attorney says
> 
> Family plans to return to United States as soon as they can
> 
> Saberi was convicted on espionage charges, sentenced to eight years in prison
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An imprisoned Iranian-American journalist accused of spying for the United States was freed Monday, ending a four-month ordeal that became a focal point of tension between Washington and Tehran.
> 
> "We are very happy," Roxana Saberi's father said as he waited for his daughter outside Evin prison.
> 
> Noting that at one point during her incarceration his daughter underwent a hunger strike and had to be hospitalized, Reza Saberi added, "She was very desperate to get out. ... She was quite relieved to know that the whole world is supporting her."
> 
> In Washington, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama was "relieved" at the news of the release.
> 
> "We know that this has been a trying time for her family and friends, and he looks forward to welcoming her home to the United States," Gibbs said at a daily news briefing. "We want to continue to stress that she was wrongly accused, but we welcome this humanitarian gesture."
> 
> Roxana Saberi, 32, was convicted last month on espionage charges in a one-day trial closed to the public. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. She denies the charges.
> 
> Monday's reversal came a day after Iran's court of appeals heard her case.
> 
> The court agreed with Saberi's lawyers that because Iran is not at war with the United States, Saberi cannot be punished for cooperating with agents of a nation at war with Iran, according to Saberi's spokesman, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi.
> 
> Her sentence was changed to a two-year jail term suspended for five years, Iran's state-run news agency IRNA reported.
> 
> State-run Press TV, citing "officials close to the case," reported that the suspended sentence "will be automatically abolished if Saberi shows no unlawful conduct in the next five years."
> 
> "Obviously, we continue to take issue with the charges against her and the verdicts rendered," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. "But we are very heartened that she has been released and wish her and her family all of the very best we can send their way."
> 
> Reza Saberi said the family will return to their home in the United States "as soon as we can make arrangements for the trip."
> 
> Through her ordeal, Roxana Saberi, who has lived in Iran since 2003 and reported for several news organizations, became a symbol of the fight for journalists' freedoms worldwide.
> 
> "We are thrilled," said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. "But this is also a moment to reflect on the difficult conditions that Iranian journalists endure every day. Several Iranian journalists remain jailed today. We urge they be given the same opportunity for judicial review that was afforded to Roxana Saberi."
> 
> Dave Aeikens, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, said, "Iran has a long way to go in guaranteeing freedom of the press, but this is one small indication that there is hope for the future."
> 
> The fight for Saberi's freedom took an unusual twist last month, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to Tehran's prosecutor calling for justice in her case and the case of Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian-Canadian blogger imprisoned in the country since November.
> 
> Reporters Without Borders, a group that fights for journalists' rights worldwide, says Derakhshan was sentenced to four years in prison for disseminating the views of one ayatollah and for "publicity against the government."
> 
> Saberi was detained in January after initially being accused of buying a bottle of wine and working as a journalist without proper accreditation, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
> 
> She was soon charged with espionage.
> 
> "Without press credentials and under the name of being a reporter, she was carrying out espionage activities," Hassan Haddad, a deputy public prosecutor, recently told the Iranian Student's News Agency.
> 
> Authorities said Saberi confessed. Her father has said he thinks she was coerced into making damaging statements.
> 
> The whole experience has been "very depressing" for her, and she has gone through a great deal of frustration, Saberi's father said Monday. "It will take some time before she can overcome it."
> 
> He added, "It's not the [Iranian] people; they are very friendly. We don't understand why it happened."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Keep in mind that what we see from the outside is the tip of the iceberg of what goes on within the regime. I speak to a lot of Iranians and the Iran-Iraq war has a huge effect on their thinking, they lost 500,000 people plus maybe a million wounded in a war with little to show for it, there is little desire to go to war at the street level and I think the government knows this. The economy is staggering and this will effect the ruling elite ability to buy off supporters, only about 51% of the population is Persian and there are major internal issues boiling away. The Republican Guard is slowly taking over all aspects of the economy, which will dilute their desire to be involved in a major war, which is not likely to end well for the Iranians. It’s pretty clear that Iran wants nukes more as a shield against invasion and a power card to force their views onto the region. Baiting Israel while you have a nice buffer state between you is ok for a conventional armed country, it will have implications that can spin out of control, once the nuke threat comes into play It’s also not in the interests of Iran to have a Taliban ruled Afghanistan, but also not in their interests to have a very pro-western government there as well. I fully expect a continuation of the rhetoric along with varying support for Hezbollah and Hamas. 
Even more so if Iran becomes a nuke state, war by proxy seems to be the norm for nuke armed countries.


----------



## CougarKing

And here we go again with Ahmadinejad's usual saber-rattling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_missile_test



> TEHRAN, Iran – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran test-fired a new advanced missile Wednesday with a range of about 1,200 miles, far enough to strike Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East.
> 
> The announcement will not reassure the U.S. government, coming just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year.
> 
> "Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He spoke during a visit to the city of Semnan, 125 miles east of the capital Tehran, where Iran's space program is centered.
> 
> Ahmadinejad is running for re-election in a June 12 vote and has been criticized by his opponents and others for antagonizing the U.S. and mismanaging the country's faltering economy.
> 
> Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.
> 
> The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."
> 
> Iran says its missile program is merely for defense and its space program is for scientific and surveillance purposes. It maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian energy uses only.
> 
> The solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile is a new version of the Sajjil missile, which Iran said it had successfully tested late last year with a similar range.
> 
> Iran's nuclear and missile programs have alarmed Israel, and the country's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pressed Obama to step up pressure on Tehran when the two met in Washington on Monday. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination, and the Jewish state has not ruled out a military strike to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.


----------



## CougarKing

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.278ae37b736a0478b7223156a3bcf18a.401&show_article=1
> 
> Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.
> Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.
> 
> But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.
> 
> Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear armed state, considers Iran its arch-foe after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map."
> 
> Israel and Washington accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.
> 
> Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.
> 
> It was carried out by Tel Aviv University's Centre for Iranian Studies among 509 Israeli adults and had a 4.5-percent margin of error.



  51-49, with a +/- 4.5% margin of error, is not much to hang a policy-making "hat" on.

Second, the answer to the question "then what?" has not be articulated. Once a war is started with Iran, how will it be conducted and what is the exit strategy? Is Israel prepared for the fall out in & around it's own country?

Also, is the US prepared for the implications of an attack on Iran?


----------



## jacksparrow

IRAN: SIX WARSHIPS DISPATCHED TO THE GULF OF ADEN

AGI) - Teheran, 25 May - Iran has dispatched six warships to the Gulf of Aden. The news was released by press agency ISNA, reporting a declaration by Admiral Habibollah Sayyari. The ships' presence, the Admiral said, is a signal to anyone who would want to militarily face the Ayatollah regime. On May 14, the Admiral had announced the dispatch of two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect Iranian oil tankers from pirate attacks.

http://www.agi.it/world/news/2009052...e_gulf_of_aden


----------



## CougarKing

Not too surprising, I suppose?



> Venezuela and Bolivia supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program
> 
> JERUSALEM - Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
> 
> The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran's nuclear program, considered a strategic threat by Israel.
> 
> "There are reports that Venezuela supplies Iran with uranium for its nuclear program," the Foreign Ministry document states, referring to previous Israeli intelligence conclusions. It added, "Bolivia also supplies uranium to Iran."
> 
> The report concludes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine the United States by supporting Iran.
> 
> Venezuela and Bolivia are close allies, and both regimes have a history of opposing U.S. foreign policy and Israeli actions. Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador during Israel's offensive in Gaza this year, and Israel retaliated by expelling the Venezuelan envoy. Bolivia cut ties with Israel over the offensive.
> 
> There was no immediate comment from officials in Venezuela or Bolivia on the report's allegations.
> 
> The three-page document about Iranian activities in Latin America was prepared in advance of a visit to South America by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who will attend a conference of the Organization of American States in Honduras next week. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is also scheduled to visit the region.
> 
> Israel considers Iran a serious threat because of its nuclear program, development of long-range missiles and frequent references by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Israel's destruction. Israel dismisses Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, charging that the Iranians are building nuclear weapons.
> 
> Iran says its nuclear work is aimed only at producing energy. Its enrichment of uranium has increased concerns about its program because that technology can be used both to produce fuel for power plants and to build bombs.
> 
> Israel has been pressing for world action to stop the Iranian program. While saying it prefers diplomatic action, Israel has not taken its military option off the table. Experts believe Israel is capable of destroying some of Iran's nuclear facilities in airstrikes.
> 
> Iran, under Ahmadinejad, has strengthened its ties with both Venezuela and Bolivia, where it opened an embassy last year. Its alliance with the left-led nations is based largely on their shared antagonism to the United States but is also a way for Iran to lessen its international isolation.
> 
> The Israeli government report did not say where the uranium that it alleged the two countries were supplying originated from.
> 
> Bolivia has uranium deposits. Venezuela is not currently mining its own estimated 50,000 tons of untapped uranium reserves, according to an analysis published in December by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Carnegie report said, however, that recent collaboration with Iran in strategic minerals has generated speculation that Venezuela could mine uranium for Iran.
> 
> The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America. It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.
> 
> The report concludes, "Since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of 'bringing America to its knees.'"
> 
> The document says Venezuela and Bolivia are violating the United Nations Security Council's economic sanctions with their aid to Iran.
> 
> As allies against the U.S., Ahmadinejad and Chavez have set up a $200 billion fund aimed at garnering the support of more South American countries for the cause of "liberation from the American imperialism," according to the report.
> 
> Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor refused to comment about the secret report.


----------



## CougarKing

And Israel demonstrates its belief in the adage: "You can never be too prepared", especially if war with Iran is a distinct possibility.



> Israel begins its biggest civil defense drill
> 05/31/2009 | 07:32 PM
> 
> 
> JERUSALEM – Israel began the biggest civil defense drill in its history on Sunday, putting soldiers, emergency crews, and civilians through rehearsals for the possibility of war at a time of rising tensions with Iran.
> 
> The five-day drill, code-named Turning Point III, will include simulated rocket and missile attacks on Israeli cities, including preparations for a nonconventional strike. Air-raid sirens are to sound across the country on Tuesday and for the first time, all Israeli civilians will be required to practice taking cover in shelters when the sirens go off.
> 
> It's the third consecutive year that Israel is holding the exercise, a direct result of its inconclusive 2006 war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. During the conflict, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into Israel, and civil defense authorities, bomb shelters and air raid alarms were found to be unprepared.
> 
> Iran's development of long-range missiles, along with international concerns that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, have added to Israeli jitters. While the international community has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, Israel has not ruled out military action.
> 
> Israeli leaders played down any connection between those tensions and this week's exercise, and officials have been at pains to allay fears among Arab neighbors, such as Lebanon and Syria, that it could be a cover for a military strike.
> 
> Speaking at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the drill as "routine" and said it was not connected to any specific event or to any intelligence warning.
> 
> "We are required to defend Israel, its cities, various installations, from the possibility of attacks by missiles, rockets or other weapons," he said. "I think the fact that Israel is preparing more from exercise to exercise and is capable of better protecting its citizens decreases the chance that we'll have to use these tools."
> 
> During the exercise, police, fire and ambulance services, hospitals, military rescue units and local authorities will practice dealing with various attack scenarios, including by missiles carrying non-conventional warheads, the national emergency service said in a statement.
> 
> It said the exercise would also include emergency sessions of the Cabinet to debate simulated events.
> 
> Defense officials said the exercises were designed to implement lessons learned from Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah. It also incorporates experience gleaned from barrages of rockets fired into southern Israel by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said.
> 
> "We are holding exercises to meet the threats as we have experienced them in the past few years and as we may face them in the future," Vilnai told the radio. "It's the third time we've carried out this drill and I imagine that next year at this time there will be Turning Point IV."
> 
> Similar rehearsals were conducted in 2007 and 2008, but the military said this year's exercise would be "the largest and most comprehensive yet." Last year, sirens failed to function in parts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
> 
> A state-of-the-art national civil defense control and command center will be inaugurated in this year's exercises.
> 
> Vilnai would not comment on whether the drill was meant to send a specific message to Iran but said every display or preparedness carried an element of deterrence.
> 
> "Our enemies long ago showed they believe that the home front is our Achilles heel," he said. "We are drilling there to prove that it is not." - AP


----------



## CougarKing

And there are those who believe an Israeli air strike on Iran is unlikely to succeed:

http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6CvXcfmRCq2V3MbmqNNmEWZz3ykxJR1Z



> 1. *Study: Israeli Attack on Iran Unlikely to Succeed*
> 
> A new study casts serious doubt on Israel's ability to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities — and warns of the repercussions of an Israeli attack.
> 
> The study is detailed in a 114-page paper by two senior scholars at Washington's Center for Strategic & International Studies: Anthony Cordesman, former national security adviser to Sen. John McCain, and Abdullah Toukan, who was an adviser to the late King Hussein of Jordan.
> 
> "Their conclusion: Chances of a strong success — defined by how much of Iran's uranium enrichment program is destroyed or the number of years the attack delays Iran's acquisition of material sufficient to build a nuclear bomb — seem dubious," the Jewish publication Forward reports, "while the risks of the undertaking and its harsh military and destabilizing geopolitical consequences seem overwhelming."
> 
> *A recent poll by Tel Aviv University's Center for Iranian Studies found that half of all Israelis favor an immediate Israeli attack on Iran. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said in a meeting with members of his Likud Party, discussing who will eliminate Iran's threat to Israel: "It is us or no one." *
> 
> But the study by Cordesman and Toukan points out a number of difficulties Israel would face:
> 
> 
> *Limited aerial resources would allow Israel to target only three sites among Iran's numerous nuclear development centers.
> 
> The attacks would require pinpoint accuracy to penetrate thick reinforced concrete and impact underground facilities.
> 
> Iran's air defenses, possibly bolstered by a sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft system, could down 20 percent to 30 percent of Israel's attack aircraft.
> 
> Even a successful attack on the three sites could prove futile if Iran maintains secret facilities for uranium enrichment, as is suspected.
> As for the repercussions of an Israeli attack, Iran and its Shiite allies in neighboring countries would launch retaliatory attacks against Israel, American military forces in Iraq, and Western interests in the region, the authors warn.
> 
> These attacks would include ballistic missiles — including some with chemical, biological and radiological warheads — targeting "Tel Aviv, Israeli military and civilian centers, and Israeli suspected nuclear weapons sites," the authors note, adding that Israeli's air defenses would not be able to cope with the tens of thousands of missiles.
> 
> Forward concludes, "Such a heavy military and strategic price, weighed against the real possibility that an Israeli strike will not significantly set back Iran's nuclear abilities, make an Israeli attack unlikely." *


----------



## Yrys

Iran marks Ayatollah Khomeini anniversary






_The Ayatollah was a key figure 
in the rise of political Islam_

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has strongly criticised the US as Iran marks 
20 years since the death of the founder of the Islamic republic. He said the US remained 
"deeply hated" in the region and "beautiful and sweet" words would not change that. He told 
the huge crowd at the mausoleum of his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomenei, that action was 
needed not words. He also demanded calmer exchanges between presidential candidates 
after a fiery televised debate on Wednesday.

Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused his rivals of corruption, while his leading 
opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, said Mr Ahmadinejad's foreign policy was undermining the 
dignity of the Iranian nation.

Mr Khamenei warned candidates that they should not let their differences of opinion lead 
to chaos. The ayatollah's speech came just hours before US President Barack Obama was 
to deliver a speech in Cairo aimed at establishing a new relationship with the Muslim world 
after years of tense relations under the Bush administration.

"In the past few years, American governments, especially the government of the foolish 
former president... have occupied two Islamic countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, under the 
pretext of the fight against terrorism," he said. "You witness that in Afghanistan, American 
warplanes bomb people and kill some 150 not once, but 10 and 100 times. They kill people 
continually. So, terrorist groups, do what you are doing there," he added. "If the new 
president of America wants a change of face, America should change this behaviour. 
Words and talk will not result in change."

Mr Khamenei went on to urge candidates in next week's presidential election to avoid 
damaging each other's reputation and to work towards a common purpose. He also 
accused foreigners of trying to discredit the elections, with "foreign radio programmes 
tarnishing the elections, making people pessimistic".

Under Iran's Islamic revolutionary system, designed primarily by the late Ayatollah 
Khomenei, the president is elected by universal suffrage, but it is the supreme leader 
who is empowered to determine all the key decisions of the state.  


From Jon Leyne, BBC Tehran correspondent:

After 20 years, the figure of Ayatollah Khomeini still dominates. His picture is on display 
in every public building and the system he created lives on, much as he designed it.

Even critics of Ayatollah Khomeini would accept that his was a huge, charismatic, presence, 
not that criticism of him is advisable inside Iran. He was an astute administrator and a very 
able politician with a degree of ruthlessness. He has been widely demonised in the West, but 
this man, so little understood outside Iran, is one of the key figures in the rise of political 
Islam, a movement that is one of the most powerful forces in the world today.


----------



## CougarKing

And the Iranian election heats up:

 Link



> Ahmadinejad lashes out at rival just before vote
> Associated Press Writer Anna Johnson, Associated Press Writer – 7 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's hard-line president took a final shot at his rivals Wednesday during his last public campaign rally, accusing his main pro-reform challenger of fabricating problems about the country's economy woes to sway voters.
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is locked in a neck-and-neck race against reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi. Both have launched intense political attacks against each other and have turned the presidential election into a display of Iran's deep political divides.
> 
> The outcome will have little direct impact on Iran's key policies — such as its nuclear program or possible acceptance of Washington's offer for dialogue — which are directly dictated by the ruling Islamic clerics. But Ahmadinejad has becoming a highly polarizing figure on the international stage with comments that include questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel's demise.
> 
> A change of government could ease Iran's isolation and give Washington and others a freer hand to build ties with Tehran and engage in negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The United States and others fear Iran could eventually seek nuclear weapons, but Iranian officials say the country only seeks peaceful reactors for electricity.
> 
> Thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters flocked to western Tehran to catch a glimpse of him and hear one of his final speeches before heading to the polls on Friday. No public campaigning is allowed the day before the vote.
> 
> They cheered Ahmadinejad's name, waved Iranian flags in the air and chanted slogans like "Mousavi is a liar!"
> 
> Hundreds of women dressed in long black robes, called chadors, draped Iranian flags around their neck, and several young men painted their faces in the red, white and green colors of the flag — Ahmadinejad's campaign symbol. About a dozen men stood on a nearby rooftop as Ahmadinejad spoke, frantically waving large Iranian flags in the air.
> 
> Mousavi has made Iran's struggling economy a hallmark of his campaign, accusing Ahmadinejad of manipulating statistics that hide the extent of the nation's fiscal problems despite its vast oil and gas reserves.
> 
> Earlier this week, Ahmadinejad insisted that inflation stood at 15 percent — lower than the 25 percent widely reported by financial officials. On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad admitted that inflation was 25 percent.
> 
> But he also accused Mousavi of lying about the state of the economy.
> 
> "With the grace of God, the Iranian nation will send them to the bottom of history," he said.
> 
> Two other candidates are in the race: former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezaei and former parliament speaker Mahdi Karroubi. In the increasingly tight race, their level of support could play a swing role — with Rezaei expected to draw conservative voters and Karroubi pulling in moderates.
> 
> Many of Ahmadinejad's supporters said they would vote for him because he fights for the common man and champions Islam — images projected in his campaign propaganda. Several of the posters handed out at the rally showed him praying, having dinner with a rural family and comforting an elderly man.
> 
> "He's very brave and a real Muslim. He says what is right and he doesn't get frightened by anyone," said supporter Mariam Nouri, 38, who had a red, white and green ribbon tied on her wrist.
> 
> Mousavi's backers have also been flocking to the streets in recent days to show their support, and a few wearing green wristbands — Mousavi's campaign color — gathered around the fray of Ahmadinejad's rally. Thousands of Mousavi supporters, many of them young people, plan to hold a street demonstration later Wednesday in Tehran, though it is unclear if the candidate will attend.
> 
> Mousavi also made a final campaign foray into Ahmadinejad's provincial strongholds.
> 
> During his speech, Ahmadinejad launched a scathing attack against his rivals and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He vowed to the cut the hands off of those who he says have plundered Iran's wealth if re-elected.
> 
> "Today, their problem is not Ahmadinejad. They want to take revenge on the nation because the sin the nation committed was that it made a new choice in the previous election (by electing Ahmadinejad) ... and gave a big no to the corrupt and mischief-makers," Ahmadinejad said, drawing loud cheers from the crowd.
> 
> Ahmadinejad has been locked in a fierce power struggle with Rafsanjani for years. During a televised debate on Saturday against Mousavi, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani and several current and former officials of corruption. In response, Rafsanjani sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader on Tuesday, warning him to take "serious action" against the president.
> 
> ____
> 
> Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini contributed to this report.


----------



## CougarKing

*(ETA: This thread has been updated/retitled. Please scroll down for the latest update)*

So if supposed reformist candidate Mousavi wins, will it be a new beginning for relations between Iran and the US/the West?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090612/world/international_us_iran_election



> *Both sides claim victory in Iran election*
> 39 minutes ago
> 
> By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - *State media declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of Iran's election on Friday, but challenger Mirhossein Mousavi alleged irregularities and claimed victory for himself.*
> 
> The head of the state election commission said Ahmadinejad was leading Mousavi by 69 percent to 28 percent with about 19 percent of ballots counted.
> 
> 
> The official news agency IRNA said: "Dr Ahmadinejad, by winning most votes at the 10th presidential election, has secured his victory."
> 
> 
> Mousavi had earlier tried to pre-empt official announcements by calling a news conference at which he alleged there had been irregularities, including a shortage of ballot papers.
> 
> 
> "I am the definite winner of this presidential election," he declared.
> 
> 
> There was no immediate response from Mousavi to the election commission's figures.
> 
> 
> A bitterly fought campaign has generated intense excitement inside Iran and provoked strong interest around the world, with policymakers looking for signs of a change of approach by Tehran, whose ties with the West worsened under Ahmadinejad.
> 
> 
> A victory for Mousavi could help ease tensions with the West, which is concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and improve chances of engagement with U.S. President Barack Obama, who has talked about a new start in ties with Tehran.
> 
> 
> Mousavi, a former prime minister, said many people had not been able to cast their ballots even after voting was extended by four hours.
> 
> 
> Earlier, in Washington, Obama said his administration was excited about the debate taking place in Iran and he hoped it would help the two countries to engage "in new ways."
> 
> 
> Mousavi, at his news conference, listed problems with the voting process.
> 
> 
> "(We) are waiting for the counting of votes to officially end and explanations of these irregularities be given," Mousavi said. "We expect to celebrate with people soon."
> 
> 
> "We hope that authorities in charge do their work in this regard with the wisdom of the supreme leader this issue would end in a good way."
> 
> 
> Under the election rules, if no candidate wins 50 percent of the votes, a run-off will be held on June 19 between the two front-runners.
> 
> VOTING QUEUES
> 
> 
> Long queues had formed at voting centers, both in northern, affluent areas of Tehran where Mousavi draws support and in southern, poorer neighborhoods seen as Ahmadinejad strongholds.
> 
> 
> High turnout could indicate voting by many pro-reformers who stayed away when Ahmadinejad won four years ago on a pledge to revive the values of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Political analysts have said they expect a close race.
> 
> For Iranians it is a chance to pass judgment on his management of the Islamic Republic's oil exporting economy.
> 
> Although Ahmadinejad, 52, says his government has revived economic growth and curbed price rises, inflation and high unemployment were the main campaign issues. Official inflation is around 15 percent.
> 
> Social issues, such as strict dress codes for women, as well as Iran's ties with the outside world, also featured in the campaign but the outcome of the vote will not bring a major shift in Iran's foreign policy, which is determined by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the revolution but Obama said in Washington that the United States had "tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change" in relations.
> 
> Mousavi, 67, rejects Western demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment but analysts say he would bring a different approach to Iran-U.S. ties and talks on Tehran's nuclear program, which the West fears is a cover to build bombs. Iran denies this.
> 
> "People's strong, revolutionary and clear decision will bring about a bright future for the nation," Ahmadinejad, a self-styled champion of the poor with strong support in rural areas, said while voting in a working class part of Tehran.
> 
> The three-week election campaign was marked by mudslinging, with Ahmadinejad accusing his rivals of corruption. They said he was lying about the state of the economy.
> 
> Ahmadinejad's election rivals, who also include liberal cleric Mehdi Karoubi and former Revolutionary Guard leader Mohsen Rezaie, have urged the Interior Ministry and Khamenei to ensure there is no vote rigging.
> 
> Mousavi's wife Zahra Rahnavard broke new ground in the conservative Islamic state by actively campaigning for her husband, a move hailed by women's rights activists.
> 
> "I thank all the people for their green presence which created a miracle," Mousavi said, referring to the colors worn by his backers who thronged Tehran streets during the campaign, as he voted in Tehran with his wife at his side.
> 
> (Additional reporting by Hossein Jaseb and Hashem Kalantari; writing by Fredrik Dahl and Dominic Evans; editing by Mark Trevelyan)[/B]


----------



## Kat Stevens

Colour me sceptical, but I'm pretty sure the result was decided before the election was even announced.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes but it takes some time to rig a vote when the great unwashed does not do as it is told.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes but it takes some time to rig a vote when the great unwashed does not do as it is told.



Not when the votes all get burned prior to a recount.Search April 1st 1949. ;D


----------



## CougarKing

And this disputed election leads to violent clashes between supporters of both candidates after Ahmadinejad is declared the winner.

Link



> Clashes erupt in Iran over disputed election
> Ali Akbar Dareini And Anna Johnson, Associated Press Writers – 8 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Supporters of the main election challenger to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clashed with police and set up barricades of burning tires Saturday as authorities claimed the hard-line president was re-elected in a landslide. The rival candidate said the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and his followers responded with the most serious unrest in the capital in a decade.
> 
> Several hundred demonstrators — many wearing the trademark green colors of pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign — chanted "the government lied to the people" and gathered near the Interior Ministry as the final count from Friday's presidential election was announced. It gave 62.6 percent of the vote to Ahmadinejad and 33.75 to Mousavi — a former prime minister who has become the hero of a youth-driven movement seeking greater liberties and a gentler face for Iran abroad.
> 
> Mousavi rejected the result as rigged and urged his supporters to resist a government of "lies and dictatorship."
> "I'm warning that I won't surrender to this manipulation," said a statement on Mousavi's Web site. "The outcome of what we've seen from the performance of officials ... is nothing but shaking the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran's sacred system and governance of lies and dictatorship," it added.
> 
> Mousavi warned "people won't respect those who take power through fraud." The headline on one of his Web sites read: "I won't give in to this dangerous manipulation."
> 
> Mousavi and key aides could not be reached by phone.
> 
> The clashes in central Tehran were the more serious disturbances in the capital since student-led protests in 1999. They showed the potential for the showdown to spill over into further violence and challenges to the Islamic establishment.
> 
> Mousavi appealed directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to intervene and stop what he said were violations of the law. Khamenei, who is not elected, holds ultimate political authority in Iran and controls all major policy decisions.
> 
> "I hope the leader's foresight will bring this to a good end," Mousavi said.
> 
> But Khamenei closed the door on any chance he could use his limitless powers to intervene in the election dispute. He urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad in a message on state TV, calling the result a "divine assessment."
> 
> The demonstrations began Saturday morning shortly before the government announced the final results.
> 
> Protesters set fire to tires outside the Interior Ministry and anti-riot police fought back with clubs and smashed cars. Helmeted police on foot and others on buzzing motorcycles chased bands of protesters roaming the streets pumping their fists in the air. Officers beat protesters with swift blows from their truncheons and kicks with their boots. Some of the demonstrators grouped together to charge back at police, hurling stones.
> 
> Plumes of dark smoke streaked over the city, as burning barricades of tires and garbage bins glowed orange in the streets.
> 
> An Associated Press photographer saw a plainclothes security official beating a woman with his truncheon. Italian state TV RAI said one of its crews was caught in the clashes in front Mousavi's headquarters. Their Iranian interpreter was beaten with clubs by riot police and officers confiscated the cameraman's tapes, the station said.
> 
> In another main street of Tehran, some 300 young people blocked the avenue by forming a human chain and chanted "Ahmadi, shame on you. Leave the government alone." There was no word on any casualties from the unrest.
> 
> It was not clear how many Iranians were even aware of Mousavi's claims of fraud. Communications disruptions began in the later hours of voting Friday — suggesting an information clampdown. State television and radio only broadcast the Interior Ministry's vote count and not Mousavi's midnight news conference.
> 
> Nationwide, the text messaging system remained down Saturday and several pro-Mousavi Web sites were blocked or difficult to access. Text messaging is frequently used by many Iranians — especially young Mousavi supporters — to spread election news.
> 
> Mousavi's campaign headquarters urged people to show restraint.
> 
> Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, who supervised the elections and heads the nation's police forces, warned people not to join any "unauthorized gatherings."
> 
> The powerful Revolutionary Guard cautioned Wednesday it would crush any "revolution" against the Islamic regime by Mousavi's "green movement." The Revolutionary Guard is directly under the control of the ruling clerics and has vast influence in every corner of the country through a network of volunteer militias.
> 
> Even before the vote counting began, Mousavi declared himself "definitely the winner" based on "all indications from all over Iran." He accused the government of "manipulating the people's vote" to keep Ahmadinejad in power and suggested the reformist camp would stand up to challenge the results.
> 
> "It is our duty to defend people's votes. There is no turning back," he said, alleging widespread irregularities.
> 
> Mousavi's backers were stunned at the Interior Ministry's claim that Ahmadinejad won after widespread predictions of a close race — or even a slight edge for the reformist candidate.
> 
> Turnout was a record 85 percent of the 46.2 million eligible voters.
> 
> "Many Iranians went to the people because they wanted to bring change," said Mousavi supporter Nasser Amiri, a hospital clerk in Tehran. "Almost everybody I know voted for Mousavi but Ahmadinejad is being declared the winner. The government announcement is nothing but widespread fraud. It is very, very disappointing. I'll never ever again vote in Iran."
> 
> At Tehran University — the site of the last major anti-regime unrest in Tehran in 1999 — the academic year was winding down and there was no sign of pro-Mousavi crowds. But university exams, scheduled to begin Saturday, were postponed until next month around the country.
> 
> Ahmadinejad planned a public address later Saturday in Tehran.
> 
> In the capital, several Ahmadinejad supporters cruised the streets waving Iranian flags out of car windows and shouting "Mousavi is dead!"
> 
> The election outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway major decisions, such as possible talks with Washington or nuclear policies. Those crucial issues rest with the ruling clerics headed by Khamenei.
> 
> But the election focused on what the office can influence: boosting Iran's sinking economy, pressing for greater media and political freedoms, and being Iran's main envoy to the world.
> 
> Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.
> 
> _____
> 
> Associated Press reporter Nasser Karimi contributed to this report from Tehran.


----------



## GAP

Iran was in similar turmoil just prior to using the US criticism of Iran's Nuclear Development a few years ago....there were riots/protest/etc until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the boggy man of a potential US/Isreal  attack as a way to focus the people's attention elsewhere.....anybody remember the big Yellow Cake? The speeches, etc....

expect to see something along the same lines in the very near future.....anything to find an outside enemy rather than focus on the enemy within...


----------



## Yrys

Slideshow: Iranian revolution 1979
The Iranian revolution put an end to the rule of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who
had alienated powerful religious and political forces with a programme of modernisation
and Westernisation. 

Iran's revolution turns 30, 10 February 2009
Since the cold day in February 1979 when the crowds stormed the police and army buildings and 
the Shah's last forces surrendered, Iran has been through a torrid time: war, terrorism, isolation, 
confrontation, sanctions.

Ahmadinejad - a hard man to beat, 5 May 2009
If President Ahmadinejad fails to win re-election on 12 June, he would be the first Iranian president 
to be unseated at the polls since the foundation of the Islamic Republic.

Big test for Iranian democracy, 5 June 2009 
Iran boasts that it is the most democratic country in the Middle East. It's a claim worth examining, 
as the presidential election approaches.

Iran's presidential candidates, 12 June 2009
Iran's electoral council has approved four candidates to run in the country's presidential elections on Friday. 


In pictures: Iran election clashes, 13 June 2009
















Tension ahead after Ahmadinejad re-elected, 13 June 2009
With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continuing as president of Iran, continuing tension with international critics 
of its nuclear activities can be expected.

Ahmadinejad defiant on 'free' Iran poll, 14 June 2009
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defended his "completely free" re-election as Iran's president, amid violent 
clashes on the streets over claims of election fraud.



Iran calm after vote fraud claims trigger clashes

TEHRAN, Iran – Tehran was mostly calm Sunday after election fraud claims triggered violent street clashes, 
but the government maintained fairly tight control of information flow and new details emerged of arrests 
of high-profile reformists.

The efforts seemed aimed at avoiding a repeat of the chaos that lasted past midnight Saturday. Opponents 
of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set buses and cars ablaze in the capital and threw rocks at police to 
protest what they viewed as his illegitimate victory.

Iran restored cell phone service that had been down in the capital since Saturday. But Iranians could not 
send text messages from their phones, and the government increased its Internet filtering in an apparent 
bit to undercut liberal voices. Web sites linked to reformists' new hero Mir Hossein Mousavi, who declared 
himself the true winner of Friday's presidential race and urged backers to resist the government, were 
down. Social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter were also not working.

The restrictions were likely intended to prevent Mousavi's supporters from organizing large-scale protests. 
But several small groups took to the streets, according to witnesses. About 300 Mousavi supporters gathered 
outside Sharif University, chanting "Where are our votes?" About a dozen riot police descended upon a crowd
of some 50 Mousavi supporters standing outside his campaign quarters, beating them with batons and causing
them to disperse.

Reports that Mousavi was under house arrest could not be confirmed, but the 67-year-old former prime 
minister has not been seen in public since he gave a late night press conference Friday where he accused 
the government of voter fraud. On Saturday, Mousavi released a Web message saying he would not 
"surrender to this manipulation."

Authorities released the brother of former reformist President Mohammad Khatami on Sunday after he was 
arrested at his home late Saturday, Mohammad Reza Khatami's wife, Zahra Eshraghi, told The Associated 
Press. She said at least two other top leaders of Iran's largest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation 
Front, including the party's secretary-general, were also released early Sunday after they were arrested 
when police stormed the party's headquarters on Saturday. Several others remained in custody, she said.

Tehran deputy prosecutor, Mahmoud Slarkia, told the semi-official ISNA news agency that less than 10 people
were arrested on the charge of "disturbing public opinion" through their "false reports" on Web sites after the
election. He did not mention any names.

Iran's deputy police chief Ahmad Reza Radan said some of Saturday's protesters were detained and police 
used tear gas to stop the demonstrations. He said the situation was under control and accused the foreign 
media of exaggerating the protests to show unrest in Tehran. "Police will not allow protesters to disturb 
the peace and calmness of the people under the influence of foreign media," Radan said on state television, 
which showed footage of the protests for the first time Sunday.

Ahmadinejad also accused the foreign media of producing coverage that harmed the Iranian people in an 
address to the country broadcast on state TV late Saturday, saying "a large number of foreign media ... 
organized a full-fledged fight against our people." He did not mention the unrest, saying only "a new era 
has begun in the history of the Iranian nation." Ahmadinejad is scheduled to hold a massive rally with 
supporters Sunday afternoon in central Tehran.

Slarkia, the deputy prosecutor, confirmed that Iran was blocking five pro-Mousavi Web sites because of 
election violations. He did not elaborate.

Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, did not appear on newsstands Sunday. An editor, 
who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said the paper never left 
the printing house because authorities were upset with Mousavi's statements. The paper's Web site reported 
that more than 10 million votes in Friday's election were missing national identification numbers similar to 
U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that 
information. Thousands of Mousavi supporters took his call to the streets on Saturday, setting trash bins and 
tires ablaze. Police fought back with clubs, including mobile squads on motorcycles swinging truncheons.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, closed the door for possible compromise. He could have used 
his near-limitless powers to intervene in the election dispute. But, in a message on state TV on Saturday, he 
urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad, calling the result a "divine assessment."

The U.S. has refused to accept Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory said it was looking into 
allegations of election fraud. There are no independent election monitors in Iran. U.S. Secretary of State 
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday she hoped the outcome reflects the "genuine will and desire" of Iranian
voters.

The European Union also said it was "concerned about alleged irregularities" during Friday's vote.

Past Iranian elections were considered generally fair. In 2005, when Ahmadinejad was first elected, the losing
candidates claimed irregularities at the polls, but the charges were never investigated. Mousavi called on his 
backers to avoid violence, but he is still talking tough about pressing his claims of election fraud. He charges 
the polls closed early but has not fully outlined all of his fraud allegations.

There also have been no hints of any new policy shifts on key international issues such as Iran's standoff over
its nuclear program and the offer by President Barack Obama to open dialogue after a nearly 30-year 
diplomatic estrangement. All high-level decisions are controlled by the ruling theocracy.


----------



## Yrys

Iran reformists held after street clashes, 14 June 2009

*IRANIAN ELECTION*
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 62.6%
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 33.8%
Mohsen Rezai: 1.7%
Mehdi Karroubi 0.9%
Turnout: 85%
_Source: Interior ministry_

Up to 100 members of Iranian reformist groups have been arrested, accused of orchestrating violence 
after the disputed presidential election result. Backers of defeated reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi were 
rounded up overnight, reports said, including the brother of ex-President Khatami. Mr Mousavi's wherea-
bouts are unknown but he is thought to remain free.

There were reports of new small-scale clashes on Sunday ahead of a planned victory rally by President 
Ahmadinejad. At a news conference on Sunday, *the re-elected president vowed that Iran would not 
submit to bullying from foreign powers*, calling the election an "epic moment".

While the streets of Tehran were largely calm, the BBC's Jon Leyne, in the city, reports that clashes broke 
out by the office of Irna, Iran's official news agency, and also in one suburb.There were also new reports 
of a clampdown on independent media. The offices of the Saudi-funded Arabic TV station al-Arabiya were 
shut down for "unknown reasons", the channel said. Mobile phone service was restored but there were 
reports that text messaging remained restricted and curbs continued on access to popular internet sites, 
including the BBC.

Mr Ahmadinejad is expected attend a huge victory rally later on Sunday.

*Lock down*

Details of latest arrests remained sketchy, but reports said those detained were members of pro-reformist 
political parties which had backed Mr Mousavi during the election campaign. The reformists - said to include 
Mohammad Reza Khatami, brother of former President Mohammad Khatami, a former government spokes-
man and a former deputy speaker of parliament - were reported to have been taken from their homes by 
security forces overnight. 

Iran's state news agency, Irna, said those arrested were involved in orchestrating Saturday's protests in 
Tehran. Angry crowds took to the streets to protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, 
in spite of Mr Mousavi's post-election call to avoid violence. He has refused to accept the election result, 
calling it a "dangerous charade" and alleging wide-scale irregularities

The BBC's foreign affairs editor John Simpson, in Tehran, says that while the protests appeared to an 
upsurge of anger amongst ordinary people and did not appear to be arranged, it is an instinctive reaction 
by the authorities to see a hidden hand.

Senior Iranian political figures have offered their backing to Mr Ahmadinejad, among them parliamentary 
Speaker Ali Larijani and the head of the judiciary. One of his defeated rivals also congratulated Mr 
Ahmadinejad. Mohsen Rezai, who won just 1.7% of the vote, declared that Mr Ahmadinejad had been 
elected president by "legal procedures". "I will support him in a bid to prevent any delays in the provision 
of services to the people," Mr Rezai said in a statement. The president already has the backing of the 
country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who endorsed his election win on Saturday.

Our correspondent says the expressions of support for Mr Ahmadinejad could be an attempt to "lock down" 
support for the president within Iran's divided political establishment.

*Murky truth*

The controversy over Iran's election flared after high turnout and long queues at polling stations on Friday 
led Mr Mousavi's supporters to expect a strong showing from their candidate and a close result.

Turnout was estimated at 85%, with voting extended in many places. But official results on Saturday gave 
the incumbent, Mr Ahmadinejad, a landslide victory. His final share of the vote was almost 63%. Despite a 
rapid endorsement of the result from Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, Mr Mousavi issued a 
statement denouncing the verdict and alleging widespread voting irregularities.

Our correspondent John Simpson, in Tehran, says the truth about this election may never be known. But 
many observers in Iran feel that the final result did not reflect the extraordinary numbers of people who 
turned out to vote, he adds.

World reaction has been muted, with major powers slow to welcome the Iranian result. The European Union 
and Canada have voiced concern about allegations of irregularities, while US Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton said only that Washington hoped the result reflected the "genuine will and desire" of Iranians.

Long-time allies such as Venezuela and Syria, as well as neighbours Iraq and Afghanistan, are among those 
who have recognised Mr Ahmadinejad as the winner. 


*Jon Leyne
Reporting from Tehran*

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has always seen himself as more than just a politician. Sometimes he 
speaks, and is treated, more like a seer prophesying the death of capitalism and liberal democracy. With 
this victory, however secured, he will feel emboldened in this global vision.

At home, many Iranians will fear a clampdown on society and cultural life. Mr Ahmadinejad knows that 
many even within the political establishment oppose him, which might increase his tendency towards 
authoritarianism. All those young people who were out campaigning against him so recently will be 
nervous about their future, and even more disillusioned with the Islamic Republic.

Then there is foreign policy and the nuclear issue. How can US President Barack Obama open negotiations 
with a president whose legitimacy and human rights record is even deeper under question? It is a political 
earthquake that will shake Iran, and could shake the world.


----------



## CougarKing

An update that fits with this thread because of how Netanyahu is re-emphasizing the Iranian threat:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians



> *Netanyahu could use Iran vote in policy speech*
> 
> By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 24 mins ago
> JERUSALEM – Israel's prime minister delivers a highly anticipated policy speech Sunday in which he could use the re-election of Iran's hard-line president to boost his argument that Tehran poses a bigger threat to Mideast peace than his refusal to endorse Palestinian statehood.
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing that argument as he publicly defies President Barack Obama's appeals to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank and start negotiating the creation of a Palestinian state.
> 
> The re-election Friday of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the street protests by opponents who think the vote was rigged will make the international audience more receptive to Netanyahu's position on Iran, said Iran expert David Menashri.
> 
> "For Netanyahu, it could not be better. The world will be in a better position to accept Netanyahu's position on Iran after having seen the pictures coming out of Iran in recent days," said Menashri, who heads the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.
> 
> Ahmadinejad is reviled in Israel for repeatedly saying the country should be "wiped off the map" and for his defiance of international demands to curb its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad "represents the face of Iran as Israel tries to portray it," Menashri said.
> 
> Israel, like the U.S., doesn't believe Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not bombs. Netanyahu has said Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran and is thought to be mulling a military strike.
> 
> A poll for an Israeli think tank published Sunday showed that 59 percent of the Jewish public would support a military strike should Israel determine that Tehran possesses nuclear weapons. But less than one-fifth said they would consider leaving Israel should Iran develop nuclear weapons, said the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
> 
> The survey questioned 616 adult Jews and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
> 
> But while Netanyahu sees Iran and its anti-Israel proxies in Lebanon and Gaza as the crux of the Mideast's problems, Obama thinks serious effort toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could weaken Tehran.
> 
> The Israeli leader has been under intense pressure from Washington to enter into negotiations on Palestinian statehood and end all settlement expansion in the West Bank — positions he opposes and whose adoption would almost surely fracture his hawkish governing coalition.
> 
> Netanyahu had tried to parry that pressure by attempting to redirect attention away from peacemaking with the Palestinians and toward Iran's nuclear program.
> 
> But the U.S. was not won over to that point of view, and in his June 4 address to the Muslim world, Obama forcefully called for a Palestinian state and a halt to the settlement construction that has proven to be a major impediment to peacemaking.
> 
> Netanyahu's speech, which is scheduled for 1700 GMT (1 p.m. EDT), is being seen as a rebuttal to Obama's address.
> 
> Obama's positions have riled many in Israel's hawkish camp. Overnight, posters of him wearing a Palestinian headdress appeared in parts of Israel, bearing the words, "Barak (sic) Hussein Obama. Anti-Semitic Jew-hater."
> 
> Before the speech, some Netanyahu aides said they did not expect the Israeli leader to explicitly endorse Palestinian statehood. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the Israeli leader has been keeping silent about the speech's contents.
> 
> Some Cabinet ministers, however, have predicted he would explicitly agree to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state.
> 
> Netanyahu told ministers at Sunday's weekly Cabinet meeting that his speech would be "clear," but Defense Minister Ehud Barak told fellow Labor Party ministers earlier that he expected Netanyahu's speech to be vague and advised them to lower expectations, ministers said.
> 
> Political commentators have speculated that Netanyahu might attempt to placate Washington — the Jewish state's top ally — by grudgingly reaffirming Israel's commitment to the U.S.-backed "road map," a blueprint for Palestinian statehood that Israel and the Palestinians approved in 2003. He also is expected to restate his call to resume negotiations immediately.
> 
> West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who spent more than a year negotiating with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, has said he would not resume peace talks with Israel unless it stops expanding settlements and agrees to negotiate Palestinian statehood.
> 
> Netanyahu's speech dominated Israeli newspapers and airwaves, with expectations high ahead of his appearance before a crowd of allies at Bar-Ilan University, the academic bastion of Israel's right wing.
> 
> "The test of his life," the Maariv newspaper trumpeted on its front page.
> 
> Palestinians in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip dismissed Netanyahu's speech before he gave it.
> 
> "Netanyahu will try in his speech to mislead international public opinion," said Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for the Hamas government. "Anyone who thinks that his extremist right-wing government is going to propose anything to the Palestinians is mistaken."
> 
> Early Sunday, Israeli aircraft attacked tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border used by Gaza militants to smuggle weapons and other contraband into their blockaded territory. The military said the attacks were in retaliation for militant rocket fire on southern Israel on Saturday.
> 
> Also Sunday, former President Jimmy Carter, 85, met with West Bank settlers in what he described as a chance to "listen" and make his views known.
> 
> Carter, who brokered the historic peace deal between Israel and Egypt in 1979, antagonized many Israelis with his 2007 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," in which he argued that Israel must choose between ceding the West Bank to the Palestinians or maintaining a system of ethnic inequality similar to that of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
> 
> Carter met with settler leader Shaul Goldstein and others at the pastoral settlement of Neve Daniel, south of Jerusalem.


----------



## Yrys

Second day of protests erupt in Iran over election, Jun. 14 2009
Iran poll result: Your comments, BBC News, 14 June 2009 
Difficult moment for Iran - and world
Blog: Heavy satellite jamming
Video of "Crowds gather for Ahmadinejad rally", 1 min 29 sec


Crowds join Ahmadinejad victory rally






Tens of thousands of people have joined a rally in central Tehran to celebrate the re-election of Iran's 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Crowds thronged the main thoroughfare, Vali Asr street, waving 
Iranian flags and chanting in jubilation.

The president's closest opponent in the election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, has lodged an official appeal 
against the result amid continuing angry protests. Mr Ahmadinejad denied any vote-fixing, saying 
the result was "very accurate".

*Streets sealed off*

He told the rally that elections in the Islamic republic had never been healthier and that the people 
alone had decided the outcome. "Some people want democracy only for their own sake," he said, 
referring to his critics both inside and outside of Iran. "Some want elections, freedom, a sound 
election. They recognise it only as long as the result favours them." He said Iranians were united, 
but with 40 million people taking part it in the election it was natural for some to be disappointed.

Clashes between the police and anti-Ahmadinejad protesters continued on Sunday, with several 
parts of the city sealed off by the authorities to prevent the unrest spreading.

*US doubt*

Earlier, Mr Ahmadinejad told reporters that the debate over Iran's nuclear programme "belongs 
to the past", and that Iran had "embraced" the idea of an international effort to eliminate nuclear 
weapons. 

Global reaction to the election has been muted, but US Vice-President Joe Biden told broadcaster 
NBC he had doubts about the result. "There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was 
run, but we'll see, we're just waiting to see, we don't have a enough facts to make a firm judgement," 
he said.

Mr Ahmadinejad's closest rival in the election campaign, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, announced on Sunday 
he had lodged an official appeal appeal against the result to Iran's Guardian Council . "I urge you, 
Iranian nation, to continue your nationwide protests in a peaceful and legal way," he said in a statement. 
Mr Mousavi has called several times for his supporters to avoid violence, but angry protesters have been 
setting light to vehicles and throwing stones in Tehran.

Reuters reported that police charged a 2,000-strong group of students who were protesting at the 
University of Tehran.

*Leader's endorsement*

Dozens of activists have been arrested, with reports saying those detained were members of pro-reformist 
political parties which had backed Mr Mousavi during the election campaign. Those held were said to include 
Mohammad Reza Khatami, brother of former President Mohammad Khatami. Many of them are reported to 
have been freed since.

The state news agency, Irna, said those arrested were involved in orchestrating Saturday's protests 
in Tehran. The controversy flared after a high turnout on Friday - estimated at 85% - led Mr Mousavi's 
supporters to expect a close result. But official results gave Mr Ahmadinejad a landslide victory. His 
final share of the vote was almost 63%. The result was quickly endorsed by Ayatollah Khamenei, 
Iran's supreme leader.

Our correspondent John Simpson, in Tehran, says the truth about the election may never be known. But 
many observers in Iran feel that the final result did not reflect the extraordinary numbers of people who 
turned out to vote, our correspondent adds.


----------



## Yrys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099876.stmMousavi letter to Iran's supreme leader, BBC News

Defeated presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, wrote to the Iran's supreme leader 
a day before the election outlining his concerns about the ballot. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099876.stmHere is the text of his 
letter as published by Farda News, a Persian language news service based outside of Iran.

Ahmadinejad says protests are 'not important', CTV

Unrest challenges Iran's republic, BBC News

As demonstrations against the Iranian election result continue, the situation in Tehran is becoming 
unpredictable and potentially explosive.


Internet brings events in Iran to life, BBC News

All over the world people are monitoring unfolding events in Iran via the internet, where an apparently 
decisive election victory by the ruling party is being challenged on the streets. Although there are  signs  
the Iranian government is trying to cut some communications with the outside world, citizen journalism 
appears to be thriving on the web. Here is a selection of popular links, (IMAGES, TWITTER, FACEBOOK,
WEBSITES AND BLOGS) many of which have been written from a particular point of view but - when taken 
together - provide a wide range of perspectives. 


Bypassing Iran's firewalls, BBC News

Despite widespread blocks on mobile phones, internet sites and satellite TV stations, 
people in Iran have managed to tell the BBC's Persian and English interactive services 
what is happening in their country in their own words and pictures.


----------



## Yrys

Iran braces for more election protests






Iran is bracing for more protests over its presidential election results after defeated candidate Mir Hossein 
Mousavi called for it to be annulled. His supporters are reported to be planning a rally after two days of 
unrest sparked by the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On Sunday tens of thousands rallied 
in Tehran to celebrate his victory.

Mr Mousavi has claimed widespread fraud and US Vice-President Joe Biden says there are "real doubts" 
about the poll.

*'Death to the dictator'*

There were clashes between the police and anti-Ahmadinejad protesters in several parts of the city 
for a second day on Sunday. Police hit protesters with batons and charged them on motorbikes.
Streets were littered with broken glass and fires set by protesters, while more riot police patrolled 
Mousavi strongholds. Mousavi supporters cried "death to the dictator" into the evening. Scores of 
people are reported to have been arrested. There have been reports of tear gas being fired and 
rooms being searched at Tehran University.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says the rapidly spreading protests are a challenge not just to the 
election result, not just to President Ahmadinejad, but to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 
himself. That means it is, he says, a challenge to the whole basis of the Islamic Republic.

Mr Ahmadinejad dismissed the unrest as "passions after a soccer match".

*International concern*

Mr Mousavi's website carried a statement saying he had formally called on Iran's Guardian Council, 
which must certify the counting, to annul the election. He added: "I urge you, Iranian nation, to continue
your nationwide protests in a peaceful and legal way." A supporter of Mr Mousavi, Shahab Tabatabaei, 
told Associated Press the candidate had met Ayatollah Khamenei to press his call. But the BBC's John 
Simpson in Tehran says the call is almost certain to fail.

The Reuters news agency said Mr Mousavi's supporters were planning a rally on Monday afternoon but 
it was unclear whether the authorities would allow it.

More foreign powers are now expressing concern about the election.

In an interview on US television, Mr Biden said: "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, 
the way they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real 
doubt." German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he had summoned the Iranian ambassador 
to explain the election. "There are a lot of reports about electoral fraud," he said.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said: "I am sorry that instead of openness there has been a 
somewhat brutal reaction."

But Mr Ahmadinejad was congratulated by the presidents of Iraq, Afghanistan and Venezuela. At his rally 
on Sunday, Mr Ahmadinejad denied any vote-fixing, saying the result was "very accurate". Crowds 
thronged the main thoroughfare, Vali Asr street, waving Iranian flags and chanting in jubilation. He told 
the rally that elections in the Islamic republic had never been healthier and that the people alone had 
decided the outcome. "Some people want democracy only for their own sake," he said, referring to his 
critics both inside and outside of Iran. "Some want elections, freedom, a sound election. They recognise 
it only as long as the result favours them." He said Iranians were united, but with 40 million people taking 
part in the election it was natural for some to be disappointed.

Unrest flared after a high turnout in Friday's election - estimated at 85% - led Mr Mousavi's supporters to 
expect a close result. But official results gave Mr Ahmadinejad a landslide victory. His final share of the 
vote was almost 63%.

The result was quickly endorsed by Ayatollah Khamenei.


----------



## Yrys

In Tehran, a Rallying Cry: "We are the People of Iran.", Times


Iran protesters 'defy ban'





_Unrest has flared in many parts 
of the capital, Tehran_

A rally against the re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being 
held in defiance of a ban on protests, AFP reports from the scene. The news agency 
says hundred of people are taking part in the Tehran rally. Marchers have clashed 
with Ahmadinejad supporters, Reuters agency reports.

Defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi said he would attend and urge for calm. 
Mr Mousavi, a moderate, wants election results annulled, alleging fraud. 
Mr Ahmadinejad says the vote was fair.

Following two days of unrest, the interior ministry said on Monday: "Some seditious 
elements had planned to hold a rally." It added: "Any disrupter of public security 
would be dealt with according to the law."

Mr Mousavi's campaign initially announced that the event had been called off, but his 
website later said he would address the crowd. AFP says the demonstrators gathered 
in central Tehran chanting: "Mousavi we support you!"

Reuters says Ahmadinejad supporters on motorcycles have clashed with marchers. 
The BBC's Jon Leyne, in Tehran, says he understands plain-clothed militias have 
been authorised to *use live ammunition* for the first time.

Ahead of the rally, correspondents said life appeared to be returning to normal in central 
Tehran. Shops were open and there was little evidence of the weekend's unrest. However, 
there was a small demonstration attended by Mr Mousavi's wife Zahra Rahnavard at Tehran 
University. She said the campaign was continuing, and urged people to go onto their roofs 
shouting "God is great".

Reports said paramilitaries were trying to break up the demonstration, and that students had 
taken cover in a mosque. The campus has been a focus of unrest in recent days. Overnight 
police and militias raided dormitories, arresting dozens of students.

In related developments :

President Ahmadinejad reportedly cancelled a trip to Moscow, where he was due to attend a 
regional summit on Monday

Reports say Mr Mousavi's newspaper Kalameh Sabz has suspended circulation.

About 200 relatives of detained demonstrators took part in a protest outside Tehran's Revolutionary 
Tribunal calling for their release, AFP news agency reported.

*International concern*

On Sunday Mr Mousavi's website carried a statement saying he had formally called on Iran's Guardian 
Council ,which must certify the counting, to annul the election. He added: "I urge you, Iranian nation, 
to continue your nationwide protests in a peaceful and legal way." Another defeated candidate, Mohsen 
Rezaie, also officially contested the results. The Guardian Council said it would rule on both complaints 
within 10 days. Late on Sunday Mr Mousavi met Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to 
pursue his case against the results of Friday's election.

Mr Khamanei's office said he had told the candidate that "complaints should be followed through legal 
channels" and urged Mr Mousavi to "follow the issue calmly". Sunday saw clashes between the police 
and anti-Ahmadinejad protesters in several parts of Tehran for a second day.Police hit protesters 
with batons and charged them on motorbikes.

Mousavi supporters cried "death to the dictator" into the evening. Scores of people are reported 
to have been arrested. Mr Ahmadinejad dismissed the unrest as "passions after a soccer match".

Foreign powers have expressed concern about the election. In an interview on US television, 
Vice-President Joe Biden said: "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, the way 
they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real 
doubt."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he had summoned the Iranian ambassador 
to explain the election. "There are a lot of reports about electoral fraud," he said.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said: "I am sorry that instead of openness there has been 
a somewhat brutal reaction."

But Mr Ahmadinejad was congratulated by the presidents of Iraq, Afghanistan and Venezuela. 


*POST-POLL CRACKDOWN*
More than 100 opposition figures arrested, including the brother of ex-reformist President Khatami.
Local and international phone and text message services interrupted
Social networking and newspaper websites blocked
BBC says "heavy electronic jamming" from inside Iran disrupts its Persian TV service
International journalists arrested and asked to leave
Iranian newspapers do not carry reports of the violence
Source: Various reports


----------



## Yrys

Analysis

As demonstrations against the Iranian election result continue, the situation in Tehran 
is becoming unpredictable and potentially explosive.

Role of web

All over the world people are monitoring unfolding events in Iran via the internet, where 
an apparently decisive election victory by the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being 
challenged on the streets.

Video

Students, some wearing masks, have held a secret rally at a Tehran university where they 
called on President Ahmadinejad to resign.

In pictures: Tensions high in Tehran

Five pictures of claches, four of Ahmadinejad rally


----------



## dapaterson

Canadian journalist detained, beaten  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/globe-freelancer-detained-beaten/article1181792/

As well, The Atlantic's prolific blogger, Andrew Sullivan, is providing frequest updates on the situation, including a consolidation of Twitter feeds and videos.  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/


----------



## CougarKing

And thousands continue to rally for Mousavi in spite of the ban imposed by Ahmadinejerk on any opposition rallies:



> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
> 
> 
> By ANNA JOHNSON and ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writers Anna Johnson And Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writers – 44 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – *Hundreds of thousands of opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defied an Interior Ministry ban Monday and streamed into central Tehran to cheer their pro-reform leader in his first public appearance since elections that he alleges were marred by fraud. Gunfire from a compound used by pro-government militia killed one demonstrator.
> 
> The outpouring in Azadi, or Freedom, Square for reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi — swelling as more poured from buildings and side streets — followed a decision by Iran's most powerful figure for an investigation into the vote-rigging allegations.*
> 
> Security forces watched quietly, with shields and batons at their sides.
> 
> But an Associated Press photographer saw one person shot and killed and several others who appeared to be seriously wounded in the square. The gunfire came from a compound for volunteer militia linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard.
> 
> The chanting crowd — many wearing the trademark green color of Mousavi's campaign — was more than five miles (nine kilometers) long, and based on previous demonstrations in the square and surrounding streets, its size was estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands.
> 
> Mousavi had paused on the edge of the square — where Ahmadinejad made his first postelection speech — to address the throng. They roared back: "Long live Mousavi."
> 
> "This is not election. This is selection," read one English-language placard at the demonstration. Other marchers held signs proclaiming "We want our vote!" and raised their fingers in a V-for-victory salute.
> 
> "We want our president, not the one who was forced on us," said 28-year-old Sara, who gave only her first name because she feared reprisal from authorities.
> 
> Hours earlier, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directed one of Iran's most influential bodies, the Guardian Council, to examine the claims. But the move by Khamenei — who had earlier welcomed the election results — had no guarantee it would satisfy those challenging Ahmadinejad's re-election or quell days of rioting after Friday's election that left parts of Tehran scarred by flames and shattered store fronts.
> 
> The 12-member Guardian Council, made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law and closely allied to Khamenei, must certify election results and has the apparent authority to nullify an election. But it would be an unprecedented step. Claims of voting irregularities went before the council after Ahmadinejad's upset victory in 2005, but there was no official word on the outcome of the investigation and the vote stood.
> 
> More likely, the dramatic intervention by Khamenei could be an attempt to buy time in hopes of reducing the anti-Ahmadinejad anger. The prospect of spiraling protests and clashes is the ultimate nightmare for the Islamic establishment, which could be forced into back-and-forth confrontations and risks having the dissidents move past the elected officials and directly target the ruling theocracy.
> 
> The massive display of opposition unity Monday suggested a possible shift in tactics by authorities after cracking down hard during days of rioting.
> 
> Although any rallies were outlawed earlier, security forces were not ordered to move against the sea of protesters — allowing them to vent their frustration and wave the green banners and ribbons of the symbolic color of Mousavi's movement.
> 
> State TV quoted Khamenei as ordering the Guardian Council to "carefully probe" the allegations of fraud, which were contained in a letter Mousavi submitted Sunday.
> 
> On Saturday, however, Khamenei urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad and called the result a "divine assessment."
> 
> The results touched off three days of clashes — the worst unrest in Tehran in a decade. Protesters set fires and battled riot police, including a clash overnight at Tehran University after about 3,000 students gathered to oppose the election results.
> 
> Security forces have struck back with targeted arrests of pro-reform activists and blocks on text messaging and pro-Mousavi Web sites used to rally his supporters.
> 
> One of Mousavi's Web sites said a student protester was killed early Monday in clashes with plainclothes hard-liners in Shiraz, southern Iran. But there was no independent confirmation of the report. There also have been unconfirmed reports of unrest in other cities.
> 
> Most media are not allowed to travel beyond Tehran and thus can not independently confirm protests in other cities.
> 
> The unrest also risked bringing splits among Iran's clerical elite, including some influential Shiite scholars raising concern about possible election irregularities and at least one member of the ruling theocracy, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, openly critical of Ahmadinejad in the campaign.
> 
> According to a pro-Mousavi Web site, he sent a letter to senior clerics in Qom, Iran's main center of Islamic learning, to spell out his claims.
> 
> The accuations also have brought growing international concern. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden raised questions about whether the vote reflected the wishes of the Iranian people.
> 
> Britain and Germany joined the calls of alarm over the rising confrontations in Iran. In Paris, the Foreign Ministry summoned the Iranian ambassador to discuss the allegations of vote tampering and the violence.
> 
> Overnight, police and hard-line militia stormed the campus at the city's biggest university, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students angry over what they say was mass election fraud.
> The nighttime gathering of about 3,000 students at dormitories of Tehran University started with students chanting "Death to the dictator." But it quickly erupted into clashes as students threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at police, who fought back with tear gas and plastic bullets, a 25-year-old student who witnessed the fighting told The Associated Press. He would only give one name, Akbar, out of fears for his safety.
> 
> The students set a truck and other vehicles on fire and hurled stones and bricks at the police, he said. Hard-line militia volunteers loyal to the Revolutionary Guard stormed the dormitories, ransacking student rooms and smashing computers and furniture with axes and wooden sticks, Akbar said.
> 
> Before leaving around 4 a.m., the police took away memory cards and computer software material, Akbar said, adding that dozens of students were arrested.
> 
> He said many students suffered bruises, cuts and broken bones in the scuffling and that there was still smoldering garbage on the campus by midmorning but that the situation had calmed down.
> 
> "Many students are now leaving to go home to their families, they are scared," he said. "But others are staying. The police and militia say they will be back and arrest any students they see."
> 
> "I want to stay because they beat us and we won't retreat," he added.
> 
> Tehran University was the site of serious clashes against student-led protests in 1999 and is one of the nerve centers of the pro-reform movement.
> 
> After dark Sunday, Ahmadinejad opponents shouted their opposition from Tehran's rooftops. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great!" — echoed across the capital. The protest bore deep historic resonance — it was how the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini asked Iran to unite against the Western-backed shah 30 years earlier.
> 
> In Moscow, the Iranian Embassy said Ahmadinejad has put off a visit to Russia, and it is unclear whether he will come at all. Ahmadinejad had been expected to travel to the Russian city of Yekaterinburg and meet on Monday with President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of a regional summit.


----------



## Yrys

Same subject :

Hatred, chaos and savage beatings in Tehran, CNN
Shooting reported at Moussavi protest rally, CNN
Are Arab Leaders Really So Unhappy to See Ahmadinejad Re-elected?, TIMES, June 14, 2009
Martyrs May Give Iran's Demonstrators Momentum, TIMES
Iran Protester Slain After Pro-Reform Rally, TIMES






Shots fired at huge Iran protest, BBC News

Shots have been fired at a rally in Iran where hundreds of thousands of people were demonstrating 
against last week's presidential election results. Unconfirmed reports said one protester was killed 
and several more were hurt when security forces opened fire. The crowd had been addressed by 
beaten candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who believes the vote was fixed in favour of President 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Ahmadinejad has dismissed the claims and says the vote was fair.

The BBC's Jon Leyne, in Tehran, says Monday's rally was the biggest demonstration in the Islamic 
republic's 30-year history and described it as a "political earthquake". The government had outlawed 
any protest following two days of unrest, with the interior ministry warning that "any disrupter of 
public security would be dealt with according to the law".

Despite this, correspondents said riot police had been watching the rally during the afternoon and had
seemed to be taking no action. But reports at 2045 local time (1615 GMT) said shots were being fired.
"There has been sporadic shooting out there... I can see people running here," Reuters quoted a reporter 
of Iran's Press TV as saying from Tehran's Azadi Square. "A number of people who are armed, I don't 
know exactly who they are, but they have started to fire on people causing havoc in Azadi Square."

A photographer at the scene told news agencies that security forces had killed one protester and seriously 
wounded several others. He said the shooting began when the crowd attacked a compound used by a 
religious militia linked to the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard. The AFP news agency reported 
that police fired tear gas and groups of protestors set motorbikes alight.

*Ayatollah's intervention*

Earlier, the demonstrators had gathered in Tehran's Revolution Square, chanting pro-Mousavi slogans, 
before marching to Azadi Square. "Mousavi we support you. We will die, but retrieve our votes," they 
shouted, many wearing the green of Mousavi's election campaign. And Mr Mousavi eventually appeared, 
addressing the crowd from the roof of his car. "The vote of the people is more important than Mousavi 
or any other person," he told his supporters.

His wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a high-profile supporter of her husband's campaign, later said they would 
keep up their protests. "We will stand until the end," she told the AFP.

The renewed protests come after Mr Mousavi and fellow defeated candidate Mohsen Rezai filed official 
complaints against the election result with the Guardian Council - the country's powerful clerical group.  
State television reported that supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has upheld the election result,
urged the Guardian Council to "precisely consider" the complaints. A spokesman for the 12-member
council said they would meet Mr Mousavi and Mr Rezai on Tuesday. They are expected to decide on 
the complaints by next week.

Dozens of opposition activists have been arrested since the protests began, while internet sites appear 
to have been blocked and the media heavily restricted.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was following the situation closely. "The position of me 
and the United Nations is that the genuine will of the Iranian people should be fully respected," 
he told reporters.

EU foreign ministers expressed "serious concern" and called for an inquiry into the conduct of the election, 
while France and Germany each summoned their Iranian ambassadors to explain what was going on. 
German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticised the use of "completely unacceptable" force against protesters.
"We are worried about the limitations of media coverage and we believe there should be a transparent 
evaluation of the election result. There are signs of irregularities," she said.

Groups of Ahmadinejad supporters gathered outside French and British embassies in Tehran, protesting 
against what they consider to be foreign interference in Iran's affairs. "We have gathered here to protest 
the hidden interference of the Brits and the world, who are trying to create chaos in our country," 
one protester said.

Among the countries congratulating Mr Ahmadinejad on his victory were Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela 
and North Korea.


----------



## Yrys

Obama Aide on Iran: "It's not about us", Monday, June 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Muted Response Reflects U.S. Diplomatic Dilemma, Washington Post

Unrest Deepens as Critics Are Detained





_President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran gave his first post-election news conference 
in Tehran on Sunday. In a news conference, he called his re-election "real and free."_

TEHRAN — Violence and acrimony over Iran’s disputed election intensified on Sunday, with word spreading 
that more than 100 prominent opposition members had been detained, riots erupting in Tehran and other 
cities, and the triumphant incumbent hinting that his top challenger risks punishment for questioning the 
result.

Two of the three opposition candidates and a clerical group issued fresh statements requesting an 
annulment of the  election on Friday, which gave a lopsided victory to the incumbent, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad, a conservative who has become a polarizing figure at home and abroad. They did 
so despite a decree from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that the outcome was fair.

It was unclear how far Mr. Ahmadinejad’s adversaries were willing or able to go in challenging the result. 
But supporters of the opposition candidates skirmished with baton-wielding riot police officers on the edges 
of a government-organized victory rally in Tehran. There were also reports of riots in other Iranian cities, 
and the protests were echoed by Iranians demonstrating against the election results in Washington and 
in several European capitals.

Mr. Ahmadinejad dismissed the opposition’s allegations of fraud, saying that the victory had given 
him a bigger mandate than ever. He criticized Mir Hussein Moussavi, the main opposition candidate 
— who remained at home on Sunday with security forces closely monitoring his movements 
— in a veiled statement that many here saw as a threat.

“He ran a red light, and he got a traffic ticket,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said of his rival during a news conference 
at the presidential palace.

Those resisting the election results gained a potentially important new ally on Sunday when a moderate 
clerical body, the Association of Combatant Clergy, issued a statement posted on reformist Web sites 
saying that the vote was rigged and calling for it to be annulled. The statement warned that “if this 
process becomes the norm, the republican aspect of the regime will be damaged and people will 
lose confidence in the system.”

Mr. Moussavi called for the clergy to join his protest in an open letter late Saturday. It is difficult to say 
how influential the statement by the association, made up of 27 moderate clerics, will be in Iran’s complex 
and opaque power structure, but Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the last word on many important matters, 
is sensitive to clerical opinion.

Iran’s Interior Ministry announced on Saturday that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won about 63 percent of the vote, 
after a hard-fought election campaign and the rise of a broad reform-oriented opposition that clearly had 
rattled Iran’s ruling elite. Opposition leaders have catalogued a list of what they call election violations 
and irregularities in the vote, which most observers had expected to go to a second-round runoff.

The opposition members arrested late Saturday and Sunday were from all the major factions opposed
to Mr. Ahmadinejad and included the brother of a former president, Mohammad Khatami, opposition 
Web sites reported. Some were released after several hours.

Mr. Ahmadinejad called the opposition protesters “unimportant,” comparing them to disappointed 
soccer fans after a match. He suggested the accusations of fraud were the work of foreign agitators 
and journalists. He also seemed to be demanding affirmation of his election’s legitimacy from other 
nations, saying, “We are now asking the positions of all countries regarding the elections, 
and assessing their attitude to our people.”

The international reaction that trickled out Sunday was anything but a resounding affirmation, however. 
In the United States, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said there appeared to be “some real doubt” 
about the results. But he said the United States would press on with its effort to engage the Iranian 
government.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s electoral rivals appeared to be holding firm in their protest against the vote despite 
the arrests and a mass crackdown on street protesters by the police and Basij militia members, many 
of them wielding batons, whips and chains. Nationwide protest movements in 1999 and 2003 trailed 
off after a week or so.

In a statement, Mr. Moussavi said he had asked the Guardian Council of Iran, which must certify the 
election for it to be legal, to cancel the vote. He also said he was being monitored by the authorities 
and was unable to join his followers. His campaign headquarters has been shuttered, he said.

Another candidate, the reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, echoed Mr. Moussavi’s demand for the election to be 
canceled. “I am announcing again that the elections should not be allowed and the results have no legitimacy 
or social standing,” Mr. Karroubi said in a statement posted on opposition Web sites. “Therefore, I do not 
consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the republic.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke Sunday at Valiasr Square in central Tehran, surrounded by thousands of chanting, 
flag-waving voters in what was clearly intended to be a show of popular support for his victory. But the 
smell of tear gas and smoke drifted over the cheering crowds. Only a few blocks away, groups of 
protesters chanted their own slogans against the government, and some of them, bloodied and 
screaming, could be seen running from police officers armed with clubs.

As night fell, protests resumed in nearby Vanak Square, where the rallies began Saturday, and chants 
of “Bye-bye, dictator!” and “God is great!” could be heard from rooftops in several areas of the capital.
“No one led these people in the streets,” said Bashu, a 28-year-old opposition supporter who, like many 
others, was afraid to give his full name. “This is the least we can do; we cannot stay at home and watch 
them celebrate a fake election.”

He opened his shirt to show long, red welts on his chest where, he said, a Basij militia member had whipped
him with a chain. Next to him, a female friend dressed in a black Islamic chador stood with a bloody gash 
on her forehead that she said had been inflicted by the police. “We just hope the people of the world hear 
our voice,” Bashu said. “We haven’t heard from Moussavi; we hear he is under arrest.”

Opposition supporters said they were organizing a major rally to take place Monday in Tehran, though it was
not clear whether the authorities would permit it.

The pro-Ahmadinejad rally on Sunday afternoon took place in an atmosphere of extraordinary tension, with 
riot police officers forming barricades around Valiasr Square and beating people visibly identified with the 
opposition before they could enter. But inside the barriers, a number of opposition supporters approached 
a reporter, saying, “They stole the election” or “It is all lies” before scurrying back into the crowd. The rally 
also rendered starkly visible the bitter class and cultural divisions that lie behind the disputed election. 

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters, many of them poor and devout, view the opposition as arrogant and 
irreligious. “They are traitors,” said Soraya Parvaie, 20, a student. “Our people are still awake, 
because of our revolution 30 years ago, and we will defend this revolution with our last blood.”

Another young woman nearby, apparently an opposition supporter, disagreed. “It wasn’t an election, 
he was just named,” she said. Instantly, two older women in traditional Islamic dress who were 
standing nearby began cursing and shoving the first woman, who ran away. “She would like to take 
off her head scarf, that’s why she says such things,” said one of the women who had chased her 
away. “She benefits from the country’s wealth, look at her.”

Not far away, in the surging crowd in Valiasr Square, other Ahmadinejad supporters, many carrying 
banners and flags, angrily defended their president as an incorruptible champion of the poor. Most 
said they could not believe the election had been stolen. “He is the only one since the revolution who 
wants to work for the common people,” said Amir Mallikian, a 28-year-old civil engineer. “He cares 
about those who are weak in our society. He is not afraid of any foreign power, not even of powers 
inside the country.”


----------



## Yrys

Updates on Iran’s Disputed Election, NY Times
Could Ayatullah Khamenei Be Vulnerable?, TIMES


Top Cleric (Khamenei) Calls for Inquiry as Protesters Defy Ban in Iran






TEHRAN — Hundreds of thousands of people marched in silence through central Tehran on Monday 
to protest Iran’s disputed presidential election in an extraordinary show of defiance that appeared 
to be the largest anti-government demonstration in Iran since the 1979 revolution. The march 
began hours after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a inquiry into 
opposition claims that the election was rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The ayatollah’s call — announced every 15 minutes on Iranian state radio throughout the day 
— was the first sign that Iran’s top leadership might be rethinking its position on the election. 
Mr. Khamenei announced Saturday that the election results showing a landslide victory for 
Mr. Ahmadinejad were fair, but on Sunday he met with Mir Hussein Moussavi, the former 
prime minister and moderate who was the main opposition candidate, to listen 
to his concerns.

As evening fell, Iranian state television reported that shots had been fired at protesters, and 
The Associated Press reported that the gunfire had apparently come after a group of demonstrators 
with fuel canisters attempted to set fire to the compound of a volunteer militia linked to Iran’s 
powerful Revolutionary Guard. At least one person was reported to have been killed. It was 
impossible to independently confirm these reports, which came after a day during which government 
security forces stood by at the edges of the avenues, allowing the demonstrators to stream past.

The silent march was a deliberate and striking contrast with the chaos of the past few days, when 
riot police sprayed tear gas and wielded clubs to disperse scattered bands of angry and frightened 
young people. In Isfahan, south of the capital, more violence broke out on Monday, with police 
attacking a crowd of several thousand opposition protesters with sticks and tear gas, and rioters 
setting fires in parts of the city.

The broad river of people in Tehran — young and old, dressed in traditional Islamic gowns and 
the latest Western fashions — marched slowly from Revolution Square to Freedom Square for 
more than three hours, many of them wearing the signature bright green ribbons of Mr. Moussavi’s 
campaign, and holding up their hands in victory signs. When the occasional shout or chant went up, 
the crowd quickly hushed them, and some held up signs bearing the word “silence.”

“These people are not seeking a revolution,” said Ali Reza, a young actor in a brown T-shirt who 
stood for a moment watching on the rally’s sidelines. “We don’t want this regime to fall. We want 
our votes to be counted, because we want reforms, we want kindness, we want friendship with 
the world.”

Mr. Moussavi, who had called for the rally Sunday but never received official permission for it, 
joined the crowd, as did Mohammad Khatami, the reformist former president. But the crowd was 
so vast, and communications had been so sporadic — the authorities have cut off phone and text-
messaging services repeatedly in recent days — that many marchers seemed unaware they were 
there.

“We don’t really have a leader,” said Mahdiye, a 20-year-old student. “Moussavi wants to do something, 
but they won’t let him. It is dangerous for him, and we don’t want to lose him. We don’t know how far 
this will go.”

The protesters said they would continue, with another major rally planned for Tuesday. But it was too soon 
to tell whether Mr. Khamenei’s decision to launch a probe, or the government’s decision to let the silent rally 
proceed, would change the election results. Many in the crowd said they believed the government was simply 
buying time, and hoping the protests would dissipate, as smaller protest movements have in 1999 and 2003.

“Anything is possible,” said Hamid, a 50-year-old financial adviser who, like many protesters, declined to 
give his last name because he feared repercussions. “If the people insist on this movement, if it continues 
here and in other parts of Iran, the pressure will build — and maybe Ahmedinejad will be forced to resign.”

In Washington, a State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, said the United States is “deeply troubled” by the 
unrest in Iran and is concerned about allegations of ballot fraud. But he stopped short of condemning the 
Iran security forces for cracking down on demonstrators and said Washington does not know whether the 
allegations of fraud are, in fact, true.

In Moscow, meanwhile, an official at the Iranian Embassy said that Mr. Ahmadinejad had delayed a visit 
to Russia that was to have started Monday. The meeting, in Yekaterinburg, is of the Shanghai Cooperation 
Organization that includes Russia, China and four Central Asian countries. He now plans to travel on Tuesday, 
the official said.

As concern about the vote spread among Western governments, the European Union’s 27 member states 
planned to issue a joint call on Iran to clarify the election outcome, Reuters reported. The French government
summoned the Iranian ambassador to register concern about the fairness of the vote, and Germany planned 
to follow suit.

The Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, told reporters in Luxembourg, “There is a need 
to clarify the situation and to express our concern that a sector of the population are having difficulties
in expressing its opinion.” In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany called for a “transparent 
examination” of reports of irregularities.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he had been “closely following the situation” 
and welcomed the announcement that there would be some manner of investigation. “The genuine will 
of the Iranian people should be fully respected,” he said.

Earlier, Reuters said stick-wielding supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad clashed with marching backers of
Mr. Moussavi. Other reports said some of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s followers paraded outside the British 
and French Embassies in Tehran following remarks by political leaders in London and Paris casting 
doubt on the Iranian leadership’s conduct.

There were reports of considerable violence overnight on Sunday, as opposition Web sites reported that 
security forces raided a dormitory at Tehran University and 15 people were injured. Between 150 and 
200 students were arrested, by these accounts, but there was no immediate confirmation of the incident 
from the authorities. There were also reports of official action against students in the cities of Esfahan, 
Shiraz and Tabriz.

Iran’s Interior Ministry announced on Saturday that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won about 63 percent of the vote,
after a hard-fought election campaign and the rise of a broad reform-oriented opposition that clearly had 
rattled Iran’s ruling elite. Opposition leaders have catalogued a list of what they call election violations 
and irregularities in the vote, which most observers had expected to go to a second-round runoff.

Opposition members from all the major factions were arrested late Saturday and Sunday and included
the brother of a former president, Mohammad Khatami, opposition Web sites reported. Some were 
released after several hours.

In a press conference on Sunday, Mr. Ahmadinejad had dismissed the protesters as soccer hooligans 
who had lost a match, in a comment that appears to have stoked their determination.

“People feel really insulted, and nothing is worse than that,” said Azi, a 48-year-old woman in an elegant 
yellow headscarf who participated in the massive Monday rally. “We won’t let the regime buy time, 
we will hold another march tomorrow.”

At nightfall, large numbers of Tehranis took to their roofs for a second night, chanting “God is great!” 
and “Death to the dictator!” in neighborhoods across the city. The A.P., quoting residents, also reported 
that shooting was also heard in three districts of wealthy northern Tehran.

_Reporting was contributed by Clifford J. Levy from Moscow, Alan Cowell from Paris, 
Sharon Otterman from New York, Victor Homola from Berlin, and Neil MacFarquhar 
from the United Nations._


----------



## Yrys

Real-Time Criticism of CNN’s Iran Coverage, NY Times






Cable news normally serves as the front line for breaking news, but the channels largely took 
the weekend off as Tehran exploded in protests after Iran’s presidential election. The performance 
of the American cable news, especially CNN, spawned an online protest by thousands on Saturday 
and Sunday, showing that viewers can try to pressure news organizations about their coverage in 
real time via the Internet. Fox News Channel and MSNBC also were said to have covered the protests 
in limited ways.

Protesters’ comments on Twitter were quickly noticed by CNN, which defended its coverage. The social 
networking blog Mashable said Twitter was acting as a “media watchdog.” CNN had reports from Tehran 
throughout Saturday, including some from Christiane Amanpour, its chief international correspondent. 
But it did not provide the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that some had expected. It was a departure for 
CNN, known for its breaking news coverage, including its celebrated reporting during the Tiananmen 
Square crackdown 20 years ago. But the Tehran protests were not covered with rolling live coverage 
for hours at a time.

Untold thousands used the label “CNNfail” on Twitter to vent their frustrations. Steve LaBate, an Atlanta 
resident, said on Twitter, “Why aren’t you covering this with everything you’ve got?” About the same time, 
CNN was showing a repeat of Larry King’s interview of the stars of the “American Chopper” show. 
For a time, new criticisms were being added on Twitter at least once a second.

Andrew Sullivan, a blogger for The Atlantic, wrote, “There’s a reason the MSM is in trouble,” using the 
blogosphere abbreviation for mainstream media.

CNN said, “We share people’s expectations of CNN and have delivered far more coverage of the Iranian 
election and aftermath than any other network.”

Journalists in Tehran were working in difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions. The BBC said its 
correspondent John Simpson and a camera operator had been briefly arrested after filming in the streets. 
Jim Sciutto, an ABC News correspondent in Tehran, said that the police had confiscated a camera and 
footage. “We are shooting protests and police violence on our cellphones,” he wrote on Twitter.

Some Americans relied on British networks. A report from Channel 4 was spread widely on the Internet. 
In the video, the correspondent Lindsey Hilsum said of Iran, “I feel like I went to sleep in one country 
and woke up in another.” 

*BRIAN STELTER*


----------



## Yrys

Leader Emerges With Stronger Hand






TEHRAN — The jokes among Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s detractors are legion. In one, he looks in the mirror 
and says, “Male lice to the right, female lice to the left.” In the West, one American tabloid rarely misses 
a chance to refer to him as “Evil Madman” and in the days before his re-election here he was taunted 
as a “monkey” and as a “midget.”

But the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was announced winner of a second four-year term this week is no 
cartoon character. Whether his 63 percent victory is truly the will of the people or the result of fraud, 
it demonstrated that Mr. Ahmadinejad is the shrewd and ruthless front man for a clerical, military 
and political elite that is more unified and emboldened than at any time since the 1979 revolution.

As president, Mr. Ahmadinejad is subordinate to the country’s true authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali 
Khamenei, who commands final say over all matters of state and faith. With this election, Mr. Khamenei 
and his protégé appear to have neutralized for now the reform forces that they saw as a threat to their 
power, political analysts said.

“This will change the face of the Islamic Republic forever,” said one well-connected Iranian, who like most 
of those interviewed declined to be named in the current tense climate. “Ahmadinejad will claim an absolute 
mandate, meaning he has no need to compromise.” When he was first elected president in 2005, 
Mr. Ahmadinejad showed his fealty to the leader, gently bending over and kissing his hand.

On Saturday, the leader demonstrated his own enthusiasm for the re-elected president, hailing 
the outcome as “a divine blessing” even before the official three-day challenge period had passed. 
On Sunday, Mr. Ahmadinejad flaunted his achievement by mounting a celebration rally in the heart 
of an opposition neighborhood of Tehran, and holding a victory news conference where he scorned 
the West and made a joke out of his main opponent’s quasi-house arrest. Commenting on the 
Obama administration’s conciliatory overtures, he also suggested that his willingness to reconcile 
with foreign governments would depend on their willingness to swallow his disputed election.

Asked about speculation that in his second term he would take a more moderate line, he smirked, 
“It’s not true. I’m going to be more and more solid.” He can afford to be. With the backing of the 
supreme leader and the military establishment, he has marginalized all of the major figures who 
represented a challenge to the vision of Iran as a permanently revolutionary Islamic state.

In many ways, his victory is the latest and perhaps final clash in a battle for power and influence 
that has lasted decades between Mr. Khamenei and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president 
who, while loyal to the Islamic form of government, wanted a more pragmatic approach to the economy, 
international relations and social conditions at home.

Mr. Rafsanjani aligned himself and his family closely with the main reform candidate in this race, 
Mir Hussein Moussavi, a former prime minister who advocated greater freedom — in particular, greater 
freedom for women — and a more conciliatory face to the West. Another former president and pragmatist, 
Mohammed Khatami, had also thrown in heavily with Mr. Moussavi. The three men, combined with 
widespread public support and disillusionment with Mr. Ahmadinejad, posed a challenge to the authority 
of the supreme leader and his allies, political analysts said.

The elite Revolutionary Guards and a good part of the intelligence services “feel very much threatened 
by the reformist movement,” said a political analyst who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. 
“They feel that the reformists will open up to the West and be lenient on the nuclear issue,” he said. 
“It is a confrontation of two ways of thinking, the revolutionary and the internationalist. It is a question 
of power.”

Since the vote was announced Saturday, Mr. Moussavi has been the hero of seething antigovernment protests
in Tehran, but so far they have been contained by legions of riot police officers and hampered by a shutdown
of that critical organizing tool, text-messaging. Mr. Moussavi said he was being “closely monitored” in his 
home, but hoped to speak at a rally on Monday.

“He ran a red light, and he got a traffic ticket,” Mr. Ahmadinejad quipped when asked about his rival.

Unless the street protests achieve unexpected momentum, the election could cast the pro-reform classes 
— especially the better off and better educated — back into a state of passive disillusionment, some 
opposition figures said. “I don’t think the middle class is ever going to go out and vote again,” one Moussavi 
supporter lamented.

When he first caught the West’s attention, Mr. Ahmadinejad had been plucked from an obscure provincial
governorship and made mayor of Tehran. There he established himself as a promising populist politician. 
He refused to use the mayor’s big car or occupy the mayor’s grand office. He didn’t accept his salary.

Four years ago, the supreme leader anointed him as the fundamentalist presidential alternative to 
two candidates the leader thought less reliable, Mr. Rafsanjani and Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker 
of Parliament. (Mr. Karroubi, a reformist cleric, tried again in this election, and on Friday was humiliated 
by the announcement that he had come in fifth in a field of four — after the invalidated ballots.)

Although his first election was marred by allegations of cheating, Mr. Ahmadinejad was credited with being 
genuinely street smart. He roused crowds with vague attacks on the corruption of the elite, with promises 
of a vast redistribution of wealth, and with appeals to Iranian pride. By playing to the Muslim world’s feelings
of victimization by the West and hatred of Israel, he won adulation on the Arab street even as Arab leaders 
often disdained him, and that in turn earned him credibility at home.

“The old generation of the Islamic Revolution was going to die off,” said one Iranian analyst. “We thought they 
would inevitably give way to the reformers. But they found Ahmadinejad, and he was a wise choice. He was 
a new breed of populist — a new breed of demagogue.” He is the son of an iron worker, a traffic engineer 
by education, but political analysts said that he might have been molded most by his experience in the 
Revolutionary Guards.

As president he has presided over a time of rising inflation and unemployment, but has pumped oil revenues
into the budget, sustaining a semblance of growth and buying good will among civil servants, the military 
and the retired. More important, he has consolidated the various arms of power that answer ultimately 
to the supreme leader. The Revolutionary Guards — the military elite — was given license to expand into 
new areas, including the oil industry and other businesses such as shipbuilding.

The Guardian Council, which oversees elections, had its budget increased 15-fold under Mr. Ahmadinejad. 
The council has presided over not only Friday’s outcome, but over parliamentary majorities loyal to 
Mr. Ahmadinejad. For a time, it appeared that he was losing the favor of the supreme leader. Under 
Mr. Ahmadinejad, Iran was hit with sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, inflation and 
unemployment soared and unrest was rising at home as social restrictions were increased. Two of 
his own ministers quit, criticizing his management of the state, and Parliament discussed the prospect 
of impeachment.

The president seemed to stumble often. He raised tensions with the West when he told a United Nations 
General Assembly that he rejected the post-World War II order. He was mocked when he said at Columbia 
University in 2007 that there was not a single gay person in Iran. In April, nearly two dozen diplomats
from the European Union walked out of a conference in Geneva after he disparaged Israel.

But political analysts said that back home, the supreme leader approved, seeing confrontation with the West 
as helpful in keeping alive his revolutionary ideology, and his base of power. President Obama’s conciliatory 
tone toward Iran, some Iranians believe, threatened to relax Iranian vigilance and the powerful forces to 
defend it.

Mr. Obama has made clear he still intends to explore an opening to Iran, though the questions of 
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy and the consolidation of hard-line power could complicate his strategy.

“The coming period will not be an easy one,” said Gamal Abdel Gawad, director of the international relations 
section at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “Any change will be slow and difficult 
because we have an elite that is very much united in its hard-line orientation.”


----------



## CougarKing

And the violence continues as Ahmadinejad's security apparatus cracks down on Mousavi supporters:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> *State radio: 7 killed in Tehran clashes*
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's state radio says seven people died in clashes in Tehran after an "unauthorized gathering" following a mass rally over alleged election fraud.
> 
> The radio report says the seven died in shooting that erupted after several people at the gathering Monday night in western Tehran "tried to attack a military location."
> 
> *More than 100,000 opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had marched through Tehran earlier Monday protesting alleged vote rigging in last week's elections.*
> 
> The report Tuesday gave no details. It was the first official confirmation of the shooting in Tehran's Azadi Square. Witnesses there saw at least one person shot dead and several others seriously wounded after shooting from a compound for volunteer militia linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard.


----------



## Yrys

Video of "Reporters restricted in Iran", 1 min 30 sec
Iran Agrees to Partial Recount of Disputed Ballots, NY Times






_A video grab from the Arabic-language official Al-Alam television showing supporters 
of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rallying in Valiasr Square in central Tehran 
on Tuesday. Iran issued rules for the foreign media limiting coverage of the protests. 
News agencies are limited to using screen grabs from demonstrations broadcast by 
television networks. _

Iran 'to hold election recount'

Iran's powerful Guardian Council says it is ready to recount disputed votes from Friday's presidential poll.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election is being contested by rival Mir Hossein Mousavi and other 
moderate candidates, who are seeking a rerun. The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says they may not accept 
the recount offer.

Several people died in a protest on Monday and Mr Mousavi urged followers not to take part in a rally 
planned for Tuesday, amid fears of new violence. "This headquarters calls on people to avoid the trap 
of planned clashes," a Mousavi spokesman told AFP news agency. The authorities announced sweeping 
restrictions on foreign media covering the protest and other "unauthorised events".

The march was due to have taken place in Tehran's Vali Asr Square at the same time as a demonstration 
there by supporters or President Ahmadinejad. 

The Guardian Council - Iran's top legislative body - said votes would be recounted in areas contested by 
the losing candidates. But a spokesman for the council told state television it would not annul the election 
- as moderate candidates have demanded. The opposition says millions of ballots may have gone astray.

Monday's protest involved hundreds of thousands of people and was one of the largest since the Iranian 
revolution 30 years ago. The radio report said the attack occurred at the end of the "illegal" rally as 
people were heading home "peacefully". "Several thugs wanted to attack a military post and vandalise 
public property in the vicinity of Azadi Square," the radio said referring to the site of the protest.
"Unfortunately seven people were killed and several others wounded in the incident." Hospital 
officials later put the number of dead at eight.

Dozens of people have been arrested since the protests began. Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a close aide 
of ex-President Mohammad Khatami, was detained at his home in Tehran on Tuesday. Those 
detained also include prominent journalist and academic Ahmad Zeidabadi. His wife says he was 
picked up in the middle of the night on Saturday. "There is no explanation from the authorities 
about why he was arrested or where he is," she told the BBC.

Meanwhile, Iranian state television said the "main agents" behind the unrest had been detained, 
and guns and explosives seized. There are reports of fresh demonstrations at Tehran University 
- one of the main centres of tension in recent days. About 120 university lecturers have resigned.

The powerful Speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, has condemned an attack by police and militia 
on a student dormitory. Iranian media quoted him as saying: "The interior minister is responsible 
in this regard."

Unrest has been reported in other parts of Iran. One of Mr Mousavi's websites said a student 
had died on Monday in clashes with hardliners in the southern city of Shiraz.

*Foreign concern*

Our correspondent says the authorities appear to be weakening in their support for President 
Ahmadinejad. The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered an inquiry 
into the allegations of vote-rigging.

The authorities' handling of the protests has drawn international criticism. EU foreign ministers 
expressed "serious concern" and called for an inquiry into the conduct of the election. US 
President Barack Obama said he was "deeply troubled" by the violence in Iran.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad arrived in Russia on Tuesday. He told a regional summit 
that the "age of empires" had ended, but made no mention of the protests.


----------



## Yrys

Video of "Pro-Ahmadinejad supporters rally" 41 sec


Obama's cautious reaction to Iran





_Mr Obama has been attempting to engage with the Iranian government_

It took President Obama until Monday evening to respond publicly to the outcome 
of the Iranian election. Fair enough, given the initial confusion and the sensitivity 
of the issue. When he did break his silence, his words suggested he was walking 
a fine diplomatic line.

The president said he was "deeply troubled" by the images he - and millions 
of Americans - had been watching on television during the last few days. And 
he called on Iran's leaders to respect the "universal values" of the democratic 
process. But he studiously avoided any comment on the allegations of vote 
fraud, saying only that the United States had no observers watching the 
election close up.

The Iranian government had promised an investigation, and the president said 
he hoped it would be done fairly and without any further violence.

*Rush to judgement*

The first official US reaction had come on Saturday afternoon with a rather 
anodyne White House statement: "Like the rest of the world, we were impressed 
by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that the election generated. We continue 
to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities."


By Sunday morning, Vice-President Joe Biden was a bit more forceful, stating on 
national television that there appeared to be "some real doubt" about the results. 
His remarks came long after Tehran had erupted with protests and bitter 
recriminations, however. On Monday afternoon, the state department spokesman 
went a little further saying that the administration was "deeply troubled" by 
"reports" of violence and voting irregularities.

Why they were just "reports" of violence seems curious, since by now we had all 
seen the images of Iranian police beating protesters. In some ways, the Obama 
administration's view of Iran's presidential election seems as opaque as that of 
the regime in Tehran itself.

There are, of course, good reasons not to rush to judgement.

*Caution*

We all remember the fatal mistake the Bush administration made in 2002 declaring 
that Hugo Chavez had been ousted from power. It was both wrong and counter-
productive - fuelling anti-American sentiment. But at least it was clear which side 
the Bush administration was on.

Four years ago, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power, the Bush 
administration had denounced the election even before the result was declared. 
They knew it was rigged by the Guardian Council, acting on the orders of the 
supreme leader. This election was fundamentally no different. It was never 
going to be free and fair.

So why has President Obama been so cautious?

First, he wants to get US-Iranian relations out of a deep rut. Criticising the country's 
elections in advance could only have helped the hard-liners and hinder the reformers.
It would have reinforced the old perceptions of US interference and made future talks 
all the harder. Mr Obama's reticence may have in fact strengthened the hand of the 
reformers and improved the chances of fundamental change.

*Realism*

The other reason why the White House has been careful is that it will still have to work 
with whoever wins. "Deal with the leader you have, not the one you wish you had," 
appears to be the administration's position.

Team Obama's foreign policy "realists" have learned from the mistakes of the Bush-era 
"ideologues". They realised the flaws - and at times the hypocrisy - of President Bush's 
policy of trying to reward countries that adopted US-style democracy. As the Washington 
Post has noted, the muted response from the Obama administration reflects a diplomatic 
dilemma.

President Obama's comments about what has happened may have an impact on the kind 
of dialogue he has with Tehran and therefore the chances of any diplomatic success on the 
key issue of Iran's nuclear programme.

To be clear, it does not rule out a dialogue. Washington has relations with plenty of 
unsavoury regimes. Barack Obama's refusal to condemn the elections before they took place, 
and caution in responding to the results may still prove to be wise.

But is it a triumph of pragmatism over principle?

The charge levelled against President Bush was that he was too simplistic, that there was no 
nuance in his foreign policy, that he only saw the world in black and white.

But if he were in charge now, we would at least know his verdict on these elections.


----------



## Yrys

Iran clamps down on foreign media, BBC News

Authorities in Iran have announced sweeping new restrictions on foreign media, 
effectively confining journalists to their offices.


In Iran, an Iron Cleric, Now Blinking





_Ayatollah Ali Khamenei arrived at a polling place in Tehran on Friday to cast his vote. 
He has a reputation for caution._

For two decades, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has remained a shadowy presence at the pinnacle of power in Iran, 
sparing in his public appearances and comments. Through his control of the military, the judiciary and all 
public broadcasts, the supreme leader controlled the levers he needed to maintain an iron if discreet grip 
on the Islamic republic.

But in a rare break from a long history of cautious moves, he rushed to bless President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad for winning the election, calling on Iranians to line up behind the incumbent even 
before the standard three days required to certify the results had passed. Then angry crowds 
swelled in cities around Iran, and he backpedaled, announcing Monday that the 12-member 
Council of Guardians, which vets elections and new laws, would investigate the vote.

“After congratulating the nation for having a sacred victory, to say now that there is a possibility 
that it was rigged is a big step backward for him,” said Abbas Milani, the director of Stanford 
University’s Iranian studies program.

Few suggest yet that Ayatollah Khamenei’s hold on power is at risk. But, analysts say, he has opened 
a serious fissure in the face of Islamic rule and one that may prove impossible to patch over, particularly 
given the fierce dispute over the election that has erupted amid the elite veterans of the 1979 revolution. 
Even his strong links to the powerful Revolutionary Guards — long his insurance policy — may not be 
decisive as the confrontation in Iran unfolds.

“Khamenei would always come and say, ‘Shut up; what I say goes,’ ” said Azar Nafisi, the author of two 
memoirs about Iran, including “Reading Lolita in Tehran.” “Everyone would say, ‘O.K., it is the word of 
the leader.’ Now the myth that there is a leader up there whose power is unquestionable is broken.”

Those sensing that important change may be afoot are quick to caution that Ayatollah Khamenei, as 
a student of the revolution that swept the shah from power, could still resort to overwhelming force 
to crush the demonstrations.

In calling for the Guardian Council to investigate the vote, he has bought himself a 10-day grace period 
for the anger to subside, experts note. The outcome is not likely to be a surprise. Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati, 
the council’s chairman, is one of Ayatollah Khamenei’s few staunch allies among powerful clerics. In addition, 
Ayatollah Khamenei appoints half the members, while the other half are nominated by the head of the 
judiciary, another appointee of the supreme leader. “It is simply a faux investigation to quell the protests,” 
said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Ayatollah Khamenei was an unlikely successor to the patriarch of the revolution, the Ayatollah Ruhollah 
Khomeini, and his elevation to the post of supreme leader in 1989 might have sown the seeds for the 
political crisis the country is facing today.

The son of a cleric from the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei was known as something of an 
open-minded mullah, if not exactly liberal. He had a good singing voice; played the tar, a traditional 
Iranian stringed instrument; and wrote poetry. His circle of friends included some of the country’s most 
accomplished poets. In the violence right after the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a bomb 
hidden in a tape recorder permanently crippled his right arm, and he was elevated to president in 1981 
after another bomb killed the incumbent. He managed to attract the ire of Ayatollah Khomeini himself 
once, ironically, by publicly questioning some aspects of having a vilayat-e-faqih, or supreme leader 
system.

He also clashed repeatedly with Mir Hussein Moussavi, the powerful prime minister at the time. After 
being trounced in the official election results by Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Moussavi, the reformist presidential 
candidate, challenged Ayatollah Khamenei in the one area where he has always been vulnerable: 
his religious credentials. Mr. Moussavi wrote an open letter to the clergy in the holy city of Qom 
about the election results. By appealing to the grand clerics, he was effectively saying Ayatollah 
Khamenei’s word as supreme leader lacked sufficient weight.

Ayatollah Khamenei was elevated from the middle clerical rank, hojatolislam, to ayatollah overnight in 
what was essentially a political rather than a religious decision. He earned undying scorn from many 
keepers of Shiite tradition, even though Iran’s myth-making machinery cranked up, with a witness 
professing he saw a light pass from Ayatollah Khomeini to Ayatollah Khamenei much the way the 
imams of centuries past were anointed.

Still, lacking a political base of his own, he set about creating one in the military. It was the end of the 
Iran-Iraq war, and many senior officers returning from the front demanded a role in politics or the 
economy for their sacrifices. Ayatollah Khamenei became a source of patronage for them, giving them 
important posts in broadcasting or as leaders of the vast foundations that had confiscated much of the 
pre-revolution private sector. “By empowering them, he got power,” said Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington 
Institute for Near East Policy.

In the wake of the election debacle, questions are being raised about who controls whom. But over 
the years, Ayatollah Khamenei gradually surmounted expectations that he would be eclipsed. “He is 
a weak leader, who is extremely smart in allying himself, or in maneuvering between centers of power,” 
said one expert at New York University, declining to use his name because he travels to Iran frequently. 
“Because of the factionalism of the state, he seems to be the most powerful person.”

But many analysts say the differences between factions have never been quite so pronounced nor public 
as in the past few days. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, once a close Khamenei ally 
who helped him become supreme leader, sent an open letter to him in the days before the election 
warning that any fraud would backfire, Mr. Milani noted. If he allowed the military to ignore the public 
will and to destroy senior revolutionary veterans, the decision would haunt him, Mr. Rafsanjani warned: 
“Tomorrow it is going to be you.”

Everyone speaking of Ayatollah Khamenei tends to use the word “cautious,” a man who never gambles. 
But he now faces a nearly impossible choice. If he lets the demonstrations swell, it could well change 
the system of clerical rule. If he uses violence to stamp them out, the myth of a popular mandate for 
the Islamic revolution will die.

“The Iranian leadership is caught in a paradox,” said Ms. Nafisi, the author of memoirs about Iran.


----------



## Yrys

Social Networks Spread Iranian Defiance Online





_Hundreds of thousands of Iranians marching in support for the 
presidential opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi._


Opposition in Iran Rejects Call for Partial Recount

TEHRAN — Thousands of people began massing in the streets here again on Tuesday to protest Iran’s disputed
presidential election, increasing tensions a day after clashes left at least seven people dead during the largest
antigovernment demonstration since the Iranian revolution. But in answer to the supreme leader’s turnabout 
call for an examination of opposition charges of vote-rigging, the country’s powerful Guardian Council said 
Tuesday it was prepared to order only a partial recount, and it ruled out an annulment of the vote, 
according to state television and news reports.

The concession was rejected by the main opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, and other opponents 
of the declared winner, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The opponents demand that a new election be held.
As the political tumult grew, the Iranian government canceled all foreign press credentials and told Iranian 
journalists they could report only from their offices, but news continued to flow out of Tehran.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to try to project a secure grip on power, leaving Iran to fly to Russia 
on Tuesday for a meeting on international security. Seeking to reclaim the initiative after the opposition’s 
enormous show of strength on Monday, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters called for a their own rally on Tuesday,
and demonstrators from both camps began to gather in the same part of Tehran.

A spokesman for Mr. Moussavi was quoted as urging them not to attend “to protect their lives,” Reuters 
reported. In Twitter feeds and on Web sites — a primary source of communication for the opposition 
— Mr. Moussavi’s supporters asked that protesters wear black in honor of the seven killed Monday.
Speaking at Monday’s huge rally, Mr. Moussavi said he had written to the Guardian Council to complain 
about the election but had little hope of action from the panel because many of its members had supported 
Mr. Ahmadinejad ahead of the election.

“I believe annulling the election results would be the least harmful measure,” he said. “Otherwise people 
will no longer have confidence in the system and the government,” he said. But the Guardian Council 
rejected that demand, Reuters reported.

“Based on the law, the demand of those candidates for the cancellation of the vote, this cannot be 
considered,” the spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, a spokesman for the Guardian Council, 
told state television, Reuters said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad flew to Yekaterinburg, Russia, for a summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation 
Organization, grouping Russia, China and four central Asian states. At the gathering, Mr. Ahmadinejad 
did not mention the Iranian election, but gave a speech in which he referred to regional problems, 
describing Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine as occupied and unstable. “The world is gripped by economic 
and political crises, and there is no hope for their solution,” hesaid. “The countries allied with America 
are also in no condition to cope with these crises.” He added: “The current political and economic order 
is approaching the end of its mastery of the world. It is absolutely clear that the epoch of empire has 
come to an end.”

Mr. Medvedev did not offer any public comments on the Iranian election. He later met on the sidelines 
of the conference with Mr. Ahmadinejad, Kremlin officials said. In contrast with doubts expressed in many 
west European capitals over the validity of the Iranian ballot, a deputy foreign minister of Russia, Sergei 
Ryabkov, told reporters that Russia had warm relations with Iran. "Elections in Iran are an internal affair 
of the Iranian people, but we welcome the newly elected president of that state," Mr. Ryabkov said.

On Monday, hundreds of thousands of people from across Iranian society poured into the streets to protest 
what they charge were fraudulent results in last week’s vote. The protests initially were believed to have 
been largely peaceful and only one death was reported. But violence erupted after dark when protesters 
surrounded and attempted to set fire to the headquarters of the Basij volunteer militia, which is associated 
with the Revolutionary Guards, according to news agency reports. State radio said seven people died after 
an “unauthorized gathering” following Monday’s mass rally when protesters tried to attack “a military 
location,” the A.P. said.

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was compelled to respond to the popular and sustained defiance
 and called Monday for a formal review of the results, the first hint that the government might fear it could 
not control the crowds. But Mr. Ahmadinejad’s decision to leave the country as head of state threatened to 
inflame voters. Mr. Ahmadinejad had already incensed protesters when he compared them to angry soccer 
fans whose team had lost and called them “dust.”

One demonstrator fired off a Twitter message, one of thousands of brief electronic dispatches that kept the 
outside world up-to-the-minute on the protests, proclaiming: “Ahmadinejad called us dust, we showed him 
a sandstorm.”

The silent march through central Tehran on Monday represented an extraordinary show of defiance from 
a broad cross section of society and some protesters began to sense that the leadership’s firm backing of 
Mr. Ahmadinejad had wavered. In his first public comment on the situation in Iran, President Obama said 
he was deeply troubled by postelection violence and called on Iranian leaders to respect free speech and 
the democratic process. He told reporters he would continue pursuing a direct dialogue with Tehran, but 
he urged that any Iranian investigation of election irregularities be conducted without bloodshed.

The protests showed how the government’s assertion that Mr. Ahmadinejad won re-election by a margin 
of almost two to one had further cleaved Iranian society into rival camps.

On one side are the most powerful arms of the Islamic system of government: Ayatollah Khamenei; 
the military; the paramilitary; and the Guardian Council. On the other is a diverse coalition that has 
grown emboldened by the day, with some clerics joining two former presidents and Mr. Moussavi, 
the former prime minister and main opposition candidate, who addressed the crowd from the roof 
of a car near Freedom Square in downtown Tehran.

Earlier Monday, Ayatollah Khamenei stepped in to try to calm a growing backlash, forcing him into 
a public role he generally seeks to avoid as the country’s top religious authority. Under Iran’s dual 
system of government, with civil and religious institutions, the supreme leader can usually operate 
in the shadows, while elected officials serve as the public face of Iranian governance and policy.

He called for the Guardian Council to conduct an inquiry into the opposition’s claims that the election 
was rigged and then had that announcement repeated every 15 minutes on Iranian state radio throughout 
the day. It was a rare reversal.

_Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Bill Keller reported from Tehran, 
Clifford J. Levy from Moscow and Andrew E. Kramer from Yekaterinburg, Russia._


----------



## Edward Campbell

There’s an old saying to the effect that “when a man has only a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail.” Thus, I caution you that my personal interest in the politics of Tudor England may mean that I see reflections everywhere.

The relationship between the sovereign and the parliament in 16th century England was evolving, slowly from the model the _Angevins_ built upon Saxon foundations. The sovereign accepted, albeit grudgingly, that (s)he had no power to tax and, therefore, his/her power to e.g. wage war was severely constrained. Slowly but surely, over three or four hundred years, the relationship _solidified_ until, in 1648, after the _turbulent_ Tudors, parliament – by the act of trying and executing the (Stuart) king – made itself sovereign. (It conformed its absolute sovereignty later, in 1689 when the English parliament _selected_, arguably _elected_, William and Mary to reign over England and Scotland.)

Perhaps we are seeing a similar evolution in Iran and, indeed, across the region. People like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are analogous to the absolute monarch of renaissance Europe. I don’t want to carry the analogies too far, I’m not suggesting that Ahmadinejad or Moussavi are some sorts of democratic reformers but they may be harbingers of things to come.

I have ranted and raved about *culture* being supremely important and I have argued that the Persian/Arab culture is not, now, in the 21st century, ready for modern, sophisticated democracy, either liberal or conservative. But: that Arab/Persian culture *may* be ready for a simpler form of democracy, maybe something akin to that known in Tudor times. Maybe that much democracy, that much _accepted constraint_ on the rule of tyrants is about the best for which we can hope right now.

Just a thought.


----------



## dapaterson

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Guess who wrote:



> There are other reasons Obama should not heed the war hawks howling for confrontation now.
> 
> When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran's affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.
> ...
> Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran's right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument -- that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran's defense.



It's that raving left-winger Pat Buchanan.  Full article is online at: http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting_the_ayatollahs?page=full&comments=true


----------



## Yrys

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just a thought.



An interesting one.


Latest Updates, NY Times

 'Mass opposition rally' in Tehran, BBC News

Iranian opposition supporters are staging a mass rally in northern Tehran, witnesses 
have told the BBC.

It comes despite presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urging supporters not to 
risk clashes with demonstrators backing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Hundreds 
of thousands turned up on Monday alleging fraud in the poll which returned 
Mr Ahmadinejad to office.

Tough new restrictions on the foreign media mean the BBC is unable to confirm reports 
of Tuesday's opposition rally.


----------



## a_majoor

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-seven-point-manifesto-of-the-iranian-resistance/

*The Seven-Point Manifesto of the Iranian Resistance*

Their demands include no less than the resignation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This widely circulated document has been translated by PJM's Ardeshir Arian. 

 June 16, 2009 
The following document, known as the Seven-Point Manifesto, calling for the resignation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has hit the streets of Iran. Hundreds of thousands of copies have already been circulated throughout the country.

A copy was sent from Tehran to filmmaker and activist Ardeshir Arian, who has translated it for Pajamas Media:

The Seven-Point Manifesto calls for:

1. Stripping Ayatollah Khamenei of his supreme leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a supreme leader.

2. Stripping Ahmadinejad of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.

3. Transferring temporary supreme leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran’s constitution.

4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.

5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.

6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideology or party platform.

7. Dissolution of all organizations — both secret and public — designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).


----------



## Yrys

Iranians defy media restrictions   

Iranians are still managing to send photos, mobile 'phone 
video and emails to the BBC's interactive sites, despite 
the Iranian government's attempts to close down all 
media communication beyond its control.


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of the violence, Mousavi supporters continue to stage massive rallies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writers – 51 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Tens of thousands of black-clad protesters filled the streets of Tehran again Thursday, joining opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi to mourn demonstrators killed in clashes over Iran's disputed election.
> 
> Many in the massive crowd wore green wristbands and carried flowers in mourning as they filed into Imam Khomenei Square, a large plaza in the heart of the capital named for the founder of the Islamic Revolution, witnesses said.
> 
> Demonstrators marched silently until they arrived at the square, where some chanted "Death to the Dictator!" and "Where are our votes!"
> 
> The witnesses spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation. Foreign news organizations are barred from reporting on Tehran's streets.
> 
> The fourth consecutive day of protests openly defied Iran's supreme leader, who has urged the people to pursue their allegations of election fraud within the limits of the cleric-led system. Mousavi and his followers have rejected compromise and pressed their demands for a new election, flouting the will of a man endowed with virtually limitless powers under Iran's constitution.
> 
> Trying again to satisfy the protesters' demands, Iran's main electoral authority invited Mousavi and two other candidates who ran against hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a meeting. Iran's al-Alam Arabic television channel said the three candidates would meet with the Guardian Council on Saturday.
> 
> The unelected body of 12 clerics and Islamic law experts close to Khamenei has said it was prepared to conduct a limited recount of ballots at sites where candidates claim irregularities.
> 
> Mousavi, who has said he won the vote, charges the Guardian Council is not neutral and supports Ahmadinejad and has demanded an independent investigation and a new election.
> 
> The Council's spokesman, Abbasali Khadkhodaei, said Thursday that it received a total of 646 complaints from the three candidates who ran against Ahmadinejad in the June 12 election.
> 
> The council provided few other details, but the large number of complaints raised the possibility that even a limited recount could turn into a far larger and messier exercise than the government desires.
> 
> The regime has blocked communication channels, such as Web sites and mobile phone networks, to make it more difficult for Mousavi supporters to organize protests. The mobile phone network in Tehran appeared to go down at the start of Thursday's demonstration, as it has intermittently since shortly after the election results were announced. Text messaging has been blocked almost constantly since Friday.
> 
> There have been widespread accusations of nighttime attacks on Mousavi supporters by pro-government militiamen, and protesters attacked a militia building after one rally, but both sides have been restrained, with uniformed police and other security forces standing by as protesters march calmly through the streets.
> 
> On Monday, hundreds of thousands turned out in a huge procession that recalled the scale of protests during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Seven demonstrators were shot and killed that day by pro-regime militia in the first confirmed deaths during the unrest.
> 
> The massive gathering was followed by three days of marches along main Tehran avenues, presenting one of the gravest threats to Iran's complex blend of democracy and religious authority since the system emerged out of the Islamic revolution that brought down Western-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
> 
> The ruling clerics still command deep public support and are defended by Iran's most powerful military force — the Revolutionary Guard — as well as a vast network of militias.
> 
> But Mousavi's movement has forced Khamenei into the center of the escalating crisis, questioning his role as the final authority on all critical issues.
> 
> The wild card for Mousavi's movement is former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads the Assembly of Experts — a cleric-run body that is empowered to choose or dismiss Iran's supreme leader. Khamenei is Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's successor, and the assembly has never used its power to remove Iran's highest authority.
> 
> Rafsanjani was a fierce critic of Ahmadinejad during the election, but has not publicly backed Mousavi. It is not known whether Mousavi has actively courted Rafsanjani's support or if they have held talks.
> 
> But Iranian TV has shown pictures of Faezeh Hashemi, Rafsanjani's daughter, speaking to hundreds of Mousavi supporters, carrying pictures of Khomeini.
> 
> A group of hard-line students rallied outside the Tehran prosecutor's office Thursday, accusing Rafsanjani's daughter and his son, Mahdi, of treason, state radio reported. They said Rafsanjani supports these actions and shouted: "Shame on you, children of Hashemi!"
> 
> For the moment, protesters have focused on the results of the balloting rather than challenging the Islamic system of government. But a shift in anger toward Iran's non-elected theocracy would sharply change the stakes. Instead of a clash over the election results, it would become a showdown over the foundation of Iran's system of rule — the almost unlimited authority of the clerics at the top.
> 
> The Iranian government has directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis. A statement by state-run Press TV blamed Washington for "intolerable" interference. The report, on Press TV, cited no evidence.
> 
> "Despite wide coverage of unrest, foreign media have not been able to provide any evidence on a single violation in the election process," state radio said Thursday.
> 
> President Barack Obama said he shared the world's "deep concerns" but it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."
> 
> The two countries severed diplomatic relations after militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran following the Islamic Revolution.
> 
> The government has blocked certain Web sites, such as BBC Farsi, Facebook, Twitter and several pro-Mousavi sites that are vital conduits for Iranians to tell the world about protests and violence. Many other sites, including Gmail and Yahoo, were unusually slow and rarely connect.
> 
> Mousavi has condemned the blocking of Web sites, saying the government did not tolerate the voice of the opposition.
> 
> In a statement, Google Inc.'s video sharing site, YouTube, said this week it would allow clips depicting violence in Iran because of their journalistic merit.
> 
> "In general, we do not allow graphic or gratuitous violence on YouTube," the company said. "However, we make exceptions for videos that have educational, documentary, or scientific value. The limitations being placed on mainstream media reporting from within Iran make it even more important that citizens in Iran be able to use YouTube to capture their experiences for the world to see."
> 
> Iranian Press TV said Khamenei would lead the weekly prayers ceremony on Friday. There was no immediate word whether Ahmadinejad would attend, but attends the service whenever Khamenei gives it. Al-Alam said the three presidential candidates also confirmed they would attend.


----------



## Yrys

NY Times :
Stark Images, Uploaded to the World
Clerics May Be Key to Outcome of Unrest
An Insider Turned Agitator Is the Face of Iran’s Opposition


Protesters Gather Again, as Iran Panel Offers Talks





_Supporters of the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi demonstrated 
in Tehran on Thursday._

TEHRAN — Hundreds of thousands of black-clad protesters massed quietly in central Tehran 
on Thursday for another day of protest over last week’s disputed presidential election, even 
as the Iranian government made its first move toward some form of dialogue to defuse the 
outrage.

The move came in the form of an invitation from the country’s powerful Guardian Council to 
the three losing candidates to meet to discuss their grievances. The exact motives, timing and
conditions of the proposed meeting, reported by state media, remained unclear. The offer, 
from a legal panel largely controlled by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was widely 
seen as a government effort to buy time in the hopes of dampening the momentum of days of
enormous protests taking place in open defiance of the government’s authority.

The government also seemed to be building a case that challenges to the election represented a 
threat to national security, with the Intelligence Ministry describing an election-day bomb plot 
linked to foreign enemies, Reuters reported.

Beginning at about 4 p.m. local time on Thursday, thousands of people began gathering Tehran’s 
Imam Khomeini Square. The crowd quickly grew to the hundreds of thousands, stretching beyond 
the borders of the square — one of the cities largest — and filling the surrounding streets, witnesses 
said. The protest seemed as large, or perhaps larger, that Monday’s, which Tehran’s mayor said 
numbered three million.

At one point, a car drove into the thick of the demonstration, and the main opposition leader, 
Mir Hussein Moussavi, and his wife, got out and stood on top of their car to. The crowd greeted
them with a roaring welcome, witnesses said. As on previous days, the police kept to the sidelines, 
and while vigilante forces appeared, there were no immediate reports of clashes.

Mr. Moussavi had called on his followers to mourn those protesters killed in clashes with 
paramilitary forces over the past several days, and protesters responded by wearing black 
and carrying black candles. Many held up their hands, their fingers making a V-sign for victory.
Meanwhile, some protesters expressed growing fears that the government’s tolerance of the 
persistent protests would expire soon.

The Iranian authorities reported at least eight people killed in Tehran in the first days of 
the unrest after the election. Student activists say seven more people have died since then 
in attacks by government militia on student dormitories in Tehran and in the southern city 
of Shiraz. Iranian Web sites have carried reports of violence in some other cities in Iran, 
but given the press restrictions now in place, those could not be verified.

Iran has been in tumult since early Saturday, when, just hours after the close of polls in 
Friday’s presidential election, Iranian authorities declared a landslide victory for the incumbent,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The supreme leader welcomed the declaration of a landslide victory 
and called the results “fair.”

But two days later, as fury intensified over what opposition supporters viewed as a stolen vote, 
Ayatollah Khamenei called on the Guardian Council to examine the opposition’s accusations. In 
Iran’s theocracy, established after the Islamic revolution of 1979, the supreme leader has vast 
power over the military, the judiciary and broadcasting. He also appoints six of the 12 jurists 
on the Guardian Council, which oversees Parliament and certifies election results, and so exerts 
profound influence on legislators.

The president and Parliament are popularly elected by the people, and in recent years as popular 
demand for social and economic freedoms has grown, frictions have sharpened between the various 
arms of government. After Mr. Khamenei’s request, the Guardian Council agreed to conduct a partial 
recount, and on Thursday state radio said a “careful examination” of a total of 646 complaints concer-
ning the vote had commenced, Reuters reported.

However, the opposition has maintained its call for a new election, and it was not immediately clear 
how it would respond to the council’s offer of talks, which could take place as early as Saturday. Many 
Iranians are hoping for clues to the government’s next moves from sermons by senior clerics at Friday 
prayers in Tehran. Mr. Khamenei is expected to lead the main prayers at Tehran University.

In the unfolding battle of wills, the government worked on many fronts to disrupt the outside world’s 
view of the unrest, banning coverage of the demonstrations, arresting journalists, threatening bloggers 
and trying to block Web sites like Facebook and Twitter, which have become vital outlets for information 
about the confrontation. None of this week’s mass gatherings have been given official authorization and 
reporters have been formally barred from leaving their offices to cover them. The senior prosecutor in 
the central province of Isfahan, where there have also been tense demonstrations, went so far as to 
say protesters could be executed under Islamic law.

The semi-official Fars news agency reported that a son and daughter of former President Ali Akbar 
Hashemi Hafsanjani, who has been supporting Mr. Moussavi, had been stopped from leaving the country.
Human rights groups accused the authorities of rounding up other prominent figures, including a former 
foreign minister. According to news reports and a human rights activist group, the International Campaign 
for Human Rights in Iran, the latest detainees include Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister who leads
an organization called Freedom Movement. According to the rights group, he was arrested at a hospital in
Tehran while undergoing treatment on Wednesday. The arrest was reported after other people were 
detained, including Mohammad Reza Jalaipour, a sociologist  and university professor. He was arrested 
at Tehran airport while trying to leave the country with his wife, news reports said.

Amnesty International issued a tally of detentions, saying 17 people, including some associated with the 
Freedom Movement, had been detained in the northwestern city of Tabriz. “Among those arrested was 
Dr. Ghaffari Farzadi, a leading member of the Iran Freedom Movement and a lecturer at Tabriz University,” 
Amnesty International said on its Web site, adding that students appeared to have been “particularly 
targeted.”

The offer to talk with the opposition was broadcast by state television, which quoted the Guardian Council’s
spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, as saying, “The presidential candidates will be invited to the meeting to 
be held early next week to express their ideas and ask any questions in the presence of the Guardian 
Council’s members.” The meeting would include Mr. Moussavi and two other candidates — Mehdi Karroubi 
and Mohsen Rezai. Mr. Moussavi has indicated in the past that he does not trust the Guardian Council, 
because some of its members campaigned on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad before the elections.

State television’s Press TV reported on its Web site that Mr. Moussavi was already set to address a rally on
Saturday, called by a group of reformist clerics loyal to a former reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, 
who has thrown his support to the opposition. Press TV said Thursday that the reformist clerics group, 
the Association of Combatant Clerics, had asked for authorization to hold the pro-Moussavi rally in Tehran.

Also Thursday, President Ahmadinejad released a recorded statement, according to The Associated Press,
clarifying remarks he made earlier in the week referring to opposition supporters as “dust” and essentially
calling them poor sports. The statement, broadcast on state television said: “I only addressed those who 
made riot, set fires and attacked people. Every single Iranian is valuable. The government is at everyone’s
service. We like everyone.”

_Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Robert F. Worth contributed reporting 
from Dubai, and Sharon Otterman from New York._


----------



## Xiang

If there is any sort of progress in reform/revolution in Iran, Mousavi will simply be a temporary leader.

Most Iranians know his past and his brutality.  He is simply a figure head for the more moderate Islamic ideology most Iranians want.


----------



## GAP

> The government also seemed to be building a case that challenges to the election represented a
> threat to national security, with the Intelligence Ministry describing an election-day bomb plot
> linked to foreign enemies, Reuters reported.



Last time there was unrest the US/Israel got blamed to divert the people's attention away from internal issues towards an outside issue....looks like they are using a winning formula again....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems the army is keeping to it's promise to stay out of the fray. Which means all of the hate and thoughts of revenge will be directed to the RG and their hired thugs. Even if the regime survives this, it will widen the cracks and focus the people. when the next crisis happens the people may ask the army to intervene to protect them against the RG, leading to short and nasty civil war. Combine this with the fact that only 51% of the population is Persian, Iran may shortly be consumed by civil insurrection.


----------



## a_majoor

Nice:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM5NmE3ODNkYTdjYjlkNTdjN2Q0Zjg5NzgyYjI1YTg=



> Bert Brecht on Iran   [Michael Ledeen]
> 
> Fifty years ago, the East Germans rose against their Communist tyrants. As Russell Berman notes:
> 
> Bertolt Brecht, whose relationship to democracy was far from clear, pinpointed the hypocrisy of dictatorship in a poem worth rereading with regard to Iran.
> 
> *The Solution*
> 
> After the uprising of the 17th of June
> The Secretary of the Writers Union
> Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
> Stating that the people
> Had forfeited the confidence of the government
> And could win it back only
> By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
> In that case for the government
> To dissolve the people
> And elect another?


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems the army is keeping to it's promise to stay out of the fray.



Seems that things may not stay that way though from the looks of this latest update below.

So will it be long before Iranian MBTs roll through Tehran to emulate what happened at Tiananmen Square 20 years ago?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writers – 42 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – *Iran's supreme leader sternly warned Friday of a crackdown if protesters continue their massive street rallies, escalating the government's showdown with demonstrators demanding a new presidential election.
> 
> In his first response to a week of protests of the disputed election, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said opposition leaders "will be held accountable for all the violence, bloodshed and rioting" if they do not halt the rallies.*
> 
> Khamenei also said the balloting had not been rigged, and he sided with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, offering no concessions to the opposition. He effectively ruled out any chance for a new vote, lauding the June 12 election as an expression of the people's will.
> 
> "Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory," Khamenei said at a Friday prayer service at Tehran University attended by tens of thousands of people. "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."
> 
> The speech created a stark choice for candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and his supporters: Drop their demands for a new vote or take to the streets again in blatant defiance of the man endowed with virtually limitless powers under Iran's constitution.
> 
> Pro-Mousavi Web sites had no immediate reaction to Khamenei's warning. They did not announce changes in plans for a march at 4 p.m. Saturday from Revolution Square to Freedom Square, site of a massive rally Monday that ended with fatal clashes between protesters and a pro-government militia.
> 
> "We are all feel a little angry, worried and disappointed after the speech," said one Mousavi supporter, responding by e-mail to The Associated Press.
> 
> "We are waiting for Mousavi's reaction. He is our hope to protect our votes," added the Tehran resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation.
> 
> Monday's demonstration was followed by three consecutive days of protest that have posed the greatest challenge to Iran's Islamic ruling system since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought it to power.
> 
> So far, the government has not stopped the protests with force despite an official ban on them. But Khamenei opened the door for harsher measures.
> 
> "It must be determined at the ballot box what the people want and what they don't want, not in the streets," he said. "I call on all to put an end to this method."
> 
> And Khamenei added, according to Press TV, Iranian state television's English-language channel: "Extremism in the country, any extremist move, will fan another extremist move. If the political elite want to ignore the law or break the law then they are taking wrong measures, which are harmful, and they will be held accountable for all the violence, bloodshed and rioting."
> 
> He accused foreign media and Western countries of trying to create a political rift and stir up chaos in Iran. Iranian leaders often blame foreign "enemies" for plots against the country, but Khamenei's comments suggest Iran could remain cool to expanding dialogue with the West and the offer of opening talks with Washington.
> 
> The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.
> 
> The resolution was the strongest message yet to Iran from the U.S. government and was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has taken a cautious line on the election dispute, expressing sympathy with protesters but avoiding condemnation of the Islamic government.
> 
> He said Tuesday that opposition to Ahmadinejad represented "a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past, and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy."
> 
> Khamenei reacted strongly, saying Obama's statements contradicted the president's stated goal of opening dialogue with Iran and the conciliatory tone of other recent American messages.
> 
> "The U.S. president said 'We were waiting for a day like this to see people on the street,'" Khamenei said. "They write to us and say they respect the Islamic Republic and then they make comments like this. ... Which one should we believe?
> 
> Khamenei remained staunch in his defense of Ahmadinejad, saying his views were closer to the president's than to those of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, a powerful patron of Mousavi.
> 
> Ahmadinejad watched the sermon from the front row and conservative candidate Mohsen Rezaei could be seen in the audience.
> 
> State television did not show Mousavi in the crowd of thousands, which spilled out of the open-sided campus pavilion and filled surrounding streets.
> 
> Iran's Arabic-language state TV channel said before the service that Mousavi, Rezaei and reformist candidate Mahdi Karroubi would attend. Karroubi confirmed that but it was not clear from broadcasts of the sermon if he or Rafsanjani were in fact there.
> 
> Khamenei said the 11 million votes that separated Ahmadinejad from his top opponent, Mousavi, were proof that fraud did not occur.
> 
> "If the difference was 100,000 or 500,000 or 1 million, well, one may say fraud could have happened. But how can one rig 11 million votes?" Khamenei asked.
> 
> Khamenei said Iran would not see a second revolution like those that transformed the countries of the former Soviet Union and pointed a finger at the U.S., Britain and what he called Iran's other enemies.
> 
> British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other European Union leaders expressed dismay over the threat of a crackdown. The British Foreign Office told Iran's charge d'affairs in London that Khamenei's comments were "unacceptable and had no basis in fact," a spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with policy.
> 
> The Foreign Office summoned the Iranian ambassador but said that in the end, the more junior diplomat attended the meeting with political director Mark Lyall Grant.
> 
> In Switzerland, Iranian Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi said Iran should hold a new election observed by international monitors, adding that more than 500 people have been arrested since the balloting. Her human rights office in Iran was raided last year, its files confiscated and several members subsequently arrested.
> 
> Khamenei's address was his first since hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters flooded the streets, evoking the revolution that ended Iran's U.S.-backed monarchy. On Thursday, supporters dressed in black and green marched in downtown Tehran in a somber, candlelit show of mourning for those killed in clashes since the election.
> 
> Khamenei said the street protests would not have any impact.
> 
> "Some may imagine that street action will create political leverage against the system and force the authorities to give in to threats. No, this is wrong," he said.
> 
> The supreme leader left open a small window for a legal challenge to the vote. He reiterated that he has ordered the Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 clerics and Islamic law experts close to the supreme leader, to investigate voter fraud claims.
> 
> The council has said it was prepared to conduct a limited recount of ballots at sites where candidates claim irregularities.
> 
> Ahmadinejad has appeared to take the growing opposition more seriously in recent days, backtracking Thursday on his dismissal of the protesters as "dust" and sore losers.
> 
> The crowds in Tehran and elsewhere have been able to organize despite a government clampdown on the Internet and cell phones. The government has blocked certain Web sites, such as BBC Farsi, Facebook, Twitter and several pro-Mousavi sites that are vital conduits for Iranians to tell the world about protests and violence.
> 
> Text messaging, a primary source of spreading information in Tehran, has not been working since last week, and cell phone service in Tehran is frequently down. The government also has barred foreign news organizations from reporting on Tehran's streets.
> 
> The BBC said it was employing two new satellites to help circumvent Iranian jamming of its Persian-language service.
> 
> Google said it was launching a Persian-to-English translation service and Facebook said Iranian users could now use a Persian version of its site as a way of easing communication to the outside world.
> 
> ___
> 
> Associated Press writer Michael Weissenstein in Cairo, Anne Flaherty in Washington and Raphael G. Satter in London contributed to this report.


----------



## vonGarvin

*Bomb explodes in Tehran as protests grow violent
*
From here
English-language state television in Iran is reporting that a bomb has exploded in Tehran at the shrine of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as anti-government protests on Saturday quickly turned violent. 

State television reported that two people were injured in the bomb blast. However, the report could not be independently verified due to a crackdown on both Iranian and foreign journalists. 


More at link.


----------



## a_majoor

Our friends in Iran need all the help and support we can offer. The situation is rapidly leaving equilibrium, and we are now entering a zone where we can only speculate. Calls for defections by the Republican Guard and reports of actions taken against the Basij may or may not signal the crumbling of the regimes pillars, and the activities of former president Rafsanjani also may signal some sort of sea change in political support, we can only wait and see.

- Faster, Please! - http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen -



> *So Now It’s Saturday in Iran*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On June 19, 2009 @ 9:00 pm In Uncategorized | 25 Comments
> 
> And Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has banned the big demonstration called for 4 PM in Tehran.  If you follow Andrew Sullivan’s blog–and you should, if you’re interested in what’s happening in Iran, and also in what’s happening in the ranks of the American Left–you will see that many Iranians fear that Saturday is slated to be a day of bloodshed.
> 
> Khamenei did not budge at all.  No concessions.  The elections are legitimate, the results are final.  Moreover, he said, the battle is not between “the people” and “the regime,” it’s between four leaders who all believe in the regime.  The people voted, we counted their votes, and that’s that.  If anyone protests after my sermon, he said, whatever violence ensues is on them.
> 
> Which sounds like a promise of violence.  As I said earlier, tens of thousands of Revolutionary Guards have been brought to Tehran to put down the demonstrations.  These are older, well-trained and presumably loyal soldiers who will not shrink from attacking the crowds.  So some of the Iranians on Twitter have written messages that sound like “final thoughts,” not knowing if they will survive Saturday.
> 
> This is all the regime has left, because the demonstrations have revealed its hollowness, and the nightly chants of  “God is great” from the rooftops of all major cities in Iran have exposed the collapse of its central doctrine:  that the theocratic fascist system is blessed by Allah.  Millions of Iranians are openly rejecting that.
> 
> Khamenei recognizes this, which is why he has committed his own power to the defeat of Mousavi’s movement.  This confirms what I have been arguing, namely that, however Mousavi started, he now leads a revolutionary mass movement that is aimed at the dark heart of the corrupt theocratic fascist state.  When Mousavi asked the huge crowd on Thursday “where are our $300 billion?” he and everyone else knew that was a threat to bring the ruling mullahs to justice, to prosecute them for their thievery.
> 
> That led to one of the interesting sub-plots in the Khamenei speech:  the kind words for former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is widely believed to have enriched himself more than any other of the ruling elite.  I think Khamenei was telling Rafsanjani to stick with the system, and not (as has been widely rumored) join the revolution.  What will Rafsanjani do?  The “big story” of recent days was that he had gone to the holy city of Qom to get an endorsement for Mousavi from the senior Ayatollahs.  So far as I know, no such endorsement was issued.  Does this mean that Rafsanjani betrayed Mousavi?  Or simply that the clerics decided to stick with Khamenei?  Perhaps we will know the answer some day.
> 
> Meanwhile, there were cracks in the regime’s instruments of repression, *and reports of action against the Basij thugs in the night time streets of Tehran.  The latter was picked up by the daily blog at the Guardian, in a post on “Basij hunting” by young activists.*  The former came from a group of Revolutionary Guards on [1] their own blog (all of the following was translated by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi).  At the top of the blog, we read a detailed condemnation of IRGC actions in past years, which is described as a betrayal of their values:
> 
> This weblog is for all the guards who have stepped in the direction of lovingly serving the people, our nation and Islam but were killed by the deceit of the cowardly or were led astray. This weblog is for all those guards who still stay steadfast to that form and yet with betrayed hearts and as a result of desperation were witness to the plundering of people’s belongings, were witness to the smuggling of arms and drugs, were witness to the gangs of corrupt guards who did sex-trafficking and sold innocent Iranian girls to the Persian Gulf countries, and….
> 
> Last Wednesday they published an extraordinary message, proclaiming their independence of the supreme leader, and calling on their brethren to defect, and join the revolution:
> 
> …those who imagine that the Revolutionary Guard Corps is the ranking guards of the supreme leader, they are mistaken. We take God as our witness that we will not permit the blood of martyrs of the revolution and an imposed war, that was poured on the streets and battlefields of our great nation for freedom and independence and the Islamic Republic, be trampled by power-hungry and monopolistic individuals. We take God as our witness that with the presence of certain dangers that may threaten our lives, we stand with the voting public in confronting the treacherous and with the water of ablution of martyrdom, we will not permit that those corrupt and power-grabbing commanders who don the blessed costume of the Revolutionary Guard, to drag people through blood and sand. We reiterate and specifically recommend to our Basiji brothers to either stand to the side of the fray or turn in your weapons and join the masses of people…
> 
> We will see later today if appeals of this sort are widespread and effective.  Certainly there are grounds for the regime to be deeply worried.  As [2] Ardeshir Arian tells us, many commanders of the Guards refused to carry out a roundup of opposition leaders, some of them were arrested, and Khamenei’s sermon was delayed  for several hours.   All day Saturday, regime forces were rounding up their opponents, from members of Mousavi’s campaign staff, to people around Karrubi, and to people sitting in their homes all over Iran.  The full extent of this repression cannot be known yet, but it is very ugly and very considerable.
> 
> Meanwhile, to his credit, President Obama finally rallied to the revolutionaries:
> 
> …we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way.  Already we’ve seen violence out there.  I’ve said this throughout the week, I want to repeat it, that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.
> 
> That wasn’t so hard, was it?  It would also be nice to hear a forthright condemnation of those who have unleashed the violence, and I suspect that we will hear it.
> 
> Finally, almost everyone has missed  one of the most remarkable themes of the Khamenei sermon, namely the attack on the Clintons.  I’ll give it to you in full, because there is really no way to summarize it without depriving you of the full flavor.  He was upset at American accusations of human rights violations in Iran:
> 
> Even inside the U.S., one is amazed, during the time of the administration of these very Democrats, the Democratic Party in America, the time of the presidency of the husband of this so-called “lady” who expresses her opinions, 80, 80 something people who were a part of the Davudi sect, were burnt alive; there’s no room for denying this. These “excellencies” did this deed; it was these very Democrats…the Davudi sect which they themselves call BRANCH DAVIDIANS. For some unknown reason, these people incurred the wrath of American and inside a house…they went over there and besieged the place and whatever they did, they didn’t come out and so they ended up setting the house on fire and 80 something men, women and children burned alive! You think you know something about human rights?!
> 
> Now I don’t want to be unfair to Khamenei (whom I once unfairly accused of being dead), but I have a suspicion that he was referring to Ali Murad Davudi, the Baha’i leader who disappeared from Iran during one of the pogroms against the members of his faith during the first year of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> Bad form, beating up on a woman who just underwent elbow surgery in Washington.  But it’s probably nothing like what he’s preparing to unleash on his own people later today.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/19/so-now-its-saturday-in-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> [1] their own blog: http://pasdarazadi.blogspot.com/
> [2] Ardeshir Arian tells us: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranians-protest-government-cracks-down/


----------



## GAP

This could really blow up into something dirty and nasty....if the RG don't back the  Ayatollahs, it will blow everything wide open....

so much for theological states...


----------



## CougarKing

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Our friends in Iran need all the help and support we can offer. The situation is rapidly leaving equilibrium, and we are now entering a zone where we can only speculate. Calls for defections by the Republican Guard  and reports of actions taken against the Basij may or may not signal the crumbling of the regimes pillars, and the activities of former president Rafsanjani also may signal some sort of sea change in political support, we can only wait and see.
> 
> - Faster, Please! - http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen -



Yikes. It appears the crackdown has begun.

Btw, Mr. Thucydides, isn't it called the Revolutionary Guard for Iran, not the Republican Guard (Iraq)?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writers – 38 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran –* Police beat protesters and fired tear gas and water cannons at thousands who rallied Saturday in open defiance of Iran's clerical government, sharply escalating the most serious internal conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> Eyewitnesses described fierce clashes after some 3,000 protesters, many wearing black, chanted "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to dictatorship!" near Revolution Square in downtown Tehran. Police fired tear gas, water cannons and guns but it was not clear if they were firing live ammunition.
> 
> Some protesters appeared to be fighting back, setting fire to militia members' motorcycles, witnesses said. Helicopters hovered, ambulances raced through the streets and black smoke rose over the city.*
> 
> Police and militia were blocking protesters from gathering on the main thoroughfare running east from Revolution Square to Freedom Square, the witnesses said.
> 
> A massive rally in Freedom Square Monday set off three consecutive days of protests demanding the government cancel and rerun June 12 elections that ended with a declaration of overwhelming victory for hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi says he won and Ahmadinejad stole the election through widespread fraud. Mousavi has not been seen since or issued public comment since a rally Thursday.
> 
> Web sites run by Mousavi supporters had said he planned to post a message, but there was no statement by the time of the planned street protests at 4 p.m. (7:30 a.m. EDT, 1130 GMT). Some pro-reform Web sites called for people to take to the streets.
> 
> *Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sternly warned opposition leaders Friday to end street protests or be held responsible for "the bloodshed, the violence and rioting" to come. The statement effectively closed the door to Mousavi's demand for a new election, ratcheting up the possibility of a violent confrontation.
> 
> As reports of street clashes became public, Iran's English-language state TV said that a suicide bombing at the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini about 12 miles (20 kilometers) south of central Tehran had killed one person and wounded eight. The report could not be independently confirmed due to government restrictions on independent reporting.*
> 
> The channel also confirmed that police had used batons and other non-lethal weapons against what it called unauthorized demonstrations.
> 
> Amateur video showed dozens of Iranians running down a street after police fired tear gas at them. Shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is Great" — could be heard on the video, which could not be independently verified.
> 
> The witnesses told The Associated Press that between 50 and 60 protesters were hospitalized after beatings by police and pro-government militia. People could be seen dragging away comrades bloodied by baton strikes.
> 
> Police clashed with protesters around Tehran immediately after the presidential election. Gunfire from a militia compound left at least seven dead, but further force had remained in check until Saturday.
> 
> *Eyewitnesses said thousands of police and plainclothes militia members filled the streets to prevent rallies. Fire trucks took up positions in Revolution Square and riot police surrounded Tehran University, the site of recent clashes between protesters and security forces, one witness said.
> 
> Tehran Province Police Chief Ahmad Reza Radan said that police would "crack down on any gathering or protest rally which are being planned by some people." The head of the State Security Council also reiterated a warning to Mousavi that he would be held responsible if he encouraged protests.
> 
> Tehran University, which sits in the heart of downtown Tehran, was cordoned off by police and militia while students inside the university chanted "Death to the dictator!" witnesses said.
> 
> Shouts of "Viva Mousavi!" also could be heard. Witnesses said protesters wore black as a symbol of mourning for the dead and the allegedly stolen election, with wristbands in green, the emblem of Mousavi's self-described "Green Wave" movement.*
> 
> All witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared government reprisals for speaking with the press. Iranian authorities have placed strict limits on the ability of foreign media to cover recent events, banning reporting from the street and allowing only phone interviews and information from officials sources such as state TV.
> 
> "I think the regime has taken an enormous risk in confronting this situation in the manner that they have," said Mehrdad Khonsari, a consultant to the London-based Center for Arab and Iranian Studies.
> 
> "Now they'll have to hold their ground and hope that people don't keep coming back. But history has taught us that people in these situations lose their initial sense of fear and become emboldened by brutality," he said.
> 
> Mousavi and the two other candidates who ran against Ahmadinejad had been invited to meet with Iran's Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 clerics and Islamic law experts close to Khamenei that oversees elections. Its spokesman told state TV that Mousavi and the reformist candidate Mahdi Karroubi did not attend.
> 
> The council has said it was prepared to conduct a limited recount of ballots at sites where candidates claim irregularities but Mousavi's supporters did not withdraw his demands for a new election.
> 
> Both houses of the U.S. Congress approved a resolution on Friday condemning "the ongoing violence" by the Iranian government and its suppression of the Internet and cell phones.
> 
> The government has blocked Web sites such as BBC Farsi, Facebook, Twitter and several pro-Mousavi sites that are conduits for Iranians to tell the world about protests and violence.
> 
> Text messaging has not been working normally for many days, and cell phone service in Tehran is frequently down.
> 
> *In an interview taped Friday with CBS, Obama said he is very concerned by the "tenor and tone" of Khamenei's comments. He also said that how Iran's leaders "approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard" will signal "what Iran is and is not."*
> 
> *A spokesman for Mousavi said Friday the opposition leader was not under arrest but was not allowed to speak to journalists or stand at a microphone at rallies. Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf told the AP from Paris it was even becoming difficult to reach people close to Mousavi. He said he had not heard from Mousavi's camp since Khamenei's address.*
> 
> ______
> 
> Associated Press Writer William J. Kole in Cairo contributed to this report.


----------



## a_majoor

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Yikes. It appears the crackdown has begun.
> 
> Btw, Mr. Thucydides, isn't it called the Revolutionary Guard for Iran, not the Republican Guard (Iraq)?
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



Wrong guard, same job description. My bad


----------



## observor 69

Iranian Police Clash With Protesters 

Link

June 21, 2009

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
TEHRAN — Police officers used sticks and tear gas to force back thousands of demonstrators under plumes of black smoke in the capital on Saturday, a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said there would be “bloodshed” if street protests continued over the disputed presidential election.

Separately, state-run media reported that three people were wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up at the Tehran shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the southern part of the city, several miles from the scheduled protests. The report of the blast could not be independently confirmed. 

The violence unfolded on a day of extraordinary tension across Iran. The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, appeared at a demonstration in southern Tehran and called for a general strike if he were to be arrested. “I am ready for martyrdom,” he said.

Mr. Moussavi again called for a recount, and opposition protesters swore to continue pressing their claims of a stolen election against Iran’s embattled and increasingly impatient clerical leadership. 

In Washington, President Obama called the government’s reaction “violent and unjust,” and, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., warned again that the world was watching what happened in Tehran. 

Iran’s divisions played out on the streets. Regular security forces stood back and urged protesters to go home and avoid bloodshed, while the feared pro-government militia, the Basij, beat protesters with clubs and, witnesses said, electric prods. 

In some places, the protesters pushed back, rushing the militia in teams of hundreds: At least three Basijis were pitched from their motorcycles, which were then set on fire. The protesters included many women, who even berated as “cowards” men who fled the Basijis. There appeared to be tens of thousands of protesters in Tehran, far fewer than the mass demonstrations early last week, likely because of intimidation. 

The street violence appeared to grow more intense as night fell, and there were unconfirmed reports of multiple deaths. A BBC journalist at Enghelab (Revolution) Square reported seeing one person shot by security forces. An amateur video posted on YouTube showed a woman bleeding to death after being shot by a Basiji, the text posted with the video said. 

“If they open fire on people and if there is bloodshed, people will get angrier,” said a protester, Ali, 40. “They are out of their minds if they think with bloodshed they can crush the movement.”

Mr. Obama’s statement was his strongest to date on the post-election turmoil in Iran. Saying that “each and every innocent life” lost would be mourned, he added: “Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

More at Link.


----------



## pmath

History teaches us that the American President has much influence over the outcome of this situation...

If you recall the 1986 election in the Philippines between President Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos believed the election would show a clear vote of confidence by his constituency, subsequently relieving him of any pressure from Reagan. Instead, the opposition formed a coalition behind Corazon Aquino, resulting in massive accounts of fraud from the Marcos gov't to produce a 'clear majority' win. 

As the votes were being tallied, Reagan remained neutral in his stance, saying this election is more about the Philippines than the reaction of the US. Four days later, after the results were tallied and the first rally took place in EDSA Square in Manila. Both Marcos and Aquinos claimed victory. 
The Reagan Administration stated that "The elections were marred by widespread fraud and violence perpetrated largely by the ruling party." Three days later, Marcos called for the arrest of two officials, and a subsequent mass demonstration in the EDSA Square took place, and with harsh words from Reagan, Marcos fled the country two days later.

Another account of election fraud occurred in 1991 with the election of Soviet Pres Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian Pres Boris Yeltsin. This was a trying time for the former Soviet Russia, as Reagan (again) was showing that his military power had much influence over the governments. The people of the USSR also knew what they wanted as a collective, and further repression after the perestroika and glastnost reforms, was not it. After the election, there was an attempted coup against the results. The initial reaction from the White House was for the reform, but after a personal letter from Yeltsin, airmailed to the Oval Office, the Administration changed their mind and accepted the results. The coup then disintegrated, and business went on as usual.

So for or against the reform, history shows us that the White House has a powerful ability to impose sanctions for either side. 

The question remains unsolved Obama, how should you react? Your speech in Cairo is pro democratic reform, however your apathy toward the magnitude of the protest in Iran shows that you have no idea what to do. 

Make up your mind. Before the end of the weekend, before more blood hits the deck.

P


----------



## Yrys

A Struggle for the Legacy of the Iranian Revolution, 20 June 2009, NY Times

Suspicions behind Iran poll doubts, 20 June 2009, BBC News, 
Opposition supporters say the election numbers do not add up


Parallels with 1979, 20 June 2009, BBC News,  
Simpson reflects on the parallels between the 1979 revolution 
and current events.

Saturday: Updates on Iran’s Disputed Election, 20 June 2009, NY Times

Violence Grips Tehran Amid Crackdown, 20 June 2009, NY Times

US urges Iran to end 'violence', 21 June 2009, BBC News
US President Barack Obama has warned Iran to stop all "unjust action against 
its own people", after another day of protests over the presidential poll.

BBC eyewitness: 'Security everywhere'







A BBC correspondent describes Iran's capital in the aftermath of a massive security 
operation to prevent opposition protests over disputed election results. Security 
forces were everywhere in central Tehran in the late afternoon and early evening.

As I spent a couple of hours driving around in heavy traffic I could see thousands of 
men, some uniformed members of the military riot squads, some units of revolutionary 
guard, and everywhere basijis - militiamen who look like street toughs. The security 
men were deployed on every street corner, in long lines down the sides of the roads, 
and in all the main squares. The basijis wore riot helmets and carried big clubs. It was 
designed to intimidate, and while I was there, it was working.

There were hundreds in Enghelab [Revolution] Square, close to Tehran university. Traffic 
was being allowed to use it, with the drivers being eyeballed by the men with clubs who 
lounged in thick groups wherever you looked.

*Tear gas*

All this was happening against the background of a city open for business, where commercial 
life was going on. Shops this evening were not shuttered. The streets were jammed with cars, 
with mopeds and motorbikes buzzing around them. The pavements were full too. Some of the 
people looked as if they were waiting for some leadership, for a demonstration that they could 
join. From time to time small groups would come together and try to move down the street 
together chanting and clapping.

I saw one group of demonstrators, perhaps 400-500 people, walking briskly down one side of a 
major road in the city centre. Bystanders were waving and making gestures of support. Then, 
very quickly, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd, and they broke and ran. It was a hot, 
windless evening, and the gas hung over the streets, prickling noses and eyes long after the 
demonstrators were dispersed.

*Unknown territory*

In places you could see the evidence of where trouble had been - smashed glass in a bus stop, 
an overturned rubbish skip. And at different places and times, roads were closed while the security 
forces dealt with the people that were there.

Iran's Supreme Leader had issued a stern warning at Friday prayers, warning opposition leaders 
that they would be responsible for "bloodshed and chaos" if the protests continued. No doubt 
firearms were not far away this evening, but I did not see any security men armed with 
anything more than clubs and tear gas launchers.

The government forces might have wanted to scare people off the streets without using the 
violence of which no one here doubts they are capable. They may have chalked the day up 
to them. But putting security men on the streets does nothing to deal with the fundamentals 
of this crisis. The Islamic republic of Iran continues to move into unknown territory. No one 
knows where this will end.


----------



## 1feral1

Well, the only thing guaranteed to come out of this mess is higher OIL prices which we'll all pay for, and are paying for right now. Brisbane petrol (gasoline) is 124.9c/L.

I show no sympathy for Iran, a country reeps what it sews.

Quite frankly, I've had a gutful of the whole lot.

Cheers from a cloudy, wet, depressing winter's day,


OWDU


----------



## pmath

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I show no sympathy for Iran, a country reeps what it sews.
> 
> Quite frankly, I've had a gutful of the whole lot.



Sorry, could you expand on why you feel that way? 
Sure Iran exports a ton of weapons across their borders, but how can that sanction this misery?

Who's to say that Ahmadinejad & Khameini turns a blind eye to these actions, and Mousavi wouldn't? 
Ali Khameini may be the one with the real power, but if someone other that Ahmadinejad gets into office, and replaces Khameini in a few years, perhaps the ridiculous number of contraband weapons and supplies exported across those borders could be reduced.

That would make our job a LOT easier in the long run. We would reap what they can't sow.


----------



## 1feral1

How old are you Pmath?

Learn your history of the country.

Does 444 days rock your memory? It does mine.

The current regime in Iran is ROTTEN. They want nuclear technology. There there has not been stabilty there since the 70's and yes I am old enough to remember it.

Iran has been guilty of promoting hatred and terrorism in the region, and even exported weapons, sponsored with $$ various factions, and made/manufactured EFP's for 'causes' within Iraq, and have been directly responsible for the death of Coaltion soldiers.

Like I say, a country reeps what it sews.

Here is a quote from a recent post of yours "I like to jam to Jimi, read and write politics, and play hard." 

Sorry Pmath, I have an opinion based on my life experience, and I am not about to have a pissing contest with someone who has a politcal agenda.

OWDU
Iraq Vet 2006-2007

EDITed for clarity, and at least we both agree to like Hendrix. He was truly a classic.


----------



## pmath

I am too young to remember that, and yes I do know about the 444 days. I see what you mean by a country reaps what is sows, however that is all the more reason to facilitate change. 

There hasn't been political stability over there, but do not forget that Iran is the sixth most developed of the Islamic Republics according to the UNHDI. 
It's not that they want nuclear technology, they are 90% there. They've built out-of-date centrifuges (the blueprints of which were bought from Pakistan), and are progressing slowly toward their goal, while Obama is playing softball. 

I see why you don't feel much for that country, but my fresh eyes have nothing but the utmost sympathy for their people, and my hopes are that these demonstrations will influence change. I'm simply trying to say that we need a third party to tell Ahmadinejad to step off (which I'm sure you don't disagree with). 
After that, we can move forward and moderate the 'hatred and terrorism' in the region, which as we all know all stems from Iran. 

That's alright if you don't want to keep this debate going, we're writing the same book, different page. 

Ride on little wing,


----------



## pmath

Rafsanjani's Important Role

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jun 20, 5:58 pm ET
CAIRO – One of Iran's most powerful men may be playing a key role behind closed doors in the country's escalating postelection crisis.
Former president and influential cleric Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani has made no public comment since Iran erupted into confrontation between backers of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reformists who claim he stole re-election through fraud.
But Iranian TV has shown pictures of Rafsanjani's daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, speaking to hundreds of opposition supporters. And Rafsanjani, who has made no secret of his distaste for Ahmadinejad, was conspicuously absent from an address by the country's supreme leader calling for national unity and siding with the president.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised Rafsanjani, 75, on Friday as one of the revolution's architects and an effective political figure for many years, but he acknowledged that the two have "many differences of opinion."
"Of course, the president's ideas are closer to mine," Khamenei said, warning opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and his supporters to halt protests or face the consequences.
While his true views, and even his whereabouts, remain unclear, any support for the opposition would place Rafsanjani in direct conflict with many of the most powerful clerics in Iran's highest echelons of power.
The stakes for the world are high.
Iran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program in the face of international sanctions and Israeli threats of military action. The United States and other Western nations maintain that the program is geared toward making a bomb, a charge Iran consistently denies.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is seeking to improve relations with Iran, ending 30 years of animosity that have helped define the Islamic Republic.
The regime's militant wing, with Ahmadinejad its most visible face, takes a hard-line position on relations with Washington and is determined to push forward with the nuclear program regardless of the consequences, experts say.
A camp of pragmatic clerics and politicians led by Rafsanjani, while loyal to the revolution's principles, wants to build better ties with the West and a more friendly image of Iran.
"What is clear is that the leadership is far more polarized and splintered than has been clear in the past," said Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Friday's comments showed the country's ultimate authority is firmly behind Ahmadinejad, who has publicly accused Rafsanjani and members of his family of corruption. Experts said that could mean Rafsanjani's power is waning.
"Now that the leader has made clear he was supportive of Ahmadinejad and sharing the same vision of the future of the Islamic Republic, it can be taken as a major defeat for Rafsanjani and for the political options he promotes," said Frederic Tellier, an Iran expert in the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank.
Iran's crisis began when Mousavi, a reform-minded architect who served as prime minister in the 1980s, claimed he was the victor of the June 12 election, accusing Ahmadinejad of using widespread fraud to win it.
Mousavi insists he wants a new election, an option Khamenei ruled out.
 Rafsanjani was president between 1989 and 1997, but failed to win a third term when in 2005, losing to Ahmadinejad in a runoff. He was a close follower of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of Iran's Islamic Revolution. He now heads the Expediency Council, a body that arbitrates disputes between parliament and the unelected Guardian Council, which can block legislation.
 He also is the head of the powerful Assembly of Experts, which comprises senior clerics who can elect and dismiss the country's supreme leader.
Alireza Nader, an expert on Iran with the RAND corporation, says Rafsanjani retains some leverage against Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as chairman of the Assembly of Experts. However, he says, Khamenei ignored a letter Rafsanjani wrote asking him to restrain Ahmadinejad, who accused the former president of corruption in a televised debate. 
Ignoring the letter, Nader said, "was perceived by many Iranians as a rebuke to Rafsanjani and his role in the political system."
Rafsanjani's influence may have significantly dissipated as a result, he said.
"Rafsanjani is a son of the revolution," said Tellier of the International Crisis Group. "But his own future depends on how far the leader will allow Ahmadinejad to go in his attacks against Rafsanjani and his family."

Source –  HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_rafsanjani_s_role


----------



## CougarKing

As said, it is hard to verify the reported death tolls.



> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
> 
> By NASSER KARIMI and WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writers Nasser Karimi And William J. Kole, Associated Press Writers – 7 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – *An eerie calm settled over the streets of Tehran Sunday as state media reported at least 10 more deaths in post-election unrest and said authorities arrested the daughter and four other relatives of ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Iran's most powerful men.
> 
> The reports brought the official death toll for a week of boisterous confrontations to at least 17. State television inside Iran said 10 were killed and 100 injured in clashes Saturday between demonstrators contesting the result of the June 12 election and black-clad police wielding truncheons, tear gas and water cannons.
> 
> Iran's regime continued to impose a blackout on the country's most serious internal conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> But fresh images and allegations of brutality emerged as Iranians at home and abroad sought to shed light on a week of astonishing resistance to hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.*
> 
> (...)
> 
> Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, who claims he won the election, squared off Saturday against security forces in a dramatic show of defiance of Khamenei.
> 
> Underscoring how the protesters have become emboldened despite the regime's repeated and ominous warnings, witnesses said some shouted "Death to Khamenei!" at Saturday's demonstrations — another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the virtually limitless authority of the country's most powerful figure.
> 
> Sunday's state media reports also said rioters set two gas stations on fire and attacked a military post in clashes Saturday. They quoted the deputy police chief claiming officers did not use live ammunition to dispel the crowds.
> 
> *Iran has also acknowledged the deaths of seven protesters in clashes on Monday.*
> 
> State media also reported a suicide bombing at the shrine of the Islamic Revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on Saturday killed the attacker and injured five other people.
> 
> *There was some confusion about the death toll. English-language Press TV, which is broadcast only outside the country, put the toll at 13 and labeled those who died "terrorists." There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.
> 
> Amnesty International cautioned that it was "perilously hard" to verify the casualty tolls.*
> 
> "The climate of fear has cast a shadow over the whole situation," Amnesty's chief Iran researcher, Drewery ****, told The Associated Press. "In the 10 years I've been following this country, I've never felt more at sea than I do now. It's just cut off."
> 
> Iran has imposed strict controls on foreign media covering the unrest, saying correspondents cannot go out into the streets to report.
> 
> Reporters Without Borders said 20 journalists were arrested over the past week. The British Broadcasting Corp. said Sunday that its Tehran-based correspondent, Jon Leyne, had been asked to leave the country. The BBC said its office remained open.
> 
> *Also Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a news conference where he rebuked Britain, France and Germany for raising questions about reports of voting irregularities in hardline Ahmadinejad's re-election — a proclaimed victory which has touched off Iran's most serious internal conflict since the revolution.
> 
> Mottaki accused France of taking "treacherous and unjust approaches." But he saved his most pointed criticism for Britain, raising a litany of historical grievances and accusing the country of flying intelligence agents into Iran before the election to interfere with the vote. The election, he insisted, was a "very transparent competition."
> 
> That drew an indignant response from British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who "categorically" denied his country was meddling. "This can only damage Iran's standing in the eyes of the world," Miliband said.
> 
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, urged Iran anew to conduct a complete and transparent recount, and Italy called on the regime to find a peaceful end to the dispute.
> 
> In Washington on Saturday, President Barack Obama urged Iranian authorities to halt "all violent and unjust actions against its own people." He said the United States "stands by all who seek to exercise" the universal rights to assembly and free speech.*
> 
> (...)
> 
> Israeli President Shimon Peres applauded Iran's pro-reform protesters Sunday, saying the young should "raise their voice for freedom" — an explicit message of support from a country that sees itself as most endangered by the hard-line government in Tehran.
> 
> (...)
> 
> On Sunday, former reformist president Mohammad Khatami called for the formation of a board to decide the outcome of the disputed election, and urged the release of detained activists and an end to the violence in the streets.
> 
> *The government has blocked Web sites such as BBC Farsi, Facebook, Twitter and several pro-Mousavi sites used by Iranians to tell the world about protests and violence. Text messaging has not been working in Iran since last week, and cell phone service in Tehran is frequently down.*
> 
> (...)
> ____
> 
> Kole reported from Cairo. Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Brian Murphy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Sebastian Abbot in Cairo contributed to this report.


----------



## Yrys

Young Iranians use video to tell story, BBC News
Analysis: Titanic clash for Iran's future
'Ten killed' in Iran clashes - state TV, BBC News
Consequences of US overtures, BBC News


Tehran Tense After Clashes That Killed at Least 13





_Faezeh Hashemi, daughter of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, 
attended a rally for Mir Hussein Moussavi. Iranian state television reported on 
Sunday that Ms. Hashemi and four other members of the family had been arrested._

TEHRAN — A day after police and militia forces used guns, truncheons, tear gas and 
water cannons to beat back thousands of demonstrators, a tense quiet set over this 
city Sunday as the standoff between the government and thousands of protestors 
hardened into a test of wills that has spilled blood and claimed lives.


----------



## daftandbarmy

First hand account of situation in Tehran forwarded by a mate in Europe.  Names removed.


 On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM, xxx <xxx> wrote:
So are you out on the street?  
I’m watching every minute of it, but from where I’m sitting, it looks to me like a bit of a class thing: educated, westernized, students etc for Mousavi, working class for Ahmadinejad.  Or is it really a thing across all society?
Everyone is completely gripped, although I must say that the gulf Arabs are full of admiration for MA, and think he’s an absolute hero and genius…


 Subject: Re: Fw: President Ahmadinejad's message

I have been on 2 marches and no it is right cross the board.  Of my 56 workers only 8 were going to vote for MA.  On thursdays march there were 4 mullahs and there were many hezbollahi looking people who were there.  There were labourers, taxi drivers and all sorts - it is definatley not an uptown thing.
Every day the more I read the more I detest the arabs so nothing surprises me.  They sure wouldn't want this to go Mousavi's way as it would give their population ideas!
Leaving on Monday but almost don't want to go as this is all so critical!
They were already planning on increasing the odds for MA but then it got out of control and they just stole the whole thing.  One example of how they were weighting it that way was that half of town voted with codes that were 1 2 3 4 with Mousavi being 4 and the other half of town voting for 77 88 66 and 44 with Ahmadinejad being 44.  As the votes are counted by hand it would be much easier to glance at the number versus the name...
anyway cross your fingers and pray that it doesn't turn into a blood bath.


----------



## Xiang

> Combine this with the fact that only 51% of the population is Persian



Where did you get this number from?

And Overwatch Downunder, what is wrong with Iran wanting peaceful nuclear power?   The nation lives off of the money it makes selling Oil.  It is currently suffering from brown outs and power shortages by burning its own oil for energy, not to mention burning away future profits.

There is no independent or global body nuclear watchdog that has concluded Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  In fact they are stating quite the opposite.

The ONLY people saying they are developing nuclear weapons are those with an agenda (US/Israel), and they are doing so with little to no proof.

I challenge you to find me ONE non bias organization that can say with absolute certainty that Iran is developing nuclear technology for weapons purposes.... Keep in mind however, I have MANY sources stating otherwise, and most of those sources clearly state the NEED for Nuclear energy in Iran right now.

And for the love of god/allah/buddah/whatever, don't quote US officials or CNN/Faux news rhetoric.


----------



## Yrys

Twitter on the Barricades: Six Lessons Learned, NY Times
Gauging Obama in Iran
Miliband (UK Foreign Secretary) denies Iran 'meddling', BBC News
Iran and Britain in diplomatic stand-off as protest death toll rises, TIMES



A Supreme Leader Loses His Aura as Iranians Flock to the Streets

TEHRAN — The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley 
with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters 
facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”

A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. 
There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where 
vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad 
riot police officers on motorbikes. Dark smoke billowed over this vast city in the late afternoon. 
Motorbikes were set on fire, sending bursts of bright flame skyward. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 
the supreme leader, had used his Friday sermon to declare high noon in Tehran, warning of 
“bloodshed and chaos” if protests over a disputed election persisted.

He got both on Saturday — and saw the hitherto sacrosanct authority of his office challenged 
as never before since the 1979 revolution birthed the Islamic Republic and conceived for it a 
leadership post standing at the very flank of the Prophet. A multitude of Iranians took their 
fight through a holy breach on Saturday from which there appears to be scant turning back.

Khamenei has taken a radical risk. He has factionalized himself, so losing the arbiter’s lofty 
garb, by aligning himself with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against both Mir Hussein 
Moussavi, the opposition leader, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a founding father of 
the revolution. He has taunted millions of Iranians by praising their unprecedented 
participation in an election many now view as a ballot-box putsch. He has ridiculed 
the notion that an official inquiry into the vote might yield a different result. He has 
tried pathos and he has tried pounding his lectern. In short, he has lost his aura.

The taboo-breaking response was unequivocal. It’s funny how people’s obsessions come back 
to bite them. I’ve been hearing about Khamenei’s fear of “velvet revolutions” for months now. 
There was nothing velvet about Saturday’s clashes. In fact, the initial quest to have Moussavi’s 
votes properly counted and Ahmadinejad unseated has shifted to a broader confrontation with 
the regime itself.

Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes 
of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers. Early 
afternoon rumors that the rally for Moussavi had been canceled yielded to the reality of 
violent confrontation.

I don’t know where this uprising is leading. I do know some police units are wavering. That 
commander talking about his family was not alone. There were other policemen complaining 
about the unruly Basijis. Some security forces just stood and watched. “All together, all together,
don’t be scared,” the crowd shouted. I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. 
For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten 
and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched 
on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

Another green-eyed woman, Mahin, aged 52, staggered into an alley clutching her face and in 
tears. Then, against the urging of those around her, she limped back into the crowd moving 
west toward Freedom Square. Cries of “Death to the dictator!” and “We want liberty!” 
accompanied her. There were people of all ages. I saw an old man on crutches, middle-aged 
office workers and bands of teenagers. *Unlike the student revolts of 2003 and 1999, this 
movement is broad.*

“Can’t the United Nations help us?” one woman asked me. I said I doubted that very much. 
“So,” she said, “we are on our own.”

The world is watching, and technology is connecting, and the West is sending what signals it 
can, but in the end that is true. Iranians have fought this lonely fight for a long time: to be 
free, to have a measure of democracy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, understood that, weaving 
a little plurality into an authoritarian system. That pluralism has ebbed and flowed since 1979 
— mainly the former — but last week it was crushed with blunt brutality. That is why a whole 
new generation of Iranians, their intelligence insulted, has risen. I’d say the momentum is with 
them for now. At moments on Saturday, Khamenei’s authority, which is that of the Islamic Republic 
itself, seemed fragile. The revolutionary authorities have always mocked the cancer-ridden Shah’s 
ceding before an uprising, and vowed never to bend in the same way. Their firepower remains 
formidable, but they are facing a swelling test.

Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas. I’d lit a cigarette minutes before — not 
a habit but a need — and a young man collapsed into me shouting, “Blow smoke in my face.” Smoke 
dispels the effects of the gas to some degree. I did what I could and he said, “We are with you” in 
English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from 
the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where 
somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging. There were about 20 of us gathered 
there, eyes running, hearts racing. A 19-year-old student was nursing his left leg, struck by a 
militiaman with an electric-shock-delivering baton. “No way we are turning back,” said a friend 
of his as he massaged that wounded leg.

Later, we moved north, tentatively, watching the police lash out from time to time, reaching Victory 
Square where a pitched battle was in progress. Young men were breaking bricks and stones to a size 
for hurling. Crowds gathered on overpasses, filming and cheering the protesters. A car burst into 
flames. Back and forth the crowd surged, confronted by less-than-convincing police units. I looked up 
through the smoke and saw a poster of the stern visage of Khomeini above the words, “Islam is the 
religion of freedom.” Later, as night fell over the tumultuous capital, gunfire could be heard in the 
distance. And from rooftops across the city, the defiant sound of “Allah-u-Akbar” — “God is Great” — 
went up yet again, as it has every night since the fraudulent election. But on Saturday it seemed 
stronger. The same cry was heard in 1979, only for one form of absolutism to yield to another. 
Iran has waited long enough to be free.


----------



## a_majoor

More:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_ELECTION?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



> *Arrests of Rafsanjani kin show Iran clerics split*
> 
> By NASSER KARIMI and WILLIAM J. KOLE
> Associated Press Writers
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's government said Sunday it arrested the daughter and four other relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country's most powerful men, in a move that exposed a rift among the ruling Islamic clerics over the disputed presidential election.
> 
> State media also reported at least 10 more deaths, bringing the official toll for a week of confrontations to at least 17. State television inside Iran said 10 were killed and 100 injured in clashes Saturday between demonstrators contesting the result of the June 12 election and black-clad police wielding truncheons, tear gas and water cannons.
> 
> Police and members of the Basij militia took up positions in the afternoon on major streets and squares, including the site of Saturday's clashes. There was no word on any new clashes Sunday, although after dark many people in Tehran went to their rooftops to shout "Death to the dictator" and Allahu akbar," a common form of defiance in recent days.
> 
> State-run Press TV reported that Rafsanjani's eldest daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, and four other unidentified family members were arrested late Saturday. On Sunday evening, it said the four others had been released but that Hashemi remained in detention. However, Iran's ambassador to France Seyed Mehdi Miraboutalebi said on France's RFI radio that Hashemi had been released.
> 
> Last week, state television showed images of Hashemi, 46, speaking to hundreds of supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. He alleges fraud in the June 12 election, which the government said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won.
> 
> After Hashemi's appearance, hard-line students gathered outside the Tehran prosecutor's office and accused her of treason, state radio reported.
> 
> The arrests are the strongest sign yet of a serious divide among Iran's ruling clerics.
> 
> Also Sunday, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said on state television that the number of people questioning the election results was large and "this group should be respected and one should not mix this big population's account with a small group of rioters."
> 
> Rafsanjani, 75, heads two powerful institutions. One of them, the cleric-run Assembly of Experts, has the power to monitor and remove the supreme leader, the country's most powerful figure. The second is the Expediency Council, a body that arbitrates disputes between parliament and the unelected Guardian Council, which can block legislation.
> 
> The assembly has never publicly reprimanded the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he succeeded Islamic Revolution founder Aytollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. But the current crisis has rattled the once-untouchable stature of the supreme leader with protesters openly defying his orders to leave the streets.
> 
> Underscoring how the protesters have become emboldened despite the regime's repeated and ominous warnings, witnesses said some shouted "Death to Khamenei!" at Saturday's demonstrations - another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the virtually limitless authority of the supreme leader.
> 
> Rafsanjani was deeply critical of Ahmadinejad during the presidential campaign and has the potential to lead an internal challenge to Khamenei.
> 
> His daughter's arrest came as something of a surprise: In his Friday sermon to tens of thousands of worshippers, Khamenei praised Rafsanjani as one of the architects of the revolution and an effective political figure for many years. Khamenei acknowledged, however, that the two have "many differences of opinion."
> 
> Khamenei has accused foreign media of making "malicious" attempts to portray a schism among the ruling clerics. At Friday's prayers, he acknowledged that all four presidential candidates "have differences, but all of them belong to the system."
> 
> Iran's regime continued to impose a blackout on the most serious internal conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> But fresh images and allegations of brutality emerged as Iranians at home and abroad sought to shed light on a week of astonishing resistance to hard-line Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
> 
> The New-York based International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said scores of injured demonstrators who had sought medical treatment after Saturday's clashes were arrested by security forces at hospitals in the capital.
> 
> It said doctors had been ordered to report protest-related injuries to the authorities, and that some seriously injured protesters had sought refuge at foreign embassies in a bid to evade arrest.
> 
> "The arrest of citizens seeking care for wounds suffered at the hands of security forces when they attempted to exercise rights guaranteed under their own constitution and international law is deplorable," said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesman for the campaign, denouncing the alleged arrests as "a sign of profound disrespect by the state for the well-being of its own people."
> 
> "The government of Iran should be ashamed of itself. Right now, in front of the whole world, it is showing its violent actions," he said.
> 
> Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, who claims he won the election, squared off Saturday against security forces in a dramatic show of defiance of Khamenei.
> 
> Iran has also acknowledged the deaths of seven protesters in clashes on Monday.
> 
> State media also reported a suicide bombing at the shrine of Khomeini on Saturday killed the attacker and injured five other people.
> 
> There was some confusion about the overall death toll. English-language Press TV, which is broadcast only outside the country, put the toll at 13 and labeled those who died "terrorists." There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy.
> 
> Amnesty International cautioned that it was "perilously hard" to verify the casualty tolls.
> 
> "The climate of fear has cast a shadow over the whole situation," Amnesty's chief Iran researcher, Drewery Dyke, told The Associated Press. "In the 10 years I've been following this country, I've never felt more at sea than I do now. It's just cut off."
> 
> Iran has imposed strict controls on foreign media covering the unrest, saying correspondents cannot go out into the streets to report.
> 
> Reporters Without Borders said 23 journalists were arrested over the past week. The British Broadcasting Corp. said Sunday that its Tehran-based correspondent, Jon Leyne, had been asked to leave the country. The BBC said its office remained open. The U.S.-based newsmagazine Newsweek said its journalist Maziar Bahari was arrested Sunday morning and had not been heard from.
> 
> Also Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a news conference where he rebuked Britain, France and Germany for raising questions about reports of voting irregularities in hardline Ahmadinejad's re-election - a proclaimed victory which has touched off Iran's most serious internal conflict since the revolution.
> 
> Mottaki accused France of taking "treacherous and unjust approaches." But he saved his most pointed criticism for Britain, raising a litany of historical grievances and accusing the country of flying intelligence agents into Iran before the election to interfere with the vote. The election, he insisted, was a "very transparent competition."
> 
> That drew an indignant response from British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who "categorically" denied his country was meddling. "This can only damage Iran's standing in the eyes of the world," Miliband said.
> 
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Iran anew to conduct a complete and transparent recount.
> 
> In Washington on Saturday, President Barack Obama urged Iranian authorities to halt "all violent and unjust actions against its own people." He said the United States "stands by all who seek to exercise" the universal rights to assembly and free speech.
> 
> Obama has offered to open talks with Iran to ease a nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze, but the upheaval could complicate any attempts at outreach.
> 
> Republican senators criticized Obama on Sunday for not taking a tougher public stand in support of the protesters, with one saying the president had been "timid and passive."
> 
> Israeli President Shimon Peres applauded Iran's pro-reform protesters Sunday, saying the young should "raise their voice for freedom" - an explicit message of support from a country that sees itself as most endangered by the hard-line government in Tehran.
> 
> Saturday's unrest came a day after Khamenei sternly warned Mousavi and his backers to all off demonstrations or risk being held responsible for "bloodshed, violence and rioting." Delivering a sermon at Friday prayers attended by tens of thousands, Khamenei sided firmly with Ahmadinejad, calling the result "an absolute victory" that reflected popular will and ordering opposition leaders to end their street protests.
> 
> Mousavi did not directly reply to the ultimatum.
> 
> His camp, meanwhile, denied reports that he had proclaimed himself ready for martyrdom on Saturday.
> 
> "Mousavi has never said this," his close ally, Qorban Behzadiannejad, told the AP. Mousavi's Web site also said statements that Mousavi was preparing for death were inaccurate.
> 
> ----
> 
> Kole reported from Cairo. Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Brian Murphy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Sebastian Abbot in Cairo contributed to this report


----------



## Yrys

Relatives of Ex-President of Iran Are Briefly Detained, NY Times

In Iran, One Woman's Death May Have Many Consequences, TIMES.com

Iran's revolution has now run through a full cycle. A gruesomely captivating video 
of a young woman — laid out on a Tehran street after apparently being shot, blood 
pouring from her mouth and then across her face — swept Twitter, Facebook and 
other websites this weekend. The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran's escalating 
crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes. Some sites 
refer to her as "Neda," Farsi for the voice or the call. Tributes that incorporate startlingly 
upclose footage of her dying have started to spring up on YouTube.

ADD : Protesters mourn 'Angel of Iran'
The Revolutionary Guard vowed to stop the street demonstrations, causing some protesters 
to stay home. But others gathered Monday to honor the death of Neda Soltan.


Iran silences street protesters, BBC News






Iranian authorities have *deployed thousands of security officers on the streets* 
of Tehran, after a week of mass protests over a disputed election. Witnesses said 
there were no rallies in the capital on Sunday, a day after 10 people were reported 
killed in clashes between police and protesters. A number of alleged protest leaders 
are reported to have been arrested.

The authorities have also continued a crackdown on foreign media - expelling the 
BBC's Tehran correspondent. The corporation confirmed Jon Leyne had been asked 
to leave the country, but said the BBC office in Tehran would remain open. Campaign 
group Reporters Without Borders says 23 local journalists and bloggers have been 
arrested over the past week. 
...

*Mousavi's plea*

As the security forces continued to round up protesters on Saturday, they arrested 
several family members of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani - a powerful opponent of 
Mr Ahmadinejad.

Analysts said the arrests came as a surprise because Mr Rafsanjani is head of the 
Assembly of Experts - a cleric run group which has the power to remove the supreme 
leader. All of Mr Rafsanjani's relatives were reported to have been freed by Sunday 
evening.

Meanwhile, Mr Mousavi, whose supporters make up most of the protesting crowds, 
urged them to continue their rallies. "Protesting against lies and fraud is your right. 
In your protests continue to show restraint," a statement on his website said.

Analysts say Mr Mousavi's statements and the street protests his supporters have 
organised represent the biggest challenge to the state in the Islamic republic's 30-
year history.


----------



## Yrys

In the Battle for Iran’s Streets, Both Sides Seek to Carry the Banner of Islam, NY Times

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, ended his prayer sermon in tears on Friday, 
invoking the name of a disappeared Shiite prophet to suggest that his government was 
besieged by forces of evil out to destroy a legitimate Islamic government.

The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, in criticizing the government, demanded the 
kind of justice promised by the Koran and exhorted his followers to take to their rooftops 
at night to cry out “Allahu akhbar,” or God is great.

In the battle to control Iran’s streets, both the government and the opposition are deploying 
religious symbols and parables to portray themselves as pursing the ideal of a just Islamic 
state. That struggle could prove the main fulcrum in the battle for the hearts and minds of 
most ordinary Iranians, because the Islamic revolution, since its inception, has painted itself 
as battling evil. If the government fails the test of being just, not least by using excessive 
violence against its citizens, it risks letting the opposition wrap itself in the mantle of Islamic 
virtue.

Rest of article on link 

10 killed in Iran protests, The Daily Star
_Tehran on a knife-edge as opposition defies Islamic rulers_
...
State television said 10 people were killed and more than 100 wounded 
in riots and clashes in Tehran on Saturday, blaming "terrorists" armed 
with firearms and explosives.

Iran's deputy police chief Ahmad Reza Radan blamed "thugs" from the 
exiled opposition group the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) for the 
violence. The official reports, which cannot be confirmed accuse "rioters" 
of setting two petrol stations and a mosque ablaze in protest at a disputed 
poll result.
...


Former Iran President at Center of Fight Between Classes of the Political Elite

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/22/world/22raf.600.jpg

CAIRO — Even before his daughter and four other relatives were briefly detained on Sunday, 
one of the big mysteries to envelop Iran since the disputed presidential election has been the 
role of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

One of Iran’s wealthiest and most powerful men, a former right-hand man to the father 
of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr. Rafsanjani was an outspoken critic 
of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the campaign and a supporter of the opposition 
candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi. His absence from public view, coupled with the provocative, 
though temporary, detention of his family members appears to have escalated an internal 
battle between two classes of Iran’s political elite. Even if the street protests are stopped, 
the split threatens to paralyze the state and undermine the legitimacy it has tried to construct 
since the 1979 revolution, analysts say.

“I see the country’s political elite more divided than anytime in the Islamic Republic’s 
30-year history,” said Karim Sadjadpour, a political analyst with the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. “Rafsanjani, one of the republic’s founding fathers, the man who 
made Khameini Supreme Leader, is now in the opposition.”

Mr. Rafsanjani, who leads two powerful state institutions, has been working behind the 
scenes to find a compromise solution to the disputed June 12 presidential election, a 
relative said Sunday. The detention of his family members, this relative said, was a 
pressure tactic on the part of his opponents. It seems clear that the 75-year-old is at 
the center of a fight for the future of the Islamic Republic. Mr. Rafsanjani’s vision of 
the state, and his position in his nation’s history, is being challenged by a new political 
elite led by Mr. Ahmadinejad and younger radicals who fought Iraq during the eight-
year war.

Mr. Ahmadinejad and his allies have tried to demonize Mr. Rafsanjani as corrupt and weak, 
attacks that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not strongly discouraged. On the other side, 
opposition leaders, especially Mr. Moussavi, have received support from Mr. Rajsanjani, 
political analysts said. “It has become an extremely dangerous, zero-sum game,” said an 
expatriate political consultant who asked not to be identified because his family lives in 
Iran and he was afraid of retribution.

It is a quirk of history that Mr. Rafsanjani, the ultimate insider, finds himself aligned with a 
reform movement that once vilified him as deeply corrupt. Mr. Rafsanjani was doctrinaire 
anti-American hard-liner in the early days of the revolution who remains under indictment 
for ordering the bombing in of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994 when he was president. 
But he has evolved over time to a more pragmatic view, analysts say. He supports greater 
opening to the West, privatizing parts of the economy, and granting more power to civil elected 
institutions. His view is opposite of those in power now who support a stronger religious 
establishment and have done little to modernize the stagnant economy.

Beyond the clash of ideas, the battle is also personal.

“At a political level what’s taking place now, among many other things, is the 20-year rivalry 
between Khamenei and Rafsanjani coming to a head,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “It’s an Iranian 
version of the Corleones and the Tattaglias; there are no good guys and bad guys, only bad 
and worse.” It is not clear what leverage Mr. Rajsanjani can bring to this contest. If he speaks 
out, the relative said, he will lose his ability to broker a compromise. Mr. Rafsanjani leads 
two powerful councils, one that technically has oversight of the supreme leader, but it is not 
clear that he could exercise that authority to challenge Ayatollah Khamenei directly. Yet even 
in his silence, Mr. Rafsanjani’s pedigree presents a problem for Ayatollah Khameini.

In his Friday sermon, the supreme leader appealed for unity among the elite. He mildly criticized 
Mr. Ahmadinejad for his personal attacks on Mr. Rafsanjani. But the leader also made it clear that 
even revolutionary credentials could not save political leaders if they go too far, a clear threat to 
Mr. Rafsanjani, analysts said. “If the political elite ignore the law — whether they want it or not — 
they would be responsible for the chaos and bloodshed,” Ayatollah Khameini said. “I urge old 
friends and brothers to be patient and keep control of yourselves.”

Mr. Rafsanjani has been in opposition before. In the days of the shah, he was a religious student of 
Ayatollah Khomeini at the center of Shiite learning, in the city of Qum. He was imprisoned under the 
shah, and became so closely associated with the revolutionary leader he was known as “melijak
Khomeini,” or “sidekick of Khomeini.”’ After 1979, he went on to become the speaker of Parliament. 
There, Mr. Rafsanjani established himself in a role that would continue for decades. “Just as the 
ayatollah had come to personify the revolution, Rafsanjani came to personify the state,” wrote the 
author and Iran expert, Robin Wright, in her book “In the Name of God, The Khomeini Decade.” 
Mr. Rafsanjani later served two terms as president and was instrumental in elevating Ayatollah 
Khamenei to replace Ayatollah Khomenei in 1989.

People who worked in the government at the time said that Mr. Rafsanjani, as president, ran the nation 
— while Ayatollah Khameini followed his lead. But over time the two grew apart, as Ayatollah Khameini 
found his own political constituency in the military and Mr. Rafsanjani found his own reputation sullied. 
He is often accused of corruption because of the great wealth he and his family amassed. He was so 
damaged politically that after he left the presidency, he failed to win enough votes to enter Parliament. 
In 2002, he was appointed to the head of the Expediency Council, which is supposed to arbitrate disputes 
between the elected Parliament and the unelected Guardian Council.

And in 2005, he ran for president again but lost in a runoff to Mr. Ahmadinejad. He was then elected to 
lead the Assembly of Experts. The body has the power to oversee the supreme leader and replace him 
when he dies, but its members rarely exercise power day to day.

One political analyst said the key to understanding Mr. Rafsanjani is in a book that he wrote about, 
Amir Kabir, the prime minister under Nasserdin Shah, who was killed in 1852 but was widely regarded 
as Iran’s first modern reformer. Mr. Rafsanjani wants to go down in history as a modern day Amir Kabir, 
the analyst said. And that may explain his decision, for now, to stay silent and aloof from the street 
clashes as well as the leadership that many believe stole an presidential election. “He is the question 
mark right now,” said the expatriate political analyst. “A lot of people are hoping that he is the guy 
who can mend it.”


----------



## Fiver

There's probably going to be a huge escalation of violence and a lot of deaths soon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGyZo2jOOYY

The natural gas lines of the Basij's HQ in eastern Tehran were set on fire, creating an explosion in the building killing 5 members of the organization.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Seems to me the writing is on the wall now.  People should now realize that they are not in control of their own destiny and are trapped in a ideological dictatorship.  Unless there is a good reason to keep going up against the police and military, they should suck back and start making plans.  Getting captured/killed/tortured/identified at this point seems counterproductive and they seem to have a suitable number of martyrs at this point.  
Hopefully the average Joe/Jane (Foued/Farah?) Iranian will realize there is a better way than what they are stuck with right now.  As ever, you can't kill ideas.


----------



## 1feral1

Xiang said:
			
		

> Where did you get this number from?
> 
> And Overwatch Downunder, what is wrong with Iran wanting peaceful nuclear power?



I am not even going to start with you Xiang.

We'll leave it there. You've already made up your mind, and I am not into beating my head against a brick wall.

Have a happy day now.

OWDU


----------



## Xiang

I'm not asking you to convince me of anything.  I simply asked for your sources stating Iran was developing nuclear weapons.   It should be quite an easy task for someone so sure they are doing it.   Completing it should hardly be compared to beating ones head against a wall.

But if not, that's fine, however I will continue to call your claim out every time you make unsubstantiated claims of Iran's nuclear ambitions.


----------



## dapaterson

Apparently in Iran, they have the same vote-couting systems as old Chicago...



> "Statistics provided by Mohsen Rezaei in which he claims more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities."
> _-- Iran Guardian Council spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, responding to complaints by a candidate defeated in the June 12 election_


----------



## Yrys

Profile: Iran's Revolutionary Guards, October 2007, BBC News

Hi-tech helps Iranian monitoring, BBC News

Analysis: Iran splits widen

Police break up new Tehran rally

Police attack hundreds of protesters in Tehran

Iran Admits Possible Discrepancy in 3 Million Votes
Iranian Guards Issue Warning as Vote Errors Are Admitted

TEHRAN — Threatening to crush dissent, the powerful Revolutionary Guards warned protesters 
Monday that they would face a “revolutionary confrontation” if they returned to the streets in 
their challenge to the presidential election results and their defiance of the country’s leadership.

The warning, on the Guards’ Web site, was issued despite an admission by Iran’s most senior 
panel of election monitors that the number of votes cast in 50 cities exceeded the actual number 
of voters, according to a state television report two days after the country’s supreme leader 
pronounced the ballot to be fair.

The discrepancies, the most sweeping acknowledged so far by the authorities, could affect 
some three million ballots of what the government says was an 85 percent turnout numbering 
40 million voters. But the authorities insisted that the discrepancies did not violate Iranian law. 
The Guardian Council, charged with certifying the election, said it was not clear whether they 
would decisively change the result.

A Revolutionary Guards statement Monday told protesters who took to the streets in a week 
of demonstrations to “be prepared for a resolution and revolutionary confrontation with the 
Guards, Basij and other security forces and disciplinary forces” if they continued their protests, 
news reports said.

Rest of article on link


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Xiang said:
			
		

> But if not, that's fine, however I will continue to call your claim out every time you make unsubstantiated claims of Iran's nuclear ambitions.



Perhaps he is swayed by world opinion, United Nations reports and the great many people who have indicated that the materials that Iran seeks would be more suited to weapons manufacturing?  Or Iran's fervent stated desire to destroy Israel?  Another question would be "why would the planet not want Iran to simply have efficient, renewable energy sources"? That is rhetorical, however. 
I believe the nuclear Iran urination contest is best pursued in the Coming War With Iran thread.  How about we stick to the current crisis there with this one?  
(At the risk of sounding mod-ish  :warstory


----------



## CougarKing

Iranian security officers pass burning debris on a Tehran street during clashes on Saturday. Photograph: Reuters



> Iran's revolutionary guards today threatened to crush any further opposition protests as the authorities admitted irregularities in the disputed presidential vote had occurred on a much wider scale than previously disclosed.
> 
> The country's most powerful military force ordered demonstrators to "end the sabotage and rioting activities" and said their resistance was a "conspiracy" against Iran.
> 
> A statement posted on the revolutionary guards' website warned protesters to "be prepared for a resolution and revolutionary confrontation with the guards, Basij and other security forces and disciplinary forces".
> 
> Earlier, Iran's powerful guardian council – which last week agreed to investigate some voting complaints – admitted that irregularities were found in 50 constituencies, but claimed this had no effect on the result.
> 
> A council spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted on the state TV website as saying the investigation showed more votes were cast in these constituencies than there were registered voters.
> 
> But he denied this had any effect on the result, a landslide victory for the incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over the reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.
> 
> "Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate – the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.
> 
> The admission that there were problems in "only 50 cities" was followed by today's strong warning from the revolutionary guard, who effectively dared protesters to show their faces on the streets after Mousavi continued to defy an injunction against street protests by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> "The country belongs to you … protesting [against] lies and fraud is your right," Mousavi, who claims Ahmadinejad won re-election through fraud, said in a statement on his website.
> 
> Speaking in support of Mousavi, the former president Mohammad Khatami said in a statement that "protest in a civil manner and avoiding disturbances in the definite right of the people and all must respect that".
> 
> The opposition did not hold protests yesterday and will not do so tomorrow amid signs that it was either pausing for breath or running out of steam.
> 
> (....)



It's done IMHO. 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/iran-protests-revolutionary-guard


----------



## Yrys

‘Elections Don’t Make Democracy’

How Iran's Internet works

Wired For a Revolution

Will feared Basij transform Iran showdown?

Media seeks ways around Iran clampdown

Iran views: Bloodier every day


Canada denies turning away protesters, Globe & Mail

The Canadian government denied Internet reports that its Tehran embassy is actively turning away 
injured protesters seeking sanctuary - but cautioned that its offices there are deliberately closed 
during the height of protests against disputed presidential elections. Canadian officials could not say 
what would happen should Iranian protesters seek asylum or aid outside Canada's Tehran embassy's 
office hours.

People using the Internet messaging service Twitter broadcast word on Saturday that the Canadian 
embassy in Tehran had refused requests for shelter and aid from Iranian demonstrators. A Department 
of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said the Canadian embassy in Tehran was closed Saturday as part of its 
normal weekend shutdown. Simone McAndrew described as "false" Twitter reports that said Canada was 
rejecting requests for aid and asylum. At the same time, however, she also dismissed Internet reports 
that Canada was granting asylum to demonstrators.

The embassy was open yesterday - as it is normally - and did not turn away or receive injured protesters, 
officials said. Ms. McAndrew said that embassy staff are cutting short office hours to avoid protests - events
that draw reprisals from Iranian authorities and have reportedly left 17 dead and hundreds injured.

"Canada's embassy is located in the centre of recent demonstrations. Due to the tense security in Tehran 
this week, the embassy has been closing early so that staff can return home safely before the public and 
democratic demonstrations begin," Ms. McAndrew said.

Officials said Canada's embassies do not generally offer asylum to foreigners but acknowledged they 
sometimes provide a haven for individuals already inside an embassy seeking "temporary refuge" 
from an "immediate threat."

Toronto resident Ali, an Iranian Canadian, called his parents in Tehran on Saturday after receiving 
an e-mail from a friend that said that the Canadian embassy wasn't accepting injured protesters.
"When I got that, I called my parents in Tehran and my mom said yes, she had heard the same," 
Ali, 38, said. "They were saying that they weren't accepting people [Saturday] and saying it was 
ridiculous that other embassies were and the Canadians weren't."

No country has so far confirmed that it is providing shelter for injured Iranians in its Tehran embassy.
Ali said his family is cautious about what they discuss over the phone for fear the government may be 
listening in, and asked that he be identified only by his first name in order to protect his parents' identity. 
He said his parents live a short walk from the Canadian embassy, but they weren't near the building on 
Saturday.


----------



## Xiang

Zipperhead, I agree this debate is best suited to that thread, however, if you would be so kind as to look through it, including my responses to a few members, you will see I already refuted your concerns about Iran.


----------



## 1feral1

Xiang said:
			
		

> however I will continue to call your claim out every time you make unsubstantiated claims of Iran's nuclear ambitions.



You do what YOU think is right Xiang, afterall you're always right.


----------



## tango22a

OWDU:

Don't Feed the (Xiang) TROLL!!

tango22a


----------



## Yrys

Shooting victim's fiance speaks
Death video girl 'targeted by militia'

Amateur video apparently showing a young Iranian woman dying in Tehran 
after she was allegedly shot by pro-government militia on Saturday has 
caused outrage in Iran and abroad.

The woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, was buried on Sunday.

Her fiance, Caspian Makan, told BBC Persian TV about the circumstances of 
Neda's death. She was near the area, a few streets away, from where the 
main protests were taking place, near the Amir-Abad area. She was with 
her music teacher, sitting in a car and stuck in traffic. She was feeling very 
tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just for a few minutes. And 
that's when it all happened.

That's when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and video footage of shooting 
clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately 
targeted her. Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot 
in the chest. She passed away within a few minutes. People tried to take her 
to the nearest hospital, the Shariati hospital. But it was too late.

"We worked so hard to get the authorities to release her body. She was taken 
to a morgue outside Tehran. The officials from the morgue asked if they could 
use parts of her corpse for body transplants for medical patients.

They didn't specify what exactly they intended to do. Her family agreed because 
they wanted to bury her as soon as possible.

We buried her in the Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery in southern Tehran. They asked 
us to bury her in this section where it seemed the authorities had set aside spaces 
for graves for those killed during the violent clashes in Tehran last week. On 
Monday afternoon, we had planned to hold a memorial service at the mosque.

But the authorities there and the paramilitary group, the Basij, wouldn't allow it 
because they were worried it would attract unwanted attention and they didn't want 
anymore trouble. The authorities are aware that everybody in Iran and throughout 
the whole world knows about her story. So that's why they didn't want a memorial 
service. They were afraid that lots people could turn up at the event.

So as things stand now, we are not allowed to hold any gatherings to remember Neda."


----------



## TheHead

tango22a said:
			
		

> OWDU:
> 
> Don't Feed the (Xiang) TROLL!!
> 
> tango22a





How is asking someone to back something they say up with some sort of proof trolling?   If I make a claim on these boards I'm expected to back it up when asked why I believe in what I posted.   Just because someone has a different opinion than you, it doesn't mean they are trolling. Xiang makes some very good points.  People need to stop throwing around the word troll, it devalues the word when anyone who doesn't agree with you can be labeled one.


----------



## Yrys

Fighting tears, shah's son calls crisis a 'moment of truth'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The son of the former shah of Iran called Monday for solidarity 
against Iran's Islamic regime, warning that the democratic movement born out of the 
election crisis might not succeed without international support.

"The moment of truth has arrived," Reza Shah Pahlavi said at Washington's National 
Press Club. "The people of Iran need to know who stands with them."

Pahlavi has lived in exile since 1979, when his father, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, 
was overthrown during the Islamic Revolution. Under the shah's regime, Iran saw 
nationalization of its oil and a strong movement toward modernization. Still, his secular 
programs and recognition of Israel cost him the support of the country's Shiite clergy, 
sparking clashes with the religious right and others who resented his pro-West views.

The son now lives in the United States with his family, where he spends much of his 
time talking about the Islamic regime in Iran. During his remarks, he broke into tears 
when he spoke of "bullets piercing our beloved Neda," a woman killed Saturday by 
Iranian police at a protest in Tehran, whose death has become a rallying cry among 
demonstrators in Iran. 

The Iranian regime, he said, was a "sinking Titanic" that might not survive the demands 
for democracy and human rights reverberating through the country. Citing anecdotes
from people inside the Iranian establishment, Pahlavi said he had heard that security 
forces have begun to distance themselves from the regime. "It has already started," 
he said, citing reports that members of the security forces have gone home after 
their shifts ended and changed into plain clothes to join the protesters.

"Many, many elements within the security forces, within the Revolutionary Guard, 
are showing discontent," Pahlavi said. "There is an amazing reflection that is happening.
 ... This is a movement that has blown out of proportion."

Pahlavi praised the statements and tone of President Obama, saying that any outside 
attempt to interfere in Iran's internal affairs "will give the tyrants the excuse they need 
to paper over their own differences and target every man struggling for freedom as a 
foreign agent." But he said there was a difference between interfering in a country's 
sovereign affairs and standing for principles of human rights and democracy.

"We welcome that. This is effective. It is important," he said. "This is precisely what 
Iranians at home demand world leaders, particularly someone like President Obama, 
who after all his entire message of hope and change and affirmative action ... was a 
big inspiration to many."  But, he added, Obama and other world leaders must be 
prepared to change their tactics if the violence against protesters gets much worse.

"The question is, what will the world governments do this time?" he asked. "Are we 
going to have Tiananmen Square revisited? Or is [it] going to be this time different?"


----------



## CougarKing

Yrys said:
			
		

> Shooting victim's fiance speaks
> Death video girl 'targeted by militia'
> 
> Amateur video apparently showing a young Iranian woman dying in Tehran
> after she was allegedly shot by pro-government militia on Saturday has
> caused outrage in Iran and abroad.
> 
> The woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, was buried on Sunday.
> 
> (...)



Apparently like Tiananmen Square, this recent struggle by opposition supporters in Iran now has its own iconic symbol:

 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090622/world/iran_violence_media



> PARIS (AFP) - A video of a blood-drenched young woman, purportedly killed in the Tehran protests, has become an Internet symbol of the demonstrations and heightened pressure on Iran in its battle with foreign media.
> 
> The video, showing blood pouring from the nose and mouth of the young woman, was placed online
> 
> Saturday and has since been viewed hundreds of thousands of times around the world. So far, she has only been identified on the Internet as Neda.
> 
> 
> International media have taken pictures from the film which has inspired an avalanche of blog and twitter comment, mainly against Iran's hardline government.
> 
> 
> After a call spread by Internet to rally at Haft-e Tir square in Tehran to pay tribute to Neda, police on Monday broke up a gathering of about 1,000 people there.
> 
> 
> Later Monday at a press conference in Washington, the son of the late shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, produced an image of the slain protester from his pocket alongside pictures of his family.
> 
> 
> "I have added her (Neda) to the list of my daughters. She is now forever in my pocket," the former crown prince of Iran told AFP, fighting back tears.
> 
> 
> The film reportedly shows Neda moments after she is hit in the chest by a shot while watching the protests on Saturday with her father on a Tehran street.
> 
> 
> Bystanders desperately tend to the woman who wears jeans, a black jacket and an Islamic headscarf. Her eyes roll back as blood spreads across her face. People around her scream and a white haired man desperately tells her: "Don't be afraid! Don't be afraid!"
> 
> 
> There have been mass protests in Tehran against the disputed president election victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> 
> The people who originally posted the video on Youtube and Facebook said Neda was shot by a pro-government militia member.
> 
> 
> That information, like the fate and the identity of the young woman in the video, cannot be independently verified.
> 
> 
> Iranian state TV has said that 10 people were killed and more than 100 injured during Tehran demonstrations on Saturday, the eighth day of the political crisis.
> 
> 
> Photos of Neda have been used at demonstrations around the world: from Istanbul to Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> A number of Twitter users have been tinting their profile pictures green in solidarity with Iranians in recent days.
> 
> 
> A Facebook page entitled "Angel of Iran" has been set up to honour her, bloggers and Twitter messages have called her: "Neda: Angel of Freedom."
> 
> 
> "Today people are in mourning for Neda. The whole world has seen Neda, a young woman full of life and hope. Her voice has been reduced to silence but now we will be her voice," wrote Cinderella777.
> 
> 
> Among those using the green tinted Twitter messages is singer Wyclef Jean, formerly of The Fugees, who sent a message of support to Iranians on his Twitter feed on Monday: "Support not interfere that's what I'm saying!"
> 
> 
> Craig Newmark, founder of the online classified ad service Craigslist, and Joe Trippi, campaign manager for 2004 Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, are among others sporting green profile pictures.
> 
> Foreign media have been banned from covering demonstrations and other public events and rely on witness accounts. Iran has accused Western media of interference and seeking to manipulate the protests.
> 
> On Monday, Iran said broadcasters the BBC and Voice of America were trying to break up the country with their coverage.
> 
> "The heads of VOA and BBC Persian are officially the spiritual children of (Benjamin) Netanyahu and (Avigdor) Lieberman and their aim is to weaken the national solidarity, threaten territorial integrity and disintegrate Iran," foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi told reporters.
> 
> He was referring to the prime minister and foreign minister of arch-foe Israel.
> 
> On Sunday, Iran expelled the BBC's permanent correspondent in Tehran, Jon Leyne, accusing him of "supporting the rioters."


----------



## 1feral1

TheHead said:
			
		

> How is asking someone to back something they say up with some sort of proof trolling?   If I make a claim on these boards I'm expected to back it up when asked why I believe in what I posted.   Just because someone has a different opinion than you, it doesn't mean they are trolling. Xiang makes some very good points.  People need to stop throwing around the word troll, it devalues the word when anyone who doesn't agree with you can be labeled one.



TH,

Do you really think a radical islamic nation with nuclear power is a good thing?

Well I don't think so, and I am not alone.

I am not sparring for a fight with you or Xiang, but common sense prevails.

Opinions are one thing but how they are presented is another. I think thats one thing we can agree upon.

I rest my case.

Regards from the tropics,

OWDU


----------



## Xiang

tango22a, are you really up for making the mistake of calling me a troll too?  I would suggest you read my post history.  I do not come to stir the nest and leave.  I present my point of view, and back it up with as much information as possible.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for some people I debate, and you call ME the troll?

I would say "take a hike" but I'm not here to toss around petty remarks.

If you would like to debate, let's take it to the Coming War with Iran thread, but I would suggest you read my comments in that thread first.  I do not feel like repeating myself.

Thanks, and good day.


----------



## Xiang

Also, in an attempt to at least stay on topic, I predicted months ago in the Coming War with Iran topic that something like this was around the corner.  

Iran is a lot deeper and more complex than some would care to realize.


----------



## Fusaki

Xiang,

Whether or not the stated goal of Iran's nuclear program is for weapons or for energy is pretty irrelevant to me.  Sanding by while they develop nuclear technology is like selling a gun to a known murderer because he told you that he'd "only be hunting deer".

While it is possible that they want nuclear technology for peaceful reasons, the risks are to great and the consequences too serious.

That, and I'm pretty sure the Iranian government has Canadian blood on it's hands.  Let the country burn.


----------



## tango22a

Xiang:

As both you and I know the theocratic leadership of Iran is determined on the destruction of Israel. Looking at the results of the election indicate to me that MORE votes were counted than were cast. How can a candidate justify winning if this is so? Rubber-stamping by an election review board will not legitimize election results. Repression by supporters of Khameni is going to lead to civil war in Iran. I, for one, am glad that Ahmedinejad and his buddies do not yet have a nuke that they can deploy against Israel to take the great masses of ordinary Iranians attention off their internal problems.  Ahmedinejad has stated that Iran has the delivery systems....all they lack now is the payload.

Also please notice my personal disclaimer

tango22a


----------



## Xiang

> Sanding by while they develop nuclear technology is like selling a gun to a known murderer because he told you that he'd "only be hunting deer".



That analogy would presume Iran (as you claim to be the murderer), has been accused, and convicted of some large scale global crime, which they haven't.  

What you and everyone else who beat the war drums are doing is suggesting punishment before the crime, which is wrong.

Fact: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was misquoted as saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map.  Persian linguists were largely ignored at the cost of sensational media coverage and the wide spread of misinformation on what he actually said.  In other words, you aren't going to find CNN retracting and apologizing. 

Source: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

*Ahmadinejad's statement literally translated says that "the Zionist regime should be wiped from the page of time" (بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود). According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

*Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.*

Now, both being members of the forces, I think we can both agree that the media sometimes will report on what is more sensational rather than what is correct.

Fact: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm

*The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.*

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ElBaradei_says_no_%27concrete_evidence%27_of_Iranian_nuclear_weapons_program

*Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Sunday that he had seen no "concrete evidence" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html

*Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.*

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/21067.html

*WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.*

I am interested in seeing your reports that say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iran is in fact building a nuclear weapon.  This is war we're talking about.  This isn't a video game.  If you are going to destroy ANOTHER country, you better be DAMN sure you have the evidence.   Unless of course you are content with the Iraqi WMD fiasco, and all the people who died in that country on a notion that turned out to be clearly false.


Fact:  Iran needs nuclear power to sustain itself

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/14/opinion/14iht-edsahimi_ed3_.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68938&sectionid=351020104

*A Tel Aviv based analyst on Middle East issues says that the need for new sources of energy justifies Iran's push for nuclear technology. *

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jul/1078.html

*ran needs nuclear energy for its economic survival *

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/11/irans-nuclear-e.html

*The November 2005 IAEA report stated - yet again - that Iran is in full compliance with the NPT and there's no actual evidence an existing nuclear weapons program in Iran.*


Here is my case, presented without rhetoric, and backed by facts and sources.


----------



## Fusaki

> What you and everyone else who beat the war drums are doing is suggesting punishment before the crime, which is wrong.



It's not about crime and punishment of things past.  It's about security in the future.

Iran is at war with us and our allies by proxy.  Why on earth would let them develop the _potential_ for nuclear weapons?


----------



## Old Sweat

Here is a story dated 19 June 2009 which includes a statement by the head of the IAEA in which he couples capability and intention. One suspects he is well aware of his influential position and is not prone to idle speculation. Iran restated in this story that its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. However, it still remains that the capability to develop weapons remains and all it would take is an order to redirect the program. And that is the rub.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104388.stm


----------



## TCBF

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> It's not about crime and punishment of things past.  It's about security in the future.
> 
> Iran is at war with us and our allies by proxy.  Why on earth would let them develop the _potential_ for nuclear weapons?



- Iran does NOT want the Taliban to succede in Afg.  Or are you talking about some other place?


----------



## tango22a

Xiang:

You might note that the IAEA report is dated 2005. Have any other investigations been made since then? Also you can quote anything you want but you must admit that most of your quotes are open to interpretation,....you see it ONE WAY but others,including myself see it ANOTHER. Who are the hidden hands behind this report? Should this four year old report be taken at face value as being 100% truthful and accurate (un-biased would help too)...you tell me! Being a card carrying cynic makes me take most of what is reported in the media with several large grains of salt.


tango22a


----------



## Xiang

Old Sweat, I understand what you are saying, but so far there is no proof of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

Ask yourself this though, when threatened on multiple fronts, wouldn't you *like* the option of defending yourself?  

There is no doubt that Iran would like a deterrent, especially when threatened by nations it cannot defend itself against, but as of today, regardless of what mainstream media says, experts have concluded that Iran is NOT developing these weapons.

Also, ask yourself this.   Considering the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was clearly misquoted, and his intentions were not to "wipe Israel off the map", then what do you think any possible future weapons ambition would be fuel by?

Obviously it wouldn't be for direct use as a preemptive strike on Israel, since that was never his intention.


----------



## Xiang

> You might note that the IAEA report is dated 2005



Not to mention most of my other articles (including the CIA assessment that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and does not have an active nuclear program) are more recent.

As of now, I have yet to see an older, or even current report of any of the claims made by those beating the drums of war.

Anyway, it's obvious we see things differently.  My reason is because I don't want to get behind another pointless war.  I supported the war in Iraq, only to watch the country go into chaos after the invasion, tens of thousands of people die, and all to find out there were no WMD.

I don't want to back another war trumped up on rhetoric again.  They may just be brown people on the other side of the world, but they have (or had) lives too.


----------



## tango22a

Xiang:

What tack shop supplies your blinders? Hope you get a huge discount! You can explain away all you want, but please show a little respect for other posters as having a few brain cells still operational.

Let's face it,,,You and I will never agree so I think that I will decamp this thread and leave the field to you.

GIGO

tango22a


----------



## Xiang

Classy reply...


----------



## OldSolduer

I've been watching the news regarding the Iranian "election" and in my opinion the whole thing will come crashing down around the mullahs' and their president's ears. As we've seen, there are riots in the streets, the regime is cracking down on dissidents and the people still find a way to get their message out.


----------



## GAP

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> I've been watching the news regarding the Iranian "election" and in my opinion the whole thing will come crashing down around the mullahs' and their president's ears. As we've seen, there are riots in the streets, the regime is cracking down on dissidents and the people still find a way to get their message out.



Isn't it amazing that dictators only thrive when the people are kept ignorant and lack forms of communication with the outside world.....


----------



## OldSolduer

GAP said:
			
		

> Isn't it amazing that dictators only thrive when the people are kept ignorant and lack forms of communication with the outside world.....


You mean like China? Oh but I am being blasphemous aren't I? Aren't they our best friends?


----------



## CougarKing

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> You mean like China? Oh but I am being blasphemous aren't I? Aren't they our best friends?



People in China are not as ignorant as you assume. If you've ever actually accessed the internet within China, people are pretty much free to surf the internet, except if they come across a website which the PRC government sees as subversive or with political content that they may see as a threat to their authority, such as the Falun Gong website, in which case a firewall/the censor goes up. The screen goes green for a few moments and then you get an error message, IIRC. 

And Yes, there have been media blackouts recently like the one that occurred during the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, but during regular weeks, for the sake of keeping business going, people still have access to various forms of media and foreign websites, except those with political content which may be censored. 

But other than that, the internet is a necessary medium for international commerce and transactions.


----------



## CougarKing

And the Iranian government led by Khamenei and Ahmedinejad continues to dig a bigger hole for itself as it lives in denial.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer Karin Laub, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 19 mins ago
> CAIRO – *Iran expelled two British diplomats Tuesday after bitterly accusing Britain of meddling and spying. The government also dealt a fresh blow to the opposition by making clear it will not hold a new vote despite charges of fraud.
> 
> State TV said hard-line students protested outside the British Embassy in Tehran, where they burned U.S., British and Israeli flags, pelted the building with tomatoes and chanted: "Down with Britain!" and "Down with USA!" Witnesses said about 100 people took part.*
> 
> Iran's Foreign Ministry said it expelled the two Britons for "unconventional behavior," state television reported, and Britain announced it was sending two Iranian diplomats home in retaliation.
> 
> Tensions between Iran and Britain, which has urged the Islamic regime to respect human rights, have soared in recent days.
> 
> *During Friday prayers at Tehran University, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lashed out against Western countries he said were displaying their "enmity" against the Islamic state, "and the most evil of them is the British government." And Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has accused Britain of sending spies to manipulate the June 12 election.
> 
> Iran's expulsions came a day after Britain sent home 12 dependents of diplomatic staff because the unrest had disrupted their lives.
> 
> Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi claims he was the true winner of the June 12 election, but the electoral commission declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by a landslide.
> 
> Mousavi has been out of sight in recent days and there were no reports of violent clashes Tuesday, possibly a measure of the effectiveness of the crackdown.*
> 
> However, protesters came up with new techniques, such as turning on the lights in their cars at certain hours of the day and honking their horns or holding up posters.
> 
> "People are calmly protesting, more symbolically than with their voices," a Tehran resident said in a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.
> 
> *In recent days, members of the elite Revolutionary Guard, the Basij militia and other security forces in riot gear have been heavily deployed across Tehran, preventing any gatherings and ordering people to keep moving. A protest of some 200 people Monday was quickly broken up with tear gas and shots in the air, while helicopters hovered overhead.
> 
> A short message posted on Mousavi's Web site asserted that "all the reports of violations in the elections will be published soon."
> 
> Another opposition figure, reformist presidential candidate Mahdi Karroubi, called for a day of mourning for the at least 17 people killed in protests since the election.
> 
> Across the world, governments and diplomats were increasingly lining up on opposite sides in the Iranian showdown, the strongest challenge to the rule of Islamic clerics in 30 years.*
> 
> In a boost for the embattled regime, Russia said Tuesday that it respects the declared election result. But France summoned Iran's ambassador to express concern about what it called "brutal repression" of protesters in Tehran.
> 
> *The U.S. and many European countries have refrained from challenging the election outcome directly, but have issued increasingly stern warnings against continuing violence meted out to demonstrators. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has demanded an immediate end to "arrests, threats and use of force."
> 
> In Washington, President Barack Obama said Tuesday the U.S. and the rest of the world was "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent.
> 
> "I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."
> 
> Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected Ban's remarks and accused the U.N. chief of meddling.
> 
> State television said Khamenei agreed to extend by five days a deadline for making election complaints. But overall, the Iranian regime appeared determined to crush the post-election protesters, rather than compromise.
> 
> Mousavi has charged massive vote fraud and insisted he is the true winner. However, Iran's top electoral body, Guardian Council, found "no major fraud or breach in the election," a spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted by Press TV as saying Tuesday. "Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place."
> 
> The 12-member council has the authority to annul or validate the election. On Monday, it acknowledged in a rare step that it found voting irregularities in 50 of 170 districts, including vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters. Still, it said the discrepancies, involving some 3 million votes, were not widespread enough to affect the outcome.
> 
> Iran has 46.2 million eligible voters, one-third of them under 30. The final tally was 62.6 percent of the vote for Ahmadinejad and 33.75 percent for Mousavi, a landslide victory in a race that was perceived to be much closer. The huge margin went against the expectation that the record 85 percent turnout would boost Mousavi.
> 
> In another sign of the regime's crackdown, Ebrahim Raisi, a top judicial official, confirmed Tuesday that a special court has been set up to deal with detained protesters. *
> 
> "Elements of riots must be dealt with to set an example. The judiciary will do that," he was quoted as saying by the state-run radio, which gave no further details. The judiciary is controlled by Iran's ruling clerics.
> 
> Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, won crucial backing from Russia on Tuesday, with the Foreign Ministry in Moscow saying it respects the declared election result. In a statement on its Web site, the ministry said that disputes about the vote "should be settled in strict compliance with Iran's Constitution and law" and are "exclusively an internal matter."
> 
> Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has longtime political and economic ties with Iran where it is helping build a nuclear power plan at Bushehr. In his only trip abroad since the vote, Ahmadinejad traveled to Russia last week for a conference where he was seen prominently shaking hands with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
> 
> *Many Western democracies, including the U.S., have criticized Iran's campaign to crush dissent.
> 
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Iran to recount the votes, but stopped short of alleging electoral fraud. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been outspoken in his criticism of Iran's response to the demonstrations, but said doors must remain open to continue talks on the country's nuclear program.
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on a visit to Rome, praised the courage of Iranian protesters "in facing bullets in the streets."
> 
> Two prominent Iranian opposition figures took their case to Europe on Tuesday.
> 
> Iranian Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi asked EU officials in Brussels not to negotiate or hold meetings with Iranian leaders until the crackdown stops.
> 
> In Rome, Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf held a news conference, saying he had been asked by Mousavi's aides to spread the word on what is happening in Iran. Makhmalbaf said that even if Ahmadinejad manages to govern for the next four years, "he will not have one day of quietness." He said protesters would resort to general strikes and what he called civil resistance.
> 
> Iranian leaders have accused the West of meddling in its affairs. Press TV said Tuesday that despite such complaints, the government refused to grant a permit for a protest by university students outside the British embassy in Tehran.
> 
> Opposition protests have become smaller, after a huge opposition rally a week ago, though demonstrators have been more willing to confront Iranian troops.
> 
> On Monday, Tehran riot police fired tear gas and live bullets to break up about 200 protesters paying tribute to those killed in the protests, including a young women, Neda Agha Soltan, whose apparent shooting death was captured on video and circulated worldwide. Witnesses said helicopters hovered overhead.
> 
> Caspian Makan, a 37-year-old photojournalist in Tehran who identified himself as Soltan's boyfriend, said she had not been deterred by the risk of joining protests.
> 
> "She only ever said that she wanted one thing, she wanted democracy and freedom for the people of Iran," he told an Associated Press reporter during a telephone call from Tehran.
> 
> Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost impossible to independently verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties. Iran has ordered reporters for international news agencies to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets. *
> 
> A number of journalists have been detained since the protests began, though there have been conflicting accounts. The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders put the figure of reporters detained at 34.
> 
> The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 were still in custody, including Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari.
> 
> State-run TV on Tuesday confirmed the arrest of Iason Athanasiadis, a Greek national reporting for the Washington Times.
> 
> The Iranian government must release all journalists and halt "unreasonable and arbitrary measures that are restricting the flow of information," the committee said. "Detaining journalists for reporting news and commentary indicates the government has something to hide."
> 
> ___
> 
> Associated Press Writer William J. Kole in Cairo contributed to this report.


----------



## Fusaki

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Iran does NOT want the Taliban to succede in Afg.  Or are you talking about some other place?



I'm referring to allegations that the Iranian government has been supplying EFPs to the Taliban in Aghanistan and the Quds Force guys that have been captured in Iraq.



> Gates also warned of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, pointing to a slightly increased flow of weapons including components of lethal munitions known as "explosively formed projectiles." He said Iran wants to "have it both ways," seeking economic and diplomatic benefits of relations with Kabul while still attempting to impose "the highest possible costs" on U.S. and coalition troops.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012700472.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2958093/Taliban-claim-weapons-supplied-by-Iran.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan


----------



## Fusaki

Xiang said:
			
		

> Old Sweat, I understand what you are saying, but so far there is no proof of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.



Thats not the point.

The point is that they _could_ develop nuclear weapons. The stakes are too high to afford the Iranians any chance of acquiring them.



> Ask yourself this though, when threatened on multiple fronts, wouldn't you *like* the option of defending yourself?



Of course I would and I understand how "unfair" it is for NATO to have nukes and Iran not to.

What you need to understand though, is that this is NOT a game. It's not about each nation having equal capabilities so that they can square off fairly on the field of battle.  Its about making sure that if and when you go to war, you win the fight at smallest possible cost in lives and resources.  Its about doing everything you can to stack the deck in your favour.  In this case, it means ensuring that Iran - a country that is actively supporting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan - does not acquire technology that could potentially be used in nuclear weapons.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Iranian _supreme_ leadership has blundered, I think.

My guesstimate of the situation is that the Iranian people, like the Chinese, are well aware of what kind of government they have – a theocratic dictatorship – and they, broadly, accept it, including all its evident flaws. They appear to favour a theocracy, as do many Muslims in the Arab/Persian/North African region. They appear to like the idea of Ali Hoseyni Khāmene as their _supreme leader_ and to also favour Ahmadinejad's policies, including the acquisition of nuclear power and weapons and the eradication of Israel.

It appears to me that Khāmene has damaged an otherwise sterling reputation by _lowering_ himself into the partisan political fray. In a sense he has made himself more human, less divinely _anointed_.

I will persist with my analogy of modern Arab/Persian society and politics to that of Tudor/Stuart England were the _divine right_ of rulers was “more honour’d in the breach than the observance.” And everything unravelled there, very quickly, in 1648, when the _supreme leader_ lost his status.


----------



## Xiang

> Thats not the point.
> 
> The point is that they could develop nuclear weapons. The stakes are too high to afford the Iranians any chance of acquiring them



And what if Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon?  It has already been proven that the "wipe Israel off the map" comment was completely false.   It seems the drums of war are being trumped by that very (although erroneous) statement.

How many more people have to die based on media sensationalism and rhetoric?

The Iranian government can be radical at times, but that is something for the people of Iran to deal with.   As I mentioned in the past, if the US starts dropping bombs on Iran, they will turn a moderate, pro Western population into an anti-Western population.

Can the US really afford to have more enemies right now?



> What you need to understand though, is that this is NOT a game. It's not about each nation having equal capabilities so that they can square off fairly on the field of battle.



Why does the US have to "square off" against Iran anyway?  Iran isn't the aggressor here.  It isn't talking about first strikes on other countries.  It is however, being threatened from all sides.

Hasn't the US done enough to Iran already?  Their support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war had the Iranians fighting for their very existence... and ended at a million people lost.

Trust me, I understand what you're saying, but after the Iraqi fiasco I am not supporting ANOTHER war... especially not one where all I see on CNN and Fox is some numb skulled pundit flapping his trap about "wiping Israel off the map", which is a clear misquote.

But then again, you won't be able to coax the US population into a war based on the truth now will you? 

I'm still waiting to see that smoking gun....


----------



## tango22a

DELETED AS NOT BEING WORTH THE EFFORT


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, back in Iran....

Black-clad crowds and burning bridges
IASON ATHANASIADIS
WEDNESDAY, 17TH JUNE 2009

The past week of rioting in Tehran has left many strong images in my mind, but chief among them is the raw passion of thousands of angry Iranians the morning after the disputed presidential elections.
Tehran
The past week of rioting in Tehran has left many strong images in my mind, but chief among them is the raw passion of thousands of angry Iranians the morning after the disputed presidential elections. Standing in public squares, or on the balconies and roofs overhanging them, they shouted the name of Mir Hossein Mousavi in a bristling staccato. Another image is of a burning pedestrian bridge arcing over a wilderness of highway and rocky wasteland. Hundreds of Mousavi supporters and riot police clashed on the bridge at midnight after the election result. Soaring luxury apartment blocks flanked the scene. There was the sound of men screaming, the crump of stone on plastic shields and the rumbling exhaust of several hundred gridlocked cars whose transfixed inhabitants watched the scene above them with horrified fascination. Or what about the black-clad crowd, marching up Tehran’s main boulevard in funereal silence under a canopy of green summer foliage? As the police helicopters whirred overhead, a sudden cheer rose up from the crowd to greet them. 
But the image that keeps coming back to me is not one from last week, but from four years ago. In 2005, thousands of people shrugged off the theocracy’s restrictions and danced in the streets when Iran qualified for the World Cup. It was only the third time in the Islamic Republic’s 30-year history that crowds were allowed to gather in joy rather than mourning or protest. As I walked, amazed, through delirious crowds, a reveller waved his hand over the multitude and advised me to enjoy the sight. It wouldn’t last beyond dawn, he assured me.
True enough, despite a flurry of text messages advertising imaginary rallying points for another ‘freedom drive’, the next evening was business as usual in Tehran. Police cars stationed at intersections around the capital quickly banished any hopes of a repeat carnival. It was as if that heady night of football-fuelled insubordination had never captivated the Iranian imagination. 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3703038/blackclad-crowds-and-burning-bridges.thtml


----------



## CougarKing

And the clashes re-ignite, this time close to the Iranian Parliament!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> Witnesses report clashes around Iran's parliament
> By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN, Associated Press Writer Michael Weissenstein, Associated Press Writer
> 20 mins ago
> 
> CAIRO – Protesters and riot police clashed in the streets around Iran's parliament Wednesday as hundreds of people converged on a Tehran square in defiance of government orders to halt demonstrations demanding a new presidential election, witnesses said.
> 
> Police beat the protesters gathered on Baharestan Square with batons and fired tear gas canisters and rounds of ammunition into the air, the witnesses told The Associated Press. They said some demonstrators fought back while others fled to another Tehran plaza, Sepah Square, about a mile (2 kilometers) to the north.
> 
> A helicopter could be seen hovering over central Tehran, where a witness told the AP that the area was swarming with hundreds of riot police who were trying to prevent people from gathering even briefly. Thousands more security officers filled the surrounding streets, said the witness, who declined to give his name for fear of government reprisals.
> 
> Amateur video posted Wednesday on YouTube showed young men and women throwing rocks and pushing barricades, one blazing, in the street. Others shouted: "Death to the dictator!" The video could not immediately be verified due because of government reporting restrictions.
> Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost impossible to independently verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties. Iran has ordered journalists for international news agencies to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets.
> 
> Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's refusal earlier Wednesday to bow to demands from protesters effectively closed the door to any compromise with the opposition.
> 
> The wife of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was defiant, saying protesters refused to buckle under a situation she compared to martial law.
> 
> Mousavi's official Web site had said a protest was planned outside parliament. But the site distanced him from the action, calling it independent and saying it had not been organized by the reformist candidate.
> 
> Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a former university dean who campaigned beside him, said on another of his Web sites that his followers had the constitutional right to protest and the government should not deal with them "as if martial law has been imposed in the streets."
> 
> She called for the release of all activists and others arrested at protests.
> 
> Mousavi, a former prime minister, saw his campaign transform into a protest movement after the government declared that hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election. Mousavi says the result was fraudulent, and Western analysts who have examined available data on the vote said there were indications of manipulation.
> 
> Khamenei has ordered protests to end, leaving Mousavi with the choice of restraining followers or continuing to directly challenge the country's ultimate authority despite threats of escalating force.
> 
> "On the current situation, I was insisting and will insist on implementation of the law. That means, we will not go one step beyond the law," Khamenei said on state television. "For sure, neither the system nor the people will yield to pressure at any price." He used language that indicated he was referring to domestic pressures.
> 
> He told opposition supporters once again to halt their protests and accused the U.S., Britain and other foreign powers of fomenting days of unprecedented street protests over the vote.
> 
> Meanwhile Wednesday, a conservative candidate in the disputed presidential election said he was withdrawing his complaints about voting fraud for the sake of the country, state television reported.
> 
> The announcement by Mohsen Rezaie, a former commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, moved the cleric-led government one step closer to a final declaration of victory for Ahmadinejad. State TV reported that Ahmadinejad would be sworn in sometime between July 26 and Aug. 19.
> 
> Iran also said that it was considering downgrading ties with Britain, which it has directly accused of spying in recent days.
> 
> The government accused Britain of using spies to foment the protests and Iran expelled two British diplomats Tuesday. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that two Iranian diplomats were being sent home in retaliation.
> 
> Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was asked about the option of reducing diplomatic relations with London after a Cabinet meeting in Tehran.
> 
> "We are studying it," Mottaki said, according to state television.
> 
> State media have said that at least 17 people have been killed in postelection unrest, including 10 protesters shot during the largest demonstration on Saturday.
> 
> Mousavi's supporters flooded the streets of Tehran and other cities after the presidential vote, massing by the hundreds of thousands in protests larger than any since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Security forces initially stood by and permitted the demonstrations.
> 
> Amateur footage of a 27-year-old woman bleeding to death from a gunshot on a Tehran street unleashed outrage at home and abroad.
> 
> Despite the heavy security, a few Iranians apparently dared to venture onto the streets to pay tribute to that victim, who has been identified as Neda Agha Soltan.
> 
> On Wednesday, smoldering embers of candles were clearly visible on a street corner in central Tehran, where a vigil was held the night before for the slain young woman.
> 
> Another opposition figure, reformist presidential candidate Mahdi Karroubi, had called for a day of mourning Thursday for those killed in protests since the election.
> 
> Saeed Razavi, the spokesman for Karroubi's campaign, said on the candidate's official Web site later that any mourning was canceled because authorities hadn't given permission.
> 
> He said the mourning would be next week at the University of Tehran or near where those slain were buried.
> 
> Also, a Mousavi aide confirmed that police had raided offices of a newspaper owned by the candidate and detained 25 editorial employees.
> 
> Ali Reza Beheshti said the raid took place Monday evening in central Tehran as editorial members were preparing to relaunch the newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word. The paper had been absent from newsstands for more than a week.
> 
> "Police in uniform raided the office and detained 25 members of the editorial staff," Beheshti said.
> 
> Amnesty International said Wednesday it was concerned that arrested demonstrators were at risk of torture or other ill treatment. It urged Iranian authorities to give the detainees access to their families, lawyers and any medical treatment they might need.
> 
> "Anyone detained solely for their peaceful expression of their views regarding the outcome of the election should be released immediately and unconditionally," it said.
> 
> Two players on Iran's national soccer team, Mehdi Mahdavikia and Ali Karimi, resigned for personal reasons, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported. The pair were among several team members who wore wrist bands in green — the color of Mousavi's opposition movement — before a World Cup qualifying match played last week against South Korea in Seoul.
> 
> ___
> 
> Associated Press Writer William J. Kole in Cairo contributed to this report.


----------



## Xiang

> * CIA Discovered Planning “Soft Revolution” in Early 2009 *
> 
> Global Research, June 24, 2009
> Mehr News Agency - 2009-06-19
> 
> TEHRAN, Jan. 19 (Mehr News Agency) — Iran has broken up a CIA-backed network that sought to carry out a “soft revolution” in Iran through people-to-people contacts.
> 
> The “soft revolution” plan is based in Dubai and is similar to a U.S. plan that targeted the Soviet Union in 1959, the director of the counterespionage department of the Intelligence Ministry told reporters at a press conference here on Monday.
> 
> He said the CIA was seeking to implement the plan under the cover of scientific and cultural contacts between Iranian and U.S. nationals.
> 
> Unfortunately, some Iranian nationals, especially cultural and scientific figures, were deceived through such activities, he added.
> 
> “The U.S. intelligence agency was seeking to (repeat) its experiences of color revolutions through such public contacts with influential persons and elites.”
> 
> The CIA tried to attain its goals by taking advantage of people-to-people contacts, joint studies, efforts to share scientific experiences, and other similar projects, he added.
> 
> The soft revolution plan was carried out through “NGOs, union protests, non-violent demonstrations, civil disobedience… and (efforts to) foment ethnic strife” all across Iran, the official stated.
> 
> Four of the people who led the network inside Iran were actively and intentionally cooperating with CIA agents, he noted.
> 
> These four persons were put on trial, some others were pardoned, and some others were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence, he explained.
> 
> These four persons confessed and videotapes of parts of their confessions will be released soon, he noted.
> 
> He only named two of the persons, the brothers Dr. Arash Alaei and Dr. Kamyar Alaei.
> 
> The Intelligence Ministry official said that $32 million of the $75 million allocated by the U.S. Congress to destabilize Iran was spent on this project.
> 
> The CIA used institutions such as the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Soros Foundation, AIPAC, and charity organizations and sought the help of William Burns and other people in the United States and agents in the Azerbaijan Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.
> 
> He stated that the CIA enlisted scientists, physicians, university professors, clergymen, artists, athletes, and dress designers for its plot.
> 
> He went on to say that these people were invited to the United States in groups of 10-15 people, with visas issued for them in Dubai in the shortest possible time, and according to their professions, they participated in scientific seminars and toured various states, and when they returned home they were asked to write “analyses” of the situation inside Iran.
> 
> The CIA was actively seeking to recruit more people for the network, who also would have been invited to visit the United States, he added.
> 
> These persons were ordered to put pressure on the government to change its policy and to sow discord between the government and the people, he explained.
> 
> The Intelligence Ministry found out about the secret plan from the very beginning and “even allowed the operation to be conducted to a (certain level) so that we could inform talented people with full confidence that they should not be deceived by such scientific centers,” he stated.
> 
> The Iranian Intelligence Ministry countered the plot by “infiltrating” the network and even derailed it from its path by providing false information, but the CIA eventually discovered the ruse, he explained.
> 
> Advice for Obama
> 
> The official advised the incoming U.S. administration to avoid repeating the previous “failed” policies toward Iran.
> 
> He made the remarks one day before Barack Obama is officially inaugurated as the next U.S. president.
> 
> The Intelligence Ministry official said the U.S. is discrediting its scientific and charity organizations by allowing the CIA to use them as cover for its activities.
> 
> “It is not in the interests of scientific and political institutions (to allow themselves) to be used by the CIA for its hidden agenda.”
> 
> Employing such organizations to conduct spy activities will create skepticism about them that will be very difficult to eliminate, he noted.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20090624&articleId=14082


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

What a pathetic website.......



> Canada: In Service To The Pentagon And NATO At Home And Abroad



Yea, here's to you sucking my d&*$.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Hmmm,

Xiang, wouldn't you be breaking your own requests by quoting Iranian Official or Mehr News Agency/Faux news, drawn from quite a questionable site....





			
				Xiang said:
			
		

> And for the love of god/allah/buddah/whatever, don't quote US officials or CNN/Faux news rhetoric.




Or do the rules only apply to some?

dileas

tess


----------



## time expired

I am afraid I can find very little sympathy for the Iranian people.
A much smarter person than me stated once that in the long run
a people get the government they deserve,and the Iranian people
layed the shackles on themselves when they went to the streets
to bring a power mad group of clerics to rule them.Imagine how
quickly our freedoms would disappear if we handed power to a group 
of priests or fundamental Christians,but I guess the Iranians will 
have to figure that out for themselves.Changing this present group
of mullahs for a more"moderate"group is not going to give them the
freedoms the seem to desire.
                                    Regards


----------



## Fusaki

Xiang said:
			
		

> And what if Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon?  It has already been proven that the "wipe Israel off the map" comment was completely false.   It seems the drums of war are being trumped by that very (although erroneous) statement.



One comment taken out of context does not undo decades of supporting Hezbollah, who I'm pretty sure have wiping out Israel at the top of their agenda.  Iran has been fighting proxy wars in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan against us and our allies.  I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.



> Hasn't the US done enough to Iran already?  Their support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war had the Iranians fighting for their very existence... and ended at a million people lost.



I'd like to see you explain that to the mother of a Canadian soldier killed by an Iranian EFP.  I'm not going to try and explain away the past, but I will say that in the situation we are in today my responsibility (and yours too) is to the safety of Canadians and Canadian national interests.  For whatever reason, the Iranian government is hostile to us.  The line has been drawn in the sand and you need to decide which side of it you're on.



> I'm still waiting to see that smoking gun....



Easy to say when it's not you in the line of fire...


----------



## OldSolduer

Uh question here Wonderbread:
No disrespect, but some of us are a touch slow(ME). What is an EFP? Sorry to appear like a dumba$$.


----------



## tango22a

Old Solduer:

EFP is an explosively formed projectile, an advance on the shaped charge and probably 5 to 10 times more lethal to vehicle armour.

tango22a


----------



## Fusaki

Explosively formed penetrator on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

And links from a previous post:


> Gates also warned of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, pointing to a slightly increased flow of weapons including components of lethal munitions known as "explosively formed projectiles." He said Iran wants to "have it both ways," seeking economic and diplomatic benefits of relations with Kabul while still attempting to impose "the highest possible costs" on U.S. and coalition troops.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012700472.html
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2958093/Taliban-claim-weapons-supplied-by-Iran.html
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan


----------



## Xiang

Sorry 48th/Bruce... I didn't bother looking through the site thoroughly.  I came across the story and found it interesting.  First time on that site actually.



> One comment taken out of context does not undo decades of supporting Hezbollah, who I'm pretty sure have wiping out Israel at the top of their agenda.  Iran has been fighting proxy wars in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan against us and our allies.



It's called geopolitics. Every country in history has fought proxy wars that served their interests.  How many innocent Iranians have to die because you want to be a hypocrite and call foul when one side does it, and say nothing when the other side does?  The point is, let Iran sort its own problems out.  They are certainly capable of doing it.   There is no immediate threat coming from Iran right now (which has been admitted from many sources IN THE KNOW... unless you have intel stating otherwise?) 



> I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.



I can't see why you think they are developing nuclear weapons...



> I'd like to see you explain that to the mother of a Canadian soldier killed by an Iranian EFP.



I would like to see you explain that these weapons were sanctioned by the Iranian government.   How about the US weapons in FARC hands.  How about the Colombian soldiers, Western tourists and US Military advisers killed by these American weapons.  Are we to assume the US is supplying the FARC while training/aiding the Ejercito?



> I'm not going to try and explain away the past, but I will say that in the situation we are in today my responsibility (and yours too) is to the safety of Canadians and Canadian national interests.



Iran seems to only be "threatening my national interests" when the drums of war start beating.  You sound oddly like the US war hawks before the Iraqi war... going on and on about how Saddam is a "grave threat" to the world, when in reality he wasn't even a threat to his neighbors... something that was even ADMITTED by Rice and Powell prior to 9/11.  Please spare me the "truth and duty" rhetoric.



> For whatever reason, the Iranian government is hostile to us.  The line has been drawn in the sand and you need to decide which side of it you're on.



They weren't hostile to anyone until they re-started their nuclear energy program.. then suddenly they became the "axis of evil".... if they weren't pursuing nuclear energy, they would be like Zimbabwe... you wouldn't hear any news on them at all.



> Easy to say when it's not you in the line of fire...



I'm not sure if you were aiming for that "epic ending" to your response, but that reply made no sense at all.

Myself, and the world (including the thousands of American families who lost loved ones) are still waiting to see that smoking gun Bush brought the US (and its allies) into war for.  Simple as that.


----------



## Fusaki

You're dodging my points, Xiang.



> I can't see why you think they are developing nuclear weapons...



I never said they were - and I've been very clear on that.  I said that Iran can't be allowed the potential of developing nukes.



> I would like to see you explain that these weapons were sanctioned by the Iranian government.



I've provided sources to these claims  - including the SAME source you've been using to make your own points: The Washington Post _and_ The Guardian.

All you really have is your "smoking gun" argument, but that is based on the premise that we should wait until Iran has a nuclear weapons program in full swing before we do anything about it.  The problem is, once that program is in full swing it will be too late to stop them.  That is why it's important to limit the Iranian _potential_ for nuclear weapons now.


----------



## Xiang

> You're dodging my points, Xiang.



No I'm not.  Your points aren't new and interesting.  They are mundane and redundant.  I have addressed this all before, many times.  Please direct yourself to the previous posts in this thread, and the Coming war with Iran thread.  

Everything you are saying has been addressed already... but what the heck, I'll bite..



> I never said they were - and I've been very clear on that.  I said that Iran can't be allowed the potential of developing nukes.



So what do we do?  Bomb them?  Kill more innocent people?  Destroy more infrastructure?  By not having nuclear * energy *, we are essentially dooming Iran.  

Don't you think it would be a better idea to let them develop nuclear energy and keep a close eye on it?  So far all inspectors are saying Iran is in compliance with the IAEA.  If that were to change, then I would agree to start beating the drums of war.   

But to have inspectors, independent agencies and intelligence agencies all saying Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons program, a preemptive strike would do nothing but worsen an already volatile situation that the region REALLY can't afford right now.



> All you really have is your "smoking gun" argument



And all you have is your "what if" argument.  You seem to want to drop bombs like it was handing out candy. 




> but that is based on the premise that we should wait until Iran has a nuclear weapons program in full swing before we do anything about it.



Or we can let the IAEA continue doing what it is doing and prevent unnecessary bloodshed... 



> The problem is, once that program is in full swing it will be too late to stop them.  That is why it's important to limit the Iranian potential for nuclear weapons now



Read my reply above...


----------



## Xiang

I would suggest you (and others) have a look at this site:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Pay specific attention to the IAEA Board Report.

This talk of it being "too late" makes little sense.  It is as if you think developing a nuclear weapon happens overnight, at the flip of a switch.

IAEA inspectors are able to tell of a weapons program (which could take months to develop one bomb) is in the works.


----------



## Xiang

* Iran has not converted the low-grade uranium that it has produced into weapon-grade uranium, inspectors belonging to the International Atomic Energy Agency have said. *

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=3694

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/02/22/stories/2009022253751300.htm

Essentially, all over main stream media and politicians (people who are NOT specialists in the field) claiming Iran is developing nuclear weapons when all the specialists in the field, intelligence agencies, and eyes on the ground are saying they aren't.

If you want to believe the rhetoric on CNN and Fox, that's fine, but I will continue to listen to the people in the know, and give my opinions based on THEIR assessments, not the opinions of some pundit with a 30 minute slot on Fox.


----------



## George Wallace

:

Xiang

I don't know how many times you have turned back on this "Iran is not producing Nuclear Weapons/weapons grade materials/etc., but I would like to point out to you that several posters have made comments and you have not paid attention to detail.  They have said that there is the "POTENTIAL" that Iran "CAN EASILY CONVERT TO THE MANUFACTURE OF" these weapons and materials; NOT that they are currently producing these weapons/materials.  

The POTENTIAL is there, and they are saying that it must be monitored/regulated/stopped/etc.


----------



## Fusaki

> Don't you think it would be a better idea to let them develop nuclear energy and keep a close eye on it?  So far all inspectors are saying Iran is in compliance with the IAEA.  *If that were to change, then I would agree to start beating the drums of war. *



Start beating, then.

From the link *you* provided:



> *F. Summary*
> 
> 19. As has been reported in previous reports, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.
> 
> 20. Iran has not, however, implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information, and has *continued to refuse to permit the Agency to carry out design information verification at IR-40.*
> 
> *21. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council.*
> 
> 22. Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, *Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. *Unless Iran implements the Additional Protocol and clarifies the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.


http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell

The facts, and I do accept that *they are facts*, that Ahmadinejad did not, explicitly, call for *Israel*’s _eradication_ and that Iran has not taken all the necessary steps to produce nuclear weapons does not negate the general trends in Iranian policy – not towards Israel (the existence (or otherwise) of which is not a dominant concern/vital interest of Canadian foreign policy), nor towards its _Sunni_ neighbours and certainly not towards the secular, liberal West, in general.

I have said before and I remain committed to the idea that Iran is, primarily, Israel’s problem. But, if (when?) Israel is forced to deal with Iran it will, almost certainly, be doing so in support of, perhaps even with the tacit approval of its (and Iran’s) Sunni Arab neighbours.  I doubt that the Arabs can work up the requisite unity and will to confront Iran – which is a modern, sophisticated and, I think, _united_ nation-state. I doubt that America wants (can afford) to embroil itself in further Middle East/West Asian conflicts – not with Pakistan _looming_ and North Korea _beckoning_. Europe quavers. Russia looks on helplessly and China tries, very carefully, to stir the pot without allowing any to spill over onto the Xinjiang separatists. That leaves Israel to decide what to do and when to do it.

There is an issue of how far the USA can restrain Israel. An Israeli air-strike on Iran, for example, might require either over-flying American occupied Iraq or, somehow or other, _spoofing_ American surveillance and warning systems throughout the region. Despite my guess that Israel will have the tacit approval of its Sunni Arab neighbours that does not mean that there will not be massive anti-Israel and anti-American reactions throughout the _Arab world_. American policy makers might decide that a nuclear armed Iran is preferable to an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.

It IS understandable that Iran wants nuclear weapons – not just to attack, *or deter*, Israel but, primarily, to make it an unassailable regional power. As a general rule, over the past 65 years, nuclear powers have acted sensibly and responsibly. One *might* want to conclude that nuclear weapons have a calming effect on nation-states. Perhaps they *might* have that effect on Iran, too.


----------



## Fusaki

So lets review the last few pages then, shall we?

- You made the assertion that Iran was not out for the destruction of Israel.  I think given Iran's longtime support for Hezbollah, we've shown that to point to be false.

- You made the assertion that Iran does not pose a security threat to us.  Given information for the same sources you use (and therefore you must consider reliable and accurate), we've found that Iran is providing insurgents in Afghanistan weapons to kill Canadian and coalition soldiers.  Given that this undermines Canadian security, we've shown your assertion to be false.

- You've made the assertion that Iran is in full compliance with IAEA inspections and Security Council resolutions.  Given the IAEA Board of Governors Report released only a week ago (your own source), we've proven that your assertion is false.

-And as George just pointed out (again), pressure must be put on Iran to limit their *potential* for nuclear weapons, for the reasons stated above.


----------



## Xiang

I never denied the potential was there, however there is a big difference between potential and intent.  Right now, the potential is there, but the intent is not.  Another war, with the risk of more lives lost, and even more insatiability in the middle ease is not worth it based on potential alone.  I do not see any intent (and apparently neither do the experts)  My point was, regulation/monitoring is what is needed... not JDAMS and MOAB's...

And the board report has not stated that they have an active weapons program either, so it is open to interpretation.

One side will obviously try to use it as a smoking gun for war (even when it's not), but the fact still remains, no weapons program is in the works. 

The IAEA openly stated it would be easy to tell if one were.

I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over, so I will continue to have my opinion on the matter, and I will respect yours.  Simple as that.


----------



## CougarKing

Here's another update: Mousavi says he won't back down.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090625/world/iran_vote_mousavi_threats



> 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
> 
> 
> TEHRAN (AFP) - *Defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi said on Thursday that threats would not stop him from securing the rights of the Iranian people.
> 
> "I won't refrain from securing the rights of the Iranian people... because of personal interests and the fear of threats," he said in a statement on his newspaper website, Kalemeh.
> 
> 
> Mousavi said earlier that he had come under pressure to withdraw his complaint over the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he has branded a "shameful fraud" and demanded a new vote.
> 
> 
> The ex-premier said he was ready to show how those who violated the election process "stood beside the main instigators of the recent riots and shed people?s blood on the ground."*
> 
> 
> Mousavi also reiterated his call for supporters to continue protests but in a way which would not "create tension."
> 
> 
> "The main strategy which will guarantee your objectives will be to continue with the protests within the framework of law and by observing the principles of the Islamic revolution," he said in a statement addressed to the people of Iran.


----------



## Fusaki

> I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over,



Saying something over and over does not constitute a valid argument.  I've addressed your points and shown the flaws in each of them. 

All you have left is to say that Iranian government should be given the benefit of the doubt, in spite of their hostile intent and the grave risk to our security. It's naive in the most dangerous way possible.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Xiang said:
			
		

> Sorry 48th/Bruce... I didn't bother looking through the site thoroughly.  I came across the story and found it interesting.  First time on that site actually.



So basically, your views are based on googleing and finding articles that suit your tastes.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, I just hope others are not condemned for doing the same, when their views do not match yours.  Considering that you demanded, with the help of many deity's, for others to not use slanted or Faux news....


Just needed clarification, I am a nitpicky about hypocrisy, is all, I will go back to watching this debate and tend to my plants.

dileas

tess


----------



## Xiang

That article didn't "suit my taste".  I simply found it interesting.

As for debating, of course I use google to look for supporting information.  It's the best source out there.

I wouldn't condemn others for doing the same.  In fact, I have actively asked people to support their arguments with sources.  Some refused to do so, which is quite unfortunate.  But I would never condemn someone for it.   

I didn't discourage others to use Fox or CNN (I myself used the Washington Post and other MSM sources).  I was simply referring to some pundits corner who is only out for rating than telling the truth,  to use as a source.


----------



## Xiang

However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.   I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.

Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.

I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Xiang said:
			
		

> That article didn't "suit my taste".  I simply found it interesting.
> 
> As for debating, of course I use google to look for supporting information.  It's the best source out there.
> 
> I wouldn't condemn others for doing the same.  In fact, I have actively asked people to support their arguments with sources.  Some refused to do so, which is quite unfortunate.  But I would never condemn someone for it.
> 
> I didn't discourage others to use Fox or CNN (I myself used the Washington Post and other MSM sources).  I was simply referring to some pundits corner who is only out for rating than telling the truth,  to use as a source.





			
				Xiang said:
			
		

> However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.   I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.
> 
> Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.
> 
> I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.
> 
> When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.










I commend you in your explanation, on how you gather information and why.

However, you set the parameters of what resources people may use, then broke those rules.  Even as far as to admitting that it was the title that caught your eye, and did not even look into the website.  Am I to believe you even read the article?

You no doubt would have jumped on someone else who did that, would you not agree?

I just wanted to point that out to you, that's all, as I said I am not of fan of people talking from the side of their mouth.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teflon

Xiang said:
			
		

> However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.   I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things.
> 
> Most times it's not all black and white.  There is a lot of gray in between that NEEDS to be taken into account, whether the person I am debating likes it or not.
> 
> I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.
> 
> When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.



Ah yes,... we only know what our chain of command tells us,... because we are just unthinking automations and can't read or use the internet or anything, see in any shade beside black and white or gain any perspective from our own personal experience, well unless the the chain of command provides it for us!

We certainly aren't as capable as the likes of YOU to find alternate sources of information and news beyond our chain of command,....

You are a twat and I cite your own comment as my proof of that statement!


----------



## Xiang

I was speaking literal sense.  When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you (Speaking directly from the previous comment made)

In other words, I am in front of a computer right now, so I have the luxury of looking things up in detail.  Those in the line of fire do not have that luxury and are required to think fast and carry out orders, or you die.

I was commenting on how that statement made no sense in terms of the debate.

I would appreciate it if you refrain from personal insults.  Thanks  :


----------



## Teflon

I also would appreciate it if you would refrain from tossing out generalized insults or at least that's what my chain of command has informed me that I would appreciate


----------



## Xiang

If you can quote something I said that was a generalized insult (I did not insult anyone in this thread, even when personally attacked on multiple occasions) I will certainly try my best to refrain from any future infractions.

And you can let your chain of command know as well...


----------



## Teflon

I already did quote it, you said:

When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.

Which to me is a generalized insult to combat arms types inferring that we are incapable of independent thought, only knowing what our chain of command tells us.

Kind of hard to read it any other way regardless of your perspective

I would insert the stupid little rolling eyes smiley here for you but I try to avoid using toys


----------



## Xiang

> When you are in the line of fire, you only know what your chain of command tells you.



And I made it clear after that I said it (and meant it) in literal terms, so that should have cleared it up right there.  I'm not sure why you want to keep going on about it. 

I myself am in the combat arms as well (RCAC)


----------



## Old and Tired

I have been following the news from Iran and the thread with m ore than a passing interest, having spent some time in Iran in 1988 while part of UNIIMOG.

This only a personal perspective and observation.

The people of Iran are no different than any other population of any other country.  They simply want to live their lives as they see fit.  To a great many of them there is no separation between the Secular and Religious worlds.  They have the government that they choose.  Will things change as a result of the “Election”, and the societal upheaval it’s causing?  Probably.  Will it get rid of the Theocratic system that they have now?  Probably not.  Will it reform or change the balance of power within the system? Who knows?  We can only hope that it does.  In the end Iran will get the government that they decide that they want.  It is no different than any other country in the world.

There are comments here about whether the president of Iran threatened to “Wipe Israel from the pages of history”  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/86633.75.html

Ahmadinejad's statement literally translated says that "the Zionist regime should be wiped from the page of time" (بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود). According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

The wording above is semantics at best.  Very, very rarely will you ever hear of Israel being referred to directly in Iran, and on those occasions when it is, it is almost always a precursor to a diatribe calling for a Jihad against occupiers and infidels.  The GOVERNMENT of Iran is about as anti Israel as you can get.  The perverse thing about this is that they are not domestically anti Jewish.  In downtown Tehran there is an intersection that has a Mosque on one corner, a Synagogue on another and a Christian Church on a third and Souk occupying the fourth.  Even the Jewish population of Tehran that I meet were vehemently against the state of Israel’s existence.  The government of Iran has made no secret of its desire to destroy Israel itself or to see it destroyed by proxy, they don’t much care.  For them it is a means for maintaining power for the sake of power.

Too the people of Iran, I wish you the beat of luck in determining the path to follow, To Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, that light you see isn’t the end of the tunnel, it’s the train.


----------



## Xiang

Yea, Iran is a rather interesting country.  I was there for almost a year back in 2004.  One thing that struck me was the demographics of their population age. IIRC, 70% of the population was under 30, and nearly all of them were much more moderate than their more conservative government.

Whether the Mullas want it or not, a revolution will eventually come over Iran.


----------



## Fusaki

Xiang said:
			
		

> However, a lot of my opinions come from personal experience.   I may not be in the "line of fire" as someone else mentioned, but I have traveled, seen things, and met people that have really given me a perspective on things...
> 
> ...I also visit a lot of other global military message boards and it helps give a good perspective on things as well.



For someone who has such an awsome perspective on things, I'd say you've been argued into the ground pretty effectively.

...that is, unless you're willing to actually address the issues at hand:



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> - You made the assertion that Iran was not out for the destruction of Israel.  I think given Iran's longtime support for Hezbollah, we've shown that to point to be false.
> 
> - You made the assertion that Iran does not pose a security threat to us.  Given information for the same sources you use (and therefore you must consider reliable and accurate), we've found that Iran is providing insurgents in Afghanistan weapons to kill Canadian and coalition soldiers.  Given that this undermines Canadian security, we've shown your assertion to be false.
> 
> - You've made the assertion that Iran is in full compliance with IAEA inspections and Security Council resolutions.  Given the IAEA Board of Governors Report released only a week ago (your own source), we've proven that your assertion is false.
> 
> -And as George just pointed out (again), pressure must be put on Iran to limit their *potential* for nuclear weapons, for the reasons stated above.





			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> All you have left is to say that Iranian government should be given the benefit of the doubt, in spite of their hostile intent and the grave risk to our security. It's naive in the most dangerous way possible.


----------



## George Wallace

WOW!  I now wonder if we should change the title of this thread to:  "How to discredit one's self in five easy steps"


----------



## GAP

It would be nice to see this thread get back on track instead of being used by a troll with an agenda and everybody feeding him/her/it.....


----------



## tango22a

TARGET!...TARGET STOP!!


tango22a


----------



## CougarKing

Another update: now at least one Iranian cleric is calling for the execution of the rioters.



> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090626/world/international_us_iran_election
> 
> 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
> 
> 
> By Parisa Hafezi
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - A hardline Iranian cleric on Friday called for the execution of "rioters," in a sign of the authorities' determination to stamp out opposition to the June 12 presidential election result.
> 
> 
> (EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)
> 
> 
> Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, said it had found no major violations in the election, which it called the "healthiest" vote since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> 
> The council had already rejected a call for the annulment of the vote by moderate former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi, who has led mass protests since he was declared a distant second in the election behind incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> 
> "I want the judiciary to ... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Ahmad Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University.
> 
> 
> Iranian state television said on Thursday eight Basij militiamen were killed by "rioters" during the protests. State media previously said 20 people were killed in the marches.
> 
> 
> The Group of Eight foreign ministers, meeting in Italy, said they "deplored" the post-election violence and called on Iran to settle the crisis soon through democratic dialogue and peaceful means.
> 
> 
> "The crisis should be settled soon through democratic dialogue and peaceful means on the basis of the rule of law," said a final draft statement by the G8 ministers. "We call on the Iranian government to guarantee that the will of the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process."
> 
> 
> HARSH PUNISHMENT
> 
> 
> Iranian authorities have accused Mousavi of being responsible for the bloodshed, while the moderate former prime minister says the government is to blame.
> 
> 
> Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge the leading "rioters" as being "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.
> 
> 
> "They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as mohareb is execution.
> 
> 
> Mousavi's supporters plan to release thousands of balloons on Friday with the message: "Neda you will always remain in our hearts," in memory of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman killed last week who has become an icon of the demonstrations.
> 
> 
> Khatami said Neda was killed by the rioters themselves for propaganda purposes. "By watching the film, any wise person can understand that rioters killed her," he said.
> 
> 
> Britain's Times newspaper quoted Dr. Arash Hejazi, an Iranian who appeared on Internet videos helping Neda, as echoing opposition charges the 26-year-old music student was killed by a government militiaman.
> 
> 
> "She was just a person in the street who was against the injustice going on in her country, and for that she was murdered," he said. Hejazi said that after the protest he left Iran for Britain, where he is resident, fearing arrest.
> 
> 
> The authorities have used a combination of warnings, arrests and the threat of police action to drive large demonstrations off Tehran's street since Saturday with small gatherings dispersed with tear gas and baton charges.
> 
> Russia, which along with China congratulated Ahmadinejad on his re-election earlier this month, said on Friday it was seriously concerned by the use of force in Iran.
> 
> "We naturally express our most serious concern about the use of force and the death of civilians," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying on the sidelines of the G8 meeting.
> 
> Russia was among countries at the G8 anxious not to slam the door on possible talks with Iran, the world's fifth largest oil exporter, over its nuclear program.
> 
> "I think there is unity here that it is for the Iranian people to choose their government but it is for the Iranian government to protect their people," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said after the foreign ministers' meeting.
> 
> The 12-man Guardian Council's statement leaves little scope for more legal challenges to the election result, short of an attack on the position of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has expressed strong support for Ahmadinejad.
> 
> "The Guardian Council has almost finished reviewing defeated candidates' election complaints...the reviews showed that the election was the healthiest since the revolution ... There were no major violations in the election," said Abbasali Kadkhodai, spokesman of the council.
> 
> Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a Mousavi ally, chairs the Assembly of Experts which has the constitutional power to depose Khamenei. The assembly has never tried to do so and Rasfanjani is seen as unlikely to take such a radical step.
> 
> Mousavi said he was determined to keep challenging the election results despite pressure to stop. He called on his supporters to continue "legal" protests and said restrictions on the opposition could lead to more violence.


----------



## George Wallace

If that 'opinion' becomes too prevalent, then it may backfire on them and the demonstrators will arm themselves.  This could encourage armed rebellion as opposed to the 'peaceful' (relatively) demonstrations that are occuring now.  This cleric may find that it is his life on the line, not those of the citizens.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

GAP said:
			
		

> It would be nice to see this thread get back on track instead of being used by a troll with an agenda and everybody feeding him/her/it.....



Most agreed.  

Xiang, why don't you start a dedicated thread to "Iran is a benign nation that is the victim of a global conspiracy" thread?  Then anyone who goes there to engage you can endlessly talk in circles and we don't junk up an existing, unrelated topic?  That seems fair and civilized right?


----------



## a_majoor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If that 'opinion' becomes too prevalent, then it may backfire on them and the demonstrators will arm themselves.  This could encourage armed rebellion as opposed to the 'peaceful' (relatively) demonstrations that are occuring now.  This cleric may find that it is his life on the line, not those of the citizens.



This presumes the citizens have access to arms. Like the Chinese before them, and the various Eastern European nations before them, and peasants for all of history, a disarmed population is helpless before the armed might of the State. It is very instructive to remember that Romania had several mass movements that were snuffed out by the security forces, only when the Army abandoned the regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu did it succeed. The various "Velvet", Rose, Orange, Cedar, etc. revolutions were only possible because the government was unwilling to use force to suppress the crowds. (This is where the theory that mass communications via the Internet can assist freedom)

If the government has no fear of international consequences (and face it, "we" haven't shown a resolute face towards various thugs and dictators), then they can pretty much carry out whatever actions they please to maintain power.

Taking one of Edward's earlier posts as a jumping off point, if Khatami were to loose his luster as "Supreme Ruler" by getting too partisan, or the Revolutionary Guard or Basji were too violent, elements of the security forces or Army _might_ chose to side with the crowds, in which case it becomes open season. The only other lever the crowds have (IMO) is economic, a prolonged mass strike that shuts down the economy might also finally drive the Theocracy from power.


----------



## the 48th regulator

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Most agreed.
> 
> Xiang, why don't you start a dedicated thread to "Iran is a benign nation that is the victim of a global conspiracy" thread?  Then anyone who goes there to engage you can endlessly talk in circles and we don't junk up an existing, unrelated topic?  That seems fair and civilized right?




Wasn't there a video kind of like that......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chp2u2ln8_E

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides 

True.  However, Iran has vast tracts of 'uninhabited', remote, desolate lands.  These would be very conducive to Arms smuggling, a tradecraft that is already in plentiful availability in Iran.  Perhaps some of the arms being smuggled out, will turn around and be smuggled into the metropolitan areas.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thucydides
> 
> True.  However, Iran has vast tracts of 'uninhabited', remote, desolate lands.  These would be very conducive to Arms smuggling, a tradecraft that is already in plentiful availability in Iran.  Perhaps some of the arms being smuggled out, will turn around and be smuggled into the metropolitan areas.



Hmmm, and that would take some serious cash.  Is it proxy war time yet?


----------



## CougarKing

More fiery rhetoric from Iran's leaders:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> Iran pledges a 'crushing' response to US critiques
> Associated Press Writer Michael Weissenstein, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Iranian authorities have barred journalists for international news organizations from reporting on the streets and ordered them to stay in their offices. This report is based on the accounts of witnesses reached in Iran and official statements carried on Iranian media.
> 
> ___
> 
> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Saturday to make the U.S. regret its criticism of Iran's postelection crackdown and said the "mask has been removed" from the Obama administration's efforts to improve relations.
> 
> Ahmadinejad — with his internal opponents virtually silenced — all but dared Obama to keep calling for an end to repression of demonstrators who claim the hardline leader stole re-election through massive fraud.
> 
> "You should know that if you continue the response of the Iranian nation will be strong," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to members of Iran's judiciary, which is directly controlled by the ruling clerics. "The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse."
> 
> Ahmadinejad has no authority to direct major policy decisions on his own — a power that rests with the non-elected theocracy. But his comments often reflect the thinking of the ruling establishment.
> 
> The cleric-led regime now appears to have quashed a protest movement that brought hundreds of thousands to the streets of Tehran and other cities in the greatest challenge to its authority in 30 years. There have been no significant demonstrations in days, and the most significant signs of dissent are the cries of "God is great!" echoing from the rooftops, a technique dating to the days of protest against the U.S.-backed shah before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> Days of relatively restrained talk from both Washington and Tehran appear to be returning to a familiar pattern of condemnation and recrimination despite Obama's stated desire to move away from mutual hostility. Iran and the U.S. still appear interested in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, but the rising rhetorical temperature can be expected to slow progress toward a deal, experts said.
> 
> "The political feasibility of pursuing it, and the likelihood of success has changed," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "I have a hard time seeing any real engagement taking place for at least four to six months."
> 
> Obama acknowledged Friday that Iran's violent suppression of unrest would hinder progress, saying "There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks."
> 
> Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward Iran after taking office, sending a video greeting for Persian New Year that used the government's formal name — the Islamic Republic of Iran — in a signal that the goal of regime change had been set aside. He even avoided strong language as Iran began suppressing street protests, saying he wanted to avoid becoming a foil for Iranian hard-liners who blame the United States and other Western powers for instigating internal dissent.
> 
> But Obama decried Iran's crackdown more vigorously as amateur videos of beating and shootings began flooding the Internet. He said Friday in his strongest condemnation yet that violence perpetrated against protesters was "outrageous," and dismissed a demand from Ahmadinejad to repent for earlier criticism.
> "I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people," Obama added.
> 
> Iran also had been stopping short of its normally harsh language about the U.S., mostly blaming Britain and even France and Germany as Mousavi's supporters demanded a new election. Ahmadinejad had made relatively few appearances in an apparent attempt to avoid inflaming the situation.
> 
> The protests dwindled to scattered clashes as riot police and Basij militiamen put down the unrest using batons, tear gas, water cannons and, in at least 17 cases, live ammunition. Mousavi said Friday that he would seek official permission for any future rallies, effectively ending his role in street protests.
> 
> Ahmadinejad appeared self-assured and even invigorated Saturday in the face of the previous day's personal challenge from Obama.
> 
> "We are surprised at Mr. Obama," Ahmadinejad said. "Didn't he say that he was after change?
> 
> "They keep saying that they want to hold talks with Iran. All right, we have expressed our readiness as well. But is this the correct way?" Ahmadinejad told judiciary officials. "They showed their hand to the people of Iran, before all people of the world. Their mask has been removed."
> 
> He still appeared to leave some opening for dialogue, saying Iranians officials "have expressed our readiness" and still want the U.S. to "join the righteous servants of humanity as well."
> 
> Experts said, however, that it was not yet certain that Ahmadinejad and his most powerful backer, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would emerge from the unrest as strong as before. Many speculated that the fight between hard-liners and reformists had moved behind the scenes and would add more uncertainty to U.S. dealings with the already opaque regime.
> 
> Authorities briefly arrested relatives of Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani in a move seen as a warning to the powerful former president not to work against Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. Other prominent conservatives such as Tehran's mayor and the parliament speaker have criticized the government in recent days in another indication of possible internal divisions.
> 
> "This will complicate the decision-making process inside Iran," said Bahman Baktiari, an expert on Iranian factional politics and director of the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. "I think we will see paralysis in the Islamic Republic when it comes to making important decisions."
> 
> A 30-year-old resident of the central city of Isfahan told The Associated Press on Saturday that people continue to shout "God is Great!" and other anti-regime slogans from their roofs at night in Tehran and Isfahan.
> 
> "People are angry and afraid," he said on condition of anonymity for fear of government reprisal. "They are afraid of the future and angry because they failed to achieve change with their ballots."
> 
> Members of the Basij militia have been raiding homes and beating residents in an attempt to stop the chanting, Human Rights Watch said, accusing authorities of seizing satellite dishes to prevent citizens from seeing news broadcast from overseas. Iranian officials have blamed the British Broadcasting Corp., Voice of America and other news channels for fomenting unrest on behalf of Western governments.
> 
> "While most of the world's attention is focused on the beatings in the streets of Iran during the day, the Basijis are carrying out brutal raids on people's apartments during the night," said Sarah Leah Whitson, the rights group's Middle East director.
> 
> Italy has granted visas to Iranians seeking to flee the violence and wants the European Union to adopt a common policy on how to assist them, the Italian foreign minister said.
> 
> Italy and other members of the Group of Eight industrialized nations called Friday for an end to the violence in Iran and urged the authorities to find a peaceful solution.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi was quoted by the official news agency IRNA as accusing the G-8 of "interventionist and hasty remarks."
> 
> In Sweden, Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Mkandawire said the Swedish ambassador was summoned by Iran's foreign ministry Friday after clashes between demonstrators and Iranian Embassy officials outside Stockholm.
> 
> Demonstrators broke into the embassy, climbing through shattered windows and injuring one embassy worker, police said.
> 
> ___
> 
> Associated Press writers Shaya Tayefe Mohajer in Cairo and Barbara Surk in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.


----------



## CougarKing

From the article, it seems that Mossad has been busy and will continue to be busy in Iran.



> JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extended the tenure of the Mossad chief to an eighth year on Sunday, a testament to the spymaster's perceived success in waging shadow wars against Iran and its allies. Meir Dagan, a former commando and retired general, took over Mossad in 2002 with what security sources described as a mandate to monitor and sabotage the Iranian nuclear program ahead of any decision by Israel to launch full-scale preemptive strikes.
> 
> Mossad also has been credited with spotting an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor which Israel bombed in 2007, and with assassinating Islamist guerrillas such as Imad Moughniyah of Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, who was slain in Damascus in 2008.
> 
> "This is an excellent man who, at the head of an excellent team, has improved the country's capabilities," an aide to Netanyahu quoted him as telling the Israeli cabinet in its weekly session.
> 
> The son of Holocaust refugees, Dagan, 64, has spearheaded assessments that a nuclear-armed Iran would present a mortal threat to Israel. Iran -- which denies seeking the bomb -- could produce its first such warhead by 2014, Dagan said last week.
> 
> He also played down prospects of the current civil upheaval over Iran's disputed June 12 election leading to a change in government, but said Tehran could be persuaded to curb sensitive nuclear technologies if U.S.-led sanctions are intensified.
> 
> Failing that, Israel, which is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has hinted at a military option, though many analysts think Iranian sites are too dispersed and fortified for its air force to take on alone.
> 
> That leaves covert action as a stop-gap countermeasure, something Israeli officials privately confirm is under way.
> 
> Western media reports have spoken of Mossad involvement in sabotage at Iranian nuclear facilities and sneak attacks on Iranian scientists and military personnel. Iranian media have reported the disruption of some suspected Israeli spy cells.
> 
> Mossad's purview is "human intelligence" -- recruited agents with first-hand information about, and access to, enemy plans. Security sources say this has lent Dagan authority among Israeli decision-makers reluctant to design their Iran strategy around satellite pictures or electronic eavesdropping transcripts.
> 
> Mossad's headquarters, north of Tel Aviv, has almost doubled in size since 2002 -- an indication of Dagan's budgetary clout.
> 
> "If there is one service that has brought us close to knowing what's really going on in Iran, it's Mossad," said a recently retired government official, who formerly had a top post in a rival Israeli spy agency.
> 
> Israel's military top brass and civilian defense chiefs generally serve for four years, with a traditional one-year extension. Dagan's tenure was extended twice before. He is now due to step down in 2010.
> 
> (Editing by Michael Roddy)
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE55K1IG20090621


----------



## CougarKing

And Iran detains/arrests local staff of the British Embassy in Tehran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer Karin Laub, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Iranian authorities have barred journalists for international news organizations from reporting on the streets and ordered them to stay in their offices. This report is based on the accounts of witnesses reached in Iran and official statements carried on Iranian media.
> 
> ___
> 
> Iranian authorities have detained several local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran, a move that Britain's foreign secretary Sunday called "harassment and intimidation" and reflected a hardening of the regime's stance toward the West.
> 
> Iranian media said eight local embassy staff were detained for an alleged role in postelection protests, but gave no further details. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said "about nine" employees were detained Saturday and that four had been released.
> 
> The detentions signaled a further toughening of Iran's dealings with the West, which has become increasingly vocal in its condemnation of a crackdown on opposition supporters.
> 
> Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has alleged massive fraud in the June 12 presidential election and says he is the rightful winner, not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Iran has accused the West of stoking unrest, singling out Britain and the U.S. for alleged meddling. Last week, Iran expelled two British diplomats, and Britain responded in kind. Iran has also said it's considering downgrading diplomatic ties with Britain.
> 
> On Sunday, the semiofficial Fars news agency reported that the embassy staffers were detained for what was described as a "significant role" in postelection unrest.
> 
> The British Foreign Office says the embassy has a staff of more than 100, including at least 70 locally hired Iranians. Last week, Britain sent home 12 dependents of embassy staff because the protests had disrupted their lives.
> 
> Miliband, who is on the Greek island of Corfu for a foreign ministers' meeting, said Britain has lodged a protest with the Iranian authorities over the detentions. He described the step as "harassment and intimidation of a kind that is quite unacceptable."
> 
> "The idea that the British Embassy is somehow behind the demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in Tehran. ... is wholly without foundation," he said. The foreign minister discussed the detentions with his EU colleagues, who said later they drafted an agreement that "reaffirms solidarity among member states" in backing Britain in the dispute.
> 
> In London, a Foreign Office spokeswoman, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said any further harassment of British Embassy employees would be met with "a strong and united EU response." She declined to comment on whether Britain was considering recalling its ambassador in protest or for consultations.
> 
> Iran's government has tried to discredit opposition supporters by alleging they have been directed by the West.
> 
> On Friday, a senior Iranian cleric, Ahmed Khatami, lashed out at Britain in a nationally televised sermon. "In this unrest, Britons have behaved very mischievously and it is fair to add the slogan of 'down with England' to the slogan of 'down with USA,'" he said.
> 
> Britain, a colonial power in the region with a long history in Iran, has been a prominent target. Britain and the U.S. were behind the 1953 coup that toppled Prime Minster Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalized Iran's oil industry. Britain had almost complete control over Iran's oil industry for decades.
> 
> The British have also drawn fire because of the BBC's prominent role as a trusted broadcaster in Farsi inside Iran.
> 
> This is a reversal from the way the state and publicly funded BBC was perceived in the run-up to the Iranian Islamic Revolution. At the time, the BBC was widely listened to because it extensively covered anti-Shah demonstrations and activities of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was in exile in France.
> 
> Iran's leaders have countered Western condemnation with increasingly angry rhetoric. The confrontation appears to be dashing hopes for a new dialogue, as initially envisioned by President Barack Obama when he took office.
> 
> Obama wants to engage Iranian leaders in talks over the country's suspect nuclear program which the U.S. and other western countries worry is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran defends its nuclear program as civilian in nature. On Sunday, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the 27-nation bloc would "like very much" to restart nuclear talks with Tehran despite the rising tensions.
> 
> Senior White House adviser David Axelrod played down Ahmadinejad's accusations against the U.S., saying Sunday they aren't credible and are meant for domestic consumption. "This is political theater," he said on ABC's "This Week."
> 
> Iran's rulers have unleashed club-wielding militiamen to crush street protests and arrested hundreds of journalists, students and activists.
> 
> On Sunday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for national unity, appealing to both sides in the dispute, even though he has come down firmly on the side of Ahmadinejad.
> 
> "I admonish both sides not to stoke the emotions of the young or pit the people against each other," he said in comments carried on state TV. "Our people are made of one fabric."
> 
> Mousavi signaled he is not dropping his political challenge.
> 
> In a new statement, he insisted on a repeat of the election and rejected a partial recount being proposed by the government. However, Mousavi's challenge seemed largely aimed at maintaining some role as an opposition figure.
> 
> The latest statement by Mousavi, who has been increasingly isolated, appeared Sunday on Ghalamnews, a Web site run by supporters. Mousavi-related Web sites have frequently been blocked by the government, and one was shut down by hackers last week.
> 
> Iran's top electoral body, the 12-member Guardian Council, has proposed recounting 10 percent of the votes. On Friday, the council offered to bring in six more political figures to oversee a partial recount, presumably to give the effort greater legitimacy in the eyes of the challengers.
> 
> However, Mousavi reiterated his demand for nullification as "the most suitable solution to restore public confidence." He called for independent arbiters to settle the dispute.
> 
> Another defeated candidate, Mahdi Karroubi, also expressed doubt that a fair review is possible.
> 
> "How is it possible to answer controversies through counting some ballots?" he wrote in a letter to the Guardian Council, published Sunday in his newspaper, Etemad-e-Melli.
> 
> A third candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, said he would only send a representative to the council, for observation of a re-count, if the other two candidates did the same.
> 
> __
> 
> Laub reported from Cairo. Associated Press writers Shaya Tayefe Mohajer and William J. Kole in Cairo, Shawn Pogatchnik in London and Elena Becatoros in Corfu, Greece, contributed to this report.


----------



## a_majoor

Traffic analysis of Iran's Internet is revealing:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23712/?nlid=2116



> Thursday, June 18, 2009
> *Global Net Traffic Reveals Iran's Censorship Surge*
> 
> Data gleaned from Internet service providers hints at how the government is controlling Web traffic.
> By Erica Naone
> 
> Iran's government might not have completely cut off Internet access within its borders, as have other governments suffering from political unrest. However, new evidence shows that the Data Communication Company of Iran (DCI) has been manipulating the overall flow of traffic to the country, according to Craig Labovitz, chief scientist for Arbor Networks, a company based in Chelmsford, MA, that provides network security and analysis for many Internet service providers and large businesses.
> 
> Although Labovitz has no information directly from Iran, he has based his conclusions about Iranian traffic on data collected from more than 100 Internet service providers that together allow Arbor Networks to form a picture of global Web traffic.
> 
> Labovitz found that on June 13, the day after elections, Iranian traffic fell off almost completely. Traffic came back a few hours later, he writes, though just a little. By June 16, Labovitz says, it was back to about 70 percent of normal.
> 
> Labovitz writes,
> 
> So what is happening to Iranian traffic?
> 
> I can only speculate. But DCI's Internet changes suggest piecemeal migration of traffic flows. Typically off the shelf / inexpensive Internet proxy and filtering appliances can support 1 Gbps or lower. If DCI needed to support higher throughput (say, all Iranian Internet traffic), then redirecting subsets of traffic as the filtering infrastructure comes online would make sense.
> 
> Unlike Burma, *Iran has significant commercial and technological relationships with the rest of the world. In other words, the government cannot turn off the Internet without impacting business and perhaps generating further social unrest.* In all, this represents a delicate balance for the Iranian government and a test case for the Internet to impact democratic change.


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps the problem was not as mentioned, but by the system becoming overloaded and unable to 'maintain the flow'.  This could overload and close down some nodes, but perhaps not all.


----------



## CougarKing

And the clashes continue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer William J. Kole, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 43 mins ago
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Iranian authorities have barred journalists for international news organizations from reporting on the streets and ordered them to stay in their offices. This report is based on the accounts of witnesses reached in Iran and official statements carried on Iranian media.
> 
> ___
> 
> Several thousand protesters — some chanting "Where is my vote?" — clashed with riot police in Tehran on Sunday as Iran detained local employees of the British Embassy, escalating the regime's standoff with the West and earning it a stinging rebuke from the European Union.
> 
> Witnesses said riot police used tear gas and clubs to break up a crowd of up to 3,000 protesters who had gathered near north Tehran's Ghoba Mosque in the country's first major post-election unrest in four days.
> 
> Some described scenes of brutality, telling The Associated Press that some protesters suffered broken bones and alleging that police beat an elderly woman, prompting a screaming match with young demonstrators who then fought back.
> 
> The reports could not be independently verified because of tight restrictions imposed on journalists in Iran.
> 
> North Tehran is a base of support for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has alleged massive fraud in Iran's disputed June 12 presidential election and insists he — not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — is the rightful winner.
> 
> Sunday's clashes erupted at a rally that had been planned to coincide with a memorial held each year for Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, who came to be considered a martyr in the Islamic Republic after he was killed in a major anti-regime bombing in 1981.
> 
> Witnesses said the protesters also chanted, "Ya Hussein, Mir Hossein," linking Mousavi's first name with a highly revered Shiite saint, Imam Hussein — the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a symbol of personal sacrifice for a cause. Later, after the situation calmed, police set up patrols and cordons.
> 
> It was Iran's first election-related unrest since Wednesday, when a small group of rock-throwing protesters who had gathered near parliament was quickly overwhelmed by police forces using tear gas and clubs.Iranian authorities say 17 protesters and eight members of the volunteer Basij militia have been killed in two weeks of unrest, and that hundreds of people have been arrested.
> 
> The Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights said its information suggests at least 2,000 arrests have been made — "not just (people) arrested and later released, but who are locked up in prison," the group's vice president, Abdol Karim Lahidji, told the AP.
> 
> He said his information came from members of human rights groups in Iran and other contacts inside the country.
> 
> Iran's diplomatic battles also intensified Sunday after authorities detained several local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran — a move that Britain's foreign secretary called "harassment and intimidation." The EU condemned the arrests.
> 
> Iranian media said eight local embassy staff were detained for alleged roles in post-election protests, but gave no further details. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said "about nine" employees were detained Saturday and that four had been released.
> 
> EU foreign ministers meeting in Corfu, Greece, issued a statement condemning the arrests and calling for the immediate release of all those still detained. The 27-nation bloc also denounced Iran's continuing restrictions on journalists.
> 
> "They make clear to the Iranian authorities that harassment or intimidation of foreign or Iranian staff working in embassies will be met with a strong and collective EU response," the statement said.
> 
> Iran has accused the West of stoking unrest, singling out Britain and the U.S. for alleged meddling and for expressing concern about the ferocity of the regime's crackdown on protesters. Last week, Iran expelled two British diplomats, and Britain responded in kind. Iran has also said it's considering downgrading diplomatic ties with Britain.
> 
> On Sunday, Iranian Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseini Ejehi accused some British embassy staff of mingling with protest crowds to encourage unrest.
> 
> The British Foreign Office says the embassy has a staff of more than 100, including at least 70 locally hired Iranians. Last week, Britain sent home 12 dependents of embassy staff because the protests had disrupted their lives.
> 
> Miliband, in Corfu for the EU meeting, said Britain lodged a protest with the Iranian authorities over the detentions, which he called "quite unacceptable."
> 
> "The idea that the British Embassy is somehow behind the demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in Tehran. ... is wholly without foundation," he said.
> 
> A senior Iranian cleric, Ahmed Khatami, had lashed out at Britain on Friday in a nationally televised sermon. "In this unrest, Britons have behaved very mischievously and it is fair to add the slogan of 'Down with England' to the slogan of 'Down with USA,'" he said.
> 
> Iran's sharpening anti-Western rhetoric threatened to dash hopes for the new dialogue President Barack Obama initially envisioned when he took office.
> 
> Obama wants to engage Iranian leaders in talks over the country's suspect nuclear program which the U.S. and other western countries worry is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran defends its nuclear program as civilian in nature. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Sunday the bloc would "like very much" to restart nuclear talks with Tehran despite the rising tensions.
> 
> Senior White House adviser David Axelrod played down Ahmadinejad's accusations against the U.S., saying they aren't credible and are meant for domestic consumption. "This is political theater," he said on ABC's "This Week."
> 
> Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for national unity, appealing to both sides in the dispute, even though he has come down firmly on the side of Ahmadinejad.
> 
> "I admonish both sides not to stoke the emotions of the young or pit the people against each other," he said Sunday. "Our people are made of one fabric."
> 
> Mousavi, meanwhile, signaled anew he won't drop his political challenge.
> 
> In a new statement, he insisted on a repeat of the election and rejected a partial recount being proposed by the government. However, Mousavi's challenge seemed largely aimed at maintaining some role as an opposition figure.
> 
> The latest statement by Mousavi, who has been increasingly isolated, appeared Sunday on Ghalamnews, a Web site run by supporters. Mousavi-related Web sites have frequently been blocked by the government, and one was shut down by hackers last week.
> 
> For the first time since the election, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani spoke publicly about the unrest, claiming that "suspicious hands" were trying to open rifts between the people and the Islamic system.
> 
> He also praised Khamenei for giving the Guardian Council, Iran's top electoral body, more time to evaluate charges of vote-rigging. That was significant because there had been growing speculation that Rafsanjani could be at odds with the supreme leader — setting the stage for a possible high-level power struggle.
> 
> ___
> 
> Kole reported from Cairo. Associated Press Writers Shaya Tayefe Mohajer in Cairo, Jamey Keaten in Paris, Shawn Pogatchnik in London and Elena Becatoros in Corfu, Greece, contributed to this report.


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Traffic analysis of Iran's Internet is revealing:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23712/?nlid=2116
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday, June 18, 2009
> *Global Net Traffic Reveals Iran's Censorship Surge*
Click to expand...


At the same time we have this:

Jackson's death slows web to a crawl

In life, Michael Jackson once ruled the pop charts. With his death, he dominated the internet.

CBC News 

As reports of Jackson's death on Thursday spread, celebrity gossip websites crashed, news sites slowed to a crawl and traffic on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook spiked.


More on link.

Obviously Thursday was not a good day for the Internet.


----------



## Yrys

Iran 'frees five' from UK embassy

Five of the local staff at the British embassy detained in Tehran have been released,
Iranian officials say. Iran's media earlier said several Iranian staff at the UK mission 
were held over their role in protests against a disputed presidential poll.

It is unclear how many embassy staff are still being held. British Foreign Secretary 
David Miliband has dismissed the Tehran's allegations as baseless. "Eight people were 
arrested. Five were freed and three are still being interrogated," Iranian Foreign 
Ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said at a news conference on Monday.

Iran's state television Press TV earlier reported that there had been a total of nine 
arrests. Despite the reported releases, the fact that some employees are still being 
held means the issue remains a serious problem for the UK, the BBC's Middle East 
editor Jeremy Bowen in Tehran says. On Sunday, the European Union warned Iran 
that "harassment or intimidation" of embassy staff would be met with a "strong and 
collective" response.

Separately, Iran's top legislative body began a partial recount of June's poll. Iran's 
state TV said the recount had started on Monday in the capital Tehran as well as in 
the country's provinces. Iran's Guardian Council has offered to recount a random 10% 
of the votes from the 12 June election.

The process was expected to be completed later on Monday and the result would be
announced shortly afterwards, al-Alam television said. But Mr Mousavi insists the poll 
was rigged and therefore should be annulled.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the poll's winner - a move that
triggered mass street protests.


----------



## Yrys

Iran confirms Ahmadinejad victory

Iran's top electoral body, the Guardian Council, has confirmed the victory 
of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential election after a partial recount. 
News of the decision, which comes after a series of protests by the opposition
against what it says was a rigged ballot, was announced by state TV.

The 12-strong council is the most influential body in Iran and is currently 
controlled by conservatives.

"The secretary of the Guardian Council in a letter to the interior minister 
announced the final decision of the Council... and declares the approval of
the accuracy of the results of... the presidential election," the state 
broadcaster said. A partial recount of the election carried out on Monday 
showed no irregularities in the vote, Iran's English-language Press TV 
television station added, according to Reuters news agency.

Mr Ahmadinejad was officially re-elected with 63% of the vote on 12 June. 
His main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, has said the whole election 
should be annulled and held again.

Some 17 people are thought to have died during opposition street protests. 
Reports say there were clashes on Monday in central Tehran between 
opposition demonstrators trying to form a human chain and security forces.

*Red lines*

The Guardian Council ruled earlier that any irregularities in the polling would 
not affect the result but its partial recount on Monday was expected to pave 
the way for the formal confirmation of President Ahmedinejad's victory, the 
BBC's Jeremy Bowen reports from Tehran.

Iran's crisis since the presidential election has taken the Islamic Republic into 
new and unknown territory, our correspondent says. All sorts of red lines have 
been crossed, with unprecedented public condemnation of the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, he adds. Iran has been left with a divided ruling elite 
that has been having a public quarrel, our correspondent says.

During the mass rallies a broad-based opposition coalition emerged. It did not 
have effective leadership so the authorities were able to take the initiative back, 
helped by a security crackdown and hundreds, some say several thousand, arrests.

The people who took to the streets are still angry about what happened, our 
correspondent adds, and the authorities must fear that anger, because it could 
explode again.


----------



## Yrys

Same subject, NY Times

Iran Council Certifies Ahmadinejad Victory

CAIRO — The powerful Guardian Council touched off scattered protests in Tehran 
Monday night when it formally certified the re-election of President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term, saying there was no validity to charges 
of voting fraud.

As the certification was announced, security and militia forces flooded the streets,
and protesters who were already out marching down Tehran’s central avenue, 
Vali Asr, broke into furious chants. The marchers were quickly dispersed, but other 
Iranians, urged by opposition Web sites, went to their rooftops to yell “God is great!” 
in a show of defiance.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the Guardian Council’s secretary, sent a letter to the interior 
minister saying the panel had approved the election after a partial recount, according 
to state television.

“The Guardian Council, by reviewing the issues in many meetings and not considering 
the complaints and protest as valid, verifies the 10th presidential election,” Ayatollah 
Jannati wrote. The letter made scant mention of the sweeping public anger and 
accusations of fraud.

Rest of article on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thucydides
> 
> True.  However, Iran has vast tracts of 'uninhabited', remote, desolate lands.  These would be very conducive to Arms smuggling, a tradecraft that is already in plentiful availability in Iran.  Perhaps some of the arms being smuggled out, will turn around and be smuggled into the metropolitan areas.



Well they already have a homegrown insurgency with Baloch nationalists not to mention Persian only represent 51% of the population, their infastructure is crumbling and standard of living is declining. Add in a fairly young population, set on boil with a rigged election and some head bashing of the unwashed rabble. Haven’t heard much their kurdish population lately. I think the Iranian rulers will be paying for this mistake for a long time, sadly so will the average Iranian. I would like to see a moderate Iran and Iraq happily trading with each other in my lifetime.


----------



## Yrys

Britain and Iran's fraught history
Iranian authorities' scare tactics
Fears grow for Iranian detainees



'Iran trial' for UK embassy staff

Some UK embassy staff detained in Tehran and accused of inciting protests 
after disputed elections will face trial, a top Iranian cleric says. Guardians 
Council chief Ahmad Jannati said: "Naturally they will be put on trial, they 
have made confessions."

Nine embassy staff were held in Tehran last weekend. Britain says all but 
two have now been freed.

EU governments are to summon Iranian ambassadors to protest against the 
detention of the embassy staff. An EU official told the BBC that, in addition, 
visas for Iranians holding Iranian diplomatic passports would be suspended.

The official said other measures, including the withdrawal of EU ambassadors 
from Iran, would be considered if the two British embassy staff were not 
released. Protests gripped Tehran and other Iranian cities after June's 
presidential election, amid claims the vote had been rigged in favour of the 
incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Guardians Council - Iran's supreme legislative body, which Ayatollah 
Jannati heads - on Monday ratified the disputed result, following a partial 
recount.

*'Velvet revolution' plan*

Ayatollah Jannati did not say how many employees would be tried or on what 
charges. "In these incidents, their embassy had a presence, some people were 
arrested," he told the thousands of worshippers at Friday prayers, according to 
news agencies. Ayatollah Jannati said on Friday: "After the election, the enemy 
could not stand people's joy. The enemy made an effort to poison the people. 
They had planned a velvet revolution before the election." He said the UK Foreign 
Office had warned of possible "street riots" around the 12 June election and had 
advised its nationals to avoid public places.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Ayatollah Jannati's speech 
marks a significant deterioration in the already bad relationship between London 
and Tehran.

'*Deeply concerned'*

Tehran has repeatedly accused foreign powers - especially Britain and the US - of 
stoking unrest after the election. Britain has protested strongly against the arrests 
and rejected the Iranian allegations as baseless. In the fallout from the crisis, 
Tehran expelled two British diplomats and the UK responded with a similar measure.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain was urgently seeking clarification
from Iran about a possible trial and remained "deeply concerned" about the two 
staff members in detention. "We are confident that our staff have not engaged 
in any improper or illegal behaviour," he said.

Five of the nine employees were reportedly released on Monday and Iranian state 
media said on Wednesday it had freed three more, but British and EU officials say 
two remain in custody.

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported this week that one of the detainees 
had played a "remarkable role during the recent unrest in managing it behind the 
scenes". Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, last month described 
Britain, as the "most evil" of its enemies.

The issue of how to deal with Iran is set to dominate the summit of the Group of Eight 
(G8) industrialised nations in Italy next week. Some EU countries have urged caution, 
arguing that Europe should engage with Iran, not isolate it. But if the embassy staff 
are put on trial, the EU may have few other options than to tighten the diplomatic 
screw, correspondents say.

*Library ballot boxes*

Meanwhile, the governor of one of Iran's biggest cities, Shiraz, has denied reports 
that a number of sealed ballot boxes in its main library contained votes from last 
month's election. Ebrahim Azizi said the boxes were from previous polls and that 
the interior ministry had ordered they be archived there. Earlier this week, an 
Iranian journalist posted pictures on the internet of several ballot boxes sitting 
on the floor of the library.

Historians say the distrust between the UK and Iran stems from the 1800s, when 
Iran - then Persia - was forced to concede territory to Russia in a treaty drafted 
by a British diplomat.

In more modern times, British operatives backed a CIA-organised coup in 1953 
against an elected Iranian government.

In 2007, Iran seized 15 British navy personnel on patrol in waters between Iraq 
and Iran and held them for 12 days, during which time they were paraded on 
national television.

Britain is also among the most vocal opponents of Iran's nuclear programme, 
saying its aim is to develop atomic weapons, a claim denied by Tehran.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hmmm, just making sure they are ready for the next wave of protesters??


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090704/world/iran_execution
Iran hangs 20 drug traffickers in mass execution

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran on Saturday hanged 20 people for drug trafficking at a prison in Karaj, west of the capital, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Fars said more than 700 kilos (1,540 pounds) of drugs, including heroin, cocaine and opium, were seized from the 20, who were aged between 35 and 48 and had been arrested over the past five years.
According to human rights group Amnesty International Iran applied the death penalty to 346 people last year, carrying out more executions than any other country apart from China.

But it is rare for such a large number of people to be executed in a single day in the Islamic republic.
Twenty-nine people who had been convicted for various crimes, including murder, rape and drugs trafficking, took place on July 27, 2008 in the largest mass execution in years.
On January 2 last year, 13 people were hanged, including a mother of two young children found guilty of murdering her husband.

The latest hangings bring to at least 161 the number of people executed in the Islamic republic so far this year, according to an AFP count based on news reports. In 2008, Iran executed 246 people, according to that count.
Earlier on Saturday the Etemad newspaper reported that two Iranian men convicted of murder had been hanged in the southern city of Shiraz.
Tehran says the death penalty is a necessary tool for maintaining public security and is only applied after exhaustive judicial proceedings.

Murder, rape, armed robbery, drugs trafficking and adultery are all punishable by death in Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

Surprised this hasn't been noted here yet. 



> WASHINGTON — Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.



[snip]



> What was not immediately clear was whether Mr. Biden, who has a long-standing reputation for speaking volubly — and sometimes going too far in the heat of the moment — was sending an officially sanctioned message.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/politics/06biden.html?hp


----------



## tomahawk6

Proof positive that the Obama administration is inept at foreign policy. No doubt the spin meisters will claim he was taken out of context or meant to say something else.


----------



## CougarKing

Quite an update! Seems not all the clerics are as complicit with Ahmadinejad's vote-rigging after all.



> CAIRO — An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
> 
> [SNIP....]
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th


----------



## CougarKing

And here is Pres. Obama's response:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090707/world/mideast_israel_us_nuclear_obama



> WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President Barack Obama strongly denied in an interview on Tuesday that the United States had given Israel a green light to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
> 
> Asked on CNN television whether Washington had given Israel the go-ahead for such an attack, Obama said: "Absolutely not."
> 
> 
> In the interview with the US network broadcast from Russia where he is on an official visit, Obama added that Washington could not "dictate" the security interests of other countries and would seek to settle the dispute through diplomacy.
> 
> 
> "What is also true is, it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities," Obama said.
> 
> 
> This would be achieved "through diplomatic channels," he said.
> 
> The remarks followed comments by Vice President Joe Biden over the weekend that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its response to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
> 
> 
> "Israel can determine for itself... what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden told ABC television's "This Week" program in an interview broadcast Sunday.
> 
> 
> "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination -- if they make a determination -- that they're existentially threatened," Biden said.
> 
> 
> Obama on Tuesday stressed that he wanted first to see progress on diplomacy, as the United States attempts to end Tehran's controversial nuclear drive.
> 
> 
> "I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact, which is that we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are," the US president said.
> 
> 
> Obama said that "the United States reserve(s) the right, and I as commander-in-chief reserve the right, to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States."
> 
> 
> Asked about Iran at an event Tuesday in Washington, the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said Tehran could have an atomic bomb within one to three years and that such a development risked unleashing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> If Iran secured a nuclear arsenal it "would be potentially very destabilizing," Mullen told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
> 
> 
> "My concern is that, you know, the clock has continued to tick," he said.
> 
> 
> Saying Israel viewed a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, Mullen spoke of the "criticality in my view of solving this before Iran gets a nuclear capability or that anyone would, you know, take action to strike them."
> 
> 
> Mullen, who is chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the focus was on diplomatic efforts but echoed Obama's comments, refusing to rule out military options.
> 
> 
> "There is a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement, and I think we need to do that with all options remaining on the table, including certainly military options," he said.


----------



## CougarKing

More new protests.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 49 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Hundreds of young men and women chanted "death to the dictator," confronting police wielding batons and firing tear gas in the capital Thursday as opposition activists sought to revive street protests despite authorities' vows to "smash" any new marches.
> 
> For days, supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi have been calling for new protests in Tehran and other cities on Thursday, their first significant attempt to get back on the streets since security forces crushed massive demonstrations nearly two weeks ago in Iran's postelection turmoil.
> 
> Tehran governor Morteza Tamaddon warned that any new march Thursday would meet the same fate.
> 
> "If some individuals plan to carry out any anti-security actions by listening to calls by counterrevolutionary networks, they will be smashed under the feet of our aware people," he said, according to the state news agency IRNA in a report late Wednesday.
> 
> Thursday afternoon, a stepped-up number of uniformed policemen along with plainclothes Basiji militiamen stood at intersections all along Revolution Street and at nearby near Tehran University, some of the sites where protests were called.
> 
> Still, a group of around 300 young people gathered in front of Tehran University and began to chant, "Death to the dictator," witnesses said. Many of them wore green surgical masks, the color of Mousavi's movement.
> 
> Police charged at them, swinging batons, but the protesters fled, then regrouped at another corner and resumed chanting, the witnesses said. Police chased them repeatedly as the protesters continued to regroup, the witnesses said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared government retribution.
> 
> Within an hour, the number of protesters grew to about 700 and marched toward the gates of Tehran University, the witnesses said. A line of policemen blocked their path, but they did nothing to disperse the gathering as the protesters stood and continued to chant, the witnesses said.
> 
> At another location, on Valiasr Street, around 200 protesters gathered, and police fired tear gas to disperse them, but the demonstrators sought to regroup elsewhere, the witnesses said.
> 
> Soon after the confrontations began, mobile phone service was cut off in Tehran, a step that was also taken during the height of the post-election protests to cut off communications. Mobile phone messaging has been cut in the country for the past three days.
> 
> They were the first such protests in 11 days, since the crackdown — though it did not compare to the hundreds of thousands who joined the marches that erupted after the June 12 presidential election, protesting what the opposition said were fraudulent results.
> 
> The calls for a new march have been circulating for days on social networking Web sites and pro-opposition Web sites. Opposition supporters planned the marches to coincide with the anniversary Thursday of a 1999 attack by Basij on a Tehran University dorm to stop protests in which one student was killed.
> 
> Ahead of Thursday's planned march, authorities appeared to have taken a number of other steps to prevent participation, including the halting of SMS messaging. The government also closed down universities and called a government holiday on Tuesday and Wednesday, citing a heavy dust and pollution cloud that has blanketed Tehran and other parts of the country this week.
> 
> Mousavi and his pro-reform supporters say he won the election, which official results showed as a landslide victory for incumbent hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared the results valid after a partial recount and warned that unrest would not be tolerated.
> 
> In the crackdown since the election, at least 20 protesters and 7 Basijis were killed.
> 
> Police have said 1,000 people were arrested and that most have since been released. But the state-run English language news network Press TV quoted prosecutor-general Qorban-Ali Dorri Najafabadi saying Wednesday that 2,500 people were arrested and that 500 of them could face trial. The remainder, he said, have been released.
> 
> Arrests have continued over the past week, with police rounding up dozens of activists, journalists and bloggers.
> 
> In the latest detentions, a prominent human rights lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah was taken away by security forces from his office Wednesday along with his daughter and three other members of his staff, the pro-opposition news Web site Norouz reported. A former deputy commerce minister in a previous pro-reform government, Feizollah Arab-Sorkhi, was also arrested at his Tehran home, the site reported.
> 
> A large number of top figures in Iran's reform movement, including a former vice president and former Cabinet members, have been held for weeks since the election.
> 
> Iranian authorities have depicted the postelection turmoil as instigated by enemy nations aiming to thwart Ahmadinejad's re-election, and officials say some of those detained confessed to fomenting the unrest. Opposition supporters say the confessions were forced under duress.


----------



## tomahawk6

The hardline approach is losing support within the regime and amongst the population as a whole. Today is the 10 Year Anniversary of The Iranian Student Protests of July, 1999 and thousands were in the streets protesting the regime.Ironic.


----------



## GAP

They are trying desperately to blame everything on US/British/whomever agitation, but never themselves......this has just created thousands of potential information sources for humit.....


----------



## Yrys

Iran 'security state' lambasted
Iran Protesters Take to Streets Despite Threats, NY Times
Iran learns from past to crush dissent
 Iran police tear gas protesters


G8 warning on Iran crackdown

G8 leaders are "seriously concerned" about the "appalling events" after Iran's elections, 
US President Barack Obama said as the summit closed. He said the global leaders were 
also "deeply troubled" by Iran's nuclear programme. Iran denies claims it is trying to 
build a nuclear bomb. Mr Obama rebuffed suggestions that the summit had fallen short 
in failing to agree fresh sanctions in Iran.

The G8 leaders said they would review Iran's progress in September. A joint declaration 
from the summit in L'Aquila, Italy, said that media restrictions and the detention of foreign 
nationals by Iran was "unacceptable".

Iran has recently released eight of nine British embassy staff that it arrested and accused 
of spying during protests against the alleged rigging of presidential elections last month.
But one Briton and a French language teacher, Clotilde Reiss, 23, remain in Iranian custody.

On Friday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called for her release and said 
espionage accusations against her were "stupid".

*Israel 'not alone'*

The G8's joint declaration warned Tehran to comply with UN resolutions calling for a freeze 
on its uranium enrichment activities - a process which can be used to make material for a 
nuclear bomb - "without further delay." Speaking on Thursday, French President Nicolas 
Sarkozy warned that a unilateral Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would 
be an "absolute catastrophe". But he reassured Israel that it was "not alone".

Mr Sarkozy threatened further sanctions against Iran if it failed to respond to US overtures 
for talks on its nuclear activities.

Mr Obama said the international community would not wait "indefinitely" for Iran to comply 
with its demands.

The joint declaration said the leaders would "take stock" of whether Iran had complied with 
demands for a freeze on its nuclear activities at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in the US in 
September. "Between August and September it's for them to decide how they want things 
to evolve. Pittsburgh is the date," said Mr Sarkozy.

The summit follows pledges earlier this week by the US and Russia to cut their stockpiles 
of nuclear weapons.

Mr Obama is planning an international conference on nuclear proliferation in March 2010.


----------



## a_majoor

More violent repression:



*The 9th of July, the 18th of Tir*

Posted By Michael Ledeen On July 8, 2009 @ 2:01 pm In Uncategorized | 54 Comments

Maybe it’ll be a turning point.  Maybe not.  It’s the anniversary of the massacre of students in Iran ten years ago, when they defied their tyrants and called for freedom.  There are certainly a lot of people around the world who will turn out to show their contempt for the Tehran regime.  I can’t keep track of them all, but there should be significant turnouts in the Hague, Vienna, Rome, Paris, Washington, New York, Irvine and Santa Monica, Seattle and Hamburg…and more and more.  In Iran itself, the regime’s opponents have called for “the biggest turnout yet,” totally silent, no posters or banners, just silence.

The silence of the demonstrations would be a counterpoint to the nightly chants from the rooftops and prisons of the nation.  Chants of “Allah is great,” along with “Death to the Dictator.”  If you believe the folks on Twitter, those chants have been louder with each passing night, despite the violence of the Basij and Revolutionary Guards, which ranges from snipers shooting from one rooftop to another, armed thugs breaking into homes to seize computers, cell phones and other communications devices, and arrest one or more family members.  Meanwhile, horribly maimed bodies have been showing up all over the country.  Some of the gouging of the bodies seems to have been done to remove all evidence of bullet holes, but whatever the “explanation,” the bloody savagery is well documented.

If you want some detail about the horrors inside Iranian hospitals, have a look at[1] Le Figaro’s account.

Over the objections of medical staff, bodies from the demonstrations were quickly moved elsewhere. “We believe they were transferred to the Baqiatollah military hospital or some other undisclosed location”, notes the doctor. Then, under the pretext of “organ donation”, all traces of bullets were removed from the bodies. “The parents were force to accept this if they wanted to retrieve the body for burial”.

And yet, the protest goes on.  For the past three days, a general strike has been in effect, with significant results.  Indeed, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei preemptively admitted defeat when government offices and factories were shut down in the name of a religious observance.  But the strikers only expanded the range of their actions, notably by shutting down electrical grids in several cities, including parts of Tehran.  Great swathes of the nation were plunged into darkness.  This sort of thing is likely to continue, whatever happens on the 9th.

Most of the protesters fear the worst, warning of snipers preparing to shoot into the crowds, and a massive buildup of security forces in Tehran.  There are rumors about possible countermeasures from the demonstrators, but, like the stories about massive repression, these remain to be confirmed.

Meanwhile, there are continuous accounts of internal strife in the regime’s ranks.  The London Guardian, in [2] a carefully worded account, tells us that the most powerful figure in the ongoing repression is Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba.  He is said to be particularly enraged by the British Government’s seizure of more than a billion dollars in London accounts, at least some of which belongs to him.  No one would be surprised to find that the supreme leader was a very wealthy man, or that he had salted away some of his money outside Iran.  Others have been moving their funds to more secure lands of late.

Mother Nature struck a humorous blow at President Ahmadinezhad last night, when he delivered a speech to the nation.  As he spoke, a large insect buzzed him.  He tried  to maintain discipline, but, like a character in an old Ernie Kovacs routine, he could not stop his eyes from following the (fly?  wasp?) around his head, and of course it all gave rise to anti-regime humor.  Again, from Twitter:  “spreading: The bug that bugged AN has now been arrested and soon to confess on state TV.”

Mother Nature is doing better than the so-called Western world, which apparently cannot even bring itself to punish the regime for violating all rules of civilized behavior.  Obama, following his familiar pattern of allying himself with the tyrants rather than the democrats, doesn’t want new sanctions.  I suppose he’s still hoping that the tyranny will prevail, and then he can make a wonderful deal with Khamenei pere.  Or fils, as the case may be.  Again, the best commentary comes from Twitter:

“Honduras Shouts Where are the BLUE Helmets! Burma Shouts release Aung San Suu Kyi ! Iran Shouts Where is our Vote!”

But Obama, he don’t say nothin’.  Nor does Miss Hillary.

It seems so obvious to me that we should be helping the Iranian people–for both strategic and moral reasons–that I’m stunned at the insistence of so many smart people that we should do nothing.  [3] Take George Will, for instance:

Some persons fault the president for not having more ambitious plans to somehow prompt and guide Iranians toward regime change. That outcome is sometimes advocated, and its consequences confidently anticipated, by neoconservatives whose certitude about feasibility resembles that which, decades ago, neoconservatism was born to counter.

Leave aside the historical riff on the origins of neoconservatism, and accept the uncertainty that all human efforts entail;  that snooty dismissal of those who advocate peaceful regime change in Iran leaves me breathless.  Tell it to Neda’s family George.  Their daughter was executed, her father arrested and tortured, and they’ve been thrown out of their house.  See how they appreciate your view from on high.  Or try Iran’s neighbors, not your garden variety necons.

Meanwhile, [4] David Brooks has somehow convinced himself that Obama’s policies don’t really matter at all, because he’s so incredibly dignified:

Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

This reminds me of those journalists who were smitten with Mussolini in the twenties.  Never mind the policies, he’s so charismatic!

I’m afraid David one day will have to answer for this infatuation with style over substance.  And it won’t be pretty.

So let’s see what tomorrow brings.

UPDATE:  8 o’clock AM on Twitter, “Confirmed demonstrations tehran,shiraz,isfahan,ahwaz,babol,kerman,mashhad sari”

10 o’clock:  “There are many unconfr. reports but all of them have 1 thing in common, they all report: People are growing in numbers”

I expect to get a telephone update in about an hour.

11 o’clock:  We are still in the preliminary stage, according to the organizers.  The main events are supposed to get going in another hour or two.  There does not seem to be any shooting as yet, just tear gas, used by police and Revolutionary Guards forces.  The demonstrators were prepared for tear gas, and continue to chant “Death to the dictator!”  and “Death to the regime!”

This has long since ceased to be a protest over election results alone.  More in an hour or so.  I hope.

11:30:  Here is something new.  Twitter:  “ Chaos. Distress messages from security forces being shot at requesting airborne support.”  I see at least one other tweet about people shooting back at Basij and security forces, asking “who is shooting back?”

Is it true?

11:40:  No, it probably is not true.  I am told that security forces are acting frightened, as if they did not expect the large crowds to actually materialize, and they are shooting guns off in the air to try to scare off the demonstrators.  The protesters have set off many fires in the streets (just what Tehran didn’t need, after the recent sandstorms).  I think this is because some people believe the fires counteract the effects of tear gas, which is not correct.  But anyway, the fires are burning.

Further–and this is a fairly up to date observation–the security forces are acting with unprecedented violence.  The one-on-one attacks on the protesters are very brutal, the Basij are apparently tring to club them to death.  Very ugly.

But the crowds are getting bigger.

11:50:  Heh, from Twitter, “The situation is so bad, that the police are also attacking each other”

12:05:  Cell phone nets are largely shut down now, at least in Tehran.  And international calls are apparently being monitored very closely, so my updates may be slower.

There are more people saying that police are taking the side of the people, and defending them against the Basij.  Can’t confirm it yet.  And the violence still seems to be clubs, knives and tear gas, not guns.

12:33:  You might want to follow the “live blog” [5] here (actually it seems to be a selection of Twitter messages).

Many new reports of people going after Basij, and some about a group called NIR which, it is said, is protecting people from security forces.  I don’t know what that is, I’m trying to find out.

1 o’clock:  Going swimming (I’m gettinga new hip next Monday, have to keep muscle strength up).  Back in an hour or thereabouts.

2:30:  It’s now eleven o’clock at night in Iran, and the chants from the rooftops and the prisons have resumed.  And Khamenei sure hears them, “Death to the Dictator!”  “Allah is Great!”  What an ironic turnaround for this tyrant, who claims Divine sanction for his every thought and action, now to be threatened with death in the name of Allah.

Meanwhile, in an appalling act of appeasement, we released five Revolutionary Guards officers in Iraq, so that they could go to Tehran (and I doubt they will join the nocturnal chanters).  I got it from Washingtontv, which somehow accepted the official Iranian misidentification of these guys:

Washington, 9 July (WashingtonTV)—The US military on Thursday handed over five Iranian diplomats (NOT!  ML.  The mullahs claimed they were dips, but they were IRGC officers) it has held for over two years to Iraqi authorities, Iraqi and Iranian officials said.

Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, said that the five men were handed over to Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and that they would be handed over to the Iranian embassy in Baghdad after meeting al-Maliki, reports the official IRNA news agency.

The five diplomats, accused by the U.S. of funding and arming Shiite militants in Iraq, were arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil on 11 January 2007.

The timing could hardly have been worse, and I’m sure the White House is roundly annoyed that this happened just on a day when the regime’s claws and fangs were so publicly exposed.  The White House had set the release up for several days ago, but then the Almighty–in the form of intense sandstorms that made it impossible to fly in and out of Tehran–intervened.

If my information is correct–and I must say I have rarely had a story so vigorously denied by my own government–this is part of the deal for Roxana Saberi, who, you’ll remember, was miraculously released from an Iranian prison a couple of months ago.  These IRGC commanders–with, I am told, hundreds of lower-level Iranian terror facilitators to come in the next days and weeks–were Iran’s price for freeing the American hostage.

I had inklings of this, and said so at the time.  So I’ll take the opportunity to remind everyone who follows Iranian matters, that the mullahs’ hostages are never released for humanitarian motives.  They are ransomed.  The only question is the price.

When I asked some folks in the government, about a week ago, if we were preparing to release these people, they acted as if I’d asked if the Vice President were about to convert to Islam.  But the releases have started.


It seems Obama overpaid, frankly.  But then, we always do.  Every president since Jimmy Carter has acted like a fool regarding Iran.  So it’s business as usual.

4 o’clock:  there are still clashes in Tehran, and probably other cities as well.  It’s too early for an overall assessment of the “meaning” of the day, but some things are clear enough:

1.  The uprising is not over.  If anything, today’s turnout, discipline, and obviously improved tactics suggest that the opposition is stronger;

2.  The regime hasn’t won any converts to its side.  Rafsanjani’s daughter was reportedly in the crowd today, and I am still waiting for confirmation of the widely reported story that Mousavi appeared at a mosque and delivered a speech;

3.  The opposition seems to have gained a tempo in this game.  I’d expect the strikes to continue, and to intensify.  I wonder if any American trade union is going to support its Iranian brothers and sisters;

4.  Meanwhile, we’ve learned to accept [6] a simple truth about Khamenei.  You gotta read it!

4:30 PM (last reliable information I’m going to have today, I think).  Khamenei was told the following:


* massive demonstrations
* 3 killed
* 78 known as seriously wounded, many broken bones and ruptured internal organs, several may not make it; other wounded may have disappeared
* 600 arrests

SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM OPPOSITION: “please tell the world about these atrocities; people did nothing, silence, no provocations, no violence but fierce attacks by the government forces.”

And so we shall.  Good night Chet.  Good night David.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/07/08/the-9th-of-july/

URLs in this post:
[1] Le Figaro’s account.: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeenSource:http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/07/06/01003-20
090706ARTFIG00225-des-medecins-iraniens-temoignent-de-la-repression-.php

[2] a carefully worded account: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/08/khamenei-son-controls-ira
n-militia

[3] Take George Will: http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/07/08/mcnamaras_mind?page=1
[4] David Brooks has somehow convinced himself: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html
[5] here : http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/
[6] a simple truth about Khamenei: http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275710.html


----------



## CougarKing

More recent dissent coming from another source again gets the spotlight:



> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31899937/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
> 
> updated 2:49 a.m. ET, Tues., July 14, 2009
> TEHRAN, Iran - Authorities have hanged in public 14 members of a Sunni Muslim rebel group blamed for bombings and killings in southeastern Iran, state radio said Tuesday.
> The report said the executions took place in the city of Zahedan, some 930 miles southeast of Iran's capital Tehran.
> 
> The 14 included Abdulhamid Rigi, brother of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of Jundallah, or soldiers of God, a Sunni Muslim group that Iran says has close ties to "foreign forces" in neighboring Afghanistan, a possible reference to the al-Qaida terror group.


----------



## muskrat89

Read the full story here:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532963,00.html



> *Israeli Navy Prepares for Potential Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities*
> 
> Wednesday, July 15, 2009
> 
> 
> Reuters
> 
> Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal.
> 
> Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal, ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defense shield at a U.S. missile range in the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> Israel has strengthened ties with Arab nations who also fear a nuclear-armed Iran. In particular, relations with Egypt have grown increasingly strong this year over the “shared mutual distrust of Iran”, according to one Israeli diplomat. Israeli naval vessels would likely pass through the Suez Canal for an Iranian strike.
> 
> “This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These maneuvers are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats,” an Israeli defense official said.


----------



## CougarKing

More renewed unrest.



> *Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's harsh rebuke of Ahmadinejad supporters is followed by renewed violence, suggesting the discontent over recent election results is as strong as ever.*
> 
> Reporting from Tehran and Beirut -- Security forces fired tear gas and plainclothes militiamen armed with batons charged at crowds of protesters gathered near Tehran University after a Friday prayer sermon delivered by the cleric and opposition supporter Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, his first appearance at the nation's weekly keynote sermon since before the election.
> 
> Rafsanjani, in a closely watched speech, lashed out at the hard-line camp supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, criticized the June 12 election results and promoted several key opposition demands. However, he failed to offer a solution to what has emerged as Iran's worst political crisis in decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-prayer18-2009jul18,0,6890660.story


----------



## Edward Campbell

As one who finds nuclear war quite “thinkable” I found this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, interesting:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1802732


> Atomic conflict would kill tens of millions: report
> *War would contaminate entire region*
> 
> Peter Goodspeed, National Post
> Published: Saturday, July 18, 2009
> 
> It's the nightmare that haunts the modern Middle East --Iran succeeds in its quest for nuclear weapons and goes to war with Israel, causing massive human casualties and destruction on a demonic scale that in turn could trigger a worldwide economic collapse.
> 
> Now, researchers at Washington's Center for Strategic & International Studies have tried to assess the extent to which civilian targets will be damaged in any Iran-Israel nuclear exchange.
> 
> The initial fireball accompanying a 100-kiloton nuclear bomb exploding in the heart of Tel Aviv will instantly kill 8,966 people and injure 3,243 more, say Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan.
> 
> But within three weeks, that death toll will soar to nearly 800,000 as a plume of radiation spreads across the country.
> 
> Given its tiny size and 7.2 million population, a single nuclear blast could devastate Israel.
> 
> It could "wipe Israel off the map in a matter of seconds," Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said recently. The Iranians could "accomplish in a matter of seconds what they denied Hitler did, and kill six million Jews, literally."
> 
> "Any missile with a nuclear warhead landing in Tel Aviv, Israel, will affect the West Bank, causing a large number of fatalities and injuries to the Palestinian inhabitants, pollute and contaminate the agricultural land and resources that lie in the Jordan Valley and, over the longer term, fallout radiation would reach the outskirts of Amman, Jordan, which is some 108 kilometres from Tel Aviv," the study warns.
> 
> Retaliatory Israeli nuclear strikes, with higher-yield bombs and accurate rocket delivery systems, would be far more destructive.
> 
> A single 500-kiloton Israeli nuclear bomb dropped on Tehran would instantly kill 56,771 people and the death toll would soar to 1.47 million, with 5.1 million injured, within a week.
> 
> A full-fledged Israeli nuclear response, using some, but not all, of its 200 nuclear weapons, would target most major Iranian cities and major military bases. It would kill 16 million to 28 million people within three weeks.
> 
> Metropolitan Tehran, with a population of 15 million, is "a topographic basin with mountain reflector -- nearly an ideal nuclear killing ground," the study said.
> 
> With thousands of centrifuges spinning away to produce highly enriched uranium, Iran gets closer to owning nuclear weapons with each day that passes.
> 
> "I don't see a lot of space between where Iran is headed and the potential of where that development might lead," U. S. military chief Admiral Mike Mullen told a Washington think-tank recently. "My concern is that the clock continues ticking. I believe that Iran is very much focused on getting that capability. This is a very narrow space we have."
> 
> For now, the United States is committed to finding a diplomatic way to dissuade Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, is said to be seriously looking at military ways to destroy or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities.
> 
> "Time is working in Iran's favour, and barring military action, Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is only a matter of time," the Israeli Institute for National Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv said in a report two years ago.
> 
> Now, Israeli intelligence agencies predict Iran could have a nuclear weapon later this year or in 2010. The U. S. intelligencecommunity estimates it won't happen before 2013.
> 
> So what would an Israeli strike against Iran look like, what are the targets and the chances for success?
> 
> In another study by the Center for Strategic&International Studies this year, Mr. Cordesman and Mr. Toukan concluded, "A military strike by Israel against Iranian facilities is possible...[ but] would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate."
> 
> The main problem facing Israeli military planners is a lack of clear intelligence on Iran's complete nuclear program.
> 
> Most strategists agree there are three obvious targets that will have to be destroyed to damage Iran's nuclear program -- the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, where 50,000 centrifuges are being installed, a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan and a heavy-water reactor at Arak.
> 
> But, if Iran has a parallel secret uranium enrichment program, destroying the three obvious targets will do little to stop it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
> 
> As it is, the three prime targets are heavily defended, partially buried underground and protected with a thick sheath of steel-reinforced concrete.
> 
> That means Israel might have to rely on nuclear-tipped bunker-busting bombs.
> 
> Any attack force will also have to negotiate a dense air-defence system that includes surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft guns and combat planes.
> 
> It's also possible Iran has already bought and deployed a mobile anti-missile defence system from Russia.
> 
> An Israeli air strike would have to use 80 to 90 F-15 and F-16 aircraft (almost 20% of its fighters) as well as all nine of its aerial tankers to refuel the fighters.
> 
> Possible attack routes would see the Israelis fly north over the Mediterranean and refuel from airborne tankers before flying east over Turkey or Syria into Iran. A shorter route would run through Jordan and Iraq and directly into Iran, while a third possibility would be to fly southeast and then east along the Saudi-Iraq border to the Persian Gulf, attacking from the south.
> 
> Israel is believed to favour the northern route over Turkey. Last summer, it held a major military exercise over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean, with more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters and refuelling tankers.
> 
> About the same time, an Iraqi news agency cited Iraqi Defence Ministry sources as saying Israeli warplanes were flying in Jordanian airspace and landing in Iraq to practise raids on Iranian nuclear sites.
> 
> The report said the Israeli planes flew at night and landed at U. S. air bases near Haditha in western Iraq and Nasiriyah in the south.
> 
> An alternative to conventional air raids could see Israel attack the three key Iranian sites with ballistic missiles. Strategists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran two years ago concluded "after years of modernization, Israel now possesses the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of confidence."
> 
> The operation appears to be "no more risky" than the attack in June 1981 on the Osirak reactor in Iraq, which was destroyed by Israel to prevent Saddam Hussein getting nuclear weapons.
> 
> A similar attack on Iran "provides at least as much benefit in terms of delaying Iranian development of nuclear weapons," said researchers Whitney Raas and Austin Long.





First: There is, it seems to me a fair case to be made that the possession of nuclear weapons actually makes countries more *responsible*. But I’m sure few Israelis expect Iran to be less of a threat even if there is no evidence to suggest that having nuclear weapons increases aggression.

Second: No matter which set of options Israel pursues the Arabs and Persians lose, big time. There is no “winning scenario” for the Arabs/Persians. If they attack they “earn” the universal and unreserved condemnation of the entire civilized world, even France, and of much some of the less civilized world, too. Their oil will not help because China, Europe and Japan, supported by America, will move in to take whatever oil is not covered by a blanket of radiation. If they attack then we can be reasonably certain that, facing that which even Hitler could not accomplish, the Israelis will retaliate: massively and broadly. Amman, Baghdad, Cairo and Riyadh will likely suffer the same fate as Tehran. If the Israelis attack pre-emptively then the Arabs still lose because they will lack the political will and military acumen to band together and fight (and win) a conventional war against Israel. They will fail because they fear one another just as much – sometimes even more – than they fear Israel and none will commit enough resources to the “common cause” to achieve a victory.

Third: This is a regional, not a global, problem. Israel has no more, not less, *right* to exist than does, say, Angola or Botswana or Canada, for that matter. The Jews have a “claim” on Christendom’s conscience, Israel does not.

My *guess*: Israel will not launch a pre-emptive strike. Iran will attack, but not massively enough. Israel will retaliate: massively, broadly and cruelly. Muslims all over the world will suffer, for generations, for Iran’s folly. They will be despised and will suffer state sanctioned discrimination all around the world. Arab/Persian Islam, as a major, respectable world religion, will cease to exist; Islam will become an East Asian (Indonesian/Malaysian) religion that will shake off almost all of Islam’s Arab/Persian roots and absolutely all of its Arab/Persian cultural artefacts.


----------



## GAP

With the exception of a few intercine actions by various factions, that would seem to put paid to the whole issue....not the desired result or method, but not the first time massive upheaval changed history....


----------



## a_majoor

Multiple factors are now in play that make this difficult to call. Do the Iranians actually have enough enriched Uranium or Plutonium to make a weapon? Do they have the political will to strike (I suspect that there is a fairly large block of mullahs and politicians who are not ready to become radioactive vapour for the destruction of Israel). Will the reform movement topple the Theocracy, and if so, what will replace it?

We might start asking ourselves not if we need to send military forces to attack Iran, but should we be prepared to send forces to stabilize Iran in the chaos following the fall of the Theocracy. (If you thought Al Qada in Iraq or the Taliban were a bad scene, imagine stabilization ops against hordes of Basji and Revolutionary Guards cells determined to reimpose their vision on Iranian society).


----------



## CougarKing

Speaking of Iranian nuclear power:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99GET3G0&show_article=1



> *Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months  *
> 
> Jul 17 05:35 PM US/Eastern
> By GEORGE JAHN
> Associated Press Writer
> 
> 
> VIENNA (AP) - *Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
> The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West—and chances of Israeli attack—by embarking on such a course.
> 
> 
> But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.
> 
> For Iran to amass enough fissile material to conduct an underground test similar to North Korea's 2006 nuclear explosion, it would likely have to kick out monitors of the IAEA—the U.N. nuclear agency—from its one known uranium enrichment site at Natanz. Technicians then could reconfigure the centrifuges now churning out nuclear-fuel grade enriched uranium to highly enriched, weapons-grade material. *
> Iran is unlikely, however, to want to do that. Such a move would immediately set off international alarm bells and could bridge rifts on how strongly to react—Russia and China, which have resisted Western calls to increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear defiance, would likely endorse more sweeping U.N sanctions and other penalties.
> 
> With the U.N. nuclear agency strictly limited in its nuclear monitoring of Iran, the existence of a hidden enrichment site that could supply the weapons-grade uranium needed for a nuclear weapons test is also possible.
> 
> International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed Elbaradei has repeatedly warned that his agency cannot guarantee that Iran is not hiding nuclear activities. Iranian nuclear expert David Albright on Friday put the chances that such a secret site exists at "50-50."
> 
> But even a hidden enrichment plant meant to upgrade material to weapons level would likely have to be fed with low-enriched uranium from the Natanz site. So transporting that material would not escape the agency's detection.
> 
> In any case, international action—and possible Israeli attack—would be triggered at the latest by a nuclear test explosion.
> 
> Iran is still considered years away from developing a reliable nuclear warhead delivery system. So tipping its hand with a nuclear test, should it want to own such weapons, would make little sense.
> 
> "We are talking here not of intent but capability," said one of two western diplomats accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Like his colleague from another country, this diplomat—who has access to intelligence on Iran's nuclear program—demanded anonymity in exchange for discussions of the highly confidential issue.
> 
> Since its clandestine enrichment efforts were revealed more than six years ago, Iran has steadily increased activities at its cavernous underground facility at Natanz, a city about 300 miles (500 kilometers) south of Tehran.
> 
> An International Atomic Energy Agency report circulated last month said nearly 5,000 centrifuges were now enriching at Natanz—about 1,000 more than at the time of the last agency report, issued in February—with more than 2,000 others ready to start enriching.
> 
> Iran says it is interested in producing only low-enriched uranium for fuel use, not highly enriched material for the fissile core of nuclear weapons, and the U.N. nuclear agency has detected no effort at Natanz to contravene that assertion.
> 
> Still, if Iran decided to risk an international crisis, it has the means to make weapons-grade uranium.
> 
> Most experts estimate that the more than 1,000 kilograms—2,200 pounds—of low-enriched uranium Iran had accumulated by February was enough to produce enough weapons-grade material through further enrichment for one nuclear weapon.
> 
> And as Iran expands its operations at Natanz, its potential capacity to produce highly enriched uranium is also growing.
> 
> Albright's Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security last month estimated that with the nearly 5,000 centrifuges then operating Iran could accumulate enough material to produce weapons-grade uranium for two warheads by February 2010—or sooner, if it brought the more than 2,000 additional machines on line immediately.
> 
> But one of the diplomats said Iran had already brought more centrifuges into full operation. And the other said that in any case, a test explosion could occur even sooner.
> 
> *The six-month time frame confirmed to the AP Friday was first mentioned last week by the German magazine Stern, which cited Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst, its main intelligence branch.
> 
> Albright said Friday six months are "in line with our estimates."
> 
> Iran steadfastly refuses to stop enriching despite the imposition of three rounds of economic, trade and financial sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. And worries have been heightened by the country's refusal to grant the U.N. nuclear agency broadened monitoring rights of its steadily increasing Natanz operations.*
> 
> An International Atomic Energy Agency report last month touched on those concerns.
> 
> It said the agency had informed Iran that, due to the growth in enrichment capacity and output, it was seeking "improvements to the containment and surveillance measures" it now had at hand. And a senior U.N. official said expansion at Natanz "makes it increasingly difficult to do the surveillance" needed to ensure none of the material produced is being diverted.
> 
> To do its work at Natanz, the agency relies in part on monitoring by cameras and on inspections meant to give the Iranians a minimum of time between the announcement of the visit and the arrival of the inspectors—methods the agency would like to expand.
> 
> *Diplomats last month told the AP that Iran's refusal to allow any additional cameras was a setback, along with its recent delay of an unannounced International Atomic Energy Agency inspection.
> 
> Since then, Iran has refused to grant broader monitoring rights, said one of the diplomats Friday.
> 
> He said it has also refused agency requests to separate operations at Natanz, where enrichment occurs in the same space as centrifuge repairs and setups of new chains of linked centrifuges, creating chaotic scenes that are difficult to monitor.*
> 
> "It is really difficult for them to figure out what's happening, given the mix of different things going on," said the diplomat. He said that as of a week ago "Iran was not cooperating."


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I hope Xiang comes here soon and explains all this war mongering.  It actually seems like we should be concerned about Iran.


----------



## Yrys

Iranian Cleric Is Seeking the Mantle of Khomeini

WASHINGTON — During his decades in Iranian politics, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani 
has been praised as a pragmatist, criticized as spineless, accused of corruption and 
dismissed as a has-been.

Now, in assailing the government’s handling of last month’s disputed presidential election, 
Mr. Rafsanjani, a 75-year-old cleric and former president, has cast himself in a new light : 
as a player with the authority to interpret the ideals of Iran’s 30-year-old Islamic republic.
Using his perch as a designated prayer leader on Friday to deliver the speech of a lifetime, 
Mr. Rafsanjani abandoned his customary caution to demand that the government release 
those arrested in recent weeks, ease restrictions on the media and eradicate the “doubt” 
the Iranian people have about the election result. And he implicitly challenged the authority 
of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to make decisions without seeking 
consensus.

Behind the words was the assertion that for the Islamic republic to survive, it must restore
its legitimacy, reaffirm its republican institutions and find a formula for governing.

To establish his own legitimacy, Mr. Rafsanjani evoked his long political history. “What you 
are hearing now is from a person who has been with the revolution second by second from 
the very beginning of the struggle,” he said, adding, “We are talking about 60 years ago up 
until today.” He recalled that his mentor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the 1979 
revolution, said that the “people’s will” must be done, and in this case, he said, the trust of 
the people had been broken.

Mr. Rafsanjani was a supporter of the opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, during the 
campaign, and by speaking out on Friday he seemed to be moving closer to Mr. Moussavi as 
a public symbol of opposition. But Mr. Rafsanjani also took care not to directly deny the 
government’s declaration that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election.

In delivering his sermon, Mr. Rafsanjani was defying a government campaign to silence him, 
in which senior officials have interspersed personal attacks with veiled threats. That campaign 
continued Saturday, when conservative figures criticized his speech. He was also essentially 
usurping the institutional role of Ayatollah Khamenei.

“This was a speech Khamenei should have given,” said Farideh Farhi, a political scientist at the 
University of Hawaii. “That’s his designated role as the spiritual and political guide, to be above 
the fray. But Khamenei is probably too insecure and has too much to lose. He took sides. 
Rafsanjani rose to the occasion.” Still, it would be wrong to say that Mr. Rafsanjani has suddenly 
become a proponent of justice, human rights and freedom.

In the summer of 1999, after all, when the government crushed student demonstrations at Tehran 
University, he delivered a harsh sermon in the same place as he did on Friday. Back then, he blamed 
“enemies of the revolution” and “sources outside the country” for the unrest. He praised the use of 
force by the state. During much of his earlier eight-year presidency, many Iranians were executed, 
including political dissidents, drug offenders, Communists, Kurds, Bahais, even clerics.

Politically, Mr. Rafsanjani was humiliated twice: in 2000 when he ran for Parliament and came in 30th 
and last place in Tehran (amid charges of ballot fraud in his favor), and again in 2005, when he performed 
dismally in his bid to regain the presidency. But unlike many political figures, and certainly unlike most 
clerics, Mr. Rafsanjani is the consummate politician. He refuses to abandon the political battlefield in a 
country in which silence in the face of defeat is the norm. He also knows how to shift gears. A campaign 
photograph in the 2000 campaign showed him without his turban. He must have thought that a clerical 
uniform had become a liability.

Mr. Rafsanjani’s bold public stance is not without risks. Members of his family have been briefly detained 
during this period of turmoil, and the government could use his record, and his family’s financial dealings, 
to discredit him.

For his part, Ayatollah Khamenei delivered his own notable sermon four weeks ago, in which he embraced 
the victory of Mr. Ahmadinejad, called the election proof of the people’s trust in the system and threatened 
more violence if demonstrations continued.

Mr. Rafsanjani struggled to woo the center; the ayatollah stuck to his base of support on the right.
Mr. Rafsanjani spoke about the Prophet Muhammad’s style of governing in Medina, with its emphasis 
on listening to the people, and treating them with respect and “Islamic kindness.” He used a pragmatic 
argument in calling for the release of those who have been arrested. “Let’s not allow our enemies to 
reprimand and laugh at us and hatch plots against us just because a few certain people are in prison,” 
Mr. Rafsanjani said.

Ayatollah Khamenei, by contrast, in his sermon railed about the enemies of the prophet and the foreign 
enemies both inside and outside Iran. “The violators,” as he called them, are “the ill-wishers, mercenaries 
and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists.” Ironically, his speech sounded much like 
the one Mr. Rafsanjani gave after the disturbances a decade ago.

From the early days of the revolution, Mr. Rafsanjani has favored pragmatism over religious absolutism.
After the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979, Iran’s leaders demanded the return of the 
exiled Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as a condition of the release of the 52 American hostages. Mr. 
Rafsanjani had a better idea: “If the shah dies, that would help,” he said to this reporter in an interview 
in 1980. (Shortly afterward, the shah died of complications caused by cancer.)

In 1986, after the Reagan administration’s secret American arms sales to Iran were disclosed, Mr. Rafsanjani,
then the speaker of Parliament, used his Friday sermon to explain why. He said Iran needed to acquire 
weapons to fight Iraq, even if it meant dealing with the enemy, the United States. Later, he was credited 
with helping to persuade Ayatollah Khomeini to end the eight-year war.

A state-builder, Mr. Rafsanjani even set aside religion to rehabilitate the image of Persepolis, the site of the 
2,500-year-old Persian empire, saying, “Our people must know that they are not without a history.” This time,
he did not lay out goals. He did not say whether he hoped to get the election results overturned or merely to 
convince the country to make peace with those results.

“He doesn’t address the basic problem for the opposition: that they have been dealt with brutally on the 
streets and that this was a manipulated election,” said Shaul Bakhash, professor of Middle Eastern history 
at George Mason University.

In his 1963 book about miracles, Mr. Rafsanjani bragged that he was saved from an assassin’s bullet because 
of his “revolutionary speed” and his willingness to “punch those who say nonsense.” Given the fluid nature of 
Iranian politics, it would be foolish to predict whether he can make miracles today.


----------



## CougarKing

Another update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> By NASSER KARIMI and LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writers Nasser Karimi And Lee Keath, Associated Press Writers – Tue Jul 21, 1:56 pm ET
> TEHRAN, Iran – Security forces and pro-government militiamen clamped down in the Iranian capital to prevent protests Tuesday as the country's police chief warned his forces would take a tough line if the opposition tries to take to the street.
> 
> Plainclothes Basiji militiamen hit passers-by with batons on a crowded main Tehran street to ensure they wouldn't gather, according to video from the site posted on line. A young woman in a headscarf can be seen arguing with the Basijis, who shove her.
> 
> Regular police forces were out in large numbers in parts of central Tehran, causing large traffic jams, but witnesses around the city speaking to The Associated Press did not report that any protests came together. There was no immediate report of arrests in the day's clampdown.
> 
> Some opposition activists had called for demonstrations Tuesday to mark the passage of 30 days since the killing of Neda Agha Soltan, a 27-year-old woman shot to death during a Tehran demonstration on June 20. Her dying moments on the street were caught on video and she was elevated to a symbol of the mass protest movement that erupted after Iran's disputed June 12 presidential election.
> The protest call was also issued to coincide with the anniversary of nationwide protests that brought liberal Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh to office in 1950.
> 
> Last month's presidential election sparked massive protests by hundreds of thousands in support of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, after he claimed that official results were fraudulent and that he, not hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won the vote.
> 
> A heavy crackdown by police, Basijis and the elite Revolutionary Guards shattered the protests, arresting more than 2,000 and killing at least 20 protesters — though rights groups say the toll is likely far higher. More than 500 protesters and opposition leaders remain in prison.
> 
> In the past two weeks, the opposition has been able to stage smaller protests twice, each time bringing out thousands of people, sparking clashes with police and the Basij. On Tuesday, the state news agency IRNA reported that 40 people were arrested during the last demonstrations, on Friday. It quoted police officials saying most of the 40 were released but a "handful" remained in custody.
> 
> Iran's police chief Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam on Tuesday denounced the opposition and vowed that his forces would "deal with anyone, regardless of their status, who violates the law."
> 
> In a speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad, he blasted opposition leaders as "liars" and said they were "spreading sedition," IRNA reported.
> 
> ____
> 
> Nasser Karimi reported from Tehran, Lee Keath from Cairo, Egypt.


----------



## CougarKing

Another update: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei rejects the newly appointed vice-president of Ahmadinejad! And it seems from the updates below that there is now a major rift that has formed between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad because of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_politics



> *Leader rejects Iran vice president appointment*
> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer
> 33 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – *President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sticking by his controversial appointment for first vice president in an unusual defiance of a reported order from the supreme leader for his removal.
> 
> Ahmadinejad says he wants time to explain his decision to appoint Esfandiar Rahim Mashai to the post. In a speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad has praised Mashai as an "honest and pious man," according to the state news agency IRNA.
> 
> Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the president to remove Mashai*, semiofficial media have reported. Mashai's appointment last week angered the hard-line base because of his past pro-Israel comments.
> 
> THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — *Iran's supreme leader handed a humiliation to the president, ordering him to dismiss his choice for top deputy after the appointment drew sharp condemnation from their hard-line base, media reported Wednesday.
> 
> The move by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to show his need to keep hard-liners' support even at the cost of angering the president, a close ally — at a time when Khamenei is facing unprecedented opposition after the disputed June 12 election.
> 
> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appointment for his top vice president sparked a deep split within the hard-line camp to which he belongs. A chorus of ultra-conservative clerics and politicians denounced his choice, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, while Ahmadinejad had strongly defended the appointment.
> 
> Mashai is a relative by marriage to Ahmadinejad — his daughter is married to the president's son.* Mashai angered hard-liners in 2008 when he said Iranians were "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis." He was serving as vice president in charge of tourism and cultural heritage at the time.
> 
> *Iran has 12 vice presidents, but the first vice president is the most important because he succeeds the president if he dies, is incapacitated, steps down or is removed. The first vice president also leads Cabinet meetings in the absence of the president.*
> 
> After days of controversy, Khamenei ruled. "The view of the exalted leader on the removal of Mashai from the post of vice president has been given to Ahmadinejad in writing," the semiofficial Fars news agency reported Wednesday.
> 
> It was an expansion of the already broad powers of Khamenei, who has the ultimate say in state affairs in Iran. The supreme leader is believed to informally weigh in on senior government appointments behind the scenes. But he does not have a formal role in approving appointments and it is extremely rare for him to order an official's removal.
> 
> In the election dispute, Khamenei strongly supported the president, who is seen as his protege, declaring valid the results that showed Ahmadinejad's re-election. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi claims he won the election and Ahmadinejad's victory is fraudulent, and hundreds of thousands of supporters marched in the street in the weeks after the election.
> 
> A fierce crackdown suppressed the massive street protests. But the opposition continues to press its claims that Ahmadinejad's government is illegitimate. More importantly, the clerical leadership that Khamenei in theory leads has been split, with many moderate clerics angered by the handling of the election crisis or outright supportive of Mousavi.
> 
> That has made Khamenei more reliant on hard-line clerics for support.
> 
> It was not immediately clear if Ahmadinejad would cave in to Khamenei's order.
> 
> Ali Akbar Javanfekr, top media adviser to Ahmadinejad, said on Tuesday that the president won't change his mind over the controversy. But it was unclear if his comments came before or after the supreme leader's order.
> 
> "The president makes his decisions ... within the framework of his legal powers and on the basis of investigations carried out. Experience has proved that creating baseless controversies won't influence the president's decision," Javanfekr said in his blog.
> 
> Nearly the same time as Khamenei was issuing his order late Tuesday, Ahmadinejad vowed to keep Mashai.
> 
> "Mr. Mashai is a supporter of the position of the supreme leader and a pious, caring, honest and creative caretaker for Iran ... Why should he resign?" the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Mashai has been appointed as first vice president and continues his activities in the government."
> 
> The deputy speaker of the parliament, Mohammad Hasan Aboutorabi-Fard, meanwhile, said that Mashai's dismissal was a decision by the ruling system itself, according to the semiofficial ISNA news.
> 
> "Removing Mashai from key posts and the position of vice president is a strategic decision of the system ... Dismissal or resignation of Mashai needs to be announced by the president without any delay," ISNA quoted him as saying late Tuesday.
> 
> Iran's state television didn't report Ahmadinejad's comments supporting his deputy. A conservative Web site said TV officials had orders from higher officials not to do so.
> 
> In his first term, Ahmadinejad had several tussles with his own hard-line camp over appointments, some of whom were seen as not qualified for their posts. In most cases, Khamenei stayed on the sidelines of those disputes.
> 
> Last year, the supreme leader rebuked Mashai, calling his Israel comments "illogical," but he also demanded that the flap over the comments be put the rest and expressed support for Ahmadinejad. Mashai remained in his position.
> 
> Mashai also angered many of Iran's top clerics in 2007 when he attended a ceremony in Turkey where women performed a traditional dance. Conservative interpretations of Islam prohibit women from dancing.
> 
> He ran into trouble again in 2008 when he hosted a ceremony in Tehran in which several women played tambourines and another one carried the Quran to a podium to recite verses from the Muslim holy book.


----------



## CougarKing

A political power struggle in the making?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_politics



> Iran president defies supreme leader over deputy
> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Lee Keath, Associated Press Writers
> 33 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad showed rare defiance of his strongest backer, Iran's supreme leader, by insisting on his choice for vice president Wednesday despite vehement opposition from hard-liners that has opened a deep rift in the conservative leadership.
> 
> The tussle over the appointment comes at a time when the clerical leadership is facing its strongest challenge in decades following last month's disputed presidential election.
> 
> Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's top concern appears to be keeping the strong support of clerical hard-liners so he can withstand attempts by the more moderate, pro-reform opposition to erode his authority.
> 
> Conservative clerics and politicians have denounced Ahmadinejad's choice for the post of first vice president, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, because Mashai said last year that Iranians are friends with Israelis. There are also concerns because Mashai is a relative of Ahmadinejad — his daughter is married to the president's son.
> 
> Khamenei ordered Ahmadinejad to remove Mashai, semiofficial media reported Wednesday.
> 
> Arguing for a further chance to make his case, Ahmadinejad said, "there is a need for time and another opportunity to fully explain my real feelings and assessment about Mr. Mashai."
> 
> The president may be digging in because he fears an attempt by hard-liners to dictate the government he is due to form next month.
> 
> *At the center of the dispute between the president and supreme leader is Mashai, a member of Ahmadinejad's personal inner circle. Iran has 12 vice presidents, and Mashai has been serving in one of the slots in charge of tourism and culture. Ahmadinejad said last week he was elevating Mashai to the first vice presidency. That is the most important of the 12 because it is in line to succeed the president if he dies, is incapacitated or removed. The first vice president also leads Cabinet meetings in the president's absence.
> 
> Ahmadinejad is a member of the hard-line camp, but throughout his first term he had disputes over policy and appointments with fellow conservatives, some of whom accused him of hoarding too much power for close associates rather than spreading it among factions.*
> 
> *Most surprising is Ahmadinejad's defiance of Khamenei's order for Mashai's removal. The supreme leader has been the president's top defender in the election dispute, dismissing opposition claims that Ahmadinejad's victory in the June 12 vote was fraudulent. The opposition says pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi was the real winner and calls Ahmadinejad's government illegitimate.
> 
> Hard-line clerics on Wednesday demanded the president obey Khamenei.
> 
> Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said whether Mashai is immediately dismissed "will test Ahmadinejad's loyalty to the supreme leader."*
> 
> "When the exalted supreme leader takes a position explicitly, his statement must be accepted by all means and implemented immediately," he said, according to the Mehr news agency. "Those who voted for Ahmadinejad because of his loyalty to the supreme leader expect the president to show his obedience ... in practice."
> 
> Ahmadinejad may believe Khamenei's rejection of Mashai is not written in stone and is testing whether he can keep his close associate.
> 
> Iran expert Suzanne Maloney pointed out that the supreme leader has not publicly spoken on the issue and reports of his order have been leaked by hard-liners through semiofficial media.
> 
> "If Khamenei comes out in Friday prayers calling for (Mashai's) removal, then it would be difficult to imagine Ahmadinejad would refuse that," said Maloney, with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Washington-based Brookings think tank.
> 
> Ahmadinejad is "not looking to open his second term by picking a fight with his most important ally in the system," she said.
> 
> Khamenei's order to remove Mashai is unusual extension of his powers — perhaps a sign he wants to strengthen his position as unquestioned leader in the face of the reformist threat.
> 
> As supreme leader, Khamenei has ultimate say in state affairs and stands at the peak of the unelected clerical leadership that under Iran's Islamic Republic can overrule the elected presidency and parliament.
> 
> Traditionally, the supreme leader has stayed out of a public role in government appointments. He is believed often to informally vet choices for senior positions behind the scenes, but he does not have a formal role in approving them or an official power to remove them. Even under Iran's 1997-2005 pro-reform government, with which Khamenei clashed, he never overtly ousted any of its officials.
> 
> Now Khamenei is facing tests to his authority on two fronts. One is from Ahmadinejad, the other is the open defiance from the reformist opposition, which has continued its campaign against Ahmadinejad despite the supreme leader's declarations that the election dispute is over.
> 
> Powerful moderate clerics in the religious leadership under Khamenei have backed Mousavi or declined to recognize Ahmadinejad as the victor. Hundreds of thousands held mass protests in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the election, but were crushed in a heavy crackdown that killed at least 20 protesters and left more than 500 in prison. Still, the opposition has managed to hold two smaller protests since, and is demanding a referendum on Ahmadinejad's legitimacy.
> 
> The announcement outraged hard-liners, who have opposed Mashai since he said in 2008 that Iranians were "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis." Mashai also angered many top clerics in 2007 when he attended a ceremony in Turkey where women performed a traditional dance and in 2008 when he hosted a ceremony in which women played tambourines. Conservative interpretations of Islam oppose women dancing.
> 
> After days of controversy, Khamenei weighed in. The semiofficial Fars news agency reported Wednesday that Ahmadinejad had been notified of the leader's order to remove Mashai.
> 
> The deputy parliament speaker, Mohammad Hasan Aboutorabi-Fard, said late Tuesday that Mashai's dismissal was "a strategic decision" by the system of ruling clerics and he must be removed "without delay," according to the semiofficial ISNA news.
> 
> Later Wednesday, Ahmadinejad stuck by Mashai in a speech at Mashai's farewell ceremony from his lower vice presidential post.
> 
> "One of virtues and glories God has bestowed to me in life was to get acquainted with this great, honest and pious man," Ahmadinejad said, according to the state news agency IRNA. He said he has "a thousand reasons" to support Mashai and that there was "no convincing" reason for the attacks on his choice.
> 
> ___
> 
> Dareini reported from Tehran; Keath from Cairo, Egypt.


----------



## CougarKing

And now Ahmadinejad caves in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_politics



> *Iran president caves in, dismisses his top deputy*
> 1 hr 2 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caved into pressure from hardline clerics and the country's supreme leader Friday and allowed the resignation of his top deputy after a week-long standoff.
> 
> For days, the president had resisted pressure from hard-liners, including a direct order from the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to dismiss his choice for the key post of first vice president, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, who last year angered conservatives when he made friendly comments toward Israel.
> 
> The final blow, however, appeared to be the public reading on state television of the order issued earlier by Khamenei to dismiss Mashai because he is "contrary to the interest of you and the government."
> 
> The issue created a rare rift between Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners that form the bedrock of his support and comes at a particular sensitive time as he is battling opposition reformists who accuse him of winning the June 12 presidential elections through fraud.
> 
> "After the announcement of the exalted supreme leader's order, Mashai doesn't consider himself first vice president," IRNA quoted presidential aide Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi as saying late Friday.
> 
> The resignation capped a day of renewed pressure that featured conservative student street demonstrations and Friday sermons railing against Mashai's appointment.
> 
> Despite all the pressure, Ahmadinejad had pleaded for more time to explain his reasons for choosing a man he had described as a "pious, caring, honest and creative caretaker for Iran." Mashai's son is also married to the president's daughter.
> 
> The president even continued to back his man after his greatest supporter and the supreme leader of the country issued a private order Monday telling him that the appointment "causes a rift and disillusionment among your supporters. The aforementioned appointment must be canceled and consider it null and void."
> 
> Reading the order publicly Friday dramatically increased the pressure on Ahmadinejad, and further refusal to act would have amounted to a flagrant and public defiance of the supreme leader.
> 
> The issue was also the topic of the main Friday prayer sermon in Tehran. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said that "now that he (Khamenei) has expressed his opinion, there is no room for delay anymore."
> 
> Khamenei has the final say over all state matters and has rarely faced defiance in the past. That changed following last month's election when supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi challenged Khamenei's ruling that the June 12 vote was fair.
> 
> The flap over the vice presidency appears to signal a move by Khamenei to entrench for himself an even more unquestionable status in the face of the reformist threat. By demanding Mashai's removal, Khamenei is effectively appropriating a new power, since normally the supreme leader does not intervene openly to remove a government official, though he is believed to often vet appointments behind the scenes.
> 
> The president's brief defiance may have been out of fear of an attempt by hard-liners to dictate the government he is due to form next month.
> 
> Mashai angered hard-liners in 2008 when he said Iranians were "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis." He was serving as vice president in charge of tourism and cultural heritage at the time.
> 
> Iran has 12 vice presidents, but the first vice president is the most important because he succeeds the president if he dies, is incapacitated, steps down or is removed. The first vice president also leads Cabinet meetings in the absence of the president.
> 
> Hard-line students protesting in the streets Friday warned Ahmadinejad that they will withdraw their support unless he dismisses Mashai.
> 
> "Obeying the leader's order is the demand of the nation," they chanted.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

So, question for Xiang (if he/she is still around)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_politics


> Mashai angered hard-liners in 2008 when he said Iranians were "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis." He was serving as vice president in charge of tourism and cultural heritage at the time.



Okay, so if this VP got binned because he was slightly pro-Israel, and the entire ruling class of Iran snapped when he got his post, is there any reason to believe that Iran doesn't want to see Israel destroyed as they have so clearly stated in the past?  And since we all pretty much know that is the case, would not having nuclear weapons not be the best, most efficient way to make that happen?


----------



## a_majoor

Even if Iran had no oil at all, it would still be in play due to it's geographic position. An interesting piece about Iran and China:

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/KG26Ad02.html



> *NEW GREAT GAME REVISITED, Part 2*
> Iran, China and the New Silk Road
> By Pepe Escobar
> 
> Part 1: Iran and Russia, scorpions in a bottle
> 
> HONG KONG - Does it make sense to talk about a Beijing-Tehran axis? Apparently no, when one learns that Iran's application to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was flatly denied at the 2008 summit in Tajikistan.
> 
> Apparently yes, when one sees how the military dictatorship of the mullahtariat in Tehran and the collective leadership in Beijing have dealt with their recent turmoil - the "green revolution" in Tehran and the Uighur riots in Urumqi - reawakening in the West the ghostly mythology of "Asian despotism".
> 
> The Iran-China relationship is like a game of Chinese boxes. Amid the turbulence, glorious or terrifying, of their equally millenarian histories, when one sees an Islamic Republic that now reveals itself as a militarized theocracy and a Popular Republic that is in fact a capitalist oligarchy, things are not what they seem to be.
> 
> No matter what recently happened in Iran, consolidating the power the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad-IRGC axis, the relationship will continue to develop within the framework of a clash between US hyperpower - declining as it may be - and the aspiring Chinese big power, allied with the re-emergent Russian big power.
> 
> On the road
> 
> Iran and China are all about the New Silk Road - or routes - in Eurasia. Both are among the most venerable and ancient of (on the road) partners. The first encounter between the Parthian empire and the Han dynasty was in 140 BC, when Zhang Qian was sent to Bactria (in today's Afghanistan) to strike deals with nomad populations. This eventually led to Chinese expansion in Central Asia and interchange with India.
> 
> Trading exploded via the fabled Silk Road - silk, porcelain, horses, amber, ivory, incense. As a serial traveler across the Silk Road over the years, I ended up learning on the spot how the Persians controlled the Silk Road by mastering the art of making oases, thus becoming in the process the middlemen between China, India and the West.
> 
> Parallel to the land route there was also a naval route - from the Persian Gulf to Canton (today's Guangzhou). And there was of course a religious route - with Persians translating Buddhist texts and with Persian villages in the desert serving as springboards to Chinese pilgrims visiting India. Zoroastrianism - the official religion of the Sassanid empire - was imported to China by Persians at the end of the 6th century, and Manichaeism during the 7th. Diplomacy followed: the son of the last Sassanid emperor - fleeing the Arabs in 670 AD - found refuge in the Tang court. During the Mongol period, Islam spread into China.
> 
> Iran has never been colonized. But it was a privileged theater of the original Great Game between the British Empire and Russia in the 19th century and then during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union in the 20th. The Islamic Revolution may at first imply Khomeini's official policy of "neither East nor West". In fact, Iran dreams of bridging both.
> 
> *That brings us to Iran's key, inescapable geopolitical role at the epicenter of Eurasia. The New Silk Road translates into an energy corridor - the Asian Energy Security Grid - in which the Caspian Sea is an essential node, linked to the Persian Gulf, from where oil is to be transported to Asia. And as far as gas is concerned, the name of the game is Pipelineistan - as in the recently agreed Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline and the interconnection between Iran and Turkmenistan, whose end result is a direct link between Iran and China. *
> 
> Then there's the hyper-ambitious, so-called "North-South corridor" - a projected road and rail link between Europe and India, through Russia, Central Asia, Iran and the Persian Gulf. And the ultimate New Silk Road dream - an actual land route between China and the Persian Gulf via Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan).
> 
> The width of the circle
> 
> As the bastion of Shi'ite faith, encircled by Sunnis, Iran under what is now a de facto theocratic dictatorship still desperately needs to break out from its isolation. Talk about a turbulent environment: Iraq still under US occupation to the west, the ultra-unstable Caucasus in the northwest, fragile Central Asian "stans" in the northeast, basket cases Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east, not to mention the nuclear neighborhood -Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan and India.
> 
> Technological advancement for Iran means fully mastering a civilian nuclear program - which contains the added benefit of turning it into a sanctuary via the possibility of building a nuclear device. Officially, Tehran has declared ad infinitum it has no intention of possessing an "un-Islamic" bomb. Beijing understands Tehran's delicate position and supports its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Beijing would have loved to see Tehran adopt the plan proposed by Russia, the US, Western Europe and, of course, China. Carefully evaluating its vital energy and national security interests, the last thing Beijing wants is for Washington to clench its fist again.
> 
> What happened to the George W Bush-declared, post-9/11 "global war on terror" (GWOT), now remixed by Obama as "overseas contingency operations" (OCO)? GWOT's key, shadowy aim was for Washington to firmly plant the flag in Central Asia. For those sorry neo-cons, China was the ultimate geopolitical enemy, so nothing was more enticing than to try to sway a batch of Asian countries against China. Easier dreamed of than done.
> 
> China's counter-power was to turn the whole game around in Central Asia, with Iran as its key peon. Beijing was quick to grasp that Iran is a matter of national security, in terms of assuring its vast energy needs.
> 
> Of course China also needs Russia - for energy and technology. This is arguably more of an alliance of circumstance - for all the ambitious targets embodied by the SCO - than a long-term strategic partnership. Russia, invoking a series of geopolitical reasons, considers its relationship with Iran as exclusive. China says slow down, we're also in the picture. And as Iran remains under pressure at different levels from both the US and Russia, what better "savior" than China?
> 
> Enter Pipelineistan. At first sight, Iranian energy and Chinese technology is a match made in heaven. But it's more complicated than that.
> 
> Still the victim of US sanctions, Iran has turned to China to modernize itself. Once again, the Bush/Dick Cheney years and the invasion of Iraq sent an unmistakable message to the collective leadership in Beijing. A push to control Iraq oil plus troops in Afghanistan, a stone's throw from the Caspian, added to the Pentagon's self-defined "arc of instability" from the Middle East to Central Asia - this was more than enough to imprint the message: the less dependent China is on US-subjugated Arab Middle East energy, the better.
> 
> The Arab Middle East used to account for 50% of China's oil imports. Soon China became the second-largest oil importer from Iran, after Japan. And since fateful 2003, China also has mastered the full cycle of prospection/exploitation/refining - thus Chinese companies are investing heavily in Iran's oil sector, whose refining capacity, for instance, is risible. Without urgent investment, some projections point to Iran possibly cutting off oil exports by 2020. Iran also needs everything else China can provide in areas like transportation systems, telecom, electricity and naval construction.
> 
> Iran needs China to develop its gas production in the gigantic north Pars and south Pars fields - which it shares with Qatar - in the Persian Gulf. So no wonder a "stable" Iran had to become a matter of Chinese national security.
> 
> Multipolar we go
> 
> So why the stalemate at the SCO? As China is always meticulously seeking to improve its global credibility, it had to be considering the pros and cons of admitting Iran, for which the SCO and its slogan of mutual cooperation for the stability of Central Asia, as well as economic and security benefits, are priceless. The SCO fights against Islamic terrorism and "separatism" in general - but now has also developed as an economic body, with a development fund and a multilateral economic council. The whole idea of it is to curb American influence in Central Asia.
> 
> Iran has been an observer since 2005. Next year may be crucial. The race is on to beat the clock, before a desperate Israeli strike, and have Iran accepted by the SCO while negotiating some sort of stability pact with the Barack Obama administration. For all this to happen relatively smoothly, Iran needs China - that is, to sell as much oil and gas as China needs below market prices, while accepting Chinese - and Russian - investment in the exploration and production of Caspian oil.
> 
> All this while Iran also courts India. Both Iran and India are focused on Central Asia. In Afghanistan, India is financing the construction of a US$250 million road between Zaranj, at the Iranian border, and Delaram - which is in the Afghan ring road linking Kabul, Kandahar, Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif. New Delhi sees in Iran a very important market. India is actively involved in the construction of a deep water port in Chabahar - that would be a twin for the Gwadar port built in southern Balochistan by China, and would be very helpful to landlocked Afghanistan (freeing it from Pakistani interference).
> 
> Iran also needs its doors to the north - the Caucasus and Turkey - to channel its energy production towards Europe. It's an uphill struggle. Iran has to fight fierce regional competition in the Caucasus; the US-Turkey alliance framed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the perpetual US-Russian Cold War in the region; and last but not least Russia's own energy policy, which simply does not contemplate sharing the European energy market with Iran.
> 
> But energy agreements with Turkey are now part of the picture - after the moderate Islamists of the AKP took power in Ankara in 2002. Now it's not that far-fetched to imagine the possibility of Iran in the near future supplying much-needed gas for the ultra-expensive, US-supported Turkey-to-Austria Nabucco pipeline.
> 
> But the fact remains that for both Tehran and Beijing, the American thrust in the "arc of instability" from the Middle East to Central Asia is anathema. They're both anti-US hegemony and US unilateralism, Bush/Cheney style. As emerging powers, they're both pro multipolar. And as they're not Western-style liberal democracies, the empathy is even stronger. Few failed to notice the stark similarities in the degree of repression of the "green revolution" in Tehran and the Uighurs in Xinjiang. For China, a strategic alliance with Iran is above all about Pipelineistan, the Asian Energy Security Grid and the New Silk Road. For China, a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear dossier is imperative. This would lead to Iran being fully opened to (eager) European investment. Washington may be reluctant to admit it, but in the New Great Game in Eurasia, the Tehran-Beijing axis spells out the future: multipolarity.
> 
> Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).


----------



## CougarKing

And the unrest has returned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> *Police beat mourners in new wave of unrest in Iran*
> Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 51 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian police fired tear gas and beat protesters to disperse thousands chanting "Neda lives!" Thursday at a memorial for victims of post-election violence held at the gravesite of the woman whose death made her an icon of the pro-reform movement, witnesses said.
> 
> The new wave of unrest showed the opposition's continuing ability to harness anger over the crackdown, and more protests could erupt around the inauguration next week of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government has been virtually paralyzed by the crisis.
> 
> Thursday's memorial gathering marked the end of the traditional 40-day mourning period for Neda Agha Soltan, a 27-year-old music student who was shot to death June 20. Her dying moments were filmed and circulated widely on the Internet, making her name a rallying cry for the opposition.
> 
> "Neda is alive! Ahmadinejad is dead!" chanted protesters, many holding up single red roses tied with green ribbons, the signature color of the opposition.
> 
> Plainclothes forces dispersed the crowd with tear gas and batons — and with chants of "Death to those who are against the supreme leader," according to witnesses and state television.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Debka file... Not exactly a balanced news source, but an interesting article nonetheless:




> The weeklong US-Israel marathon in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ending Thursday, July 30 was the platform for the Obama administration's first unveiling of a new US diplomatic-military program for Iran and its nuclear threat, DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources disclose.
> 
> ...
> 
> The new approach consists of three steps for thwarting Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb:
> 
> 1. Diplomatic engagement as far as it will go. The American officials assured Israel they were aware of the diminishing chances of this track succeeding in view of the Islamic regime's domestic troubles, but the US administration is still determined to give it a chance up until early September.
> 
> 2. If diplomacy fails, Washington will embark on the phased introduction of increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, such as an embargo on exporting refined oil products including gasoline to Iran and a blockade on its sea ports.
> 
> 3. If Iran continues to forge ahead with its nuclear and missile development, the US will resort to its military options.
> 
> DEBKAfile's military sources report that the American visitors shared with Israeli leaders their specific plans of actions with details of the resources they planned to wield.



http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6203


----------



## CougarKing

Seems there's always a "confession" in Kangaroo courts like these.   :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



> TEHRAN, Iran – *A young French academic and local staff of the British and French embassies stood trial Saturday with dozens of Iranian opposition figures and confessed to being involved in the country's postelection unrest.*
> 
> Iran's opposition and rights groups have condemned the trial as a sham and say such confessions are coerced and scripted. Britain, which seemed caught off guard by the appearance of its embassy employee, called it an outrage, while France demanded the immediate release of its citizen.
> 
> Saturday's second hearing at Tehran's Revolutionary Court involved a new group of detainees and focused on testimony from the French academic and the two other foreign-linked defendants, demonstrating the government's resolve to taint Iran's pro-reform movement as a tool of foreign countries — particularly Britain and the United States.
> 
> The prosecutor accused the two countries of fomenting the unrest in an attempt to engineer a "soft overthrow" of the government.
> 
> The French academic and the two embassy employees took turns standing at a podium in the large, wood-paneled courtroom to make confessions before a judge seated between two large portraits for Iran's supreme leader and the Islamic Republic's founder.
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

The UN does it's usual sterling job:

http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-iaea-hiding-evidence-of-irans.html



> *Is the IAEA hiding evidence of Iran's nuclear plans???*
> 
> You can always count on the UN to do the wrong thing...
> The world's nuclear weapons watchdog is hiding data on Iran's drive to obtain nuclear arms, senior Western diplomats and Israeli officials told Haaretz.
> 
> The officials and diplomats said that the International Atomic Energy Agency under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei was refraining from publishing evidence obtained by its inspectors over the past few months that indicate Iran was pursuing information about weaponization efforts and a military nuclear program.
> 
> ElBaradei, who will soon vacate his post, has said that the agency does not have any evidence that suggests Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> But the sources told Haaretz that the new evidence was submitted to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors in the Islamic Republic. The report was said to have been signed by the head of the IAEA team in Iran.
> 
> *The classified report, according to the sources, was not incorporated into the agency's published reports. The details, they said, were censored by senior officials of the IAEA in the organization's Vienna headquarters.*
> 
> American, French, British and German senior officials have recently pressured ElBaradei to publish the information next month in a report due to be released at the organization's general conference.
> 
> "We expect the details to appear in the new report and to be made public," a senior Western diplomat told Haaretz.
> 
> The efforts to release the allegedly censored report is being handled in Israel by Dr. Shaul Horev, director general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, and the Foreign Ministry. Asked about this sensitive subject, several Israeli diplomats declined to comment. The Prime Minister's Bureau also declined to comment, but the report was not denied.
> 
> Israel has been striving to pressure the IAEA through friendly nations and have it release the censored annex. It hopes to prove that the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons is continuing, contrary to claims that Tehran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. A confirmation of these suspicion would oblige the international community to enact "paralyzing sanctions" on Iran.
> 
> Throughout his term, Israel has accused ElBaradei of not tackling the Iranian nuclear issue with sufficient determination. As the end of his term in December nears, Israeli diplomats are concerned that he will become less responsive and continue to hide the classified report.


----------



## CougarKing

Russia reciprocating to Israel for those UAVs it bought recently from them?



> *Russia May Review Air Defense Sale to Iran: Israel*
> AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> Published: 19 Aug 2009 05:19
> 
> 
> MOSCOW - President Dmitry Medvedev has promised to review Russia's planned sale of its sophisticated S-300 air defense system to Iran, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Aug. 19, news agencies reported.
> 
> "President Medvedev promised to review this issue once again after I explained that it would have an impact on the balance of force in our region," Peres said a day after he held talks with the Russian leader.
> 
> *The contract for the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems is reported to have been signed back in 2005 but has proved hugely controversial as the weapons would significantly upgrade Iranian air defense capabilities.*
> 
> Amid repeated U.S. objections over the contract, Russian officials have emphasized over the last months that none of the S-300 systems have been delivered to Tehran.


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps conflict with Iran will actually be a global conflict involving the Axis of Evil (or the Axis of Evil 2.0: Syria, Iran and North Korea). Of course if the current Administration keeps insisting on talk rather than action, they may find themselves pulled into a conflict by Israel, the ROK or perhaps China when they attempt to deal with these rogue regimes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap9U2VfbfCBs



> *UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran (Update2)*
> 
> By Bill Varner
> 
> Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship carrying North Korean-manufactured munitions, detonators, explosives and rocket-propelled grenades bound for Iran in violation of United Nations sanctions, diplomats said.
> 
> The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public. They said the ship, owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailing under a Bahamian flag, was carrying 10 containers of arms disguised as oil equipment.
> 
> The council committee that monitors enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea wrote letters to Iran and the government in Pyongyang asking for explanations of the violation, and one to the UAE expressing appreciation for the cooperation, the envoys said. No response has been received and the UAE has unloaded the cargo, they said.
> 
> The UAE and Iranian missions to the UN didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Financial Times reported the weapons seizure earlier today.
> 
> The Security Council voted on June 12 to adopt a resolution that punishes North Korea for its recent nuclear-bomb test and missile launches through cargo inspections and enforcement of restrictions on financial transactions. The measure calls for the interdiction at seaports, airports or in international waters of any cargo suspected of containing arms or nuclear or missile-related materials going to or from North Korea.
> 
> UN Sanctions
> 
> Iran is under three sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process to isolate a uranium isotope needed to generate fuel for a nuclear power reactor or, in higher concentrations, to make a weapon.
> 
> Iran denies allegations by the U.S. and some of its major allies that it seeks an atomic weapon or the means to build one, insisting the nuclear work is intended to generate electricity.
> 
> U.S. President Barack Obama has said the Iranian government must respond by late September to his request for new talks on curbing its nuclear program. Iran last month said work is under way on proposals that may provide the basis for renewed talks.
> 
> To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner at the United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net


----------



## CougarKing

Another update:



> In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government's proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: *the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. *
> In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities.
> 
> *"An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face," the paper wrote.*Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route.
> 
> *Another Republican ultra-hawk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, maintains that additional sanctions alone will not be enough to make the Iranians abandon their nuclear ambitions. William Cohen, who served as secretary of defense during Bill Clinton's second presidential term (1997-2001), says that "there is a countdown taking place" and that Israel "is not going to sit indifferently on the sidelines and watch Iran continue on its way toward a nuclear-weapons capability."
> 
> The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, explains that "a very narrow window" exists between the possibility of resolving the issue and an attack on Iran.
> 
> An op-ed in The Los Angeles Times states (with some justification) that if Iran does not respond in September to the demands made of it, the world should brace itself for an Israeli attack. However, the author adds (mistakenly) that in the event of an Israeli strike, Obama "will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA."
> 
> This month will mark a critical juncture in Iran's race for nuclear capability. The timetable is getting ever shorter: Most Western intelligence services share the assessment that over the course of 2010, Iran will accumulate sufficient fissionable material to produce two or three nuclear bombs. If the Iranians succeed in dispersing this material among a large number of secret sites, it will reduce the likelihood that the project can be stopped.
> 
> Even though Obama has now been in office for seven and a half months, Tehran has not responded to his offer to engage in direct dialogue about the nuclear issue.
> 
> At first the talks were deferred in anticipation of the Iranian presidential elections in June, then because of the internal crisis that erupted there in their wake, and now the regime is engaging in additional - and typical - delay tactics. Last week, for the first time, Tehran announced readiness in principle to conduct negotiations with the international community.*
> 
> Peaceful enrichment
> 
> The European Union appears to want to reach a decision on the subject ahead of the authorization of a fourth round of international sanctions against Iran, in the context of the G-20 conference to be held in Pittsburgh in about two weeks. Israel is apprehensive that the Americans may delay a final decision until December.
> 
> The impression gained by Israelis who have visited Washington lately is that Obama is gradually backing away from the Bush administration's fundamental demand that Iran cease to enrich uranium as a precondition for beginning a dialogue.
> 
> Subsequently, they believe, the United States will offer Iran the following compromise: The Iranians will be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes (under tight international supervision), the previous sanctions imposed on Iran will be lifted and the two sides will reach understandings concerning Iran's interests in a number of arenas, notably Iraq, ahead of the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from there.
> 
> Obama would be able to present such an arrangement as an accomplishment. After all, before the election in November he promised to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, not to force it to stop enriching uranium. From Israel's point of view, however, this will probably not be enough.
> 
> According to Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "The United States was ready to sign an agreement to that effect Thursday. The prospect that Iran will agree, despite the temptation of gaining international recognition for its right to enrich uranium, remains small."
> 
> In his view, "For its strategy to succeed, America needs a broad and binding international coalition. I still don't see them getting Russia and China to back such a move, and their support is essential."
> 
> Despite its fear that Iran will use the peaceful enrichment go-ahead to continue advancing secretly toward a bomb, Israel might, as a fallback position, accept such a compromise as long as it is clear that the international supervision is strong enough and that, in anticipation of the likely eventuality Iran will be found cheating, a broad coalition to toughen the sanctions is put together in advance.
> 
> If the dialogue fails, or never begins, more severe sanctions might be put into place: a ban on the purchase of oil from Iran and on the export of petroleum distillates to it, or even a maritime embargo. But the potential effectiveness of these moves, with Tehran already well past the halfway mark toward achieving its goal, is in doubt.
> 
> Looking the other way
> 
> So, the moment of truth will arrive at some point between the end of 2009 and the middle of 2010: Should Iran be attacked? American experts agree that this would involve an Israeli strike. It is very unlikely that Obama will be the one dispatching American planes to Natanz.
> 
> During the past year, military experts and commentators are increasingly coming around to the view that the Israel Air Force is capable of executing the mission. The Israel Defense Forces was significantly upgraded during the tenure of Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. The goal, it is argued, is not to liquidate the Iranian project but to set it back. According to this line of thought, if an attack, American or Israeli, causes a couple of years' delay in the project it will have achieved its aim. Similarly, before launching the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, Israel did not foresee the chain of events that finally forced Saddam Hussein to forgo his nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak take a similar view of the Iranian threat. At least, that is what both their public statements and their comments in closed meetings suggest.
> 
> *For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow?
> 
> These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance.
> 
> Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it's clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country.*
> 
> A key question would be Syria's behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond.
> 
> But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud - and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it's no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up.
> 
> A decision to attack Iran would mean that the IDF bears central responsibility for resolving the nuclear threat. In the years when Mossad director Meir Dagan held prime minister Ariel Sharon in his thrall (and even more so his successor, Ehud Olmert), the general belief was that the espionage agency could, together with political efforts, contain the Iranian nuclear project. And, indeed, if Western intelligence services had to push back their forecasts repeatedly over the past decade regarding when the project would be completed, it's a safe bet that not all of Iran's delays were due to divine providence. At present, however, no action looms - other than an attack - that is capable of preventing Iran from achieving its goal.
> 
> *Deep and impressive cooperation exists between the IDF and the Mossad in many arenas. But this is clouded by professional differences and personal friction between the heads of the two organizations.* In a few cases, it even looked as though the two were merrily pouring salt on each others' wounds.
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113816.html


----------



## tomahawk6

Time is fast running out for Israel. The US and Europe are prepared to live with a nuclear Iran,but I doubt Israel feels that is a viable option. If they are going to strike that time is fast approaching.


----------



## CougarKing

Here we go again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran



> *Thousands march in Iran opposition protests*
> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer
> 28 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – Hard-liners attacked senior pro-reform leaders in the streets as tens of thousands marched in competing mass demonstrations by the opposition and government supporters. Opposition protesters, chanting "death to the dictator," hurled stones and bricks in clashes with security forces.
> 
> The opposition held its first major street protests since mid-July, bringing out thousands in demonstrations in several parts of the capital. In some cases only several blocks away, tens of thousands marched in government-sponsored rallies marking an annual anti-Israel commemoration.
> 
> The commemoration, known as Quds Day, is a major political occasion for the government — a day for it to show its anti-Israeli credentials and its support for the Palestinians. During a speech for the rallies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against Israel and the West, questioning whether the Holocaust occurred and calling it a pretext for occupying Arab land. Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem.
> 
> But the opposition was determined to turn the day into a show of its survival and continued strength despite a fierce three-month-old crackdown against it since the disputed June 12 presidential election.
> 
> The four top opposition leaders joined the protests, in direct defiance of commands by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who barred anti-government demonstrations on Quds Day. That could provoke an escalation in the crackdown: hard-line clerics have been demanding the past week that any leader backing the protests should be arrested.
> 
> Tens of thousands joined the government-organized marches, starting in various parts of the capital and proceeding to Tehran University. Police and security forces, along with pro-government Basij militiamen, fanned out along main squares and avenues and in many cases tried to keep nearby opposition protesters away from the Quds Day rallies to prevent clashes, witnesses said.
> 
> But at one of the several opposition rallies around the city, a group of hard-liners pushed through the crowd and attacked former President Mohamad Khatami, a cleric who is one of the most prominent pro-reform figures, according to a reformist Web site. The report cited witnesses as saying the opposition activists rescued Khatami and quickly repelled the assailants.
> 
> Another reformist Webs site said Khatami's turban was disheveled and he was forced to leave the march.
> 
> Hard-liners tried to attack the main opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, when he joined another protest elsewhere in the city, a witness said. Supporters rushed Mousavi into his car when the hard-liners approached, and the vehicle sped away as his supporters pushed the hard-liners back, the witness said. He and other witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retaliation.
> 
> In one of the main Tehran squares, Haft-e Tir, baton-toting security forces tried to break up one of the opposition marched, and were met with protesters throwing stones and bricks, witnesses said. Several policemen were seen being taken away with light injuries. At least 10 protesters were seized by plainclothes security agents in marches around the city, witnesses said.
> 
> The opposition claims that Ahmadinejad won the June election by fraud and that Mousavi is the rightful victor. Hundreds of thousands marched in support of Mousavi in the weeks after the vote, until police, Basij and the elite Revolutionary Guard crushed the protests, arresting hundreds. The opposition says 72 people were killed in the crackdown, thought the government puts the number at 36. The last significant protest was on July 17.
> 
> On Friday, opposition supporters poured out on the streets in green T-shirts and wearing green wristbands — the color of the reform movement — and marched with fingers raised in the V-sign for victory, chanting "Death to the Dictator."
> 
> Others shouted for the government to resign, carried small photos of Mousavi, while some women marched with their children in tow.
> 
> There were also chants of: "Not Gaza, not Lebanon — our life is for Iran" — a slogan defying the regime's support for Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla.
> 
> Two other opposition leaders appeared at the protests — Mahdi Karroubi, who also ran in the June election, and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. Rafsanjani is a senior cleric in Iran's leadership but has been a behind-the-scenes supporter of Mousavi.
> 
> His appearance at the rally is a rare overt show of backing for street protesters. It comes after Rafsanjani was banned this year from his customary role delivering the Friday prayers on Quds Day, which he has done the past 25 years. On Friday, the prayer sermon was delivered by a hard-liine supporter of Ahmadinejad, Ahmad Khatami.
> 
> In sheer numbers, the opposition turnout was far smaller than the mass pro-government Qods Day marches — not surprising given the state's freedom to organize the gathering. Customarily on Quds Day, Tehran residents gather for pro-Palestinian rallies in various parts of the city, marching through the streets and later converging for the prayers ceremony. The ceremony was established in 1979 by the leader of the Islamic Revolution and founder of present-day Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
> 
> Just hundreds of yards (meters) away from opposition protesters on the main Keshavarz Boulevard, thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters marched carrying huge photographs of the president and Supreme Leader Khamenei. Some in the government-sponsored rally chanted: "Death to those who oppose the supreme leader!"
> 
> At the climax of the occasion, Ahmadinejad addressed worshippers before Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus, reiterating his anti-Holocaust rhetoric that has drawn international condemnation since 2005. He questioned whether the "Holocaust was a real event" and saying Israel was created on "false and mythical claims."


----------



## Shec

Contemporary political slogans:



> We Can Do Better





> Getting Things Done For All Of Us





> Yes We Can





> Someday Is Now





> *Death to those who oppose the supreme leader!*



Has a certain je ne sais quoi about it doesn't it ?

Seriously, his Holocaust denial on the eve of the Jewish New Year speaks volumes.  He wants peace like my dog doesn't want a treat.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the "negotiations"

http://www.slate.com/id/2228252/pagenum/2



> *Engaging With Iran Is Like Having Sex With Someone Who Hates YouTehran's latest bid to run down the clock.*
> By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 12:29 PM ET
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Click image to expand.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"Living in the Islamic Republic," wrote Azar Nafisi in her book Reading Lolita in Tehran in 2003, "is like having sex with a man you loathe." This verdict has gathered extra force and pungency as the succeeding years have elapsed and as more women have been stoned, hanged, beaten, raped, and silenced. Lately has come the news that Iranian men in prison are being raped, too, for trying to exercise their right to vote. And now the U.S. government has come to a point where it must ask itself: What is it like to enter negotiations with a man who loathes you and who every Friday holds public prayers that call for your death?
> 
> Last Friday brought the news that the Obama administration had accepted an offer from Tehran, delivered the preceding Wednesday, for the holding of what the New York Times called "unconditional talks." It was further reported that the administration had spent "less than 48 hours" deliberating whether to respond to the invitation, which yields the interesting if minor detail that this must have been the most significant decision taken by Obama's people on or about the eighth anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11.
> 
> A couple of weeks after the June 12 election, Benjamin Weinthal suggested six ways President Barack Obama could influence Iran. In August, an undercover journalist reported on the mood in Tehran. Christopher Hitchens reminded us of why we're in a war against Islamic terrorism.
> 
> Well, I am all for talks without preconditions, and I have said several times in this space that I think we should offer the Iranians cooperation on a wide spectrum of topics, especially the very pressing one of helping to "proof" Iran against the coming earthquake that could devastate its capital city. There may even be areas of potential interest in our having common enemies in the Taliban and al-Qaida. But things have changed a little since the president and his secretary of state were sparring over the word unconditional during the primaries. First, it has become ever clearer that Iran's uranium-enrichment and centrifuge program has put it within measurable distance of the ability to weaponize its nuclear capacity. Second, it has become obscenely obvious that the theocracy is prepared to govern by force alone and to employ the most appalling measures to remain in power without a mandate.
> 
> So it would be nice to know, even if no "conditions" or "preconditions" (this seems like a distinction without much difference) are to be exacted, whether the administration has assured itself on two points. The first of these is: Do we seriously expect the Islamic Republic to be negotiating in good faith about its nuclear program? And the second is: What do we know about the effect of these proposed talks on the morale and the leadership of the Iranian opposition?
> 
> One presumes that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime had its own reasons for firing off a five-page document proposing negotiations and including Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and China—the much-stalled group of countries that have conducted business with Iran so far—in the offer. The letter was sent out in the same period that the Russian government opposed any further sanctions on Iran for noncooperation, in the same period that Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would never halt its nuclear fuel production, and in the run-up to Ahmadinejad's next appearance at the podium of the United Nations toward the end of this month.
> 
> Might it be possible—you will, I hope, forgive my cynicism—that this latest initiative from Tehran is yet another attempt to buy time or run out the clock?
> 
> Meanwhile, it is certainly the case that at least three of the six countries approached are being asked to negotiate under some kind of duress. In an unpardonable violation of diplomatic immunity (a phrase that may remind you of something), employees of the French and British Embassies in Tehran have been placed under arrest and subjected to show trials since the convulsions that attended the coup mounted by the Revolutionary Guards in June. And the Iranian correspondent of Newsweek magazine—who is also a Canadian citizen—has been held incommunicado for almost the same length of time. Without overstressing any "preconditions," it doesn't seem too much to require of the Iranian regime that it not send out invitations to countries whose citizens or locally engaged diplomatic staff it is holding as hostages.
> 
> On the larger question of the breach by Iran of all its undertakings about nuclear weapons, and the amazing absence from its diplomatic note of any mention of its own program, one wasn't too reassured by the lazy phrasing of Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The Obama administration, she said, would not impose "artificial deadlines" on Ahmadinejad. Why is this not reassuring? Because it's impossible to tell what is meant by an "artificial deadline." Would one prefer a "genuine" deadline, whereby, for example, the United Nations required Iran to demonstrate compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions on nuclear proliferation—we have a bushel of these—or face further U.N.-mandated sanctions? Certainly one would, but this isn't what Ambassador Rice appears to have meant.
> 
> From all appearances, then, this seems like another snow job from the mullahs. And did the State Department or the CIA take any soundings, in those 48 hours between receipt of the mullahs' letter and our response to it, among the leaders of Iranian civil society? Given the short interval, it seems that the thought did not even occur to them. Here is what I heard from professor Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian studies at Stanford University:
> 
> When you read [the Iranian letter] and realize how empty of earnest negotiating positions it in fact is, you are left with no choice but to conclude that they are relying on their ally in Putin's Russia to veto any resolutions against them. For the Russians to be able to even pretend to be serious in their talk of no need for more pressure on the regime, Tehran has also to pretend to be serious in negotiation.
> 
> This analysis appears to conform to all the available facts as we know them. A bit too much like having sex with someone who loathes you.


----------



## CougarKing

Somehow, I really doubt Tehran intends to follow this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/un_un_g8_iran



> G-8: Iran has 3 months to stop uranium enrichment
> By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer
> 52 mins ago
> 
> UNITED NATIONS – Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini says the Group of Eight nations is giving Iran until the end of the year to commit to ending uranium enrichment and avoid new sanctions.
> 
> Frattini, who's nation holds the rotating chair of the club of wealthy nations, known as the G-8, said Thursday that member foreign ministers agreed Wednesday night "to give Iran a chance."
> 
> But Frattini said that the informal agreement will be re-examined each month until the end of the year.
> 
> The U.S. has won Russian agreement to consider new sanctions against Iran to add pressure on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who insists Tehran's nuclear program is designed only to generate electricity.


----------



## a_majoor

Well, we already knew this to be true.....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/ap/ap-newsbreak-iran-reveals-existence-of-a-second-uranium-enrichment-plant-officials-say.html

[qiote]
*Iran reveals existence of a second uranium enrichment plant*
By: GEORGE JAHN 
Associated Press
09/25/09 6:59 AM EDT   

VIENNA — Iran has revealed the existence of a secret uranium-enrichment plant, officials told The Associated Press Friday, a development that could heighten fears about Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon and escalate its diplomatic confrontation with the West.

The New York Times reported that President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain had been planning to charge Iran with constructing the facility in an announcement in Pittsburgh before the opening of the G-20 economic summit. It said they were to demand Tehran open the plant to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Two officials told the AP that Iran revealed the existence of a second plant in a letter sent Monday to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment at what had been its single known enrichment plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA.

The officials told the AP that Iran's letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.

But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Tehran and was the site of 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year.

Iranian officials had previously acknowledged having only one plant — the one under IAEA monitoring — and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities.

The last IAEA report on Iran in August said Iran had set up more than 8,000 centrifuges to churn out enriched uranium at the cavernous underground Natanz facility, although the report said that only about 4,600 of those were fully active.

The Islamic Republic insists that it has the right to the activity to generate fuel for what it says will be a nationwide chain of nuclear reactors. But because enrichment can make both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade uranium, the international community fears Tehran will use the technology to generate the fissile material used on the tip of nuclear warheads.

The revelation of a secret plan further hinders the chances of progress in scheduled Oct. 1 talks between Iran and six world powers.

At that meeting — the first in more than a year — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany plan to press Iran to scale back on its enrichment activities. But Tehran has declared that it will not bargain on enrichment.

The officials who spoke to the AP — one from a European government with access to IAEA information and the other a diplomat in Vienna from a country accredited to the IAEA — demanded anonymity Friday because their information was confidential. One said he had seen the Iranian letter. The other told the AP that he had been informed about it by a U.N. official.

While Iran's mainstay P-1 centrifuge is a decades-old model based on Chinese technology, it has begun experimenting with state-of-the art prototypes that enrich more quickly and efficiently than its old model.

U.N. officials familiar with the IAEA's attempts to monitor and probe Iran's nuclear activities have previously told the AP that they suspected Iran might be running undeclared enrichment plants.

The existence of a secret Iranian enrichment program built on black-market technology was revealed seven years ago. Since then, the country has continued to expand the program with only a few interruptions as it works toward its aspirations of a 50,000-centrifuge enrichment facility at the southern city of Natanz.
[/quote]


----------



## CougarKing

We'll see if anything comes out of this demand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran



> US, UK, French heads demand Iran nuke site opened
> By BEN FELLER and GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writers Ben Feller And George Jahn, Associated Press Writers
> 42 mins ago
> 
> PITTSBURGH – President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain declared Friday that the revelation of a previously secret Iranian nuclear facility puts heavy new pressure on Tehran to quickly disclose all its nuclear efforts — including any moves toward weapons development — "or be held accountable."
> 
> A defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retorted that his nation was keeping nothing from international inspectors and needn't "inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have."
> 
> French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iran has until December to comply or face new sanctions. Before that, on Oct. 1, the Iranians are to meet with the U.S. and five other major powers to discuss a range of issues including Iran's nuclear program.
> 
> "We will not let this matter rest," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who accused Iran of "serial deception."
> 
> Said Obama: "The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law."
> Just hours later, the head of Iran's nuclear program suggested U.N. inspectors will be allowed to visit it. Ali Akbar Salehi called the facility "a semi-industrial plant for enriching nuclear fuel" that is not yet complete, but he gave no other details, according to the state news agency IRNA.
> 
> Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week's General Assembly meeting, said that pressing his country on the newly disclosed plant "is definitely a mistake." In an interview with Time magazine, he said Iran was not keeping anything from the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We have no secrecy," he said.
> 
> *Iran kept the facility, 100 miles southwest of Tehran, hidden from weapons inspectors until a letter it sent to the IAEA on Monday.*
> 
> But the U.S. has known of the facility's existence "for several years" through intelligence developed by U.S., French and British agencies, a senior White House official said.  Obama decided to gather allies to talk publicly on Friday about their view of the project so as not to let Iran have the only word, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to let the statements from Obama and the leaders remain the focus.
> 
> *The plant would be about the right size to enrich enough uranium to produce one or two bombs a year, but inspectors must get inside to know what is actually going on, the official said.*
> The three leaders, in their dramatic joint statement that overshadowed the G-20 economic summit here, hoped the disclosure would increase pressure on the global community to impose new sanctions on Iran if it refuses to stop its nuclear program.
> 
> Beyond sanctions, the leaders' options are limited and perilous; military action by the United States or an ally such as Israel could set off a dangerous chain of events in the Islamic world. In addition, Iran's facilities are spread around and well-hidden, making an effective military response logistically difficult.
> 
> The leaders did not mention military force. But Sarkozy said ominously, "Everything, everything must be put on the table now. We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running."
> 
> Germany is one of the six powers meeting with Iran next week, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the revelation "a grave development."
> 
> She told reporters that Germany, Great Britain, France and the United States had consulted on the issue and agreed to a joint response. Merkel spoke separately from her counterparts because she had been in an already-scheduled meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
> 
> She said "we will see" about the reactions of Russia and China, which also are part of the group of six but always more reluctant to take a firm line on Iran.
> 
> Earlier this week, Medvedev opened the door to backing potential new sanctions against Iran, speaking just days after Obama's decision to scale back a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe that Russia strongly opposed. But it's unclear if that will translate into action.
> 
> Medvedev's spokeswoman said Friday that the developments "cannot but disturb us." Natalya Timakova said Medvedev would talk later in Pittsburgh on it, according to the Russian news agency ITAR-Tass.
> 
> The senior administration official said Obama told Medvedev about the Iranian facility during their meeting this week in New York. The Chinese are "just absorbing these revelations," the official said.
> 
> Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said Beijing wants the matter settled through negotiations.
> "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said.
> 
> *Sarkozy and Brown struck an even more defiant tone. "The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand," Brown said. *
> 
> Ahmadinejad made no mention of the facility while attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week. But Iran denies that it is enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb — as the West suspects — and says it is only doing so for energy purposes.
> 
> However, Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment at what had been its single publicly known enrichment plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA.
> 
> Officials said Iran's letter to the IAEA contained no details about the location of the second facility, such as when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.
> 
> But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was underground about 100 miles southwest of Tehran and is the site of 3,000 centrifuges that. It is not yet operational but the U.S. believes it will be by next year, said a U.S. counterproliferation official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
> 
> U.S. intelligence believes the facility is on a military base controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, according to a document that the Obama administration sent to U.S. lawmakers. It was provided to The Association Press by an official on condition of anonymity because, though unclassified, it was deemed confidential. The military connection could undermine Iran's contention that the plant was designed for civilian purposes.
> 
> "The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program," Obama told reporters.
> 
> The U.S., British and French officials provided detailed information to the IAEA on Thursday, Obama said.
> 
> An August IAEA report said Iran had set up more than 8,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium at the first facility, also underground and located outside the southern city of Natanz. The report said that only about 4,600 centrifuges were fully active.
> 
> ___
> 
> Jahn contributed to this report from Vienna. Associated Press writers Charles Babington and Michael Fischer in Pittsburgh, Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, John Heilprin in New York, and Pamela Hess and Desmond Butler in Washington also contributed.


----------



## CougarKing

And it seems Iran will allow UN inspectors in to look at the 2nd site:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear



> *Iran to allow UN inspectors at its new nuke site*
> Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 20 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's nuclear chief says his country will allow the U.N. nuclear agency to inspect its newly revealed, still unfinished uranium enrichment facility.
> 
> Ali Akbar Salehi didn't specify when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency could visit the site. He says the timing will be worked out with the U.N. watchdog.
> 
> Iran's newly revealed site is said to be in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom, inside a heavily guarded, underground facility.
> 
> The pilot plant will house 3,000 centrifuges that could soon produce nuclear fuel — or the payload for atomic warheads. Salehi spoke on state TV Saturday.
> 
> He says Iran has "pre-empted a conspiracy" against Tehran by the U.S. and its allies by reporting the site voluntarily to the IAEA.


----------



## Marmite

Now they start lobbing missiles all over the country.....

Also, for those Google Earth types, I was looking at the Natanz facility which is very clear and has great images. It is heavily defended. There appears to be a ring of fences, walls, watch towers and anti-aircraft defenses surrounding the facility. Just adds to the evidence that they have no intentions of keeping their program...."Peaceful"....in their words.

_*Iran test-fires short-range missiles*_




> By NASSER KARIMI (AP) – 42 minutes ago
> 
> TEHRAN — Iran said it successfully test-fired short-range missiles during military drills Sunday by the elite Revolutionary Guard, a show of force days after the U.S. warned Tehran over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility it was secretly constructing.
> 
> Gen. Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, said Iran also tested a multiple missile launcher for the first time. The official English-language Press TV showed pictures of at least two missiles being fired simultaneously and said they were from Sunday's drill in a central Iran desert. In the clip, men could be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" as the missiles were launched.
> 
> "We are going to respond to any military action in a crushing manner and it doesn't make any difference which country or regime has launched the aggression," state media quoted Salami as saying. He said the missiles successfully hit their targets.
> 
> The powerful Revolutionary Guard defends Iran's clerical rulers. It has its own ground, naval and air units and its air force controls the country's missile program.
> 
> The tests came two days after the U.S. and its allies disclosed that Iran had been secretly developing a previously unknown underground uranium enrichment facility and warned the country it must open the nuclear site to international inspection or face harsher international sanctions. The drill was planned in advance of that disclosure.
> 
> The newly revealed nuclear site in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom is believed to be inside a heavily guarded, underground facility belonging to the Revolutionary Guard, according to a document sent by President Barack Obama's administration to lawmakers.
> 
> After the strong condemnations from the U.S. and its allies, Iran said Saturday it will allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine the site.
> 
> Nuclear experts said the details that have emerged about the site and the fact it was being developed secretly are strong indications that Iran's nuclear program is not only for peaceful purposes, as the country has long maintained.
> 
> By U.S. estimates, Iran is one to five years away from having a nuclear weapons capability, although U.S. intelligence also believes that Iranian leaders have not yet made the decision to build a weapon.
> 
> Iran also is developing a long-range ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear warhead, but the administration said last week that it believes that effort has been slowed. That assessment paved the way for Obama's decision to shelve the Bush administration's plan for a missile shield in Europe, which was aimed at defending against Iranian ballistic missiles.
> 
> Salami said Iran would test medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles on Sunday night and long-range Shahab-3 missiles on Monday, during drills set to last several days.
> 
> Salami said Fateh, Tondar and Zelzal missiles were test fired on Sunday, but did not give specifics on range or other details. All are short-range, surface-to-surface missiles.
> 
> He told reporters Iran had reduced the missiles and their ranges and enhanced their speed and precision so they could be used in quick, short-range engagements. He also said they are now able to be launched from positions that are not as easy to hit.
> 
> He said the Revolutionary Guards' current missile tests and military drills are indications of Iran's resolve to defend its national values and part of a strategy of deterrence and containment of missile threats.
> 
> Salami claimed Iran has started "running into difficulties storing so many missiles" with its recent progress on its missile program.
> 
> Iran has had the solid-fuel Fateh missile, with a range of 120 miles (193 kilometers), for several years. Fateh means conqueror in Farsi and Arabic. It also has the solid-fueled, Chinese-made CSS 8, also called the Tondar 69, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private group that seeks to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Tondar, which means thunder, has a range of about 93 miles (150 kilometers.)
> 
> State media said the Revolutionary Guard tested a multiple launcher for the first time, designed for the Zelzal missile. Tehran has previously tested the Zelzal — versions of which have ranges of 130-185 miles (210-300 kilometers) — but only single launch.
> 
> In July 2006, Israeli military officials said their jets had destroyed a missile in Lebanon named Zelzal, which they said Hezbollah had received from Iran and could reach Tel Aviv. Zelzal means earthquake.
> 
> Iran's last known missile tests were in May when it fired its longest-range solid-fuel missile, Sajjil-2. Tehran said the two-stage surface-to-surface missile has a range of about 1,200 miles (1,900 kilometers) — capable of striking Israel, U.S. Mideast bases and Europe.
> 
> The revelation of Iran's secret site has given greater urgency to a key meeting on Thursday in Geneva between Iran and six major powers trying to stop its suspected nuclear weapons program.
> 
> The U.S. and its partners plan to tell Tehran at the meeting that it must provide "unfettered access" for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, within weeks.
> 
> The facility is Iran's second uranium-enrichment site working to produce the fuel that could eventually be used in a nuclear weapon.
> 
> A close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday the site will be operational soon and would pose a threat to those who oppose Iran.
> 
> "This new facility, God willing, will become operational soon and will blind the eyes of the enemies," Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani told the semi-official Fars news agency.
> 
> Evidence of the clandestine facility was presented Friday by Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. On Saturday, Obama offered Iran "a serious, meaningful dialogue" over its disputed nuclear program, while warning Tehran of grave consequences from a united global front.
> 
> Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Saturday the revelation was firm proof Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.
> 
> Israel considers Iran a strategic threat with its nuclear program, missile development and repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel's destruction. It has not ruled out a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites.
> 
> In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reaction and in 2007, Israel bombed a site in Syria that the U.S. said was a nearly finished nuclear reactor built with North Korean help that was configured to produce plutonium — one of the substances used in nuclear warheads.
> 
> Israel's Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment on the missile tests.
> 
> Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the country's nuclear program, said Saturday that U.N. nuclear inspectors could visit the nuclear site. On Sunday, he told Press TV Iran and the IAEA would work out the timing of the inspection.
> 
> The small-scale site is meant to house no more than 3,000 centrifuges — much less than the 8,000 machines at Natanz, Iran's known industrial-scale enrichment facility, but they could still potentially help create bomb-making material.
> 
> Experts have estimated that Iran's current number of centrifuges could enrich enough uranium for a bomb in as little as a year. Washington has been pushing for heavier sanctions if Iran does not agree to end enrichment.
> 
> Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
> Related articles
> 
> * IRGC to launch more missiles in military drill
> PRESS TV - 9 hours ago
> * Iran warned over 'nuclear ambitions'
> ITN - 20 hours ago
> * Iran says it test-fired short-range missiles
> CTV.ca - 2 hours ago
> * More coverage (77) »
> 
> Add News to your iGoogle Homepage Add News to your Google Homepage
> The Associated Press


----------



## CougarKing

The clock continues to tick.



> *Zero hour: Countdown to Israeli attack on Iran*
> July 14, 2009 - 7:54am
> 
> http://www.wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1716852
> 
> WASHINGTON -- There is a commonly held belief by some influential Israeli and U.S. government officials that valuable time has been lost trying to talk to Iran about ending its nuclear weapons program.
> 
> Mohamed El Baradei, the outgoing chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last month that he had a "gut feeling" Iran was working to produce nuclear arms to be used as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats.
> 
> Those threats include a vow from Israel to stop Iran from developing the weapons.
> 
> While an attack may seem unlikely due to diplomatic dialogue with Iran, a source in Israel with knowledge of the situation says an attack could happen any day.
> 
> "Time is running out," the source says. "A decision could be made by September or October of this year as to when an attack will occur."
> 
> The source also says Israel has been updating its plans to reflect real-time changes in Iran.
> 
> Israeli Embassy spokesman Jonathan Peled says his country is trying to avoid two basic scenarios.
> 
> "One is a situation where Iran can have nuclear capabilities and the other is having to resort to military options," Peled says.
> 
> At the same time Peled says, "The clock is ticking and therefore we need to step up our concern, our measures and our attention toward dealing with this."
> 
> The spokesman says Israel wants the world to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program because it is a "global threat" and "we have to find the best, quickest and most peaceful means to put an end to Iran's nuclear program."
> 
> But behind the scenes it's a different story.
> 
> A senior Israeli military official told WTOP in early November 2008, "Allowing Iran to produce nuclear weapons is not an option and all options are on the table to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons."
> 
> Since then, other Israeli officials have echoed those comments repeatedly with a growing sense of urgency, and there are signs the U.S. may be the hold up.
> 
> There is evidence that some in Israel are growing impatient. A top Israeli intelligence operative confessed to an American counterpart recently that there is a growing concern that "the U.S. does not have the stomach" to attack Iran.
> 
> Avi Issacharoff, a correspondent for Ha'aretz newspaper in Jersualem, said during a recent interview that the Israeli military is looking carefully at what option would be most successful in neutralizing Iran's nuclear program. And the best option - air strikes - runs right through the White House.
> 
> "In order to do something like that - a big aerial operation to hit all nuclear facilities in Iran - Israel will need U.S. approval for something like that," says Issacharoff.
> 
> "I'm not aware of any other type of solution, like ground to ground or sea to ground missiles. Those solutions will not be able to answer the threat that has been made by the Iranians. Only an Air Force attack would be partially able of answering the threat."
> 
> The U.S. military is not anxious to participate in an attack on Iran.
> 
> "President Obama and his administration are reaching out to Iran in a dialogue which has not taken place for almost 30 years in a way that at least offers some potential to resolve some of these challenges," says Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> "I certainly, like many other people - not just in the United States, but I think globally - eagerly await that engagement to hopefully defuse what could be a very, very bad situation if Iran doesn't change how it's evolving, particularly with this capability."
> 
> An Israeli attack on Iran would require more from the U.S. than solely permission. A former Israeli military intelligence source says Israel needs the U.S. for refueling support.
> 
> "They either need U.S. air-to-air refueling tankers to support the mission, or buy re-fueling tankers from the U.S. or need to re-fuel in Iraq."
> 
> Israel has not been able to persuade the U.S. to agree to any of those options.
> 
> "Unfortunately, the centrifuges are spinning as we speak," says Peled. "Despite the internal turmoil in Iran, the nuclear program has not been affected and the Iranians are continuing to develop their nuclear aspirations."
> 
> A senior Iranian member of Iran's Parliament has said any an attack will trigger "a decisive and full-scale response." Ala'eddin Borujerdi, the head of parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, said any attack on Iran would destabilize the Middle East and the whole world.


----------



## tomahawk6

The first of 10 30,000-pound (13.6 metric tons) precision-guided bunker buster are due to roll off the assembly lin in December two years ahead of schedule. The bomb can be fitted to a B-2.


----------



## Jammer

I have watched the video of the "short range missles", and to me some of the captures show that some look and awful lot like souped up SA-2s, others look like Honest Johns. 
IMHO they Honest John look alikes are not much of a threat to Israel. They are a battlefield system (Canada even had a Bty of them in the 60's).
The media will take this and run with it though, based on thier "expert military analysts"...(one Col Michel Drapeau ret springs to mind).


----------



## Edward Campbell

While it is complicated, even a bit difficult, to build a "fleet" of long range ballistic (much less guided) missiles and while it is even more complex and difficult to build nuclear warhead and then "mate" them to said missiles, the question remains:

How much time should Israel allow?

An Israeli attack is also complex, difficult and fraught with military and strategic dangers, but I, personally, am not sure I see an alternative that serves Israel's _*vital* interests_.

My guesstimate is that, despite a HUGE _whoop and holler_ from throughout the Muslim "world," and from it's European friends, the _Sunni_ Muslims, worldwide, which is to say most Muslims, will breathe a sigh of relief when (IF) _Shia_ Iran is dealt a harsh, even crippling, nuclear blow.

The fate of the Gulf of Hormuz, however, and all the oil that flows through it become problematical.

I don't know how many combat brigades are _available_ in the US Army and USMC but I do know that they constitute just about all of the US led West's _strategic reserve_ and if an Israeli attack provokes a wider regional conflict - just as Iraq is, slowly, starting to quiet down - then that reserve will have to be committed there, and not in Afghanistan or South Korea or anywhere else.


----------



## a_majoor

Sadly, the Iranians might have been out of contention if there was a lot more material and political support shown to the protesters this summer after the "elections". Since no one has demonstrated the will to stand against Iranian agression or repression, the regime feels not only justified but even encouraged to continue on the present course to nuclearization and attempting to become the regioonal hegemons.

One thing which no one seems to have openly mentioned is the fact that Israel already has developed the technologies of long range missiles and is long rumored to have nuclear weapons, so the eliminatioon of Iranian nuclear capabilities is quite probable with the turn of a key (many articles have been written about the difficulties a presumptive IAF air strike would have, this totally bypasses the problem).

WRT the lack of Western military capabilities, I suspect that the spreading of the conflict will be in the form of terrorism and low intensity conflict, which will engage the police and security forces far more than the military, and the opening of an existential threat will certainly shift many Western nations off the fence and towards building capable forces to deal with it (even if only large infantry reserves to secure restive areas of the homeland).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jammer said:
			
		

> I have watched the video of the "short range missles", and to me some of the captures show that some look and awful lot like souped up SA-2s, others look like Honest Johns.
> IMHO they Honest John look alikes are not much of a threat to Israel. They are a battlefield system (Canada even had a Bty of them in the 60's).
> The media will take this and run with it though, based on thier "expert military analysts"...(one Col Michel Drapeau ret springs to mind).




This, taken from a story in today’s _Globe and Mail_, doesn’t look much like an _Honest John_:






An Iranian long-range Shahab-3 missile is seen before being tested from desert terrain at an unspecified location in Iran on September 28, 2009. The Islamic republic test-fired the Shahab-3 missile which it says could hit targets in arch-foe Israel, as the Revolutionary Guards staged missile war games for the second straight day AFP/Getty Images

The article says: 

“Iran said it successfully test-fired the longest-range missiles in its arsenal today, weapons capable of carrying a warhead and striking Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe ... The Sajjil-2 missile is Iran's most advanced two-stage surface-to-surface missile and it is powered entirely by solid-fuel while the older Shahab-3 uses a combination of solid and liquid fuel in its most advanced form. Solid fuel is seen as a technological breakthrough for any missile program as it increases the accuracy of missiles in reaching targets.”


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Honest John_:






From the _Redstone Arsenal_ site:

“The HONEST JOHN was a simple, free-flight rocket capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. This highly mobile system was designed to fire like conventional artillery in battlefield areas. The Basic (M31) HONEST JOHN system was first deployed in 1954. It was replaced by the Improved (M50) HONEST JOHN (left) in 1961 which reduced the system's weight, shortened its length, and increased its range. In July 1982, all HONEST JOHN rocket motors, launchers, and related ground equipment items were type classified obsolete.”

The _Honest John_’s range was measured in a few tens of kilometres, not hundreds or thousands.

---------------​
The SA-2 is a little more like it but, of course, it was a surface to air missile, and its range, too, was measured in the tens of kilometres.







But, Jammer’s point - that two stage solid fuel missiles have been around for a while and are not going to be too hard to produce – is valid. What’s mildly impressive is that Iran, a so called _pariah_ state, appears to have been able to build and fire a medium range multi-stage, solid fuel missile. _With a little help from their friends_, no doubt.


----------



## Jammer

I just caught the story on the Shahab III (SCUD B). 
The vid I saw on CNN last night showed a missle much like the HJ firing stabilizing motors 1/4 of the way down the body.
The launch veh looked very similar to an M-35 deuce.
Keep in mind as well that Iran has been able to reverse engineer enough material to keep their western military equipment functioning for more than thirty years AFTER sanctions were imposed.


----------



## Old Sweat

Based on the clips I have seen, which may or may not be authentic, I failed to recognize any similarity with the Honest John. One device had a superficial resemblance to a SA-2, but that was based on the presence of small fins, presumably for steering, near the nose. What impressed me in the clips was the long vapour trail, which indicates a long burn time for the propellant. (The Honest John's motor only burned for less than four seconds which propelled it up to 38 kms.) 

I think, and this is a guesstimate, that the missiles I saw in the clip probably are guided, perhaps with GPS technology, and could have a CEP of less than 100 metres. Theoretically this would make a small HE or cluster bomb warhead feasible, but this is the kind of weapon that also could carry a small nuke of up to perhaps 50 -100 kt. This is based on the size of the rocket and what I know of the warheads available for the Honest John.

Jammer, the rockets you saw firing about 1/4 of the way down the body are probably spin rockets to impart a slow rate of rotation to the missile for stability.

On the other hand, these rockets could also be unguided with a CEP measured in small countries, not hundreds of metres. This is probably not the case, but we are all working from limited, open source material. However, we (the collective we) cannot afford to discount the threat.

As for a ground offensive, I don't think the west has the troops or the stomach for such a course.


----------



## Jammer

I can barely spell my own name, let alone be a steely eyed missle man.
i guess i have to keep watching..Tks


----------



## a_majoor

"Most" rockets developed by third world nations seem to have been developments or at least based on the SCUD missile. This isn't too surprising since the former USSR was fairly lavish in handing these things out to clients, so everyone on "their" side had a common template to work with. Since the DPRK is one of the big exporters of rocket technology, it isn't too surprising that Iran has missiles that superficially resemble SCUDs.

Given that, rocket science really isn't all that difficult, being based on about a half dozen equations. The real trick is in material science and quality control.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guesstimate is that, despite a HUGE _whoop and holler_ from throughout the Muslim "world," and from it's European friends, the _Sunni_ Muslims, worldwide, which is to say most Muslims, will breathe a sigh of relief when (IF) _Shia_ Iran is dealt a harsh, even crippling, nuclear blow.



Along these lines, this from the _Daily Express_ (UK):


> Intelligence chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.
> 
> The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.
> 
> The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace ....


----------



## OldSolduer

If what I read is true.....

"Unless I miss my guess, we're in for a wild ride"


----------



## a_majoor

Saudi Arabia might not need to worry about airspace violations, since they are also owners of Chinese CSS-2 ballistic missiles. How they are armed or even if they have been maintained over the years in firing condition is unknown (at least to me), but the entire deck seems to be full of wild cards.


----------



## tomahawk6

Recently I read an article advocating a cyber attack upon Iran's power grid,which in effect might shutdown the entire economy and command/control of the military. Its definitely a bloodless approach that might also work to destabilize the regime - a twofer.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A question: Could either the Shahab-3 or Sajjil-2 be produced in sufficient quantities (with sufficient accuracy, i.e. CEP) to be useful militarily/politically with conventional warheads?  I'm thinking, as a comparison, of the Iraqi SCUD-derived campaign against Tehran in 1988 that was instrumental in ending their war.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_s02.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Iran obviously used the "pause" created by the NIE to good effect; where are the screams of outrage now?

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2009/09/28/huge-intelligence-scandal-will-all-the-pundits-who-relied-onthe-discredited-2007-n-i-e-on-iran-now/



> *Huge Intelligence Scandal: Will All the Pundits Who Relied on the Discredited 2007 NIE on Iran Now…*
> 
> Posted By Ron Rosenbaum On September 28, 2009 @ 4:39 pm In Uncategorized | 25 Comments
> 
> Will all the pundits who relied on the discredited 2007 NIE on Iran now admit that they were wrong? That they bought into and kept citing, without any serious questioning, the now clearly politically skewed analysis in the so-called National Intelligence Estimate of that year? You remember: the considered consensus wisdom of the entire U.S. intelligence community, which misled the world into believing there was nothing to worry about Iran’s nuclear program, that it had virtually ceased. When, in fact, out of the three components of a nuclear weapons program, at most one might have been suspended, if that.
> 
> Will the congressional intelligence committees demand to know how such a deliberately misleading report was being leaked and fed to the public by half-baked pundits even after (we now learn) some part of the “intelligence community” knew — before the the NIE was issued — about the secret nuclear fuel facility we’re now reading about?
> 
> What took them so long? Or if there were reasons to keep silent about it, why issue a report that deliberately misled the world into the opposite conclusion? The NIE now appears to be a deliberate LIE — deliberate disinformation, disingenuously written by its authors, who should be hauled before the committees and asked how they could have made such fools of the “intelligence community” and those who took their report seriously.
> 
> After all, it was not without consequences. The report essentially bought the Iranians two years of non-interfering in their obvious (to everyone but the “intelligence community”) drive to build nuclear weapons.
> 
> Who chose the authors of the LIE? How much did they get paid for distorting intelligence, betraying their trust, our trust (those who had any left after an unbroken record of intelligence community bungling)? Why do we still trust anything that comes out of the “intelligence community” since they are almost always wrong?
> 
> Just to review the bidding: there are three components to a nuclear weapons development program. The most difficult is manufacturing the highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium fuel. The second is engineering the warhead itself, now no problem thanks to Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan, who sold the information to North Korea and Iran. And finally there is the delivery system, the missiles which, just yesterday, Iran demonstrated their successful development of.
> 
> The media almost universally reported that the 2007 NIE reversed previous estimates that Iran was working on a bomb, and declared that the report proved Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program. It did no such thing. The report, however, misleadingly focused on dubiously sourced intelligence that Iran had stopped one of the three aspects of their nuclear program in 2003: the weapons design aspect. Dubiously sourced because it seemed to be based on electronic surveillance intercepts of Iranian scientists and the Iranians. No fools (like our “intelligence community”), they could easily have deliberately planted the smoking gun conversation –”Oh, we are so upset we can no longer work on nuclear bomb design.”
> 
> And even if they did stop it, it could just as easily have been because they had all the know-how they needed thanks to A.Q. Khan by then. They stopped because they were finished. Now they needed the fuel and the misleading NIE gave them time to escape close surveillance and establish secret uranium enrichment sites (do you really think there was only one?). Two years to move closer to a bomb.
> 
> But the disgraceful 2007 NIE minimized the other two aspects of nuclear weapons making.
> 
> It should be a major intelligence scandal and despite efforts by the heads of US intelligence to walk it back after the fact, it became the conventional wisdom of all too much of the wonk and pundit community. When are they going to fess up that they were had?
> 
> Shouldn’t the journalists who were conned by the 2007 NIE (just about all of them), fooled again so soon after the Iraq intelligence fiasco, be doing everything they can to see who suckered them and why? Or are they afraid it will just further expose their ignorance?
> 
> It’s a huge intelligence scandal and we should demand answers because the Iranian preparations for nuclear war were given a free ride and we may never know — until it’s too late — just how terrible the consequences will be.


----------



## CougarKing

We'll see how this turns out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iran_nuclear_talks



> By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago
> GENTHOD, Switzerland –* Diplomats say Iran and six world powers are considering meeting again after their present talks on Iran's nuclear program and other issues end.
> 
> The diplomats say the two sides are discussing a follow-up meeting in the closing minutes of Thursday's talks during which the big-powers attempted to persuade Tehran to freeze a program that could create nuclear weapons.
> 
> A decision to meet again would be significant. The last such seven-nation talks before Thursday's gathering occurred more than a year ago and ended in failure.
> 
> The diplomats demanded anonymity for reporting on the closed meeting in Genthold, Switzerland.*
> 
> THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
> 
> GENTHOD, Switzerland (AP) — A senior U.S. official met Iran's top atomic negotiator for face-to-face talks on Thursday — the first such encounter in years of big-power attempts to persuade Tehran to freeze a program that could create nuclear weapons.
> 
> While diplomats and officials disclosed no details of the meeting, they appeared to be concrete proof of President Barack Obama's commitment to engage Iran directly on nuclear and other issues — a sharp break from previous policy under the Bush administration.
> 
> More broadly, the meeting suggested that Obama was putting his concept of U.S. foreign policy into action, with its emphasis on negotiating even with nations that are the most hostile to the United States.
> 
> The change in approach may go down well with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who on Wednesday made pointed comments about other nations needing to respect Iran's rights.
> 
> Iran-U.S. bilateral talks have been extremely rare since the two nations broke diplomatic relations nearly 30 years ago, following the Iran's Islamic revolution and the ensuing U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. U.S. and Iranian negotiators met in Baghdad two years ago to discuss Iraq. But those were three-way talks, hosted by Iraq.
> 
> *"On the margins of the meeting, Undersecretary (William) Burns, who is heading our delegation, met with his Iranian counterpart," U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood told reporters Thursday. He did not elaborate.
> 
> Two Western diplomats separately told The Associated Press that Burns and top Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili discussed issues during a lunch break at Thursday's seven-nation talks in Geneva. The diplomats demanded anonymity for discussing the confidential information.
> 
> Though held at the same venue, the bilateral talks were formally outside of the main meeting in Geneva — talks where the U.S. and five other world powers hope to persuade Iran to at least consider discussing its nuclear program, and in particular its refusal to freeze its uranium enrichment efforts.
> 
> The fact that the Geneva meeting is taking place at all offers some hope, reflecting both sides' desire to talk, despite a spike in tensions over last week's revelations by Iran that it had been secretly building a new uranium enrichment plant and recent tests of its long-range missiles.
> 
> While the West fears that Iran's nuclear program aims to make a bomb — and that the country is developing missiles to carry nuclear warheads — Iran insists the program is strictly for peaceful use and has refused to negotiate any limits on it.
> 
> Iran is bringing a broad range of geopolitical issues to the table, while the six powers — the permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany — are seeking to soften Iran's resistance to freezing its uranium enrichment program. The process can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.*
> 
> Wood said the six would also raise concerns about Iran's recent revelation it is building a second enrichment plant, alongside one that is under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure it makes only fuel and not weapons-grade uranium.
> 
> Iran says it has done nothing wrong, saying it reported the facility, near the Shiite holy city of Qom, voluntarily. But the West says Tehran came clean only because it feared that others would reveal the existence of the plant before it did.
> 
> IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has publicly said Tehran was "on the wrong side of the law" because it should have revealed its plans as soon as the decision was made to build the plant.
> 
> "We would like Iran to basically tell us what it knows about previous nuclear activities and current ones, including information it has about the Qom facility, which we're very concerned about," Wood said.
> 
> *In a separate development, Iran complained to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon about a list of Iranians it said have been arrested by the United States, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported. Among them were two figures connected to Iran's military or nuclear program, suggesting Tehran feared they have leaked information to the West, the Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported Thursday.
> 
> One of them was Shahram Amiri, a nuclear physicist who Iran's Foreign Ministry has said disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia in late May or early June. Amiri was researching medical uses of nuclear technology at a Tehran university, according to family members cited in Iranian media.
> 
> The second was Ali Reza Asghari, an Iranian deputy defense minister and a prominent leader of the Revolutionary Guards, who disappeared two years ago in Turkey and whose whereabouts since is unknown.
> 
> Iran is under three sets of Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment. Diplomats at U.N. headquarters in New York said there has been no discussion of a new sanctions resolution. *
> 
> Still, Wood said while Washington was focused on diplomacy for now "we're not going to do it forever."
> 
> U.S. and other Western officials said the Americans, British and French are already exploring how to tighten existing sanctions against Iran and propose new ones, should the talks fail. Those deliberations, they say, include joint new U.S.-European sanctions in case Russia and China — the other two permanent Security Council members — again block U.N. sanctions.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Here are two stories from the last 24 hours which provide an interesting and glaring contrast of the direct talks between the US and Iran in Geneva this week:



> McClatchy, reporting on yesterday's meeting with Iran in Geneva:
> 
> Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.





> Eli Lake, The Washington Times, this morning:
> 
> President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.
> 
> The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.
> 
> Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.
> 
> In addition to agreeing to allow full inspections of its Qum facility, Iran yesterday also did this:
> 
> *Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program. . . .*
> 
> Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb.
> 
> French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.
> 
> Steve Hynd explains why Iran's willingness to agree to this was both so surprising and so significant.  As is true for any tentative agreement with anyone, there is always the possibility that something could happen prior to compliance,* but this was a deal reached after a single-day meeting.  Just consider that, as Hynd said on Twitter, the "Obama WH already got more from one buffet lunch with Iran than Bush WH did in 8 years of saber-rattling."*  For that reason, it's hard to disagree with this:  "In Washington, President Barack Obama said the talks marked 'a constructive beginning' and showed the promise of renewed engagement with Iran . . . ."  Charles Krauthammer picked a bad day to haul out the tired neocon "appeasement" platitude and apply it to Obama, claiming -- as always -- that negotiations and diplomacy can accomplish nothing."
> 
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/


----------



## a_majoor

While Iranian missiles have the potential to hit targets in Europe, Israeli missiles have the range to reach targets in Russia as well....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6860161.ece



> *Israel names Russians helping Iran build nuclear bomb*
> Uzi Mahanimi in Tel Aviv, Mark Franchetti and Jon Swain
> 
> Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures during his meeting with German President Horst Koehler
> 
> Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has handed the Kremlin a list of Russian scientists believed by the Israelis to be helping Iran to develop a nuclear warhead. He is said to have delivered the list during a mysterious visit to Moscow.
> 
> Netanyahu flew to the Russian capital with Uzi Arad, his national security adviser, last month in a private jet.
> 
> His office claimed he was in Israel, visiting a secret military establishment at the time. It later emerged that he was holding talks with Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, and President Dmitry Medvedev.
> 
> “We have heard that Netanyahu came with a list and concrete evidence showing that Russians are helping the Iranians to develop a bomb,” said a source close to the Russian defence minister last week.
> 
> “That is why it was kept secret. The point is not to embarrass Moscow, rather to spur it into action.”
> 
> Israeli sources said it was a short, tense meeting at which Netanyahu named the Russian experts said to be assisting Iran in its nuclear programme.
> 
> In western capitals the latest claims were treated with caution. American and British officials argued that the involvement of freelance Russian scientists belonged to the past.
> 
> American officials said concern about Russian experts acting without official approval, had been raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a report more than a year ago.
> 
> “There has been Russian help. It is not the government, it is individuals, at least one helping Iran on weaponisation activities and it is worrisome,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
> 
> However, Israeli officials insist that any Russian scientists working in Iran could do so only with official approval.
> 
> Robert Einhorn, the special adviser for non-proliferation and arms control to Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is understood to believe that Russian companies have also supplied material that has been used by Iran in the production of ballistic missiles.
> 
> The disclosures came as Iran agreed at talks in Geneva to submit to IAEA inspections of its newly disclosed enrichment plant, which is being built under a mountain on a military base at Qom. Iran revealed the plant to the IAEA to pre-empt being caught out by an imminent announcement from western governments, which had discovered its existence.
> 
> The West says the plant is tailor-made for a secret weapons programme and proves Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended only for peaceful purposes is a lie. The plant is designed to hold 3,000 centrifuges — enough to produce the material needed for one bomb a year.
> 
> Iran’s conduct over the next few weeks will determine whether the West continues its new dialogue or is compelled to increase pressure with tougher United Nations and other sanctions.
> 
> Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defence minister, warned that time was running out for action to stop the programme. “If no crippling sanctions are introduced by Christmas, Israel will strike,” he said. “If we are left alone, we will act alone.”
> 
> A key test for the West will be whether Iran allows IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the Qom plant. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, was in Tehran this weekend to discuss this and Iran’s agreement, in principle, to ship most of its current stocks of low-enriched uranium to Russia so it can be used in medical research. President Barack Obama has told Iran he wants to see concrete results within two weeks.
> 
> While there is consensus in the West that Iran is trying to acquire the capability to build a weapon, the progress of its weaponisation programme is a matter of fierce debate among intelligence agencies.
> 
> The Americans believe secret work to develop a nuclear warhead stopped in 2003. British, French and German intelligence believe it was either continuing or has restarted. *The Israelis believe the Iranians have “cold-tested” a nuclear warhead, without fissile material*, for its Shahab-3B and Sejjil-2 rockets at Parchin, a top-secret military complex southeast of Tehran.
> 
> The vast site is officially dedicated to the research, development and production of ammunition, rockets and explosives. Satellite imagery as early as 2003 has shown Parchin to be suitable for research into the development of a nuclear weapon, say western experts.
> 
> The Shahab-3B, which the Iranians test-fired last Monday, is capable of carrying a 2,200lb warhead. Its 1,250-mile range puts parts of Europe, Israel and US bases in the Middle East within its reach.
> 
> According to the Israelis, Russian scientists may have been responsible for the nuclear warhead design. But western experts have also pointed the finger at North Korea.
> 
> Additional reporting:
> 
> Michael Smith, Christina Lamb


----------



## CougarKing

Signs this US administration may be preparing for an Iran strike?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343



> Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?
> Is the U.S. Stepping Up Preparations for a Possible Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities?
> By JONATHAN KARL
> Oct. 6, 2009—
> 
> 
> *Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
> 
> The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes. *
> 
> First, some background: Back in October 2007, ABC News reported that the Pentagon had asked Congress for $88 million in the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war funding request to develop a gargantuan bunker-busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It's a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Back then, the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.
> 
> Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.
> 
> Click here to see a copy of the Pentagon's request, provided to ABC News.
> 
> *The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb's "development and testing", and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers. *
> 
> 
> 'Urgent Operational Need'
> The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
> 
> Why now? The notification says simply, *"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).
> 
> 
> Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?
> The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide "Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration" on B-2 aircraft.
> 
> This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran. *
> 
> 
> Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures


----------



## a_majoor

The flash point may not be where we think it is:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/10/in-the-crosshai.php



> *In the Crosshairs of the Syrian-Iranian Axis*
> 
> The South Lebanon border area is what Robert D. Kaplan calls a "shatter zone," a region where government authority is either diluted or non-existent and where conflict is therefore all the more likely, if not inevitable. "Like rifts in the Earth's crust that produce physical instability," he wrote in Foreign Affairs, "these shatter zones threaten to implode, explode, or maintain a fragile equilibrium. And not surprisingly, they fall within that unstable inner core of Eurasia: the greater Middle East, the vast way station between the Mediterranean world and the Indian subcontinent that registers all the primary shifts in global power politics."
> 
> I've visited a number of these shatter zones in the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, sometimes while they're on fire and other times afterward. The conflicts in these places almost always seem to be fought along ethnic or religious-sectarian lines -- between Turks and Kurds in Anatolia, Arabs and Kurds in Northern Iraq, Sunnis and Shias in Mesopotamia, Slavic Christians and Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, Turks and Greeks on the island of Cyprus, Arabs and Israelis in the Holy Land, and between just about every ethnic and sectarian faction imaginable in Lebanon.
> 
> After the Syrians were thrown out of Lebanon in 2005 and the central government reclaimed most of its sovereignty, the south along the frontier with Israel remained strictly off-limits and under Hezbollah control. While sovereignty in that area is now technically shared with the state, Hezbollah can still do what it wants without interference. The "March 14" government would adhere to the de-facto armistice between Lebanon and Israel if it could, but it can't. The Lebanese-Israeli border therefore remains a potentially hot front-line in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> And because Hezbollah is nothing if not a proxy for the Islamic Republic regime in Iran, South Lebanon is a potentially explosive front-line in the Iranian-Israeli conflict. If Israel launches air strikes against Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities, or if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei believe a nuclear weapons arsenal means they can activate Hezbollah and Hamas with impunity, South Lebanon may become one of the two most dangerous shatter zones in the entire Middle East. (The other would be Iran itself.)
> 
> Last time I visited Beirut, before the Hezbollah-led "March 8" bloc lost the recent election, I spent several hours with Eli Khoury, one of the smartest regional political analysts I have yet met. I try to see him every time I'm in country to discuss this stuff because his analysis almost always turns out to be right when everyone else's -- including my own -- turns out to be wrong.
> 
> He's the president of the Lebanon Renaissance Foundation, publisher of NOW Lebanon, and an informal advisor to a number of Lebanese political leaders. This time we discussed, among other things, the war in Iraq, the election of Barack Obama, how to engage and not engage Syria, and Iran's imperial ambitions in the Middle East.



A long interview follows


----------



## CougarKing

Another source of dissent in Iran:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091018/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_bombing



> TEHRAN, Iran – A suicide bomber killed five senior commanders of the elite Revolutionary Guard and at least 26 others in an area of southeastern Iran that has been at the center of a simmering Sunni insurgency, state media reported.
> 
> *The official IRNA news agency said the dead included the deputy commander of the Guard's ground force, Gen. Noor Ali Shooshtari, as well as a chief provincial Guard commander for the area, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh. The other dead were Guard members or local tribal leaders. More than two dozen others were wounded, state radio reported.*
> 
> The commanders were on their way to a meeting with local tribal leaders in the Pishin district near Iran's border with Pakistan when an attacker with explosives around his waist blew himself up, IRNA said. The explosion occurred at the entrance of a sports complex where the meeting was to be held.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

And surprise, surprise, Tehran blames the US, the UK and the West as a result of this bombing(  : )....so Iran's Revolutionary Guards vow "retaliation":     

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091019/wl_nm/us_iran_guards_attack



> TEHRAN (Reuters) – The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards on Monday vowed to "retaliate" against the United States and Britain after accusing them of backing the perpetrators of a suicide bombing that killed six Guards commanders.
> 
> Iranian media say the Sunni Muslim insurgent group Jundollah (God's soldiers) has claimed responsibility for Sunday's bombing in Sistan-Baluchestan province, which killed 42 people in all.
> 
> The incident threatened to overshadow talks between Iran and global powers in Vienna on Monday intended to tackle a standoff about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iranian security officials had presented documents indicating "direct ties" from Jundollah to U.S., British and, "unfortunately," Pakistani intelligence organizations, the ISNA news agency said.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

An update on these talks regarding the 2nd Iran nuclear site:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_nuclear_iran



> VIENNA – *Talks to persuade Iran to move most of its enriched uranium out of the country have gotten off to a "good start," the head of the U.N. nuclear agency said Monday.
> 
> The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, were significant because Iran earlier had signaled it would not meet Western demands for a deal under which it would send most of its enriched material abroad — a move that would delay its ability to potentially make a nuclear bomb.*
> 
> Tehran has said it needs enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. But the West fears it could be used to make weapons, and the U.S. says Iran is now one to six years away from being able to do so.
> 
> Monday's Vienna talks between Iran and the U.S., Russia and France were focused on a technical issue with huge strategic ramifications — whether Iran is ready to farm out some of its uranium enrichment program to a foreign country.
> 
> ElBaradei appeared cautiously optimistic after the first day of closed meetings, saying most technical issues had been discussed and the parties would meet again Tuesday morning.
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

While the Obama administration may not be disposed to do so, they might not have too many choices either:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122321.html



> *U.S. officer: If Israel strikes Iran, U.S. will likely join*
> 
> By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies
> 
> The United States would find it difficult not to join an Israeli air strike in the event that Jerusalem decides to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, a former top-ranking U.S. Air Force officer told participants at a conference this weekend organized by a Washington think tank.
> 
> Charles F. Wald, former deputy commander of United States European Command, said a military strike on Iran could set back the Islamic Republic's alleged nuclear weapons program by several years, but cautioned, "I don't think Israel can do it alone."
> 
> The former commander's remarks were made at an annual gathering of financial backers of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who were joined by diplomats, journalists and analysts.
> 
> "They have a fantastic military, but not big enough for weeks or months of attacks - hundreds of sorties per day," he said.
> 
> Wald said that should "our great ally Israel" decide to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, "pressure will mount for us to stand by Israel."
> 
> He also criticized the U.S. government and military leadership for not devoting enough attention to Iran's nuclear program in recent years due to their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> Wald was also asked to comment on the suggestion by Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last month that the U.S. shoot down Israeli warplanes if they try to fly over Iraq to attack Iran.
> 
> "The chance of that," Wald said, "is zero - no, less than zero."
> 
> Last month, Wald and two former U.S. senators authored an article calling for U.S. President Barack Obama to begin preparations for implementing a military option against Iran.
> 
> The goal of such preparations, they wrote, would be not only to achieve military readiness for such a strike, but to persuade Tehran of the seriousness of the administration's intentions and convince Israel that it need not act alone.
> 
> Also present at the conference was the former head of Israel's Military Intelligence, General (Ret.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, who agreed that the U.S. Air Force could be far more effective than Israel in striking Iran's nuclear program: "The U.S. can destroy the nuclear capacity, and the war would not be long," he said.
> 
> He added, however, that Western intelligence may still not know about all of Iran's nuclear sites.
> 
> "The Tehran regime doesn't seek suicide," Farkash said. "When they realize we mean business this time, they won't want to lose their regime."


----------



## CougarKing

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the Obama administration may not be disposed to do so, *they might not have too many choices either:*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122321.html



An indication they may be well aware of that:


> *As Israel and the US launch a two-week air defence drill on Wednesday, an unnamed commander told Israel Radio the biennial drill was "to prepare for a nuclear Iran", contradicting spokesmen who insist the drill is unrelated to world events.
> 
> During the two-week manoeuvres, dubbed Juniper Cobra, some 1,000 American personnel will mesh ground- and ship-based missile interceptors like the Aegis, THAAD and Patriot with Israel's Arrow II ballistic shield, defence officials said. *
> Spokesmen on both sides insisted the biennial drill was unrelated to world events, but Israel Radio quoted an unnamed commander as saying it served "to prepare for a nuclear Iran".
> 
> The United States and other world powers are trying to talk Tehran into giving up nuclear technologies with bomb-making potential, while the Israelis watch warily from the sidelines.
> 
> Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has hinted it could resort to force to prevent its arch-foe attaining the means to threaten its existence.
> 
> *But some analysts believe that tactical limitations, and U.S. misgivings about pre-emptive strikes, may compel Israel to accept a more defensive posture with the help of its top ally. *
> 
> Iran denies seeking the bomb and has threatened to retaliate for any attack by firing its medium-range missiles at Israel.
> 
> http://www.france24.com/en/20091021-israel-us-tests-missile-defence-iran-tensions-tehran-nuclear


----------



## CougarKing

And surprise, surprise: Iran now blames Pakistan for having a hand in that attack last week, IIRC. 



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8313625.stm
> 
> *Iran's president has accused Pakistani agents of involvement in a suicide bombing in south-east of the country targeting a group of the elite Revolutionary Guards force.*
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Pakistan to arrest the attackers, who he said had entered Iran from Pakistan.
> Forty-two people died in the attack in Sistan-Baluchistan, including six Revolutionary Guards commanders.
> Iran has previously accused the US and UK of contributing to the attack.
> In his first comments on the bombing, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini also blamed the United States.
> "This terrorists crime revealed the evil face of enemies of security and unity who are supported by intelligence organisations of some arrogant governments," he said, using a phrase that usually refers to the US and its allies.
> Pakistani officials condemned the attack, which has been blamed on the Sunni resistance group, Jundullah.
> The Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman, Abdul Basit, dismissed Iranian claims that Jundullah's leader was in Pakistan.
> 'Crushing' response
> According to state media, one or more suicide bombers targeted the group of Revolutionary Guards leaders who had arranged to meet tribal leaders in the Pishin district close to the Pakistani border.
> Reports said a suicide bomber detonated a belt packed with explosives as the meeting was about to start.
> The deputy commander of the Guards' ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guards' chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among at least six officers reported to have been killed.
> Dozens of people were injured.
> A top Guards officer has also vowed to deliver a "crushing" response to those behind the attack, according to Agence-France Presse.
> Mr Ahmadinejad pointed towards Pakistan.
> "We were informed that some security agents in Pakistan are co-operating with the main elements of this terrorist incident," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.
> "We regard it as our right to demand these criminals from them," he said, without elaborating.
> "We ask the Pakistani government not to delay any longer in the apprehension of the main elements in this terrorist attack."
> Iranian authorities summoned a senior Pakistani diplomat in Tehran, claiming that the assailants had arrived in Iran from Pakistan, Iranian state media reported.
> The Iranian foreign ministry also "protested against the use of Pakistani territory by the terrorists and rebels against the Islamic Republic of Iran", the Isna news agency reported.
> Earlier, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said "US action" contributed to the attack. The US dismissed the accusation.
> Banditry and kidnapping
> *Sistan-Baluchistan is mainly made up of the Baluchi ethnic group, who belong to the Sunni Muslim minority of Shia-ruled Iran.*Jundallah has previously been accused by Iran of terrorist activities in the province.
> The province borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and has long been affected by smuggling, drug trafficking, banditry and kidnapping.
> Jundallah, also known as the Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, says it is fighting against the political and religious oppression of the country's minority Sunni Muslims.
> Local media cited officials as saying Jundallah had accepted responsibility for Sunday's bombing, though there was no direct claim from the group.


----------



## CougarKing

We'll see how this turns out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear



> *U.N. inspectors got their first look Sunday inside a once-secret uranium enrichment facility that has raised Western suspicions about the extent of Iran's nuclear program.
> 
> The semiofficial Mehr news agency reported the four-member team visited the heavily protected facility, carved into a mountainside south of Tehran. The tour marked the first independent examination of the site, but no results were expected until after the inspectors leave Iran later this week.*
> 
> *The review also coincides with the countdown to Iran's expected decision on whether to accept a U.N.-brokered deal to process its nuclear fuel abroad — a plan designed to ease Western fears about Iran's potential ability to produce weapons-grade material.
> 
> The disclosure last month of Iran's second enrichment facility — known as Fordo after a village believed to have the largest percentage of fighters killed in the 1980-88 war with Iraq — raised international suspicion over the extent and aim of Tehran's nuclear program.*
> 
> But Iran says that by reporting the existence of the site voluntarily to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, it "pre-empted a conspiracy" against Tehran by the U.S. and its allies who were hoping to present the site as evidence that Iran was developing its nuclear program in secret.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

More renewed protests:



> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – *The contrasts were vivid: Pro-government supporters chanted "Death to America" and stomped on U.S. flags Wednesday while not far away, hundreds of opposition protesters denounced Iran's leaders and appealed to America's president to choose sides.
> 
> "Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us," the anti-government protesters chanted in Farsi, in an amateur video clip widely circulated on the Internet.
> 
> The new and startling appeal to President Barack Obama came as Iran's opposition protesters returned to the streets in large numbers for the first time in nearly two months. Authorities were ready with the same sweeping measures they used to quell fierce election-fraud protests this summer and early fall: Sending paramilitary units to key locations to fire tear gas and beat people with batons.
> 
> Witnesses said they heard a man, apparently working for a paramilitary group, shout "Beat him up, beat him up," as he chased a protester in the crowd. "How is it possible to see such cruelty," another protester cried as he stood on the street, according to the same witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals.
> 
> The protests showed the determination of Iran's opposition to reassert its voice. But the latest marches drew far fewer demonstrators than in the summer or even in September, suggesting the relentless pressure by authorities could be taking a toll.*
> 
> In Washington, the White House called for an end to the violence against anti-government protesters. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama administration leaders "hope greatly that violence will not spread."
> 
> The administration has pursued talks with Iran's government even as it has pushed for more concessions on Iran's controversial nuclear program. Obama said in a statement Tuesday that he wanted the U.S. and Iran to move beyond "suspicion, mistrust and confrontation."
> 
> The day — marking the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover — has major symbolic importance for Iran's leaders.
> 
> Thousands of people attended a pro-government rally called to mark the anniversary, chanting "Death to America" and walking over and stomping on U.S. flags outside Washington's former embassy.
> 
> Just blocks away, hundreds of opposition marchers in Haft-e-Tir Square denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with cries of "Death to the Dictator" and trampled a poster of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, witnesses said.
> 
> In all, several thousand protesters joined the marches in various spots across the city. But those numbers were far smaller than at the height of the outrage after claims that Ahmadinejad stole the election by fraud this summer.
> 
> The main marches were quickly dispersed by security forces — including paramilitary forces and militiamen linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard — who used clubs and tear gas, said other witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from authorities.
> 
> Mobile phones were disrupted as was Internet access and text messaging, in another echo of the summer. Yet amateur video like the one appealing to Obama still was posted on Web sites, showing protesters in fall clothes and coats in Tehran's streets.
> 
> Media restrictions now limit journalists to covering state media and government-approved events, such as the rally outside the former embassy.
> 
> Pro-reform Web sites said police fired into the air to try to clear Haft-e-Tir square — about half a mile from the former U.S. Embassy. The report could not immediately be independently verified.
> 
> Some demonstrators were injured and arrested, witnesses said, but a clear number could not be independently obtained. There were no reports of serious injuries.
> 
> In many ways, it was a replay of the last time opposition groups took to the streets in mid-September to coincide with another state-sponsored rally — that one to denounce Israel. But those marches brought tens of thousands of protesters and a more militant response — with protesters throwing stones and setting fires ablaze.
> 
> The smaller turnout raised questions about the long-term stamina of the opposition after facing months of arrests.
> 
> "I don't think the opposition is as able to get as many people in the streets as they were after the election," said Alireza Nader, an Iran affairs analyst for RAND Corp. in Washington. "But today's events show there is still opposition that is willing to come out."
> 
> The opposition movement has also evolved since the election fallout touched off Iran's worst internal unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> *Protests still wear the green colors that symbolized the campaign of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims Ahmadinejad stole the election from him through rigged ballots.
> 
> But it has now expanded into a catchall movement for complaints that include the unlimited powers of the ruling clerics, Iran's sinking economy and its international isolation. Its wider reach has managed to draw in other political leaders and clerics who have challenged Ahmadinejad and his allies.
> 
> "I think the long-term crisis for the government isn't over," said Nader. "There is still a strong sense that the Ahmadinejad government is not legitimate."
> 
> A pro-reform Web site said militiamen on motorcycles prevented Mousavi from leaving his office to attend the marches. Another leading opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi, fell to the ground after being overcome by tear gas, according to a posting by his son Hossein on Karroubi's Web site. Karroubi did not need medical attention, his son said. *
> 
> The full scope of Wednesday's protests was difficult to determine. Some opposition groups also reported demonstrations in other cities such as Shiraz and Isfahan.
> 
> Authorities had warned protesters days in advance against attempts to disrupt or overshadow the annual gathering outside the former embassy, which was stormed by Iranians in 1979 in the turbulent months after the Islamic Revolution.
> 
> Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days, and the two nations have never resumed diplomatic ties.
> 
> Outside the former U.S. Embassy, thousands of people waved anti-American banners and signs praising the Islamic Revolution. As in past years, many were students bused in from outside Tehran.
> 
> The main speaker, hard-line lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, denounced the United States as the main enemy of Iran. He called opposition leaders dangerous to the country.


----------



## a_majoor

If the Obama Administration would stop dithering (or better yet, stop trying to appease dictators), then the Iran problem (regional destabilization, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, support of Syria, weapons and other aid to Taliban in Afghanistan, nuclear weapons program) would be pretty much "self correcting".

Another reason for all of us to wear green (besides the uniform).


----------



## CougarKing

> *Report: Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead*
> 
> _U.K. paper says U.N. watchdog has asked Tehran to explain new evidence_
> 
> LONDON - The U.N. nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting the Islamic Republic's scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian reported in its Friday edition.
> 
> The newspaper, citing what it describes as "previously unpublished documentation" from an International Atomic Energy Agency compiled dossier, said Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a "two-point implosion" device.
> 
> The IAEA said in September it has no proof Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program.
> 
> More at...
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33711466/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/


----------



## Dean22

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

>



Just when I was going to comment on how the uranium used in power plants can also be converted for bombs and depleted uranium ammunition this comes out...great.


----------



## CougarKing

Sending a message to the West again?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_war_games



> TEHRAN, Iran – *Iran will begin large-scale air defense war games Sunday aimed at protecting its nuclear facilities from possible attack, a senior military commander said Saturday.
> 
> The five-day drill will involve Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard and the regular army and will cover 230,000 square miles — or about 600,000 square kilometers — of central, western and southern Iran, said air force Gen. Ahmad Mighani.*
> 
> As Iran has pressed forward with its nuclear program, Israel has repeatedly threatened military action to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The U.S. also has not ruled out military action should diplomacy fail to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.
> 
> Washington and its European allies suspect Iran aims to use a civilian nuclear program as cover to produce weapons, and Iran has effectively rejected a new U.N. proposal aimed at easing those concerns. Tehran denies any intention to make nuclear weapons and says it only wants to generate power.
> 
> The defense drill will involve an attack by airplanes representing a hypothetical enemy.
> 
> "Reconnaissance enemy planes will violate our air space and try to disrupt electronic and radar systems, identify sensitive facilities, take photos and ... attack air defense sites," Mighani said, according to a state TV report. "And our air defense system will confront the intruding planes."
> 
> A planned key component of Iran's air defenses, an anti-aircraft missile system from Russia, has yet to be delivered.
> 
> Mighani criticized Russia, saying the delay in the S-300 missiles was apparently the result of Israeli pressure, not technical issues, as Moscow claims.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Ahmadinejad and his friends really want to piss off the West.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091129/world/iran_nuclear_politics



> *A defiant Iranian government led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed on Sunday to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants and also study a plan to process the material to 20 percent purity, state media reported.
> 
> 
> The hardline stance -- seen as hitting out at world powers led by Washington -- came after the conservative-dominated parliament urged the government to reduce ties with the UN atomic watchdog which on Friday condemned Iran for building its second uranium enrichment plant.
> 
> 
> State television reported on its website that Ahmadinejad's cabinet overwhelmingly ordered Iran's atomic body to begin building at five new sites earmarked for uranium enrichment plants and to locate sites for another five over the next two months.*
> The report said the Islamic republic plans to produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power which would be generated by building another 10 uranium enrichment plants the size of the one in the central city of Natanz.
> 
> 
> "In order to produce 20,000 megawatts we need 500,000 centrifuges with the current capacity. But we have designed new centrifuges which have higher capacity, so we would require less centrifuges and as soon as they become operational we will use them," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
> 
> 
> "We have to reach the level to be able to produce between 250 and 300 tons of fuel per year in the country, and for this we need newer centrifuges with a higher speed."
> 
> 
> Iran is already under three sets of UN sanctions for defiantly enriching uranium -- the most controversial aspect of its nuclear programme -- at the Natanz facility.
> 
> 
> Tehran further infuriated world powers in September when it disclosed it is building a second enrichment plant near the Shiite holy city of Qom.
> 
> 
> On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) condemned Iran for building the Qom plant and asked for its construction to stop.
> 
> 
> Angry Iranian MPs demanded that Ahmadinejad's government reduce ties with the IAEA following the resolution, seen as "political and lacking consensus."
> 
> 
> "We consider the behaviour of the IAEA to be that of double standards and political. We want it to give up this double standard which has tarnished its reputation," the MPs said in a sternly worded declaration.
> 
> 
> "The Iranian nation without a doubt knows that legally its nuclear file has no flaws," they said, and urged the government to continue its nuclear programme "without any halt."
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

More from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8385275.stm



> *Iran 'planning 10 new uranium enrichment sites'  *
> 
> Iran's second uranium enrichment facility came to light in September
> Iran's government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, according to state media.
> 
> The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months.
> 
> It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant.
> 
> The White House said the move was "yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations".
> 
> Meanwhile, Britain described the news as "a matter of serious concern" and potentially a "deliberate breach" of UN resolutions.
> 
> Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.
> 
> 
> ANALYSIS
> 
> Jon Leyne, BBC Tehran correspondent
> 
> 
> Iran says the purpose is to produce peaceful nuclear power. But the country's first nuclear power station at Bushehr is still under construction and others remain on the drawing board. Under this plan, Iran would increase its production of enriched uranium from just under one metric tonne last year, to up to 300 metric tonnes a year. It's hard to see how this quantity of enriched uranium would be needed any time soon, especially as the fuel for the Bushehr reactor is supplied by Russia.
> 
> 
> President Ahmadinejad is also calling for his cabinet to approve a move to increase the enrichment to 20%, up from 5%. The aim, presumably, would be to supply the Tehran research reactor, following the breakdown of an international deal to provide fuel for it. But some Western analysts say Iran does not possess the technical know-how to fabricate fuel rods for the reactor.
> The country insists it is only doing what is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
> 
> But a UK Foreign Office spokesman said: "Reports that Iran is considering building more enrichment facilities are clearly a matter of serious concern.
> 
> "It would be a deliberate breach of five UN security council resolutions. We will need to consider our response."
> 
> White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement: "If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself.
> 
> "Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear programme."
> 
> 'Hard line'
> 
> BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Iran's move is a massive act of defiance that is likely to bring forward a direct confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme.
> 
> The West will fear this move will speed up Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb, our correspondent adds.
> 
> President Ahmadinejad's immediate purpose may be to up the stakes in the diplomatic standoff, and use the issue to try to consolidate his position at home.
> 
> By taking such a hard line, the president could outmanoeuvre critics trying to use the nuclear issue against him, our correspondent adds.
> 
> Iran says the new plants would be of a similar size to its main existing one at Natanz.
> 
> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his cabinet that parliament had ordered that Iran should produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2020.
> 
> It therefore needed to make 250-300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, he said, which would require 500,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium.
> 
> Natanz has nearly 5,000 working centrifuges, with plans to build 54,000 in all.
> 
> Under the plan Mr Ahmadinejad presented to the cabinet, the level of enrichment would also be increased.
> 
> On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that was heavily critical of Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom.
> 
> Earlier on Sunday it was reported that the Iranian parliament had urged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to reduce co-operation with the IAEA.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran at it again.

http://www.military.com/news/article/iran-seizes-british-yacht.html%5D 



> Iran Seizes British Yacht
> November 30, 2009 Associated Press
> 
> Iran is holding five British sailors after stopping their racing yacht in the Persian Gulf, the British government said Monday.  The move could heighten tensions between Iran and major world powers, including Britain, that are demanding a halt to its nuclear program. The yacht owned by Sail Bahrain was stopped on its way from the tiny island country to the Gulf city of Dubai on Wednesday when it "may have strayed inadvertently into Iranian waters," Britain's Foreign Office said. Sail Bahrain's Web site identified the yacht as the "Kingdom of Bahrain" and said it had been due to join the Dubai-Muscat Offshore Sailing Race, which was to begin Nov. 26. The event was to be the boat's first offshore race.
> British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that British officials had been in touch about the matter with their Iranian counterparts for nearly a week.
> "I hope this issue will soon be resolved," he said.
> The statement added that the crew members "are still in Iran" and were "understood to be safe" but did not specify whether they are and what their legal status is. A call seeking clarification from Britain's Foreign Office was not immediately returned.
> Fifteen British military personnel were detained in the Gulf by Iran under disputed circumstances in March 2007. Iran charged them with trespassing in its waters, and the Iranian government televised apologies by some of the captured crew.
> All were eventually freed without an apology from Britain, which steadfastly insisted the crew members were taken in Iraqi waters, where they were authorized to be.
> The phone rang unanswered at the Iranian Embassy in London.
> Iran's nuclear chief on Monday said U.N. criticism of its nuclear program had pushed his country to retaliate by announcing ambitious plans for more uranium enrichment. With tensions rising over deadlocked negotiations, France said diplomacy was not working and sanctions against Iran were needed.


----------



## CougarKing

Seems those detained British sailors have just been released today.



> *Iran releases five Britons detained from yacht: radio*
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has released five Britons who had been detained in the Gulf after their yacht apparently strayed into Iranian waters, state radio said on Wednesday.
> 
> British Foreign Secretary David Miliband held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki late on Tuesday and called for formal consular access to the men and their speedy release. They were detained on November 25.
> 
> "After getting necessary guarantees, Iran released the five," state radio quoted a statement issued by the Revolutionary Guards.
> 
> "We reached the conclusion that they entered Iran's territorial waters by mistake."
> 
> (...)




http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iran/idUSTRE5B10XR20091202


----------



## sm1lodon

Didn't Israel bomb the last facilities Iran tried to build to make nukes fissile material?


----------



## a_majoor

The IAF bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq (during the reign of Saddam Hussein) to prevent start-up and the production of fissile material for bomb making in 1981. See here for a quick recap


----------



## sm1lodon

Thanks, Thuc.


----------



## a_majoor

The Iranians might yet fix this themselves:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/military-mutiny-in-iran/



> *Military Mutiny in Iran?*
> 
> Posted By Afshin Ellian On December 12, 2009 @ 2:19 pm In . Column2 02, Iran, Middle East, World News | 13 Comments
> 
> Leading commentators and diplomats have been pondering for quite some time why the Iranian leader is not prepared to act against the revolution in a major way. The “China model” could be applied, a brutal, fast, and extremely violent strike against the opposition. According to conventional wisdom, tyrants will use all means to eliminate their opponents. So why haven’t the mullahs adopted Chinese methods?
> 
> Tanks and soldiers
> 
> Applied to the Islamic Republic of Iran, it means the following:
> 
> * At a given time (e.g., around three o’clock in the morning) soldiers would raid the cities and arrest everybody suspected of even the slightest “green” revolutionary inclination.
> * All communications with the outside world would be temporarily shut down.
> * People would wake up with a statement by the leader proclaiming the definitive end of all demonstrations. Then thousands would be executed.
> 
> Speed and brutality are the key aspects of the China model. Why does Khamenei not activate this model?
> 
> This summer he did consider this, before he became ill. He even gave carte blanche for the arrest of opposition leader Mousavi. But Khamenei has subsequently stopped its implementation. Why? Because he had been told that this would provoke an explosion that would likely engulf him and his regime.
> 
> Revolutionary Guards
> 
> At the time, I also heard another reason, which, if true, would be the main reason. There are serious doubts about the military itself. The army and parts of the Revolutionary Guards (abbreviated as RG) would, under those circumstances, choose the side of the opposition and the people. The military power of Khamenei would be broken. This, however, was speculation without proof.
> 
> Now there is evidence to support it. On December 10, a statement signed by a number of officers and commanders of the Iranian army was released. The regular army of Iran had not been involved in the suppression of the population. The statement was signed by:
> 
> * Pilots and personnel of the aviation division of the regular army (Havanirooz)
> * Commanders and personnel of the 31th artillery division of Isfahan of the regular army
> * Pilots and airmen of the regular army
> * Teachers of the Shaid Satari University of the regular air force
> * Officers and staff of the logistics training unit the regular army
> * Professors and lecturers of the Imam Ali University for officers of the regular army
> * Officers, staff, and commanders of the chief of staff of the regular army
> 
> What did these soldiers write?
> 
> In summary, they wrote: Together we fought in the war with our brothers in the Revolutionary Guards in order to defend the country, the people, and the honor of the nation. They also emphasize that “the value of the land means the value of the Iranian nation.” This is very interesting.   Value of the nation.
> 
> Not abstract concepts such as Iran or Islam, but the value of the nation determines the value of the land. Therefore, the weapons of the army and RG are to be used to protect the nation: “When we fought together, we could never suspect that parts of the RG would ever use its weapons against the people.”
> 
> The last section of this brief but powerful statement will surely immortalize these brave officers: “The army is a haven for the nation and will never want to suppress the people at the request of politicians. We shall remain true to our promise not to intervene in politics. But we cannot remain silent when our fellow citizens are oppressed by tyranny.”
> 
> They go on: “Therefore, we warn the Guards who have betrayed the martyrs (from the war between Iran and Iraq) and who decided to attack the lives, the property and the honor of the citizens. We seriously warn them that if they do not leave their chosen path, they will be confronted with our tough response. The military is a haven for the nation. And we will defend the peace-loving Iranian nation against any aggression.”
> 
> Very clear language. This declaration was distributed by several human rights sites such as Iran Press News and Amir Kabir and Gooya.
> 
> I have spoken with several sources inside and outside of Iran. The statement is real. If Khamenei orders the arrest of the officers, resistance will spread like wildfire in all barracks of the regular army.
> 
> It is ironic that once again the officers of the regular air force join the people against the regime. Thirty years ago the officers of the regular air force also joined the people. After a few weeks the regime of the Shah was overthrown. The American and European diplomats need to warn Khamenei in a louder and clearer way about the consequences of his way of governing the nation. Especially now that Khamenei’s power also further erodes in the regular army.
> 
> This article first appeared in the Dutch magazine Elsevier on December 12, 2009.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com


----------



## CougarKing

Continuing student protests and clashes with the Iranian security apparatus which started last week:



> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
> 
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – Hundreds of students at Tehran University renewed anti-government protests for a second week on Sunday, accusing authorities of fabricating images of demonstrators burning photos of the Islamic Republic's revered founder.
> 
> Students moved to the forefront of opposition on the streets with massive protests last week. They say authorities are using the images of burning photos as a pretext to crack down on their protests, which have helped revitalize the pro-reform movement.
> 
> State television has repeatedly shown images, ostensibly taken during student-led protests on Dec. 7, of unidentified hands burning and tearing up pictures of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was a grave and illegal insult against the former leader, still widely respected in the country. The elite Revolutionary Guard, the country's most powerful military force, called for the trial and punishment of those responsible.
> Mohammad Nourizad, a filmmaker and activist, said that no matter who was behind the destruction of his photo, the offense pales in significance to the killing of protesters and the violation of people's rights. Iran's opposition says at least 72 protesters were killed in the weeks after the disputed June presidential election, while the government puts the number of confirmed dead at 30.
> 
> "When I saw how you tore up Imam (Khomeini's) road map for respecting people's rights and protecting their dignity, I had no power but to tear up his photo," Nourizad said sarcastically. He said the government was using the issue as a "childish tactic" against its opponents.
> 
> Student activists say authorities are trying to discredit them just as they begin to put up a new, powerful challenge to the regime. The opposition's mainstream leaders have struggled to dent the power of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's clerical leadership.
> 
> Students at Tehran University played a major role in street demonstrations in support of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that that toppled to pro-U.S. shah and brought Iran's clerical rulers to power.
> 
> Reformists contend that Ahmadinejad was re-elected by massive vote fraud, a belief that brought hundreds of thousands of protesters into the streets at the height of post-election unrest. The protests evolved into a broader confrontation against the country's ruling theocracy, but eventually died down in the face of a harsh crackdown by security forces stifled the street demonstrations.
> 
> Former President Mohammad Khatami, a prominent opposition voice, also said students were not behind the destruction of the photos.
> 
> "Do not use the Imam to justify a harsher approach against those you do not like," he was quoted as saying on a pro-reform Web site called Parlemannews.
> 
> Video circulated widely on the Internet on the day of last week's protests also showed photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad being burned, as well as one photo of Khamenei and Khomeini side by side. The faces of those burning the pictures could not be seen and loud chants against the government were heard in the background.
> 
> Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, appealed for calm but suggested the opposition was creating a hostile environment.
> 
> "Some have turned the election campaign into a campaign against the entire system," he said without naming any opposition leaders. "We call on those who are angry to remain calm."
> 
> Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has said his supporters love Khomeini and would not take actions that insulted him. The post-election protests, led by Mousavi, borrowed tactics from Khomenei's Islamic Revolution, such as shouting "Allahu Akbar" from the rooftops of Tehran in a nightly protest.
> 
> During Sunday's demonstration, students held up photos of Khomeini. One women wrapped his picture around her head like a hat and hid the rest of her face behind a scarf in the green color of the opposition.
> 
> Dozens of police ringed Tehran University but did not enter the campus because they are barred by law from doing so. No violence was reported.
> 
> Last week's demonstrations, in which tens of thousands of students protested for two days on campuses in the capital, Tehran, and other parts of the country, did spark violence as hard-line students scuffled with their rivals. They were the largest anti-government rallies in months, and there were also a number of demonstrations outside of campuses.
> 
> Angry government supporters, including hard-line clerics, rallied on Friday and Saturday to denounce those who burned photos of Khamenei. Tens of thousands turned out on Saturday.
> 
> Khomeini, who led the 1979 Islamic Revolution, is revered by both the opposition and the ruling system. But Khamenei is a much more divisive figure, seen by the opposition as an dictator who rules with an iron fist.
> 
> During last week's rallies, protesters shouted "Death to the oppressor, whether it's the shah or the leader!" — making a daring comparison between Khamenei and the pro-U.S. shah, despised in Iran since his overthrow.
> 
> Khamenei warned opposition leaders to stay away from the student protesters.
> 
> "Why don't they learn when leaders of oppression and arrogance, the U.S., France and Britain, support them," state TV quoted Khamenei as saying. "Open your eyes and stay away," he said.
> 
> The Revolutionary Guard called for legal action against those who burned the photos of Khomeini.
> 
> "The Revolutionary Guard ... won't tolerate any silence or hesitation in the immediate identification, trial and punishment of those carrying out this ugly insult and the agents behind them," it said in a statement posted on its Web site.
> 
> Under the law, insults to the late or current supreme leader can lead to two years of prison.


----------



## a_majoor

Depending on how far along they are, maybe we need to brush up on our CBRN training:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece



> *Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger*
> Catherine Philp in Washington
> 
> Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
> 
> The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
> 
> An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.
> 
> The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.
> 
> “Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”
> 
> The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.
> 
> A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”
> 
> Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”
> 
> The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.
> 
> In September, Iran was forced to admit that it was constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. President Ahmadinejad then claimed that he wanted to build ten such sites. Over the weekend Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that Iran needed up to 15 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs, despite the country’s huge oil and gas reserves.
> 
> Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.
> 
> *Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”*
> 
> The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.
> 
> The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.
> 
> A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.
> 
> Western intelligence sources say that by 2003 Iran had already assembled the technical know-how it needed to build a bomb, but had yet to complete the necessary testing to be sure such a device would work. Iran also lacked sufficient fissile material to fuel a bomb and still does — although it is technically capable of producing weapons-grade uranium should its leaders take the political decision to do so.
> 
> The documents detail a plan for tests to determine whether the device works — without detonating an explosion leaving traces of uranium detectable by the outside world. If such traces were found, they would be taken as irreversible evidence of Iran’s intention to become a nuclear-armed power.
> 
> Experts say that, if the 2007 date is correct, the documents are the strongest indicator yet of a continuing nuclear weapons programme in Iran. Iran has long denied a military dimension to its nuclear programme, claiming its nuclear activities are solely focused on the production of energy for civilian use.
> 
> Mr Fitzpatrick said: “Is this the smoking gun? That’s the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium.”


----------



## Sonnyjim

I know most of this thread is for news posts etc. but lets face it. Can we really trust anything from the US or Britain when it comes to intel? I sat and watched with my own eyes as they told the world audience that Iraq had WMD's and the possiblity of creating nuclear weapons. I then also watched with MY own eyes as George Bush HIMSELF came on TV and said that they were wrong, that the intel was wrong, that they were doing an investigation into why the intel was wrong, but that Sadam was still a bad person and needed to go....... like honestly WTF if you want a claim a war on tyranny lets go to war with China, North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan. I know Iran isn't much better when it comes to holding true to their word but how is the US any better? Even if they come out with satellite images, recordings of Iranian scientists saying they are building nuclear weapons, and tons of documents, the USA has proved they cannot be trusted. I call BS.


----------



## a_majoor

With intelligence, one must always act on *capabilities*, not *intentions*.

The Iraqi Ba'athist regime spent decades on *real* WMD programs, and used chemical weapons against the Iranians and internally on the Kurds, so the capability was quite proven.

After the first Persian Gulf War, the Ba'athist regime continued to make all the motions of having WMD programs in place, and even powerful neo-con politicians like Bill Clinton and Senator Kerry proclaimed the threat of Iraqi WMD in the late 1990's, as did intelligence agencies throughout the world. It is still an open question as to what was actually happening, since much of the documentation captured after OIF seems never to have been translated, and much unexplained traffic from Iraq to Syria in the weeks leading to OIF have never been accounted for either. Who knows, maybe they were just moving Saddan's art treasures, but no explanation has ever surfaced to my knowledge.

Iran has certainly demonstrated all the capabilities needed to enrich uranium, and now seemingly the ability to build the complete weapon including the trigger, and also have a well developed capability to launch long range rockets AND a known capability to support terrorist movements around the world. Pretty nasty capabilities, especially when you add their stated intent: become the hegemon of the middle east and also destroy the State of Isreal.


----------



## gillbates

Thucydides said:
			
		

> and even powerful neo-con politicians like Bill Clinton and Senator Kerry



Did you mean to say 'Democrat'?


----------



## Edward Campbell

gillbates said:
			
		

> Did you mean to say 'Democrat'?



Mike needs to give us a sarcasm smiley.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran tests a long-range missile, which further irks the Israel, the US and the rest of the West:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_missile



> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West.
> The test stoked tensions between Iran and the West, which is pressing Tehran to rein in its nuclear program. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran.
> 
> "This is a matter of serious concern to the international community and it does make the case for us moving further on sanctions. We will treat this with the seriousness it deserves," Brown said after talks with U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon in Copenhagen.
> 
> In Washington, Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell called the launch provocative but said the technology was not "particularly different than anything we've seen in the past."
> 
> "Obviously, it is another example of provocative actions on the part of the Iranian government that do nothing to instill any degree of confidence in its neighbors that it has peaceful intentions," he said.
> 
> Wednesday's test was for the latest version of Iran's longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran's sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe.
> 
> The two-stage Sajjil-2 and is powered entirely by solid-fuel while the older, medium-range Shahab-3 missile uses a combination of solid and liquid fuel in its most advanced form
> 
> (...)


----------



## tomahawk6

Its all coming together for Iran long range missile test successful,work progressing on nuclear trigger development and enrichment process very far along. The Israelis have a very short window of opportunity if they are going to strike. Once the Russians deploy the SA-300 system only stealth systems would make a strike possible - something they lack. The US is certainly not going to take part unless the Saudi King gave Obama the thumbs up.


----------



## OldSolduer

Does anyone really think Obama has the....cajones....to order a strike on Iran?

I really think he lacks the intestinal fortitude.


----------



## CougarKing

The death of a prominent reform-minded cleric seems to have become the rallying point for opposition protestors critical of the current regime.

Is it just me or do I see a parallel with a similar set of events that occurred in China in June 1989? The death of a reform-minded goverment official named Hu Yaobang eventually became the rallying point for a series of protests which became the "Tiananmen Square student movement" and the ensuing bloody crackdown at the same location.

Will we see something similar happen in Iran eventually? Time will tell.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran



> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – *A huge funeral procession for Iran's most senior dissident cleric became a show of defiance against the country's rulers Monday as mourners flashed green protest colors and chanted against the Islamic leadership in Iran's holy city of Qom.*
> The response by authorities was not as punishing as in recent demonstrations — an apparent attempt to avoid bloodshed and chaos during the cortege for one of the patriarchs of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the one-time heir to lead the country.
> 
> But the major outpouring for Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri by opposition supporters could signal a restive week ahead. Tens of thousands of demonstrators, if not more, filled the main boulevards in Qom, the hub of Islamic scholarship and study in mostly Shiite Iran.
> 
> Iran is marking one of the most important periods on the Shiite religious calendar with ceremonies that draw deeply on themes of martyrdom and sacrifice, which could inspire fresh opposition marches. It culminates on Sunday, the same day mourners will gather for the traditional seven-day memorial for Montazeri's death.
> 
> *Opposition leaders have used holidays and other symbolic days in recent months for anti-government rallies. Montazeri, who died of apparent natural causes on Sunday at age 87, had stunned even hard-core protesters with his scathing denunciations of the ruling clerics and their efforts to crush dissent after the disputed presidential election in June.*
> His open assault on the highest reaches of the Islamic system helped galvanize the opposition and shatter taboos about criticizing the pinnacle of power: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> On Monday, demonstrators chanted the now-familiar "Death to the Dictator" that's become a catchall slogan against Iran's leadership, witnesses said. Some protesters shouted specific slurs against Khamenei, according to video clips posted on the Web.
> 
> The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of arrest and the authenticity of the Web video could not be independently verified. The accounts, however, were consistent with reports from a variety of sources.
> 
> *Iranian authorities barred foreign media from covering the funeral in Qom, about 60 miles south of Tehran. Communications also appeared disrupted.
> 
> Internet in Iran was slow, and cellular telephone service was unreliable. The government has periodically restricted communications in an attempt to prevent protesters from organizing.
> 
> But people had been streaming toward Qom since word of Montazeri's death began to spread.*Crowds were packed shoulder-to-shoulder for blocks following the truck carrying Montazeri's body. A single white turban sat atop the vehicle.
> 
> Video posted on the Web showed people beating their chests in a sign of mourning before Montazeri's body was buried in a shrine alongside his son, who died in a bomb blast in the early years of the Islamic Revolution.
> 
> Some climbed onto winter-bare tree branches for a better view of the procession — which included many mourners holding aloft both black-rimmed portraits of Montazeri and green banners and wrist bands in a powerful show of support for *the Green Movement of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.
> 
> Mousavi, who was defeated in the presidential election, attended the funeral along with another prominent protest leader, Mahdi Karroubi, witnesses said. Some reformist sites reported that Mousavi's car was attacked as he left Qom and at least one member of his entourage was injured. The reports could not be independently confirmed.*
> Both men have faced direct confrontations from hard-line vigilantes and security forces at past rallies.
> 
> Some mourners clashed briefly with security forces and pro-government militiamen charged some protesters, opposition Web sites said. The militiamen later tore down mourning banners and ripped up posters of Montazeri near his home, where he spent five years under house arrest, the Hammihan Web site reported.
> 
> Thousands of mourners also marched in the cleric's hometown of Najafabad, near the central city of Isfahan.
> 
> Web video showed crowds of men beating their chests and chanting, "Oppressed Montazeri, you are with God now." Women in black robes shouted, "Dictator, dictator, Montazeri is alive," and "Montazeri, you who spoke the truth! Your path will be followed."
> 
> Montazeri's death left authorities in an awkward spot that could be repeated as more high-profile clerics drift toward the opposition.
> 
> They could not ignore Montazeri's role as a guiding force of the Islamic Revolution and protege of its leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who selected Montazeri to succeed him. But officials also regarded him as a fearsome critic who was too venerable to silence.
> 
> State television made only a passing reference to Monday's funeral. It was, however, pouring across the Web with videos, firsthand reports that showed the inability of Iran's authorities to fully control the Internet.
> 
> *Montazeri broke with the regime in the 1980s after claiming that the ruling clerics violated the ideals of the revolution by taking absolute power rather than serving as advisers to political leaders. He spent five years under house arrest and had only a minor role in political affairs after being released in 2003.
> 
> But the outrage after June's election gave him a new voice that resonated with a younger generation. His most pivotal moments came in the summer when he denounced the "despotic" tactics and "crimes" of the ruling clerics.
> 
> In demonstrations earlier this month, students shouted "Death to the dictator!" and burned pictures of Khamenei — an act that was almost unthinkable just a few months ago.
> 
> Montazeri's grandson, Nasser Montazeri, said he died in his sleep. The Web site of Iranian state television quoted doctors as saying Montazeri had suffered from asthma and arteriosclerosis, a disease that thickens and hardens arteries.
> 
> Montazeri helped draft the nation's post-revolution constitution, which was based on a concept called "velayat-e faqih," or rule by Islamic jurists. That idea enshrined a political role for Islamic clerics in the new system.
> 
> But a deep ideological rift soon developed with Khomeini. Montazeri envisioned the Islamic experts as advisers to the government, who should not have outright control to rule themselves. He was also among those clerics who believed the power of the supreme leader comes from the people, not from God*.


----------



## CougarKing

Ahmadinejad's stubborness at it again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear



> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago
> TEHRAN, Iran – *Iran's president on Tuesday dismissed a year-end deadline set by the Obama administration and the West for Tehran to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The United States warned Iran to take the deadline seriously.
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also accused the U.S. of fabricating a purported Iranian secret document that appears to lay out a plan for developing a critical component of an atomic bomb.*
> Ahmadinejad's remarks underscored Tehran's defiance in the nuclear standoff — and also sought to send a message that his government has not been weakened by the protest movement sparked by June's disputed presidential election. He spoke a day after the latest opposition protest by tens of thousands mourning a dissident cleric who died over the weekend.
> 
> Late Tuesday, the Web site of state-run television said Ahmadinejad had appointed a new chief of Iran's prestigious Art Academy, removing opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi from the post.
> 
> Mousavi, a presidential challenger who alleged voting fraud, had attended Monday's funeral procession. There was no immediate comment from Mousavi.
> 
> *President Barack Obama has set a rough deadline of the end of this year for Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue on the nuclear issue. Washington and its allies are warning of new, tougher sanctions on Iran if it doesn't respond.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## vonGarvin

From this morning's CTV.CA website:


> Anti-government protests in Iran turned deadly Sunday, as witnesses and opposition web sites reported that security forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least four.
> Thousands of protesters ignored government warnings of a harsh crackdown ahead of the demonstrations and took to the streets of the capital, Tehran.
> The demonstrators shouted "Death to the dictator" in reference to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and threw stones at security forces, according to opposition web sites.
> According to the reports, security forces first fired tear gas and warning shots into the air in a failed attempt to disperse the crowd.
> The heavily armed officers then opened fire into the crowd, killing at least four people, reported the pro-reform web site Rah-e-Sabz.


CNN is also reporting "Deaths...in Iran Clashes"


> Fresh clashes broke out between demonstrators and security forces in Tehran on Sunday as large crowds gathered for Ashura, a major religious observance.
> An opposition Web site said three people had been killed in clashes. But, with tight restrictions on international media, *CNN could not independently verfiy the casualties.*


----------



## brihard

Al-ZJazeera is reporting up to eight dead, including the nephew of Hossein Mousavi- not good.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122774411253544.htmlhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122774411253544.html



> The nephew of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi is reportedly among  eight people killed in continuing clashes between police and protesters.
> 
> An aide to the leader said on Sunday that Ali Mousavi died after being shot by the police, but the claim could not be independently verified as foreign news organisations are barred by the authorities from covering street unrest.
> 
> Iranian state television, however, confirmed  that several people were killed in clashes.



More on link.


----------



## a_majoor

One point to ponder is if the Iranian people throw off their opressors on their own; how will the new Iranian government act towards the West which sat by and did little or nothing to help?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-27/could-the-mullahs-fall-this-time/full/



> *Could the Mullahs Fall This Time?*
> 
> by Rouzbeh Parsi
> 
> Rouzbeh Parsi is Research Fellow at the European Institute for Security Studies
> 
> Trita Parsi
> 
> Trita Parsi is the President of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 Recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.
> 
> BS Top - Parsi Iran Protests AP Photo As protesters poured into the streets of Iran in the biggest and bloodiest demonstration since June, Trita and Rouzbeh Parsi say this time could be the breaking point.
> 
> With the government growing increasingly desperate—and violent—the new clashes on the streets in Iran may very well prove to be the breaking point of the regime. If so, it shows that the Iranian theocracy ultimately fell on its own sword. It didn't come to an end due to the efforts of exiled opposition groups or the regime change schemes of Washington's neo-conservatives. Rather, the Iranian people are the main characters in this drama, using the very same symbols that brought the Islamic Republic into being to close this chapter in a century-old struggle for democracy.
> 
> It will indeed be ironic if the Iranian theocracy begins to crumble on the most important religious day of the Shiite calendar.
> 
> Protests flared up again because of Ashura, the climax of a month of mourning in the Shiite religious calendar. It is a day of sadness for the death of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussain, who was martyred in 680. And this year the commemoration coincided with the seventh day after the death of dissident Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, adding to the significance of the day. Ashura is also a reminder that the eternal value of justice must be defended regardless of the odds of success. This has provided the relentless Green movement with yet another opportunity to outmaneuver the Iranian government by co-opting its symbols and challenge its legitimacy through the language of religion.
> 
> This battle cry for justice in all its simplicity is where most political conflagrations start. It is the deafness of the powers that be that often make them the kernel of something larger and more earth shattering. It is testimony to the arrogance of power that a simple and rather modest call for accountability and justice is beaten down only to return, demanding more, and less willing to compromise and accommodate.
> 
> And it wouldn’t be the first time. In 1906, the call for a house of justice went unheeded and was followed by demonstrations, and eventually transformed into a demand for a written constitution. Similarly Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in his imperial ineptitude, brought on himself an increasingly anti-monarchical coalition, ranging from liberals and communists, to the victorious Islamists who forged the Islamic Republic in 1979.
> 
> Ashura, with its story of perseverance and martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force of oppression, was a perfectly stylized allegory for the struggle between the mighty state of the Shah and the revolutionaries at the end of the 1970s. The Shiite mourning rituals with their revisiting of the dead on the 3rd, 7th and 40th day of death provided the demonstrators then, as well as now, with the opportunity to both remember those who died for the cause as well as re-iterating their opposition and condemnation of that state repression. This played an important role in bringing the simmering political discontent to a boiling point and wearing down what was perceived as the all-powerful Pahlavi state in 1977-78.
> 
> It is even more important this time around since there is no extensive leadership structure that steers the opposition. The ability to bring out crowds for important days of the calendar, religious and revolutionary ones, reminds everyone that they are not alone in their opposition to the current government.
> 
> No one can predict a revolution nor say with certainty when an authoritarian state loses its footing if not its grip. For it is not necessarily its ability or will to repress that will falter as much as ordinary people's unwillingness to allow themselves to be cowed and intimidated. It is a battle of wills where, on the one hand, the constant mobilization and tension pervading a discontented and rebellious society tests the state machinery's ability to endure as they try to perform their functions (including repression). Weighing in on the other side of the balance is the patience and capacity to stomach pain and suffering of the protesters and their sympathizers in all quarters of society.
> 
> Today a significant number of the original revolutionaries of 1979 are imprisoned or being harassed by shadowy groups from the borderlands of state authority. The constituency of the Islamic Republic is becoming increasingly alienated as the hard line faction ruling Tehran demands loyalty to an increasingly surreal understanding of, and vision for, Iranian society. Not much is left of the dynamism and visions that fuelled the revolution of 1979—but having learned from that experience the demands of the reformist movement today are much more sophisticated and their abstention from violence so much more promising for the future.
> 
> The State's ability to use the language of religion to repress these developments is failing. Again and again religion has proven itself to be much better suited as a language of resistance than governance. This became increasingly clear to Khomeini himself after the success of the revolution. In the constant bickering within the revolutionary elite, Khomeini increasingly invoked reasons of state for justifying actions, demoting religion to the role of ideological veneer. By the end of his life he stated that the state could abrogate the basic principles of Islam if it deemed necessary for the survival of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> Instead of a system where religious thinking controlled and wielded state power he ended up with an arrangement where the state utilized religion for its own purposes, emptying religion and its language of substance, discarding it on the growing heap of unfulfilled promises of the revolution.
> 
> Ashura, the commemoration and the principle it invokes, proves to be relevant yet again, as those who hold the reins of power in Tehran unleash violence against their own people. Undoubtedly the people of Iran will persevere in their quest for greater freedom and justice through their non-violent transformation of the system from within. It will indeed be ironic if the Iranian theocracy begins to crumble on the most important religious day of the Shiite calendar.
> 
> Rouzbeh Parsi is Research Fellow at the European Institute for Security Studies. Trita Parsi is the President of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 Recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.


----------



## a_majoor

Fantastic video of Iranians rescuing two people about to be executed at a public hanging:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2009/12/freedom-for-iran.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DrRoysThoughts+%28Dr+Roy%27s+Thoughts%29

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ygi3p4WQpkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ygi3p4WQpkw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

(Note; not sure if I got the embed URL correct)

Also:





> *Is this Iran’s Berlin Wall moment?*
> Robin Wright: Commentary
> 
> It is time to start wondering out loud whether Iran’s uprising could become one of those Berlin Wall moments.
> 
> This is not yet a counter-revolution. And the new “green movement” is a coalition of disparate factions — from former presidents to people who have never voted at all — who view the issues through vastly different prisms. Yet the pattern of public outpourings since the disputed election six months ago is setting historic precedents.
> 
> The opposition has proven it has the resolve and resilience to sustain its risky challenge, despite the regime’s ruthless use of force, mass arrests, show trials and reports of torture and rape in prison. In the escalating political showdown the opposition has the momentum.
> 
> Just as important, the emergence of people power is also setting a new precedent in the last bloc of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Thirty years ago, Iran’s revolution redefined politics throughout the Middle East by ending dynastic rule and introducing Islam as a modern political idiom. Iran’s uprising is doing it again — this time by taking to the streets to demand an end to dictatorship as well as calling for fundamental rights such as free speech, a free press and respect for the individual vote.
> Related Links
> 
> * Five killed as street battles rage in Iran
> 
> * Mousavi's nephew 'killed' in Tehran clashes
> 
> * Reporters attacked in crackdown by Iran militia
> 
> But the green movement is far more than simply sporadic eruptions. This is the most vibrant and imaginative civil disobedience campaign in the world.
> 
> There’s the currency campaign, for starters. Thousands of rial notes have been stamped with a simple green “V” for victory. Others bear handwritten slogans that echo the public chants denouncing the regime. Some have even been reprinted with pictures: one is a cartoon of President Ahmadinejad with “people’s enemy” written underneath. Another carries a picture from the mobile phone images of Neda Agha Soltan as she lay dying on the street from a sniper’s bullet. Underneath is written “death to the dictator” — a common public chant against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> The currency campaign even denounces the regime’s foreign policy. “Khamenei the non-believer is the servant of [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin,” declares one slogan, written in green, on a 20,000-rial note. Another chastises: “They stole money and give it to [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez.” Some messages simply appeal for others to join the campaign to write anti-regime messages on one billion banknotes. The Government reportedly tried to take the marked notes out of circulation, but found there were too many to replace.
> 
> Then there is the boycott of goods advertised on state-controlled television. People in line at markets whisper to other shoppers not to buy certain products that help to subsidise the Government’s broadcasting monopoly — and its version of events. The opposition has also called for boycotts on mobile phone companies that provide technology to the Government. It is impossible to assess the impact but it adds a critical economic component to the political confrontation.
> 
> Civil disobedience is often brazen. Graffiti is increasingly showing up on public walls — in green spray paint — to berate the authorities or to announce a new demonstration. Large posters of arrested protesters and dissidents demanding their freedom have appeared on campuses, often timed for the appearance of a pro-regime event or speech.
> 
> At football matches and in subway tunnels, mobile phone videos record spontaneous outbursts of the two key opposition chants: “death to the dictator” and “God is great”. The latter was the pivotal revolutionary chant against the monarchy that has been usurped to denounce the revolution’s hardliners. The implication is that God has abandoned the revolution to side with and protect the green movement.
> 
> Participation in civil disobedience is far more widespread than the protests. It includes individual, uncoordinated acts, such as a challenge to the Supreme Leader by Mahmoud Vahidnia, an unassuming maths student with no record of dissent. At a meeting with Iran’s academic elite Ayatollah Khamenei warned that the “biggest crime” was questioning the June 12 election. Mr Vahidnia then went to the microphone and criticised the government crackdown, asking about alleged prison abuses and why no one was allowed to criticise the leader. He also told him that he lived in a bubble.
> 
> So far the green movement has insisted on non-violence. Perhaps the ultimate irony in the Islamic Republic today is that a brutal revolutionary regime suspected of secretly working on a nuclear weapon faces its biggest challenge from peaceful civil disobedience. And even such a militarised regime has been unable to put it down.
> 
> Robin Wright is a senior Fellow at the US Institute of Peace in Washington. The author of five books on the Middle East, she has visited Iran regularly since 1973


----------



## a_majoor

Remember this is only a rumor:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/rumors-that-iranian-leader-may-be.html



> *Rumors that Iranian Leader May be Readying to Flee Iran*
> 
> Gateway pundit shows a letter published on the Iranian websites claims that Ayatollah Khamenei is planning a possible escape to Russia.
> 
> Radio Netherlands reports indicate that the Supreme National Security Council has ordered a complete check-up of the jet which is on standby to fly Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei and his family to Russia should the situation in Iran spiral out of control
> 
> LA times: Iran slayings point to increasingly desperate regime
> 
> The killing of a nephew of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the arrests of other dissidents signal a government fearful of losing its grip even as it seems to court civil war.
> 
> UK Guardian: Iranians' green revolution refuses to wither and die
> 
> Amid ominous signs that political tensions were reaching breaking point, reformist websites reported that special forces fired teargas and attacked crowds gathered in some of Tehran's main thoroughfares to begin two days of commemorations for one of Shia Islam's holiest figures. The opposition website Rah-e Sabz reported confrontations in Enghelab, Haft-e Tir and Imam Hossein Squares. Unconfirmed accounts told of disturbances breaking out between Ferdowsi Square and Valiasr crossroads and between Choobi Bridge and Shahmirzadi Hosseinieh.
> 
> Deutsche Welle's Farsi-language website carried reports of further clashes in Isfahan, Tabriz, Kermanshah and Ahvaz.
> 
> Times UK Online: Analysts heralded the start of what could be a bloody endgame as hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters poured on to the streets of Tehran and other cities and fought running battles with the security forces. Opposition websites claimed that some policemen had refused to fire on demonstrators.
> 
> The opposition claims that the unrest is spreading across Iran, and to every social class. It senses victory, but activists fear a bloodbath first. “The security forces, especially the Revolutionary Guards, are prepared to fight until the end as they have nowhere to go,” one member said
> 
> 
> Wall Street Journal Opinion piece by AFSHIN ELLIAN
> 
> These dissident ayatollahs—such as the late Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who in a famous fatwa last summer declared the regime neither Islamic nor a republic—are no longer alone in turning against Khamenei. Even religious scholars who until recently did not openly defy the regime, have now joined the calls of the opposition. There is the well-respected Ayatollah Yussuf Sanai, for example, who was a friend of Khamenei, who went so far as to state that Khamenei's continuing struggle for power is against Sharia law. There is Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili, the former president of the judicial branch of Iran, who this summer openly declared his solidarity with the dissident Ayatollah Montazeri. And there are the ayatollahs Bayat Zanjani, Dastghaib, and Taheri who have aligned themselves with the protesting masses. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in neighboring Iraq—who is held in great esteem by Shiites also in Iran—has declared that the oppression of the demonstrators is un-Islamic.
> 
> All this is significant because it broadens the protests to a truly popular movement. The students and educated class don't need fatwas to turn against the regime. But due to the criticism by prominent ayatollahs, the regime is losing its moral legitimacy even in the eyes of less educated and more pious Iranians.
> 
> The regime is not only losing the clergy but also the military. The communiqués from opposition groups and those that reach me personally all indicate that a large part of the Revolutionary Guards is no longer willing to be used as an instrument of oppression. Video images from nearly every demonstration show Revolutionary Guards members joining ranks with the protesters. A declaration signed by air force and army officers and published on the Internet warned radical Revolutionary Guards members to "Stop the violence against your own population."
> 
> This rift also explains why the much-anticipated "China Model" of ruthless and widespread use of force against the population, with thousands of deaths and executions in a matter of days, never happened. If Khamenei could have been sure about the loyalty of the military, he would have used it a long time ago to crush the rebellion for good. The only element of the Revolutionary Guards which still seems to be loyal to the regime is the Quds division, a hodge-podge of terrorists from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other regions.
> 
> ***
> This does not mean this regime will go out with a whimper. During these past six months, the Iranian regime has undergone a dramatic change of character. It has eliminated all pragmatic forces within its ranks. For religious support, they rely on a small but extremely radical group of ayatollahs such as Mesbah Yazde and Ahmad Janati. These are apocalyptic worshippers of the twelfth Imam, or Mahdi. Understanding this group is of the utmost importance for Western policymakers. The Mahdi is viewed as a Messiah-like figure whose return will bring peace on Earth. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad frequently refers to him in his speeches, including those held before the United Nations. While most twelver imam Shiites believe that the Mahdi will appear by his own accord, this radical group believes that his appearance can be triggered by creating the apocalyptic conditions necessary for his emergence. Iran's nuclear weapons program must be seen in this context. Ahmadinejad and the radical fringe group to which he belongs see themselves as the army of the Mahdi in his final jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign Policy: Be careful what you wish for: Would ‘regime change’ help Iran?
> 
> This is not to say that American-Iranian rivalry is inevitable no matter who is in power in Tehran (or Washington), or that Obama's efforts to reopen dialogue with Iran's current government is misplaced. It is rather to suggest that reform (or even revolution) in Iran is not a magic bullet that will suddenly cause all sources of friction to disagree, and to raise the possibility that a smarter and more capable Iran might turn out to be more of a challenge than the government we are dealing with today.


----------



## CougarKing

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/hmm-israel-calls-all-ambassadors-home-for-special-meeting-in-jerusalem/



> For the first time ever, Israel has called ALL of its ambassadors and consuls home for meetings this week in Jerusalem.
> The meetings opened today.



Apparently people at the other forum where this was originally posted think that this is a sign that Israel may be preparing to "go it alone", perhaps with regards to an Iran strike.


----------



## a_majoor

A murkier picture:

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2010/01/iran-and-disinformation.html



> *Iran and disinformation *
> By TigerHawk at 1/02/2010 08:46:00 PM
> 
> A couple of days ago, Stratfor published an interesting note about the disinformation campaigns that may, or may not, be swirling around the various bits we have recently learned about Iran's nuclear program and the protests that confronted the regime last week. I would be disappointed if Stratfor's assessment were proved true, but it struck me as important enough to pass along in full (with the hope that my usual endorsement -- subscribe to Stratfor -- will suffice for consideration). Very short commentary follows.
> 
> A
> 
> N INTER PRESS SERVICE (IPS) REPORT emerged Monday in which a former CIA official claims that a widely circulated document describing Iran’s nuclear weapons plans was fabricated. The document in question appeared in the Times of London on Dec. 14 and cited an “Asian intelligence source” who allegedly provided the newspaper with “confidential intelligence documents” on how Iran was preparing to run tests on a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion.
> 
> Former CIA counterterrorism official Philip Giraldi, however, claims in the IPS interview that the Rupert Murdoch publishing empire — which includes the Sunday Times, Fox News and the New York Post in addition to the Times of London — has been used frequently by the Israelis and occasionally by the British government to plant false stories to exaggerate the Iranian nuclear threat. Giraldi has been credited in the past with exposing disinformation campaigns by the previous U.S. administration that were designed to bolster claims that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium from Niger.
> 
> Disinformation campaigns are common practice in the world of intelligence. Diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions and military strikes are all tools of statecraft that require a considerable amount of political energy. In the grey areas of intelligence, however, policymakers have a relatively low-cost option of directly shaping the perceptions of their target audience through carefully calibrated disinformation campaigns. U.S. administrations, for example, often use The New York Times and The Washington Post for leaks while Israel tends to rely on British media outlets like the Times of London to plant stories that support their policy objectives.
> 
> 
> “It takes a jolt like this to get Washington to go back to the drawing board and re-examine its assessments on Iran.”
> 
> 
> We don’t know if the document on the neutron initiator was completely fabricated, but we do know that these leaks serve a very deliberate political purpose. Israel clearly has an interest in building up the Iranian nuclear threat. The United States has pledged to do its part to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program, and Israel has every incentive to drive the United States toward action. Although they share an interest in eliminating the Iranian nuclear program, each side has very different perceptions of the urgency of the threat and the timetable upon which it must be addressed.
> 
> Giraldi’s counter-leak, on the other hand, plays into the interests of the Obama administration. President Obama has no interest in getting pushed into a military conflict with Iran and wants to buy time to deal with the issue. By discrediting intelligence that has influenced the U.S. net assessment on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Giraldi could quite effectively send the U.S. intelligence community into a tailspin. Obama can then raise the issue of faulty intelligence to gain more time and room to maneuver with Israel. After all, Israel would have a much more difficult time making the case to Washington that Iran is approaching the point of no return in its nuclear weapons program if the United States can argue that the intelligence supporting that assumption is resting on fabricated evidence.
> 
> It takes a jolt like this to get various policymakers and intelligence officials in Washington to go back to the drawing board and re-examine their assessments on Iran. And Iran’s nuclear progress is not the only issue in question. Western media outlets and certain U.S. non-governmental institutions are spreading the perception that the opposition movement in Iran has gained considerable momentum and that the Iranian regime is on the ropes. Again, we have to take into account the use of disinformation campaigns. There are a lot of people around the world and in Washington that have an interest in painting the perception of an Iranian regime teetering on the edge of collapse. Twitter, YouTube and a handful of mostly U.S.- and Europe-based reformist Web sites, backed by upper-class Iranian expatriates no less, are a useful way to spread this perception.
> 
> But the facts on the ground appear to suggest otherwise. The Dec. 27 Ashura protests, described by many (including our own Iranian sources) as the big showdown between the regime and the opposition, were far more revealing of the marginalization of the opposition and the endurance of the Iranian regime than what many Western media outlets have led their viewers to believe. The protests have failed to break the regime’s tolerance level and have in fact empowered the regime, however fragmented, to crack down with greater force. This is broadly the view we have held since the June protests, but we, like many other intelligence organizations, are also in the process of reviewing our net assessment on Iran. The process is a painfully meticulous one, but one that requires great discipline and, of course, an ability to recognize multiple disinformation campaigns at work.
> 
> 
> Commentary
> 
> 
> The first bit -- that the Israelis are manufacturing evidence to support their claims about the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program -- would be disinformation. The second -- that dissident groups claim greater significance for the Ashura protests than the facts prove -- is just public relations. All "social change" movements try to make themselves look bigger and more significant than they are. The propaganda of would-be revolutionaries tends to be more or less believed by people who more or less support them, respectively.
> 
> Beyond that, there is an obvious circularity in Stratfor's note. Personally, I have subscribed for years and regard that organization's analysis as generally interesting, credible, and valuable. I wonder, though, whether Stratfor's note also looks like disinformation to readers who do not share that assumption.


----------



## CougarKing

The "consequences" for Iran,  if it kept on its current course, that Obama alluded to in his last State of the Union speech?

Associated Press link






> WASHINGTON – *As the Obama administration edges toward imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, it has begun upgrading its approach to defending its Persian Gulf allies against potential Iranian missile strikes, officials said Saturday.
> 
> The United States has quietly increased the capability of land-based Patriot defensive missiles in several Gulf Arab nations, and one military official said the Navy is beefing up the presence of ships capable of knocking down hostile missiles in flight.*
> The officials discussed aspects of the defensive strategy on condition of anonymity because some elements are classified.
> 
> The moves have been in the works for months and are part of a broader adjustment in the U.S. approach to missile defense, including in Europe and Asia. Details have not been publicly announced, in part because of diplomatic sensitivities in Gulf countries which worry about Iranian military capabilities but are cautious about acknowledging U.S. protection.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Ahmadinejad finally changing his stance on the nuclear fuel issue?



> *Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state TV that Iran would have "no problem" if most of its stock was held for several months before being returned as fuel rods.
> 
> Correspondents say that such a decision would be a major shift in Tehran's position.
> 
> The US said that if this was a new offer, it was "prepared to listen". *
> 
> Last month, diplomats said Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it did not accept the terms of the deal and had instead demanded a simultaneous exchange on its territory.
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> *The deal agreed in October between Iran, the IAEA and the so-called P5+1 - the US, Russia, China, UK, France plus Germany - envisaged Iran sending about 70% of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be processed into fuel for a research reactor. *
> 
> ........
> 
> 
> 
> In an initial reaction to Mr Ahmadinejad's comments, US state department spokesman P J Crowley said the US was "not prepared to change the deal. We are not interested in renegotiating it. If Iran wants to accept it then they should inform the IAEA".
> 
> But a later response from the administration stressed that "if Iran has something new to say, we are prepared to listen".
> 
> BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne, reporting from London, says that even now there will be scepticism over whether this Iranian change of heart really means anything.
> 
> The US is pressing hard for new sanctions against Iran because of the nuclear programme, so this could well just be a case of the Iranian government playing for time, trying to weaken forces lined up against it, he says.
> 
> ........



BBC link


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Okay with all this going on, how much closer are they to building the bomb?  It seemed like they were starting to get rather close quite a while ago and there was much talk about Israili bombings.  How close are they now, guestimate-wise?


----------



## VinceW

I'm re-posting this due to an error with my other one.

Iran is giving "friendly" advice to it's neighbours that Patriot missiles are useless against their missiles.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_tells_Gulf_states_not_to_buy_ineffective_US_missiles_999.html

These a@#holes basicly saying to them "You're doomed,accept your fate."

It's no wonder Qatar spent a billion dollars for a airfield big enough to land C-5's,so that the US would come and set up a base there.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran's defence industry at work:



> *Iran launches production lines for unmanned planes*
> AP
> 
> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 2 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran has launched two production lines to build unmanned aircraft with surveillance and attack capabilities, the defense minister announced Monday.
> 
> It also announced that Iran would soon deploy a missile air defense system more powerful than the advanced Russian S-300 system Tehran has ordered from Moscow in 2007 but has yet to receive.
> 
> The state television quoted Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi as saying the unmanned aircraft would be able to carry out surveillance as well as offensive tasks with high precision and a long range.
> 
> *The two types of aircraft, or drones, are named Ra'd (thunder) and Nazir (herald), with the former possessing offensive capabilities.*
> Iran announced two years ago it had built an unmanned aircraft, but details were only revealed last year when Vahidi said it has a range of more than 600 miles (1,000 kilometers), long enough to reach Israel. It was not clear whether Ra'd or Nazir has such a range.
> 
> Iran frequently makes announcements about the strides being made by its military industries, however, it is virtually impossible to independently determine the actual capabilities or combat worthiness of the weapons Iran is producing.
> 
> Iran began a military self-sufficiency program in 1992, under which it produces a large range of weapons, including tanks, medium range missiles, jet fighters and torpedoes.
> *Meanwhile, a senior air force commander, Gen. Heshmatollah Kasiri, told the official IRNA news agency Monday that Iran would "soon" deploy an air defense system with capabilities matching, or superior to, those of the Russian S-300 system.
> 
> He did not elaborate, but the S-300 missiles are capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of over 90 miles (145 kilometers) and at altitudes of about 90,000 feet.*
> Gen. Kasiri said Iran produces its entire air defense needs domestically, but still criticized Russia for not delivering the S-300 missiles for "unacceptable reasons."
> 
> Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell the S-300 missile system to Iran, but they have not been delivered yet. The delay has not been explained, but Israel and the United States have strongly objected to the deal.
> 
> The S-300 missiles would significantly boost Iran's air defense capability at a time when Israel says it will not rule out taking military action against Iran's nuclear sites. Israel and the West believe that Iran's nuclear program is geared toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Iran reportedly gets closer to having nuke warhead capability.

From the Associated Press



> *Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity*
> By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 13 mins ago
> VIENNA – *Iran pressed ahead Monday with plans that will increase its ability to make nuclear weapons as it formally informed the U.N. nuclear agency of its intention to enrich uranium to higher levels.
> 
> Alarmed world powers questioned the rationale behind the move and warned the country it could face more U.N. sanctions if it made good on its intentions.
> 
> Iran maintains its nuclear activities are peaceful, and an envoy insisted the move was meant only to provide fuel for Tehran's research reactor. But world powers fearing that Iran's enrichment program might be a cover for a weapons program were critical.*
> Britain said the Islamic Republic's reason for further enrichment made no sense because it is not technically advanced enough to turn the resulting material into the fuel rods needed for the reactor.
> 
> France and the U.S. said the latest Iranian move left no choice but to push harder for a fourth set of U.N. Security Council sanctions to punish Iran's nuclear defiance.
> 
> Even a senior parliamentarian from Russia, which traditionally opposes Western ambitions for new U.N. sanctions, suggested the time had now come for such additional punishment
> 
> Konstantin Kosachev, head of the international affairs committee of the State Duma — the lower house of parliament — told the Interfax news agency that the international community should "react to this step with serious measures, including making the regime of economic sanctions more severe."
> 
> *Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already announced Sunday that his country would significantly enrich at least some of the country's stockpile of uranium to 20 percent. Still, Monday's formal notification was significant, particularly because of Iran's waffling in recent months on the issue.
> 
> Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to take Iranian low enriched uranium, further enriching it and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.
> 
> Telling The Associated Press that his country now had formally told the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intentions, Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh said that IAEA inspectors now overseeing enrichment to low levels would be able to stay on site to monitor the process.*
> He suggested world powers had pushed Iran into the decision, asserting that it was their fault that the plan that foresaw Russian and French involvement in supplying fuel from enriched uranium for the Tehran research reactor had failed.
> 
> "Until now, we have not received any response to our positive logical and technical proposal," he said. "We cannot leave hospitals and patients desperately waiting for radio isotopes" being produced at the Tehran reactor and used in cancer treatment, he added.
> 
> The IAEA confirmed receiving formal notification in a restricted note to the agency's 35-nation board made available to The Associated Press.
> 
> Iran's atomic energy organization informed the agency that "production of less than 20 percent enriched uranium is being foreseen," said the note.
> 
> "Less than 20 percent" means enrichment to a tiny fraction below that level — in effect 20 percent but formally just below threshold for high enriched uranium.
> 
> At the same time, the note indicated that Iran was keeping the agency in the dark about specifics, saying the IAEA "is in the process of seeking clarifications from Iran regarding the starting date of the process for the production of such material and other technical details."
> 
> On Sunday, Iranian officials said higher enrichment would start on Tuesday.
> 
> At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.
> 
> "No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."
> 
> Morin said France and the U.S. agreed that there was no choice but "to work for new measures within the framework of the Security Council" — a stance echoed by Israel, Iran's most implacable foe.
> 
> Tehran's enrichment plans are "additional proof of the fact that Iran is ridiculing the entire world," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "The right response is to impose decisive and permanent sanctions on Iran."
> 
> Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for Iran's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.
> 
> Achieving the 20-percent level "would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium," said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators.
> 
> Soltanieh declined to say how much of Iran's stockpile — now estimated at 1.8 tons — would be enriched. Nor did he say when the process would begin. Albright said enriching to higher levels could begin within a day — or only in several months, depending on how far technical preparations had progressed.
> 
> Apparent technical problems could also slow the process, he said.
> 
> Iran's enrichment program "should be like a Christmas tree in full light," he said. "In fact, the lights are flickering."
> 
> While Iran would be able to enrich up to 20 percent, a senior U.S official told the AP that the research reactor would run out of fuel before enough material was produced. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue.
> 
> Britain's Foreign Office said the "enriched uranium could not be used for the Tehran Research Reactor as Iran does not have the technology to manufacture it into fuel rods."
> 
> Legal constraints could tie Iran's hands as well. A senior official from one of the IAEA's 35 board member nations senior official said he believed Tehran was obligated to notify the agency 60 days in advance of starting to enrich to higher levels.
> 
> The official asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue.
> 
> The Iranian move came just days after Ahmadinejad appeared to move close to endorsing the original deal, which foresaw Tehran exporting the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then conversion for fuel rods for the research reactor.
> 
> That plan was welcomed internationally because it would have delayed Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapons by shipping out about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile, thereby leaving it with not enough to make a bomb. Tehran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, insisting it needs to enrich to create fuel for an envisioned nuclear reactor network.
> 
> The proposal was endorsed by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the six powers that originally elicited a tentative approval from Iran in landmark talks last fall. Since then, however, mixed messages from Tehran have infuriated the U.S. and its European allies, who claim Iran is only stalling for time as it attempts to build a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions — and three sets of U.N. sanctions — aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
> 
> ______
> 
> Associated Press writers Danica Kirka and David Stringer in London, Anne Flaherty in Paris, Matthew Lee in Washington, James Heintz in Moscow and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.


----------



## CougarKing

What could they be planning to do on the 11th?  Preparing to test a new weapon perhaps? 

Breitbart news link



> Bolton: Even Severe Sanctions Wont Dissuade Iran From Pursuing Nuclear Weapons
> 
> *Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution. *
> "The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.
> 
> The country's top cleric was marking the occasion when Iran's air force gave its support to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a key event which led to the toppling of the US-backed shah on February 11, 1979.
> 
> *His comments came as Iran said it would begin to produce higher enriched uranium from Tuesday, in defiance of Western powers trying to ensure the country's nuclear drive is peaceful.
> 
> This year's anniversary is expected to become a flashpoint between security forces and supporters of opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who charge that the June re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged.
> 
> Opposition supporters are expected to stage anti-government protests on Thursday when the traditional regime-sponsored marches to mark the revolution take place across the country. *
> Mousavi renewed his call for demonstrations on the February 11 anniversary.
> 
> Just over a week ago, he and Karroubi had implicitly called for a gathering of their supporters.
> 
> "The 22nd of Bahman is upon us, truly it should be called the day of gathering," Mousavi said on his Kaleme.org website Monday.
> 
> "I feel we have to participate while maintaining the collective spirit as well as our identity and leave an impression," Mousavi said.
> 
> "Anger and bitterness should not take our control away.
> 
> "The clerics should know that since imprisonment, beatings, and other confrontational methods are done in the name of Islam and the Islamic regime, it is hurting Islam and we all should try to stop," he added.
> 
> Anti-government protests were first triggered after the June 12 presidential election won by Ahmadinejad.
> 
> 
> (...)




Some have speculated though that the "punch" may just be the ff. coming announcements about its space programs:

Space Daily link



> Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Feb 09, 2010
> Iran will unveil five space projects at ceremonies starting on Monday to celebrate the victory of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Fars news agency said.
> On the third day of the festivities, known as the "Ten Days of Dawn", Iranian authorities will hold on Wednesday a presentation of the Tolou (Rise) satellite, the Mesbah-2 and Mehdi research satellites, and the engine for the Simurgh booster rocket, all of which were domestically built.
> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the country's defense officials will also attend the opening of a mission control designed to process data from the satellites.
> 
> (...)


----------



## ModlrMike

Today's Tehran Times has an article alleging that Ken Taylor spied for the US during his tenure as Canada's ambassador to Iran.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=214190


----------



## REDinstaller

Wow, Nothing like holding a grudge. What does the Koran say about the statute of limitations?


----------



## CougarKing

This new development below should really make Ahmadinejad tone down his "smash Zion/Israel" rhetoric though I doubt it, given how stubborn that Iranian president seems to be.  :




> TEL NOF AIR FORCE BASE, Israel (AP) - Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and could fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range."
> 
> The *Heron TP drones * have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.
> 
> At the fleet's inauguration ceremony at a sprawling air base in central Israel, the drone dwarfed an F-15 fighter jet parked beside it. The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000 meters), and remain in the air longer.
> 
> "With the inauguration of the Heron TP, we are realizing the air force's dream," said Brig. Gen. Amikam Norkin, commander of the base that will operate the drones. "The Heron TP is a technological and operational breakthrough."
> (....)



Associated Press link







An Israeli soldiers smiles as she stands next to an Israeli air force unmanned plane in the Tel Nof base, central Israel, Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010. Israel's air force has introduced a fleet of large unmanned planes that it says can fly as far as Iran. Air force officials say the Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of passenger jets. They say the planes can fly 20 consecutive hours, and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying payloads. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)


----------



## a_majoor

More on the new drone. While the plane is capable of carrying bombs, it is a low performance platform and would be at a great disadvantage against modern AA systems. I don't think Isreal is fielding 1000+ of these in order to saturate the air defenses.

I suspect its real role would be along the lines of a pathfinder and AWACS platform to guide waves of jets and missiles to their targets:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/israel-long-range-uav-suitable-for.html



> *Israel Long Range UAV Suitable for Bombing Missions*
> 
> Weighing over four tons, Heron TP - also dubbed Heron 2 or “Eitan”, by its Israeli Air Force (IAF) designation - is designed to fly at high altitude on missions spanning over several days.
> 
> With maximum takeoff weight of 4650 kg, the 14 meter long aircraft can carry over 1,000 kg of sensors in its forward section, main payload bay, and the two bulges located at the end of each tail boom, offering optimal separation for specific systems.
> 
> The UAVs are far cheaper and more expendable than fighter-bomber planes. If a hundred (or few hundred) UAVs were targeted at a site with a substantial anti-air craft defence some could break through and destroy the defences and clear the way for manned fighter bombers. The UAVs can also be used to increase the number of bombing runs that are possible against known targets and to loiter over areas to attack targets of opportunity.
> 
> The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of the huge pilotless planes and each is capable of carrying two thousand pound bombs on each mission.
> 
> Russia intends to fulfill a contract to supply S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran.


----------



## a_majoor

An assessment:

http://www.slate.com/id/2245619/



> *Preparing for the WorstThe United States won't bomb Iran, but another country might.*
> By Anne Applebaum
> Posted Monday, Feb. 22, 2010, at 8:03 PM ET
> 
> Let's be serious for a moment. President Barack Obama will not bomb Iran. This is not because he is a liberal, or because he is a peacenik, or because he doesn't have the guts to try and "save" his presidency in this time-honored manner, as Sarah Palin said she would like him to do.
> 
> The president will not bomb Iran's nuclear installations for precisely the same reasons that George W. Bush did not bomb Iran's nuclear installations: because we don't know exactly where they all are, because we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months, and because Iran's threatened response—against Israelis and U.S. troops, via Iran's allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Lebanon—isn't one we want to cope with at this precise moment. Nor do we want the higher oil prices that would instantly follow. No U.S. president doing a sober calculation would want to start a new war of choice while U.S. troops are still actively engaged on two other fronts, and no U.S. president could expect public support for more than a nanosecond.
> 
> But even if Obama does not bomb Iran, that doesn't mean that no one else will. At the moment, when Washington is consumed by health care and the implications of the Massachusetts Senate special election, it may seem as if Obama's most important legacy, positive or negative, will be domestic. In the future, we may not consider any of this at all important. The defining moment of his presidency may well come at 2 a.m. some day, when he picks up the phone and is told that the Israeli prime minister is on the line: Israel has just carried out a raid on Iranian nuclear sites. What then?
> 
> This is hardly an inevitable scenario: If the Israelis were as enthusiastic about bombing raids as some believe, they would have carried them out already. They had no qualms about sending eight jets to take out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 or about bombing a purported Syrian facility in 2007. Both are now considered model operations. They were brief and successful, they provoked no serious retaliation, and they even won de facto acceptance from the outside world as legitimate defensive measures.
> 
> The Iranian context is different, as Zeev Raz, the squadron leader of the 1981 raid, readily concedes. "There is no single target that you could bomb with eight aircraft," he told the Economist (in a strangely tragic article that says Raz "exudes gloom" while his children apply for foreign passports). The Israelis have the same doubts as everyone else about the efficacy of raids, which is why they have focused on covert sabotage and even off-the-record diplomacy, despite having no diplomatic relations with Iran, in the hopes of slowing down the nuclear development process. They have also quietly studied the ways in which Iran could be deterred, knowing that they will have the advantage in nuclear technology for the next couple of decades. Though they keep all options on the table, they have so far concluded that bombing raids aren't worth the consequences.
> 
> At some point in the future, that calculation could change. Since Americans often assume that everyone else perceives the world the same way we do, it is worth repeating the obvious here: Many Israelis regard the Iranian nuclear program as a matter of life and death. The prospect of a nuclear Iran isn't an irritant or a distant threat. It is understood directly in the context of the Iranian president's provocative attacks on Israel's right to exist and of his public support for historians who deny the Holocaust. If you want to make Israelis paranoid, hint that they might be the target of an attempted mass murder. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does exactly that.
> 
> If that ever happened, the 2 a.m. phone call would be followed by retaliation, some of which would be directed at us, our troops in Iraq, our ships at sea. I don't want this to happen, but I do want us to be prepared if it does. Contrary to Palin, I do not think Obama would restore the fortunes of his presidency by bombing Iran, like a character out of the movie Wag the Dog. But I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity. This is real life, after all, not Hollywood.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Part 1 of 3

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Foreign Affairs_ website is a thoughtful article on a nuclear armed Iran:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66032/james-m-lindsay-and-ray-takeyh/after-iran-gets-the-bomb


> ESSAY
> *After Iran Gets the Bomb*
> *Containment and Its Complications*
> 
> March/April 2010
> 
> James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh
> 
> _JAMES M. LINDSAY is Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair at the Council on Foreign Relations. RAY TAKEYH is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs._
> 
> The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to become the world's tenth nuclear power. It is defying its international obligations and resisting concerted diplomatic pressure to stop it from enriching uranium. It has flouted several UN Security Council resolutions directing it to suspend enrichment and has refused to fully explain its nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even a successful military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would delay Iran's program by only a few years, and it would almost certainly harden Tehran's determination to go nuclear. The ongoing political unrest in Iran could topple the regime, leading to fundamental changes in Tehran's foreign policy and ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But that is an outcome that cannot be assumed. If Iran's nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before U.S. President Barack Obama's current term in office expires.
> 
> The dangers of Iran's entry into the nuclear club are well known: emboldened by this development, Tehran might multiply its attempts at subverting its neighbors and encouraging terrorism against the United States and Israel; the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in the Middle East would escalate; more states in the region might also want to become nuclear powers; the geopolitical balance in the Middle East would be reordered; and broader efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons would be undermined. The advent of a nuclear Iran -- even one that is satisfied with having only the materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a nuclear arsenal -- would be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States. Friends and foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively.
> 
> Such a scenario can be avoided, however. Even if Washington fails to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it can contain and mitigate the consequences of Iran's nuclear defiance. It should make clear to Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but isolate and weaken the regime. Washington will need to lay down clear "redlines" defining what it considers to be unacceptable behavior -- and be willing to use military force if Tehran crosses them. It will also need to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly committed to preserving the balance of power in the region.
> 
> Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part of the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S. resolve. Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran could complicate Washington's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stopped -- or were stopped -- before it became a nuclear power. Current efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor. Economic pressure on Tehran must be maintained. Military options to prevent Iran from going nuclear must not be taken off the table.
> 
> But these steps may not be enough. If Iran's recalcitrant mullahs cross the nuclear threshold, the challenge for the United States will be to make sure that an abhorrent outcome does not become a catastrophic one. This will require understanding how a nuclear Iran is likely to behave, how its neighbors are likely to respond, and what Washington can do to shape the perceptions and actions of all these players.
> 
> *MESSIANIC AND PRAGMATIC*
> 
> Iran is a peculiarity: it is a modern-day theocracy that pursues revolutionary ideals while safeguarding its practical interests. After three decades of experimentation, Iran has not outgrown its ideological compunctions. The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, bequeathed to his successors a clerical cosmology that divides the world between oppressors and oppressed and invests Iran with the mission of redeeming the Middle East for the forces of righteousness. But the political imperative of staying in power has pulled Iran's leaders in a different direction, too: they have had to manage Iran's economy, meet the demands of the country's growing population, and advance Iran's interests in a turbulent region. The clerical rulers have been forced to strike agreements with their rivals and their enemies, occasionally softening the hard edges of their creed. The task of governing has required them to make concessions to often unpalatable realities and has sapped their revolutionary energies. Often, the clash of ideology and pragmatism has put Iran in the paradoxical position of having to secure its objectives within a regional order that it has pledged to undermine.
> 
> To satisfy their revolutionary impulses, Iran's leaders have turned anti-Americanism and a strident opposition to Israel into pillars of the state. Tehran supports extremist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamist militias opposing U.S. forces in Iraq. The mullahs have sporadically attempted to subvert the U.S.-allied sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. But the regime has survived because its rulers have recognized the limits of their power and have thus mixed revolutionary agitation with pragmatic adjustment. Although it has denounced the United States as the Great Satan and called for Israel's obliteration, Iran has avoided direct military confrontation with either state. It has vociferously defended the Palestinians, but it has stood by as the Russians have slaughtered Chechens and the Chinese have suppressed Muslim Uighurs. Ideological purity, it seems, has been less important than seeking diplomatic cover from Russia and commercial activity with China. Despite their Islamist compulsions, the mullahs like power too much to be martyrs.
> 
> Iran's nuclear program has emerged not just as an important aspect of the country's foreign relations but increasingly as a defining element of its national identity. And the reasons for pursuing the program have changed as it has matured. During the presidencies of Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, nuclear weapons were seen as tools of deterrence against the United States and Saddam Hussein's regime, among others. The more conservative current ruling elite, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards, sees them as a critical means of ensuring Iran's preeminence in the region. A powerful Iran, in other words, requires a robust and extensive nuclear infrastructure. And this may be all the more the case now that Iran is engulfed in the worst domestic turmoil it has known in years: these days, the regime seems to be viewing its quest for nuclear self-sufficiency as a way to revive its own political fortunes.
> 
> Going nuclear would empower Iran, but far less than Tehran hopes. Iran's entry into the nuclear club would initially put Tehran in a euphoric mood and likely encourage it to be more aggressive. The mullahs would feel themselves to be in possession of a strategic weapon that would enhance Iran's clout in the region. They might feel less restrained in instigating Shiite uprisings against the Arab sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf. But any efforts to destabilize their Sunni neighbors would meet the same unsuccessful fate as have similar campaigns in the past. Iran's revolutionary message has traditionally appealed to only a narrow segment of Shiites in the Persian Gulf. Sporadic demonstrations in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have not sought to emulate Iran's revolution; rather, they have been an outlet for Shiites to express their economic and political disenfranchisement.
> 
> A nuclear Iran might also be tempted to challenge its neighbors in the Persian Gulf to reduce their oil production and limit the presence of U.S. troops on their territories. However, obtaining nuclear weapons is unlikely to help Iran achieve these aims, because nuclear weapons, by definition, are such a narrow category of arms that they can accomplish only a limited set of objectives. They do offer a deterrent capability: unlike Saddam's Iraq, a nuclear Iran would not be invaded, and its leaders would not be deposed. But regime security and power projection are two very different propositions. It is difficult to imagine Sunni regimes yielding to a resurgent Shiite state, nuclear or not; more likely, the Persian Gulf states would take even more refuge under the U.S. security umbrella. Paradoxically, a weapon that was designed to ensure Iran's regional preeminence could further alienate it from its neighbors and prolong indefinitely the presence of U.S. troops on its periphery. In other words, nuclear empowerment could well thwart Iran's hegemonic ambitions. Like other nuclear aspirants before them, the guardians of the theocracy might discover that nuclear bombs are simply not good for diplomatic leverage or strategic aggrandizement.
> 
> Likewise, although the protection of a nuclear Iran might allow Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups in the Middle East to become both more strident in their demands and bolder in their actions, Israel's nuclear arsenal and considerable conventional military power, as well as the United States' support for Israel, would keep those actors in check. To be sure, Tehran will rattle its sabers and pledge its solidarity with Hamas and Hezbollah, but it will not risk a nuclear confrontation with Israel to assist these groups' activities. Hamas and Hezbollah learned from their recent confrontations with Israel that waging war against the Jewish state is a lonely struggle.
> 
> The prospect that Iran might transfer a crude nuclear device to its terrorist protégés is another danger, but it, too, is unlikely. Such a move would place Tehran squarely in the cross hairs of the United States and Israel. Despite its messianic pretensions, Iran has observed clear limits when supporting militias and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Iran has not provided Hezbollah with chemical or biological weapons or Iraqi militias with the means to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Iran's rulers understand that such provocative actions could imperil their rule by inviting retaliation. On the other hand, by coupling strident rhetoric with only limited support in practice, the clerical establishment is able to at once garner popular acclaim for defying the West and oppose the United States and Israel without exposing itself to severe retribution. A nuclear Iran would likely act no differently, at least given the possibility of robust U.S. retaliation. Nor is it likely that Iran would become the new Pakistan, selling nuclear fuel and materials to other states. The prospects of additional sanctions and a military confrontation with the United States are likely to deter Iran from acting impetuously.
> 
> A nuclear Iran would undeniably pose new dangers in the Middle East, especially at first, when it would likely be at its most reckless. It might thrash about the Middle East, as it tried to press the presumed advantages of its newfound capability, and it might test the United States' limits. But the mullahs will find it difficult to translate Iran's nuclear status into a tangible political advantage. And if Washington makes clear that rash actions on their part will come at a high cost, they will be far less likely to take any.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Part 2 of 3



> *THE RIPPLES IN THE REGION*
> 
> In assessing the consequences of Iran's nuclearization, it is important to consider not only how Iran is likely to act but also how other states will react to this outcome -- and what the United States could do to influence their responses. Iran's nuclearization would not reduce Washington to passively observing events in the region. Washington would retain considerable ability to shape what Iran's neighbors do and do not do.
> 
> The nightmare scenario that could be unleashed by Iran's nuclearization is easy to sketch. Israel would go on a hair-trigger alert -- ready to launch a nuclear weapon at a moment's notice -- putting both countries minutes away from annihilation. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would scramble to join the nuclear club. The Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would collapse, unleashing a wave of nuclear proliferation around the globe.
> 
> Such a doomsday scenario could pan out. Whether it did would depend greatly on how the United States and others, starting with Israel, responded to Iran's nuclearization. Whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forgoes a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities or opts for launching an attack and it fails, the Israeli government will continue to regard the Iranian regime as an existential threat to Israel that must be countered by any means possible, including the use of nuclear weapons. Given Israel's unique history and Ahmadinejad's contemptible denials of the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister can afford to think otherwise.
> 
> The riskiness of a nuclear standoff between Israel and Iran would vary with the nature and size of Tehran's nuclear arsenal. An Iran with only the capability to build a nuclear weapon would pose a far less immediate threat to Israel than an Iran that possessed an actual weapon. Iran's possession of a bomb would create an inherently unstable situation, in which both parties would have an incentive to strike first: Iran, to avoid losing its arsenal, and Israel, to keep Tehran from using it. The Israeli government's calculations about Iran would depend on its assessment of the United States' willingness and ability to deter Iran. Israel's decision-making would be shaped by a number of factors: the United States' long-standing support for Israel, Israel's doubts about U.S. leadership after Washington's failure to stop Iran from going nuclear, and Washington's response to Iran's nuclearization.
> 
> Another danger that would have to be countered would be nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran's regional rivals might try to catch up with it. History suggests, however, that states go nuclear for reasons beyond tit for tat; many hold back even when their enemies get nuclear weapons. China's pursuit of the bomb in the 1960s prompted fears that Japan would follow, but nearly half a century later, Japan remains nonnuclear. Although Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons, neither its neighbors -- not even Egypt, which fought and lost four wars with Israel -- nor regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey, have followed its lead.
> 
> An Iranian nuclear bomb could change these calculations. The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a 2008 report that "Iran's growing nuclear capabilities are already partly responsible for the surge of interest in nuclear energy in the Middle East." And nuclear energy programs can serve as the foundation for drives for nuclear weapons. But it would not be easy for countries in the region to get nuclear weapons. Many lack the infrastructure to develop their own weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them. Egypt and Turkey might blanch at the expense of building a nuclear arsenal. The Pakistanis were willing to "eat grass" for the privilege of joining the nuclear club, as the Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once famously put it, but not everyone is.
> 
> Cost considerations aside, it would take years for nuclear aspirants to develop indigenous nuclear capabilities. They would need to build nuclear reactors, acquire nuclear fuel, master enrichment or reprocessing technologies, and build weapons and the means to deliver them. While they tried, the United States and other states would have ample opportunity to increase the costs of proliferation. Indeed, the economic and security interests of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, unlike those of Iran, are tied to the United States and the broader global economy, and developing nuclear weapons would put those interests at risk. Egypt would jeopardize the $1.5 billion in economic and military aid that it receives from Washington each year; Saudi Arabia, its implicit U.S. security guarantee; and Turkey, its place in NATO. Given their extensive investments in and business ties to the United States and Europe, all three countries would be far more vulnerable than Iran is to any economic sanctions that U.S. law imposed, or could impose, on nuclear proliferators.
> 
> States seeking nuclear weapons might try to sidestep these technological and political hurdles by buying, rather than making, the weapons. Saudi Arabia's clandestine acquisition of medium-range ballistic missiles from China in the 1980s suggests that even countries that depend on U.S. security guarantees might be tempted to buy their way into the nuclear club. Although neither the five acknowledged nuclear powers nor India would be likely to sell nuclear weapons to another state, Pakistan and North Korea could be another matter. Both countries have a history of abetting proliferation, and Pakistan has warm ties with its fellow Muslim-majority countries. But selling complete nuclear weapons would come at great political cost. Pakistan might forfeit U.S. foreign assistance and drive the United States into closer cooperation with India, Pakistan's mortal enemy. North Korea would endanger the economic aid it gets from China, which the regime needs to stay in power.
> 
> If a buyer did manage to find a seller, it would have to avoid a preventive strike by Israel -- which would be likely if the sale became known before the weapon was activated -- and then handle the inevitable international political and economic fallout. (In 1988, Saudi Arabia avoided a major rift with Washington over its missile deal with China only by finally agreeing to sign and abide by the NPT.) Furthermore, any country that bought a nuclear weapon would have to worry about whether it would actually work; in global politics, as in everyday life, swindles are possible. Obtaining a nuclear weapon could thus put a country in the worst of all worlds: owning a worthless weapon that is a magnet for an attack.
> 
> If Iran's neighbors decided against trying to get nuclear weapons, they could pursue the opposite approach and try to appease Tehran. The temptation would be greatest for small Persian Gulf states, such as Bahrain and Kuwait, which sit uncomfortably close to Iran and have large Shiite populations. Such a tilt toward Iran would damage U.S. interests in the region. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, and U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are crucial to projecting U.S. power and reassuring U.S. allies in the region. But as long as these governments believe that Washington is committed to their security, appeasement will be unappealing. Pursuing that strategy would mean casting aside U.S. help and betting on the mercy of Tehran. In the absence of a U.S. security guarantee, however, Iran would be free to conduct in those countries the very subversive activities that their governments' appeasement was intended to prevent.
> 
> Although Iran's nuclearization would probably not spell the end of efforts to halt proliferation in other parts of the world, it would undeniably deal the nonproliferation regime a setback, by demonstrating that the great powers are unable or unwilling to act collectively to stop proliferators. On the other hand, most states adhere to the NPT because they have compelling national reasons to do so. They may not feel threatened by a nuclear power; they may be covered by the nuclear umbrella of another state; they may lack the financial or technological wherewithal to build a bomb. Iran's success in developing a nuclear weapon would not change these calculations. Nor would it prevent Washington from pushing ahead with its efforts to strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative (a U.S.-led multinational effort launched by the Bush administration that seeks to stop trafficking in weapons of mass destruction), impose a cutoff on the further production of fissile material, tighten global rules on trade in nuclear materials, and otherwise make it more difficult for nuclear technologies to spread.
> 
> Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb could have disastrous consequences in the Middle East. But Washington would have considerable opportunities to influence, and constrain, how Iran's neighbors reacted to its new status. It would matter whether Washington reassured Israel or fueled its fears. It would matter whether Washington confronted regional proliferation efforts or turned a blind eye, as it did with Pakistan in the 1980s. It would matter whether Washington pushed ahead with efforts to strengthen the NPT regime or threw in the towel. To keep the nightmare scenario at bay, the United States will need to think carefully about how to maximize its leverage in the region.
> 
> *I SAY NO, NO, NO*
> 
> Tehran is an adversary that speaks in ideological terms, wants to become a dominant regional power, and is capable of acting recklessly. But it is also an adversary that recognizes its limitations, wants to preserve its hold on power, and operates among wary neighbors. Its acquiring a nuclear bomb, or the capacity to make a nuclear bomb, need not remake the Middle East -- at least not if the United States acts confidently and wisely to exploit Iran's weaknesses.
> 
> Any strategy to contain Iran must begin with the recognition that this effort will have to be different from that to contain the Soviet Union. Iran poses a different threat. During the early years of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers tried to protect like-minded countries against a Soviet invasion that would have imposed communist rule, or against widespread economic dislocation, which could have produced a communist takeover from within. Their strategy was to turn to the NATO alliance and launch the Marshall Plan. The United States' containment strategy toward Iran must reflect different realities today. Iran does not seek to invade its neighbors, and its ideological appeal does not rest on promises of economic justice. It seeks to establish itself as the dominant power in the region while preserving political control at home.
> 
> Deterrence would by necessity be the cornerstone of a U.S. strategy to contain a nuclear Iran. Success is by no means guaranteed. Deterrence can fail: it nearly did during the Cuban missile crisis, in 1962, and at several other critical junctures of the Cold War. Iran's revisionist aims and paranoia about U.S. power may appear to make the country uniquely difficult to deter. But that conclusion conveniently -- and mistakenly -- recasts the history of U.S. confrontations with emerging nuclear powers in a gentler light than is deserved. At the start of the Cold War, U.S. officials hardly saw the Soviet Union as a status quo power. In the 1960s, China looked like the ultimate rogue regime: it had intervened in Korea and gone to war with India, and it repressed its own people. Mao boasted that although nuclear war might kill half the world's population, it would also mean that "imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist."
> 
> Today, the challenge for U.S. policymakers devising a deterrence strategy toward Iran will be to unambiguously identify what behavior they seek to deter -- and what they are willing to do about it. When Washington publicly presents its policy on how to contain a nuclear Iran, it should be explicit: no initiation of conventional warfare against other countries; no use or transfer of nuclear weapons, materials, or technologies; and no stepped-up support for terrorist or subversive activities. It should also make clear that the price of Iran's violating these three prohibitions could be U.S. military retaliation by any and all means necessary, up to and including nuclear weapons.
> 
> The pledge to deter a conventional attack would be the easiest of the three prohibitions to enforce. Iran's ability to project sustained military power outside its borders is limited. And it is unlikely to grow substantially anytime soon: even more arms embargoes would likely be imposed on Iran if it crossed the nuclear threshold. At their current level, U.S. troops in the region are more than sufficient to deter Iran from undertaking incursions into Iraq or amphibious operations across the Persian Gulf -- or to stop them if they occurred.
> 
> Deterring Iran from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons would present a different set of challenges. So long as Iran lacks the ability to strike the United States with a nuclear-tipped missile, the United States can credibly threaten to retaliate militarily if Iran uses or threatens to use a nuclear bomb against anyone. But that could change if Iran developed long-range missiles. Tehran might also try to deter the United States by threatening to attack Europe, which would raise well-known concerns about the viability of so-called extended deterrence, the ability of one state to deter an attack on another. These possibilities highlight the importance of developing robust, multilayered ballistic missile defenses. The Obama administration's decision to reorient U.S. missile defenses in Europe to protect against shorter-range missiles while continuing to develop defenses against longer-range missiles is just the right approach.
> 
> A tougher challenge would be to ensure stable deterrence between Iran and Israel. With regard to this issue, too, the Iranian nuclear program's ultimate degree of development would be pivotal: an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would present a significantly more dangerous threat than one that merely had the capacity to build them. It is thus essential that Washington continue to apply diplomatic and economic pressure to keep Tehran, should it manage to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, from taking the final step. The United States should also publicly pledge to retaliate by any means it chooses if Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel; this would in effect supplement whatever second-strike capability Israel has. If the Israelis need a formal commitment to be more reassured, this pledge could be made in an executive agreement or a treaty. As a tangible expression of its commitment, Washington should also be prepared to deploy U.S. troops on Israeli soil as a tripwire, which would show that the United States would be inextricably bound to Israel in the event of any Iranian attack.
> 
> Washington should also inform Tehran that it would strike preemptively, with whatever means it deemed necessary, if Iran ever placed its nuclear forces on alert. And it should bring both Israel and Israel's Arab neighbors fully under its missile defense umbrella. The more aggressive Iran is, the more inclined its neighbors will be to work with Washington to construct missile defenses on their territories.
> 
> Deterring Iran from transferring nuclear weapons, materials, and technologies to state and nonstate actors would require another set of measures. For the most part, Iran has reasons not to pursue such perilous activities, but it could be tempted to exploit the difficulty of tracking the clandestine trade in nuclear materials. The United States and its allies would need to act decisively to prevent Tehran from seeking to profit in the international nuclear bazaar, for example, through the Proliferation Security Initiative and through UN resolutions that imposed additional sanctions on Iran and its potential business partners. To impress on Iran's ruling mullahs that it is singularly important for them to control whatever nuclear arsenal they may develop or obtain, Washington should hold Tehran responsible for any nuclear transfer, whether authorized or not; Tehran cannot be allowed to escape punishment or retaliation by pleading loss of control. Increased investments in monitoring and spying on Iran would be critical. The United States must improve its ability to track nuclear weapons, materials, and debris and prove and publicize whether they came from Iran (or any other country, for that matter). Such nuclear forensics is crucial to determining who is responsible for nuclear transfers and would be crucial to building support for any U.S. retaliation against Iran, if it were the culprit.
> 
> Deterring Iranian support for terrorist and subversive groups -- the third redline prohibition that the United States should impose -- would be difficult. Such activities take place secretly, making it hard to establish precisely who is complicit. That complication places a premium on improving the ability of the U.S. intelligence community, acting alone and in concert with its counterparts abroad, to track Iran's clandestine activities.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Part 3 of 3



> *WHATS AND WHAT NOTS*
> 
> In addition to holding Iran accountable for violating any of the three noes, the United States' containment strategy should seek to influence and, where necessary, constrain Iran's friends in the Middle East. An energetic diplomacy that softened the disagreements between Israel and its neighbors would undermine Iran's efforts to exploit anger in the region. A concerted push, diplomatic and economic, to improve the lives of the Palestinians would limit Iran's appeal among them. Drawing Syria into a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace process could not only attenuate Tehran's links with Damascus but also stem Iran's ability to supply weapons to Hezbollah. Washington should seek to further limit Iran's strategic reach by strengthening the institutional and military capabilities of Afghanistan and Iraq. It should reassure the Persian Gulf states that it is committed to preserving the existing balance of power, which would require expanding trade agreements, enhancing their security and intelligence apparatuses, and developing a more integrated approach to defense planning in the region. At the same time, the United States will need to dissuade these governments from further suppressing their Shiite minorities, a practice that inadvertently aids Tehran. And it should work assiduously to prevent more countries in the Middle East from going nuclear; the United States cannot look the other way again, as it did with Pakistan during the 1980s.
> 
> Tone and conviction will matter. Washington must keep in mind that Iran's entry into the nuclear club would be read by Israel and Arab states as a failure of the United States' political will and a demonstration of the limits of U.S. power. Washington cannot afford to compound its credibility problem by hesitating or vacillating. An indecisive U.S. response would undermine the efforts both to deter Iran and to reassure U.S. friends and allies in the region.
> 
> Washington should also push other major powers to contain the Iranian threat. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have sponsored numerous resolutions demanding that Iran cease its nuclear activities and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They should have a vested interest in punishing Iran, an original signatory to the NPT, if it reneges on its decades-old pledge to remain a nonnuclear power. Doing nothing would substantially undermine the UN Security Council's authority and with it their status as permanent members of the council. Europe should be pressed to commit troops and naval vessels to preserve the free flow of traffic through the Persian Gulf. Russia should cease its nuclear cooperation with and its conventional arms sales to Iran. China should be pressed to curtail its investment in Iran's energy sector, which does so much to fuel Iran's belligerence. The United States would have to do much of the heavy lifting in containing a nuclear Iran, but any concerted containment strategy must have not just regional support but also an international complexion.
> 
> Just as important as what Washington should do to contain Iran is what it should not do. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the United States might be tempted to respond by substantially expanding the presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East. But this would not appreciably increase Washington's ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear or conventional attack; there are already enough U.S. forces in the region for that. It could, however, play into the hands of Tehran's proxies by inflaming anti-American sentiment and fanning civil unrest in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Washington might also be tempted to seek to further undermine Iran's economy by imposing broad-based economic sanctions, an idea that enjoys considerable support on Capitol Hill. But such measures would wind up punishing only Iran's disenfranchised citizenry (which is why Iranian opposition leaders have strenuously opposed them). The wiser course of action would be to strengthen and better monitor existing export controls, in order to make certain that Iran's nuclear and defense industries do not have access to dual-use technologies, and to reinforce targeted sanctions against the Iranian leadership and the business enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. Washington should push, both inside and outside the UN, for travel bans on Iranian leaders and measures denying Iran access to capital markets, for example. It should also find ways to penalize foreign businesses that invest in Iran's dilapidated oil industry. Smart sanctions of this kind would punish Iran's leaders but spare ordinary Iranians, who have no say over the regime's actions.
> 
> The United States should refrain from greatly expanding the range of weaponry it sells to the Persian Gulf states, which see the United States as a military guarantor and their chief arms supplier. To some extent, increasing arms sales will be necessary: the Arab governments of the region would regard such sales as a tangible sign of the strength of Washington's commitment to their defense, and if Washington holds back, these governments will look for weapons elsewhere. On the other hand, throwing the doors of the armory wide open would do little to secure the buyers and might even increase instability in the region. A smart U.S. arms sales policy would focus on offering weapons systems that are designed to deter or help counter an Iranian attack, such as missile defense systems and command-and-control systems, which would provide advance notice of Iranian actions.
> 
> Finally, Washington should resist any urge to sign mutual security treaties with Arab countries in the Middle East. (Israel, whose relations with Iran are fundamentally different from those of every other power in the region, is a special case.) Such efforts would do little to enhance deterrence and could do a lot to undermine it. Many members of the U.S. Senate, which would have to vote on any alliance treaty, would question whether the United States should further tie itself to authoritarian regimes that many Americans find odious. The spectacle of that debate would exacerbate doubts in the Middle East about the depth of the United States' commitment. Efforts to construct formal alliances might also lead Iran to believe that any country left out of these agreements is fair game for intimidation or attack. Washington should be mindful not to invite a replay of North Korea's calculation in 1950 that South Korea lay outside the U.S. defense perimeter.
> 
> Instead, the U.S. government should encourage the formation of a regional alliance network that would marshal Arab states into a more cohesive defense grouping. The network could be organized along the lines of the Middle East Treaty Organization (then the Central Treaty Organization), a security arrangement among Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and, for a time, Iraq (with the United States participating in the organization's military and security committees) that existed from 1955 to 1979. An alliance of this kind would secure all the benefits of a regionwide commitment to deterrence without exposing the United States and its allies to the complexities of formal bilateral or multilateral security treaties.
> 
> *DANGEROUS TIMES*
> 
> Iran's nuclearization would make the Middle East a more dangerous place: it would heighten tensions, reduce the margin for error, and raise the prospect of mass catastrophe. The international community should not let up on its efforts to stop Iran's progress. But given the mullahs' seeming indifference to the benefits of engagement, U.S. policymakers must consider now what to do if Iran does get the bomb.
> 
> Containment would be neither a perfect nor a foolproof policy. The task of foiling Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah would be difficult, as would countering Iran's support for terrorist and subversive groups in the region. The need to gain favor with Arab dictatorships would likely tempt Washington to shelve its calls for domestic political reforms in those countries -- even though such reforms could diminish Iran's ability to meddle there by improving the lot of local minority Shiites who might otherwise be susceptible to Tehran's influence. Maintaining great-power support for pressure on Iran could require overlooking objectionable Chinese and Russian behavior on other matters. Containment would not be a substitute for the use of force. To the contrary, its very success would depend on the willingness of the United States to use force against Iran or threaten to do so should Tehran cross Washington's redlines. Applying pressure without a commitment to punishing infractions is a recipe for failure -- and for a more violent and dangerous Middle East.
> 
> Containment could buy Washington time to persuade the Iranian ruling class that the revisionist game it has been playing is simply not worth the candle. Thus, even as Washington pushes to counter Iran, it should be open to the possibility that Tehran's calculations might change. To press Tehran in the right direction, Washington should signal that it seeks to create an order in the Middle East that is peaceful and self-sustaining. The United States will remain part of the region's security architecture for the foreseeable future, but it need not maintain an antagonistic posture toward Iran. An Islamic Republic that abandoned its nuclear ambitions, accepted prevailing international norms, and respected the sovereignty of its neighbors would discover that the United States is willing to work with, rather than against, Iran's legitimate national aspirations.
> 
> Copyright © 2002-2010 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
> All rights reserved.




A nuclear armed Iran seems nearly inevitable, to me. Israel *might* delay or derail the process by a pre-emptive attack with very limited aims but it seems to me that Israel can, credibly, and with US support, deter Iran from using its nuclear weapons with a threat of massive, indeed total destruction. I am not so persuaded that Iran, as a modern, revolutionary, theocracy will be so easily deterred from its other, perhaps even more important aim of establishing a Persian/_Shia_ hegemony in the region. The country *most* threatened by Iran is Saudi Arabia – and, in my opinion, ir couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.


----------



## Bo

Interesting speech given by Ron Paul 4 years ago. It gives another perspective as to why we view Iran as such a threat. Note, I only included parts of the speech relevant to this thread (due to length).




> The End of Dollar Hegemony
> 
> 
> 
> (...)the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged – as it already has been.
> 
> In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
> 
> It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
> 
> There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.
> 
> In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
> 
> After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.
> 
> It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.
> 
> Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.
> 
> Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.
> 
> It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.
> 
> (...)
> It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.
> 
> The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources – we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.
> 
> Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.
> 
> Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system – like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela – become targets of our plans for regime change.
> 
> Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.
> 
> But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.
> 
> It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.
> 
> The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.
> 
> But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.
> 
> Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.
> 
> And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.
> 
> Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.
> 
> The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.
> 
> February 17, 2006



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html


----------



## a_majoor

Very interesting if true:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156533.html



> *Iran tried to buy nuclear bomb from Pakistan as early as 1987*
> By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
> Tags: Israel news, Iran nuclear
> 
> New documents reveal how a close ally of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei bid $10bn for ready-made weapons.
> 
> Iran attempted to buy a nuclear bomb from Pakistan as early as 1987, a leading Middle East analyst has told Haaretz.
> 
> Documents obtained by Simon Henderson, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former journalist, offer crucial evidence that Iran's nuclear program is not wholly for civilian purposes as it claims - but aimed at developing an atomic bomb.
> 
> Henderson told Haaretz he has acquired material written by the scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan - popularly known as the father of Pakistan's bomb program - while under house arrest between 2005 and 2009.
> 
> Khan was arrested by Pakistani authorities after it emerged he had for years been operating an 'atomic supermarket', touring the Middle East to peddle nuclear know-how to the highest bidder.
> 
> During his detention, Khan provided Pakistani security services with a wealth of detail on his sale of nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya in the late 1980s and 1990s, much of which is now in the hands of British and American intelligence.
> 
> But according to Henderson, Pakistan omitted to pass to its Western allies a sensitive report detailing visits to Pakistan in the late 80s by two Iranian officials, who Khan said offered $10 billion in exchange ready-made atomic bombs.
> 
> While Libya in 2003 publicly declared its nuclear program at and end, Western powers still suspect Iran of seeking a bomb, a charge it denies.
> 
> The report, obtained by Henderson, reveals that in 1987 or 1988 Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a former senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard and minister of defense from 1997 until 2005, arrived in Pakistan with an entourage of officials.
> 
> Shamkhani offered to buy the nuclear devices on the spot and came prepared to take them home with him, Khan said.
> 
> The newly revealed material appears to confirm speculation that Khan, who despite his arrest remains a popular hero in his home country, did not act alone in selling Pakistani nuclear expertise to Iran and Libya, as Pakistan has claimed. Shamkhani's meetings suggest that Pakistani intelligence was aware of Khan's activities, as may have been the prime minister at the time, Benazir Bhutto.
> 
> Pakistan apparently refused Iran's offer - but Khan later traveled to the Middle East, where he auctioned his services as a private adviser. It was Khan who first provided Iran with designs for the centrifuges with which it continues to enrich uranium at its plant in Natanz.
> 
> Khan's other customer, Libya, eventually agreed to wind up its nuclear program and passed the CIA details of its transactions with the scientist. American intelligence was able to trace an elaborate smuggling operation in which the Pakistani had transferred bomb technology using front companies in Dubai.
> 
> In the Gulf emirate, Khan opened bank accounts under a variety of false names, including 'Khaidar Zaman', through which Iran paid him $5 million for his assistance.
> 
> As well as providing technical aid, Khan also gave the Iranians a list of Western suppliers of high-tech components vital to the enrichment process, who had helped Pakistan with its own bomb program.
> 
> As well as casting doubt on Iran's claims about the purpose of its nuclear research, Henderson's material could shed light on the thinking of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
> 
> Khamenei is believed initially to have opposed plans to acquire a bomb ? only to become convinced of its necessity in the early 1980s during a bloody war with Iraq, in which Saddam Hussein unleashed chemical weapons on Iranian troops.
> 
> Shamkhani, who now heads the Center for Strategic Research in Tehran and has been touted as a candidate for the presidency, is thought to be a close confidant of the Supreme Leader. His role at the center of Iran's attempts to gain a bomb may point to Khamenei's personal role in an Iranian bomb program.


----------



## CougarKing

> *Iran Nuclear Scientist Defects to U.S. In CIA 'Intelligence Coup'*
> An award-winning Iranian nuclear scientist, who disappeared last year under mysterious circumstances, has defected to the CIA and been resettled in the United States, according to people briefed on the operation by intelligence officials.
> 
> The officials were said to have termed the defection of the scientist,* Shahram Amiri*, "an intelligence coup" in the continuing CIA operation to spy on and undermine Iran's nuclear program.
> 
> A spokesperson for the CIA declined to comment. In its declassified annual report to Congress, the CIA said, "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."
> 
> Amiri, a nuclear physicist in his early 30s, went missing last June three days after arriving in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage, according to the Iranian government. He worked at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, which is closely connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, according to the Associated Press.
> 
> "The significance of the coup will depend on how much the scientist knew in the compartmentalized Iranian nuclear program," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant. "Just taking one scientist out of the program will not really disrupt it."
> 
> Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and other Iranian officials last year blamed the U.S. for "kidnapping" Amiri, but his whereabouts had remained a mystery until now.
> 
> According to the people briefed on the intelligence operation, Amiri's disappearance was part of a long-planned CIA operation to get him to defect. The CIA reportedly approached the scientist in Iran through an intermediary who made an offer of resettlement on behalf of the United States.
> 
> Since the late 1990s, the CIA has attempted to recruit Iranian scientists and officials through contacts made with relatives living in the United States, according to former U.S. intelligence officials. Case officers have been assigned to conduct hundreds of interviews with Iranian-Americans in the Los Angeles area in particular, the former officials said.



ABC link


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_, is an interesting article by veteran CBC newsman Henry Chanp:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/01/f-rfa-champ.html


> *ISRAEL AND THE U.S.*
> Henry Champ
> 
> The relationship changes when the Pentagon weighs in
> 
> April 1, 2010
> 
> By Henry Champ, special to CBC News
> 
> By all accounts, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel miffed.
> 
> On his recent trip to Washington, there were none of the normal White House rituals — the official greeting, the photo op in the Rose Garden, the private dinner with Barack Obama, the two men at a press conference.
> 
> Indeed, there were no photographs of their Oval Office meetings, no interviews for the visiting press and almost nothing in the way of official comments afterward.
> 
> For his part, President Barack Obama didn't make any progress towards halting Israel's construction plans in the disputed areas.
> 
> And he didn't receive much of an apology for the insult handed Vice-President Joe Biden during his recent trip to Israel, when the visit was upstaged by the announcement of a new 1,600-unit Israeli housing complex in what has traditionally been seen as Arab East Jerusalem.
> 
> These little spats have happened before, many people said. Everyone will get over it.
> 
> I'm not so sure. There is a new element at play this time around.
> 
> Back home, right-wing members of Netanyahu's government noted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-profile members of the Obama government had all pledged their continued support of Israel's security.
> 
> Those being quoted also pointed to the warm welcome that Netanyahu received on Capitol Hill and from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the fervently pro-Israel lobby.
> 
> All that is true.
> 
> But that same AIPAC meeting also heard Clinton warn them that, whether the Israelis like it or not, the status quo is not sustainable.
> 
> And while AIPAC is a strong and well-heard voice here in the American capital, it has nowhere near the strength of Washington's most powerful lobby — the U.S. military.
> 
> That's where this current rupture between Tel Aviv and Washington started, at the Pentagon. And that is why this current deep freeze in U.S.-Israeli relations may be more serious than anyone thought.
> 
> *American lives*
> 
> In January, the American military's central commander, Gen. David Petraeus, gave a 33-slide, 45-minute presentation to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> Its central theme stunned the Pentagon's leaders as it did the White House when the presentation was sent up the line a few days later.
> 
> Patraeus said there was a growing perception in the Arab world that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel and that, as a result, America's support within the moderate Arab leadership was falling and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were bearing the consequences.
> 
> In short, Petraeus was saying, the U.S. relationship with Israel was important but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.
> 
> Patraeus' view is not unique in the U.S. military. In fact you can go back to the very formation of Israel in 1948 when then secretary of state, Gen. George C. Marshall warned Harry Truman that even-handedness in the region would be difficult to manage.
> 
> Since then, the Pentagon has bridled on occasion at what it believes is an uneven relationship in the Middle East.
> 
> But today's situation has taken on new meaning. American troops are fighting two wars in the Muslim world and U.S. leaders, whether political or military, read the daily casualty reports.
> 
> At the Pentagon, the feeling was such that the decision was made to go public with elements of the Petraeus briefing, which were leaked to Mark Perry, a leading foreign affairs analyst, who published the dissent.
> 
> Then Patraeus went before Congress, with White House approval, to make the case that finding solutions to the Mideast peace process is a core U.S. national security issue.
> 
> He told senators that "the conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favouritism toward Israel."
> 
> The message was clear. American military lives were at risk.
> 
> *'That's your problem'*
> 
> What followed was astounding.
> 
> When Vice-President Biden went to Jerusalem earlier last month, the Petraeus report was to be part of his discussion there. That is what the now-famous 1,600-unit settlement project helped scuttle.
> 
> Of all the impediments to Middle East peace, the settlements issue is the most visible and perhaps the most emotional. Particularly this announcement of construction in East Jerusalem, one of the most sensitive places to Arabs and Israelis alike.
> 
> You can see now why American anger was on such exhibit when Netanyahu arrived in Washington near the end of March.
> 
> If you believe what is now being leaked about the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, Netanyahu defended his government's actions by saying that if he did not go forward with the settlements his government would fall. Obama's reply: That's your problem.
> 
> *At odds*
> 
> It's also clear the settlements are not the only cause for division.
> 
> Netanyahu wants the U.S. to pursue an Iran-first foreign policy, arguing that if Washington were to solve the Iran nuclear threat that would make Mideast peace efforts simpler.
> 
> Washington takes a different tack and is arguing that Israeli intransigence in the region is making U.S. efforts to line up international support against Iran much harder than it should be.
> 
> Britain is already angry that its passports were used in the recent mysterious assassination of a Hamas leader in Abu Dhabi and took the highly unusual step of expelling an Israeli diplomat in protest.
> 
> What's more, during his visit last week to Washington, French President Nicolas Sarkozy strongly supported Washington's stand against Israel's settlement policies.
> 
> Everyone, in seems, is taking a deep breath now, waiting for the next move.
> 
> But this rupture is not going to fade away quickly.
> 
> As Robert Malley a peace negotiator in the Clinton White House told the Washington Post: "U.S. pressure can work, but it needs to be at the right time, on the right issue and in the right political context.
> 
> "The latest episode was an apt illustration. The administration is ready for a fight, but it realized the issue, the timing and context were wrong."
> 
> This crisis, he said, has just been deferred for a time. It has nowhere near been resolved.



First: Champ has his history right. The _creation_ of Israel was done despite some serious reservations in the US administration. Israel’s _sponsor_ in the 1940s was Russia, then in the ‘50s Britain and France were Israel’s main allies, it was not until after the 1967 _Sex Six  Day War_ that the US became Israel’s _champion_. The _special relationship_ has never been as solid as many Americans, Arabs and Israelis believe.

Second; Champ is right about the Pentagon’s major voice in national _strategy_. In many cases the Pentagon is _superior_ to the State Department in foreign relations.

All that to say that American support for Israel is not as deep as many think – especially not now when the very, very pro-Israel voices of the fundamentalist _white_ Christians are unheard in the White House.

Israel’s _strategic_ interests and those of the USA are not the same. America cannot be trusted to defend Israel at some substantial costs to its own vital interests. 

I remain convinced that a nuclear armed Iran is inevitable. I am equally convinced that America's _response_ to a nuclear armed Iran will be the same as it is towards a nuclear armed North Korea. Israel may decide, without consulting the USA, that a nuclear armed Iran is intolerable and that its (Israel's) strategic security *requirements* far outweigh the political calculus of Israel's _alliance_ with the USA. If the Israelis can, once again, prevail, in a nice short, sharp campaign, then America is faced with a _fair accompli_. If Israel cannot prevail, quickly, then its fate is cast in stone ...


Edit: typo   :-[  - there was a sex day war, back in the '60s with 'free love' and all that, I was in it, I think ... now what _was_ her name?


----------



## a_majoor

More Iranian sabre rattling. I think they have assessed the Administration and are confident there will be no effective opposition to their nuclear program from Washington.  Since oil is a fungible commodity, there is no direct threat to US oil supplies from Iran (most American imports are from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela rather than the Middle East), but a sudden reduction in supply will push up the price for everyone and massively effect the economies of Japan, India and China, as well as Europe and North America. A spike in prices will delight Russia, and China will have to assess the effects of a price spike against the ability to humble the White House yet again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6371EY20100408



> *Iran will not beg to avoid sanctions: Ahmadinejad*
> Hashem Kalantari
> TEHRAN
> Thu Apr 8, 2010 9:24am EDT
> 
> Soldiers from Iran's army fire an anti-aircraft gun during the Defenders of Velayat (Pontificate) Sky Manoeuvre 2 near Arak, 290 km (180 miles) southwest of Tehran in this November 23, 2009 picture. REUTERS/FARS NEWS/Ali Shayegan
> 
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Thursday he would not plead with opponents of Tehran's nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions as Russia and the United States said new measures might be necessary.
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Wednesday called President Barack Obama a nuclear-armed "cowboy", said Iran would "try to make an opportunity out of sanctions" rather than change its stance to avoid them.
> 
> "We do not welcome the idea of threat or sanctions, but we would never implore those who threaten us with sanctions to reverse their sanctions against us," he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.
> 
> Ahmadinejad was speaking as Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty in Prague. The two were "working together at the United Nations Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran," Obama said.
> 
> Medvedev said he was unhappy with Iran's stance over its nuclear program which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.
> 
> "Tehran is not reacting to a range of suggested constructive compromise agreements. We can't close our eyes to this. That is why I do not exclude that Security Council will have to examine this question again," Medvedev told reporters.
> 
> Obama is hoping to persuade Russia and China -- both Security Council veto holders -- to drop their traditional reluctance to the new sanctions.
> 
> His campaign is likely to continue next week when both Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao attend a summit on nuclear security in Washington.
> 
> MILITARY WARNING
> 
> While dismissing the sanctions threat, Iran has also warned against any military steps against its nuclear program.
> 
> After several warnings that it would hit back at Israel if attacked from there, Iran's military chief said Thursday he would target U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East if Washington attacked.
> 
> "If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.
> 
> U.S. troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran.
> 
> Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Firouzabadi said a strike on Iran would also put oil supplies at risk.
> 
> "If America wants to have the region's oil and its markets then the region's markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims' control over oil would increase," he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.


----------



## CougarKing

Speaking of Iranian sabre rattling:






An Iranian boat fires a missile as it takes part in a naval war game in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, southern Iran April 22, 2010. Iran's Revolutionary Guards successfully deployed a new speed boat capable of destroying enemy ships as war games began on Thursday in a waterway crucial for global oil supplies, Iranian media reported. REUTERS/Fars News 






Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard on Thursday started large-scale war games in the Persian Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz, state television reported. Iran has been holding military maneuvers in the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz annually since 2006 to show off its military capabilities. (AP Photo/Fars News Agency,Mehdi Marizad)



> *Iran to hold war games in Strait of Hormuz*
> AP
> 
> 
> 1 hr 7 mins ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's state TV says the country's elite Revolutionary Guard will begin large scale military maneuvers in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a move likely to heighten tension at a time when the West is at a deepening standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.
> 
> The Wednesday TV report quoted the Guard's deputy chief Hossein Salami as saying the war games in the Persian Gulf and Hormuz were designed to "safeguard security" in the region. It did not elaborate.
> 
> Salami said the three-day war games due to start Thursday will also seek to demonstrate Iran's role in a waterway through which some 40 percent of the world oil and energy supply passes.
> 
> Iran had in the past threatened to close the strait if attacked.



Associated Press link






A member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards stands next to a long-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile on a launcher truck during the Army Day parade in Tehran on April 18. Iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, a senior US official told lawmakers(AFP/File/Behrouz Mehri)






Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi (2nd L) speaks with President Ahmadinejad (3rd L) as a vehicle carrying Nasr-1 missile drives past in Tehran April 18, 2010. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl






A military vehicle carrying the Shaheen missile, part of Iran's medium range anti-aircraft air defence system Mersad (Ambush), drives past a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a parade to commemorate the anniversary of army day in Tehran April 18, 2010. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl






Iran's Ghadr-1 missile, which has a range of up to 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers), and capable of putting Israeli and US bases in the region within Iran's reach, is paraded during a ceremony marking National Army Day, in front of mausoleum of the late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, just outside Tehran, Iran, Sunday, April 18, 2010. A portrait of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is seen at left.  (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)






Iranian soldiers in full camouflage march during the Army Day parade in Tehran on April 18. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has approved the sites for new uranium enrichment plants in Iran, a close aide said on Monday, but the United States cast doubt on the claim. (AFP/File/Behrouz Mehri)


----------



## CougarKing

Associated Press link



> WASHINGTON – *A U.S. military official says the Navy had a close encounter with an Iranian surveillance jet last week in the Gulf of Oman.
> 
> The official says the jet buzzed a Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Eisenhower, coming within about 1,000 yards of the ship. *  The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said the April 21 incident occurred in international waters.
> 
> The jet was described as a maritime patrol aircraft generally used for surveillance.
> 
> The official says "there was nothing threatening about the aircraft itself or how it presented itself."
> 
> The official could not confirm reports by NBC and CBS that the jet made three passes over the Navy ship.


----------



## Bo

> No proof' of Iran nuclear arms
> 
> Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes
> The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6167304.stm





> U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
> 
> 
> By MARK MAZZETTI
> Published: December 3, 2007
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?ex=1354424400&en=db7cde09fe490f20&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink





> Russia's Lavrov says no proof Iran working on nuclear weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 12:0125/02/2010
> 
> There is no hard proof that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, but Tehran has to clarify several key issues on its nuclear program to avoid fresh international action, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.)



http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100225/158001835.html




> Who's Telling the Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program?
> 
> by Muhammad Sahimi
> Since February 2003, Iran's nuclear program has undergone what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself admits to be the most intrusive inspection in its entire history. After thousands of hours of inspections by some of the most experienced IAEA experts, the Agency has verified time and again that (1) there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and (2) all the declared nuclear materials have been accounted for; there has been no diversion of such materials to non-peaceful purposes. Iran has a clean bill of health, as far as its nuclear program is concerned.





http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=14265


War games, close encounters, nuclear scientists defecting, ....these will always grab the headlines. But the fact remains, Iran is not a military threat to anyone. 

Though, by selling oil in a basket of currencies as opposed to the USD, Iran has become an economic threat to the US.


----------



## a_majoor

If you read back a few posts, you will see Iran is a very creditable threat against Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and (via proxy for now) Israel. Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah have also destabilized large parts of Lebanon and prevented or delayed the establishment of effective Palestinian governing institutions (although the Palestinians are already good at infighting and kleptomania, foreign actors just keep the pot boiling).

Becoming the regional hegemon is their long term goal, and the opposition is quite fractured: Ba'athist secular dictatorship (the model of Syria), Wahabi theocracy (Saudi Arabia) and secular democracy (Israel and to a lesser extent Iraq), followed by feudal kingdoms and clan and tribal structures.

Their access to the Persian Gulf and the ability to manipulate the flow of oil to the global market gives them much greater leverage, and they have learned to court the Russians and Chinese (Russia because rising oil prices benefit Russia, and China to secure another source of oil for her economy, and both to try and counter American military, economic and political power) to provide political, military and technical backing to support Persia's long term goals. Having their own nuclear weapons added to their own long range rockets and terrorist proxies gives them the ability to deny entrance to the Gulf, and make threats to all the Middle East, parts of Europe, North Africa and even Russia.

Oil is a fungible commodity, so it actually doesn't matter so much in what currency payment is denominated, although given the structural difficulties of EU economies (the debt crisis of the PIIGS is the first symptom) , maybe asking for Euros isn't such a smart idea after all...

Update to add:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ahmadinejad-calling-obamas-bluff/?singlepage=true



> Ahmadinejad Calling Obama’s Bluff
> 
> Today at the UN, Iran's president showed why he's a better strategist than his American counterpart. (Also read Claudia Rosett: "Why Does Anyone Care What Ahmadinejad Says at the UN?")
> 
> May 3, 2010- by Barry RubinShare | Whatever you think of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is not a stupid man. On the contrary, and shocking as you might find this idea, he is a better strategist than his American counterpart, Barack Obama. Of course, Ahmadinejad has fewer issues to deal with than the U.S. president, but on the ones that count for him he’s capable of running rings around Obama.
> 
> The main theme of Ahmadinejad’s speech at the 2010 Review Conference by countries which have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is to outflank Obama’s calls for getting rid of nuclear weapons, trying to repeat the success Iran had last September in getting sanctions postponed. At the time, Iran proposed a plan for giving up nuclear materials for reprocessing elsewhere. Once the sanctions’ momentum had been derailed, however, Iran made it clear that it had no intention of agreeing to anything like that.
> 
> Now Ahmadinejad has held his own international nuclear summit under the slogan, “Nuclear Power for All, Nuclear Weapons for None.” His speech sounded word for word like what an idealistic pacifist would say: nuclear weapons are bad; ban them now.
> 
> Nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad explained, don’t bring real security and producing or possessing them, “under whatever pretext” it is done, “is a very dangerous act which first and foremost makes the country” having them exposed to threats or attacks. He even stated:
> 
> “The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride; it is rather disgusting and shameful. And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons” which is a great crime. He accused the United States, an unnamed European country (France), and Israel of having done so.
> 
> The entire system of non-proliferation as it currently exists, said Ahmadinejad, is just an oppressive sham in which those who possess these weapons try to keep others from getting them in order to maintain their own supremacy. Those in control of the international system also, he continued, want to use nuclear arms as an excuse to get others from obtaining nuclear energy, “the cleanest and cheapest” source of power.
> 
> Indeed, the U.S. government “has always tried to divert the public opinion’s attention from its noncompliance [with international law] and unlawful actions by bringing into focus some misleading issues,” such as Iran getting nuclear weapons or giving them to terrorists.
> 
> Ahmadinejad’s solution is a new international group to police nuclear weapons. This would include “immediate termination of all types of research, development, or improvement of nuclear weapons and their related facilities” and dismantling all U.S. nuclear weapons everywhere.
> 
> Oh, yes, and he calls for reforming the UN Security Council to get rid of a veto or permanent membership for the United States and others.
> 
> At the end, Ahmadinejad invited Obama “to join this humane movement, if he is still committed to his motto of `change.’”
> 
> What is all this about?
> 
> First, Ahmadinejad is offering to agree to Obama’s basic proposal of eliminating nuclear weapons, in effect, calling the president’s bluff. Obviously, this isn’t going to work at this stage on Obama. But Ahmadinejad is not trying to persuade the United States, but rather a range of Third World countries that might well oppose sanctions, including Lebanon, which is on the Security Council, Turkey, and Brazil.
> 
> He is also trying to buy even more time for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
> 
> There is also, and this is extraordinarily important, a longer-term aspect of Iranian strategy which I call creating a defensive umbrella for aggression. This might become the most vital gambit of the new era coming to the Middle East when Iran gets nuclear weapons.
> 
> Most discussion in the West has focused on Iran using nuclear weapons or threatening to do so. Yet that is not the main issue. Instead, Iran could genuinely be developing these arms in order to defend itself. The problem is that this defense is coupled with an aggressive policy.
> 
> In this framework, Iran would continue and escalate its subversive efforts against its neighbors; consolidate and increase its influence in Lebanon and Iraq; support Hamas and client forces in Afghanistan; press regional states toward appeasement; recruit many more people to revolutionary Islamist groups; and try to make Iran the hegemonic power in the region.
> 
> But when anyone thinks about opposing Iran, all Tehran need do is make a gentle reminder that it has nuclear arms and so they better be careful. Arabs in the region, especially the Gulf, don’t have to believe that Iran would win a nuclear exchange with the United States. After all, even if Tehran lost they know their own countries would be devastated. Better to avoid any chance of a nuclear war than to offend Iran.
> 
> The other element — as so often in the Middle East — is who the local rulers would most fear. How can the Obama administration, which has criticized past U.S. use of force and decisive leadership, persuade Iran to tremble in fear and Arabs to stand tall feeling securely protected? Of course, the Arabs will accept American security guarantees but they would then be far more likely to bow to Iranian demands than to U.S. requests.
> 
> Moreover, in the current administration concept of containing Iran, the United States would have to do precisely what Ahmadinejad wants to outlaw: threaten Iran with nuclear retaliation.
> 
> So this apparently pacifist-style, peacenik stance fits into Ahmadinejad’s strategy. In opening his speech, Ahmadinejad called upon the deity to “hasten the arrival” of the Shia Muslim messiah. For Iran, nuclear weapons may well provide the umbrella for them to seek the regime’s strategy of regional rule by merely existing as a threat.
> 
> Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition, Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth about Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).


----------



## Bo

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 250 years.  Why would they do so now? Especially when they are flanked by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention a powerful Israel armed with nukes.

When countries face occupation, the creation of resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is inevitable. If you're looking for someone to point the finger at, look no further than Israel and the US (who support Israel's actions).

Becoming the regional hegemon is everyone's goal. What state doesn't want to thrive?


The currency in which oil is sold has a MASSIVE impact on the US economy because all crude oil is currently sold in USD. That means that any country in the world that wants to purchase petrol must first purchase USD. Basic economics tells us that if the demand is high for a product, either its value will increase OR it's supply can increase causing it's value to remain unchanged. And since the US is monetizing its debt by printing massive amounts of money (increasing supply), it needs an equal massive increase in demand of USD in order to avoid devaluing their dollar (which leads to inflation).  Inflation leads to increased interest rates and increased interest rates means less consumer spending (anyone remember the early 80's?). And since consumer spending represents 70% of US GDP, it becomes quite clear, once you follow the links starting from the currency in which crude oil is sold, why the US believes Iran is such a threat.


----------



## a_majoor

I lived through the early 1980's (and the late 1970's as well), so I have seen the effects of economic policies similar to the current administration's. The economic Stagflation of the second half of the 1970's was due to inflationary policies, and the high interest rate environment of the early 1980's was a deliberate attempt to crush inflation. The other half of the equation, which you failed to mention, was the massive tax reductions under President Reagan, which created a huge economic boom. The ultimate effect was an increase in US GDP which equaled the entire GDP of West Germany (considered the economic powerhouse of Europe during that period).

US is dictated by domestic concerns; I doubt President Reagan really gave a lot of thought to the fact that the same high interest rates that were saving the US economy from inflation was also causing the debt service charges in Canada to explode, wiping out then Prime Minister Mulrouney's efforts to contain program spending. Other nations had to deal with similar follow on effects, if the issue was raised the Reagan administration could point to the increasing economic activity, and the US Treasury could simply say "deal with it".

Iranian Republican Guard officers have been captured in Iraq training the AQ in Iraq insurgents, weapons manufactured in Iran have been captured from Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Iranians are found training and equipping Hamas and Hezbollah (even to the extent of bringing drones and flying them in support of Hezbollah during the recent war between Hezbollah and Isreal on the Lebanese border), so your "Iran hasn't attacked anyone" argument is devoid of merit as well. Take a read of this thread and _really_ study the situation rather than repeating Daily Kos talking points and you might be pretty amazed (and alarmed) by what you find.


----------



## a_majoor

Very speculative indeed. Does this explain anything about AQ operations?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-osama-bin-laden-enjoying-a-safe-haven-in-iran/?singlepage=true



> *Is Osama Bin Laden Enjoying a Safe Haven in Iran?*
> 
> There is a tantalizing body of circumstantial evidence that the world's number one terrorist is being sheltered by the Islamic regime.
> May 6, 2010
> - by Ryan Mauro
> 
> The average commentator thinks that Osama bin Laden’s trail has gone cold and that there is no credible eyewitness testimony as to where he is located. The only available public testimony is that a member of the Taliban arrested in Pakistan claims his colleague met bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first two months of 2009 — important information, but second-hand and unverifiable. The truth is that there have been credible leads, and these leads point to Iran.
> 
> Ken Timmerman, the best reporter covering Iran, provided an update on a story he broke last year. The last credible person to say they’ve met bin Laden is a smuggler who last saw him in October 2007. The smuggler, who said he met him a total of six times in Iran beginning in November 2004, provided Alan Parrot, leader of the Union for the Conservation of Raptors, with the “specific frequencies of small transmitters bin Laden had strapped to the backs of his hunting falcons so he could find them if they failed to return to base.”
> 
> When the smuggler claimed that bin Laden was moving from his safe haven in Tehran to the northern part of the country near the border with Turkmenistan in late 2006 for some falconry, Timmerman turned to his intelligence sources for verification. He found out that an intelligence report had been written based on “chatter” that a person of high importance was indeed moving from Tehran to Zahedan, and the hunting fields were shut off to all other guests. Zahedan was identified by the government as the location of an al-Qaeda network last January. The smuggler also said that he met with bin Laden at a safe house north of Tehran, which is similar to reporting from Iranian defectors, and in Mashhad, another location known to be used as a transit by al-Qaeda.
> 
> Parrot says that Iran is holding bin Laden’s family hostage in Tehran to stop the terrorist leader from ever revealing their collaboration with al-Qaeda. This also enables the Iranians to exercise greater control over the terrorist group and its leader, giving them a deniable proxy with which to wage asymmetrical warfare against the West, something further enabled by the staunch belief that such an alliance is impossible.
> 
> This story may sound unbelievable, but Omar bin Laden, one of Osama’s sons, has said that up to 40 members of the bin Laden family are living under house arrest in Tehran and are refusing to let them leave without being accompanied by the regime’s personnel. They live a lavish lifestyle with videogames, computers, “a swimming pool, tennis court, shopping trips, and horseback riding along the coast” — the same coast that the smuggler identified Osama himself as traveling to for entertainment.
> 
> Bin Laden’s 18-year-old daughter escaped to the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and after major resistance from the Iranians was allowed to leave last month. Another son, Bakr, left Iran in December. The Treasury Department has blacklisted a member of al-Qaeda living in Iran who they say arranged for Ayman al-Zawahiri’s family to live there. The scenario painted by Parrot suddenly seems very realistic.
> 
> My good friend John Loftus, who is very well-connected in the intelligence community, brought the information including the short-wave frequencies of bin Laden’s radios to the CIA director, the State Department, and other intelligence agency leaders but got no response. Either loyalists of the false “radical Shiites and radical Sunnis will never work together” mantra convinced their superiors that it was an impossibility, or the government’s hands are tied as getting bin Laden would mean a violent operation on Iranian soil.
> 
> But this isn’t the only eyewitness testimony placing bin Laden in Iran. Last year, I put together a report compiling all of the reports about his presence in Iran in an attempt to develop a timeline. I found that the testimonies were not contradictory, came from unrelated sources, and were supportive of one another.
> 
> Two former Iranian intelligence officers, including one who has provided credible information that saved American lives in Afghanistan, told journalist Richard Miniter that bin Laden entered Iran on July 26, 2002, to escape a Pakistani offensive. They detailed his travels inside Iran, and claim to have personally met him on October 23, 2003, near Tehran. He and Ayman al-Zawahiri were dressed like Iranian clerics and were escorted by the Revolutionary Guards.
> 
> In his book, Timmerman talks about a credible Iranian source he developed that had “direct knowledge” of a late 2004 meeting between Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden, and top Iranian officials. The source, like the others, said bin Laden was dressed as an Iranian cleric, appeared unhealthy, and had an IV in his hand. Timmerman says he saw a photo of the meeting and was able to confirm its age by dating a cell phone that was placed on the table.
> 
> These eyewitness accounts are supported by various pieces of evidence and provide much more detail about bin Laden’s changing locations. My comprehensive report can be read here. When the totality of the information is considered, it is undeniable that there is more personal testimony putting him in Iran than in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
> 
> Last February, a UCLA team pinpointed three buildings in Parachinar in northwestern Pakistan as his likely hiding spots, but that town is a Shiite majority and not a very secure spot to hide in — and the report did not mention Iran once. All of this information does not seem to have been included in their analysis. Other reports focus on Chitral, Northwest Frontier Province, North Waziristan, or Baluchistan in Pakistan, but countless drones and spies are scouring these areas for him. Al-Qaeda’s support in Pakistan has plummeted, and the military’s offensives in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and constant CIA drone air strikes make hiding out there a dangerous gamble.
> 
> John Loftus tells me that his intelligence sources say that bin Laden splits his time between Iran and Pakistan, spending about half a year in each. The two Iranian intelligence defectors interviewed by Richard Miniter confirmed that bin Laden is allowed to leave Iran, but it is very risky for the Iranians to allow this to happen for the reasons cited above. It is also telling that the capture of Mullah Baradar, the second-in-command of the Taliban, and other al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, does not appear to have yielded any major intelligence about his alleged safe haven in the area.
> 
> If it is true that bin Laden is being harbored in Iran, the aforementioned conditions make it less and less likely that he’ll travel outside the country and afford us an attempt to nab him. Parrot put together an operation in 2006 with former special forces members to snatch bin Laden at a specific location, but when he told the FBI, they responded with threatening to arrest him and his team. Unfortunately, it seems that the government is only willing to aggressively pursue bin Laden if he isn’t in Iran.
> 
> Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-osama-bin-laden-enjoying-a-safe-haven-in-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] claims: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394470.stm
> 
> [2] update: http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/BinLadin-Iran-Tribeca-falcon/2010/04/26/id/356929
> 
> [3] story: http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Bin-Laden-terrorist-Iran/2009/12/14/id/342161
> 
> [4] identified: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1360.htm
> 
> [5] known: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/01/return_to_jihad.php
> 
> [6] said: http://abcnews.go.com/International/Afghanistan/exclusive-osama-bin-laden-son-warns-next-al-qaeda-leader/story?id=9794603&page=2
> 
> [7] allowed: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/International/iran-releases-osama-bin-ladens-teenage-daughter/story?id=10169432&page=1
> 
> [8] blacklisted: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=548#more-548
> 
> [9] report: http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=34380
> 
> [10] book: http://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Crisis-Coming-Nuclear-Showdown/dp/1400053684
> 
> [11] pinpointed: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141536.htm


----------



## CougarKing

Reminds me of a similar incursion last December 2009 when some Iranian troops made claim to an Iraqi oil well, if I can recall correctly.



> link
> 
> 
> SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq (AFP) - *Iraqi border guards exchanged fire with Iranian troops on the border with Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region on Thursday, the head of Iraq's border forces in Sulaimaniyah province said. *
> "Iranian forces thought that the border guards belonged to PJAK (the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan -- an Iranian Kurdish rebel group) and started to open fire," Brigadier General Ahmed Gharib Diskara told reporters.
> 
> *
> "The border guards shot back and one officer of the Iraqi army has been captured. Negotiations are ongoing to free him."*
> 
> 
> Gharib said the shooting went on for about 90 minutes in a mountainous part of the two countries' border known as Shamiran, 90 kilometres (55 miles) southeast of Sulaimaniyah, Iraqi Kurdistan's second-biggest city.
> 
> (...)


----------



## burnaby

War with Iran?

I haven't read all the post before me but this is what I think:

1) The country of Iran:
In a legalistic point of view Iran is a sovereign country by all means. It has all the organization of a government, military, finance, health, economic departments, etc... As much as we dislike how the Iranian government is run and on the basis that they are building nuclear devices it does not satisfy "just war" against Iran. It has all the rights to do what ever she wants from building a nuclear weapons to establishing "I hate the West" holiday.

2) Can we (West) stop Iran from building nuclear weapons?
Militarily we can not because consider: Iran is a pretty big place we can't bomb every nuclear site with the certainty of it being destroyed. Invasion? no currently even with the United States there will be not enough troops and material to conduct a successful military campaign. Even if we successfully defeat the armed forces of Iran there will be immense political, economical, social fallout not only in Iran but the whole world. Example: oil prices, stock market, etc... In the most extreme scenario to stop (using force) Iran we might have to destroy Iran with nuclear devices of our own to prevent Iran from having them. But of course no sane country on earth will do that as much as we joke about it.   

Diplomatically we could put some pressure but at the end Iran's nuclear program is state driven. The current political climate actually encourages Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Consider if you were in Iran's shoes; your neighbours has been invaded by foreign countries, the enemy that you have fought; Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-Iran_War) was defeated in less then a month by the United States and her partners.  Iraq was one of the largest military in the Middle East and the invasion of the US and her partners made Iraq's military forces look like kids playing with plastic tanks. A nuclear weapon will secure Iran's political strength in the world community. Because they know that no matter how hard the West pushes they can't push to hard. So far sanctions by the West has been half hearted; think of it like sanctions done by the League of Nations when it tried to stop Italy from invading Ethiopia. Sanctions will only really start to matter when Russia and China really steps in. Since the West has been boycotting Iran for so long Western influence in Iran is almost nill. 

3) Nuclear weapons + Iran
Lets assume we have solid conformation that they do have nuclear weapons. If Iran decides to shoot off nuclear warhead equipped missiles; the current Iranian missile capability can only really effect regionally. Iran's missile capability at best right now can maybe hit Hawaii or Alaska but not the major states south of the Canadian border. Even that guess is a best case scenario by "military experts". Furthermore what do Iran have to gain to shoot nuclear weapons half way around the globe? I know that Iran's government is pretty radical when compared to Western liberal democracy but they are as rational as any government when trying to keep themselves in power. They periodically say destroy the "Great Satin" and "destroy Israel" but actually do it maybe a totally different ball game. Lets say they decided to take Hawaii off the map with one or two ICBMs. The United State can destroy Iran in a heartbeat with just the CVBGs in the Middle East and they can call in more CVBGs from the Med. and from the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia before Iran's ICBMs landed at Hawaii. 

Regional and international level if Iran is crazy enough to start chucking bombs around it will give the international community the perfect justification/excuse/opportunity to invade and that is the last thing that Iran will want to have if they (the current government) want to stay in power. 


To end it off war with Iran highly un-likely with our current political climate. 

PS: I am in no way supporting Iran it is just my analysis of the "here and now"


----------



## CougarKing

Reuters link



> *Iran makes nuclear offer, but West unconvinced*
> By Parisa Hafezi and Fernando Exman
> 
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran made an apparent concession over its nuclear program, but big powers expressed skepticism and analysts said the move seemed intended to split the international community and avert planned new U.N. sanctions.
> 
> 
> *Tehran agreed with Brazil and Turkey on Monday to send some of its uranium abroad, reviving a fuel swap plan drafted by the U.N. with the aim of keeping its nuclear work in check.
> 
> 
> But Iran made clear it had no intention of suspending domestic enrichment the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.*
> "There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities," Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Reuters.
> 
> 
> He told Iranian television the deal was a move toward nuclear cooperation and "stopping sanctions."
> 
> 
> *Iran launched work to enrich uranium to a 20 percent level in February. Further enrichment would be needed to make weapons.*
> 
> 
> The White House said Iran must take steps to prove its nuclear program was for exclusively peaceful purposes.
> 
> 
> "Given Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments ... the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns," a spokesman said.
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

Iran. Making friends and influencing people all over:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-israeli-arab-alliance-against-iran/?singlepage=true



> *The Israeli-Arab Alliance Against Iran*
> 
> Despite the outward condemnation of Israel by many Arab Muslim states, there are persistent stories of behind-the-scenes cooperation between these blood enemies against the common foe Iran.
> May 22, 2010
> - by Ryan Mauro
> Share |
> 
> The unlikeliest of alliances has been created. Many Arab states, including ones who do not even recognize Israel’s right to exist, are finding themselves in the same corner as the Jewish. Radical Shiite Iran is seen by Sunni Arab governments as more aggressive and a greater threat than Israel. They understand that Iran has the desire to overthrow their regimes.
> 
> Anyone with connections in the Middle East, foreign policy apparatus, or intelligence community can tell you that the Arab governments and much of their populations look at Iran with fear. Arab media consistently warn of the regime’s designs, and officials constantly speak of the dangers of neighbors meddling in their affairs — careful not to call Iran out directly, but clear enough to sound the alarm. The anti-Iranian rhetoric has reached levels only rivaled by the vitriol expressed toward the Israelis. Sunni Arab governments have frequently attributed domestic unrest by their Shiite minorities to the Iranians and, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, have directly seen Iran wage an undeniable proxy war against them.
> 
> The Arab states clearly see Iran’s strategy. The Saudi royal family is well aware that its eastern province, where 90% of the oil is located, has a majority Shiite population that is unhappy with their treatment. The Saudis have publicly accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda members targeting the kingdom.
> 
> Bahrain is a majority Shiite country, and Iranian officials have even talked about annexing the country. The Bahrainis have accused Syria, Iran’s ally, of training terrorists that are targeting them. Kuwait has busted a seven-strong cell of Revolutionary Guards agents that prepared attacks in the country in the event of an attack on Iran.
> 
> The United Arab Emirates is about 15-20 percent Shiite and has frequently clashed with Iran in its disputes over three Gulf islands. Even Fatah in the West Bank has publicly taken an anti-Iranian line, consistently denouncing Hamas as a proxy for the regime and attributing Iranian influence to their sabotaging of any negotiations. Remarkably, the Saudis and Fatah placed the blame on Hamas for the 2009 offensive in Gaza, and the Saudis even arrested a prominent cleric who said that attacks on Israelis were permissible in light of the Israeli offensive.
> 
> No country has suffered from the ideological extremism and terrorism of Iran and their Syrian allies more than Iraq. Even Israel cannot say that tens of thousands of its citizens have been killed indirectly and directly by the Iranians, with violence threatening to propel the country into civil war and cause the collapse of the government. Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite, and his secular Sunni allies who won the most votes in the most recent national elections are perhaps the most outspoken opponents of Iran’s activity in their country.
> 
> Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose coalition came in a close second, isn’t vocally against the Iranian regime but he used his military to fight a wide-ranging offensive against Iranian-backed militias. The view of the relationship between religion and government in the majority Arab Shiite country of Iraq makes them a distinct threat to the Persian extremist Shiites that rule Iran. A new poll found that only 18 percent of Iraq’s Shiites have a favorable view of Iran’s role in their country and only 17 percent have a favorable view of Ahmadinejad. The rest of Iraq’s sects, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs, have an even greater disdain for the Iranian regime.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan know they are targets of Iran for their peace with Israel — an unforgivable sin to the mullahs. When terrorists tried to kill two Israeli diplomats in Jordan in January, the government immediately suspected Iran’s involvement, investigating whether Iranian diplomats had brought the explosives into their country. The security services believed individuals connected to al-Qaeda were responsible for launching the attack, but had done so with financing and material from Iran.
> 
> The Mubarak regime of Egypt has taken a hard line on the Iranian-backed Hamas, accurately seeing them as inseparable from the Muslim Brotherhood it faces at home. Last spring, the regime arrested 49 members of Hezbollah planning attacks on its soil on Israeli targets. The Egyptian prime minister said that Hezbollah had “virtually declared war” when it called on Muslims to overthrow their government and others in the region. All of these governments and others understand that their sectarian identity and ties with the U.S. mean their replacement or domination is part of Iran’s scheme.
> 
> The two Arab governments that stand apart are Syria, Iran’s best ally, and Qatar. Although Qatar houses a major U.S. base, the Qatari emir has been kissing Iran’s behind, saying that the Islamic world needs them to become a superpower. In July 2009, the Qatari chief of staff met with the commander of the Revolutionary Guards and said that anyone threatening Iran also threatens his country and that they’d hold joint naval exercises. This could, of course, just be a way of courting the power that the Qataris believe will ultimately win.
> 
> The Arab governments are deathly afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, even if their populations are too focused on the so-called evils of the U.S. and Israel to see it. They may be unsure if Iran will actually use the bomb, but they surely know that the possession of it will enable Iran to take advantage of their fragility in ways thus far unseen.
> 
> There are consistent rumors of intelligence gathering and joint contingency planning between Israel and various Arab states; rumors that are probably based in reality. Reports that the Saudis have given Israel permission to use its airspace to attack Iran refuse to go away, despite the predictable denials of officials on both sides. The Egyptian government has openly confirmed that they allowed two Israeli missile boats and a Dolphin-class nuclear-capable submarine to pass through the Suez Canal in July 2009 in an exercise clearly aimed at Iran.
> 
> In March, an Israeli member of parliament said that a “wall to wall coalition” of Muslim countries, including ones that don’t even have diplomatic relations with Israel, had sent them secret messages expressing their support for military action against Iran. If a scenario unfolds where Israel attacks Iran with the Arabs secretly assisting, expect those same Arab regimes to viciously condemn the attacks and express support for a UN condemnation. They’ll express their solidarity with Iran, and should Israeli forces cross into their territory, there might be obligatory gunfire upon them that will conveniently miss to show how their sovereignty was violated. The Arab governments will try to escape the wrath of Iran and their angry populations, but will smile behind closed doors.
> 
> Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.


----------



## Bo

United States. Making friends and influencing people all over....again 


http://www.infowars.com/u-s-expands-covert-military-disruption-of-iran/



> U.S. Expands Covert Military Disruption of Iran
> 
> Kurt Nimmo
> Infowars.com
> May 25, 2010
> A not so secret directive penned by Gen. David H. Petraeus authorizes sending American Special Operations troops into Iran. The directive mentions a wide swath of countries in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, but is obviously tailored for Iran, the number one target on the Pentagon’s radar.
> 
> The New York Times reports that the “secretive” directive is designed to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” al-CIA-duh and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces. It authorizes attacks outside of designated war zones and dispenses with informing Congress and the American people.
> 
> Petraeus’ order, according to the scribes at the Times, is “meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.”
> In 2006, the journalist Seymour Hersh reported on U.S. “clandestine activities” (such as blowing up mosques) in Iran. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” a Pentagon adviser told Hersh.
> In 2007, Bush issued “secret presidential approval” for the CIA to conduct covert operations in Iran. In 2009, it was reported that Israel had joined in the effort to destabilize Iran. “United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year,” Hersh said in June, 2008. “These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of ‘high-value targets’ in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed.”
> 
> In 2008, Hersh talked about covert missions in Iran.
> Israel used “hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents” to disrupt the country, according to the Daily Telegraph.
> Earlier this month Hersh said the Pentagon has Obama on a short leash and his administration experienced a seamless transition from Bush and the neocons.
> Meanwhile, the Obama administration has signaled it will continue to lean on Iran. “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says an Iranian plan to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel is a “transparent ploy” to try to avoid new U.N. Security Council sanctions over its suspect nuclear program,” reports the Associated Press this morning. “Speaking in the Chinese capital of Beijing, Clinton said Tuesday the swap offer submitted to the U.N. nuclear watchdog has a number of deficiencies and does not address international concerns about Iran’s atomic ambitions.”
> 
> 
> In 2009, the new director of the United Nations’ the International Atomic Energy Agency said there is no evidence that Iran is using its legal nuclear energy program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. “I don’t see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this,” Japan’s Yukiya Amano told Reuters. The IAEA has consistently said it cannot find evidence of an Iranian nuclear program.
> Former Bush speechwriter and neocon David Frum praised the efforts of Democrats to meddle in Iran’s business on Monday. “Impatient with White House inaction, Democrats in Congress are pressing ahead with their own plan for gasoline sanctions on Iran,” Frum wrote for the National Post.
> 
> The U.S. has a long history of military intervention around the world. It has dispatched troops to Korea, China, Vietnam, Lebanon, Egypt, Laos, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, Cambodia, El Salvador, Grenada, Honduras, Iraq, Panama, Bolivia, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and many other nations. See an exhaustive list here.
> The CIA’s operation TPAJAX in Iran deposed the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. The “CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq,” writes Mark Gasiorowski.


----------



## SeanNewman

Observation: This thread started in 2005.  Is this war with Iran still imminent?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

By our timeframes 5 years is a long time, by theirs, it could take 5 years just to set the stage for the right conditions.

The biggest hope I have is the spreading influence of the RG. The RG is mainly now motivated by greed. They are slowly taking over the economy and isolating the mullahs. It's unlikely that the RG will go so far as to create economic chaos in the region that will drain their pocket books. The Mullahs have been motivated by religion and that makes them far more dangerous as dying and supposedly going to heaven is not much of a worry for someone who is heavily devout. Human greed may yet save us from all out war.


----------



## sean m

It seems thats it is highly unlikely that Iran would ever attack Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is blowing air to try and maintain the image that Iran is dangerous and a world player. These threats of his about using nuclear weapons is just talk, everyone knows how quick of a reaction there would be militarily from the whole world their would be no chance of the Iranian government winning. I read in a book about the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the author states that the current islamic government has never been as unpopular as it is now, this is very true and was proven when there was wide spread revolt in the country. There are many who support the government, but many of them are older generations and the difference is too significant for the islamic government to make a move. If they did, I wouldnt be suprised if there were even bigger revolts and they would be aided by the C.I.A and M.I.6, they did it to the democractic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh with little support of the people, imagine now. Just curioushas anyone ever looked up the structure of the iranian government, the president of Iran is not the highest level of government he has to answer to a number of others. These more powerful positions are, the supreme leader-  Ali Khamenei, the assembly of experts, and probably some commanders in the revolutionary guard. It seems this situation isnt as serious as it is made out to be, hopefully


----------



## sean m

And now, the relationship between russia and Iran is in a bad situation for the first time ever. Russia has also started to improve relations with the U.S. China has to much interest in the West and it's stability to side with Iran and the threat of war. This knockes out two of Iran's biggest allies, so when your friends are not there for you therefore youre out of luck


----------



## sean m

One thing that we are not thinking about also is the groups which Iran supports, if there was war with Iran, Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups would be looking to start trouble.


----------



## Edward Campbell

sean m said:
			
		

> One thing that we are not thinking about also is the groups which Iran supports, if there was war with Iran, Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups would be looking to start trouble.




Which suggests that in your mind opinion, "Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups"are not now "looking to start trouble." Sorry, I disagree.


----------



## sean m

Of couse, with their recent activity it could be classified as "looking for trouble" but it seems that they were only attempting to instigate something.  Hezbollah through funding has a fair amount of weapons and money, they are one of the most proficient guerilla movements in world. They are very entrenched in lebanese society. There is a reason why Israel suffered so may casualites and had to pull out after it when in, a couple of years ago. In Iraq, it seems to have gotten calmer, the shiite militas have calmd down and are trying to work together. It would not be good to get them rattled up again. The positive is that they were beat before and can be again, but it would be best not to get them angry.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Which suggests that in your mind opinion, "Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups"are not now "looking to start trouble." Sorry, I disagree.


----------



## GAP

> It would not be good to get them rattled up again. The positive is that they were beat before and can be again, but it would be best not to get them angry.



Typical victim attitude. Don't get them mad, they might do something. :


----------



## SeanNewman

Sean, just out of curiosity why would you not just edit your posts above (it gives you 24 hours to do so) if you think of something else, instead of making three posts in a row within 24 hours?


----------



## sean m

Victim???? I am looking at what consequences there would be. I doubt that people would want there to be increased violence in iraq and lebabon due to war with Iran. This would lead to many more casualties in those countries and abroad as well as further destabilize the region and create a SH** more jihadis. I want to get rid of that government. I think the best thing to do would be for intelligence agencies to go in there and destabilize it from the inside, like they did before which lead to this iranian government being in place.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Typical victim attitude. Don't get them mad, they might do something. :


----------



## Neolithium

sean m said:
			
		

> Victim???? I am looking at what consequences there would be. I doubt that people would want there to be increased violence in iraq and lebabon due to war with Iran. This would lead to many more casualties in those countries and abroad as well as further destabilize the region and create a SH** more jihadis. I want to get rid of that government. I think the best thing to do would be for intelligence agencies to go in there and destabilize it from the inside, like they did before which lead to this iranian government being in place.



Please let us know if you get a job with INT, I'd like to know when to request a transfer to a desk job.


----------



## SeanNewman

sean m said:
			
		

> ...There is a reason why Israel suffered so may casualites and had to pull out after it when in, a couple of years ago...



Yes, and it had a heck of a lot more to do with a lot of the rest of the world saying "Okay Israel you have made your point, time to bring your ball home" than it did with any resistance stopping them.

Israel was quite capable of doing far more than it did, and it my opinion showed far more restaint than it had to.

Someone rockets your country, you tell them to stop.  Then 100 rockets come and you tell them to stop.  200?  Still nothing.  Finally, after ~300 rockets came in Israel launched their offensive.


----------



## sean m

Thats true, but I doubt that Israel expected to face that significant a force before they went in. I am just saying that attacking Iran could have consequences in other areas .




			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes, and it had a heck of a lot more to do with a lot of the rest of the world saying "Okay Israel you have made your point, time to bring your ball home" than it did with any resistance stopping them.
> 
> Israel was quite capable of doing far more than it did, and it my opinion showed far more restaint than it had to.
> 
> Someone rockets your country, you tell them to stop.  Then 100 rockets come and you tell them to stop.  200?  Still nothing.  Finally, after ~300 rockets came in Israel launched their offensive.


----------



## Edward Campbell

sean m said:
			
		

> Thats true, but I doubt that Israel expected to face that significant a force before they went in. I am just saying that attacking Iran could have consequences in other areas .




But, from an Israeli perspective, *not* attacking Iran also has consequences. The Israelis will have to weigh all the consequences, including (further) annoying damned near everyone in the world, and do what they think best protects and promotes *their vital interests*.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

sean m said:
			
		

> Thats true, but I doubt that Israel expected to face that significant a force before they went in. I am just saying that attacking Iran could have consequences in other areas .



I have to disagree. The Israeli intellegence community is amongst the best in the world. Israel seldom makes any sort of move without thinking a few plays ahead. If Israel went in, against those odds, it's likely because they approached it with their usual "it matters not how hard this is going to be, but it has to be done" attittude. They have never shirked their responsibilty, no matter the odds, world opinion or consequences.


----------



## sean m

Well how do they differentiate that, their not in the supreme leaders head,as I said prior the president is not the top level of government, so you cannot make a decision based on what he says. Unless they have their ppl in contact with top level guys in iran they can never know. they have to review what are teh concequences for iran if they do it, and there are a lot.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, from an Israeli perspective, *not* attacking Iran also has consequences. The Israelis will have to weigh all the consequences, including (further) annoying damned near everyone in the world, and do what they think best protects and promotes *their vital interests*.


----------



## sean m

You can be the best and still make mistakes, this aint rolling the dice at a casino. Mi6 and C.I.A are probably the best intelligence agencies in the world and I doubt they foresaw the islamic revolution in Iran after the coup in the 1950's.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I have to disagree. The Israeli intellegence community is amongst the best in the world. Israel seldom makes any sort of move without thinking a few plays ahead. If Israel went in, against those odds, it's likely because they approached it with their usual "it matters not how hard this is going to be, but it has to be done" attittude. They have never shirked their responsibilty, no matter the odds, world opinion or consequences.


----------



## SeanNewman

But at least they got the WMDs in Iraq right!  I mean...uummm...[crickets]...


----------



## Neolithium

Mossad knows what they are doing.  If you look at what is publicly known about them, it speaks for itself.   The CIA and SIS (MI6 fell into disuse a long time ago except for popular culture) are very capable of course, and you should easily assume they had knowledge of the Islamic Revolution.  Just because you don't see them sending superninjaJTF2spies that end up on the BBC, CBC or CNN doesn't mean that reports were not generated and sent up the proper channels.

It's probably safe to assume there are many pages of classified documents regarding the Islamic Revolution, it would just take a few decades of intense scrutiny before they are considered for release to the public.  You need to realize something Sean - if an Intelligence Agency is doing its job, you won't know it.   There were several investigative journalism articles as well you can probably find via Google that detail the support Pahlavi obtained from the CIA over several decades.


----------



## Edward Campbell

sean m said:
			
		

> You can be the best and still make mistakes, this aint rolling the dice at a casino. Mi6 and C.I.A are probably the best intelligence agencies in the world and I doubt they foresaw the islamic revolution in Iran after the coup in the 1950's.




The best intelligence services consist of a few very smart people, scholars, really, making highly educated, informed estimates. Most intelligence services consist of large numbers of quite ordinary people, aided by massive and powerful computer systems making less educated, ill informed guesses.

You say you are interested in Humint. The Israelis are reputed to be very good at that. They have some advantages. Israel is a polyglot, multi-ethnic society. There are many Israelis  who are _native_ to the enemy countries. They can go in and _melt_ into the host society. But perhaps what the Israelis have done best is to go back to first principles, to Walsingham, and use corruption whenever possible.






Sir Francis Walsingham 

Poor old Pope Sixtus V amd King Philip II of Spain; like almost every modern Middle Eastern 'leader' every time they met with their inner council, their most trusted advisors, they *knew* (they *thought* they knew) that at least one was a traitor, in Walsingham's pay - perhaps due to simple greed, perhaps because Walsingham had, somehow, compromised them. It is a way better technique than having specialists and analysts and massive computers making guesses. It doesn't really matter a whole lot if the Israelis can do what so many Arabs and Iranians believe; what matters is that Arab and Iranian leaders *do* believe and they are nervous; they cannot really trust anyone. It compromises decision making. If it's not great intelligence then it is near perfect psychological warfare.

The Israelis have enjoyed many intelligence successes - against Arabs, Americans, Iranians, the French and so on. It is probable virtually certain that they have suffered from many failures, too. I'm guessing that they learn from their mistakes.


----------



## sean m

haha thats very good! nice one!  ;D


			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> But at least they got the WMDs in Iraq right!  I mean...uummm...[crickets]...


----------



## sean m

Of course, but you would have to be 100% sure that what happened then would not happen now. I am sorry if I sounded nieve before nieolotithium I was really interested and was being a fool, I apologise again. Of course they are documents and you are probably very correct in saying that Pahlavi is supported by the Americans and others. Now if we are talking about mounting attack the nations would have to do a number of things ( or if they have the info put it together cohevsively); analyze the actual support of the goverment by the people, locate key military targets, try and determine if they are anyone in the government or military that can be turned.





			
				Neolithium said:
			
		

> Mossad knows what they are doing.  If you look at what is publicly known about them, it speaks for itself.   The CIA and SIS (MI6 fell into disuse a long time ago except for popular culture) are very capable of course, and you should easily assume they had knowledge of the Islamic Revolution.  Just because you don't see them sending superninjaJTF2spies that end up on the BBC, CBC or CNN doesn't mean that reports were not generated and sent up the proper channels. It's probably safe to assume there are many pages of classified documents regarding the Islamic Revolution, it would just take a few decades of intense scrutiny before they are considered for release to the public.  You need to realize something Sean - if an Intelligence Agency is doing its job, you won't know it.   There were several investigative journalism articles as well you can probably find via Google that detail the support Pahlavi obtained from the CIA over several decades.


----------



## sean m

You are very right, it is the same with all nations in the west too. Canada is so diverse, we have people from all over the world, who can blend in to society in their countries of origin. The lucky thing about being canadians is that people around the world hold less of a grudge against us, which can work to our advantage. Interesting of you to bring up Walsingham, just in the movie about Queen Elizabeth you see what a man he was, the connections he had. Brilliant mant, one of the best intelligence agents ever. In the area the Israelis are in they need to have top notch intelligence. That recent event in Dubai proves their excellence. Yes but they can still make mistakes as I aid previously you would have to be almost 100% accurate what you are doing. There is also something called being a double agent or counter espionage, the israelis cannot be sure their contacts are accurate. The arab states are nervous but so are the israelis, one mess up this big for them and spells huge trouble




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The best intelligence services consist of a few very smart people, scholars, really, making highly educated, informed estimates. Most intelligence services consist of large numbers of quite ordinary people, aided by massive and powerful computer systems making less educated, ill informed guesses.
> 
> You say you are interested in Humint. The Israelis are reputed to be very good at that. They have some advantages. Israel is a polyglot, multi-ethnic society. There are many Israelis  who are _native_ to the enemy countries. They can go in and _melt_ into the host society. But perhaps what the Israelis have done best is to go back to first principles, to Walsingham, and use corruption whenever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir Francis Walsingham
> 
> Poor old Pope Sixtus V amd King Philip II of Spain; like almost every modern Middle Eastern 'leader' every time they met with their inner council, their most trusted advisors, they *knew* (they *thought* they knew) that at least one was a traitor, in Walsingham's pay - perhaps due to simple greed, perhaps because Walsingham had, somehow, compromised them. It is a way better technique than having specialists and analysts and massive computers making guesses. It doesn't really matter a whole lot if the Israelis can do what so many Arabs and Iranians believe; what matters is that Arab and Iranian leaders *do* believe and they are nervous; they cannot really trust anyone. It compromises decision making. If it's not great intelligence then it is near perfect psychological warfare.
> 
> The Israelis have enjoyed many intelligence successes - against Arabs, Americans, Iranians, the French and so on. It is probable virtually certain that they have suffered from many failures, too. I'm guessing that they learn from their mistakes.


----------



## Neolithium

:deadhorse:

I'm just going to shut up now before I end up posting something that would get me instantly banned.


----------



## sean m

Maybe you can say it in a way you would not get banned, just my  :2c:




			
				Neolithium said:
			
		

> :deadhorse:
> 
> I'm just going to shut up now before I end up posting something that would get me instantly banned.


----------



## GAP

Maybe some energizer bunny fingers should heed the advice.....


----------



## Alea

sean m said:
			
		

> Maybe you can say it in a way you would not get banned, just my  :2c:



Sean!
Coming from someone who is under Recorded Warning and - 1,530 points... it does sound a bit awkward no?

Keep on reading,
Alea


----------



## 1feral1

Neolithium said:
			
		

> :deadhorse:
> 
> I'm just going to shut up now before I end up posting something that would get me instantly banned.



NL, I hear ya.....

 :brickwall:

Meanwhile here, its a late fall day, its chilly 17C with rain, heater on, so I'll sit back and watch the show on here  op:


----------



## GAP

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Meanwhile here, its a late fall day, its chilly 17C with rain, heater on, so I'll sit back and watch the show on here  op:



Wimp!!! heat on at 17C? ......you got your bunny slippers on too?


----------



## 1feral1

Almost!

Now its a balmy 24C inside. The cats and I are happy.

Its the tropics afterall  ;D and winter lasts 4-5 weeks at best.

Honestly, anything under 20C and I shiver, and to think I spent 35 years of my life in Canada!

Tea tonight is pizza from Eagle Boys!!! Bacon double cheese!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor

Had an FTX last week, +31 in Borden (and in the sand dunes as well).

WRT Intelligence, it actually matters little how smart (or dumb) your agency is; their job is to collect and analyze information and present a picture to the leadership. The leadership then takes what they want from the picture and makes their plans. You might recall that just before Operation "Market-Garden" the intelligence cell identified the location of II.SS-Panzerkorps right inside the drop zone, but their warnings went unheeded (or actually brushed off, especially as depicted in the movie version), much to the horror of the British 1rst Airborne Division who had to deal with the results.

Intelligence also has lots of political implications, and the agencies themselves are politicized. The National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran was _not_ developing nuclear weapons was almost certainly wrong (and most elements have since been redacted in a piecemeal fashion), the entire purpose of that seems to have been to cripple the Bush administration's ability to deal with the issue. Given Ba'athist WMD was considered a credible threat by most of the Western intelligence community throughout the late 1990's (and President Bill Clinton warned of the dangers of Saddam Hussein's WMD program in 1998), one can hardly suggest the political leadership failed to act on the information presented, indeed prudence and past precedent suggested the Bush administration did exactly the right thing  based on what they knew. (The Democrats in the House and Congress have been very hypocritical about the issue; the intelligence committee has access to the same information the President does, and came to the same conclusions) .

What the various intelligence agencies know about Iran's nuclear ambitions, internal state of affairs, resistance or support of the theocracy matters little if their leadership is unwilling or unable to formulate and execute plans based on the information. Even Walsingham needed approval and support of his Sovereign to execute his plans, in a much less bureaucratic age he had the distinct advantage of direct access to the executive, and a far better ability to control the dissemination of information  and disinformation than most modern practitioners.


----------



## CougarKing

Russia to go ahead with its S300 sale to Iran?

Iran Press TV link



> *Russia assures Iran over S-300 deal*
> 
> Russia's Foreign Ministry says Moscow is not obliged to freeze a deal to deliver the S-300 missile defense system to Iran under the newly imposed UN sanctions.
> 
> Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said Thursday that the deal is not referenced in the fourth round of UN sanctions imposed against Tehran which mainly target financial and military sectors.
> 
> He stopped short of dismissing an earlier report by the Interfax news agency, which cited a Russian arms industry source as saying that Moscow is planning to renege on its unfulfilled contract to sell the S-300 system to Iran.
> 
> "Insofar as yesterday's resolution on Iran contains references to specific types of weapons, I can say that no antiaircraft systems, except man-portable air-defense missile complexes, are included in the UN Register of Conventional Arms," RIA Novosti quoted Nesterenko.
> 
> Head of the Russian Parliament's foreign policy committee Konstantin Kosachov also defended the legality of the delivery saying it be in line with international law.
> 
> (...)



In spite of the update below:



> *  Russia now says Iran sanctions ban S-300 missiles*
> By LYNN BERRY (AP) – 39 minutes ago
> MOSCOW — A Kremlin official says Russia will not be able to deliver S-300 air-defense missiles to Iran because of the new U.N. sanctions.
> 
> The Kremlin official spoke the day after the Foreign Ministry spokesman said the sanctions did not forbid delivery of the missile systems.
> 
> Israel and the U.S. have urged Russia not to supply the S-300, which would substantially increase Iran's defense capability. Russia agreed to sell the missiles in 2007, but has not delivered them.
> 
> Among other things, the U.N. Security Council resolution passed Wednesday bans Iran from buying certain types of heavy weapons.
> 
> The Kremlin official, speaking Friday on condition of anonymity, said "the S-300 falls under these sanctions."



source


----------



## 57Chevy

Iran defies West with plans for four new nuclear reactors:

Iran raised the stakes in its confrontation with the West Wednesday by declaring it would build four new nuclear reactors outside the international safeguards regime.

Just a week after the United Nations imposed a fourth round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic, officials said that Tehran was determined to supply its own nuclear plants with domestically manufactured uranium fuel.

The announcement appeared to mark the death knell for diplomatic efforts to supply the country's only functioning nuclear plant with fuel processed in France and Russia.

A compromise proposed in October would have seen Iran swap uranium from its stockpile for foreign made fuel rods under strict conditions that would have reduced the risk of a nuclear bomb being produced.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline president, said Iran was determined to maintain its nuclear program despite the ruinous effects of sanctions on the country's economy.

"You showed bad temper, reneged on your promise and again resorted to devilish manners," he said of the powers that imposed sanctions. Mr Ahmadinejad told a crowd of loyalists that Tehran would not be defeated by the latest round of sanctions which targeted financial transactions and travel by senior military figures. He said: "If they think they can use sticks to pressure Iran, we say that the Iranian nation will break all of their sticks." Since the worldwide sanctions regime was strengthened, both America and Europe have sought to tighten restrictions on bilateral commercial ties with Iran. Timothy Geithner, the U.S. treasury secretary, announced Wednesday night the department was prepared to impose a series of measures that implemented and built on the Iran sanctions resolution passed by the UN.

A European Union meeting in Brussels Thursday will agree to impose extra penalties on transport, banking, insurance, technology transfers and the oil industry.

But Tehran has been defiant in the face of such pressure. Another senior figure threatened to retaliate by disrupting the shipping lanes of the Gulf and other waters around Iran. Ali Larijani, the parliament speaker, said Iranian forces would not allow "bullying powers" to police its sea-borne trade.

He added: "We warn the U.S. and some adventurist countries that should they be tempted to inspect consignment of Iranian planes and ships, they should rest assured that we will reciprocate [against] their ships in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea."


Iran announced it had begun enriching uranium up to the 20 per cent threshold that would allow it to produce a weapon earlier this year.

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said the four new plants would replace the Tehran Research Reactor which was built in 1973. It is used to supply Iranian hospitals with equipment for radiography departments.
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Iran+build+powerful+nuclear+reactor/3160611/story.html#ixzz0r3jpKopi

           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## SeanNewman

I don't have the links here, but in the last week I saw two more articles about Iran:

1. It's sending aid ships to Gaza (re: attempting to get through the Israeli blockade); and

2. Saudi Arabia has admitted it will look the other way if Israel flies bombers/fighters over its airspace en route to attack Iranian nuclear plants.


----------



## 57Chevy

Petamocto
                 See Foreign Militaries/ Israel Blockade


----------



## CougarKing

link



> WASHINGTON (AFP) -* US intelligence has shown Iran could launch an attack against Europe with "scores or hundreds" of missiles, prompting major changes to US missile defenses, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said on Thursday*.
> 
> President Barack Obama in September cited a mounting danger from Iran's arsenal of short and medium-range missiles when he announced an overhaul of US missile defense plans.
> 
> 
> The new program, called the "phased adaptive approach," uses sea and land-based interceptors to protect NATO allies in the region, instead of mainly larger weapons designed to counter long-range missiles.
> 
> 
> "One of the elements of the intelligence that contributed to the decision on the phased adaptive array was the realization that if Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe, it wouldn't be just one or two missiles or a handful," Gates told a senate hearing.
> 
> 
> *"It would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles."
> 
> 
> Top US generals have said the new anti-missile system was meant to guard against a potential salvo of missiles from states such as Iran or North Korea.
> 
> 
> Gates made the comment when asked by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss if he supported deploying improved missile defenses, including plans for an upgraded SM-3 missile by 2020, even if Russia objected*.
> 
> 
> Gates said he backed the 10-year plan, despite possible resistance from Moscow, saying the new missile defenses "would give us the ability to protect our troops, our bases, our facilities and our allies in Europe."
> 
> 
> Gates, along with other top deputies in the Obama administration, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to argue for ratification of a new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, trying to reassure Republican lawmakers the agreement posed no threat to the missile defense program.


----------



## Bo

^
Wow, does the media really think people are that stupid? Iran firing hundreds of missiles against EUROPE? Is this a joke?

*sigh* I can hear the war drums beating again  : . Another boogie man. Another "threat". Hopefully people will see through the BS.


----------



## 57Chevy

Canada strengthens sanctions against Iran:

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a tightening of Canada's existing sanctions against Iran's nuclear industry Tuesday, just days before he is to host a G8 summit where heightened pressure on Iran will be a prominent international security theme.

If Iran continues to develop nuclear capability, "the consequence is frightening," Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said at a news conference.

Canada is joining the United States, European Union and other players in implementing a recent United Nations Security Council resolution aimed at penalizing Iran on grounds it has failed to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to comply with requests to halt uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.

(article continues)

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Canada+strengthens+sanctions+against+Iran/3186225/story.html#ixzz0rcBrwwXG

              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 57Chevy

Iran on war alert over "US and Israeli concentrations" in Azerbaijan:

In a rare move, Iran has declared a state of war on its northwestern border, debkafile's military and Iranian sources report. Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps men and equipment units are being massed in the Caspian Sea region against what Tehran claims are US and Israeli forces concentrated on army and air bases in Azerbaijan ready to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
The announcement came on Tuesday, June 22 from Brig.-Gen Mehdi Moini of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), commander of the forces tasked with "repelling" this American-Israeli offensive. He said: "The mobilization is due to the presence of American and Israeli forces on the western border," adding, "Reinforcements are being dispatched to West Azerbaijan Province because some western countries are fueling ethnic conflicts to destabilize the situation in the region."

In the past, Iranian officials have spoken of US and Israel attacks in general terms. debkafile's Iranian sources note that this is the first time that a specific location was mentioned and large reinforcements dispatched to give the threat substance.

Other Iranian sources report that in the last few days, Israel has secretly transferred a large number of bomber jets to bases in Azerbaijan, via Georgia, and that American special forces are also concentrated in Azerbaijan in preparation for a strike.

No comment has come from Azerbaijan about any of these reports. Iranian Azerbaijan, the destination of the Revolutionary Guards forces reinforcements, borders on Turkey, Iraq and Armenia. Witnesses say long IRGC convoys of tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft units and infantry are seen heading up the main highways to Azerbaijan and then further north to the Caspian Sea.

On Tuesday, June 22, Dr. Uzi Arad, head of Israel's National Security Council and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest adviser, said "The latest round of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran is inadequate for thwarting its nuclear progress. A preemptive military strike might eventually be necessary."

(article continues) (other interesting articles at link)
Read more: http://www.debka.com/article/8868/

        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## CougarKing

Bloomberg link



> *Iran has enough enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons, CIA Director Leon Panetta said today. *
> 
> “They clearly are developing their nuclear capability and that raises concerns,” Panetta said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “We think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons.”
> 
> Israeli officials “feel more strongly that Iran has already made the decision to proceed with the bomb,” Panetta said. The Israelis “are willing to give us the room to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically.”


----------



## 57Chevy

Western oil firms stop business with Iran:

ABU DHABI - Iran faced growing economic pressure on Monday after two Western oil firms halted business with it, and a Gulf Arab country seen as a trade lifeline for Tehran moved to freeze some Iranian-linked bank accounts.

The developments underlined the major oil producer's increasing international isolation over a nuclear program it says is aimed at generating electricity but major powers suspect is intended for making bombs.

France's Total joined an expanding list of companies that have stopped gasoline sales to Iran, and Spain's Repsol said it had pulled out of a contract to develop part of the country's huge South Pars gas field in the Gulf.

(article continues)

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Western+firms+stop+business+with+Iran/3211632/story.html#ixzz0sB2EQsAr

                  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Altair

are these santions having any effect?


----------



## 57Chevy

It seems to be having some sort of effect.
The latest on the subject....... US: Sanctions having an effect

More companies shun Tehran in wake of latest round of UN sanctions, senior US official says 

WASHINGTON – First signs of success: The latest sanctions against Iran have been slammed for not being firm enough, yet US officials are saying that the punitive steps are already having an effect.

The latest round of UN sanctions prompted several private sector companies to cut their ties with the Ayatollah regime, US Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey said Tuesday.

"The impact of these actions on Iran has been significant and is deepening as a result of Iran's own conduct," he said.

Levey, who is the architect of the financial boycott against Iran in the Treasury, told Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee that private sector companies are joining banks in ending their ties with Iran.

 "Virtually all major financial institutions have either completely cut off or dramatically reduced their ties with Iran," he said.

 "We are now starting to see companies across a range of sectors, including insurance, consulting, energy, and manufacturing make similar decisions," Levey said, adding that ties with Iran are increasingly feared because of the "reputational risk" inherent in such contacts. 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3909180,00.html

                  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 57Chevy

Iran is Surrounded by US Troops in 10 Countries:

Iran literally is surrounded by American troops, notes an oil market analyst, Energy and Capital editor Christian A. DeHaemer. There is no evidence of an imminent attack, but he connects a number of recent events and the presence of American soldiers to warn that oil prices might soar -- with or without a pre-emptive strike aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear power ambitions.

Iran is bordered on the east by Pakistan and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been waging a costly war, in terms of money and lives, against Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. 

The Persian Gulf is on Iran’s southern border, and last week’s report, confirmed by the Pentagon, that 11 warships had sailed through the Suez Canal, raised alarm bells that the U.S. is ready to fight to keep the Persian Gulf open. 

Iran has threatened it could close the waterway, where 40 percent of the world’s oil flows in tankers, if the United Nations or the United States by itself carry out harsh energy sanctions against the Islamic Republic. An Israeli ship has also reportedly joined the U.S. armada.

Kuwait, which is heavily armed by the U.S. and is home to American bases, is located on the southwestern border of Iran. The country’s western neighbors are Turkey and Iraq, also home to American bases, and Turkmenistan, the Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan are the Islamic Republic’s northern neighbors. 

The U.S.army last year advanced military cooperation with Turkmenistan. An independent Caspian news agency has confirmed unusually heavy activity of American troops along the border with Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said last week that his forces increased patrols, including tanks and anti-aircraft units, along the border with Azerbaijan because they noticed increased American activity. Iran charged that Israeli forces were also present, sparking a virtual war alert among the Iranian Guards.

In addition, the Times of London reported earlier this month that Saudi Arabia has agreed to open its air space for Israel Air Force jets, a claim that the Saudi monarchy denied. It similar denied Iranian news agency claims that Israeli helicopters unloaded military equipment at a northwestern Saudi Arabian air base, from where Israeli planes theoretically could reach Iran in the shorts possible time.

There has been no confirmation of Israel-Saudi cooperation from any other source, but one IDF reserve officer, who has been involved in secret military projects for private companies, told Israel National News that the it could be true if both countries found it in their common interests. Saudi Arabia does not recognize Israel and has treated the Jewish State with disdain. However, the possibility of Iran's dominating the Arab world with nuclear power has changed all political scenarios.

Several defense websites have reported that Israel is deploying one to three German-made nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf as a defensive measure against the possibility of a missile attacks from Lebanon and Syria, as well as Iran. 

“The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before,” DeHaemer wrote, “but the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.”

Amid the buzz of increased military activity around Iran looms the specter of higher oil prices, which is DeHaemer's field of expertise. “The last oil price shock in the Middle East was in 1990 when the United States invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait. The price per barrel of oil went from $21 to $28 on August 6...to $46 by mid-October. The looming Iran War is not priced in,” he warned in his news letter.

Iran has the third-highest oil reserves in the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in production. If any action prevents the flow of Iranian oil, the price of “black gold” would soar, he added. 

link:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138284

                  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 57Chevy

Third US carrier, 4,000 Marines augment US armada opposite Iran:

debkafile's military sources report that Washington has posted a third carrier opposite Iran's shores. It is supported by amphibious assault ships and up to 4,000 Navy and Marine Corps personnel, bringing the total US strength in these waters to three carriers and 10,000 combat personnel.
The USS Nassau (LHA-4) Amphibious Ready Group 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, tasked with supporting the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet area of operations, is cruising around the Bab al-Mandeb Straits where the Gulf of Aden flows into the Red Sea. Its presence there accounts for Tehran announcing Sunday, June 27 that its "aid ship for Gaza" had been called off, for fear an American military boarding party would intercept the vessel and search it.  This would be permissible under the latest UN sanctions punishing the Islamic Republic for its nuclear program.
The third US carrier group to reach waters around Iran consists of three vessels:
1. The USS Nassau Amphibious Assault ship is not just an enormous landing craft for the 3,000 Marines aboard; its decks carry 6 vertical take-off AV-HB Harrier attack plans; four AH-1W Super Cobra, twelve CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, as well choppers convertible to fast V-22 Osprey airplanes capable of landing in any conditions.
This vast warship has 1,400 cabinets for sleeping the entire Marine-24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard.
2.  The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde which carries 800 Marines equipped for instantaneous landing.
3.  The amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland which carries 400 Marines and 102 commandos trained for special operations behind enemy lines.

debkafile adds: The USS Ashland was the target of an al Qaeda Katyusha rocket attack in 2005 when it was docked in Jordan's Aqaba port next door to the Israeli port of Eilat. One of the rockets exploded in Eilat airport. The ship exited harbor in time to escape harm.
These new arrivals are a massive injection of naval, air and marine muscle to the strength Washington has deployed in the Persian Gulf-Red Sea-Indian Ocean arena in recent months. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group consisting of twelve warships is cruising in the Arabian Sea opposite Chah Bahar, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards biggest naval base not far from the Iranian-Pakistan border. It is there that most of Iran's special commando units are housed.
Also posted in the Arabian Sea, further to the west, is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group.

 debkafile link 
                  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Bo

> Dangerous Crossroads in World History: Obama’s New Iran Sanctions: An Act of War
> 
> by Shamus Cooke
> 
> When the UN refused to agree to the severe sanctions that the U.S. wanted, Obama responded with typical Bush flair and went solo. The new U.S. sanctions against Iran — signed into law by Obama on July 1st — are an unmistakable act of war.
> 
> If fully enforced, Iran’s economy will be potentially destroyed. The New York Times outlines the central parts of the sanctions:
> 
> “The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” (July 1, 2010).
> 
> Iran must import a large part of its refined oil from foreign corporations and nations, since it does not have the technology needed to refine all the fuel that it pumps from its soil. By cutting this refined oil off, the U.S. will be causing massive, irreparable damage to the Iranian economy — equaling an act of war.
> 
> In fact, war against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.
> 
> Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama Administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as “peaceful” solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to “defend” itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.
> 
> But the U.S. is provoking militarily too. According to the New York Times: “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).
> 
> The same article mentions that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that, “… the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran, as well as the whole world, knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.
> 
> Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it be the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations (not to mention Zionist Israel, a U.S. cohort in its war aims against Iran). Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily.
> 
> It remains to be seen how closely U.S. allies will follow the new oil sanctions; they will be under tremendous pressure to do so. The European Union has already signaled that it will follow Obama’s lead.
> 
> Ultimately, the march to war begun by Bush is picking up momentum under Obama. Congressional Democrats and Republicans gave the President their overwhelming support in passing these sanctions, proving that the two party system agrees to the necessity of more war.
> 
> Uniting the U.S. anti-war movement is crucial if current and future wars are to be stopped. A step in this direction will take place at the National Peace Conference, in Albany, New York, July 23-25.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20008


----------



## a_majoor

> Iran, as well as the whole world, knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.



I guess the "rest of the world" does not read Janes, since the SM-3 Standard SAM carried by the Aegis cruisers has no ability to strike surface targets. If the US wanted to go on the offensive, they have the capabilites already in place; and have had so for a long time.

The Bushn administration tried to play the diplomatic card, so did the EU and so did many other groups. In all cases, the Iranian government snubbed diplomacy. They have only themselves to blame for whatever happens next.


----------



## Bo

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I guess the "rest of the world" does not read Janes, since the SM-3 Standard SAM carried by the Aegis cruisers has no ability to strike surface targets.



The author was probably referring to the fact that the Aegis cruisers are described as "anti-missile systems" when in fact they have a powerful offensive capability i.e Tomahawk missiles (ship launched land attack). You can see the full list of Aegis cruiser armament here:  http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/cg47.html#spec



> The Bushn administration tried to play the diplomatic card, so did the EU and so did many other groups. In all cases, the Iranian government snubbed diplomacy. They have only themselves to blame for whatever happens next.



Please provide some sources showing how Iran "snubbed" diplomacy. Because I can recall not too long ago they diplomatically came to an agreement with Turkey and Brazil. And prior to that  Iran bent over backwards to accommodate the IAEA. The findings:



> (1) there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and (2) all the declared nuclear materials have been accounted for; there has been no diversion of such materials to non-peaceful purposes.


  http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=14265


----------



## a_majoor

Bo said:
			
		

> Please provide some sources showing how Iran "snubbed" diplomacy.



Well, just one page ago on this forum: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25516/post-946200.html#msg946200

And you have 85 other pages of examples to choose from. Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

The application of external pressure might help the forces of rebellion; every successful revolution in history has required an external sponsor and a "safe haven" for the revolutionaries to rest and regroup:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/07/08/iran-heats-up-the-bazaar-strikes-back/?singlepage=true



> *Iran Heats Up: The Bazaar Strikes Back*
> July 8, 2010 - by Michael Ledeen
> 
> The death spiral of the Islamic Republic seems to be gathering momentum. That big fire at a major oil well I told you about last week continues unabated, with big flames and clouds of noxious black smoke pouring out.  And these are the people who offered to clean up the much larger catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> But mere physical disaster is trivial compared to the events that are taking place in Iran.  In the past week, the regime has been confronted with two direct challenges: a strike in the grand bazaar of Tehran, and the very public battle between conflicting elements of the regime for control over the Free University. The strike in the bazaar — protesting a dramatic 70% increase in their taxes — was taken very seriously by the regime, because the supreme leader and his cronies know that if the merchants turned against them it could prove fatal.  Khamenei capitulated within a few hours, just as he had two years ago when the bazaar shut down for an entire week.  This sudden about-face from the supreme leader did not bring order to the country’s markets; the strike continues, which is big news indeed.
> 
> The  Tehran bazaar was closed again on Wednesday, and spread to at least two other major cities, Isfahan and Tabriz. The regime reacted violently, sending Revolutionary Guardsmen and Basijis, all in plain clothes, to attack the merchants who had closed their shops. No bullets or clubs this time — the knife has now become the weapon of choice — and the Isfahan bazaar was placed under virtual military occupation.
> 
> While the strikes may have begun as a narrowly defined economic protest against new taxes, they soon took on a clear political hue, with chants of “death to the dictator!” ringing out across the bazaar.  The latest report I have says that the strikes will continue Thursday, a religious holiday in any event.
> 
> This is a very big deal, and everyone knows it. That is why there is violence — about 80 persons wounded and an unknown number arrested, along with one victim, a very popular merchant in Tehran. Will it spread from the normally pro-regime bazaars to the long-suffering workers in such vital sectors of the national economy as oil and textiles? If it does, the ability of the regime to craft a rational strategy of self-defense will be tested.
> 
> Entrail readers will take note that on Tuesday, electricity went out all over Tehran no less than six times, which the regime predictably blamed on sabotage by enemy agents.  And there is a decidedly negative augury on “regime unity.”  Khamenei ran away from deciding the University issue, bravely deciding to leave things as they have been all along. The Free University is a substantial economic and cultural prize, one of the few really big prizes up for grabs in the Shi’ite kleptocracy — most of the others having been gobbled up by the mullahs or by the top brass at the Revolutionary Guards.  As between physical plant and cash flow, the University is worth several billion dollars. Thus, the battle for control.  Khamenei’s failure to take sides leaves both contenders spitting.
> 
> Meanwhile, gunfights continue to break out along the Baluchi border, and the aging fleet of Tupolov aircraft continues to experience a spectacularly high rate of hydraulic failure, most recently on Monday on a flight heavily populated with RG officers flying from Abadan to Mashad for vacation. The plane had to make an emergency landing and although there were many casualties, the pilot’s skill prevented a major disaster.  Nobody trusts Iranian airplanes these days;  the EU has banned the bulk of Iran’s civilian aircraft on safety grounds.  But that is a different matter from the pandemic of breakdowns of RG planes, which have a distinct odor of sabotage.
> 
> It’s not surprising to see considerable internal turmoil within the ranks.  Ryan Mauro calls our attention to the many signs of dissent within the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
> 
> On June 9, a top IRGC strategist, Hassan Abbasi, openly complained [13] that “we cannot count on many of the establishment’s own who were blessed by Khomeini and senior officials because sometimes their hands might actually be joined with the enemy’s.”
> 
> The IRGC defector, Muhammed Hussein Torkaman, said [1] that Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad had a plane on alert to fly them to Syria during last summer’s enormous protests.  Another report [14] claimed that the plane was to go to Russia, but that is beside the point. Torkaman says that Khamenei has formed his own intelligence unit to spy on the top security services and he is rumored to be switching his bodyguards every single day.
> 
> One member of the security forces plainly told [15] The Los Angeles Times that he and many others at his base would refuse to follow orders to attack protestors during an uprising. “I would never do it. Maybe someone would, but I would never fire on any of these people myself,” he said.
> 
> Read the whole thing, and add to it the ongoing purge and reshuffling of top RG officers, especially in those areas where open confrontation is the order of the day.
> 
> The opposition is well aware of the cracks in the iron fist, and Mir Hossein Mousavi dedicated a considerable part of a statement this week to the Guards. He
> 
> pointed out the IRGC’s role in the post-election oppressions, arrests and interrogation of political prisoners as well as the Guards involvement in the financial sector with an “unbelievable size”. In addition, he called for the IRGC to return to its initial purpose which was to protect the country in the face of foreign threats and to create an environment suitable for economic development and fighting corruption.
> 
> “Unfortunately, we will witness a decline in the reputation of the IRGC and a dwindling of popular support for the IRGC. It is foreseeable that with the current trend, the IRGC will defend its companies, shares as well as financial and monitory institutes instead of defending the people and the country.”
> 
> It’s obvious that Mousavi is talking about current events, not the future, when he says the IRGC will lose popularity;  that process is well advanced, and is part of the ongoing revolution that threatens the survival of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> Those who thought that the Greens had been crushed may have trouble recognizing revolution in its new clothes.  Ahmad Batebi, who for a while was the international icon of the Iranian resistance (he was on the cover of The Economist, holding up a bloody tee shirt), recently gave a long interview, in which he had some very thoughtful insights.  Have a listen:
> 
> The western world or the media think that movement means demonstrations, and if the latter doesn’t exist, nor does the former. However, we know that the culture of the Iranian people is different than that of the outside world. The fact that [the Iranian people] write slogans [on walls and banknotes] in the color green and distribute cassettes and CD’s demonstrates that the movement is alive. The movement is learning how stay alive without incurring deaths and arrests. The movement is transferring from one form to another.
> 
> In all social movements across the world, you see that when a movement goes underground, for a very short period of time, the activists become slower. This is not sluggishness, but rather the period of transformation. We are passing through this phase. This time, when we have protests in June, we will have less people arrested, less people killed, and that is how people will learn. It is natural that the government learns how to suppress people and the people learn how to resist.
> 
> Today the resistance takes many forms, and its leaders hope they can grind down the mullahcracy until it finally — as Marx would have put it — collapses of its own contradictions.  The strikes in the bazaars show that a previously reliable component of the regime’s base has turned on Khamenei & Co., and the cracks in the Revolutionary Guard Corps suggest that the same process is fracturing the regime’s praetorian guard.  If Iranian workers had a strike fund — as I have been saying for years — we would see how profound the fissures really are.
> 
> Faster, Please.


----------



## thunderchild

Could we be looking at an Iranian civil war? If so any ideas as to how things will play out? IRGC vs Iranian military?


----------



## CougarKing

100 Iranian vessels for every US Navy one? Riiiiiight.  : 

Associated Press link



> *Iran says it has 100 vessels for each US warship*
> 
> 33 minutes ago
> 
> 
> By Ali Akbar Dareini, The Associated Press
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - *The former naval chief for Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the country has set aside 100 military vessels to confront each warship from the U.S. or any other foreign power that might pose a threat, an Iranian newspaper reported Saturday.*
> 
> 
> Such a military confrontation in the vital oil lanes of the Persian Gulf would be of major global concern. The warning builds on earlier threats by Iran to seal off the Gulf's strategic Strait of Hormuz — through which 40 per cent of the world's oil passes — in response to any military attack.
> 
> 
> "We have set aside 100 military vessels for each (U.S.) warship to attack at the time of necessity," Gen. Morteza Saffari was quoted as saying by the conservative weekly Panjereh.
> 
> 
> The U.S. and Israel have said military force could be used if diplomacy fails to stop what they suspect is an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran denies any aim to develop such weapons and says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes like power generation.
> 
> 
> The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters is based just across the Gulf from Iran in Bahrain.
> 
> 
> *Saffari said more than 100 foreign warships were currently in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, *  adding that their sailors were "morsels" for Iran's military to target, the newspaper reported.
> 
> 
> "Any moment the exalted supreme leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) orders — or should the enemy carry out the smallest threat against (Iran's ruling) Islamic system — the Guard ... is ready for quick reaction," he was quoted as saying.
> 
> 
> *By putting the number of foreign warships at 100, the general appeared to suggest Iran has 10,000 military vessels at the ready. Iran is known to have many speed boats used by the Guard, but there is no public information about how many larger military vessels it has.
> 
> 
> In January 2008, five small high-speed vessels believed to be from Iran's Revolutionary Guard briefly swarmed three U.S. Navy ships passing near Iranian waters in the Gulf and delivered a radio threat to blow them up.*
> 
> 
> The war of words has intensified between Iran and the West since the U.N. Security Council imposed tougher sanctions last month in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or material for an atomic bomb.
> 
> 
> Iran put its most powerful military force, the Revolutionary Guard, in charge of defending the country's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf in 2008.
> 
> 
> "We believe the enemy, through extensive psychological warfare, wants to coerce us, but Iran ... is ready," said Saffari, who was the Guard's navy chief until early May. "The enemy won't dare attack Iran."


----------



## a_majoor

If they mean 100 speedboats manned by the Basij-e Mostaz'afin packed with explosives and mines racing out to engage USN and other warships, then yes that is a correct statement.

The USN has an institutional bias towards large ships and the "Blue Water Navy", which means they are not as focused on this sort of threat (although this may not be true anymore). I recall that during the workup for Persial Gulf War II (OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM), the "Red Team's" commander was allegedly fired midway through the workup exercises for using mosquito attacks like this against the Blue Force. A force like this can alsi make provocative moves and be under the radar of the press etc., an important point in manipulating the news, public opinion and political options.

We shall see how this works out in the end


----------



## tomahawk6

Small boats attack allied warships and the next response would be the destruction or seizure of Iranian oil rigs. This has been done before and it didnt work out too well for the Iranians. Their biggest weakness is their lack of gasoline production which requires it to be imported. Of course Russia or Turkey could funnel gasoline to the regime but in that event I would destroy Iran's oil refinery and fuel storage capability.


----------



## 57Chevy

a push for further sanctions.
              _____________________________________________________________ 
 Canada toughens sanctions against Iran 
OTTAWA — The federal government announced Monday further tightening of Canadian sanctions against Iran, accusing that country of moving a step closer to building nuclear weapons in continued defiance of international resolutions.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the sanctions, announced in co-ordination with other countries, are intended to "send a strong signal to Iran: the international community is united in purpose and commitment."

"No state can threaten international peace and security without consequence," Cannon said at a news conference.

The announcement comes a month after Canada tightened earlier sanctions. Now, as then, it appears the measures will have little, if any, impact on Canada's economic relationship with Tehran, consisting mostly of Canadian wheat exports to Iran.

The government noted that the new measures are targeted against the government, not the Iranian people.

"These additional sanctions are in no way meant to harm or punish the Iranian people. They are aimed at Iran's irresponsible and aggressive government," said Cannon.

article continues...
                     (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 57Chevy

House Republicans Giving Green Light for Israeli Strike on Iran
 IRAN 

Nearly one third of the Republican congressmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a resolution that would support Israel's right to use “all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran”, including military force.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] and 46 co-sponsors. 

House Resolution 1553 “condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of ‘annihilating’ the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people.”

It “supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons” and pledges that the U.S. will ensure that Israel “continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to address the threat of Iran.”

In addition, it “expresses support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.”

article continues...

                     (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## wannabe SF member

Iran's increasing support of the Taliban.


> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Iran+transforming+Afghan/3345166/story.html



Maybe another reason to push for harder sanctions?


----------



## sean m

Would the taliban still have stinger missiles from the war against the soviets? Did anyone watch the yesterday  60 minutes, it had on an ex C.I.A officer as well as the ex. head of Afghan intelligence it was very interesting.




			
				Inky said:
			
		

> Iran's increasing support of the Taliban.
> Maybe another reason to push for harder sanctions?


----------



## CougarKing

Reuters link




> *Iran's Ahmadinejad unhurt after blast near motorcade  *
> 
> 
> 39 minutes ago
> 
> By Robin Pomeroy
> 
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) - *Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unharmed when a homemade explosive went off near his motorcade during a visit to the western city of Hamadan on Wednesday, a source in his office said.
> 
> 
> The source said Ahmadinejad's convoy was targeted as he was traveling from Hamadan's airport to give a speech in a local sports arena. The president was unhurt but others had been injured in the blast. One person was arrested.*
> 
> 
> "There was an attack this morning. Nothing happened to the president's car," the source told Reuters. "Investigations continue ... to find out who was behind it."
> 
> 
> But Iranian state media later said only a firecracker had been set off by an excited young man happy to see the president.
> 
> 
> Ahmadinejad, who has cracked down on opposition since a disputed June 2009 presidential election, appeared on live Iranian television at the sports stadium. He looked unperturbed and made no mention of any assault.
> 
> 
> *The populist, hardline Ahmadinejad has accumulated enemies in both conservative and reformist circles in the Islamic Republic as well as abroad*
> (...)


----------



## karl28

To bad who ever it was missed there mark .


----------



## CougarKing

> *Iran's navy gets 4 new Iranian-built submarines*
> (AP) – 22 hours ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — *Iran's state media say the country's navy has taken charge of four new Iranian-built submarines as part of Tehran's efforts to upgrade its defense capabilities.*
> 
> The official IRNA news agency says Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi and Navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari attended Sunday's ceremony marking the delivery of the vessels to the Iranian navy.
> 
> *IRNA says the Ghadir class submarines can fire missiles and torpedoes at the same time and can operate in the Persian Gulf's shallow waters.*
> 
> Iran has sought to upgrade its air defense systems and naval power, saying any possible future attacks against Iran will be air and sea-based.
> 
> Iran has also three Russian-made submarines.



Plus more on this type:

*Global Security link: Yono Class / Ghadir Class Midget Submarine*


----------



## OldSolduer

karl28 said:
			
		

> To bad who ever it was missed there mark .


Its not him you need to.....dispose of. He's a puppet. The mullahs control him like a marionette.


----------



## a_majoor

Will Israel have to step up? (Part one)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/01/the-point-of-no-return/4500/



> *The Point of No Return*
> 
> For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.
> 
> By Jeffrey Goldberg
> 
> IT IS POSSIBLE that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is also possible that Iran’s reform-minded Green Movement will somehow replace the mullah-led regime, or at least discover the means to temper the regime’s ideological extremism. It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way. It is also possible that President Obama, who has said on more than a few occasions that he finds the prospect of a nuclear Iran “unacceptable,” will order a military strike against the country’s main weapons and uranium-enrichment facilities.
> 
> But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)
> 
> In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.
> 
> When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.
> 
> If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program, however, Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism; it may derive for itself the secret thanks (though the public condemnation) of the Middle East’s moderate Arab regimes, all of which fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s; and it will have succeeded in countering, in militant fashion, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which is, not irrelevantly, a prime goal of the enthusiastic counter-proliferator who currently occupies the White House.
> 
> I AM NOT ENGAGING in a thought exercise, or a one-man war game, when I discuss the plausibility and potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean–built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.
> 
> I have been exploring the possibility that such a strike will eventually occur for more than seven years, since my first visit to Tehran, where I attempted to understand both the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons and the regime’s theologically motivated desire to see the Jewish state purged from the Middle East, and especially since March of 2009, when I had an extended discussion about the Iranian nuclear program with Benjamin Netanyahu, hours before he was sworn in as Israel’s prime minister. In the months since then, I have interviewed roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike, as well as many American and Arab officials. In most of these interviews, I have asked a simple question: what is the percentage chance that Israel will attack the Iranian nuclear program in the near future? Not everyone would answer this question, but a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July. (Of course, it is in the Israeli interest to let it be known that the country is considering military action, if for no other reason than to concentrate the attention of the Obama administration. But I tested the consensus by speaking to multiple sources both in and out of government, and of different political parties. Citing the extraordinary sensitivity of the subject, most spoke only reluctantly, and on condition of anonymity. They were not part of some public-relations campaign.) The reasoning offered by Israeli decision makers was uncomplicated: Iran is, at most, one to three years away from having a breakout nuclear capability (often understood to be the capacity to assemble more than one missile-ready nuclear device within about three months of deciding to do so). The Iranian regime, by its own statements and actions, has made itself Israel’s most zealous foe; and the most crucial component of Israeli national-security doctrine, a tenet that dates back to the 1960s, when Israel developed its own nuclear capability as a response to the Jewish experience during the Holocaust, is that no regional adversary should be allowed to achieve nuclear parity with the reborn and still-besieged Jewish state.
> 
> In our conversation before his swearing-in, Netanyahu would not frame the issue in terms of nuclear parity—the Israeli policy of amimut, or opacity, prohibits acknowledging the existence of the country’s nuclear arsenal, which consists of more than 100 weapons, mainly two-stage thermonuclear devices, capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bomber, or submarine (two of which are said by intelligence sources to be currently positioned in the Persian Gulf). Instead, he framed the Iranian program as a threat not only to Israel but to all of Western civilization.
> 
> “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” he said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.” Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and he fears that Israel’s status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison d’être of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 2

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/01/the-point-of-no-return/4500/



> IN OUR CONVERSATION, Netanyahu refused to discuss his timetable for action, or even whether he was considering military preemption of the Iranian nuclear program. But others familiar with his thinking helped me understand his worldview. Netanyahu’s belief is that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it. But Netanyahu does not place great faith in sanctions—not the relatively weak sanctions against Iran recently passed by the United Nations Security Council, nor the more rigorous ones being put in place by the U.S. and its European allies. Those close to him say that Netanyahu understands, however, that President Obama, with whom he has had a difficult and intermittently frigid—though lately thawing—relationship, believes that stringent sanctions, combined with various enticements to engage with the West, might still provide Iran with what one American administration official described to me as “a dignified off-ramp for Tehran to take.”
> 
> But, based on my conversations with Israeli decision-makers, this period of forbearance, in which Netanyahu waits to see if the West’s nonmilitary methods can stop Iran, will come to an end this December. Robert Gates, the American defense secretary, said in June at a meeting of NATO defense ministers that most intelligence estimates predict that Iran is one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon. “In Israel, we heard this as nine months from June—in other words, March of 2011,” one Israeli policy maker told me. “If we assume that nothing changes in these estimates, this means that we will have to begin thinking about our next step beginning at the turn of the year.”
> 
> The Netanyahu government is already intensifying its analytic efforts not just on Iran, but on a subject many Israelis have difficulty understanding: President Obama. The Israelis are struggling to answer what is for them the most pressing question: are there any circumstances under which President Obama would deploy force to stop Iran from going nuclear? Everything depends on the answer.
> The Israelis argue that Iran demands the urgent attention of the entire international community, and in particular the United States, with its unparalleled ability to project military force. This is the position of many moderate Arab leaders as well. A few weeks ago, in uncommonly direct remarks, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, told me—in a public forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival—that his country would support a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He also said that if America allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran, out of self-protection. “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran,” he said. “Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support.”
> 
> Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran. They argue self-interestedly that an aerial attack on a handful of Iranian facilities would not be as complicated or as messy as, say, invading Iraq. “This is not a discussion about the invasion of Iran,” one Arab foreign minister told me. “We are hoping for the pinpoint striking of several dangerous facilities. America could do this very easily.”
> 
> The Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, once told me that the prime minister will sometimes, in the course of briefing foreign visitors on the importance of taking action against Iran’s nuclear program, say jokingly: “Let me tell you a secret. The American military is bigger than Israel’s.”
> 
> Barack Obama has said any number of times that he would find a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” His most stalwart comments on the subject have been discounted by some Israeli officials because they were made during his campaign for the presidency, while visiting Sderot, the town in southern Israel that had been the frequent target of rocket attacks by Hamas. “The world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said. “I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East, but around the world. Whatever remains of our nuclear nonproliferation framework, I think, would begin to disintegrate. You would have countries in the Middle East who would see the potential need to also obtain nuclear weapons.”
> 
> But the Israelis are doubtful that a man who positioned himself as the antithesis of George W. Bush, author of invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, would launch a preemptive attack on a Muslim nation.
> 
> “We all watched his speech in Cairo,” a senior Israeli official told me, referring to the June 2009 speech in which Obama attempted to reset relations with Muslims by stressing American cooperativeness and respect for Islam. “We don’t believe that he is the sort of person who would launch a daring strike on Iran. We are afraid he would see a policy of containing a nuclear Iran rather than attacking it.”
> This official noted that even Bush balked at attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and discouraged the Israelis from carrying out the attack on their own. (Bush would sometimes mock those aides and commentators who advocated an attack on Iran, even referring to the conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol as “the bomber boys,” according to two people I spoke with who overheard this.)
> 
> “Bush was two years ago, but the Iranian program was the same and the intent was the same,” the Israeli official told me. “So I don’t personally expect Obama to be more Bush than Bush.”
> 
> If the Israelis reach the firm conclusion that Obama will not, under any circumstances, launch a strike on Iran, then the countdown will begin for a unilateral Israeli attack. “If the choice is between allowing Iran to go nuclear, or trying for ourselves what Obama won’t try, then we probably have to try,” the official told me.
> 
> Which brings us to a second question, one having to do with the nature of the man considering military action: would Netanyahu, a prime minister with an acute understanding of the essential role America plays in securing the existence of Israel (Netanyahu is a graduate of both Cheltenham High School, outside Philadelphia, and MIT, and is the most Americanized prime minister in Israel’s history, more so even than the Milwaukee-raised Golda Meir), actually take a chance on permanently alienating American affection in order to make a high-risk attempt at stopping Iran? If Iran retaliates against American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, the consequences for Israel’s relationship with America’s military leadership could be catastrophic. (Of course, Netanyahu would be risking more than his relationship with the United States: a strike on Iran, Israeli intelligence officials believe, could provoke all-out retaliation by Iran’s Lebanese subsidiary, Hezbollah, which now possesses, by most intelligence estimates, as many as 45,000 rockets—at least three times as many as it had in the summer of 2006, during the last round of fighting between the group and Israel.)
> 
> “The only reason Bibi [Netanyahu] would place Israel’s relationship with America in total jeopardy is if he thinks that Iran represents a threat like the Shoah,” an Israeli official who spends considerable time with the prime minister told me. “In World War II, the Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us. Six million were slaughtered. Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.”
> 
> Numerous Israeli commentators and analysts have pointed out to me that Netanyahu is not unique in his understanding of this challenge; several of the prime ministers who preceded him cast Iran’s threat in similarly existential terms. Still, Netanyahu is different. “He has a deep sense of his role in Jewish history,” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, told me.
> 
> To understand why Netanyahu possesses this deep sense—and why his understanding of Jewish history might lead him to attack Iran, even over Obama’s objections—it is necessary to understand Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.
> 
> BEN-ZION NETANYAHU—his first name means “son of Zion”—is the world’s foremost historian of the Spanish Inquisition and a onetime secretary to Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the intractable, “revisionist” branch of Zionism. He is father to a tragic Israeli hero, Yonatan Netanyahu, who died while freeing the Jewish hostages at Entebbe in 1976; and also father to Benjamin, who strives for greatness in his father’s eyes but has, on occasion, disappointed him, notably when he acquiesced, in his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, to American pressure and withdrew Israeli forces from much of the West Bank city of Hebron, Judaism’s second-holiest city. Benjamin Netanyahu is not known in most quarters for his pliability on matters concerning Palestinians, though he has been trying lately to meet at least some of Barack Obama’s demands that he move the peace process forward.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 3

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/01/the-point-of-no-return/4500/



> “Always in the back of Bibi’s mind is Ben-Zion,” one of the prime minister’s friends told me. “He worries that his father will think he is weak.”
> 
> Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s most important work, The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain, upended the scholarly consensus on the roots of that bleak chapter in Jewish history. He argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was spurred by the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood; it was proto-Nazi thought, in other words, not mere theology, that motivated the Inquisition. Ben-Zion also argued that the Inquisition corresponds to the axiom that anti-Semitic persecution is preceded, in all cases, by carefully scripted and lengthy dehumanization campaigns meant to ensure the efficient eventual elimination of Jews. To him, the lessons of Jewish history are plain and insistent.
> 
> Ben-Zion, by all accounts, was worshipped by his sons in their childhood, and today, the 60-year-old Benjamin, who has been known to act in charmless ways, conspicuously upholds the Fifth Commandment when discussing his father. At a party marking Ben-Zion’s 100th birthday, held this past March at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, before an assembly that included the president of Israel, Shimon Peres, Benjamin credited his father with forecasting the Shoah and, in the early 1990s, predicting that “Muslim extremists would try to bring down the Twin Towers in New York.” But he also told stories in a warmer and more personal vein, describing a loving father who, though a grim and forbidding figure to outsiders, enjoys cowboy movies and played soccer with his sons.
> After a brief debate between Ben-Zion and another prominent academic about competing interpretations of the Inquisition—“It is an unusual 100th-birthday commemoration when a debate about the Inquisition breaks out,” said Menachem Begin’s son, Benny, who is a minister-without-portfolio in Netanyahu’s cabinet—Ben-Zion rose to make valedictory remarks. His speech, unlike his son’s, was succinct, devoid of sentiment, and strikingly unambiguous.
> 
> “Our party this evening compels me to speak of recent comments made about the continued existence of the nation of Israel and the new threats by its enemies depicting its upcoming destruction,” Ben-Zion began. “From the Iranian side, we hear pledges that soon—in a matter of days, even—the Zionist movement will be put to an end and there will be no more Zionists in the world. One is supposed to conclude from this that the Jews of the Land of Israel will be annihilated, while the Jews of America, whose leaders refuse to pressure Iran, are being told in a hinted fashion that the annihilation of the Jews will not include them.”
> 
> He went on, “The Jewish people are making their position clear and putting faith in their military power. The nation of Israel is showing the world today how a state should behave when it stands before an existential threat: by looking danger in the eye and calmly considering what should be done and what can be done. And to be ready to enter the fray at the moment there is a reasonable chance of success.”
> 
> Many people in Likud Party circles have told me that those who discount Ben-Zion’s influence on his son do so at their peril. “This was the father giving his son history’s marching orders,” one of the attendees told me. “I watched Bibi while his father spoke. He was completely absorbed.” (One of Netanyahu’s Knesset allies told me, indelicately, though perhaps not inaccurately, that the chance for movement toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state will come only after Ben-Zion’s death. “Bibi could not withdraw from more of Judea and Samaria”—the biblical names for the West Bank—“and still look into his father’s eyes.”)
> 
> On Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu frames the crisis in nearly the same world-historical terms as his father. “Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” Netanyahu told me. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse—there’s no shock.” He argued that a crucial lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He continued, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”
> ONE OF THE MORE melancholic aspects of the confrontation between Iran and Israel is that Persian and Jewish civilizations have not forever been adversaries; one of the heroes of the Bible is the Persian king Cyrus, who restored the Jews to the land of Israel from their Babylonian captivity 2,500 years ago. (A few years after Harry Truman granted recognition to the reborn state of Israel in 1948, he declared, “I am Cyrus.”)
> 
> Iran is the home of an ancient Jewish community—Jews have lived there since the Babylonian exile, a millennium before Muhammad’s followers carried Islam to Persia. And in the modern era, Iran and Israel maintained close diplomatic ties before the overthrow of the shah in 1979; Israel’s support of the shah obviously angered his enemies, the newly empowered mullahs in Tehran, but this is insufficient to explain the depth of official Iranian hatred of Israel and Jews; something else must explain the sentiment expressed by Mohsen Rezai, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, who said in 1991—14 years before the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian politician most associated in the West with the regime’s flamboyant anti-Semitism—“The day will come when, like Salman Rushdie, the Jews will not find a place to live anywhere in the world.”
> 
> The answer might be found in a line of Shia Muslim thinking that views Jews as ritually contaminated, a view derived in part from the Koran’s portrayal of Jews as treasonous foes of the Prophet Muhammad. As Robert Wistrich recounts in his new history of anti-Semitism, A Lethal Obsession, through the 17th and 18th centuries Shia clerics viewed Jews variously as “the leprosy of creation” and “the most unclean of the human race.” I once asked Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a leading Iranian diplomat who is now Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, why the leadership of Iran persistently described Israel not as a mere regional malefactor but as a kind of infectious disease. “Do you disagree?” he asked. “Do you not see that this is true?”
> 
> In a speech in June, Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, explained Middle East history this way: “Sixty years ago, by means of an artificial and false pretext, and by fabricating information and inventing stories, they gathered the filthiest, most criminal people, who only appear to be human, from all corners of the world. They organized and armed them, and provided them with media and military backing. Thus, they occupied the Palestinian lands, and displaced the Palestinian people.” The “invented story” is, of course, the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad’s efforts to deny the historical truth of the Holocaust have the endorsement of high officialdom: the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said in 2005, “The words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust and on Israel are not personal opinion, nor isolated statements, but they express the view of the government.”
> 
> The Iranian leadership’s own view of nuclear dangers is perhaps best exemplified by a comment made in 2001 by the former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who entertained the idea that Israel’s demise could be brought about in a relatively pain-free manner for the Muslim world. “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely while [a nuclear attack] against the Islamic countries would only cause damages,” Rafsanjani said.
> 
> It is this line of thinking, which suggests that rational deterrence theory, or the threat of mutual assured destruction, might not apply in the case of Iran, that has the Israeli government on a knife’s edge. And this is not a worry that is confined to Israel’s right. Even the left-wing Meretz Party, which is harsh in its condemnation of Netanyahu’s policies toward the Palestinians, considers Iran’s nuclear program to be an existential threat.
> 
> Israeli policy makers do not necessarily believe that Iran, should it acquire a nuclear device, would immediately launch it by missile at Tel Aviv. “On the one hand, they would like to see the Jews wiped out,” one Israeli defense official told me. “On the other hand, they know that Israel has unlimited reprisal capability”—this is an Israeli euphemism for the country’s second-strike nuclear arsenal—“and despite what Rafsanjani and others say, we think they know that they are putting Persian civilization at risk.”
> 
> The challenges posed by a nuclear Iran are more subtle than a direct attack, Netanyahu told me. “Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they’d force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.
> 
> “You’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area,” he went on. An Iran with nuclear weapons would also attempt to persuade Arab countries to avoid making peace with Israel, and it would spark a regional nuclear-arms race. “The Middle East is incendiary enough, but with a nuclear-arms race, it will become a tinderbox,” he said.
> 
> Other Israeli leaders believe that the mere threat of a nuclear attack by Iran—combined with the chronic menacing of Israel’s cities by the rocket forces of Hamas and Hezbollah—will progressively undermine the country’s ability to retain its most creative and productive citizens. Ehud Barak, the defense minister, told me that this is his great fear for Israel’s future.
> 
> “The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality,” he said. “Jews know that they can land on their feet in any corner of the world. The real test for us is to make Israel such an attractive place, such a cutting-edge place in human society, education, culture, science, quality of life, that even American Jewish young people want to come here.” This vision is threatened by Iran and its proxies, Barak said. “Our young people can consciously decide to go other places,” if they dislike living under the threat of nuclear attack. “Our best youngsters could stay out of here by choice.”
> 
> Patriotism in Israel runs very high, according to numerous polls, and it seemed unlikely to me that mere fear of Iran could drive Israel’s Jews to seek shelter elsewhere. But one leading proponent of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Ephraim Sneh, a former general and former deputy defense minister, is convinced that if Iran crossed the nuclear threshold, the very idea of Israel would be endangered. “These people are good citizens, and brave citizens, but the dynamics of life are such that if someone has a scholarship for two years at an American university and the university offers him a third year, the parents will say, ‘Go ahead, remain there,’” Sneh told me when I met with him in his office outside of Tel Aviv not long ago. “If someone finishes a Ph.D. and they are offered a job in America, they might stay there. It will not be that people are running to the airport, but slowly, slowly, the decision-making on the family level will be in favor of staying abroad. The bottom line is that we would have an accelerated brain drain. And an Israel that is not based on entrepreneurship, that is not based on excellence, will not be the Israel of today.”
> 
> Most critically, Sneh said, if Israel is no longer understood by its 6 million Jewish citizens, and by the roughly 7 million Jews who live outside of Israel, to be a “natural safe haven,” then its raison d’être will have been subverted. He directed my attention to a framed photograph on his wall of three Israeli air force F-15s flying over Auschwitz, in Poland. The Israelis had been invited in 2003 by the Polish air force to make this highly symbolic flight. The photograph was not new to me; I had seen it before on a dozen office walls in the Israeli Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. “You see those planes?” Sneh asked me. “That’s the picture I look at all the time. When someone says that they will wipe out the Jews, we have to deny him the tools. The problem with the photograph is that we were too late.”
> 
> To understand why Israelis of different political dispositions see Iran as quite possibly the most crucial challenge they have faced in their 62-year history, one must keep in mind the near-sanctity, in the public’s mind, of Israel’s nuclear monopoly. The Israeli national narrative, in shorthand, begins with shoah, which is Hebrew for “calamity,” and ends with tkumah, “rebirth.” Israel’s nuclear arsenal symbolizes national rebirth, and something else as well: that Jews emerged from World War II having learned at least one lesson, about the price of powerlessness.
> 
> In his new book, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain With the Bomb, Avner Cohen, the preeminent historian of Israel’s nuclear program, writes that David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was nearly obsessed with developing nuclear weapons as the only guarantor against further slaughter. “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people,” Ben-Gurion declared. Cohen argues that the umbrella created by Israel’s nuclear monopoly has allowed the Jewish state to recover from the wounds of the Holocaust.
> 
> But those wounds do not heal, Sneh says. “The Shoah is not some sort of psychological complex. It is an historic lesson. My grandmother and my grandfather were from Poland. My father fought for the Polish army as an officer and escaped in 1940. My grandparents stayed, and they were killed by the Polish farmer who was supposed to give them shelter, for a lot of money. That’s why I don’t trust the goyim. One time is enough. I don’t put my life in the hands of goyim.”


----------



## a_majoor

Part 4

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/01/the-point-of-no-return/4500/



> ONE MONDAY EVENING in early summer, I sat in the office of the decidedly non-goyishe Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and listened to several National Security Council officials he had gathered at his conference table explain—in so many words—why the Jewish state should trust the non-Jewish president of the United States to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
> “The expression ‘All options are on the table’ means that all options are on the table,” Emanuel told me before the meeting, in a tone meant to suggest both resolve and irritation at those who believe the president lacks such resolve. The group interview he had arranged was a kind of rolling seminar on the challenges Iran poses; half a dozen officials made variations of the same argument: that President Obama spends more time talking with foreign leaders on Iran than on any other subject.
> 
> One of those at the table, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national-security adviser who served as the lead author of the recent “National Security Strategy for the United States” as well as of the president’s conciliatory Cairo speech, suggested that Iran’s nuclear program was a clear threat to American security, and that the Obama administration responds to national-security threats in the manner of other administrations. “We are coordinating a multifaceted strategy to increase pressure on Iran, but that doesn’t mean we’ve removed any option from the table,” Rhodes said. “This president has shown again and again that when he believes it is necessary to use force to protect American national-security interests, he has done so. We’re not going to address hypotheticals about when and if we would use military force, but I think we’ve made it clear that we aren’t removing the option of force from any situation in which our national security is affected.”
> 
> There was an intermittently prickly quality to this meeting, and not only because it was hosted by Emanuel, whose default state is exasperation. For more than a year, these White House officials have parried the charge that their president is unwilling to face the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran, and they are frustrated by what they believe to be a caricature of his position. (A former Bush administration official told me that his president faced the opposite problem: Bush, bogged down by two wars and believing that Iran wasn’t that close to crossing the nuclear threshold, opposed the use of force against Iran’s program, and made his view clear, “but no one believed him.”)
> 
> At one point, I put forward the idea that for abundantly obvious reasons, few people would believe Barack Obama would open up a third front in the greater Middle East. One of the officials responded heatedly, “What have we done that would allow you to reach the conclusion that we think that a nuclear Iran would represent a tolerable situation?”
> 
> It is undeniably true, however, that the administration has appeared on occasion less than stalwart on the issue. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has criticized Obama as a purveyor of baseless hope. At the UN Security Council last September, Sarkozy said, “I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good have proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he said, referring to Israel.
> Obama administration officials, particularly in the Pentagon, have several times signaled unhappiness at the possibility of military preemption. In April, the undersecretary of defense for policy, Michele Flournoy, told reporters that military force against Iran was “off the table in the near term.” She later backtracked, but Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also criticized the idea of attacking Iran. “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” he said in April. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”
> 
> The gathering in Emanuel’s office was meant to communicate a number of clear messages to me, including one that was more militant than that delivered by Admiral Mullen: President Obama has by no means ruled out counterproliferation by force. The meeting was also meant to communicate that Obama’s outreach to the Iranians was motivated not by naïveté, but by a desire to test Tehran’s intentions in a deliberate fashion; that the president understands that an Iranian bomb would spur a regional arms race that could destroy his antiproliferation program; and that American and Israeli assessments of Iran’s nuclear program are synchronized in ways they were not before. One official at the table, Gary Samore, the National Security Council official who oversees the administration’s counterproliferation agenda, told me that the Israelis agree with American assessments that Iran’s uranium-enrichment program is plagued with problems.
> 
> “The most essential measure of nuclear-weapons capability is how quickly they can build weapons-grade material, and from that standpoint we can measure, based on the IAEA reports, that the Iranians are not doing well,” Samore said. “The particular centrifuge machines they’re running are based on an inferior technology. They are running into some technical difficulties, partly because of the work we’ve done to deny them access to foreign components. When they make the parts themselves, they are making parts that don’t have quality control.” (When I mentioned this comment to a senior Israeli official, he said, “We agree with this American assessment, but we also agree with Secretary Gates that Iran is one year away from crossing the nuclear threshold.”)
> 
> Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace negotiator who is currently a senior National Security Council official, said during the meeting that he believes the Israelis now understand that American-instigated measures have slowed Iran’s progress, and that the administration is working to convince the Israelis—and other parties in the region—that the sanctions strategy “has a chance of working.”
> 
> “The president has said he hasn’t taken any options off the table, but let’s take a look at why we think this strategy could work,” he said. “We have interesting data points over the past year, about Iran trying to deflect pressure when they thought that pressure was coming, which suggests that their ability to calculate costs and benefits is quite real. Last June, when they hadn’t responded to our bilateral outreach, the president said that we would take stock by September. Two weeks before the G-20”—a meeting of the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies—“the Iranians said they would talk, after having resisted talking until that point. They didn’t do it because suddenly they saw the light; they did it because pressure was coming. They’re able to think about what matters to them.”
> Ross went on to argue that the sanctions Iran now faces may affect the regime’s thinking. “The sanctions are going to cut across the board. They are taking place in the context of Iranian mismanagement—the Iranians are going to have to cut [food and fuel] subsidies; they already have public alienation; they have division in the elites, and between the elites and the rest of the country. They are looking at the costs of trying to maintain control over a disaffected public. They wanted to head off sanctions because they knew that sanctions would be a problem. There is real potential here to affect their calculus. We’re pursuing a path right now that has some potential. It doesn’t mean you don’t think about everything else, but we’re on a path.”
> 
> One question no administration official seems eager to answer is this: what will the United States do if sanctions fail? Several Arab officials complained to me that the Obama administration has not communicated its intentions to them, even generally. No Arab officials I spoke with appeared to believe that the administration understands the regional ambitions of their Persian adversary. One Arab foreign minister told me that he believes Iran is taking advantage of Obama’s “reasonableness.”
> 
> “Obama’s voters like it when the administration shows that it doesn’t want to fight Iran, but this is not a domestic political issue,” the foreign minister said. “Iran will continue on this reckless path, unless the administration starts to speak unreasonably. The best way to avoid striking Iran is to make Iran think that the U.S. is about to strike Iran. We have to know the president’s intentions on this matter. We are his allies.” (According to two administration sources, this issue caused tension between President Obama and his recently dismissed director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair. According to these sources, Blair, who was said to put great emphasis on the Iranian threat, told the president that America’s Arab allies needed more reassurance. Obama reportedly did not appreciate the advice.)
> 
> In Israel, of course, officials expend enormous amounts of energy to understand President Obama, despite the assurances they have received from Emanuel, Ross, and others. Delegations from Netanyahu’s bureau, from the defense and foreign ministries, and from the Israeli intelligence community have been arriving in Washington lately with great regularity. “We pack our thermometers and go to Washington and take everyone’s temperature,” one Israeli official told me.
> 
> The increased tempo of these visits is only one sign of deepening contacts between Israel and America, as Iran moves closer to nuclear breakout: the chief of staff of the Israeli army, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, is said to speak now with his American counterpart, Admiral Mullen, regularly. Mullen recently made a stop in Israel that had one main purpose, according to an Israeli source: “to make sure we didn’t do anything in Iran before they thought we might do something in Iran.”
> 
> Not long ago, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, paid a secret visit to Chicago to meet with Lester Crown, the billionaire whose family owns a significant portion of General Dynamics, the military contractor. Crown is one of Israel’s most prominent backers in the American Jewish community, and was one of Barack Obama’s earliest and most steadfast supporters. According to sources in America and Israel, General Yadlin asked Crown to communicate Israel’s existential worries directly to President Obama. When I reached Crown by phone, he confirmed that he had met with Yadlin, but denied that the general traveled to Chicago to deliver this message. “Maybe he has a cousin in Chicago or something,” Crown said. But he did say that Yadlin discussed with him the “Iranian clock”—the time remaining before Iran reached nuclear capability—and that he agreed with Yadlin that the United States must stop Iran before it goes nuclear. “I share with the Israelis the feeling that we certainly have the military capability and that we have to have the will to use it. The rise of Iran is not in the best interest of the U.S.
> 
> “I support the president,” Crown said. “But I wish [administration officials] were a little more outgoing in the way they have talked. I would feel more comfortable if I knew that they had the will to use military force, as a last resort. You cannot threaten someone as a bluff. There has to be a will to do it.”


----------



## a_majoor

Part 5

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/01/the-point-of-no-return/4500/



> On my last visit to Israel, I was asked almost a dozen times by senior officials and retired generals if I could explain Barack Obama and his feelings about Israel. Several officials even asked if I considered Obama to be an anti-Semite. I answered this question by quoting Abner Mikva, the former congressman, federal judge, and mentor to Obama, who famously said in 2008, “I think when this is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” I explained that Obama has been saturated with the work of Jewish writers, legal scholars, and thinkers, and that a large number of his friends, supporters, and aides are Jewish. But philo-Semitism does not necessarily equal sympathy for Netanyahu’s Likud Party—certainly not among American Jews, who are, like the president they voted for in overwhelming numbers, generally supportive of a two-state solution, and dubious about Jewish settlement of the West Bank.
> 
> When I made these points to one senior Israeli official, he said: “This is the problem. If he is a J Street Jew, we are in trouble.” J Street is the liberal pro-Israel organization established to counter the influence of AIPAC and other groups. “We’re worried that he thinks like the liberal American Jews who say, ‘If we remove some settlements, then the extremist problem and the Iran problem go away.’”
> 
> Rahm Emanuel suggested that the administration is trying to thread a needle: providing “unshakeable” support for Israel; protecting it from the consequences of an Iranian nuclear bomb; but pushing it toward compromise with the Palestinians. Emanuel, in our meeting, disputed that Israel is incapable of moving forward on the peace process so long as Iran looms as an existential threat. And he drafted the past six Israeli prime ministers—including Netanyahu, who during his first term in the late 1990s, to his father’s chagrin, compromised with the Palestinians—to buttress his case. “Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Olmert—every one of them pursued some form of a negotiated settlement, which would have been in Israel’s own strategic interest,” he said. “There have been plenty of other threats while successive Israeli governments have pursued a peace process. There is no doubt that Iran is a major threat, but they didn’t just flip the switch on [the nuclear program] a year ago.”
> 
> Emanuel had one more message to deliver: for the most practical of reasons, Israel should consider carefully whether a military strike would be worth the trouble it would unleash. “I’m not sure that given the time line, whatever the time line is, that whatever they did, they wouldn’t stop” the nuclear program, he said. “They would be postponing.”
> 
> It was then that I realized that, on some subjects, the Israelis and Americans are still talking past each other. The Americans consider a temporary postponement of Iran’s nuclear program to be of dubious value. The Israelis don’t. “When Menachem Begin bombed Osirak [in Iraq], he had been told that his actions would set back the Iraqis one year,” one cabinet minister told me. “He did it anyway.”
> IN MY CONVERSATIONS with former Israeli air-force generals and strategists, the prevalent tone was cautious. Many people I interviewed were ready, on condition of anonymity, to say why an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would be difficult for Israel. And some Israeli generals, like their American colleagues, questioned the very idea of an attack. “Our time would be better spent lobbying Barack Obama to do this, rather than trying this ourselves,” one general told me. “We are very good at this kind of operation, but it is a big stretch for us. The Americans can do this with a minimum of difficulty, by comparison. This is too big for us.”
> 
> Successive Israeli prime ministers have ordered their military tacticians to draw up plans for a strike on Iran, and the Israeli air force has, of course, complied. It is impossible to know for sure how the Israelis might carry out such an operation, but knowledgeable officials in both Washington and Tel Aviv shared certain assumptions with me.
> 
> The first is that Israel would get only one try. Israeli planes would fly low over Saudi Arabia, bomb their targets in Iran, and return to Israel by flying again over Saudi territory, possibly even landing in the Saudi desert for refueling—perhaps, if speculation rife in intelligence circles is to be believed, with secret Saudi cooperation. These planes would have to return home quickly, in part because Israeli intelligence believes that Iran would immediately order Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israeli cities, and Israeli air-force resources would be needed to hunt Hezbollah rocket teams.
> 
> When I visited Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the general in charge of Israel’s Northern Command, at his headquarters near the Lebanese border, he told me that in the event of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, his mission would be to combat Hezbollah rocket forces. Eisenkot said that the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, which began when Hezbollah fighters crossed the border and attacked an Israeli patrol, was seen by the group’s Iranian sponsors as a strategic mistake. “The Iranians got angry at Hezbollah for jumping ahead like that,” Eisenkot said. American and Israeli intelligence officials agree that the Iranians are now hoping to keep Hezbollah in reserve until Iran can cross the nuclear threshold.
> 
> Eisenkot contended that the 2006 war was a setback for Hezbollah. “Hezbollah suffered a lot during this war,” he said. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, “lost a lot of his men. He knows he made a mistake. That is one reason we have had four years of quiet. What has changed in four years is that Hezbollah has increased its missile capability, but we have increased our capabilities as well.” He concluded by saying, in reference to a potential Israeli strike on Iran, “Our readiness means that Israel has freedom of action.”
> Even if Israel’s Northern Command successfully combated Hezbollah rocket attacks in the wake of an Israeli strike, political limitations would not allow Israel to make repeated sorties over Iran. “The Saudis can let us go once,” one general told me. “They’ll turn their radar off when we’re on our way to Iran, and we’ll come back fast. Our problem is not Iranian air defenses, because we have ways of neutralizing that. Our problem is that the Saudis will look very guilty in the eyes of the world if we keep flying over their territory.”
> America, too, would look complicit in an Israeli attack, even if it had not been forewarned. The assumption—often, but not always, correct—that Israel acts only with the approval of the United States is a feature of life in the Middle East, and it is one the Israelis say they are taking into account. I spoke with several Israeli officials who are grappling with this question, among others: what if American intelligence learns about Israeli intentions hours before the scheduled launch of an attack? “It is a nightmare for us,” one of these officials told me. “What if President Obama calls up Bibi and says, ‘We know what you’re doing. Stop immediately.’ Do we stop? We might have to. A decision has been made that we can’t lie to the Americans about our plans. We don’t want to inform them beforehand. This is for their sake and for ours. So what do we do? These are the hard questions.” (Two officials suggested that Israel may go on pre-attack alert a number of times before actually striking: “After the fifth or sixth time, maybe no one would believe that we’re really going,” one official said.)
> 
> Another question Israeli planners struggle with: how will they know if their attacks have actually destroyed a significant number of centrifuges and other hard-to-replace parts of the clandestine Iranian program? Two strategists told me that Israel will have to dispatch commandos to finish the job, if necessary, and bring back proof of the destruction. The commandos—who, according to intelligence sources, may be launched from the autonomous Kurdish territory in northern Iraq—would be facing a treacherous challenge, but one military planner I spoke with said the army would have no choice but to send them.
> 
> “It is very important to be able to tell the Israeli people what we have achieved,” he said. “Many Israelis think the Iranians are building Auschwitz. We have to let them know that we have destroyed Auschwitz, or we have to let them know that we tried and failed.”
> There are, of course, Israeli leaders who believe that attacking Iran is too risky. Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli army chief of staff, is said by numerous sources to doubt the usefulness of an attack, and other generals I spoke with worry that talk of an “existential threat” is itself a kind of existential threat to the Zionist project, which was meant to preclude such threats against the Jewish people. “We don’t want politicians to put us in a bad position because of the word Shoah,” one general said. “We don’t want our neighbors to think that we are helpless against an Iran with a nuclear bomb, because Iran might have the bomb one day. There is no guarantee that Israel will do this, or that America will do this.”
> 
> After staring at the photograph of the Israeli air-force flyover of Auschwitz more than a dozen different times in more than a dozen different offices, I came to see the contradiction at its core. If the Jewish physicists who created Israel’s nuclear arsenal could somehow have ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and sent a squadron of fighters back to 1942, then the problem of Auschwitz would have been solved in 1942. In other words, the creation of a serious Jewish military capability—a nuclear bomb, say, or the Israeli air force—during World War II would have meant a quicker end to the Holocaust. It is fair to say, then, that the existence of the Israeli air force, and of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, means axiomatically that the Iranian nuclear program is not the equivalent of Auschwitz.
> I put this formula to Ephraim Sneh, the former general and staunch advocate of an Israeli attack. “We have created a strategic balance in our favor,” he said, “but Iran may launch a ballistic missile with a nuclear bomb, and this F-15 in the picture cannot prevent that.”
> This is a devilish problem. And devilish problems have sometimes caused Israel to overreach.
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu feels, for reasons of national security, that if sanctions fail, he will be forced to take action. But an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, successful or not, may cause Iran to redouble its efforts—this time with a measure of international sympathy—to create a nuclear arsenal. And it could cause chaos for America in the Middle East. One of the few people I spoke with in Israel who seemed to be at least somewhat phlegmatic about Iran’s nuclear threat was the country’s president, Shimon Peres, the last member of Israel’s founding generation still in government. Peres sees the Iranian nuclear program as potentially catastrophic, to be sure. But he advocates the imposition of “moral sanctions” followed by economic sanctions, and then the creation of “an envelope around Iran of anti-missile systems so the missiles of Iran will not be able to fly.” When I asked if he believed in a military option, he said, “Why should I declare something like that?” He indicated he was uncomfortable with the idea of unilateral Israeli action and suggested that Israel can afford to recognize its limitations, because he believes, unlike many Israelis, that President Obama will, one way or another, counter the threat of Iran, not on behalf of Israel (though he said he believes Obama would come to Israel’s defense if necessary), but because he understands that on the challenge of Iran, the interests of America and Israel (and the West, and Western-allied Arab states) naturally align.
> 
> Based on months of interviews, I have come to believe that the administration knows it is a near-certainty that Israel will act against Iran soon if nothing or no one else stops the nuclear program; and Obama knows—as his aides, and others in the State and Defense departments made clear to me—that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the interests of the United States, which include his dream of a world without nuclear weapons. Earlier this year, I agreed with those, including many Israelis, Arabs—and Iranians—who believe there is no chance that Obama would ever resort to force to stop Iran; I still don’t believe there is a great chance he will take military action in the near future—for one thing, the Pentagon is notably unenthusiastic about the idea. But Obama is clearly seized by the issue. And understanding that perhaps the best way to obviate a military strike on Iran is to make the threat of a strike by the Americans seem real, the Obama administration seems to be purposefully raising the stakes. A few weeks ago, Denis McDonough, the chief of staff of the National Security Council, told me, “What you see in Iran is the intersection of a number of leading priorities of the president, who sees a serious threat to the global nonproliferation regime, a threat of cascading nuclear activities in a volatile region, and a threat to a close friend of the United States, Israel. I think you see the several streams coming together, which accounts for why it is so important to us.”
> 
> When I asked Peres what he thought of Netanyahu’s effort to make Israel’s case to the Obama administration, he responded, characteristically, with a parable, one that suggested his country should know its place, and that it was up to the American president, and only the American president, to decide in the end how best to safeguard the future of the West. The story was about his mentor, David Ben-Gurion.
> 
> “Shortly after John F. Kennedy was elected president, Ben-Gurion met him at the Waldorf-Astoria” in New York, Peres told me. “After the meeting, Kennedy accompanied Ben-Gurion to the elevator and said, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, I want to tell you, I was elected because of your people, so what can I do for you in return?’ Ben-Gurion was insulted by the question. He said, ‘What you can do is be a great president of the United States. You must understand that to have a great president of the United States is a great event.’”
> Peres went on to explain what he saw as Israel’s true interest. “We don’t want to win over the president,” he said. “We want the president to win.”
> 
> This article available online at:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/
> Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## CougarKing

Note the article last week where Iran claimed to have 100 vessels for every US-Allied warship in the Persian Gulf:



> *Iran To Arm Own 'Bladerunner' Boats: Commander*
> AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> Published: 10 Aug 2010 12:00
> 
> TEHRAN - *Iran will mass produce replicas of the Bladerunner 51, often described as the world's fastest boat, and equip them with weapons to be deployed in the Gulf,* a top commander said Aug. 10.
> 
> "The Bladerunner is a British ship that holds the world speed record. We got a copy (on which) we made some changes so it can launch missiles and torpedoes," said Gen. Ali Fadavi of the Revolutionary Guards' navy.
> 
> "The Revolutionary Guards will be equipped with many" of them within a year, he said at a ceremony marking the delivery of 12 other speed boats equipped with missiles and torpedoes to the Guards.
> 
> *The Bladerunner 51, weighing 16 tons and measuring 45 feet long, is manufactured at the ICE Marine shipyard in Britain and can reach a maximum speed of 65 knots.
> 
> The boat, powered by two 1,000-horsepower engines, reportedly conducted in 2005 a tour of the British Isles in a little more than 27 hours at an average speed of 63 knots.*
> 
> General Fadavi did not fully explain how Iran managed to get a copy of the boat, only saying it had come "via South Africa."
> 
> He said a U.S. ship had tried to intercept the boat before it entered Iranian waters 18 months ago, but added Iranian forces protected it and ensured its arrival.
> 
> Fadavi further warned that "in case of a conflict we will be everywhere and nowhere to face the enemies," recalling that Iran controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of world's seaborne oil supplies pass.
> 
> In recent weeks Iranian military officials have stepped up their warnings against any attack on the Islamic republic.
> 
> The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran to stop its controversial nuclear program.
> 
> Iranian leaders have also repeatedly warned Tehran would retaliate against any attempt by Western countries to inspect its vessels, as set out in the latest sanctions the U.N. Security Council adopted on June 9.
> 
> *On Sunday, Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tons, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf*.


----------



## SeanNewman

How can they fill an ocean with speedboats within one year and we can't get a dedicated sharpshooter rifle in 10?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Petamocto said:
			
		

> How can they fill an ocean with speedboats within one year and we can't get a dedicated sharpshooter rifle in 10?



Being an oppressive Islamic theocracy that answers to no one but a handful of fanatics.  We don't need a rifle that bad.


----------



## CougarKing

> *Iran test fires surface-to-surface missile*
> AFP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TEHRAN (AFP) – Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi announced on Friday that Iran has test fired a surface-to-surface missile, Qiam, a day before it is due to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant.
> 
> State television showed images of the sand coloured *Qiam (Rising)* blasting into the air from a desert terrain, amid chants of "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest).
> 
> The words "Ya Mahdi" were written on the side of the missile, referring to Imam Mahdi, one of the 12 imams of Shiite Islam, who disappeared as a boy and whom the faithful believe will return one day to bring redemption to mankind.
> 
> Vahidi, whose speech during Friday prayers in Tehran was broadcast on television, did not say when the launch took place nor did he reveal the precise range of the missile.
> 
> Fars news agency had in a report earlier this week quoted the minister as saying that Qiam was a short-range missile.
> 
> "The missile has new technical aspects and has a unique tactical capacity," he said on Friday, adding that the device was of a "new class."
> 
> "Since the surface-to-surface missile has no wings, it has lot of tactical power, which also reduces the chances of it being intercepted," he said.
> 
> Iran's ISNA news agency cited Vahidi as saying that Qiam was entirely designed and built domestically and was powered by liquid fuel.
> 
> "This missile is capable of hitting the target with high precision," Vahidi said.
> 
> *On Tuesday, Vahidi had said that Qiam was to be test fired during the annual government week, the period when Tehran touts its achievements in various fields. This year government week begins on Monday.
> 
> The third generation Fateh 110 (Conqueror) missile was also to be test fired during this period. Iran has previously paraded a version of Fateh 110 which has a travel range of 150 to 200 kilometres (90 to 125 miles).
> 
> Also during government week, the production lines of two missile-carrying speedboats, Seraj (Lamp) and Zolfaqar (named after Shiite Imam Ali's sword) are due to be inaugurated, while a long-range drone, Karar, is expected to be unveiled.
> 
> The firing of Qiam comes days after Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tonnes, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.*
> 
> Iranian officials regularly boast about Tehran's military capabilities and the latest missile launch coincides with warnings by local officials against any attack on the Islamic republic.
> 
> Iran's archfoes the United States and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Tehran to stop its controversial nuclear programme.
> 
> On Saturday, Iran is due to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant which eventually aims to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. The plant is scheduled to go online after more than three decades of delays.
> 
> Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi said on Friday that Tehran...
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> 
> link


----------



## CougarKing

Gulf News link




> *Tehran: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unveiled the country's first domestically-built long-range unmanned bomber.*
> 
> The 4-metre long plane, *dubbed Karrar or striker*, was inaugurated by Ahmadinejad on Sunday, the national day for the country's defence industry.
> 
> Iran has been producing its own light, unmanned surveillance aircraft since the late 1980s.
> 
> Since 1992, Iran has also produced its own tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missiles, torpedoes and a fighter plane.
> 
> Iran began an arms development program during its 1980-1988 war with Iraq to compensate for a US weapons embargo.
> 
> On Saturday, *Iranian and Russian engineers began loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant on Saturday, a major milestone as Tehran forges ahead with its atomic program despite UN sanctions.*
> 
> The weeklong operation to load uranium fuel into the reactor at the Bushehr power plant in southern Iran is the first step in starting up a facility the US once hoped to prevent because of fears over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
> 
> "The startup operations will be a big success for Iran," conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. "It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities."
> 
> Russia, which helped finish building the plant, has pledged to safeguard the site and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program.
> 
> On Saturday, a first truckload of fuel was taken from a storage site to a fuel "pool" inside the reactor building.
> 
> Over the next 10 days, 163 fuel assemblies or 80 tons of uranium fuel will be moved inside the building and then into the reactor core.
> 
> It will then be at least another two months before the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor is pumping electricity to Iranian cities.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Looks like an updated V1.  They worked out great for the Germans too.


----------



## vonGarvin

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Looks like an updated V1.  They worked out great for the Germans too.


So, if the fecal matter hits the oscillator, can we use 1940's technology too?


----------



## CougarKing

Pics of the said new Iranian unmanned "bomber" :






Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech during the unveiling ceremony of *a long-range drone, the Karrar*, in Tehran August 22, 2010. Iran unveiled the prototype of a long-range unmanned bomber on Sunday, the latest in a stream of announcements of new Iranian-made military hardware as tension mounts over its nuclear programme. REUTERS/Vahidreza Alaii 






This photo released on Sunday, Aug. 22, 2010, by the Iranian Defense Ministry, claims to show the country's first domestically-built, long-range, unmanned bomber aircraft at an undisclosed location. (AP Photo/Iranian Defense Ministry,Vahid Reza Alaei, HO)











These photow released on Sunday, Aug. 22, 2010, by the Iranian Defense Ministry, claims to show launch of the Karrar, or striker in Farsi, the country's first domestically-built, long-range, unmanned bomber aircraft at an undisclosed location. 

(AP Photo/Iranian Defense Ministry,Vahid Reza Alaei, HO)


----------



## 57Chevy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Looks like an updated V1.  They worked out great for the Germans too.



Speaking of German Technology.......

 Two Charged in Germany With Missile Tech Export to Iran:

German authorities announced today they had filed charges against two men believed to have provided Iran with technology that could be used to build nuclear-ready long-range missiles, Agence France-Presse reported

read more: Iran/German Technology 

           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## sean m

Here is an interview from Bob Baer, who Seymour Hersh says he was considered perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East. He is also considered one of the leading experts on the middle east and won the CIA career intelligence medal. His book "See no Evil" is the best book I have ever read, if you like this genre you should pick it up. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wYJAPheF8


----------



## a_majoor

With a bit of finesse or more external pressure short of war, Iran's theocracy might implode on its own. What will replace it is hard to forecast (a liberal democracy isn't one outcome i'd bet on), but perhaps the new regime will focus on the domestic sphere and back off on international provocations:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/09/14/iran-sinks-into-the-muck/?singlepage=true



> *Iran Sinks into the Muck*
> September 14, 2010 - by Michael Ledeen
> 
> Share |
> 
> It is hard to know where to begin with Iran these days. Many commentators are telling us that there is considerable “infighting” within the regime, which is certainly true. But so far I have not seen anyone point out that these conflicts are not merely political. We are witnessing, I believe, a struggle for survival, both within the regime and between the regime and the opposition. All those explosions — big explosions — at the natural gas pipelines running from Iran to Turkey, to Russia, and to Afghanistan cannot possibly be accidents. The latest took place last night (I haven’t seen press reports yet, perhaps because Ahmadinejad has ordered oil and gas facilities to censor any news about disasters), two of them:  one at a petrochemical plant on an offshore island that destroyed a polyethylene plant and pipeline, the other against a pipeline from Bandar Abbas to Bushehr.
> 
> Moreover, there have been some open gunfights here and there, with casualties running well over 100. To round out this very ugly picture, the nastiest elements of the regime have been murdering their opponents. If you follow the reports, you will see that many people are being executed every day, and there are events far more terrible than those that have been reported.  In the past five months, some seven hundred “dissident” Revolutionary Guards and Basiji have been executed under the guise of “drug smugglers,” and there is even worse than that:  in the past few days about 30 dissident RGs in the Mashhad prison were told they had been forgiven, and would be reintegrated into the ranks.  They were put on a bus and fed food and (poisoned) drinks.  When they passed out they were dumped into a mass grave and buried, more or less alive.  Astonishingly someone saw it, and reported it, and some fifty security officials are now being interrogated.
> 
> Other very obvious signs of the disintegration of regime coherence abound– such as the repeated calls from the Supreme Leader and the people around him for “unity” (a sure sign they don’t have any).  Take, for example, the recent defections of Iranian diplomats based overseas. The two latest ones (one in Brussels, the other in Helsinki) were not merely disgruntled diplomats leaving their country’s foreign service; both proclaimed themselves followers of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Green Movement, and both forecast that others would soon follow them into open opposition. We shall see.
> 
> And more:  the divisions are so intense that Parliament has been closed for fifteen days, on top of the Ramadan holiday.
> 
> As most everyone has pointed out, the Sarah Shourd affair also shows deep fissures within the regime. First, Ahmadinejad ordered her release. Most likely, he wanted to take her on his airplane to New York, where he could present her to American authorities and then go on to meet with Pres. Obama. The Iranian judiciary put a stop to that, asserted their authority over all prisoners, and insisted she would stand trial along with her traveling companions. Then came the story of bail, a fantastically high bail of half a million dollars.  In any case, it’s wonderful to see her free.
> 
> There are lots of unanswered questions, as usual in these matters. Did they compel her to sign some sort of confession? And what about the bail payment? On the face of it, any such payment would fly in the face of sanctions against Iranian banks, so one wants to know who paid it, and if there was any American complicity.
> 
> There may well be a missing link — call it the story of the other Sarah. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal today, Sarah Levinson laments that she is soon to be married and cannot share her joy with her father, Robert, the former FBI agent who disappeared in Iran three a and a half years ago. I have been told — although I can’t verify it — that Robert Levinson died in an Iranian prison a few months ago, and that the American government has come to that conclusion as well.
> 
> According to this version, the Iranian leaders did not want to have a second American die in their prisons, and so — just as they have been saying — the decision to release Sarah Shourd was indeed driven by serious concern about her health.
> 
> Then there is the geopolitical element: the regime leaders are very happy with President Obama and they do not wish to see him hamstrung. Ahmadinejad’s original idea was to try to help Obama (and help himself as well) by freeing the American woman, just as the leaders of the Islamic Republic did a favor for President Carter when they freed women and blacks in 1979, long before any white male was released from captivity.
> 
> In short, as an Iranian friend of mine put it, what we are witnessing is less a power struggle than a survival struggle. One other good way to see this at work is to look around the neighborhood. As Green leader Mehdi Karroubi said the other day in an interview with Al Arabiya TV, “the regime in Tehran depends on creating international and domestic crises to safeguard its existence and continuation.” And so we see explosions in Bahrain, bombs in Iraq, Kashmir and Afghanistan, and fighting in the streets of Iranian cities.  Indeed, the internal conflict has reached such a point that one of Ahmadinejad’s top assistants finally came out and told the clergy to go back into their mosques.  Banafsheh’s invaluable Planet-Iran was the only one to give this amazing statement the big font it deserves:
> 
> Mohammad-Ali Ramin, Deputy Minister of Islamic Guidance and Culture for Media Relations and Ahmadinejad’s adviser on the “Holocaust Commission” announced: “We call upon all clergy to abandon civic and politics issues, partisan matters, NGO’s and western-style organizations and return to the mosques where they can benefit from greater social clout, that will ultimately elevate societal and Islamic interests. We need to be able to put our clergy to proper use, as mosque attendance has thinned out.
> 
> Pay attention to that last clause. Whatever the Islamic Republic of Iran once was, it is no longer a source of enthusiasm for the Iranian people. They have had it. They know that the only thing the regime can do with any degree of efficiency is kill their own people. The latest stories revolve around the dreadful present in Mashhad, where hundreds of prisoners have been slaughtered in recent weeks. One of the sources for the story, Ahmad Ghabel, was thrown back into prison after he told the Green Movement what was going on.
> 
> The regime continues its efforts to intimidate the Greens, to no effect. Thugs attacked Karroubi’s home, shooting 30 or 40 times into the house and setting it on fire.  Karroubi told them that death did not frighten him, and the outcry was so great that within two days the government announced the arrest of the guilty parties. Mousavi’s house is under siege, every visitor is interrogated by regime thugs, and yet Mrs. Mousavi comes and goes, issuing clarion calls on behalf of Iranian women, and Mousavi himself remains an outspoken opponent of the regime.
> 
> And then, in yet another surprising retreat from the policy of all out repression, the former Justice Minister has been called to stand trial for the mass murders that followed the demonstrations of last June.
> 
> How will this play out? I think there are two basic scenarios. The first is that the Revolutionary Guards somehow get a grip on the country. It’s hard to imagine, but they do have lots of guns, and if they can kill hundreds of their own, they may well be willing to kill thousands of political opponents and normal citizens. I think the country has gone beyond the point where the tens of millions of suffering Iranians will put up with that again.  But you never know.
> 
> The second scenario is that the regime implodes, unable to make decisions, unable to act decisively, and, as one key leader after the next goes over to the other side, the whole ugly thing collapses into the muck. Unlikely?  Perhaps, but then it seemed even more unlikely back in the days of the Soviet Empire before it sank.


----------



## a_majoor

Opening the Cyber front?

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/09/23/poetic-justice-will-a-worm-destroy-a-jad/?singlepage=true



> *Poetic Justice — Will a ‘Worm’ Destroy A-jad?*
> September 23, 2010 - by Roger L Simon
> 
> Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crazy, evil, or both?
> 
> Most likely both, but the question is something of a weird psychological litmus test — one I first gave myself back in April 2009 when I personally came within five feet of the Iranian president in the lobby of Geneva’s Hotel Intercontinental. We were both there to attend the UN’s Durban II Conference on (so-called) Human Rights, he as a speaker and I as a humble new media reporter.
> 
> The moment he marched by with his entourage, nodding to those of us in the lobby, from many nations, as if we were loyal subjects of the Islamic Republic, is etched in my brain forever.  It was like seeing Hitler up close in, say, 1937.  (In this case Godwin’s Law does not apply. Hitler comparisons are not just Internet inevitability — they’re required.)
> 
> I was so shaken by the experience, it drove old agnostic me to God.  If you can believe in pure Evil, well, there has to be Good, etc. A video I made of the experience is here, if you haven’t seen it — “How Ahmadinejad Made Me a Believer.”
> 
> Well, A-jad is back, as most of you know, speaking at the UN and being walked out on by Western delegates, just as he was in Geneva. Mahmoud opens his mouth and out comes the usual — the U.S. is behind September 11, the Holocaust is an illusion, etc., etc. and everyone from the West gets up and leaves. Well, not everyone. Some minor delegates from Norway and Switzerland apparently stayed to hear the madman out.
> 
> Interesting tandem of countries that. I wonder if they would have walked out on Benjamin Netanyahu. No, they just would have treated him equally with A-jad.  All’s fair, you know — just as long as you don’t inspect anybody’s bank accounts. “Poor Switzerland” is suffering too in the economic downturn.
> 
> But speaking of the prime minister of Israel, there is hope coming from that small benighted nation in this blog from Forbes: The War Against Iran Has Already Started. Their Trevor Butterworth is reporting on an article from Computer World on a new computer worm known as Stuxnet:
> 
> Computer World magazine recently pronounced Stuxnet, “a piece of malware so devious in its use of unpatched vulnerabilities, so sophisticated in its multipronged approach, that the security researchers who tore it apart believe it may be the work of state-backed professionals.” And according to the latest article in the magazine, speculation is rife that Israel may have been behind the worm – and that it was designed to sabotage or even take control of the operating systems for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor.
> 
> Whether that is what really happened is beside the point. The reality of Stuxnet (and more to the point,  its next incarnation) is that critical state infrastructure can be commandeered and destroyed without anyone firing a shot. The very prospect that Israel – or whomever – could shut down Iran by destroying its electrical grid through causing every generator to overload in a matter of minutes is a powerful signal: the signal that cyber war has physical consequences that make conventional air strikes look quaint and maladroit, so 20th century.
> 
> Ah, those devious Israelis — hard at work in the Silicon Wadi.  Can you imagine — one day A-jad opens his laptop and … the worm eats the worm. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice?  Well, nothing is ever that good.  But my best guess — and it is just a guess — is that the Israelis are deeply engaged in such projects. They certainly aren’t waiting around for our pathetic President what’s-his-name who couldn’t even muster up the energy to support the Iranian democracy movement to do anything. You remember the guy — the one who thought the way to deal with Mad Mahmoud was negotiation.  How’d that work out? Great judge of character, our president.
> 
> Anyway, back to cyberwar.  Apparently it’s not just the stuff of sci-fi novels.  It’s happening now. And if I were the Israelis, I’d go for it hard.  Who’s going to stop them? Obama? If he does, they might commandeer his Blackberry. I learned how that’s done in a Daniel da Silva spy novel. And you know where the agents were from.


----------



## Newt

Fully operational flying boat squadron. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/iran?page=1

I'm hesitant to mock them too much for this idea. I could see these enjoying some success at hit and run operations on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. Although I imagine a missile, rocket, or artillery shell would be more effective. 

Still, +1 to Iran for thinking outside the box.


----------



## a_majoor

From a look at the video and pictures, these are actually Wing in Ground Effect (WIG) craft, with very limited powers of free flight. The idea has merit, although to take on modern ships, you would actually need a WIG capable of moving at least at the same speed as a turboprop aircraft (and big enough to carry a battery of ship killing missiles). The Soviet Navy did experiments with WIGs ranging in size from the "Caspian Sea Monster" (weighing 500 tons, it was actually larger than a 747) to the 200 ton "Lun" and the smaller A-90 "Orlyonok". Picture the C-130 as a flying warship and you have the idea.

These are military craft with the speed, range and payload that could be serious threats to surface combat units. The other way to go might be to revive jet powered flying boats, like the Martin P6M SeaMaster. Now we have a high speed, long range threat to surface warships and (to a lesser extent) submarines.

The Iranians clearly intend to deal with threats by using a series of "mosquito" attacks with speedboats and these aircraft in an attempt to overwhelm the sensors and systems of Allied ships and commanders. How this will work remains to be seen.


----------



## a_majoor

The administration is advancing with glacial speed, but advancing nevertheless:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/clinton-denies-calling-for-regime-change-in-iran/?singlepage=true



> *Clinton Denies Calling for Regime Change in Iran*
> Posted By Ryan Mauro On October 3, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Homeland Security, Iran, Middle East, Politics, US News, World News | 6 Comments
> 
> Secretary of State Clinton is denying [1] what she obviously called for on September 19: regime change in Iran. Her spokesman rejects that this is what she meant, but read her words [2]:
> 
> And I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state.
> 
> That means replacing those in power — in other words, regime change.
> 
> She even went so far as to warn the regime of a popular uprising:
> 
> When you empower a military as much as they have to rely on them to put down legitimate protests and demonstrations, you create a momentum and unleash forces that you do not know where they will end up.
> 
> Clinton was clearly offering moral support for an internally driven regime change, or at least challenges from figures within the regime to restrain Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk. She stopped a few steps short of actually endorsing the democratic opposition, as the Obama administration still sticks to the flawed but conventional view that doing so de-legitimizes them. “But we also knew that the worst thing for those protesting was for them to be seen as stooges of the United States,” she said. A spokesperson for the Green Movement has asked [3] for more direct moral support and the regime has consistently labeled its opponents as U.S. and Israeli agents without making a dime’s worth of difference, but these facts have yet to shake away this misguided view.
> 
> Administration officials are simultaneously warning that the regime is becoming a “military dictatorship,” in what can only be a calculated decision to label it as such. Clinton’s remarks follow her other recent statement [4] that although she has “grave disagreements” with Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution,
> 
> the early advocates of it said this would be a republic. It would be an Islamic republic, but it would be a republic. Then we saw a very flawed election and we’ve seen the elected officials turn for their military to enforce power.
> 
> Here, Clinton acted upon another calculated decision to criticize the regime as violating the principles of the original Islamic Revolution in order to promote a fissure between the regime and its more conservative opponents who haven’t repudiated the original revolution or openly called for regime change.
> 
> The tone of the Obama administration on this issue is different from when it first came into office. President Obama’s first Persian New Year greeting respectfully referred to the “Islamic Republic of Iran” and was conciliatory, without any challenge being made on behalf of the people. The second one devoted [5] four paragraphs to outlining the regime’s abuses and the commonalities between the values of the U.S. and the Iranians fighting for their freedom.
> 
> This change reflects the triumph [6] of Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden in the summer of 2009, assisted by pressure from the Republicans. The two pressured President Obama to stop being silent as the Green Revolution grew. President Obama did not [7] hold a single high-level conference call or meeting to discuss a response to the protests as they reached their height. He belatedly responded [8] with a strong statement referencing the videotaped death of Neda Soltan, and Clinton claimed [9] that “behind the scenes, we were doing a lot” to help the protestors. Now, advocates of supporting the opposition appear to have won the debate, with the remaining argument focusing on the limits of that support.
> 
> Following Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous accusations of 9/11 being an inside job, President Obama was quick to add [10] that “it stands in contrast with the response of the Iranian people when 9/11 happened, when there were candlelight vigils.” He then went to BBC’s Persian service to directly address the people, saying [11] that when they face their hardships because of international sanctions, “they have to look at the management of their government, both in terms of the economic management but also in terms of them deciding that it’s a higher priority to pursue a covert nuclear program than it is to make sure that their people have opportunity.” An administration official said [12] they will  deliver his interview to the Iranian people through the Internet.
> 
> More and more, we’re seeing administration officials readily addressing the concerns of the Iranian people without being prodded. President Obama appears to have finally understood that the internal opposition is the most painful pressure point to press on the regime. The administration appears to be gently egging on regime change in its own restricted way, as that would rid them of a major headache, but that is not the objective of the policy. The administration is still not ready to ditch its goal of making the regime cave to a negotiated settlement, but rather sees limited support for the people as a means to that end.
> 
> This is encouraging but it definitely doesn’t go far enough. There isn’t a consistent campaign to make political prisoners famous, or to materially aid the opposition with the non-violent materials they need, or to establish a strike fund, or any other substantive moves, but it’s far better than the U.S. stance last year. And unlike the 2008 presidential campaign, this time around Obama may be forced by his aspiring Republican opponents to clearly declare whose side he is on (as the Iranian protestors have asked [13] him to do) and embrace or reject a policy comprehensively supporting the opposition.
> 
> Long-shot potential Republican presidential candidate John Bolton addressed a rally of Iranians in New York City protesting Ahmadinejad on September 23. He and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called [14] on the Obama administration to remove the Mujahideen-e-Khalq from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
> 
> The debate over the MEK’s legitimacy and viability as an Iranian opposition group has divided proponents of regime change (I wrote an article laying out each side’s arguments here [15]), but putting that debate aside, the probability is growing that whoever the Republican candidate is will make supporting the opposition the centerpiece of his Iran policy. Newt Gingrich [3] has bluntly called for a policy of regime change, as has Rick Santorum [16], both likely presidential candidates.
> 
> The debate has moved from whether to support the Iranian opposition to what’s the best way of doing so. And that debate sends chills up the spines of the regime.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/clinton-denies-calling-for-regime-change-in-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] denying: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iRyntoAsbsMq9W-VEPChqbiJiiVw
> [2] words: http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/285254/clinton_urges_%27responsible%27_leaders_to_take_control_in_iran/
> [3] asked: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/194737/gingrich-iran-its-1930s/robert-costa
> [4] statement: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRG9gjAjvtPqq9p-fGMSlUGC21ygD9IB1QCO0
> [5] devoted: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-marking-nowruz
> [6] triumph: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18prexy.html
> [7] did not: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/world/middleeast/15diplo.html
> [8] responded: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1194641/Obama-praises-YouTube-martyr-Neda-Agha-Soltani-Britain-expels-Iranian-diplomats.html
> [9] claimed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcI2cEI2R_30663RxlsVetrBx_dg
> [10] quick to add: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/obama-calls-ahmadinejads-911-comments-inexcusable/
> [11] saying: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11408615
> [12] said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/24/barack-obama-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-un
> [13] asked: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/iranian-protestors-call-to-president-obama-for-support.html
> [14] called: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=3710
> [15] here: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/a-court-victory-for-the-enemy-of-the-mullahs/
> [16] Rick Santorum: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/11/santorum-iran-bus-drivers/


----------



## a_majoor

More evidence that the regime is under internal pressure. Classical COIN theory suggests that unless there is a secure area where the rebels can rest, regroup and receive training and supplies there will be no chance for victory or regime change; even mass movements like the Cedar and Orange revolutions were unable to implement lasting changes (and effectively weakened the existing body politic to the point that the Hezbollah and Russians were able to move in and impose themselves on Lebanon and the Ukraine respectively).

How this will play out is now in the realm of chaos theory, where even small inputs might trigger unpredictable large changes:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/10/18/how-long-can-the-iranian-regime-last/?print=1



> *How Long Can the Iranian Regime Last?*
> 
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On October 18, 2010 @ 9:07 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments
> 
> I’ve received many questions about the recent explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base near Khorramabad (near the Iraqi border) that reportedly killed nearly twenty Guardsmen and, according to some accounts, destroyed several new Shehab missiles.    The regime described it as an accident, but even the Washington Post’s Thomas Erdbrink, who often shows a touching tendency to accept the official version of events, had his doubts [1]: “It was unclear whether the incident…was an accident or the result of terrorism or sabotage.”  He was right to wonder; there have been three such events at the Imam Ali Base in the last several months, and while there are lots of accidents in Iran, it is most unlikely that repeated explosions are all accidental.
> 
> The base is a training center for high-level Iranian officers and experienced foreign fighters. According to a reliable Iranian source, the foreigners were being trained in the use of roadside bombs, the so-called IEDs that account for most American and other NATO casualties in Afghanistan. Those were apparently ignited, along with jet fuel, and killed 19 Iranian officers and badly burnt another 14, most of whom are in critical condition. No figures are available for the foreigners, although some of them were certainly killed or wounded.
> 
> The base was attacked by two men on motorcycles, who first killed two security guards and then launched rockets over the walls into the base. There were indeed four missiles at the site, but they were short-range missile with a range of 200-250 kilometers, not the latest generation of intermediate-range Shehabs.
> 
> The latest deaths bring the number of RG casualties in the last 26 days to 102, which gives you a sense of the intensity of the internal war against the Iranian regime.  Earlier in the month, armed gunmen attacked police in Kurdestan [2], killing five and wounding four others.
> 
> Meanwhile, Iranian workers and merchants were also challenging the regime, with workers walking off the job in the south [3] and the operators of the gold bazaars locking up their shops all over the country, nominally in protest against the new 3% value added tax, but actually against the regime’s increasingly centralized control over the national economy.  Negotiations to end the shutdown broke down early this week [4],  as it became evident that the regime was determined to crush the traditional merchant class.  Indeed, the Iranian currency becomes weaker by the day, which has the dual effect of ruining the traders and smugglers who have long been the source of merchandise for the bazaars, and further empowering the Revolutionary Guards who have abundant quantities of hard currency from their (legal and illegal) oil business.
> 
> In addition to pauperizing the merchant class, the regime is striking at other middle-class sectors by rationing gasoline and ending subsidies for such staples as cooking oil, sugar, and rice. The subsidies will be replaced by aid — in the form of coupons — for the staples, which will be given to supporters and withheld from opponents. In this manner, the Iranian economy will increasingly resemble that of North Korea, albeit with a very wealthy state and elite, living the good life financed by oil revenues.
> 
> These measures – some of which have been announced, while others will emerge in coming weeks – will further enrage most Iranians, who are already alienated from the regime. The ranks of the enragés include many senior clerics, and in recent weeks the regime has assaulted their mosques, beaten and arrested their followers and even family members, and shut down their websites and Facebook pages.  The regime’s critics are not going quietly.  The Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib, for example, who is a member of the Assembly of Experts that chooses the supreme leader, has recently challenged Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s legitimacy [5], saying that “the only duties of someone selected by the Assembly of Experts are ‘…to coordinate the efforts of the three branches of government and to prevent the violation of citizens’ rights by the three branches.’ This bold claim means that the supreme leader’s powers are much more limited than is currently the case.  Dastgheib asserts, ‘This person…has no right to interfere in the affairs of the people.’”
> 
> Other senior clerics have taken similar positions, and Khamenei is traveling today to the holy city of Qom, where he will meet with many of them in an attempt to shore up his waning legitimacy.  Matters have gone too far, too many people have been killed, tortured, and humiliated to expect the Qom clerical establishment to fully embrace Khamenei.  Remarkably, at least some of these men of the turban are prepared for martyrdom rather than accept Khamenei’s tyranny. I doubt we will see a mass rejection of Khamenei in Qom, however, and in all likelihood many will support the supreme leader, and those who reject him will face harsh treatment when the leader returns to the capital.
> 
> Thus the vice of oppression tightens more forcefully on all levels of Iranian society, as the regime uses the only method that can keep Khamenei and Ahmadinejad in power: the iron fist, combined with foreign adventure (about which more in my next blog).
> 
> Can it last? The regime would surely fall in short order if its opponents received a modicum of real support from the West, but no such support seems to be forthcoming from the feckless men and women who mistakenly fancy themselves to be real leaders, and who one day will have earned a shameful page in the history of this period.
> 
> And so the agony of Iran continues, until the inevitable explosion of righteous wrath finally destroys this evil regime.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/10/18/how-long-can-the-iranian-regime-last/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] had his doubts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101300901.html
> 
> [2] armed gunmen attacked police in Kurdestan: http://www.ilmattino.it/ANSAviewnews2.php?file=newsANSA/2010-10-07_107555809.txt
> 
> [3] workers walking off the job in the south: http://www.rferl.org/content/Unpaid_Workers_Gn_Strike_In_Iran/2185158.html
> 
> [4] Negotiations to end the shutdown broke down early this week: http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21996:talks-collapse-leading-to-new-strike-at-tehrans-gold-bazaar&catid=32:tehran-grapevine&Itemid=47
> 
> [5] recently challenged Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s legitimacy: http://www.insideiran.org/media-analysis/senior-ayatollah-criticizes-khamenei-for-overstepping-powers-as-supreme-leader/


----------



## sean m

If this has already been posted, please delete. It did not turn up on the search bar. 

It seems like with the Karzai government, there seems to be a much reduced chance of achieving any significant positive change in the country. Even though there are peace talks, the Taliban does not always heed them. In Pakistan, as we all know, even after peace talks they still fight and is supported by the Taliban leadership. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69P2CM20101026


On Monday, Afghan President  Hamid Karzai said the country had received money from several "friendly countries" and specifically named the United States and Washington's diplomatic adversary, Iran, describing the money as a "transparent" form of aid.

Karzai said his office received sums up to 500,000-700,000 euros ($360,000-$975,000) once or twice a year from Iran and that he would continue to ask for Iranian money.

The New York Times, citing an unidentified Afghan official, said that millions of dollars in cash had been channeled from Iran in a bid to buy influence and loyalty and have been used to pay Afghan lawmakers, tribal elders and Taliban commanders.

In Tehran, the semi-official Fars news agency initially said on Monday that Iran's embassy in Afghanistan denied the New York Times report and described it as "baseless rumours" spread by some Western media.

On Tuesday, however, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Iran had been helping with reconstruction efforts for some time.

"Iran, as a neighboring country, has helped a lot in order to reconstruct Afghanistan and that help was started by the former government," Mehmanparast said.

"Iran is helping Afghanistan and will continue in the future," he told reporters at a weekly news conference.

A former governor of a border province who says he was ousted for his criticisms of Tehran told Reuters this week that Afghanistan and its Western allies were dangerously underestimating Iran's destabilizing influence on the country.

A U.S. State Department spokesman did not question Iran's right to assist Afghanistan, but questioned Tehran's motives, given its history of playing a "destabilizing role with its neighbors."

Iran has wide and growing influence in Afghanistan, especially in the west of the country, where it has important economic ties around the commercial hub of Herat.

Tehran denies supporting militant groups in Afghanistan and blames the instability on the presence of Western troops, just as it has done in Iraq.

(Reporting by Paul Tait and by Robin Pomeroy in TEHRAN; Editing by Ron Popeski)


----------



## a_majoor

What everyone is worrying about:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/26/if-iran-gets-the-bomb/



> I*f Iran Gets the Bomb*
> October 26, 2010 - by Michael J. Totten
> 
> I sought out Martin Kramer in Jerusalem because I knew he would give me an analysis well outside the box on Iranian nuclear weapons. He’s a scholar, not a politician or pundit. And while he certainly has his opinions, he doesn’t conveniently fit into anyone’s ideological category.
> 
> I was not disappointed, and I don’t think you will be either. What he has to say is different from anything you’ve read from anyone in the media, including me.
> 
> MJT: I assume you read Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic this summer. He asked dozens of Israeli decision-makers and analysts if they think Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, and the consensus seems to be that the odds are greater than fifty percent that it will happen before the middle of summer in 2011. What do you think?
> 
> Martin Kramer: It’s in Israel’s interest to convince the world that the decision-makers are leaning in that direction. The idea is to prompt somebody else to take action, in particular the Obama administration. So there’s a debate about whether or not Jeffrey has been spun.
> 
> MJT: Yes, and he mentioned that himself.
> 
> Martin Kramer: The whole purpose of spinning Jeffrey Goldberg — assuming that’s what happened — was to prod the United States into taking a more forward position. Americans are taking a forward position already, but the idea here would be to multiply the effect.
> 
> But I don’t know. I haven’t spoken to all the people Jeffrey talked to, and there are a lot of variables that we don’t know yet. The timeline is open to question. The intelligence is also being debated. So while I wouldn’t put a percentage on it, plans are definitely on the table. If the Unites States doesn’t act, the moment will come when a decision will have to be made. We don’t know what the arguments will be or in which ways the calculations will shift between now and then. Israel has the option, though, and it’s on the table. I wouldn’t say the odds are greater than fifty percent, but it’s a credible option.
> 
> 
> Martin Kramer
> 
> MJT: What do you think Iran would actually do with a nuclear bomb?
> 
> Martin Kramer: The Iranians have a structural interest in creating doubt and uncertainty in the Persian Gulf. They have a larger population than any other Gulf state, and they don’t have the share of oil resources that Saudi Arabia has. So their first objective would be to create a climate of uncertainty.
> 
> Now, the Persian Gulf has been — since the United States took over from the British — a zone that is essentially under an American security umbrella. It is as crucial to American security as Lake Michigan. The United States doesn’t use most of the oil coming out of the Gulf, but its allies do, so the stability of the Gulf has been associated with a steady flow of oil and a price that moves within a predictable range.
> 
> Iran wants to create uncertainty there because oil is the only thing it has. Iran has nothing else — some carpets and pistachio nuts, and that’s it. Their population continues to grow, their needs continue to grow, and their grand ambitions continue to grow. So this, I think, is the first thing they would do with it. All it takes is to create a crisis or a succession of crises.
> 
> Iran knows it can’t wrest sole hegemony in the Gulf from the United States, but it wants to create a kind of dual hegemony shared with the United States. Nobody knows where the lines would run, but they wouldn’t run just five to ten miles off the coast of Iran into the waters of the Persian Gulf. Iran would like to see its share extend to both sides of the Gulf, to effectively create a kind of push and shove between the United States and Iran.
> 
> A lot of people on the Arab side of the Gulf will say they feel Iran’s breath on their faces. The United States is there now, but the British were there once, too, and now they’re gone. The Persians are always there and will always be there. So we’ll see a lot of hedging. Iran would be perceived as the rising power and the United States a declining power.
> 
> Don’t assume that in the Persian Gulf they don’t hear what we say about this. Obama was famously photographed holding a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s book The Post-American World during the election campaign. And don’t assume they don’t hear Americans talking about imperial overstretch.
> 
> MJT: You’re talking about the Arabs here.
> 
> Martin Kramer: Yes, the Arabs. And this creates a dynamic where if Iran also has nuclear weapons they will increasingly hedge. Things they allow Americans now — such as basing rights for operations in the Persian Gulf and beyond — will become more and more difficult to negotiate if Iran opposes them. So we would see an erosion of the American position in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> I think Iran is a lot less interested in justice for the Palestinians than in establishing their command over the gulf they call Persian.
> 
> MJT: We call it the Persian Gulf, too.
> 
> Martin Kramer: For reasons of geographic exactitude and custom. But Americans don’t mean it should be dominated by Iran.
> 
> MJT: Right.
> 
> Martin Kramer: The Iranians do. That’s the longer term objective. And like I said, they’re less interested in justice for the Palestinians than they are in this. They remind me a bit of Saddam Hussein. He said at one point that he would burn half of Israel, yet turned around and instead burned a lot of Kuwait. He wasn’t as interested in being admired by the Palestinians as he was about controlling resources. The Gulf is always very much a resource game. So that would be the first objective of the Iranians. But, of course, Iran also wants to wage proxy wars elsewhere.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 2:



> MJT: They do have interests in the Levant [the Eastern Mediterranean].
> 
> Martin Kramer: They have interests in the Levant, but there’s nothing here that can solve their fundamental problems, which is the mismatch of population and resources. Their game in the Levant is to get around America’s flank. They see Israel as an extension of America, but it’s not their primary area of interest.
> 
> Obviously, though, they have an ideological interest here, and they’re willing to fight Israel to the last Lebanese Shiite, but it’s an open question how much they’d be willing to sacrifice themselves directly.
> 
> So that’s why I think Iranian nuclear weapons are a world problem as much as, or even more than, they are an Israeli problem.
> 
> MJT: The Persian Gulf is certainly more of a world problem than an Israeli problem.
> 
> Martin Kramer: Israel has to take it seriously, though. After listening to Iran’s discourse, Israel can’t rule out the possibility that even a small faction could get their finger on the trigger.
> 
> It’s a world problem, though, and the world has to ask itself if it can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran deliberately creating uncertainty, instability, and doubt surrounding the great reservoir of the world’s energy. If a coalition ever comes together to stop Iran, this will be the reason.
> 
> MJT: What do you think will happen in the Levant if Iran builds a bomb? Will wars with Hezbollah and Hamas be more or less likely, and peace with the Palestinians more or less likely?
> 
> Martin Kramer: Those are two separate issues.
> 
> MJT: Yes, but they’ll both be affected.
> 
> Martin Kramer: Right. It will certainly create a situation where there would be an expectation among the supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas that Iran would act to come to their defense by using its nuclear capabilities to threaten Israel, but I’m not sure Iran wants to do that. We saw during the last Lebanon war that the timing of the crisis was not to Iran’s liking. The Iranians would not have chosen the summer of 2006 to have Hezbollah in a crisis with Israel.
> 
> MJT: They were angry about it.
> 
> Martin Kramer: They view the Levant as an arena that can be integrated into their larger strategy, not so they can support a strategy that has been independently formulated by Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn’t deliberately formulate an independent strategy, but Hamas certainly does.
> 
> If Iran decides to take the route that Israel and Japan have taken—either nuclear ambiguity or being one screw away from having a bomb—it would be less subject to moral extortion by the extremists in the Levant who would act unilaterally and expect Iran to come to their aid. So an ambiguous scenario wouldn’t increase the possibility of warfare, but if Iran becomes an explicit and open nuclear state, that’s a different story. Even the United States and the Soviet Union went on nuclear alert over an Arab-Israeli war. But you never know. Knowing in advance that it could lead to that kind of escalation, there might be mechanisms which would kick into action before things reached that level.
> 
> I do think a nuclear Iran creates a dynamic where Israel, from a strategic point of view, is compelled to keep a tight grip on Jerusalem and a large swath of the West Bank for the simple reason that it creates a deterrent to an Iranian attack. If all our strategic assets are concentrated on the coastal plain around Tel Aviv, we’re vulnerable. An Iranian ayatollah, Rafsanjani, has already noted that Israel is vulnerable to one strike. So how to we change that calculation?
> 
> A big country like the United States disperses its assets across a vast continent when facing nuclear adversaries. A small state can’t do that. But within this small state is a prime Muslim holy place, the liberation of which is championed by the Iranians, and it’s in Jerusalem.
> 
> So if Israel faces a real nuclear adversary that threatens its destruction and has Islamic fervor as the basis of its ideology—one that holds up Jerusalem as a symbol—it will make all the sense in the world to concentrate every strategic asset it can right next to it.
> 
> The Israeli leadership has built a duplicate command center in Jerusalem exactly like the one it has in Tel Aviv in the Ministry of Defense. So why stop at the top brass and the political leadership if you know that over the long term we’ll face a hostile nuclear adversary? It makes sense to load up Jerusalem with strategic assets which would themselves serve as a deterrent to a future exchange. And it’s a lot easier to do than position submarines in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.
> 
> So the long term effect would be to make Jerusalem central to Israel not only for political and cultural reasons, but also for strategic reasons. That doesn’t mean all kinds of arrangements can’t be made on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians about the day-to-day running of the city. In the past, Israel was concerned about holding the Jordan Valley as its eastern front against an invading conventional army
> 
> In a nuclear scenario the city itself would become crucial to preventing an adversary from striking a decisive blow which would render it no longer viable as a state. The idea is to persuade that adversary that even if there is a strike against Israel’s concentration of population, Israel will still remain viable.
> 
> MJT: It sounds, though, like this would make resolving the conflict with the Palestinians much more difficult.
> 
> Martin Kramer: Yes.
> 
> MJT: I figured we’d agree, but can you explain why you think that’s the case?
> 
> Martin Kramer: If there’s a shift of Israel’s assets from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the struggle over real estate up here becomes even more acute. There will be less leeway for Israeli concessions. Concessions are difficult to make in any case. Local security issues can be, in way or another, finessed, but once they play out in this mega arena of confrontation between nuclear states, flexibility diminishes quickly. It would create tremendous pressure on Israel to maintain its right to decide the future of different pieces of turf close to the city.
> 
> In the past we had the idea that in order for Israel to remain viable we had to settle the Negev Desert and the Galilee because they have large Arab populations.
> 
> That was never for religious reasons, it was always for strategic reasons. A nuclear Iran would create strategic calculations for Jerusalem that weren’t there before. There were always other strategic calculations for Jerusalem, but this would create a powerful new one. What would the Israelis and Palestinians discuss at the table once that became a factor?
> 
> Linkage is a big issue, but there’s a debate over which way linkage runs. Some say a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would make it much easier for the United States to deal with Iran. But I think the absence of a solution to the Iranian nuclear dilemma places a high premium on Israel holding if not the totality of the occupied territories, at least a sizable bit of real estate around Jerusalem as a strategic reserve.
> 
> I say this as someone who has always believed there would be some way to compromise over Jerusalem, but when I see the prospect of a nuclear Iran on the horizon threatening Israel, I say to myself that I want as many of Israel’s strategic, demographic, industrial, and technological assets in and around the city as possible.
> 
> MJT: So what do you say to people who prioritize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Iranian nuclear weapons?
> 
> Martin Kramer: I’d like to know more about how this is supposed to affect Iran’s calculations. I don’t think it will. I think they decided long ago that they want to have a hegemonic role enhanced by nuclear capability. A resolution of the conflict here wouldn’t deter them or persuade them from that ambition. On the contrary, they would believe that Israel would grow stronger and would be even more of a threat than it is today. They’re going to pursue this track no matter what.
> 
> The theory is that a resolution to the conflict would make it easier to mobilize Arab support.
> 
> MJT: Right.
> 
> Martin Kramer: But how much Arab support does the United States need that it doesn’t already have? Support from the Gulf Arabs is already guaranteed. They see Iran as a threat directed more at them than at anyone else.
> 
> MJT: They do.
> 
> Martin Kramer: The Arabs who could conceivably be swayed are the Arabs of Egypt and the Levant, but it’s difficult to envision a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would satisfy all of them. Quite a few formulas will alienate lots of them.
> 
> And the question is: are they really necessary? Is it that important to have the so-called Arab street? It’s extremely difficult to turn the Arab street into a strategic asset. Nasser tried to do it. Saddam Hussein tried to do it. Ahmadinejad is trying to do it. Erdogan is trying to do it. It’s flattering, I suppose, to have your poster on walls here and there, but nobody has found a way to turn that into something they can use, and I don’t think the United States has much prospect of doing so either. It’s an intangible.
> 
> A nuclear Iran, on the other hand, would be tangible. So I think linkage, in fact, runs the other way.
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict only has a chance of being resolved if the Levant can be disconnected from the Gulf. So we have to deal with the Iranian issue first.
> 
> Look at the history of the Middle East since the creation of Israel to the present. We have had two separate periods. The first lasted from 1948 until the late 1970s. During this period we had a war between Israel and the Arabs every decade. The Gulf region was stable. The British were there. There was always a concern that the conflict between Israel and the Arabs might create a ripple effect in the Gulf, and it finally happened in 1973 when they cut off the oil.
> 
> Then the United States changed its policy. The Americans said they were going to support Israel so staunchly that the Arabs would despair of ever achieving victory and would therefore have no choice but to sign peace agreements. And that’s what happened.
> 
> Since 1973 there has been no state-to-state war in the Levant. We’ve had intifadas, we’ve had wars between Israel and non-state actors, but we haven’t had the devastation of a state-to-state war. And the oil hasn’t been shut off since then. The oil only gets cut off as an act of solidarity between states, not as an act of solidarity with the PLO, Hamas, or Hezbollah.
> 
> So we now have an architecture that works in the Levant, but the Gulf has experienced a succession of wars. The Gulf now destabilizes the region. It has seen the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the latest Iraq war, and who knows what’s to come. And we’ve seen that the instability in the Persian Gulf region has a ripple effect in the Levant. It goes the other way now, and it’s a consequence of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
> 
> Israel is the stake that has been planted in the Levant. Because it’s powerful, it puts a high premium on rationality among all those who surround it. It serves as the basis for the security architecture.
> 
> When the British left the Gulf in the early 1970s, the Americans weren’t in a position to pick it up because they were busy in Vietnam. They had their dual pillars in the Gulf, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but one of them collapsed in 1979. And since that collapse, there has been no equivalent of Israel in the Gulf which the United States could use as a fulcrum around which to organize a region. So the pillar of stability has been the American deployment of its own forces again and again and again. They’ve put millions of boots on the ground, and it’s still not enough.
> 
> So here in the Levant we’re feeling the wash from the long-term destabilization of the Gulf. It is America’s primary interest to keep these as two separate regions. The regional hegemon needs to make sure there is no cross-contamination between them.
> 
> The regions used to be separate. During the British time, the Levant was run from London and the Persian Gulf from India. The Levant was called the Near East, and the Gulf was called the Middle East. These were two distinct zones. We’ve conflated them in the meantime, and it’s in the interest of the United States to disaggregate them again and to keep them disaggregated. Any attempt to project power from one into the other undermines the position of the regional hegemon. That was true when Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, and it’s true when Iran sends missiles to Hezbollah. It’s always the radicals who do the bridging. The same was true with Nasser.
> 
> And it compels others to do the same. If Israel acts over the head of the United States against Iran, it will be just the latest example. It’s something the United States can’t afford. It means that every time we have a problem in the Levant, it will create problems for the United States in the Gulf, and vice versa.
> 
> MJT: How can the United States drive a wedge between the two regions?
> 
> Martin Kramer: That’s easy. The U.S. just has to say that it supports its Israeli ally to keep order in its arena, and the U.S. will take responsibility for keeping order in its arena. Just effectively divide responsibility. If the U.S. flags in its resolve to do that, it will be under pressure from those who are tempted to act outside their arena.
> 
> My friend Steve Rosen at Harvard once said it would be shameful if the United States were to leave it to Israel to do what it should do in the Gulf. The Persian Gulf is an area of world interest where America plays the guarantor role.
> 
> If Israel has to act as the guarantor in the Gulf, it will be a sign that America has dodged its responsibility.
> 
> MJT: The Gulf Arab states are not-so quietly hoping Israel will do it if the U.S. does not.
> 
> Martin Kramer: They’re looking for someone, anyone, to do it.
> 
> MJT: They’re the ones who should be the most worried. We don’t hear much about this from the Arab states in North Africa. They don’t have as many reasons to be concerned.
> 
> Martin Kramer: That’s a separate area altogether.
> 
> MJT: Egypt is sort of a bridge, though, isn’t it? Cairo sides to a certain extent with Israel against Hamas, and we know Mubarak isn’t thrilled about what’s happening in Tehran.
> 
> Martin Kramer: The main problem with Egypt is that its own regional role has been so much diminished. Not only can Egypt no longer project power beyond its borders as it did in Nasser’s days, it can barely control events inside its national borders as we’ve seen in the Sinai. Egypt clearly resents the rise of Iranian power. They don’t necessarily trust anyone as a counterweight. Their approach all along has been that they don’t want a nuclear Iran, but that the way to go about it is to de-nuclearize Israel as part of a grand bargain. They would achieve two goals at once. Both Iran and Israel would be cut down a peg.
> 
> MJT: Do you think that’s their sincere approach? Egyptian officials will say this in public, but what do they really think?
> 
> Martin Kramer: I think there’s no question they’d like the United States to play the role. They’d much rather have the U.S. take the lead than Israel. They know what everyone knows—the United States would do it much more effectively.
> 
> MJT: Of course.
> 
> Martin Kramer: There would be nothing worse than a botched or half-complete operation. There’s a very strong preference that the U.S. take care of this, among the Gulf Arabs and the Egyptians.
> 
> MJT: And, of course, among the Israelis.
> 
> Martin Kramer: It’s absolutely central to the strategy to maintain this division. And the only way to maintain it is for the United States to demonstrate tomorrow that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or to allow Israel to act unilaterally. The Gulf is a zone of American dominance, and the only way to assert that is to do what Carter did with the Carter Doctrine, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. He said there should be no outside power or local power that is allowed to challenge the United States in the Gulf. And a nuclear Iran clearly crosses that line.
> 
> If even Jimmy Carter was compelled to issue a doctrinal statement in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan about the Persian Gulf, one would think that Barack Obama would see the need to do something similar. Obama should especially feel compelled to do so because there’s a question mark there. He should declare the Persian Gulf a nuclear-free zone. It’s too much to talk about the Middle East as a nuclear-free zone at this time, but the Persian Gulf is nuclear-free now, and it’s time for the United States to come out and say it should remain nuclear-free.
> 
> MJT: I have a hard time imaging Obama doing anything of the sort.
> 
> Martin Kramer: Yeah. Well.
> 
> MJT: But I suppose one never knows.
> 
> Martin Kramer: It would be an astonishing lapse if a man who promised to roll back nuclear proliferation watched proliferation develop in one of the least stable parts of the world, a place where the United States has only been able to maintain even a modicum of stability by a massive projection of its own forces. The region is of prime interest to the entire world for its energy resources. If it becomes nuclearized, it will be the one thing for which Barack Obama would always be remembered by history, and he would be remembered by history as a failure.
> 
> Martin Kramer is a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a visiting scholar at Harvard University. He is the author of Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America.


----------



## a_majoor

Failed policy in Washington only buys time for the theocrats, but the Iranian regime seems to be weakening from within. What will the new Congress be willing to do?:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/10/31/the-failed-obama-iran-policy-now-what/?singlepage=true



> *The Failed Obama Iran Policy: Now What?*
> October 31, 2010 - by Michael Ledeen
> Share |
> 
> On October 25, Ambassador Dennis Ross — among other things, the National Security Council’s czar for Iranian matters — spoke in Florida to an AIPAC conference. It’s worth paying attention when Ross speaks, because he’s one of the best practitioners of the diplomatic arts, and, having done this sort of thing for several administrations, he is always very careful.  His words are canonical; you don’t have to wonder if he didn’t mean precisely what he said or whether he is at cross purposes with his president.
> 
> His Florida speech can therefore be taken as one of the clearest and most authoritative efforts to defend the administration’s Iran policy, and warrants our serious attention.
> 
> He began with a false claim that Obama’s outreach to the Iranian regime is something new.  “The first step…was making an unmistakable offer of engagement to the Iranians to show their government — and the rest of the international community — that we were committed to resolving our long-standing differences with Iran through peaceful diplomacy on the basis of mutual respect.  We recognized that during the years of not talking, Iran significantly expanded its nuclear program and sowed its breed of terror and coercion across the region.”
> 
> This is the administration’s central myth about Obama and Iran. In reality, there were no “years of not talking.” The Bush years were full of talking, culminating in an embarrassing failure. Secretary of State Rice went to the United Nations to await the promised arrival of a high level Iranian delegation that she expected would sign an agreement with the United States.  Iran would stop enriching uranium, and America would lift sanctions.  But the delegation never arrived.
> 
> This was only the latest in a 30-year run of failed “peaceful diplomacy on the basis of mutual respect.” Every president from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama has tried it, and all have failed, even the current crowd, as Ross admits just a few words later:  “Iran’s own behavior over the past two years…has demonstrated that it prefers defiance and secrecy to transparency and peace.”
> 
> Ross continued, “Iran continues to rely on tactics of intimidation and coercion to gain influence, a pattern clearly on display during President Ahmadinejad’s provocative recent visit to Lebanon and through Iran’s ongoing support for Hizballah.”
> 
> Quite right.  But he doesn’t go nearly far enough.  It’s not just a matter of “intimidation and coercion.” The central issue is NOT Iranian diplomatic recalcitrance;  it’s the murder of American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> And that is the issue that nobody — not national security officials, not members of Congress, not pundits — wants to talk about.  They avoid it with a remarkable single-mindedness, because to acknowledge it means having to respond forcefully, and no president for more than 30 years has been willing to do that.
> 
> It’s the poisonous turd in the diplomatic punchbowl, and it infuriates our fighting men and women, who know full well who’s blowing up their brothers and sisters.  And even some of their top brass — from Admiral Mullen atop the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Gates and all too many service secretaries and commanders — tiptoe delicately around the defining issue of the war.  Whatever their private convictions, they are not about to risk their careers by publicly challenging their commander-in-chief.
> 
> As for Dennis Ross and his cohorts in the White House and Foggy Bottom, they send birthday greetings to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Different relationship with the world, indeed!  If the State Department had paid attention to Ross’s speech, they wouldn’t embarrass themselves by chanting false mantras.  That sort of nonsense only encourages the regime to redouble its attacks on Americans, and reminds the embattled opposition that they’re not going to get any help from Washington.
> 
> And yet, the regime is getting weaker by the day.  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei just finished a very public trip to Qom, the locus of the Shi’ite establishment.  He went there because he and his dwindling band of followers know that his authority is very weak, and they hoped to organize big crowds to welcome him to the holy city, and then arrange for the most important ayatollahs to pay homage to him.  It didn’t happen; despite a considerable cash flow for participants in the “spontaneous” rallies, he didn’t get big crowds, and while some senior ayatollahs were hauled into his presence, many stayed away.  I would not be surprised to see a crackdown on some of the recalcitrant ayatollahs, but for the moment, the regime is actually backing away from confrontation with the political opposition.  The two leaders of the Green Movement have just met, despite warnings and scores of armed thugs around their homes — Mir Hossein Mousavi got in his car, defied the security officers, and drove to Mehdi Karroubi’s house to collect his colleague and Karroubi’s sons — and Karroubi’s offices are apparently reopening, which is a real sign of regime weakness.
> 
> There are other such signs:  in the past, the regime executed its (real and imagined) opponents in public, on the assumption that others would be intimidated, but that policy has failed.  Recent executions — lots of them — have been in secret, but the Greens have publicized them.  Mousavi knows that such accounts bring more people to the Green banner.
> 
> And while Khamenei was trolling for love in the streets of Qom, the commander of the Basij forces, Mohammed Reza Naghdi, was calling for Iranian students to be indoctrinated in the ways of martyrdom.  This is part of the regime’s campaign to compel the young to read and hear the most radical Islamic doctrines, a humiliating admission that thirty-one years after the Islamic Revolution, Iranians are not true believers.  Mosque attendance is low, and men in turbans are objects of public scorn (a well known anecdote tells of a mullah having to change into normal clothes in order to get a taxi).
> 
> Most Iranian people want an end to this failed state, and so should we.  Ross spoke at length about the efficacy of the new sanctions, and they are undoubtedly having an effect.  But Ross only praises the sanctions within the very narrow context of the Iranian nuclear program, as if we would be happy with a non-nuclear Iran, no matter how many Americans were killed by the terrorists armed, funded, and trained by the regime.
> 
> If that is not complicity with evil, what is?
> 
> Instead of contorted reasoning and myths about the wonders of talking to the mass murderers in Tehran, intelligent and honorable men like Dennis Ross should be calling for support for the Green Movement and working for the liberation of Iran.
> 
> How many Americans have to die at the hands of the Islamic Republic before we finally figure this out?
> 
> We’re about to get a new Congress. Is there anyone in its ranks who will say this and fight for it?


----------



## a_majoor

Since Iran's goal is to become a regional hegemon, it stands to reason that the other regional powers stand together to oppose Iranian designs:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/egyptians-and-saudis-simulate-war-with-iran/?singlepage=true



> *Egyptians and Saudis Simulate War with Iran*
> 
> Posted By Ryan Mauro On November 5, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics, World News | 5 Comments
> 
> Egypt and Saudi Arabia are preparing themselves for war with Iran. The two Arab countries just held [1] their first joint military exercises called Tabuk-2 over a one-week period, simulating a scenario unofficially based on a potential conflict with the Iranians. The exercises took place in the northern Egyptian desert and included F-16 aircraft, helicopters, and artillery units. The forces practiced [2] defending against an enemy offensive and counter-attacking with an invasion into the attacker’s territory.
> 
> The Israeli intelligence website Debkafile accurately analyzes [3] what this scenario means. They note that the commander of the Saudi forces in the exercise was Prince Khaled Bin Sultan of the Ministry of Defense and Aviation. His most recent experience was in leading the Saudi forces fighting the extremist Shiite Houthis in Yemen that spearheaded a proxy war [4] waged by Iran. The Egyptians and Saudis are preparing to defend Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province from an Iranian assault. This province is about three-fourths [5] Shiite and is the location of about 90 percent of the Saudi oil production. It is ripe for instability and Iranian-backed subversion.
> 
> These exercises indicate that the Egyptians are committed to quickly sending reinforcements to the Saudis in the event of Iranian intervention in the Eastern Province, as well as a joint counter-offensive into western Iran to force the regime to pull back its forces. Iran has experienced much internal strife in this area, particularly in the Arab-populated province of Khuzestan. This province holds 90 percent of Iran’s oil production, making it the Iranian equivalent of the Saudi Eastern Province. The Egyptians and Saudis seem to believe that the Arabs in this area, as well as possibly other disgruntled minorities, will rise up in arms against the regime. Acts of violence by these minorities against the regime’s security forces, military bases, and infrastructure have been rising in recent years.
> 
> The two Arab countries have a right to be worried. The Iranian proxy war in Yemen showed that the regime is becoming increasingly aggressive in the Gulf. And shortly after the Egyptian government arrested [6] 49 Hezbollah operatives in April 2009 for involvement in a terrorist plot, the terrorist group called for the overthrow of the moderate Arab regimes, specifically that of Egypt. The country’s prime minister flatly stated [7] that Hezbollah had “virtually declared war.” During the fighting in Yemen, the Iranian regime threatened [8] to bring the violence to Saudi territory and warned the royal family that their actions could cause their overthrow.
> 
> The leader of the Iranian branch of Hezbollah, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, has openly stated [9] that Iran must create an “Islamic United States” that stretches from Palestine to Afghanistan in order to set the stage for the arrival of the Mahdi. The Iraqi Baath Party and the Saudi Wahhabists are specifically mentioned by Kharrazi as enemies that must be vanquished. Therefore, in the view of Kharrazi and undoubtedly the theocratic fanatics that govern Iran, a campaign to seize the Eastern Province and collapse the Arab regimes is a religious obligation.
> 
> The desire to unite all the Shiites of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Arab world into one bloc is further heightened by Iran’s own vulnerabilities. The regime is running out of oil. One study says [10] that rising domestic consumption means that Iran will not be able to export oil by as early as 2015, eliminating the majority of the regime’s export revenue. With a steeply declining economy exasperating the country’s internal unrest, the regime will conclude that its prophetic destiny — as detailed by Kharrazi — coincides with its national interests.
> 
> Iran and the Sunni Arab world are therefore on a collision course that can only be avoided by regime change in Iran or capitulation. The Arabs’ best hope is a united military front that can beat back Iranian proxy warfare and that the regime is somehow prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. Enter Israel.
> 
> In July 2009, the Egyptians permitted [11] two Israeli missile boats and a nuclear submarine to go through the Suez Canal, simulating a possible attack on Iran. In June, over a dozen American ships and one from Israel also traveled [12] through the Suez Canal under Egyptian protection. It is now an open secret that Saudi Arabia has given [13] Israel the green light [14] to use its airspace to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, reportedly even simulating [15] such an event. A member of Israel’s parliament has said [16] that a “wall-to-wall coalition” of Muslim countries have secretly assured Israel of their support for any action to stop a nuclear Iran from becoming a reality.
> 
> The Egyptians and Saudis are serious about the Iranian threat because they understand that they are the first on the chopping block and are the most vulnerable to Iran’s designs, much more so than Israel. They are said to be planning more joint exercises for the near future. The Arabs believe a major regional war is a distinct possibility, if not a probability. And so should we.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/egyptians-and-saudis-simulate-war-with-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] held: http://www.saudinewstoday.com/article/32841__Saudi+-Egyptian+Joint+Exercise+%27Tabuk+2%27+Continues
> 
> [2] practiced: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/egyptian-and-saudi-military-wrap-up-week-of-joint-manoeuvrs-105366998.html
> 
> [3] analyzes: http://www.debka.com/article/9100/
> 
> [4] proxy war: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/iranians-and-saudis-fight-a-proxy-war-in-yemen/
> 
> [5] three-fourths: http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/03/saudi_arabias_shiites_stand_up.html
> 
> [6] arrested: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123957788667111977.html
> 
> [7] stated: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=463
> 
> [8] threatened: http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/22081.htm
> 
> [9] stated: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=175619
> 
> [10] says: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-12-26-iran-oil_x.htm
> 
> [11] permitted: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6715412.ece
> 
> [12] traveled: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-s-israeli-warships-cross-suez-canal-toward-red-sea-1.297068
> 
> [13] given: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece
> 
> [14] green light: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/22/saudis-green-light-for-israeli-attack-on-iran/
> 
> [15] simulating: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece
> 
> [16] said: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3858557,00.html


----------



## a_majoor

And Iran is allegedly arming its regional proxies with aircraft and UAV's. Given the seeming ease which thousands of rockets can be smuggled into the Gaza strip, this really isn't so far fetched (and Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel have also been said to have supervised the launch of an anti-ship missile at an Israeli ship and operated a drone over Isreal during the last conflict in Lebanon, so several data points exist)

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/report-iran-gave-hezbollah-uavs-attack-aircraft-1.323259



> *Report: Iran gave Hezbollah UAVs, attack aircraft*
> 
> Iranian experts were sent to Lebanon to aid Hezbollah in building the aerial array and train militants, Hezbollah sources tell Kuwaiti newspaper.
> 
> By Haaretz Service
> 
> Hezbollah has obtained a complete aerial array from Iran, including an attack aircraft and several unmanned aerial vehicles, Channel 10 quoted the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa on Saturday.
> 
> According to sources close to the Hezbollah military leadership, Hezbollah has at least three different kinds of UAVs and an Iranian aircraft that could reach long distances and attack specific targets on the ground.
> 
> Iran Hezbollah - AP - Oct 14, 2010
> 
> The sources say that these are the "surprises" that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promised his organization would use in any future conflict with Israel.
> 
> Iran's Revolutionary Guard is responsible for the transfer of the aircraft to Hezbollah, sources say, and dozens of Iranian experts were allegedly sent to Lebanon to aid Hezbollah in building the aerial array and to train militants.
> 
> According to the report, Tehran allocated a very high budget for the project.
> 
> Western sources responded to the report, saying that they fear the aircraft could be an "important card" in a possible future conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.


----------



## Sapplicant

Iran voting to sever ties with Britain




> If approved, Karamirad said diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with London will drop to "zero," which will teach Britain a lesson about "how to deal with the great Iranian people."




Hopefully the UK learns their lesson quick. I'd hate to see Iran take and bend Britain over its knee for a spanking...  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Should be a good fight. I was hoping to get out of the desert but I guess it's not in the tarrot cards.    We should win in Afghanistan first though.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Should be a good fight. I was hoping to get out of the desert but I guess it's not in the tarrot cards.    We should win in Afghanistan first though.



I thought we did?  That's why we're leaving?


----------



## a_majoor

Internal instability spreads:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/12/21/iranian-chaos/



> *Iranian Chaos: Spontaneous Revolt Against the Regime*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On December 21, 2010 @ 5:50 pm In Uncategorized | 27 Comments
> 
> The port of Bandar Abbas [1] is one of Iran’s major shipping hubs, as well as a big naval base in the Straits of Hormuz, and the site of a big refinery.  It is now in chaos.  Thousands of trucks, many of them loaded with imported foodstuffs, commercial goods of all description, and even oil products, have blocked the city’s roads, effectively ending all movement in and around the port.  The drivers simply shut down their rigs, took the coils out of the engines, and walked away.  On the water, there’s a similar shutdown of the hundreds of small boats and ferries that usually carry thousands of people each day to the nearby islands as well as to Dubai.  They have clogged the harbor, and nothing is moving.
> 
> This is the result of the Iranian regime’s cancellation of energy subsidies, proudly announced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday.  One of the subsidies was on diesel fuel, which has now become eight or nine times as expensive as it used to be, and the drivers can’t survive the cost, nor can the ferry companies.  So they went on strike.
> 
> It is hard to get details and there are of course many rumors.  It seems certain that the regime dispatched some ten thousand Revolutionary Guards to “establish order,” but it’s the wrong remedy.  Even the toughest of them can’t convince a truck to start itself, or a ferry to get out of the way.  The Deputy Minister of Transportation arrived late this afternoon and met with the leaders of the drivers and ferry pilots, offering to let them raise their prices, although not nearly enough to compensate for the blow of the canceled subsidies.  Government officials were overheard arguing with the Guards, who seemed sympathetic to the workers.  Not a good sign for the regime.
> 
> As of Tuesday night, nobody had a clear picture of what was likely to happen on Wednesday.  There has been very little press coverage so far (although the Washington Post‘s man in Tehran wrote about strikes in several cities [2]), but all day Tuesday Bandar Abbas was full of Iranian journalists, and there will probably be more reporting in the morning.  If the Wapo is right, the regime may be facing a national challenge from workers, and there doesn’t seem to be a good solution for Supreme Leader Khamenei and his henchmen.  If they back off the cancellation of the subsidies, this will encourage all sorts of people to challenge the regime.  If they try to wheel and deal, offering economic goodies to the transport workers to get them back to work, they will have shown serious weakness, and, again, others will challenge them.  Apparently the government reps in Bandar Abbas threatened severe consequences (ranging from arrests to contract cancellations) if things had not returned to normal by midday Wednesday.  We’ll see.  So far as I can tell, this is not the first stage of a rebellion organized by the Green Movement.  It seems to be a spontaneous protest from people who see that their regime is dragging them into ruin.  But spontaneous protests sometimes gather momentum, and there is hardly an Iranian without deep grievances against the regime.
> 
> What we already see is confirmation of what I have been saying for some years:  the Iranian people do not like their regime, and they are prepared to confront it.  The chaos in Bandar Abbas is a self-inflicted wound masterminded by the fanatical buffoons who rule the Islamic Republic.  Sooner or later, this sort of thing will spread, and the hollowness of the regime will be exposed to everyone.
> 
> Maybe even the feckless Western leaders will see it and support the Iranian people.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/12/21/iranian-chaos/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] Bandar Abbas: http://www.iranchamber.com/cities/bandar_abbas/bandar_abbas.php
> [2] strikes in several cities: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122102522.html


----------



## sean m

Does anyone watch FrontLine on PBS, it really is a good show, This is from a couple years ago yet it still is relevant since it refers to Iran's role on the middle east after the  Hussein regime. In it it states how the Iranians under the reformist government prior to  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emergence attempted to create dialogue and offered to promises to not involve itself if the Americans returned the favor and did not meddle in their affairs. This government lead by Mohammad Khatami was attempting to create social change in the country. In the documentary, it seems that what is stated is that the Americans neglected to look at it because some radical elements in Iran were hiding Islamic radicals from Afghanistan. 

Here is the documentary 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

It really is to bad that  certain important figures on both sides of the fence are creating unnecessary problems it seems, Both people in the West and those in other nations who have democratic ideology of course share alot in common with the majority of Iranian people.  Hopefully in the near future there will be more talks of working together instead of against each other.  Yet in this regard the Iranian government is to blame for the stirring up unnecessary trouble in order to exert their influence. Certain Western nation are also to blame *if what is said is true about them supporting efforts to actively  undermine the Iranian government and it's projects.


*


----------



## a_majoor

sean m said:
			
		

> Certain Western nation are also to blame *if what is said is true about them supporting efforts to actively  undermine the Iranian government and it's projects.
> *


*

Considering the Iranian government's projects include destabilizing large areas of the Middle east in order to exert their own influence, equiping, training and supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas and openly calling for genocide against the people of Israel, actively undermining their government and projects seems to be the right and prudent thing to do...*


----------



## sean m

Your right that they have done a lot of wrong, with things you have listed. But don't you think that especially with the situation involving the Taliban and Al Qaeda that both Iran and the west need to stop pointing fingers at each other for various offenses and focus on the more volatile situation which is causing chaos in the region. Even if the Iranian government feels that having more powerful proxy organizations (hezbollah) running broken down countries. it is to bad they don't realize or are to selfish to think about the longterm effect. For example with Afghanistan, if the West pulls out and the Islamists regain power, it *seems* logical to think that the last thing the Iranians would want would be a radical sunni terrorist state right in their back yard, who seem to have a tendency to go back on their word. Both the West and Iran share the same enemy in Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the long run. Yet Iran seems to need the West to recognize some of thier less radical needs and wants, such as not supporting resistance movements in Iran. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, *if* done correctly, could possibly become a unifier between Iran and the West. This possibly could lead to more freedoms towards the people of Iran and the gradual movement towards democracy.   




			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Considering the Iranian government's projects include destabilizing large areas of the Middle east in order to exert their own influence, equiping, training and supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas and openly calling for genocide against the people of Israel, actively undermining their government and projects seems to be the right and prudent thing to do...


----------



## CougarKing

> JERUSALEM – *Israel's foreign minister claimed Wednesday that Iran is about to send two warships through the Suez Canal for the first time in years, calling it a "provocation," but he offered no evidence.* The Egyptian authority that runs the canal denied it.
> Egyptian authority that runs the canal denied it.
> 
> Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the ships would cross later Wednesday, en route to Syria. He did not say how he knew it.
> 
> "This is a provocation that proves that Iranian audacity and insolence are increasing," he said in a statement.
> 
> Ahmed el-Manakhli, head of Egypt's canal operations room, denied the claim, saying warships must get permission 48 hours before crossing, and "so far, we have not been notified."
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an e-mailed statement that "Israel is closely following the movements of the Iranian ships and has updated friendly states on the issue. Israel will continue to follow the ships movements."
> 
> Security officials said they have known of Iranian ship movements for some time and expect them to arrive at the canal Thursday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
> 
> In Washington, the Pentagon declined to comment.
> 
> *State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed the presence of the ships in the area of the canal but would not say whether that was considered provocative.
> 
> "There are two ships in the Red Sea," he said, "What their intention is, what their destination is, I can't say."
> 
> Meanwhile, the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Enterprise was transiting the Red Sea on Wednesday, after passing through the Suez Canal on its way to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet area to support combat operations in Afghanistan and other duties in the region, two officials in Washington said.
> 
> Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile development, support for militants and threats to destroy Israel.*
> While Israel has pressed for international sanctions to stop Iran's nuclear program, it has not taken the possibility of a military strike off the table.
> 
> Lieberman spoke to American Jewish leaders, but reporters were excluded. Later, his office released a statement with the charge about the Iranian ships crossing the Suez Canal on their way to Syria, a longtime ally.
> 
> "The international community must understand that Israel cannot ignore these provocations forever," he said, according to the statement. "We expect the international community to act with haste and determination against the Iranian provocations that are intended to destabilize the situation in the region."
> 
> Lieberman is known for his extreme pronouncements. Israel has been distributing dire predictions about the destabilization of the Middle East in the wake of the toppling of the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, warning that Islamic militants could take over. Most experts play down that prospect.
> 
> The prices of benchmark Brent and WTI crude climbed after the report on the Iranian warships. Iran's action added to tension in the region and "absolutely moved markets," according to PFGBest oil analyst Phil Flynn. He said traders are worried that spreading unrest in the Middle East will disrupt oil production and shipments.
> 
> "The face of the Middle East is changing in pretty dramatic fashion in a very short period of time," he said. "The risk to supply is going up."
> 
> Earlier Wednesday, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Iranian lawmakers are shaming their people by calling for anti-government protesters to be tried and executed.
> 
> Calling Iran the source of "the greatest political and moral corruption" in the Middle East, Peres said the Iranian people will stop their own government, referring to the tens of thousands of protesters who took to the streets of Tehran on Monday. Iranian security forces used force to disperse the demonstrations. Two people were killed, and dozens injured.
> 
> "What the present Iranian leadership does is a shame on Iranian history, the Iranian culture and the pain of their own people," Peres told a group of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.
> 
> In Iran's parliament Tuesday, more than 200 legislators released a statement demanding capital punishment for protest leaders. Video showed lawmakers pumping their fists and shouting for death to opposition figures.
> 
> ___
> 
> Associated Press writers Josh Lederman in Jerusalem and Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.
> 
> 
> 
> AP news link


----------



## 57Chevy

With the UN Chief Deeply Troubled by Bahrain Violence here (reply 223)
Iranian and other Muslim countries' leaders should spend a little time becoming better aquainted with the principals of Islamic law regarding violence against their own people.
                                      ___________________________________________

Iran guards vow to hold fire
Senior officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guards have written to their commanding officer demanding assurances that they will not be required to open fire on anti-government demonstrators.

After the violent clashes during anti-government protests in nearby countries, the officers argue that it is against the principles of Islamic law to use violence against their own people.

In a suggestion of a split within the Islamic Republic's ruling hierarchy over its handling of protests, the letter has been circulated widely throughout the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards, the body responsible for defending the religious system. The letter, a copy of which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, is addressed to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the guards' commanding officer. It calls on him to issue guidance to both the guards and the Basij paramilitary militia to use restraint when handling protests.

It goes on to state unequivocally: "We promise our people that we will not shoot nor beat our brothers who are seeking to express legitimate protest against the policies and conduct of their leader."

The Iranian government has called on its supporters to take to the streets on Friday to demonstrate their "hatred" for the opposition Green Movement.

                                (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## CougarKing

An update to the story mentioned earlier at this other post:



> *Iran navy vessels drop request to pass Suez Canal*
> AP
> 
> By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press – 7 mins ago
> 
> CAIRO – Two Iranian naval vessels withdrew a request Thursday to transit the Suez Canal after Israel expressed concerns over the plans, a senior canal official said.
> 
> The official said no reason was given for the decision to withdraw the application. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said it was not known if the vessels intended to transit the waterway at a later date.
> 
> Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said, however, that no request was made to Egyptian authorities.
> 
> The Suez Canal official identified the two vessels as the *Alvand, a frigate*, and the *Kharq, a supply ship*, and said they were en route to Syria. He said they were now in an area near Saudi Arabia's Red Sea port of Jiddah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alvand Class
> 
> Spokesmen for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Foreign Ministry refused to comment.
> 
> Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Wednesday that Iran was about to send two naval vessels through the Suez Canal for the first time in years, calling it a "provocation."
> 
> Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its disputed nuclear program, ballistic missile development, support for militants in the region and its threats to destroy Israel. While Israel has pressed for international sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it has not taken the possibility of a military strike off the table.
> 
> Egypt's official MENA news agency quoted Ahmed al-Manakhly, a senior Suez Canal official, as denying that the waterway's management had received any requests by Iranian navy ships to transit the canal.
> 
> On Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed the presence of the two Iranian ships in the area of the canal but would not say whether that was considered provocative.
> 
> "There are two ships in the Red Sea," he said, "What their intention is, what their destination is, I can't say."
> 
> Vessels intending to transit the canal, which links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, must give the waterway's authority at least 24-hour notice before entering the canal.
> 
> Only ships that don't meet safety requirements are banned from using the canal.
> 
> In the case of naval vessels, clearance from the Egyptian defense and foreign ministries is required in advance, but is rarely withheld.
> 
> link


----------



## CougarKing

The above post says the request was dropped. Now this update says it still stands:



> BBC link
> 
> *Iran has asked Egypt for permission to send two warships through the Suez Canal, officials have confirmed, after a day of conflicting reports.*
> 
> Egypt's defence ministry said it was considering the request, hours after reports quoted canal officials as denying any request had been made.
> 
> The move has been condemned by Israel's foreign minister as a provocation.
> 
> It is believed to be the first time since the 1979 revolution that Iran has requested passage through the canal.
> 
> There have been conflicting reports throughout the day as to whether the request had been turned down, withdrawn, or had even been made.
> 
> *But a naval official confirmed to Iran's state-run Press TV that talks were continuing with Cairo.
> 
> And Egyptian defence ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki told the Associated Press that the request was being considered.*
> 
> Canal officials deal with regular shipping requests, but naval requests are decided by the defence ministry.
> 
> Analysts say the ministry rarely turns down a request.


----------



## CougarKing

It looks like they've just entered the Suez Canal...



> link
> 
> 
> ISMAILIA, Egypt (Reuters) - *Two Iranian ships entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday and were heading toward the Mediterranean*, a canal official said.
> 
> "They entered the canal at 5:45 a.m.," the official told Reuters. No other details were immediately available.
> 
> Israel had said it takes a "grave view" of the passage of the ships -- the first Iranian naval vessels to go through the canal since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
> 
> (...)


----------



## willellis

Not really a threat to anyone at the time, but interesting time for some posturing from the Iranian government.


----------



## Journeyman

willellis said:
			
		

> Two Iranian ships entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday.....
> 
> 
> 
> Not really a threat to anyone at the time, but interesting time for some posturing from the Iranian government.
Click to expand...

OVERSIMPLIFIED RESPONSE FOLLOWS

Try and picture life from the perspective of someone whose load-station is planning Israeli security. 

They've been invaded unilaterally several times. The surrounding propaganda is to wipe Israel off the map. Of the three largest Arab neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria - to save you from Wiki), Jordan and Egypt have lived peacefully for over a decade. Only Syria, (oh and Iran, but they're not bordering), is making threatening noises.

Gee, Egypt has just lost its leader and Jordan is facing massive internal unrest. Iran -- remember, that previously threatening country -- chooses _this_ time to send its first warships _ever_ through the Suez Canal.


I'm not going to put you on the spot, willellis, to define the difference between risk and threat....but in even _Toronto Star_-simplistic terms...this was an antagonistic move. 

And if you were an Israeli defence planner, I suspect you'd see Iranian ballistic missiles to the east and Iranian missile boats now cruising to the west as a threat....or at least, an interesting planning problem.\\


Edit: typo. Yes, it's true.


----------



## willellis

I have no idea why you would put me on the spot. What was so confusing about my post? This is not a threat to anyone right now. I don't believe that I stated that there is no cause for concern regarding the actions of Iran. In fact I hinted toward the exact opposite. If it was too subtle, I will try to be more blunt in the future.

Oh yea, the Iranians travelled through the Cannel in 79' for the Islamic Revolution.


----------



## Journeyman

willellis said:
			
		

> What was so confusing about my post? This is not a threat to anyone right now. I don't believe that I stated that there is no cause for concern regarding the actions of Iran. In fact I hinted toward the exact opposite. If it was too subtle, I will try to be more blunt in the future.


Well obviously, I was the one being too subtle. 

A large portion of military thinking (as well as International Relations theory for you non-military academics), involves seeing the world, particularly security concerns, from the perspective of others. 

I'm just _guessing_ that two Iranian military vessels making an unprecedented Suez Canal transit at this time is interpretted differently if ones perspective is that of any number of Middle Eastern security concerns.... or an apparently more limited view of an Esquimalt OS.


----------



## willellis

Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern. I agree that the Israeli government would be right to be at a state of high alert. I won't even get into the ships themselves. The sail is not unprecedented. Again, it was done in 1979. 

Also, I have no clue why rank or posting have to do with this.


----------



## Journeyman

willellis said:
			
		

> Not really a threat to anyone at the time.





			
				willellis said:
			
		

> Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern.


So which is it?


And that is my point. 

Think before you post. If you're out of your lane (not "line" as per your PM), then don't post. If you're posting simply to earn MilPoints to play Afghan Ops (again, as per your PM), you are going to get slagged -- it's not personal, but some of us think, and care, about what is in these threads.


----------



## willellis

The ships are not a threat, but there is a cause for concern as to why they are there. To break it down, the ships themselves pose no immediate threat. The Israeli navy could easily dispose of them. Any attack initiated by them ( the ships ) would result in their own demise. Therefore it would not be in the best interest of the Iranian government to utilize them for a strike against Israel or their interests. Having said that, this is only my view on the current situation. Sorry that I did not elaborate and justify my previous posts.  I hope now that you can see how the current events can be both.

Now, as far as you comments regarding my reasons for posting, I was wondering if you could read my pm again. You are clearly confused. Again, I thought that I broke it down pretty well, but apparently not.  

Furthermore, don't try to use things like rank, element, or posting as an attempted attack on someones credibility. It's unprofessional and really, just in poor taste. They have no bearing in ones ability to contribute to a open forum.


----------



## George Wallace

willellis said:
			
		

> Ok, I will try to break it down nice and simple one last time, just for you. I agree that there is cause for concern. I agree that the Israeli government would be right to be at a state of high alert. I won't even get into the ships themselves. The sail is not unprecedented. Again, it was done in 1979.



2011 - 1979 = 32 years.

If we follow your logic in this following post, then your really bouncing around a lot.  You can't have it both ways.   Make up you mind.  Is what happened in the past relevant or not?



			
				willellis said:
			
		

> I believe that times have changed since then. I know that Panama was only 30 years ago, but even still, I feel that this is not something that will benefit the US if they were to go through with it.


----------



## willellis

There's no bouncing around. One fact does not correlate to the other. The first quote I simply provided information that a sail had been made in 1979. The second was speaking about the invasion of a foreign country, that happened 22 years ago. Time is all relative to what your are speaking about, in this case two different things. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Journeyman

The current, unique circumstances make this transit unprecedented, not "no Persian vessel has ever seen the Mediterranean."



			
				willellis said:
			
		

> Therefore it would not be in the best interest of the Iranian government to utilize them [the ships] for a strike against Israel or their interests.


Having established how you believe Israel should perceive the situation, you are now speaking on Iranian interests? You are saying it's inconceivable that Ahmadinejad would wish to orchestrate an Israeli strike against these ships -- pre-emptive or otherwise -- for _any_ reason? 

Given the regional turmoil, is it remotely possible that these assorted Arab countries might then disarm their local dissidents to strike back against Israel, the long-hated Little-Satan? The unifying crisis of an external threat has a long history in international relations. So Iran brings death and destruction to Israel...at the cost of merely two ships (they'd still have about 300 left, by the way).

This is merely _one_ possible scenario....and a reason why some put effort into differentiating between a risk and a threat.




			
				willellis said:
			
		

> Furthermore, don't try to use things like rank, element, or posting as an attempted attack on someones credibility.


Oh, it wasn't remotely an attack. I was simply pointing out the differing world-view and perspective between A) you, a sailor, safe in western Canada, and B) the likely thoughts of someone in the Israeli Defence Ministry, surrounded by hostile neighbours. "Credibility of the witness" is common in legal parlance. Online, people have only your words to determine your credibility -- influencing whether those people believe you hold _informed_ opinions or "hey, this is just my view of the situation." 

_To break it down for you_, it's always your call on how you are perceived.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> The ships are not a threat,



To be a threat, something has to have both *intent* and *capability*.

Iran has *intent*......the ships constitute *capability*.


.....threat.


----------



## GAP

> You are saying it's inconceivable that Ahmadinejad would wish to orchestrate an Israeli strike against these ships -- preemptive or otherwise -- for any reason?



Every time the Iranian population rises up and demands change, the  Ahmadinejad regime  creates a scenario that the west, in some form, threatens Iran....eg: the yellow cake incident, the refining of uranium, and on and on. This distracts the population from home grown issues, and the  Ahmadinejad government totters on.....right now there is hope to "throw the beggars out" in the rest of the Arab world, and Iran is on the list. Why, with a little provocation, we can get Israel to liven things up....


----------



## George Wallace

willellis said:
			
		

> There's no bouncing around. One fact does not correlate to the other. The first quote I simply provided information that a sail had been made in 1979. The second was speaking about the invasion of a foreign country, that happened 22 years ago. Time is all relative to what your are speaking about, in this case two different things.
> 
> Hope that helps.



Your logic escapes me.


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> To be a threat, something has to have both *intent* and *capability*.
> 
> Iran has *intent*......the ships constitute *capability*.
> 
> 
> .....threat.




I hope you don't seriously believe that Iran has the intent to attack Israel right now. I think that you might benifit from reading up on what the Alvand class is capable of before you suggest it is capable of being a threat.


----------



## GAP

willellis said:
			
		

> I hope you don't seriously believe that Iran has the intent to attack Israel right now. I think that you might benifit from reading up on what the Alvand class is capable of before you suggest it is capable of being a threat.



Iran does not have to attack Israel...it just has to provoke it, Israel, to react....


----------



## willellis

React to what? That they are sailing around the Medditerrainian?


----------



## willellis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your logic escapes me.



Alas we have reached an impass.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> I hope you don't seriously believe that Iran has the intent to attack Israel right now. I think that you might benifit from reading up on what the Alvand class is capable of before you suggest it is capable of being a threat.



I have been a praticioner of naval warfare for the last 6 years. I even have the maritime warfare basic course. IDing ships, their capabilities and what their threat is.......thats my job. I also have the benefit of military edication that taught me what a threat is and isnt.

You ?

Iran may not want to attack Israel with these 2 ships but a stated goal of the regime is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth........that is *intent*.

Iranian warships anywhere near Israel represent a *capability* (as small as it is) to act on some of that.


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have been a praticioner of naval warfare for the last 6 years. I even have the maritime warfare basic course. IDing ships, their capabilities and what their threat is.......thats my job. I also have the benefit of military edication that taught me what a threat is and isnt.
> 
> You ?
> 
> Iran may not want to attack Israel with these 2 ships but a stated goal of the regime is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth........that is *intent*.
> 
> Iranian warships anywhere near Israel represent a *capability* (as small as it is) to act on some of that.



And even still you believe that a ship laid down in the 60's is a threat  for a military that is armed by the most advanced in the world. A total of 4 SSMs vs Israel. Not really a match in my books.  I have also mentioned numerous times that all my posts are regarding the CURRENT situation ( as should everyones ). I have no doubt that if Iran had the means, they would wage open war on Israel, but the fact remains that they don't RIGHT NOW. 

Oh yea, as a NESOP, naval warfare, platform caps and lims, and platform identification are my bread and butter.  

Also I think you need to look at what


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> Not really a match in my books.



It doesnt have to be a match to be a threat. 4 SSMs are more than capable of causing damage and killing people. From an Israeli perspective this is a potential threat to their security as it comes from a nation that is openly hostile towards them.



> Oh yea, as a NESOP, naval warfare, platform caps and lims, and platform identification are my bread and butter.



Are you even out of fleet school yet ??


----------



## willellis

I wasn't going to elaborate on the missiles but I guess I have to a bit. The C802 SSM is an active missile. This means that it uses an onboard radar to find a target and destroy it. This is also called a fire and forget missile. It is a very useful seaborne tool. The problem with launching this type of missile against a land target is that it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go balistic and detonate. Not to mention that the ship has to be in weapons release range.

And yes. I am just finishing up my 3s.

 Hope that clears up any confusion.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> The C802 SSM



I'm familiar thanks...i have all the PLAN stuff right in front of me. So your assumption is that Israel has nothing on the water worth shooting at ? That must be your assumption because you are talking about attacking stuff on land and i never mentioned that.

The C802 does not "lock-on to emitters". It is not guided by passive means ( homing in to the target's radar emissions).

It is guided by inertial navigation until the terminal phase of flight, where it turns on its radar.




> And yes. I am just finishing up my 3s.



So the answer to my question is "No, i am not out of fleet school yet".




> Hope that clears up any confusion.



You are clearly the one that is confused.


----------



## larry Strong

willellis said:
			
		

> I wasn't going to elaborate on the missiles but I guess I have to a bit. The C802 SSM is an active missile. This means that it uses an onboard radar to find a target and destroy it. This is also called a fire and forget missile. It is a very useful seaborne tool. The problem with launching this type of missile against a land target is that _*it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters*_. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go balistic and detonate. Not to mention that the ship has to be in weapons release range.
> 
> And yes. I am just finishing up my 3s.
> 
> Hope that clears up any confusion.



Do you really think Amadinnerjacket and his ilk would really care if the missile hit civilians? In all likelyhood if they could not find legitimate naval targets my guess would be find the largest population mass in range and let 'er buck........


----------



## aesop081

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Do you really think Amadinnerjacket and his ilk would really care if the missile hit civilians? In all likelyhood if they could not find legitimate naval targets my guess would be find the largest population mass in range and let 'er buck........



This besides the fact that willellis cant seem to keep his missle modes straight.


----------



## willellis

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Do you really think Amadinnerjacket and his ilk would really care if the missile hit civilians? In all likelyhood if they could not find legitimate naval targets my guess would be find the largest population mass in range and let 'er buck........



If you read the next sentience after the one you highlighted, you could see that there are reasons why it matters. And I agree that your suggested tactics, however ineffective they would be.


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm familiar thanks...i have all the PLAN stuff right in front of me. So your assumption is that Israel has nothing on the water worth shooting at ? That must be your assumption because you are talking about attacking stuff on land and i never mentioned that.
> 
> The C802 does not "lock-on to emitters". It is not guided by passive means ( homing in to the target's radar emissions).
> 
> It is guided by inertial navigation until the terminal phase of flight, where it turns on its radar.
> 
> 
> So the answer to my question is "No, i am not out of fleet school yet".



Good point about your posts regarding shore targets, my mistake. I would say though that there is nothing in the water worth shooting at that would warrant the implications of doing so.

I am aware of the missile operation. What would be the term you would use to describe a missile acquiring a target in the terminal homing phase and following a pre-programed flight path to that target. 


As for fleet school, my mistake. I misread you question.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> I am aware of the missile operation.



You certainly can't properly describe it. Locking-on to an emitter as you desrcibed is a passive mode of operation ( such as used by HARMs). The C-802 in its basic form is an active homing missile. Wether it does it from launch or in the terminal phase only does not change that fact.

The C-802 that the Iranian navy has, AFAIK, is indeed purely a ship-to-ship weapon. What i am trying to tell you is that one does not have to strike land targets to strike at Israel.


----------



## willellis

I wasn't going to elaborate on the missiles but I guess I have to a bit. The C802 SSM is an *active missile*. This means that it uses an *on-board radar to find a target and destroy it.* This is also called a fire and forget missile. It is a very useful seaborne tool. The problem with launching this type of missile against a land target is that it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go ballistic and detonate. 

Call me nuts, but that looks a lot like what you are trying to say. Oh, my mistake. I should have said "acquired" rather than the term "locking-on."  :


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> I would say though that there is nothing in the water worth shooting at that would warrant the implications of doing so.



How about the oil indistry ?

http://www.oilinisrael.net/top-stories/offshore-gas-monster

How about trade in and out of the port of Haifa ?

http://www.haifaport.co.il/english.aspx

The Israeli Navy ?

Nothing worth shooting at eh ??



			
				willellis said:
			
		

> it will not be able to differentiate between military and civilian emitters. Also, if it locks onto an emitter, then looses contact with it, the missile will go ballistic and detonate.
> 
> Call me nuts, but that looks a lot like what you are trying to say. Oh, my mistake. I should have said "acquired" rather than the term "locking-on."  :



A target being locked-on to by an active missile is not an "emitter". The C-802 does not lock on to "emitters". Locking on to "emitters" is what passive guidance missiles do ( like an anti-radar missile does). The C-802 locks on to radar returns from the target in the terminal phase of flight. Radar energy from the C802 goes out, hit the target and returns to the C802.............it happens at 12.4 micro seconds per mile..........


----------



## willellis

For Journeyman reM
How is it trolling when someone debates opinions and responds to questions regarding their posts?

As for MP, I have already made my opinion regarding them clear on another thread. 

Back to topic at hand.
Again, improper word usage. Meant to use "targets". Substitute one word for another and the definition is accurate.

Which one of those targets would be worth war, given the current capabilities of the Iranian military in relation to the forces they would be up against.

Timing is a big deal here. If this were a few years to a decade down the road, and the Iranians built up a respectable force with nuclear capabilities, I would be agreeing with everything said contrary to my posts, for the most part. But as it stands, right now, IMO, there is nothing worth blowing up in relation to the severe beating that would come their way.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

I think this whole argument is just two people arguing about two completely different perspectives:

CDN Aviator says they are a threat because they can do damage to Israel and her people. (I agree)

willellis thinks they are not a threat because they cannot wipe out Israel with a single strike. (Silly perspective)


Following the same flawed logic we could say any country without Nukes is not a threat which, would be incorrect.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> How is it trolling when someone debates opinions and responds to questions regarding their posts?



Its trolling when you make arguments based on incorrect information and keeping repeating it.



> Again, improper word usage. Meant to use "targets".



It is a trend with you. You should work on it. I find it odd that, as a soon-to-be NESOp, you cant properly describe this kind of thing.


----------



## willellis

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> willellis thinks they are not a threat because they cannot wipe out Israel with a single strike. (Silly perspective)
> 
> Following the same flawed logic we could say any country without Nukes is not a threat which, would be incorrect.



That is not what I think, but thanks for telling me. 

I don't believe that the two ships are a threat because based on the Israeli defence capabilities, not one of the 4 SSMs on the Alvand would hit their target. It might be optimistic or unrealistic in some eyes, but achievable in mine. The Israeli military is supplied with arms and defences by the most technologically advanced country in the world. I also mentioned the politics behind an attack. It doesn't make sense to me why they would risk an attack with one ship. The backlash from such would be disastrous for Iran. In my opinion, the Iranians are doing exactly what NATO is. Parking a ship in "our" backyard to show that they are capable of sailing around the world and are not limited to the Gulf. And I am not saying ANY country, but most without nukes are not much of an issue. Again, IMO, it's all relative to the technology.


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> It might be optimistic or unrealistic in some eyes, but achievable in mine.



USS Stark.......HMS Sheffield...........HMS Glamorgan.....

Yeah...missiles never get through. One of those built by your "most technologically advanced country in the world"


----------



## Journeyman

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> I think this whole argument is *just two people * arguing  about two completely different perspectives:
> 
> CDN Aviator says they are a threat because they can do damage to Israel and her people. (I agree)
> 
> willellis thinks they are not a threat because they cannot wipe out Israel with a single strike. (Silly perspective)


In defence of CDN Aviator.... 

....between this thread and the Libyan Benghazi massacre, Jim Seggie, recceguy, George Wallace, milnews.ca, GAP, Larry Strong, and myself, in addition to those who just commented negatively through MilPoints, have all tried to provide willellis with some insights into Middle Eastern politics.

Guess who's the _only_ one in step.   :

Me? I'm done with it. There's an expression about not arguing with fools....


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> USS Stark.......HMS Sheffield...........HMS Glamorgan.....
> 
> Yeah...missiles never get through. One of those built by your "most technologically advanced country in the world"




Two british ships that were laid down before either one of us were born. As an Op, I am sure you know what radar systems along with current defensive Hard and Soft Kill ASMD systems we have on our ships, and how they compare to defences from the Sheffield and Glamorgan.

As for the Stark, have a read.

"Citing lapses in training requirements and lax procedures, the board of inquiry relieved Captain Brindel of command and recommended him for court-martial, along with Tactical Action Officer Lieutenant Basil E. Moncrief." 

"No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact"

This was a failure in so many areas. Maybe I'm wrong, but Israel, a country always under potential for attack, might be a bit more prepared.


----------



## Kat Stevens

willellis said:
			
		

> That is not what I think, but thanks for telling me.
> 
> I don't believe that the two ships are a threat because based on the Israeli defence capabilities, not one of the 4 SSMs on the Alvand would hit their target. It might be optimistic or unrealistic in some eyes, but achievable in mine. The Israeli military is supplied with arms and defences by the most technologically advanced country in the world. I also mentioned the politics behind an attack. It doesn't make sense to me why they would risk an attack with one ship. The backlash from such would be disastrous for Iran. In my opinion, the Iranians are doing exactly what NATO is. Parking a ship in "our" backyard to show that they are capable of sailing around the world and are not limited to the Gulf. And I am not saying ANY country, but most without nukes are not much of an issue. Again, IMO, it's all relative to the technology.



I think there's something you're overlooking here.  Iran is a culture that promotes suicidal attacks as a matter of course.  I have NO doubt that Ahminadinnerjacket would not hesitate to send a small expendable craft on a mission that would almost assuredly end in it's demise, if it were successful in provoking Israel to hit back, hard.  That would be provocation enough for much of the Arab/Persian world to unload on Israel.


----------



## GAP

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I think there's something you're overlooking here.  Iran is a culture that promotes suicidal attacks as a matter of course.  I have NO doubt that Ahminadinnerjacket would not hesitate to send a small expendable craft on a mission that would almost assuredly end in it's demise, if it were successful in provoking Israel to hit back, hard.  That would be provocation enough for much of the Arab/Persian world to unload on Israel.



and conveniently take their minds off those nasty dictators running their countries....


----------



## aesop081

willellis said:
			
		

> Two british ships that were laid down before either one of us were born.



HMS Sheffield was a Type 42 destroyer commissioned on 16 Feb 1975...only 8 months before i was born, thanks. She sank only 7 years after its commission and thus was still at the state-of-the-art at the time.



> As an Op, I am sure you know what radar systems along with current defensive Hard and Soft Kill ASMD systems we have on our ships, and how they compare to defences from the Sheffield and Glamorgan.



I am well aware of what we have, what it does and how it does it. That being said, no system is infallible.



> As for the Stark, have a read.



No system is infallible.......that includes the crew using those systems.



> Maybe I'm wrong, but Israel, a country always under potential for attack, might be a bit more prepared.



Being prepared does not mean "incapable of making mistakes / incapable of system failure".


----------



## willellis

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I think there's something you're overlooking here.  Iran is a culture that promotes suicidal attacks as a matter of course.  I have NO doubt that Ahminadinnerjacket would not hesitate to send a small expendable craft on a mission that would almost assuredly end in it's demise, if it were successful in provoking Israel to hit back, hard.  That would be provocation enough for much of the Arab/Persian world to unload on Israel.



Good point, and I agree with it. I am not sure if they would send one of their flagships (Alvand Class) to carry out the task however, even though the Navy is their smallest branch. I know that it will happen eventually, but now is not the time in my opinion.


----------



## willellis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> HMS Sheffield was a Type 42 destroyer comissioned on 16 Feb 1975...only 8 months before i was born, thanks. She sank only 7 years after its comission and thus was still at the state-of-the-art at the time.
> 
> I am well aware of what we have, what it does and how it does it. That being said, no system is infaliable.
> 
> No system is infaliable.......that includes the crew using those systems.
> 
> Being prepared does not mean "incapable of making mistakes / incapable of system failiure".




Roger out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

.....and now for something completely different may we try to keep this topic on Iran and all things Iranish??


----------



## Nfld Sapper

02:55 PM ET
Israeli Defense Minister on Iranian warships crossing Suez Canal

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer today about Iranian warships crossing through the Suez Canal. This interview will air tonight on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer 5-7 p.m. ET.  

A highlight from the full interview is after the jump. 
THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST:  The new military government that's temporarily taken charge in Egypt, they allowed these two Iranian warships to cross through the Suez Canal.  How worried are you about that?

EHUD BARAK, ISRAELI MINISTER OF DEFENSE: I'm not worried.  You know, your aircraft carriers are moving through the canal, our missile boats and submarines went through the canal.  They don't have - practically they don't have any way to avoid the Iranians moving, as long as it's a frigate and some support vessel with some cadets on it.  It's a provocation.  I don't like it but I don't think that any one of us should be worried by it.

BLITZER:  Do you know what the objective of the Iranian navy is right now in moving those two warships through the canal into the Mediterranean?

BARAK:  You know, they had to plan it before the eruption of the recent events in Egypt so it's part of a wider scheme.  If they were bringing rockets or weapons or explosives to the Hamas or Hezbollah, we would have probably act against them.  But, they're just coming with weapons with them, but they're coming with cadets, navy cadets, to visit a Syrian port.  It's a way of projecting that power, that self-confidence and certain assertiveness in the region.

You know, we are turbulent area.  But I don't see a reason to be worried.


----------



## willellis

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> 02:55 PM ET
> Israeli Defense Minister on Iranian warships crossing Suez Canal
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer today about Iranian warships crossing through the Suez Canal. This interview will air tonight on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer 5-7 p.m. ET.
> 
> A highlight from the full interview is after the jump.
> THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
> 
> WOLF BLITZER, HOST:  The new military government that's temporarily taken charge in Egypt, they allowed these two Iranian warships to cross through the Suez Canal.  How worried are you about that?
> 
> EHUD BARAK, ISRAELI MINISTER OF DEFENSE: I'm not worried.  You know, your aircraft carriers are moving through the canal, our missile boats and submarines went through the canal.  They don't have - practically they don't have any way to avoid the Iranians moving, as long as it's a frigate and some support vessel with some cadets on it.  It's a provocation.  I don't like it but I don't think that any one of us should be worried by it.
> 
> BLITZER:  Do you know what the objective of the Iranian navy is right now in moving those two warships through the canal into the Mediterranean?
> 
> BARAK:  You know, they had to plan it before the eruption of the recent events in Egypt so it's part of a wider scheme.  If they were bringing rockets or weapons or explosives to the Hamas or Hezbollah, we would have probably act against them.  But, they're just coming with weapons with them, but they're coming with cadets, navy cadets, to visit a Syrian port.  It's a way of projecting that power, that self-confidence and certain assertiveness in the region.
> 
> You know, we are turbulent area.  But I don't see a reason to be worried.



I won't say it... 

Should be a good interview. I'm interested to see what the Israeli government will say about this after reading the above clip.


----------



## a_majoor

Iran seems to have diplomatic difficulties in Africa:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/irans-africa-fiasco/?print=1



> *Iran’s Africa Fiasco*
> Posted By Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi On February 25, 2011 @ 10:30 am In Uncategorized | 13 Comments
> 
> On February 16, the Nigerian Federal High Court in Lagos began the prosecution of an alleged member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Azim Aghajani, and a Nigerian associate, Usman Abbas Jega. They are accused of arms smuggling. This video link is in Arabic [1], but is very self-explanatory. It is of the opening day of the court proceedings.
> 
> The story is a classic, just one of many on the Dark Continent nowadays: In late October 2010, Nigerian intelligence officials discovered weapons in 13 shipping containers marked building materials in Lagos’ Apapa Port. Following an investigation, Nigerian agents learned that Iran was behind the shipment of arms. At first it was assumed that the shipment was going to the Gaza Strip, however further investigations revealed that the weapons were bound for Gambia under the supervision of a group of Nigerian officials.
> 
> The shipment had been organized through International Trade and General Construction, an IRGC front company. It was picked up from the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas by CMA CGM (a French shipping company) and transported to Nigeria.
> 
> After the discovery of the shipment, the Nigerian government reported Iran to the United Nations Security Council, and Gambia has cut all diplomatic ties with Tehran.
> 
> The Iranian regime now faces a diplomatic and strategic disaster, and they are trying desperately to restore at least some of their standing in Nigeria. The Iranian regime has offered the Nigerian government a bribe, and despite everything, the Nigerian government seems happy to accept it.
> 
> In a press conference in Abuja, Nigerian ambassador to Tehran Al-Haj Abubakr Chika told reporters that Iran has offered Nigeria a one billion dollar “loan” in order to help Nigeria with a trade and economic development project. Chika added: “This loan will strengthen and expand trade and economic relations between Iran and Nigeria.”
> 
> It was a great success for Nigerian diplomacy. Iran started with an offer of $150 million, which was quickly rejected. The final amount was more than six times the original offer, and Chika claimed that the new billion dollar loan was given at a 5% interest rate with an open-ended repayment period. There’s still more to come: Chika has proposed that, in order to facilitate Nigeria’s access to Iran’s financial sources, Tehran should begin establishing trade centers in Nigeria.
> 
> There is another important element in this story: weeks before the “sudden” discovery of the 13 containers, Iran secretly hung a Nigerian and a Ghanaian [2] in the horrific Vakilabad prison in the city of Mash’had.
> 
> The two were arrested for drug trafficking, a no-no in Iran as that market is cornered by the Revolutionary Guards [3] themselves. Paul Chindo, the Nigerian, was hung in early October and Akwasi Akuaba, the Ghanaian, in August.
> 
> Both the Nigerian and Ghanaian embassies in Tehran then formally demanded an explanation as to why the two Africans were executed without notifying their respective embassies, contrary to standard international practice.
> 
> Flashback to February 2008, when Iran’s muckraking in Bahrain had reached an all-time high — up to that point, anyhow. Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, one of Khamenei’s relic advisors, announced that Iran had sovereignty over Bahrain. In response, Morocco’s King Mohammed sent Bahraini King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa a message of support, calling the Iranian remarks “absurd” and a contradiction of international law. And then in March, Morocco cut all diplomatic ties with Tehran, closing the Moroccan embassy there.
> 
> Rabat also lambasted Iran for its efforts to spread Shi’ite fervor in Morocco, which it saw as threat to the North African country’s moderate Sunni religious identity. Sunni scholars in Morocco and elsewhere also denounced what they had begun to see as Iran’s efforts to convert Sunni Muslims to Shi’ism, arguing the drive would create strife similar to the often bloody Shi’ite-Sunni divides in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, all of which had been inflamed by Iran.
> 
> Things continued to boil under the surface as policy makers in the U.S. and Europe snoozed. Then in July 2010, after the world began to see the Iranian regime for what it is, Ahmadinejad traveled to Nigeria and Mali in an attempt to forge new alliances with African states, hoping to do damage control on Iran’s growing isolation.
> 
> Attending the July 4-8 Developing Eight (D8) summit in Abuja, Ahmadinejad rallied support for his show of resistance against growing U.S.-led international pressure. Ahmadinejad launched his Africa tour with a one-day visit to Bamako to meet with Malian leaders, and though Iranian-Malian relations were never very close, Ahmadinejad has worked at further developing ties with Mali in an effort to expand African outreach.
> 
> Of the approximately 14 million people of Mali, 90% are Muslims. And at least before September 11, 2001, Mali was considered a model African secular and democratic state. Since then, however, a persistent rise of Islamism has become a matter of serious concern.
> 
> Ahmadinejad and his cronies are eager to affiliate with and milk such potential, and are creating a support system there that could be transformed into an influential power base.
> 
> During that trip, Ahmadinejad also visited Zimbabwe and Uganda. Iran now has observer status in the African Union. In February 2010, Ahmadinejad visited Nairobi, Kenya and the Indian Ocean archipelago of the Comoros with a trade delegation numbering nearly 100. While Ahmadinejad was in Nairobi, Iran and Kenya signed a memorandum of understanding on water and oil and inaugurated a direct Kenya Airways flight between the two nations.
> 
> Iran’s interest in assisting African water extends to the Sudan, where the Iranian regime has offered technical and engineering products for Sudan’s water projects.
> 
> Iran and Sudan, which are both subject to U.S. economic sanctions, have been close allies for decades and have signed a number of economic and commercial cooperation agreements. In January 2007, the two governments signed a military cooperation agreement during a visit by Sudanese Defense Minister Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Hussein to Iran.
> 
> In the volatile Indian Ocean island nation of Comoros, a presidential election just occurred. It is not clear as to where the new President Ikililou Dhoinine stands. However, prior to these elections, then-Comorian Vice President Eidi Nezam rallied for severing ties with Iran. Fratmat reported [4] of discord between the Comoran President Sambi — known as “The Ayatollah” — and his VP Eidi Nezam over relations and cooperation with Iran. Iran has been making noise about developing relations with Sambi, and though Sambi had clearly stated that Comoros is not ready for Islamic revolution [5], Nezam alleged that Sambi (who despite his Sunni background was trained in Qom by Mesbah Yazdi [6]) is handing their country over to the Shi’ites.
> 
> So in February 2009, which took Ahmadinejad to not only Comoros, but also Djibouti and Kenya, Ahmadinejad mentioned that expansion of Tehran’s relations with African countries is a “priority for Iran’s foreign policy.”
> 
> In late February, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast arrived in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, with a media delegation on a tour of Africa which was designed for public relations and media troubleshooting. They also traveled to Kenya and South Africa.
> 
> The regime-run Fars News Agency [7] wrote: “Tehran has prioritized promotion of its economic and political ties with the African states and the country is now considered as one of the African Union’s strategic partners.” But it is not so. On February 23, the Senegalese government announced that it was severing ties with Iran because Iranian weapons were used in Sunday’s attack by rebels of the Democratic Forces of Casamance that killed three Senegalese soldiers and wounded several others.
> 
> Iranian-African relations are now so bad that they are frequently front-page news all over the continent, and the feverish Iranian damage control seems not to have had much effect. Indeed, things keep getting worse.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/irans-africa-fiasco/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] This video link is in Arabic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKncF6UVEGc&feature=player_embedded
> [2] Iran secretly hung a Nigerian and a Ghanaian: http://www.transparencyng.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2762:iran-executes-nigerian-ghanaian&catid=146:diaspora&Itemid=151
> [3] that market is cornered by the Revolutionary Guards: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../tatler/2011/02/19/aids-in-irans-holy-city-of-qom/
> [4] Fratmat reported: http://fratmat.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6196:comores-iran--sambi-et-idi-le-desaccord-au-sujet-de-la-cooperation-avec-teheran-&catid=47&Itemid=132
> [5] Sambi had clearly stated that Comoros is not ready for Islamic revolution: http://alkomor.com/2010/01/31/fars-africa-a-priority-for-irans-foreign-policy/
> [6] Mesbah Yazdi: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/mullahs_vs_mullahs_part_2/
> [7] regime-run Fars News Agency: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8911280646


[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor

I doubt this isn't too far off the mark. Cutting off the oil is on their wish list, but since Iranian oil mostly goes to European and Asian markets we will see a price spike rather than a physical shortage...:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/07/iranian-official-all-middle-east-gas-and-oil-will-be-cut-off-to-infidels-soon/



> *BREAKING: Iranian Official Admits Aiding Hezbollah, Says All Middle East Oil Will Be Cut Off To the West*
> 
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On March 7, 2011 @ 9:50 am In Politics | 43 Comments
> 
> Sepah News (the house organ of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) reports:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 2nd, Commander of the Basij organization, Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Naghdi spoke at a conference of specialist working groups of Basiji corps of engineers. “Seventy percent of the world’s fossil fuel reserve is under the feet of the soldiers of the Supreme Leadership and soon oil and gas fields belonging to Muslims, which is now in the hands of America will fall into the hands of the people; that will be the time when all those overlords will have sanctions put on them.” He added: “The enemy is heavily dependent on this energy and the events in the region has them quite agitated, this of course provides us with a hopeful future.”
> 
> Naghdi added: “In combating the sanctions our engineers have achieved many impressive things which has clearly frustrated the enemy. And of course our engineers in the nuclear area were shining examples as they were faced with international powers which had colluded against us in preventing this project from going forward, but they did not succeed.”
> 
> Naghdi admitted that the Basij militia was in fact instrumental in supporting Palestinians and the Hezbollah during the 22 day and 33 day wars and this has also sparked awareness among people around the world. He said: “Today Zionism is surrounded and it’s days are numbered. If we stay the course and carry out all plans as designed, the awareness that we have inspired will be the basis for the downfall of the overlords.’
> 
> Underlining the importance of the changes taking place throughout the region and especially regarding Libya Naghdi claimed: “The Americans have installed their own agent there so that he resists; this then will be a reason for the U.S. to launch a military attack. They’ve always hated the idea of the oil being in control of Muslims, therefore they conspire against all those countries.” He added: “This military resistance in Libya resembles the atrocities committed by Saddam which in fact was America’s own set up as a part of creating the basis for total control over that country. Any action against Libya would be a stupider move than the stupidity of the invasion of Iraq. There are great men in that country and they will never allow their soil to be under American control for a single day. Should the U.S. attack any of the (liberated) countries, it will suffer a blow at the hand of all the nations of Islam.
> 
> This decade is the decade of the people’s rule in our region, to push America out, destroy the Zionists; this of course adds to our responsibilities as we must protect and guarantee that all those people who have managed to free themselves, do not fall prey to the evil overlords.”
> 
> (Translation provided by “Reza Kahlili,” a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.)
> 
> Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/07/iranian-official-all-middle-east-gas-and-oil-will-be-cut-off-to-infidels-soon/


----------



## a_majoor

Iran's take on the unravelling situation in the ME:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-have-won-on-the-nuclear-front/?print=1



> *Iran’s Supreme Leader: ‘We Have Won on the Nuclear Front’*
> 
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On April 5, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 15 Comments
> 
> In a recent meeting that took place between Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of his top-ranking military commanders, the nuclear matter was a focal point (Farsi link here [1]).
> 
> The supreme leader commented on the fact that the (Western) oppressors have employed all of their political, propaganda, and economic might in forcing the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear pursuits. Then, he said:
> 
> And now, after eight years of pressure, the Islamic Iran has won out.
> 
> The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that, in another part of his commentary, Khamenei discussed the shifts that have been occurring in several of the countries in the region:
> 
> The welcome developments that have started taking place in our region are as a result of Iran’s resistance and in the future there will be many more shifts in the region.
> 
> Khamenei pointed out that the victory of the Islamic revolution is an example of the resistance of Iranians who stood up to difficulties and pressures, which became a movement that was accompanied by impetus and pride. On this matter, he added:
> 
> Almost all analysts around the world are noting that that movements currently sweeping through the Middle East and North Africa are as a result of the Iranian people’s revolution.
> 
> The leader of the Islamic revolution emphasized that the victory of the Iranian people was a game changer for regional and international matters. Regarding Palestine and the elimination of the imposing presence of the oppressors, he stated:
> 
> The current movement in the region is a direct result of pent-up energies, ideas and decisions that have finally erupted and of course the steadfast and firm steps that Iranians have taken which shows exceptional progress made by the Islamic Iran.
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei considered the Iranian nuclear issue to be a shining example of Iranian resistance. He maintained:
> 
> What is clear in view of the remarkable progress in the nuclear development is that when it comes to a contest of the wills, Iran is mightier than all of the world powers. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in a thirty-two year long battle with the Western oppressors and not only have we not surrendered but we have in fact progressed, putting America, which was at the top of those oppressors, on the defensive to the point where they are now clearly weak and even succumbing.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-have-won-on-the-nuclear-front/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] Farsi link here: http://www.mahramanenews.com/newsF-4488.html


----------



## a_majoor

How far has the rot really spread inside the regime (and how much of this is Black Psywar?):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/have-u-s-international-spies-penetrated-deep-within-iran/



> *Have U.S., International Spies Penetrated Deep Within Iran?*
> 
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On April 12, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 14 Comments
> 
> Last month, according to reports, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards-owned cargo plane was escorted to Diyarbakir airport and forced to land by a small formation of Turkish fighter jets. The plane, said to have been headed to Syria, was carrying 600 kilos of explosives, as well as rocket launchers, mortars, Kalashnikovs, and approximately $560 million. The government of Turkey claims several sources tipped them off, including one American military source, who requested that the pilot of the cargo plane be forced to land on Turkish soil.
> 
> Turkish authorities are said to have requested a list of the contents of the plane from the Iranian regime, in response to its demand for the return of its plane along with the contents. So far, the Iranian regime has not responded, likely fearing that providing such a list would be admitting that they actually dared to fly over Turkish airspace in order to deliver arms and money to Lebanon, Syria, and Hezbollah.
> 
> The question remains: How did the U.S. and international intelligence sources have access to such information? Have the most classified intelligence and security sectors of the Revolutionary Guards been penetrated? Dozens more examples have now come to light, making it clear that not only have the Revolutionary Guards been breached, but also the heart of the supreme leadership. For example:
> 
> The escapes of various nuclear experts and military commanders, such as former Revolutionary Guards’ Brigadier General Ali-Reza Asgari, who was also a former deputy defense minister.
> 
> The mysterious explosion in the suburbs of Tehran in the summer of 2008 which destroyed a Revolutionary Guards convoy carrying military equipment destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon, killing at least 15 people and injuring scores more.
> 
> A similar explosion in 2010 at Iran’s Shahab-3 ballistic missiles depot inside a Revolutionary Guards’ base located in the western Iranian province of Lurestan. More than 18 were killed and many injured along with the destruction of many missiles.
> 
> The Stuxnet virus, which infected the Iranian nuclear facilities, was most likely carried out by an asset on the ground.
> 
> Reports pointed to an informant inside the Guards after an illegal Iranian arms shipment of rockets and grenades destined for Gambia was discovered in Nigeria last October, and Quds Force commander Azim Aghajani, who was posing as a businessman, was subsequently arrested.
> 
> In just the last couple months, valuable information about Iran has helped with the confiscation of several ships and planes which were carrying arms and explosives either to Iran or from Iran to the Middle East and Africa. One such incident occurred last month: Malaysian police seized suspicious equipment found in two containers from a ship that left a Chinese port bound for Iran. The equipment was said to be for nuclear weapons.
> 
> It is important to note that China has been collaborating with the radicals ruling Iran ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and today continues to help Iran with its nuclear ambitions. (I submitted several reports on precisely that to the CIA during the time I worked as a spy inside the Revolutionary Guards, and have covered the Chinese connection in my book, A Time to Betray [1].) China was continuously providing arms to the Revolutionary Guards despite the U.S. arms embargo back then — even training Guards’ members at a base in China. The Chinese also provided Silkworm missiles to Iran, which threatened the security of the Persian Gulf. China has done all of this while publicly denying the collaboration in its entirety.
> 
> The recent events have forced Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security to conduct well-publicized sweeps of their hierarchy every once in a while in order to filter out the “spies” among them.
> 
> So far, not a single sector of the regime — including the parliament, the president’s office, and the supreme leader, who is the commander of the armed forces and who oversees all aspects of the regime — has questioned any of the incidents: not the forced landing of the plane in Turkey, the explosions in Iran, the impounding of all the cargo ships in international waters, the carrying of arms, or many other such episodes.
> 
> Though many brave men and women in and outside of Iran risk their lives each day to help confront this evil regime, the Iranian leaders — with their collaborations with China and North Korea — grow ever closer to obtaining the nuclear bomb. It is our responsibility to humanity and to future generations to help Iranians overthrow their messianic regime before it is too late for all of us.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/have-u-s-international-spies-penetrated-deep-within-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] A Time to Betray: http://www.atimetobetray.com/


----------



## 57Chevy

The ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity wants to sell books. His book "A Time to Betray" should do well.
Book Review----> http://atimetobetray.com/praise-and-reviews/

But I think there is a lot of propaganda involved with whatever comes out of Iran.
Their supposed ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, but that will never come 
to pass, and they know full well. 

Iran is a most deceitful nation that props up their stature for influential gain
wherever/however possible and aimed primarily at their real goal. That goal (I think) is North Africa and the control
of the Mediterranean sea from the deep water ports of Gibraltar to
the Gulf of Aden and everything in between including Ethiopia.

But (at this time anyway) their influence is faltering and explains very well their 'arms' shipments
directed toward organized sympathizers in other States.
Influence alone however, is of a much greater importance than mixing it together with 'arms' dealings. [Influence by force]
and the Saudis seem to be quite aware of what they are up to. 

article:
Saudi Ambassador to Egypt threatens Iran with military action
Ambassador Al-Qattan (04/13/2011) 
http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2011/apr/13/3040
---
The situation with Iran in the region is frightening. We have conveyed a powerful message to them: We will not allow any infringement on the security of the Gulf. The security of any of the Gulf states is a red line for us in Saudi Arabia.
---
---
 article:
Influence Curtailed
By Mehdi Khalaji  (04/14/2011)
http://www.majalla.com/en/Features/article355801.ece
Democracy in the Arab world stands to strip Iran of its power

If the recent political movements in the Arab world lead to more free and liberal societies, this will promise the decline of Iranian influence in the region. For the current Iranian regime, democracy is no longer threatening only at home, but also abroad.
--- 
---


----------



## a_majoor

The regime seems to be loosing is grip on the organs of power. The race is on to see who will remain in control of the machinery of State (although many outcomes will be, to a large, extent worse than what we have now). 

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-and-loathing-in-the-revolutionary-guards/?print=1



> *Fear and Loathing in the Revolutionary Guards*
> Posted By Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi On April 14, 2011 @ 10:05 am In Iran,Libya,Middle East | 10 Comments
> 
> In an act of open insubordination, during the March 10th demonstrations in Tehran, seven members of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) security forces refused to shoot at protesters on the streets. Arrested and jailed in Tehran’s infamous Evin prison for interrogation, they are still being interrogated as the Iranian regime’s authorities debate how to deal with them.
> 
> During the interrogations the regime’s intelligence sources have repeatedly warned the seven — identities still unknown — that they must reveal the names of the “leaders” of the organization(s) they are taking orders from, as well as disclose the names of any other member of the IRGC and Basij forces working undercover.
> 
> To that end, the commanders of the Basij have joined the interrogators and are absolutely determined to make the connection between the insubordinate guards and the authors of a recent letter [1] written to Mohammad-Ali Jafari, the chief commander of the Revolutionary Guards. The open letter, published at various sites, was penned by a number of top-ranking but anonymous members of the IRGC. In it, they announce their defiance of their orders and their refusal to treat protesters with violence.
> 
> The accused reject all knowledge of such a letter.
> 
> The commanders of the IRGC are said to be debating the proper form of disciplinary action. Where a few have suggested that firing them would be just punishment, the majority are reluctant to consider letting it go at that, certain that any and all those who refuse to follow orders must be severely punished.
> 
> But execution does not seem to be an effective deterrent. Back in August 2010, a number of the IRGC members who were arrested and detained for insubordination were drugged and then buried alive [2]. But, of course, the news didn’t stay under wraps for very long. Soon enough, it was widely reported by blogs and human rights organizations.
> 
> Mohammad Naghdi, the head of the Basij auxiliary militia, has suggested that dissenting guards’ wives and children (over 12) should also be arrested. But others in the intelligence ranks feel that the insubordinates should be severely disciplined precisely to keep it all under wraps, depriving the opposition of yet another tool to use against the Iranian regime. Jafari, for his part, has firmly maintained that direct disobedience of orders is treason — and an inexcusable offense against the holy principles of the military forces who are there to defend the Iranian regime.
> 
> With the blessings of the supreme leader, Jafari has begun to set up a task force to investigate and counteract the further spread of dissent in the ranks. The task force will be comprised of handpicked members of the Quds Force and its mission is twofold: first, to send undercover members of the IRGC or Basij to infiltrate dissenting groups, and, second, to publicize and discredit the subversives in order to discourage further defections.
> 
> It is said that in a private meeting with Khamenei, Jafari expressed his fear of a domino effect within the region given the influence of recent events throughout the Middle East and North Africa upon his ranks. Jafari stressed that news of the Libyan pilots who fled Libya in a fighter jet for Malta [3] and the defections of other Libyan military personnel [4] could reverberate throughout the Iranian military and trigger similar actions.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-and-loathing-in-the-revolutionary-guards/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] a recent letter: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8331625/Irans-Revolutionary-Guard-pledges-to-hold-fire.html
> [2] a number of the IRGC members who were arrested and detained for insubordination were drugged and then buried alive: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/09/14/iran-sinks-into-the-muck/
> [3] Libyan pilots who fled Libya in a fighter jet for Malta: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110222/local/two-libyan-fighter-pilots-defect-to-malta
> [4] other Libyan military personnel: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-warship-defects-to-malta.html


----------



## a_majoor

How extensive is the damage STUXNET did?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-exclusive-actually-stuxnet-has-completely-paralyzed-iran%E2%80%99s-bushehr-plant/?singlepage=true



> *PJM Exclusive: Actually, Stuxnet Has Completely Paralyzed Iran’s Bushehr Plant*
> 
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On April 26, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 11 Comments
> 
> Contrary to the claim made by the Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense, the Stuxnet virus has disabled Iran’s nuclear centers.
> 
> Contrary to the claims made by Gholam-Reza Jalali — director of the Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense — regarding the nature of the virus and Iran’s capabilities in dealing with the fallout, Stuxnet has wreaked serious and perhaps fatal havoc on the foundations of energy structure and the operating systems of the Bushehr nuclear installation. According to the Green Liaison news group [1], over the past year and a half the Bushehr plant has incurred serious damage and has lost major capabilities.
> 
> An individual involved in Iran’s nuclear activities reports that this virus was placed in the system by one of the foreign experts contracted to Iran. The virus has automatic updating capabilities in order to track and pirate information, and can also destroy the system hardware step-by-step. The internal directives programmed into the structure of the virus can actually bring the generators and electrical power grids of the country to a sudden halt, or create a “heart attack” type of work stoppage.
> 
> According to reports from within the IRGC — in cooperation with the Revolutionary Guards Intelligence organization and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology — the Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense has set up two computer task forces titled GOWHAR and MAAHER. The two organizations are said to have spent the last year and a half investigating the extent of the damage, however due to the complexity of the virus they have not been successful with a fix.
> 
> The Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense is said to be actively seeking out experts in the fields of electrical and mechanical engineering, information technology, and artificial intelligence in order to analyze the virus. Switzerland — which has maintained friendly relations with Tehran’s regime — is said to be cooperating, and has experts covertly in contact with the Iranian security forces.
> 
> As such, the Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense is attempting to produce software and an operating system which will provide immunity and security against cyber attacks, and which can withstand all damages incurred by viruses. However, all claims as to the actual production of these active national systems by the security authorities are said to be a bluff — nothing more than a pretense to mask the complexity of the virus and ultimately Tehran’s lack of engineering expertise in this area.
> 
> The Revolutionary Guards have confirmed that the Iranian Center for Non-Military Preemptive Defense was created with the cooperation of the Ministry of Defense, which conducted a study and coordinated among 77 companies in Iran. Each of the companies is involved in the field of information technology and production, and each has been called upon to make a formal presentation of their products to Iranian authorities. Though there have been major setbacks and delays, Iran is said to be relying on only Iranian experts in this matter.
> 
> Due to the extra attention on the industrial sectors of the country, all of which are stationed in southern Iran, the danger for the virus to strike other parallel industrial systems that are related to the energy sector is entirely possible.
> 
> Given the fact that Kraftwerk Union (KWU) — a subsidiary company of Siemens — and other Russian companies such as Atom Stroi Export have not responded, the Iranian regime authorities are said to be actively seeking the supreme leader’s blessing to create an alternative power station other than Bushehr. Iranian authorities had not imagined that the work stoppage created by the virus would be so extensive. And last week, the Iranian parliamentary committee stated that the Islamic Republic would probably have been better off building a new nuclear power plant from scratch instead of constantly trying to finish the decades-old Bushehr.
> 
> Bushehr was supposed to join the power grid last year, but in March the fuel was removed from the reactor due to technical difficulties. The Russian contractors building Bushehr announced on April 8 that refueling of the nuclear plant was once more underway. The head of the plant had confirmed that all necessary inspections have been carried out to complete satisfaction, and that the plant is ready for the fuel to be transferred into the heart of the reactor.
> 
> (Also see: Iran announces discovery of new cyber attack. [2])
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-exclusive-actually-stuxnet-has-completely-paralyzed-iran%e2%80%99s-bushehr-plant/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] Green Liaison news group: http://www.greencorrespondents.com/2011/04/blog-post_2686.html
> 
> [2] cyber attack.: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/iran-announces-discovery-of-new-cyber-attack-2/


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Iranian nuclear program emerges:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print



> *Watchdog Finds Evidence That Iran Worked on Nuclear Triggers*
> By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
> 
> The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.
> 
> The disclosure by the International Atomic Energy Agency was buried inside a nine-page report on the progress of Iran’s nuclear program. The agency did not say where the evidence came from, nor did it provide many details about the allegations.
> 
> Statistics in the report also indicated that Iran has begun to recover from the effects of the Stuxnet computer worm, which first struck the country nearly two years ago in an apparent effort to cripple its production of nuclear fuel. Based on recent visits by inspectors, the agency concluded that Iran’s main production site at Natanz is now producing low-enriched uranium at rates slightly exceeding what it produced before being hit by the Stuxnet. The computer worm appears to have been designed in a secret project in which the United States, Israel and some European allies all played a role, The New York Times reported in January.
> 
> In a separate report on Syria, the agency also laid out a detailed case, for the first time, that the country was “very likely” building a secret nuclear reactor that should have been reported to the agency. The facility was bombed by Israel in September 2007, and Syria quickly bulldozed the site, eliminating most of the evidence.
> 
> Although the C.I.A. released photographs in 2008 of the reactor building, taken before the bombing raid, the agency’s inspectors in Vienna had at first been quite skeptical of any evidence provided by the Bush administration, with which they had clashed over the status of Iraq’s nuclear program. But they have now come to the same conclusion that Washington came to nearly four years ago, and American officials said they plan to use the report to press the agency’s board of governors at its meeting next month to refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
> 
> “We fully expect the board of governors to address these issues with the seriousness they deserve,” Glyn T. Davies, the American ambassador to the I.A.E.A., said in a telephone interview from Vienna.
> 
> But at a moment when the Syrian government is struggling to stay in power amid uprisings, the shooting of protesters in Syrian towns will almost certainly seem like a more urgent matter for the United Nations to address. The apparent effort by the Assad government to build a nuclear capacity, with help from North Korea, is likely to be viewed as what one American official called “a historical event, not an ongoing threat.” Even if the reactor was solely for energy production, the country would be required to tell the agency and place the facility under its safeguards.
> 
> On Tuesday, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at a joint session of Congress, urged the United States not to take the threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities off the table.
> 
> “The ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action” after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Netanyahu said. “That same year, Muammar Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation.”
> 
> Mr. Netanyahu has been far more assertive than his American counterparts in making public threats about potential military action; the Stuxnet operation, which American and Israeli officials refuse to discuss, appears to have been part of an effort to come up with a covert, nonmilitary solution.
> 
> The Stuxnet may have now run its course. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, analyzed the I.A.E.A. report and concluded that the jump in monthly production of enriched uranium was “the highest level that Iran has ever achieved.”
> 
> The official American and Israeli estimates suggest Iran is still at least a year, and most likely several years, from being able to produce a bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is meant only to produce energy, but many Western countries believe the country is hiding a weapons program.
> 
> The agency gave some details in Tuesday’s report on work that was apparently done on how to trigger a nuclear device, dating back to late 2003.
> 
> “The agency has not described these experiments to this detail before,” said Olli Heinonen, the agency’s former chief inspector.
> 
> Starting in early 2008, the agency has repeatedly accused Iran of dragging its feet in addressing “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program. Tehran has declared that all of the evidence gathered by the agency — mostly from the intelligence agencies of member countries, and some from its own inspectors — are fabrications.
> 
> The I.A.E.A.’s last report, issued in February, listed seven outstanding questions about work Iran apparently conducted on warhead design. The documents in the hands of the agency raise questions about work on how to turn uranium into bomb fuel, how to cast conventional explosives in a shape that can trigger a nuclear blast, how to make detonators, generate neutrons to spur a chain reaction, measure detonation waves and make nose-cones for missiles.
> 
> Tuesday’s report gave new details for all seven of the categories of allegations. The disclosure about the atomic trigger centered on a rare material — uranium deuteride, a form of the element made with deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. Nuclear experts say China and Pakistan appear to have used the material as a kind of atomic sparkplug.
> 
> The report said it had asked Iran about evidence of “experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons” — the speeding particles that split atoms in two in a surge of nuclear energy. In a bomb, an initial burst of neutrons is needed to help initiate a rapid chain reaction.
> 
> Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, said the compression of uranium deuteride suggested work on an atomic trigger.
> 
> “I don’t know of any peaceful uses,” he said in an interview.
> 
> The agency’s disclosure about Iran’s alleged use of uranium deuteride also suggests another possible connection between Tehran’s program and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani engineer who sold nuclear information.
> 
> A famous photograph of Dr. Khan, whom Pakistan has released from house arrest in Islamabad, shows him in front of the schematic diagram of an atom bomb on a blackboard. A pointer to the bomb’s center is labeled uranium deuteride.
> 
> Tuesday’s report also gave fresh charges on the design of missile warheads. Documentary evidence, it said, suggested that Iran had conducted “studies involving the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replace it with a spherical nuclear payload.” (_Interpolation: A spherical warhead is generally the sign of a Plutonium "implosion" weapon, while U 235 can be easily made into a much simpler cylindrical "gun" bomb. Compare pictures of "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" in 1945 to see the difference._
> 
> The Shahab-3 is one of Iran’s deadliest weapons, standing 56 feet tall. In parades, Iran has draped them with banners reading, “Wipe Israel off the map.”


----------



## smoothrider

Iran may have some defensive capability but it lacks proper offense. It will never attack Israel; Iran bluffs a lot and US sells her arm deals to the Gulf states.  
Iran has been under sanctions for many years, do you think a country that imports her defense related hardware from China would stand a chance against US or Israel or for that sake NATO countries. I don't think so. 
One thing that people from the inside know is that professionals in Iran never get to do their jobs. Professionals are always traded for people who know a lot about Islamic spirituality but barely any technical knowledge. Capable managers are always kicked aside for such incapable people. 

In terms of the nuclear weaponry, these guys may produce a bomb in 30 years, but then it will take another 30 to put it on a missile and 30 more to launch it and 30 more to get it right without missing its target. Why 30 years? Because they still import gasoline, but they are the 4th largest producer of Oil in the world. They lack the most basic technologies then they want to make nuclear weapon???

However, with all that said, we still need to antagonize them since it is in our benefit and Canada's allies benefit to have a presence in the middle east region.


----------



## smoothrider

I was also managed to find this interesting piece of news; I tried to search for the news on DEBKA and FBIS but they seem to have taken it down or archived it. 

The news is old; it is from the November 16 2001 when US forces and Northern Alliance forces were working together to oust the Taliban. However, it is a noteworthy news.

Iranian Special Forces Reportedly Fight Alongside US in Battle for Herat

Publication: Foreign Broadcast Information Service

Date: 11/16/2001

http://www.spongobongo.com/her9940.htm


----------



## a_majoor

Iran is attempting to create a "closed" internet for internal consumption:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/guest/26692/?nlid=4395



> *Iran's Answer to Stuxnet*
> 
> Might a "halal Internet" be in the wings?
> 
> Cyrus Farivar 04/25/2011
> 
> Despite all of the talk that the Web fueled revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, it remains clear that social media, or even increased Internet access, does not necessarily make revolution more likely. Even so, Iran would seem primed for an upheaval of the Islamic theocracy that has ruled the country since 1979. After all, Iran has one of the youngest, most educated and most wired populations in the Middle East. Some 70 percent of the country is under the age of 30, and the overwhelming majority of Iranians are literate. In fact, within the last several years, women have overtaken men in Iranian universities. Meanwhile, Iran's Internet penetration rate—the percentage of the population that is online—hovers around 35 percent, the highest percentage in the Middle East behind Israel. It made sense that the June 2009 uprising in Iran was thought to have been helped along by postings on Twitter, before it became more apparent that it wasn't significantly so.
> 
> The massive street protests in that uprising, which came in the wake of a disputed presidential election, were brought down with swift and brutal violence by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, Iran's vice police force. And besides such aggressive tactics offline, Iran is apursuing more and more sophisticated strategies online as well.
> 
> Two weeks ago, Ali Aghamohammadi, the Ahmadinejad Administration's head of economic affairs, was quoted in IRNA, a state-run news agency, that Iran was working on a "halal Internet."
> 
> "Iran will soon create an Internet that conforms to Islamic principles, to improve its communication and trade links with the world," he said, explaining that the new network would operate in parallel to the regular Internet and would possibly eventually replace the open Internet in Muslim countries in the region. "We can describe it as a genuinely 'halal' network aimed at Muslims on a ethical and moral level," he added.
> 
> It remains unclear exactly what a "halal Internet" would entail. Presumably, by definition, it would exclude the "haram Internet," (the Muslim equivalent of un-kosher)--so no pornography, for example. Likely, it would also feature the writings of revered Iranian Islamic leaders (the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, would be an obvious choice), as well as current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and other clerics who preach the gospel of the velayat-e faqih, the principle of the "rule of the [Islamic] jurisprudent" that has governed Iran for three decades. But beyond religous scholarship, a halal Internet probably would also feature Iran's answer to Al Jazeera and the BBC--Press TV, which already has an English-language website.
> 
> It would be unlikely, but not technically impossible, for Iran to step up its censorship and filtering regime to create this "halal Internet." After all, most Cubans, for example, are priced out of the actual Internet and steered towards the Cuban equivalent, which is restricted to an internal e-mail network, and a handful of pro-government sites. In a similar vein, the Chinese Internet is limited largely only to websites that the government doesn't view as threatening.
> 
> This isn't the first time that the Islamic Republic has tried to co-opt the Internet for its own purposes. In fact, Iran has a 10-year history of pursuing aggressive tactics online.
> 
> As early as 2000, Iran tried to fool Iranians by creating the website Montazery.com, which was an attempt to divert traffic from Montazeri.com, the true website of an Iranian dissident ayatollah under house arrest who had written a scathing memoir against Khomeini and the Islamic Republic.
> 
> Over the next several years, Iran pursued a campaign of sophisticated filtering and censorship online, while also aggressively intimidating, arresting, and forcing into exile a number of young bloggers. By mid-decade, Iran was actively encouraging pro-regime bloggers, and said in 2008 that it would unleash an "army" of 10,000 bloggers from its own Revolutionary Guard.
> 
> In the months after the so-called "Twitter Revolution," the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei joined the micro-blogging service (@khamenei_ir), sending out 140 characters of propaganda—in English and Persian—at a time.
> 
> More recently, in fact, just before the Persian New Year, on March 20, 2011, a pro-regime blogger, Omid Hosseini, was proclaimed to be the winner of a government-sponsored blogging contest--only open to blogs that were not filtered in-country (meaning they are pro-regime), of course.
> 
> But there's likely a lot more to come out of the Iranian online world, particularly now that Iran has declared that it believes the United States and Israel were behind the creation of the infamous Stuxnet worm that likely set back Iran's nuclear program. (The New York Times had arrived at a similar conclusion months earlier.)
> 
> In an interview published in IRNA on April 16, Gholam Reza Jalali, the commander of the Iranian civil defense organization, was quoted as saying that Iran was creating the "1390 Program"—1390 being the current year in the Persian calendar—which would add six cyberdefense master's degree programs and one doctoral program across various Iranian universities.
> 
> "The final solution to problems of [cyberdefense and the] formation of Jihad, is to achieve economic self-sufficiency in the production of basic software such as operating systems and software," he said.
> 
> Cyrus Farivar (@cfarivar) is the author of The Internet of Elsewhere (Rutgers University Press, 2011), a book about the history and effects of the Internet in Senegal, South Korea, Estonia, and Iran.


----------



## a_majoor

Diplomacy aand other soft measures have failed:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/goodspeed-iran-may-be-two-months-from-bomb-two-new-studies-say/



> *Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say*
> Comments Twitter LinkedIn Email Peter Goodspeed  Jun 7, 2011 – 7:11 PM ET
> 
> Goodspeed Analysis
> 
> BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images
> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
> Iran may be two months away from being able to create a nuclear bomb and there is little the international community can do to stop it, two new studies say.
> 
> Using data released last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and the operations of its nuclear program, U.S. weapons expert Gregory Jones calculates it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in just eight weeks.
> 
> “It is unclear what actions the U.S. or Israel could take (short of militarily occupying Iran) that could now prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons,” Mr. Jones wrote in a study published last week by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre.
> 
> “The reality is that both the U.S. and Israel have failed to prevent Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons whenever Iran wishes to do so. It is time to recognize this policy failure and decide what to do next, based on a realistic assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts,” he said.
> 
> Mr. Jones’ calculations come as Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s director, chastised Iran for not co-operating with international nuclear inspectors. He said Monday some aspects of its nuclear activities may be linked to a weapons program.
> 
> The IAEA chief has demanded Tehran open a list of sites for inspections, after the agency received information indicating a “possible military dimension” to the nuclear work.
> 
> But on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the head of the IAEA of doing the bidding of Washington and said no offer from any world power would stop it from enriching uranium.
> 
> “I have said before that Iran’s nuclear train has no brake and no reverse gear … We will continue our path,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding that Iran would continue to co-operate with the IAEA “as long as they move based on justice.”
> 
> In a separate study released Tuesday, RAND Corp., a Calfornia-based think-tank with ties to the Pentagon, which also employs Mr. Jones as a part-time researcher, has warned that attempts to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons face major obstacles.
> 
> “Iran today has largely acquired the materials, equipment and technology needed to develop a nuclear weapon,” the RAND report says.
> 
> “International efforts to control exports and interdict trade can now only hope to slow Iran’s progress and possibly deny it the specific technologies needed, for example, for nuclear warhead miniaturization and for mating a warhead on a missile.”
> 
> The goal of U.S. foreign policy should now shift to dissuade Iran from taking the next step of making a weapon, the study says, adding if that fails, Washington should have a back-up strategy to deter a nuclear-armed Iran.
> 
> “It is not clear that Iran has made the decision to create actual nuclear weapons,” it goes on. “Three future nuclear postures are possible: (1) Iran could achieve a ‘virtual capability’ by developing the know-how and infrastructure to assemble a nuclear weapon but stopping there, (2) It could develop nuclear weapons but leave this capability ambiguous, or (3) it could acquire nuclear weapons and declare their existence through withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or by conducting a nuclear test.”
> 
> It may still be possible for the United States to influence the outcome of Iran’s internal political debate on its nuclear posture, the study says, noting U.S. responses could involve a mix of sanctions and military pressure as well as incentives to lower the perception of a U.S. threat.
> 
> “Iran’s national security interests — the survival of the regime, the protection of its homeland and its goal of expanding its regional influence — are unlikely to change,” says Lynn Davis, lead author of the RAND study.
> 
> “The challenge for the United States is to influence how the Iranian leadership pursues these interests, for they could provide reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons.”
> 
> Mr. Jones’ study said Iran has the equivalent of 5,184 centrifuges in operation in its nuclear research program and has stockpiled 38.3 kilograms of 19% enriched uranium.
> 
> To produce a nuclear bomb, it would need 158.2 kg of 19% enriched uranium — which would take about six weeks to accumulate. This would then have to be further refined into weapons-grade uranium (90% enriched), the study says.
> 
> Under existing nuclear safeguards, Iran is allowed to retain stockpiles of 19% enriched uranium.
> 
> But if Tehran were to decide to break out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear bomb, it would take only two weeks to refine a 158.2-kg (19% enriched) stockpile into weapons-grade uranium.
> 
> Since Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities are not continually monitored, “the process could be well along or even completed before it was discovered,” Mr. Jones said.
> 
> National Post, with files from Reuters
> pgoodspeed@nationalpost.com


----------



## a_majoor

More on the accelerated Iranian nuclear program. One thing which has been mentioned before in other news reports it the idea that Iran is working on an "implosion" device. This usually means a weapon using Plutonium rather than Uranium, since enriched Uranium can be assembled int a cylendrical "gun" device while for various technical reasons Plutonium cannot. I'm not sure where this is coming from, the Iranian emphasis has been on centrifuge "farms" to enrich Uranium rather than nuclear reactors to "breed" Plutonium.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iran-to-test-first-nuclear-bomb-by-2012/?print=1



> *Iran to Test First Nuclear Bomb by 2012?*
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On June 9, 2011 @ 11:00 am In Uncategorized | 44 Comments
> 
> According to sources in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered them to proceed immediately with the completion of the Iranian atomic bomb project, including testing and arming of missiles with nuclear payload.
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei’s decision is based on a belief by the Islamic regime’s strategists that both America and Israel lack the courage and the ability to dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian regime believes that America and Israel fear Iran’s retaliation, and that it has had them frozen in place and confused as to what action to take next. They have concluded that this presents a great opportunity for the Iranian regime to become a nuclear-armed state without any interference from the outside.
> 
> Khamenei offered the same message on June 1 [1] at the Imam Hussein Military Academy:
> 
> The Great Satan, since the early days of the Revolution, has mobilized its military, financial, propaganda, and political empire to defeat the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation, but the political realities in Iran and the region show that the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution.
> 
> He further stated that the failure of the U.S. policies in the Middle East and the promising revival of Islam in the region are the realization of the divine promises to the Iranian nation — and that the recent events herald the realization of God’s promise that Islam and the Muslims will ultimately triumph.
> 
> The authorization for nuclear weapons by the supreme leader has been followed by the recent announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran [2] (AEOI), Fereidoon Abbasi, that Iran will start the installation of more advanced centrifuges at the previously secret site, the Fordo plant near the city of Qom. He also said that this will triple Iran’s production of 20 percent enriched uranium.
> 
> A chilling article titled “The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day [3]” recently appeared on an Iranian website, Gerdab.ir, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. This is the first time that an outlet belonging to the Iranian government openly talked about a nuclear bomb — Iran has insisted repeatedly that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
> 
> The commentary states that after the Iranian nuclear bomb test, everyone will be able to go about their business as usual. The explosion will not be so strong as to bring destruction to the neighboring areas, though not so weak that the Iranian scientists have difficulties with their test. But it will be a day for Iranians to be filled with pride. The article even predicts playfully how Western media will cover the event.
> 
> Most chilling is how the article ends with a quote from the Quran (Al Enfal 60):
> 
> And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.
> 
> Iran, which was for years enriching only to the 3.5 percent level due to fear of retaliation by the international community, started its enrichment to the 20 percent level last year after the Obama administration’s soft approach toward the regime. Twenty percent enrichment is 80 percent of the way to weaponization.
> 
> Iran currently has over 3600 kilograms of enriched uranium at 3.5 percent, enough for three nuclear bombs if enriched further. It also has an announced inventory of 40 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium. If true, it will take the Iranians only two months to further enrich that stockpile into 20 kilograms of enriched uranium over 90 percent, sufficient for one nuclear warhead.
> 
> The IAEA revealed in a recent report that Iran has sought and experimented with certain technologies that could make a type of atom bomb known as an implosion device, considered more advanced than the bomb America used on Hiroshima.
> 
> I revealed on May 31 [4] that the Revolutionary Guards are now in possession of two nuclear capable warheads, with eight more to be delivered within the next ten months. The Guards expect to have at least two fully armed nuclear warheads before the end of the current Iranian calendar year, March 2012.
> 
> America and its European allies have continuously tried to change the behavior of the regime with incentives and negotiations. The Iranian leaders refused every time to accept any offer, buying time in order to get to the point of no return. The jihadists in Iran will have their nuclear bomb, and we have only ourselves to blame.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iran-to-test-first-nuclear-bomb-by-2012/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] same message on June 1: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=241785
> [2] announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9003181119
> [3] The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day: http://www.gerdab.ir/fa/news/5218
> [4] revealed on May 31: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/iran-nuclear-warheads/


----------



## a_majoor

Iranian rhetoric indicates what they see as Iran's "Grand Strategy". Do they have the tools and economic base to carry out their program, though?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-official-%e2%80%98we-will-use-our-missiles-to-protect-other-muslim-states%e2%80%99/?print=1



> *Iranian Official: ‘We Will Use Our Missiles To Protect Other Muslim States’*
> 
> Posted By 'Reza Kahlili' On June 14, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 38 Comments
> 
> Last Thursday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani — while at the Syarif Hidayatullah [1] State Islamic University in Indonesia — stated that Iran will use its missiles to defend other Muslim nations if threatened.
> 
> This is the first time that a high-ranking Iranian official has issued such a warning. In effect, Iran is expanding its defense strategy from protecting their own sovereignty to a “defensive umbrella” over other Islamic nations.
> 
> Larijani based his argument on what he called “the school of the late Ayatollah Khomeini,” the founder of the Islamic Republic: Muslims should possess enough defensive strength to use against other countries should one of those countries attack. Larijani further stated:
> 
> We do not hide our defensive advancement and (we) have designed advanced missile systems. … Israel and the U.S. should know that if they want to act violently toward Muslims, we will stand in their way.
> 
> Commenting on the popular uprisings in Middle Eastern and North African nations, Larijani said the people of these countries can no longer tolerate their dictatorial governments, which are subservient to the West:
> 
> The United States and other Western countries cannot manipulate these uprisings … the more they pressure these regional nations, the more determined their people will become.
> 
> I revealed recently [2] that the Revolutionary Guards have now expanded the reach of their missiles to 2000 miles, which covers the capitals in Western Europe. These missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Also, through a secret pact with Venezuela which was signed by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on October 19 in Tehran, the Guards are constructing a missile installation [3] to be built inside Venezuela with missiles able to reach U.S. shores. The Guards are also actively arming Hezbollah, which now has over 40,000 rockets, and Hamas with over 10,000 rockets.
> 
> The Guards have stockpiled more than 1,000 ballistic missiles while constantly introducing more advanced models: the recently announced Qiyam 1 missile is difficult for air defense systems to detect. The Guards have also stockpiled hundreds of anti-ship missiles capable of disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Most alarming is the Guards’ intent to arm their missiles with nuclear payloads [2], which they expect to accomplish within the next nine months.
> 
> This is occurring while the Iranians have expanded their naval presence by sending several submarines into the Red Sea [4] to accompany its Navy’s 14th fleet there. The Iranian Navy has also widened its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
> 
> The recent statements by the Iranian officials — such as Iran’s supreme leader’s claim that “the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution [5],” or Ahmadinejad’s claim that “Iran’s nuclear train has no brakes and no reverse gear [6]” — are a continuation of their aggressive foreign policy. They have claimed victory for their nuclear program as the international community has been unable to stop it. They assert that the sanctions are not working as designed because many countries continue to trade with Iran. They also believe that the West lacks the courage to confront them.
> 
> Most importantly: Iran’s leaders believe that the time for a worldwide Islamic state is at hand.
> 
> Will the West take this threat seriously, or will we allow the jihadists to expand their power? Delusional leaders bring nothing but destruction and pain to the world; it is certain that the Iranian leaders are delusional. They believe the Islamic prophecies, the Hadith, say they can bring about the Islamic conquest of the world by destroying Israel and America. They intend to try.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-official-%e2%80%98we-will-use-our-missiles-to-protect-other-muslim-states%e2%80%99/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] at the Syarif Hidayatullah: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242210
> 
> [2] I revealed recently: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/iran-nuclear-warheads/
> 
> [3] Guards are constructing a missile installation: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/05/17/iran-building-secret-missile-installation-venezuela/#ixzz1MdBk5HrJ
> 
> [4] sending several submarines into the Red Sea: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/iran-sends-military-submarines-to-red-sea-for-collecting-information-report/
> 
> [5] the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution: http://shiapost.com/?p=1278
> 
> [6] Iran’s nuclear train has no brakes and no reverse gear: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/iran-says-no-offer-can-stop-it-enriching-uranium/


----------



## CougarKing

From earlier this month:



> *Iran submarines dispatched to Red Sea: report*
> 
> By null | AFP – Tue, 7 Jun, 2011
> 
> Iran's navy has sent submarines to the Red Sea "to collect data," its first mission in distant waters, the Fars news agency reported Tuesday without giving further details.
> 
> "The submarines, dispatched in May, have entered the Red Sea after a mission in the Gulf of Aden to collect data on the sea bed in the high seas and to identify other warships," Fars said quoting an unnamed source.
> 
> *"They are accompanying an Iranian navy fleet," it added, without mentioning the number of the submarines, their types or the make of the fleet.*
> Iran has several types of submarines, including the home-produced 500-tonne Nahang which was first introduced to the navy in 2006, as well as three Russian-made submarines of the Kilo class purchased in the 90s.
> 
> In August 2010, Iran's army chief Ataollah Salehi announced the inauguration of a new "semi-heavy" submarine, named Qaem, capable of operating in the high seas, such as the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Aden.
> 
> Iran's navy operates 11 mini submarines of the domestically built 120-tonne Ghadir class, first launched in 2007, which according to Iranian officials are "stealth" submarines and patrol shallow waters, notably the Gulf.
> 
> Last February, two Iranian warships were sent to the Mediterranean Sea for a visit to Syria, crossing the Red Sea and Suez Canal, a move that angered Israel.
> 
> The two ships docked in Syria on February 24, marking Iran's first such mission since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
> 
> Tel Aviv put its navy on alert, following the entry of the Iranian vessels in the Mediterranean, while Israeli President Shimon Peres described the move as a "political provocation."
> 
> link


----------



## Rifleman62

Take a look at who participated. What position did they take at the conference as thousands of western soldiers are been killed and maimed in their countries?

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

*U.S., Britain, Israel accused of fomenting terrorism*

28 Jun 2011 - National Post 
    
Participants at the International Conference of the Global Fight Against Terrorism also accused the United States, Britain and Israel of fomenting terrorism.

“If we’re reaching out and trying to make sure that people fight terrorism, we need to go as far as possible to make sure that everyone does it,” said Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the secretary general.

“We don’t have to agree with all the statements.”

He denied Mr. Ban had explicitly endorsed the conference’s outcomes.

U.S. and other Western intelligence services have long said Iran is a state sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, which the United States, Canada and others consider to be terrorist entities.

Citing the “wicked policy” of the United States and Britain, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, opened the conference with an apparent call for terror attacks on those countries as he said in a statement it was “a duty for all Muslims to confront and fight this inauspicious offspring.”

He was followed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, who claimed Washington manufactured the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks as pretexts to put down Muslims and to benefit economically from the resulting panic.

The conference’s website featured cartoons, including one showing a bloody fingerprint depicted as a U.S. flag and the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite.

On Monday, the Canadian-led monitoring group UN Watch spearheaded calls for the UN to officially wash its hands of the Iranian conference.

“If the Chinese Communist Party will now organize an international conference for Internet freedom, and if Syria’s President [Bashar] Assad will hold one for the right to peaceful protest, will the UN also endorse those, on grounds that it is important for all nations to work together in promoting human rights?” asked Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based organization.

UN Watch said it had written to the UN missions of the United States and Britain calling on them to “intervene.”

The letters said both countries should “demand that the UN distance itself from the [Iranian] Orwellian propaganda exercise — an insult to victims worldwide of Iraniansponsored terrorism — and that it refrain from similar acts in the future.”

The UN said it intended Monday to release the “as-delivered” text of Mr. Ban’s remarks, which Iran said had been read on his behalf in Tehran by his envoy, Mohammad Rafi al Din Shah.

Mr. Haq highlighted that the UN General Assembly, where all 192 member states sit, is frequently a platform for what many Western countries would consider outlandish statements.

“Does that mean that the General Assembly should be abolished because people say things that are [deemed] wrong there?” Mr. Haq said.

Among leaders attending the conference were presidents Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, *Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Jalal Talabani of Iraq.*


----------



## CougarKing

> *Saudi will seek nuclear arms if Iran gets them: report*
> 
> Thu, June 30 2011 07:05 | 171 Views
> 
> London (ANTARA News/Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has warned NATO that it would pursue policies that could lead to "untold and possibly dramatic consequences" if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, a British newspaper reported on Wednesday.
> 
> The Guardian newspaper quoted Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington and Britain, speaking to senior NATO officials earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at a British air base.
> 
> Faisal did not outline what the policies would be, but the Guardian quoted an unnamed Saudi official in Riyadh it said was close to the prince as saying that Iranian nuclear weapons would compel the Gulf state do develop its own nuclear arms.
> 
> "We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don`t ... If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit," the Guardian quoted the official as saying.
> 
> Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Israel and the West fear the Islamic republic is developing nuclear weapons.
> 
> Earlier on Wednesday, Britain accused Iran of carrying out covert tests of a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead, in violation of a U.N. resolution, an accusation which Tehran immediately denied.
> 
> Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Gulf neighbours view Shi`ite Iran with suspicion, and accuse it of meddling in the region to increase its influence, charges Tehran denies. (*)
> Editor: B Kunto Wibisono
> COPYRIGHT © 2011
> 
> 
> Antara News link


----------



## a_majoor

Internal stresses keep growing in Iran. It may be a race to see which faction can seize control, or if the crumbling economy takes everyone down. The end state is totally unpredicatable, and may well be worse, rather than better, for us.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/07/07/iran-approaching-fission-i’m-talking-politics-not-nukes…/?print=1



> *Iran Approaching Fission? I’m Talking Politics, not Nukes…*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On July 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 29 Comments
> 
> The mullahs have stepped up their tempo of killing, both at home and abroad.  The main difference is that the Iranian citizens who are tortured and executed are slaughtered by fellow-Iranians.  Our guys and our friends and allies are gunned down, or, more often, blown up, by proxies.  As I have said before, the Iranians dread direct confrontation with other countries, both because they have no confidence in the loyalty of their armed forces (including the thoroughly corrupted Revolutionary Guards Corps), and because it’s not their way.  They prefer to kill stealthily, not openly.  You may have noticed that when the Saudis sent troops to help their neighbors in Bahrain put down an Iranian-inspired insurrection, the Tehran regime first thumped its chest  and promised to send the Guards to fight it out.  Then… nothing happened.  They just slinked away, back into their caves.
> 
> Call it the mullahs’ way of war.  Let someone else die for you, avoid exposure, and never ever risk your own skin. And  they pay heavily for it. As some Israeli analysts have written [1],
> 
> It can be assumed that the Sunni camp, headed by Saudi Arabia, is fully aware of the political and military significance of Iran’s weakness and its unwillingness to initiate face-to-face conflict. This will have ramifications on both the regional and the global levels.
> 
> The proxy killings [2] are on the front pages: Iraq and Afghanistan [3], with American forces on the way out, are prime targets for Iran’s clients, as our military commanders—including Robert Gates, now departed from the Pentagon—and yesterday, Ambassador Jeffries in Iraq, have been telling anyone who cares to listen.  If my information is right, we will see lots more of this, as well as similar havoc in Africa, where the Iranians have considerable appetite for terror bases, commercial agreements, and basing rights.
> 
> The direct slaughter at home is not so well covered in the popular press, but Iranians see it every day.  Over the weekend, more than fifty executions were publicly announced [4], and poor souls are rounded up for outrageous prison terms.  Crackdowns on “immoral” behavior (the wrong sort of haircut, the wrong sort of head scarf) are intensifying, and women are now forbidden to enter coffee and tea bars where hookahs are in use.
> 
> Have a look at this interview [5] with one of the country’s leading human rights lawyers, who was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He told the interviewer he felt fortunate to have escaped with his life.
> 
> For those who have chosen to believe that the Tehran regime is stable—and therefore that we should appease it–this is the good news.  It shows that Persia is ruled by mass murderers who are determined to kill anyone they fear.  You’ll recognize the recent application of these methods in Syria, which is because the Iranians are “guiding” Bashar Assad through his time of troubles.  The mullahs know that if Syria falls, Iran is suddenly without its favorite fighters, from Hezbollah to Hamas, from the Brothers to the Islamic Jihad.  As if they weren’t frenetic enough, they are also counseling Qadaffi (so sayeth [6]Le Monde [6] ).
> 
> On the other hand, it is hard to imagine any group wrecking a country, and its own ability to rule, more effectively than the tandem of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now the political equivalents of colliding sub-atomic particles.  In recent weeks, several of Ahmadinejad’s appointees have been sacked, and some even arrested.  He was subjected to the startling indignity of being censored [7] by the official state broadcasting network.  He tried to recover by announcing that every Iranian family would receive one thousand square meters of land (think sand, there’s quite a substantial desert in the east), only to have Khamenei himself diss the scheme.  Meanwhile, the Middle East’s evilest empire attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of State, for its generous toleration of human trafficking [8], mostly in women’s bodies.
> 
> No surprise, then, that Ahmadinejad lost it.  This regime has been a fascinating example of reciprocal payoffs and blackmail for years, but the facts have usually been hidden from public view.  No more.  Ahmadinejad made an amazing speech, accusing the Revolutionary Guards (hitherto almost universally believed to be the president’s most reliable base of support) of smuggling two billion dollars’ worth of cigarettes into the country via ports and piers outside the purview of Customs.  Such enormous sums, he said “invite all the smugglers of the world, not to mention our own ‘smuggler brethren.’”  The last two words are code for the Guards.
> 
> The RG Commander, Mohammad-Ali Jafari, denied it all, but then a news service still friendly to the president published a list of jetties where Customs did not function.  Whereupon a retired Guards officer said that if the Supreme Leader asked the Guards to bring him a hat, they would obey.  This (h/t Ali Alfoneh) is a reference to an old Persian saying, “If the King demands someone’s hat (the president’s in this case), his servants will bring it with the head still inside.”
> 
> I have long thought that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad were fused somewhere below the ribs, and would not be foolish enough to engage in public combat.  I may have to reconsider.  As we used to say in the old days, the objective situation is very revolutionary, and the people are openly contemptuous of the regime.  The economy is so bad that the Central Bank has been forbidden to release official data on inflation and other key indicators—a sure sign that the actual numbers are considerably worse than the official ones (knowledgeable sources tell me that real inflation is well over 50%).  And favoritism for the mullahs-and-commanders-of-industry is so blatant that workers are getting the back of the regime’s gnarled hand [9]:
> 
> In an interview with the Iranian Labor News Agency, Ali Akbar Eivazi, a board member at the Tehran Islamic Labor Councils Coordination Center, has reported new proposed changes to the Iranian Labor Law…he said: “In the modifications submitted by the Labor Ministry, 28 articles have been changed—in effect, all workers’ benefits have been axed in those 28 items.”
> 
> It’s not likely to help anyone.  Iran’s economic performance last year ranked in the bottom ten countries, and there is no sign that it’s getting better.  The owners can clearly oppress the workers all they want (the many strikes and protests over worsening conditions and chronic failure to pay salaries have little effect and are rarely reported outside the blogosphere), but the wreckage of Iran at the hands of the ruling mullahcracy will be hard to reverse.  The palpable inability of the regime to manage the country adds to the people’s contempt, and fuels the frequent nocturnal chants from the rooftops of the major cities, “Death to the Dictator.”
> 
> The misery of Iranian workers—in its most dramatic manifestation, the arrest and ongoing torture of Mansour Osanloo, the president of the Tehran Bus Drivers’ Organization—has come to  the attention of Western trade unionists, and the Teamsters recently made Osanloo an honorary member [10], and called for their counterparts around the world to support him and his followers.
> 
> If we had a government that took seriously the Iranian war against us, we would be echoing the Teamster’s call for freedom of association in Iran.  Indeed, we’d be busy supporting the people against the regime, both in Iran and in Syria.  But no.  Instead we appease Iranian allies like the Muslim Brotherhood [11], continue to meet with regime officials, and have just acquiesced in the official participation of the Islamic Republic in a NATO conference, which further demonstrates our utter failure to fight back against our known killers.
> 
> One might well marvel at the fecklessness of our so-called leaders, but the pattern of their cowardice and their headlong retreat from even minimal support for democratic revolution in enemy lands—while hailing it when it threatens friends, allies, and dubious characters (let’s say) like Qadaffi—is so well established (not even a peep on behalf of American hostages [12], lest we all forget) that most of us have long since stopped being shocked.
> 
> That does not mean we should lose our rage at the appeasers.  Military families like ours are certainly entitled to demand that our troops strike back at our enemies, and the so-called “peace movement,” if it understood what peace actually requires, would be campaigning in favor of the Iranian and Syrian revolutions.  They don’t, and we know why:  they want the Syrian and Iranian tyrants to prevail, dominate a new Middle East devoted to the destruction of the West, and create a radical Islamist and radical Leftist caliphate.
> 
> That’s a road to war, and the Obama Administration has found a unique way of sprinting along it:  empowering our enemies at home and abroad, encouraging them to believe that we will never fight back.
> 
> And our brave domestic opposition?  So far as I know, only Pawlenty—who does not seem to have generated much enthusiasm–has defined the defeat of the Tehran regime as the central goal of a sensible policy.  None of the others has even come close.  So color me unimpressed.
> 
> As of now, our best hope lies in the self-destructive activities of the Iranian leaders.  Watch that space.
> 
> UPDATE:  Thanks to “Shiraz” in the comments for reminding me that Rep. McCotter has made similar statements.  So that makes two.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/07/07/iran-approaching-fission-i%e2%80%99m-talking-politics-not-nukes%e2%80%a6/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] Israeli analysts have written: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5424.htm
> [2] proxy killings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/war-zones/weapons-prove-iranian-role-in-iraq-us-says/2011/07/05/gHQAUnkmzH_story.html
> [3] Iraq and Afghanistan: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/02/iran-funnels-new-weapons-to-iraq-and-afghanistan/
> [4] more than fifty executions were publicly announced: http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article2149 and http://radiozamaneh.com/english/content/secret-hangings-karaj-prison
> [5] this interview: http://banooyesabzirani.blogspot.com/2011/07/candid-discussion-with-prominent.html
> [6] so sayeth : http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2011/07/05/le-jeu-de-l-iran-dans-les-crises-en-libye-et-en-syrie_1544919_3218
> [7] being censored: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/7/1/iran-snapshot-ahmadinejad-is-censoredby-the-state-broadcaste.html
> [8] human trafficking: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2011/164232.htm
> [9] the back of the regime’s gnarled hand: http://iranlaborreport.com/?p=1546
> [10] the Teamsters recently made Osanloo an honorary member: http://news.yahoo.com/teamsters-honor-iranian-labor-hero-28th-international-convention-020011947.html
> [11] we appease Iranian allies like the Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58094.html
> [12] American hostages: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110701/wl_mideast_afp/iranushikersun


----------



## CougarKing

> link
> 
> *The Iranian navy plans on deploying warships to the Atlantic Ocean as part of a programme to ply international waters, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari said in statements published Tuesday.
> 
> But the commander of the navy, quoted by Kayhan newspaper, said he was waiting for "final approval" before launching the operation.
> "In case of final approval (of the project) a fleet of the navy will be sent to the Atlantic (Ocean)," Sayari was quoted as saying without giving details about the fleet or where in the Atlantic Ocean it would be deployed.*
> 
> "The presence (of ships and submarines) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean and international waters is still on the agenda of the navy," Sayari said.
> 
> *According to Sayari navy ships assigned to long-distance missions will be equipped with Noor cruise missiles.*
> 
> "Ships going on missions are equipped with surface-to-surface Noor missiles," which have a range of 200 kilometres (125 miles) he said.
> 
> *In February Iran moved two warships into the Mediterranean Sea, crossing the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, triggering anger in Israel which branded the move "political provocation" and put its navy on alert.
> 
> The two ships docked in Syria on February 24, marking Iran's first such mission since the 1979 Islamic revolution.*
> 
> Analysts said the Islamic republic was trying to project its clout in the region at a time when anti-government protests sweeping the Arab world from Casablanca to Cairo are shifting the regional balance of power.
> In recent years Iranian warships have also patrolled Iranian ships and those of other nations as they made their way across the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden.
> *Iranian submarines of class "kilo" escorted warships to the Red Sea "to collect data" in June, in their first mission in distant waters.
> Iranian maritime forces are composed mainly of small units equipped with missiles and are operating under the control of the Revolutionary Guards in the Gulf.
> The ocean-going fleet is also small and under the command of the Iranian navy which comprises a half-dozen small frigates and destroyers from 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes, and three submarines of 3,000 tonnes of class "Kilo" purchased from Russia in the 1990s*


----------



## sean m

Qassem Suleimani- the general in charge of the Quds forces seem to be a pretty powerful individual.  This article from the telegraph refers to how he has much influence with the current Iraqi government. The article also refers to how Syria is under his operational jurisdiction. This is interesting since the Huffington post has released an article which states that Iran is currently supporting the Syrian regime financially and has provided people from the Quds force as well other Iranian security services to provide advise on how to deal with the uprising as well as provide weaponry.  Here are the  two articles,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/irans-proxy-war-in-syria_b_911218.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/28/qassem-suleimani-iran-iraq-influence

foreignpolicy.com has listed General Qassem Suleimani as one of the "top 5 spooks most powerful spooks in the middle east".

On Frontline (skip chp.5) The show refers to and interviews Qassem Suleimani. It also refers to how US special forces attempted to arrest him, in Iran.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

Here is his biography, http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/brigadier-general-qassem-suleimani-biography

This man seems to be a very powerful, skillful military leader. Could he be considered as one of the greater military leaders of unconventional warfare of this area? Also how do you think the west should  react to a threat like him, in this current circumstance?


----------



## a_majoor

A look at the Iranian nuclear program as it might appear from the inside. While strange to our eyes, it has a certain internal logic:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/08/31/who-killed-the-iranian-nuclear-scientists-i-ask-the-dead-spook/?print=1



> *Who Killed the Iranian Nuclear Scientists? I Ask the Dead Spook…*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On August 31, 2011 @ 7:03 pm In Uncategorized | 2 Comments
> 
> “So who has been killing all these Iranian nuclear physicists?” I was talking to the spirit of my old friend James Jesus Angleton, the one-time chief of CIA counterintelligence, via my trusted Ouija board. That device had been out of commission for some time, what with all the “natural” disturbances of life in Washington, DC, but it seems to have recovered nicely from the earthquake and the hurricane, and the familiar gravelly voice came through loud and clear.
> 
> JJA:  Well, if I had to bet, I would put the family fortune on the regime’s security forces.
> 
> ML:  Not on the Israeli Mossad?
> 
> JJA:  No, that would be a surprise to me. Those who think that Mossad killed the physicists are simply reasoning from first principles: Israel wants to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, these guys were working on Iranian nuclear weapons, therefore the Israelis did it. But for the Israelis to do it requires an amazing ability to operate inside an enemy country, and if in fact they have that ability, they would want to keep it secret until such a time that they wanted to deliver a really major blow. Perhaps in the fullness of time we’ll see Mossad’s capabilities inside Iran, but I do not believe we have seen them yet.
> 
> On the other hand, the regime had the means and the opportunity to kill them, and it is very easy to imagine possible motives.
> 
> ML: You say “motives,” plural. More than one?
> 
> JJA:  Oh yes! (He starts to laugh but segues into a short coughing fit. Wherever he is, Mayor Bloomberg is clearly not in charge.)
> 
> For starters, in a country like Iran where paranoia is the true national religion and conspiracy the most common form of worship, the physicists might have been suspected of treason. Did they attend international meetings? One or two did, I believe, and the victims may have asked for visas for additional foreign trips. That would have aroused dark suspicions in high places. So that’s one possible motive.
> 
> The easiest motive is politics. The country is in constant turmoil; maybe these physicists were friends of the Green Movement or some dissident cleric, or were reading the wrong sort of material online. It seems that the regime was very good at monitoring citizens’ Internet activities, after all.
> 
> ML:  You’re talking about the so-called “man in the middle” scheme [1] to read e-mails, right?
> 
> JJA:  Right.  And you can be sure that the regime is using other methods to hack into the Internet and identify Iranians who are working against Khamenei and his crowd.   After all, they are being trained and assisted by the Chinese, who so far as I can tell from this distance are world champs.
> 
> We also know that the regime is capable of targeted assassinations, not just the kind of mass brutality we’ve seen in the broad repression. And once you start down that road, as Don Corleone will tell you, you can’t rest easy unless you can assure the silence of all the assassins.
> 
> ML:  Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, right?
> 
> JJA:  Well it’s not that bad, whatever Benjamin Franklin thought.  There are secrets.  It’s a question of reliability.  And in Iran, trust is in very short supply, to put it mildly.  Take the case of the guy who just confessed to spying for Israel. You know, the kickboxer. Majid Jamali Fashi.
> 
> ML:  I remember, he confessed to spying for Mossad and was sentenced to death recently.  What’s that got to do with the assassination of nuclear scientists?
> 
> JJA:  Iranian martial arts athletes were used by the security forces,  to attack demonstrators in the streets, to kill specific people, and to train the regime thugs.  There’s a significant passage [2] in a Wikileaks document from the American Embassy in Baku that gives some “information” on the phenomenon:
> 
> The source maintains that one of his acquaintances killed at least six intellectuals and young “pro-democracy activists” before he himself was eliminated.
> 
> OK?  So if the source is telling the truth, people like Fashi were first used to kill people, and then killed themselves.  Perhaps to make sure they didn’t talk. Fashi, in any event, was dangerous to the regime because, even though he was a big Ahmadinejad supporter, he traveled a lot outside the country to compete.
> 
> ML:  And if the source is truthful, people like Fashi were used to kill “intellectuals” as well as activists.  That fits your theory that the physicists were rubbed out by the regime.
> 
> JJA:  Kind of you to notice.
> 
> ML:  But isn’t it counterproductive to kill your own nuclear experts?
> 
> JJA:  It’s a hell of a lot easier to find another nuclear physicist than to replace a compromised program.  Iran has a well-educated group of scientists and technicians, a large talent pool.  They have also imported lots of foreign nuclear experts, so most likely they don’t worry much about losing one or two of them unless it’s a key figure.
> 
> ML:  And if they lost a key figure, we might not know about it, don’t you think?
> 
> JJA:  Agreed.  Why would they tell us?  The killings thus far haven’t involved the top level personnel…and they have been widely publicized.  By the regime itself.  Almost as if they were sending a warning to some others…meanwhile, as you say, the top guys are left untouched.
> 
> ML:  The very people you’d expect Israel to target.
> 
> JJA:  Yes, I would.  It’s the way they have targeted Hamas, for example.
> 
> ML:  So what do you think about Stuxnet, the sabotage of the Iranian uranium enrichment program?
> 
> JJA:  That looks more Israeli and/or American to me.  And maybe the Germans, too.  It was a German computer that was infected with the virus, or worm, after all.  They knew more than anyone else about its vulnerabilities.
> 
> THERE WAS SOME STATIC COMING OUT OF THE OUIJA BOARD, AND A BIT OF SMOKE.
> 
> ML:  Do you expect that sort of thing to continue?
> 
> JJA:  Of course.  It’s the smart way.  And (LOST SOME WORDS) people on the ground, better to kill the program than the scientists.
> 
> And he was gone.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/08/31/who-killed-the-iranian-nuclear-scientists-i-ask-the-dead-spook/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] “man in the middle” scheme: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/30/faked-web-certificate-iran-dissidents?CMP=twt_gu
> 
> [2] significant passage: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/29/wikileaks-iran-flashback-how-a-kickboxing-champion-became-is.html


----------



## Sythen

White House, experts dismiss Iran naval threat to U.S. coast.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/world/meast/iran-navy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> (CNN) -- The White House on Wednesday dismissed an Iranian threat to deploy warships near the U.S. coast, and military experts said Iran lacks the naval capability to do so.
> Overnight Tuesday, Iranian state news quoted a commander as saying his country plans to have a "powerful presence" near the U.S. border.
> In response, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that "we don't take these statements seriously, given that they do not reflect at all Iran's naval capabilities."



Quick edit to add: Its hard to demonize Iranian sailors when they are no different than ours. Proof is in the picture on the article.. One of the sailors is fondling the other


----------



## OldSolduer

Just to clarify.....here's the picture. :blotto:


----------



## a_majoor

This article outlines the dangers, but I think that it *may* still be possible to destabilize Iran and bring the regime down with a more targetted use of pressure. After all, the Iranians were calling for the West to help them when they were rising in protest against the rigged elections (the signs were in English, for the Western media to broadcast and to galvanize the then new Obama administration into action). Using drones to strike at economic targets and Iran's decayed infrastructure might also topple the regime without the same dangers that a massive bombing campaign would bring, or if bombing was considered the only choice, then a "head shot" against the Revolutionary Guards, Basij, and government offices might work, and the mass uprising against the regime would do the rest.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/24/bombing-iran-a-bad-idea-probably-but-its-the-only-idea/?print=1



> *Bombing Iran a ‘Bad Idea’? Probably. But It’s the ONLY Idea*
> Posted By David P. Goldman On October 24, 2011 @ 1:24 pm In Uncategorized | 95 Comments
> 
> Dalia Dassa Kaye at the Foreign Policy website argues that bombing Iran is a “bad idea.” She’s absolutely right. It’s a bad idea, except all the others are worse. As Prof. Kaye observes,
> 
> The aftermath of an attack could be devastating militarily and politically. It could unleash a wave of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, allies, and interests. Iran maintains a wide array of levers across the region, including militia groups it has trained and funded, that it could employ to retaliate against U.S. forces or diplomatic personnel, particularly in countries like Iraq. Iranian missiles have ranges that can reach Israel and all its Gulf Arab neighbors, including those hosting U.S. military forces.
> 
> There’s nothing new about this danger. The estimable Adm. Mike Mullen made a similar warning in a March 16, 2009, interview with Charlie Rose.  Mullen said: “What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region. It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn’t predict.”
> 
> That’s right: our nation-building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan put tens of thousands of American soldiers in places where Iranian-backed terrorists could hurt them. And as Lee Smith wrote last week at the Tablet webzine, Iran has effectively deterred the United States, and America thus has become Iran’s “key ally” in its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons. How about a 9/11 with a nuclear weapon in a major American city? It was misguided to turn American soldiers into potential hostages to Iranian terror. It’s a hundred times MORE misguided now to pull our forces out of Iraq: we need the capacity to deter Iran from swinging its weight in Iraq and turning it into a Persian satrapy. (The Baghdad government might not like this, but if we really want to, we have ways to persuade regimes like this to cooperate.)
> 
> Iran has terrorized the United States, and inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons — unless it’s stopped. At that point its terror capacity will multiply a thousand-fold, because its terrorists will operate under a nuclear umbrella. So the argument boils down to this: Iran is a terrorist state ready to murder American citizens and American allies all over the Middle East and around the world. Which means that we had better not stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, because then they might be mad at us, and hurt us. What does that imply about what a nuclear-armed Iran might do?
> 
> But let us return to Prof. Kaye’s argument. She continues:
> 
> Such an attack could also backfire by fomenting nationalist sentiment within Iran (particularly if large numbers of civilians are killed) and boost support for more hard-line elements within the regime that current policies are attempting to marginalize. It could also increase Iranian incentives to obtain nuclear weapons to avoid such attacks in the future, while undermining painstaking U.S. efforts to bolster international and regional support for economic and diplomatic pressure against Iran. In short, there are serious risks associated with this option with little potential to actually solve the problem, and possibly making it harder to solve in the future.
> 
> No-one can make such assertions with assurance. Nothing succeeds like success. If Britain and France had drawn the line at the Sudetenland in 1938, the German generals likely would have overthrown Hitler. But Kaye misses the point. Yes, the nuclear facilities are deeply entrenched. No, a surgical strike is out of the question. To destroy nuclear weapons capability means to decapitate the regime and the military leadership, with a lot of collateral damage. Five years ago we could have done it cleanly, when cancer was easily operable. Now we will have to make a mess.
> 
> Kaye’s final objection is trivial if not disingenuous:
> 
> A military strike would be particularly damaging in a post Arab spring environment, in which public opinion is already hostile toward U.S. policies. Even if Arab governments may quietly welcome forceful U.S. actions, Arab publics are far more sympathetic to Iran’s anti-Western positions. Despite Iran’s waning regional influence as Arab revolts and Turkish activism have decreased its relevance in the resistance narrative, Arab publics would likely rally behind Iran in the face of an attack. Additionally, they could constrain their governments’ ability to support US-backed efforts to isolate Iran.
> 
> She neglects to mention that the Saudis, now by far the most important Arab power, have been screaming at America for years to take action against Iran. The Syrian opposition, whose people are dying in the streets at the hands of Iranian thugs, won’t particularly mind, one would think.
> 
> Above all, it’s critical to keep in mind that Iran is a dying nation. As I report in How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), Iran is suffering the fastest fertility decline on record, any time, ever. The average Iranian has six or seven brothers and sisters, but will have one or two children. The population pyramid will invert: within a single generation, it will go from having 7 children to take care of elderly parents, to just 1.5. And in a country where the average person has $4000 to spend per year, that means starvation. The Iranian leadership knows it. They’ve been screaming about it in public for years. Like Hitler, they think they have one last chance at empire before the curtain comes down. If they’re not stopped, millions of Americans might die.
> 
> 
> 
> Article printed from Spengler: http://pjmedia.com/spengler
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/24/bombing-iran-a-bad-idea-probably-but-its-the-only-idea/


----------



## Old Sweat

Here is a link to a story in the on line London Daily Mail that claims the US and the UK are working on plans for an attack and/or invasion of Iran. I suspect there is a lot of speculation involved as most of the story discusses the Israeli position and the state of the Iranian nuclear programme. I am not sure I would put too much credence in the story, especially given the US political and military situation and the wretched state of the British forces. One graphic with the story, for example, has the Americans invading from Iraq while the British and the US attack from western Afghanistan and a third force lands in sourthern Iran from the Gulf. Strikes using air and sea power could be a different matter, but the chances of success are problematic, as previous posts in this thread make clear.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056873/Iran-attack-drawn-UK-US-Middle-East-tensions-rise.html


----------



## a_majoor

From today's National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/04/peter-goodspeed-report-on-tehran’s-nuclear-program-could-push-mideast-to-the-brink-of-crisis/



> *Peter Goodspeed: Report on Tehran’s nuclear program could push Mideast to the brink of crisis*
> 
> Ramzi Haidar / Agence France-Presse files
> On June 7, 1981, an Israeli air strike, codenamed Operation Opera, destroyed a nuclear reactor about 30 kilometres southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.
> 
> Peter Goodspeed  Nov 4, 2011 – 9:45 PM ET
> 
> Eight planes dropped 1,000-kilogram bombs every five seconds as F-15A fighter escorts circled high above. In just two minutes, on June 7, 1981, they destroyed a nuclear program Iraq had been developing secretly over seven years.
> 
> Operation Opera transformed the Middle East for the next quarter-century.
> 
> 
> Now, Israel is rumoured to be contemplating a similar pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The drumbeat of war is growing louder amid signs a decade-long diplomatic confrontation with Iran may turn to conflict.
> 
> An International Atomic Energy Agency report, due out Tuesday, is expected to push the Middle East to the brink of crisis, if it raises additional doubts over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Faced with a rapidly advancing Iranian nuclear program and Tehran’s total disregard of UN Security Council ultimatums to freeze nuclear enrichment programs and grant unfettered access to international inspectors, calls are growing for pre-emptive military strikes.
> 
> The possibility of an Israeli attack was thrust into the spotlight this week by an unusual public debate in Israel’s news media over the strategic calculations involved in confronting a near-nuclear Iran.
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, and his Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, are reportedly pushing cabinet colleagues to approve the strike in the hopes of setting back Tehran’s nuclear program for a few years.
> 
> Right now, a nuclear-armed Iran is Israel’s worst nightmare.
> 
> The country’s religious hardliners, whose apocalyptic rhetoric threatens to annihilate the Jewish state, could become more assertive and aggressive with a nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Given their long history of support for radical groups, they could threaten to pass their nuclear capability on to terrorists.
> 
> They could also transform the military balance in the Middle East, threatening the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates. They might also try to isolate Israel by pressing Arab states and Turkey to withdraw basing rights granted the U.S. military.
> 
> Iran could also seek to control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway at the foot of the Persian Gulf, through which 40% of the world’s oil travels each day.
> 
> If Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, it will embolden other would-be nuclear powers, like North Korea, and could set off a regional nuclear arms race, as Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia seek to counter the new threat.
> 
> The calculations involved in nuclear war are horrific for Israel.
> 
> A single nuclear blast would wipe the country off the map, accomplishing in seconds what Hitler and the Holocaust attempted through the murder of six million Jews.
> 
> “The strategic decision regarding Iran is the decision of our generation,” columnist Ari Shavit wrote Friday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
> 
> “If Israel acts against Iran prematurely, the implications could be dramatic. An eternal war with Tehran, an immediate war with Hamas and Hezbollah, tens of thousands of missiles on dozens of cities in Israel.
> 
> “If Israel is late to act in Iran, the implications could be critical to our survival.”
> 
> Any attempt to pre-empt Iran’s nuclear program militarily will inevitably be patterned on the 1981 strike.
> 
> Only Iran isn’t Iraq. Its nuclear facilities are scattered around the country. Some are embedded in heavily populated areas, others are buried deep underground or are heavily fortified.
> 
> There are at least eight known nuclear sites that would have to be taken out to temporarily destroy Iran’s nuclear program and there could be many more secret installations.
> 
> A 2006 study produced by the U. S. War College, Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, doubts all Iran’s nuclear facilities could be destroyed in just one raid.
> 
> Tactically, experts said it could take 600 to 1,000 air sorties to make sure underground nuclear sites are eradicated. Even then, the U.S. war planners suggest, they might have to use tactical nuclear weapons to get at some deep tunnels.
> 
> That might make it almost impossible for Israel to act alone.
> 
> “The Israelis just can’t do Osirak again,” said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
> 
> An Israeli attack would likely concentrate on three locations: Isfahan, where Iran produces uranium hexafluoride gas; Natanz, where the gas is enriched in thousands of centrifuges; and Arak, where a heavy-water research reactor is scheduled to come on line in 2012.
> 
> “It is conceivable that Israel may attack other sites that it suspects to be part of a nuclear weapons program, if targeting data were available, such as the recently disclosed Qom site,” said Steven Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> “But attacks against the sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak alone would likely stretch Israel’s capabilities and planners would probably be reluctant to enlarge the raid further.”
> 
> A co-ordinated air attack would be complicated and risky, requiring Israeli warplanes and refuelling tanker aircraft to fly over potentially hostile third countries to reach Iranian targets on the outer range limits of the fighters.
> 
> If Syria or Saudi Arabia or Turkey were to detect, challenge or attack a flight of Israeli warplanes on their way to Iran, they could derail the entire operation.
> 
> “Israel’s intricate attack plan would have a razor-thin margin for error to begin with,” said Mr. Simon.
> 
> “The general assessment among experts is that Israeli talk of a military option is mainly empty words,” said Avner Cohen, a specialist at the Center for Non-proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California.
> 
> “Israel does not have the military capability of striking at Iran over a period of weeks, not to say months, on end.”
> 
> The regional consequences of an Israeli air strike are also daunting.
> 
> If attacked, Iran can be expected to lash out at U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> Tehran’s Shahab-3 missiles can also reach deep into Israel, and Iran might launch the ballistic missiles against Israeli cities and Israel’s nuclear reactor sites in the Negev desert.
> 
> Iran could also seek to shut down oil exports from the Gulf by closing the Strait of Hormuz or it could launch missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oilfields.
> 
> It almost certainly would unleash a wave of terrorist violence around the world. Iranian-backed groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as Iran’s own intelligence agents and the Revolutionary Guard — all better organized, trained and equipped than al-Qaeda — could be deployed in retaliatory strikes.
> 
> “An attack against Iran means a war the likes of which we have never known, a war in which the home front will become the battlefield and there is no way of knowing how it will end,” said Mr. Cohen.
> 
> “It is exceedingly unlikely Israel’s leaders, as hawkish as they may be, would attack Iran without U.S. permission,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli Middle East analyst.
> 
> “The Israeli government may feel comfortable challenging the United States over the issue of settlements, but striking Iran is a very different matter.”
> 
> The chances of a successful pre-emptive strike would improve dramatically if the United States and Israel cooperate and act in unison.
> 
> But Washington has shown no sign of wanting to abandon its strategy of using diplomacy, sanctions, covert action and cyber warfare to slow down Iran’s nuclear program.
> 
> If the United States does decide to move militarily against Iran, it might not even attack Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> A 2009 study produced by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy suggests a pre-emptive military strike should target the country’s oil export facilities.
> 
> “The political shock of losing the oil income could cause Iran to rethink its nuclear stance in ways that attacks on its nuclear infrastructure might not,” say the report’s authors, Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt.
> 
> Oil revenue provides at least 75% of the Iranian government income and 80% of export revenues, while oil pumping stations and tanker ports are vulnerable to attacks from the sea and air, the report said.



Direct strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are the most dramatic form of action possible, although also the hardest and least likely to succeed. A political "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and sever the comand and control nexus may succeed, the destruction of Iranian oil facilities would be a part of the program, but the US and the world would have to live with the destabilizaton of the oil industry and economy for years to come (and new plays like shale oil may not be enough to cushion the shock).

Like so many things, there is a time you have to take the least worst choice.


----------



## Kalatzi

'Attack Iran' and AIPAC's infamous chutzpah  

Lobbying for a US war with Iran, AIPAC is pushing a bill that would prohibit diplomacy between the two nations.

link here http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011114635741836.html

"But preventing diplomacy is precisely what Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that set out this bill, seek. They and others who back the measure want another war and the best way to get it is to ban diplomacy (which exists, of course, to prevent war).

Think back, for example, to the Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the monstrous, nuclear-armed Soviet regime were on the brink of war over Cuba, a war that might have destroyed the planet.

Neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev knew how to end the crisis, especially because both were being pushed by their respective militaries not to back down.

An essential latitude

Then, at the darkest moment of the crisis, when war seemed inevitable, an ABC correspondent named John Scali secretly met with a Soviet official in New York who described a way to end the crisis that would satisfy his bosses. That meeting was followed by another secret meeting between the president's brother, Attorney General Robert F Kennedy, and a Soviet official in Washington. Those meetings led to a plan that ended the crisis and, perhaps, saved the world.

Needless to say, Kennedy did not ask for the permission of the House Foreign Affairs Committee either to conduct secret negotiations or to implement the terms of the deal. In fact, it was decades before the details of the deal were revealed.

It is this latitude to conduct diplomacy that the lobby and its cutouts on Capitol Hill want to take away from the White House. And it's latitude that is especially essential if it is determined that Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear arsenal"


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Canada may get pulled into military strikes against Iran if it comes to a showdown between western powers and the rogue state.
> 
> And things could get messy considering a new report from the United Nation's nuclear watchdog that's expected to indicate Tehran is on the brink of being able to develop a nuclear warheads, said Houchang Hassan-Yari, an expert in military and strategic issues at the Royal Military College of Canada.
> 
> “If it gets to a military campaign, I think Canada will participate with the Americans and their allies,” the international relations professor said. “If sanctions are the next avenue, Canada will participate in that.”
> 
> The International Atomic Energy Agency is slated to release its report later this week outlining more evidence Iran's nuclear program is for weapons, not energy, development. Iran denies the allegations.
> 
> The report will be released amid speculation Israel, France, the U.S. and the U.K. are prepared to target Iran nuclear sites ....


QMI/Sun Media, 7 Nov 11

The latest on Iran here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25516.0.html


----------



## cooldiddums

I have my doubts this will come to fruition, but anything is possible.  While it is common knowledge that Iran has nuclear ambitions,
this latest wind of the "Iranian threat" is being overblown by Israel (obviously), who are merely trying to stiffen UN sanctions in shorter order.  

It would be foolhardy of Israel, let alone the US or any NATO member, to be meddling in any more Middle-Eastern affairs.  
Even Israel's own defence minister has admitted what an egregious (and likely impractical anyways) action it would be to strike.  (Most of
Iran's nuclear plants are all but impervious to missile or bomb strikes as they're so deep underground.)

Nonetheless, Israel has and will continue to stir the pot, if by attempting to use Obama's finger while doing so.  
Will be interesting to watch, but I don't see CF18s over Tehran anytime soon.  

Great post!


----------



## aesop081

cooldiddums said:
			
		

> Iran's nuclear plants are all but impervious to missile or bomb strikes as they're so deep underground.)



Nothing is impervious to bomb or missile strike anymore.


----------



## medicineman

If Israel really wanted those sites gone, I'm sure the Mossad and/or the IDF would find a way of doing it.

MM


----------



## GK .Dundas

And after a careful evaluation of our long range strike capabilities .We have been tasked with bringing the Coffee and doughnuts. :


----------



## aesop081

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> And after a careful evaluation of our long range strike capabilities .We have been tasked with bringing the Coffee and doughnuts. :



Ask Ghadaffi about our long-range strike capability............just sayin'


----------



## SupersonicMax

GK .Dundas:  Short memory don't we have?  Remember 18 March 2011?  We projected our fighter force abroad and struck targets 4000+ NM away from home.  All that in a matter of hours really.  Long range enough for you?


----------



## aesop081

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> GK .Dundas:  Short memory don't we have?  Remember 18 March 2011?  We projected our fighter force abroad and struck targets 4000+ NM away from home.  All that in a matter of hours really.  Long range enough for you?



Exactly.


----------



## Journeyman

cooldiddums said:
			
		

> ...this latest wind of the "Iranian threat" is being overblown by Israel (obviously), who are merely trying to stiffen UN sanctions in shorter order.


Yes, because the UN has a lengthy track-record of doing all things pro-Israeli.

Or are you saying that Professor Hassan-Yari is an Israeli _agent provocateur_?

Either way....  :



ps - adding "obviously" to a statement doesn't add intellectual credence.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is an interesting but, in my opinion, ultimately unpersuasive analysis of *why* Israel ought not to strike Iran, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Israeli+attack+Iran+would+madness/5672007/story.html


> An Israeli attack on Iran would be madness
> 
> By Andrew Cohen, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> November 8, 2011
> 
> Sometime this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency will issue a scary report on Iran's nuclear program. It will confirm that Iran is close to developing an A-bomb.
> 
> According to The Washington Post, the IAEA finds "that Iran's government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon," and it has conducted "an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected."
> 
> This isn't news in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are now said to favour attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Even President Shimon Peres, a dove, is musing publicly about the failure of diplomacy.
> 
> It may be that this sabre-rattling is intended to spur support for tougher sanctions on Iran. But a military solution isn't just risky for Israel.
> 
> An attack on Iran would be catastrophic, setting off a disastrous train of events. It's madness.
> 
> Doubting the military option isn't about a squishy, woolly-minded morality over the right of Israel to deny Iran the nuclear arms that Israel already has. Iran is a religious autocracy whose delusional president denies the Holocaust and wants to kill the Jews.
> 
> As Israeli journalist Hirsh Goodman writes in his fine new book, The Anatomy of Israel's Survival (Mc-Clelland & Stewart), "Iran is maniacally dedicated to Israel's destruction, and says so on every occasion, in every language -" He calls Iran the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people - half of whom live in Israel - since Hitler.
> 
> Rather than moral, our reservations here are practical. Fundamentally, there just are too many ways a military response could go wrong.
> 
> Let us assume that the Israelis know that Iran has the bomb and the means to deliver it. Let us assume that they know where Iran's installations are.
> 
> Even so, the chances of success are low. That Israel could eliminate Iran's nuclear ability in a clean, surgical air strike, or even a series of strikes, is implausible.
> 
> Iran is big. Its nuclear facilities are dispersed. They aren't clustered on a plain, wrapped in a box tied with a red ribbon.
> 
> The Iranians know how the Israelis destroyed the nuclear installations of the Iraqis in 1981 and the Syrians in 2007, both with impunity. Iran is said to have parallel programs.
> 
> Indeed, the Iranians may have several programs. Their nuclear capacity, like cancer, is thought to have metastasized, making it virtually impossible to root out.
> 
> Hitting a country as far from Israel as Iran, which would require mid-air refuelling, is hard enough. Hitting it without being detected by hostile states such as Syria, perhaps over a series of days, would be astonishing.
> 
> Some of the installations are said to be in bunkers beyond the reach of conventional bombs, raising the ominous prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons.
> 
> But let's assume, again, that this operation could succeed. Then what?
> 
> The Iranians would have to retaliate. They could be expected to use whatever is left of their nuclear (or even biological weapons), which could well be the end of Israel, what Moshe Dayan called "the destruction of the Third Temple."
> 
> Israel is tiny; Iran is 75 times its size. Seventy per cent of Israelis - with their ports, airports, factories - live in cities hugging the coastal plain 259 kilometres long and 16 kilometres deep. Even with Israel's crack air defences, it wouldn't take many warheads to bring havoc upon the Jewish state.
> 
> Perhaps Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons, given the risks of annihilation from Israel and the United States. Perhaps, as well, it would worry that a nuclear attack on Israel could kill its Arab neighbours, poison their air and water, and destroy their holy sites.
> 
> Instead, Iran could decide to launch conventional missiles. It could try to close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off oil supplies to the West, or send suicide-bombers around the world. Or it could inflame the Palestinians in Gaza, who need little excuse to send rockets into Israel, and embolden Hezbollah in Lebanon to use some of the 45,000 rockets that Hirsh Goodman says it has stockpiled.
> 
> And then there is the prospect of a hostile post-Mubarak Egypt and a simmering Syria joining an alliance against Israel. Suddenly, Israel would be at war on many fronts.
> 
> At a minimum, Israel after an attack on Iran would find itself even more diplomatically isolated than it is now - however pleased that Turkey and Saudi Arabia would be to see Iran defanged.
> 
> In the end, though, an attack is too dangerous. There are too many unknowns. Better for Israel to rely on its sophisticated cyber warfare or its selective assassinations of Iranian scientists and other means of covert warfare.
> 
> Ultimately, deterrence is the only way to contain a nuclear Iran. The threat of mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War cold for a generation, until a wiser leadership emerged. We have to hope the same happens in Iran.
> 
> _Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University._
> 
> Email: andrewzcohen@yahoo.ca
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen




My argument with Cohen is _strategic_. He concludes that: _"Ultimately, deterrence is the only way to contain a nuclear Iran. The threat of mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War cold for a generation, until a wiser leadership emerged. We have to hope the same happens in Iran."_ It is not clear to me that MAD is on the table, nor will it ever be. Israel is unlikely to ever have the capability to destroy Iran but left alone Iran will, soon, have the capability to destroy Israel. Israel has 200-400 nuclear devices, only a few are _strategic_ is size or range. Iran, as Cohen mentions, is too big to be "deterred" by Israel's nuclear arsenal. Iran, under its current leadership:

1. Is committed to destroying Israel and driving the Jews out of the Middle East. It wants to _purify_ the Islamic _ummah_; and

2. Doesn't much care if it "poisons" its Arab neighbours. Many (most?) Shia Muslims hate Sunni Muslims as much as they hate Jews.

When, as opposed to if, Iran has enough nukes it will attack Israel in the hopes that it will achieve its goal before American power can be brought to bear.

On that basis, in my opinion it would be "madness" for Israel to not attack Iran.

I know, I know, President Obama would be annoyed ... he might even stand in the corner and sulk.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

cooldiddums said:
			
		

> I have my doubts this will come to fruition, but anything is possible.  While it is common knowledge that Iran has nuclear ambitions, this latest wind of the "Iranian threat" is being overblown by Israel (obviously), who are merely trying to stiffen UN sanctions in shorter order.



We shall see. The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to release its latest report on Iranian nuclear ambitions, inlcuding possible nuclear weapons research. Report is expected either today or tomorrow.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The UN atomic watchdog on Tuesday gave its clearest indication yet that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, publishing a massive body of intelligence _(PDF)_ already dismissed by Tehran as fabricated.
> 
> In a keenly awaited report seen by AFP, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it had “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.”
> 
> It said it had its “credible” information from foreign intelligence reports and its own research that indicates that Iran “has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
> 
> It added: “The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.” ....


Agence France-Presse, 8 Nov 11



> Iran has worked on developing an atomic bomb design and may still be conducting research relevant for such weapons, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its most detailed and hardest-hitting report on military dimensions to Tehran's nuclear program.
> 
> The International Atomic Energy Agency document, which has been preceded by Israeli media speculation of military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, detailed new evidence suggesting efforts to acquire a nuclear arms capability.
> 
> "The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the IAEA said in the report, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, which included a 13-page annex with key technical descriptions of research.
> 
> Citing "credible" information, the Vienna-based agency said the data "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."
> 
> It added: "The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some activities may still be ongoing." ....


Reuters, 8 Nov 11

Tehran media response....


> Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic is in full preparedness to counter any military attack against it.
> 
> He made the remarks on the sidelines of a ceremony held on Tuesday on Kish Island, in the southern province of Bandar Abbas, in which domestically manufactured patrol vessels were delivered to the National Police.
> 
> Iran has repeatedly said that its missile, maritime, and submarine capabilities are highly advanced and modern, Vahidi said, adding, “We have the power to counter any threat.”
> 
> “The recent threats issued against Iran are mostly propaganda, and, in my view, have their roots in the West’s weakness before Iran,” he said.
> 
> He went on to say that the Iranian Navy, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Naval Force, and the National Police are closely monitoring the movements of extra-regional forces in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
> 
> “Our country’s armed forces will give a firm, quick, and crushing response to any act of adventurism or hostile action against the territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”  ....


_Tehran Times_, 8 Nov 11

Some Israeli media


> Iran has been working toward building a nuclear weapon since 2003, according to a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday.
> 
> The report, which was handed over to the 35-member states of the IAEA Board of Governors, details a series of tests, acquisition of materials, and technology that suggests Iran has continuously worked to produce a nuclear weapon since 2003 ....


_Ha'aretz_, 8 Nov 11


----------



## Robert0288

Deterance only works with rational(-ish) actors leading countries, and being amongst their goals personal survival.

Neither one of those two points a religious nation especially one lead by Ahmadinejad are particularly strong in.  Way too much crazy irrational things have been done in the name of religion, and Ahmadinejad has said some fairly inflamatory things that also sounded pretty irrational.  

Hence you can't depend on cold war style MAD to deter anyone in that region.


----------



## sean m

Seems the Washington Times consider that war with Iran is inevitable,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/4/the-coming-war-with-Iran/.

Hopefully the supreme leader is not foolish enough to think that this would end favorable for him and the regime.


----------



## larry Strong

sean m said:
			
		

> Seems the Washington Times consider that war with Iran is inevitable,
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/4/the-coming-war-with-Iran/.
> 
> Hopefully the supreme leader is not foolish enough to think that this would end favorable for him and the regime.



Seems they changed their minds......

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/4/the-coming-war-with-Iran/.





> That story has been removed from the site
> 
> Every so often we are forced to remove stories from our site. We’re sorry but you just happened to request one of them.
> 
> Take a look at some of the other content on our site by going to our home page.


----------



## Brasidas

Cohen's points against Israel bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear sites are:

Getting past other hostile nations' air defence repeatedly
Requirement for refueling
Tough bunkers
Dispersed facilities
Retaliatory missile strikes from Iran

And then a series of less concrete threats against Israel:
Iran attempting to close the Hormuz strait, blockading other nations' ports from exporting oil to the west
Sending out suicide bombers
Riling up the Palestinians

Out of the first five, what exactly is the conventional missile threat from Iran? How vulnerable is this capability to a first strike?

If Israel buys up sufficient aerial tankers and blows the hell out of any SAM sites that try to engage them en route, I'm not seeing a sufficient deterrent to keep Israel from paying the cost to paste Iran once Mossad draws up a list of probable targets.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Cohen's points against Israel bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear sites are:
> 
> Getting past other hostile nations' air defence repeatedly
> Requirement for refueling
> Tough bunkers
> Dispersed facilities
> Retaliatory missile strikes from Iran
> 
> And then a series of less concrete threats against Israel:
> Iran attempting to close the Hormuz strait, blockading other nations' ports from exporting oil to the west
> Sending out suicide bombers
> Riling up the Palestinians
> 
> Out of the first five, what exactly is the conventional missile threat from Iran? How vulnerable is this capability to a first strike?
> 
> If Israel buys up sufficient aerial tankers and blows the hell out of any SAM sites that try to engage them en route, I'm not seeing a sufficient deterrent to keep Israel from paying the cost to paste Iran once Mossad draws up a list of probable targets.





That's the key question, in my view.

Israel needs to neutralize Iran's capability to hit ti with a _strategic_ strike. What part of the _mechanism_ it targets is a technical issue.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Shared with the usual caveats.  yellow comment mine.  The Revolutionary Guard have suffered a workplace accident...tsk tsk tsk

Iran ammunition depot blast kills 15
The Associated Press
An accidental explosion at a Revolutionary Guard ammunition depot west of Tehran killed at least 15 people on Saturday, officials said.  The explosions occurred when military personnel were transporting munitions at a base, said Guard spokesman Ramazan Sharif. The base is located outside Bidganeh village, 40 kilometers southwest of the capital.
The Guard is Iran's most powerful military force. (but apparently not the sharpest crayons in the box)  "My colleagues at the Guard were transporting ammunition at one of the depots at the site when an explosion occurred as a result of an accident," Sharif said.  At least 15 people were killed, state TV reported. The semi-official ISNA news agency said 10 people were injured and hospitalized.  Sharif said some of those injured were in critical condition.
© The Associated Press, 2011
The Canadian Press


----------



## tomahawk6

One of those killed was the head of Iran's missile program,a BG.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well that was friggin stupid of him.  Darwin award nominations for some I'm sure.  Seeing as this guy was the head of their missile program, I can just see the run on the tin foil at the supermarkets from all the "Israel did it" conspiracy nuts that will be coming out of the woodwork now.  All those hats need to be covered.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## tomahawk6

One has to wonder why the top missile guy was at a munitions depot in the first place ?


----------



## GAP

Maybe 1 (Iran ammunition depot) + 1 (top missile guy) actually does = 2 (booms)


----------



## chanman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> One has to wonder why the top missile guy was at a munitions depot in the first place ?



Maybe following up on their equivalent of an OSHA complaint  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

And I was right the tin foil hat brigade has indeed marched out of the barracks.  :facepalm:

Was Israeli intelligence service behind blast at Iranian military base that killed top missile expert?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061341/Was-Israeli-intelligence-service-blast-Iranian-military-base-killed-missile-expert.html#ixzz1djBwWAZH


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Amateur video of blast aftermath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXMnFfIacA

Looks like a pretty big bang if you ask me.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ammo dumps going up are not that uncommon and for the big guy being taken out, it is normal that a operation in these countries requires a much higher ranker to get anything done than here. He might have had a "personal" interest in some of the stores being moved (taken)


----------



## a_majoor

The view the _Iranians_ are responsible:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/11/16/the-war-against-the-mullahs/?print=1



> *The War Against the Mullahs*
> 
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On November 16, 2011 @ 8:03 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments
> 
> This past weekend’s monster explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base outside Tehran has attracted the usual assortment of speculation and “informed information,” most of it sucked from the thumbs of pundits who feel they must write quickly.  There is still a scarcity of hard information, but I’m reasonably confident that:
> 
> –There were two explosions at the RG base at Bidganeh, one smaller, the other very large.
> 
> –At almost the same time, there was an explosion at another military base in the west, in Luristan.  The explosions seem to have been coordinated.
> 
> –The area around Bigdaneh is a military zone, with various facilities including two air fields, thus questions like “was it a munitions depot or a missile base?” are best answered “yes. Both.”
> 
> These attacks on the Guards — the symbol of the regime’s intensifying repression and slaughter [1] of the Iranian people — are part of a pattern that includes explosions at refineries and pipelines [2]. At the same time, strikes have been spreading (and no wonder;  up to 30,000 retired teachers have been waiting for their pensions for many months).  In short, people have lost patience, and the smaller of the two explosions at the RG base was aimed at Major General Hasan Tehrani Moghaddam, one of the most brutal of the country’s military leaders.
> 
> Contrary to the inevitable suspicions of the thumb-suckers (the Americans did it!  no, the Israelis did it!  no, it was an accident!), the operation was planned and carried out by Iranians from the opposition-that-does-not-exist.  They intended to demonstrate that no leader is safe from the people’s wrath (if that base can be penetrated, any place can, and if that man can be assassinated, anyone can), and that the opposition knows its gravediggers.
> 
> The second, larger, explosion was not planned, nor was the extremely high number of casualties (I am told that hundreds of people, including some “very important foreign dignitaries,” were blown up).  That second blast was apparently from a quantity of liquid fuel designed to extend the speed and accuracy of Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, the one the mullahs hope will some day carry a nuclear warhead.  My sources claim that the fuel caused the big white plume [3] seen in the photographs.  The cloud may well have caused respiratory problems for the survivors.
> 
> There is another, fascinating report, that right after the explosions, the two main Green Movement leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, were taken from house arrest, leaving their wives behind.  This bespeaks a high level of anxiety within the regime, suggesting that they feared an all-out assault was under way, and under those circumstances they would take vengeance on the two Green leaders.  Whether or not the rumor is true, its existence suggests that Khamenei et. al. take a more serious view of the opposition than some of our own expert analysts.
> 
> What this all means is clear enough.  As I forecast some time ago, it was only a matter of time until the opposition abandoned its commitment to non-violence.  We are now in a new phase.  A French analyst, Jean-Jacques Guillet, understands the situation very well, and has called for a Western policy [4] to intensify the pressure on the Iranian regime in order to bring it down.  “If we press the regime strongly,” he said, “there could be an implosion. The real objective these days should be the regime’s implosion, not more talk.”
> 
> Instead, we have leaders who still believe in the talking cure, and who seem not even to know what the Iranian opposition wants, even when it’s delivered to them in black and white.  As it was, at the height of the turmoil in 2009.
> 
> That story is still untold, but it’s coming out.  Soon, I think…stay tuned.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/11/16/the-war-against-the-mullahs/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] the regime’s intensifying repression and slaughter: http://artistsspeakout.visibli.com/share/KafNfS
> 
> [2] explosions at refineries and pipelines: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/28/us-iran-blasts-idUSTRE79R54520111028?feedType=RSS&feedName=Iran&virtualBrandChannel=10209&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=59365
> 
> [3] white plume: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/11/news-report-israeli-source-claims-depot-blast-mossadmko-act.html
> 
> [4] has called for a Western policy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/world/europe/15iht-politicus15.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all


----------



## The Bread Guy

While the official take on a meeting between Canada's and Israel's DefMins goes something like this ....


> .... Minister MacKay and Minister Barak discussed a number of key issues, including the significance of benefits from the exchange of best practices between their respective Defence ministries, as well as changing regional dynamics in the Middle East, including Iran. A strong ally of Israel, Canada is concerned about the very alarmist and threatening words that have been directed toward Israel by Iran.
> 
> Canada’s defence relations with Israel have grown significantly in recent years. In January 2011, as part of a five-day trip to the Middle East, Minister MacKay had a successful visit in Israel where he signed a Principal Memorandum of Understanding on defence relations with his Israeli counterpart.
> 
> Canada and Israel are working on two Memoranda of Understanding in order to further entrench our relationship with regards to material and military research and development ....


.... Postmedia News looks at it this way:





> .... *Defence Minister Peter MacKay refused Wednesday to rule out a mutual-defence agreement that would oblige Canada to come to Israel's defence should the latter be attacked.*
> 
> Appearing together at a media conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, Mr. MacKay and his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak said they anticipate negotiations will be completed by the end of the year.
> 
> "Israel needs strong, reliable partners, which Canada is certainly one," Mr. MacKay said. "I would argue they could not find a more supportive country on the planet."
> 
> The ministers said the agreements will cover a range of areas, including intelligence sharing, joint research and development, and military exchange programs.
> 
> "The steps that we're taking today are in fact bringing our countries closer together," Mr. MacKay said, "and they are also allowing us to further build on a strong foundation of co-operation that will build tangible results, not just to our two militaries, but to Canada and Israel more broadly."
> 
> Mr. MacKay said the agreements did not relate to basing Canadian soldiers in Israel.
> 
> "The defence co-operation details will be disclosed when we sign," he said ....


----------



## rampage800

Funny enough the US just started receiving their newest weapon, the 30 000lb JDAM, designed for deep underground facilities.


----------



## Rifleman62

The predecessor discussed here.http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69265/post-654329.html#msg654329

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062662/Is-15-ton-bunker-buster-bomb-destroy-Irans-nuclear-arsenal.html?ITO=1490

*Is this 15-ton bunker buster the bomb U.S. will use to destroy Iran's nukes?*

Lee Moran - 17th November 2011

 U.S. Air Force takes delivery of eight Big Blu bombs. 6m long weapons contain 2.5 tons of explosives

Could a 15 ton bunker buster that blows apart 200ft of concrete be the bomb that stops America's adversaries from developing nuclear weapons?

The U.S. Air Force has unveiled the Massive Ordnance Penetrator - dubbed the Big Blu - and speculation is already mounting that it may be used in airstrikes on Iran or North Korea.

B-2 Stealth Bombers will use the six metre long GPS guided rocket, fitted with 2.5 tons of explosives, to smash open underground bunkers and tunnels suspected of containing weapons of mass destruction.

USAF Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller said the service started taking delivery of the giant bomb, a staggering* ten times more powerful than its predecessor the BLU-109, in September.*

He added that the $32 million contract with aerospace firm Boeing would see eight of the devices delivered to 'fulfil the Air Force's operational needs'.

Lots of references, video via Google.


----------



## a_majoor

The "Dambusters" would know waht to do with this; it is the evolution of the "Tallboy" and the "Grand Slam" bombs of the WWII era. These bombs allowed the RAF to attack submarine pens, deep bunkers and other structures which were difficult to damage with ordinary bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28bomb%29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeUQKl81aN4


----------



## Rifleman62

The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran".


----------



## Journeyman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ....has attracted the usual assortment of speculation and “informed information,” most of it sucked from the thumbs of pundits who feel they must write quickly.


  :rofl:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran".



Peter Jackson of LOTR and King Kong fame is doing a remake.  It's a shame they won't have access to actual Lancasters for this version.  There is quite a bit of controversy as they have decided to rename Guy Gibson's dog "N" as it might offend African Americans to hear his name said as it historically was.  The "N" word is also Latin for the colour black, which the dog was.  Some feel that Gibson was not being raciest with his choice of names for his dog.  I can't say, but I'm not comfortable with trying to rewrite history to make it PC.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran". [/quote
> 
> I watched something the other day about the Dambusters. Not sure whether it was "Ice Pilots:NWT" or a similar show, but the did an re-enactment of the Dambuster raids. Unfortunately, I fell asleep about ten minutes into the show. Not sure whether it was the History Channel or Discovery Channel.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> .... Effective immediately, in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s November 9 assessment of Iran’s nuclear program, Canada is imposing new sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). The new regulations will do the following:
> 
> prohibit financial transactions with Iran, subject to certain exceptions;
> expand the list of prohibited goods to include all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran;
> amend the list of prohibited goods to include additional items that could be used in Iran’s nuclear program;
> add new individuals and entities to the list of designated persons found in Schedule 1 of the Iran Regulations; and
> remove certain entities that have been recommended for removal by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that no longer present a proliferation concern for Canada.
> 
> It should be noted that the new prohibitions on financial transactions and goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran do not apply to contracts entered into prior to November 22, 2011.
> 
> On October 18, Canada imposed sanctions on five Iranian individuals. Four of them are members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force. These individuals brought the total of those targeted by Canada’s sanctions to 279 entities and 47 individuals.
> 
> Canadians with relatives living in Iran will still be able to send funds to family members, provided those relatives are not listed individuals ....


DFAIT Info-Machine, 21 Nov 11


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don't like Paul Heinbecker and I almost always disagree with his ideas. But, in this comment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ he asks most of the right questions. Not surprisingly, even though he asks his questions with a pronounced anti-Conservative bias, he manages to get the wrong answers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/think-twice-canada-before-attacking-tehran/article2243988/


> Think twice, Canada, before attacking Tehran
> 
> PAUL HEINBECKER
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011
> 
> Do Canadians support participation in a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Do we believe that the issues raised by Iran’s nuclear program warrant using the Canadian Forces in another Persian Gulf war? What about protecting Syrian civilians against their own government? Can we do either, or both? Should we? These questions seem ever less hypothetical and ever more urgent.
> 
> The International Atomic Energy Agency has issued a report providing considerable circumstantial evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability. But in reacting to it, some are inserting exclamation points where question marks would be more appropriate – as took place in the build-up to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003.
> 
> It is not clear whether Tehran intends to cross the nuclear weapons threshold, or merely position themselves to do so relatively quickly at a later time. Either way, the Iranian effort raises potentially grave (albeit differentiated) issues for the international community, including Canada, which joined the United States and Britain on Monday in applying new sanctions against Tehran.
> 
> Israeli newspapers have been reporting efforts by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak to muster senior ministers’ support for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. These reports have coincided with tests of an Israeli long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran, air-to-air refuelling exercises with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and civilian readiness drills in Tel Aviv.
> 
> Mr. Barak, who met with Canadian National Defence Minister Peter MacKay last week, told CNN on Sunday that if it isn’t stopped within months, redundant facilities in the Iranian program will render an attack ineffectual. He asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its nuclear umbrella to intimidate Persian Gulf countries and sponsor terror with impunity. He also warned of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.
> 
> The Israeli positioning may be designed to get inside the heads of Iranian and Western leaders. Perhaps it is deadly serious. Either way, U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta warned publicly against unilateral action during a recent visit to Israel, during which he also reportedly asked – in vain – for a guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike without Washington’s clearance. In Halifax over the weekend, Mr. Panetta warned that a military strike could have severe global economic consequences.
> 
> In Israel, cabinet officials and others remain divided. Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of the spy agency Mossad, called an attack against Iran “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.”
> 
> Indeed, such a war would be no piece of cake, as the invasion of Iraq was misleadingly portrayed. The world is unlikely to just move on after a strike and an Iranian response. Unless an attack is authorized by the United Nations Security Council, a distant prospect at best, it would almost certainly plunge the Middle East deeper into turmoil, roil Western relations with the Muslim world, refuel Islamist extremism, disrupt the Arab awakening, damage the international oil market and weaken the precarious international economy.
> 
> Assuming the likely near-term inadequacy of sanctions, the essential question boils down to this: Which is worse, the bomb or the bombing? Relying on post-facto deterrence, as we do with U.S., Russian, British, French, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and (presumed) Israeli weapons? Or attacking Iran to destroy its capability, or at least delay a nuclear breakthrough?
> 
> Separately, there is another casus belli developing in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime has evidently decided to destroy the country’s opposition, killing as many as it takes in the process, using military force against the civilian population. Will the world stand by and let it happen? Should it?
> 
> Where does all this leave Canada, with its comparatively small but not inconsequential and quite capable military? On CTV’s Question Period this weekend, Mr. Mackay recalled the centrality of the Security Council to any intervention in Syria. And regarding Iran, he described the military option as “the least preferable.” Last week, Foreign Minister John Baird said Canada “will continue to work with its like-minded allies to take the necessary action for Iran to abandon its nuclear program. … It is not a question of if, but to what extent, we will act in response to this report.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly portrayed Israel as an ally. What is this government, the most pro-Israeli in Canadian history, planning to do?
> 
> Major Canadian interests are potentially at risk, including the integrity of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, respect for international law, the safety of friends and kin in the region, the health of the global economy and the preservation of the public peace at home. Canadians need to engage and come to as common a view as possible on how to protect our interests and project our values in the Middle East before we find ourselves drifting into war. This issue is too important to be left to politicians and politics as usual.
> 
> _Paul Heinbecker is a former Canadian ambassador to the UN. He is author of Getting Back in the Game, director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations and distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont. This article does not necessarily reflect the views of these institutions._




Mr. Heinbecker starts off on the wrong foot. He asks a silly question, two of them actually: _"Do Canadians support participation in a pre-emptive attack on Iran?  Do we believe that the issues raised by Iran’s nuclear program warrant using the Canadian Forces in another Persian Gulf war?"_ Rest assured that Canadians do not "support" another war, anywhere. But, who cares? Heinbecker gets the right question, albeit phrased as a statement, at the very of his commentary: _" Canadians need to ... come to as common a view as possible on how to protect our interests and project our values in the Middle East."_ Now, Heinbecker insinuates that Prime Minister Harper's "values" and Prime Minister Harper's assessment of Canada's interest in the Middle East are substantially different from _"Canadians'"_ views of those things; my guess is that, _comme d'habitude_, Paul Heinbecker is full of big L Liberal sh!t. 

Let's be clear: we (Canadians) have neither a duty nor an interest in attacking Iran ... not, at least, until the UN Security Council asks us to to that - as it asked us to go and fight in Korea, in the Balkans and in Afghanistan and as it asked us, most recently, to go and fight in Libya.

What Israel does in pursuit of its own definition of its own vital interests is Israels' own business. On a personal note I think an all out (*nuclear*) attack on Iran is, probably, a good thing. I suspect Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and several other Arab states) agree.


----------



## Sythen

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On a personal note I think an all out (*nuclear*) attack on Iran is, probably, a good thing.



I agreed with you until this point. If we can cripple their ability to create WMD's without the need for nuclear weapons (and I admittedly know very little about bombing capabilities and bunker buster type weapons) then nuclear weapons should never be used. You can't uninvent something, but nuclear weapons have no place in this world. One of the many reasons I support an air attack on Iran's facilities and government buildings.


----------



## a_majoor

People living downwind of the radioactive fallout plumes are not likely to be very happy, no matter what they may have thought of the previous Persian regime. I suspect that conventional attack is off the table unless in response to a real or perceived act of war by the Iranians, it is simply too difficult (the range alone is at the extreme end of the combat range of Israeli jets, even before factoring in crossing potentially hostile airspace) and too uncertain in results.

OTOH we are probably seeing (or going to see) a very ramped up campaign of sabotage and assassination, probably directed more at the regime and enablers, as well as the Iranian economy rather than directly at the nuclear program. Computer sabotage of oil production, banking and electrical grids will hurt the economy and place more stress on the regime, without being directly traceable to any particular nation. Manipulating exchange rates and contracts to cripple the logistical pipeline to Iran will also have similar effects. Psywar played over the Internet in the form of clever "viral" videos and other social media attacks will also play a role.

How it ends will be out of everyone's hands, if the regime implodes or collapses there is no grantee who or what will emerge as the new leadership of Iran, or how they will see the West.


----------



## Old Sweat

Speaking as an old cold warrior who picked up a qualification of nuclear target analyst back in 1961 and updated it a couple of times, I cannot say one way or the other whether the selective use of some nuclear devices of whatever yield is warranted. It would take access to detailed intelligence of the various presumed targets and the Iranian air defence system, as well as detailed knowledge of the various weapons systems available for the presumed attack, and nobody is apt to send me an email with that data attached. My feeling is that nuclear weapons may not be needed, and maybe the solution, after all the other options have been exhausted, is to take out something like the electric power grid and the air defence system for the country as well as the naval bases on the Persian Gulf. Maybe a decapitation of the political and government structure is the solution. Again, I may be talking through my hat. I don't know for sure, but if things like the "bunker busters" will work, then they should be used.

And re being downwind, fallout is a function of the height of burst and the amount of debris sucked up into the atmosphere.


----------



## vonGarvin

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And re being downwind, fallout is a function of the height of burst and the amount of debris sucked up into the atmosphere.


I'm glad you posted that.  Too often I hear people discussing only cockroaches and Keith Richards surviving a nuclear attack of even just one bomb, due to all the radiation left behind.  


As for types of weapons to be used, if nuclear weapons were to be used, even on some remote target in the middle of nowhere, Iran, perhaps it would be the message to the government of Iran that we mean business.


And because of that, I predict that no nuclear weapons would be used, because the West doesn't have the balls to use them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm glad you posted that.  Too often I hear people discussing only cockroaches and Keith Richards surviving a nuclear attack of even just one bomb, due to all the radiation left behind.
> 
> 
> As for types of weapons to be used, if nuclear weapons were to be used, even on some remote target in the middle of nowhere, Iran, perhaps it would be the message to the government of Iran that we mean business.
> 
> 
> And because of that, I predict that no nuclear weapons would be used, because the West doesn't have the balls to use them.




I wasn't thinking of the big, US led, West; I agree that there is no sense of common purpose. But Israel has the means and, I think, the will - IF they perceive a sufficient threat.

My guess is that Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't care what President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and all the rest might think - IF the threat is real, immediate and sufficient then Israel will act, even if it means p!ssing off all the Western "leaders."


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't care what President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and all the rest might think - IF the threat is real, immediate and sufficient then Israel will act, even if it means p!ssing off all the Western "leaders."


Agreed.


----------



## a_majoor

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And re being downwind, fallout is a function of the height of burst and the amount of debris sucked up into the atmosphere.



Since the nuclear facilities are deeply buried, any nuclear strike will have to be a ground burst or subsurface (either penetrating warheads or commandos emplacing backpack nukes inside the facility), which adds up to a lot of fallout. Messing up the cheque clearing system at the banks or disrupting the power grid is orders of magnitude safer and easier, but I agree that the Israelis will use whatever means they deem necessary to end the threat, regardless of what we think.


----------



## 57Chevy

I think there are too many lies between both parties to make a reasonable supposition on the use of nuclear weapons.
Israel has pledged a 'no first use' (NFU) unless its existance is threatened, while Iran has declared its intention to wipe Isreal off the face of the map as soon as they have it. (And yet both speak of how peaceful their intentions are.)

IMO I don't think that Iran will ever get the chance to use it, let alone complete it.

E.R.'s may be right on the button, but it does not mean that Israel will nuke Iran.


According to this article shared with provisions of The Copyight Act 
U.S. election ups risk of Israeli strike on Iran: expert
Simon Cameron-Moore 16 Nov
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-iran-nuclear-risk-idUSTRE7AF29R20111116

(Reuters) - An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites may become likelier in 2012 if Israel calculates it has more room to act alone in a U.S. presidential election year, a former U.S. official and nuclear diplomacy expert said.
Full article at link.

But on the other hand, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says the Israeli regime will never have the courage to actualize its threats of launching an attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Israel, which has suffered humiliating defeats in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, will never be able to make any gains facing the superior power of Iran.

The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with a military strike under the pretext that Iran's nuclear program may have a covert military aspect. 
Iran has categorically rejected such allegations and says it only seeks the peaceful applications of nuclear technology and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never found any indication of a diversion in Tehran's nuclear program. 
Article also shared with provisions of The Copyright Act continues at link below
'Israel won't dare attack Iran'
Press TV 10 Nov
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/209392.html

                              ___________________________________________________
A further article of interest and shared as above

PM Netanyahu: Iranian nukes endanger Mideast, world peace.
http://radiojurnal.canalblog.com/archives/2011/11/09/22630773.html
Radiojournal 09 Nov

excerpt;

Today, the whole world faces an important test: Will they understand that Iran is a threat that must be taken care of?” Livni told the Post. The Kadima leader explained that Iran is not a political issue. “This is not something that a particular prime minister is advocating,” she said. “This isn’t an effort for just one side. We must try to bring a strong international decision.” Livni's media campaign is focusing specifically on Russia and China, in hopes of convincing the two key countries to intensify their opposition to Tehran in the UN Security Council. 

“The report revealed a truth that Israel has been saying for years: Iran is in a nuclear arms race, and Iran must be stopped,” she said in interviews with Russian national television and radio, as well as China’s official news agency. 


“Until now, China and Russia avoided dramatic sanctions for economic reasons,” Livni explained to the Post. “In the past, I tried to convince them, but the answer I received is that there is no proof.” “Now there is proof that this isn’t a Zionist plot,” she added. As far as China’s claim that the IAEA report doesn’t offer sufficient proof to act against Iran, Livni said “whoever is looking for an excuse can find it, but this is a serious report.


They can’t argue with it.” In interviews with Chinese and Russian media, as well as the BBC, AP, Reuters, CNN, Moscow Television and Sky News, Livni explained that “Tehran’s behavior is a problem for the entire free world. It is time to act.” “Iran is not only an Israeli problem; it never was. It is a problem for the whole world, and if Tehran will reach its goals, the whole world will pay the price,” she said.

 “World leaders must work together and take action,” Livni added. “Make the obvious conclusions from this report. You cannot claim that you don’t have enough information.” “Iran must be stopped. The time to act is now. There is no longer a dilemma on this issue,” she said.

Earlier Wednesday, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) called the IAEA report “an opportunity for the free world to take action.” Speaking from the US, Mofaz told Army Radio that he thinks “the time has come to intensify sanctions and paralyze the Iranian economy.” “The report exposed the true face of Iran and its intentions,” the Kadima MK said. “Anyone who thinks he’s immune [to the Iranian threat] is making a mistake.” Mofaz, who was born in Tehran and moved to Israel at age 9, explained that Iran’s missile range could reach most European capitals, and will bring “a balance of terror in the Middle East.”

He contended that “military action of any kind, particularly from Israel, is the last and worst course of action at this time, but all options must be on the table and ready.” “We will not accept a nuclear Iran,” Mofaz said


----------



## GAP

Iran threatens NATO bases in Turkey
The Associated Press Posted: Nov 26, 2011
Article Link

ran will target NATO's missile defence installations in Turkey if the United States or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic, a senior commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard said Saturday.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guards' aerospace division, said the warning is part of a new defence strategy to counter what he described as an increase in threats from the U.S. and Israel.

"Should we be threatened, we will target NATO's missile defence shield in Turkey and then hit the next targets," the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted Hajizadeh as saying.
Downgrade in Iran, U.K. diplomacy

Iran's parliament on Sunday approved a bill requiring both Iran and Britain to withdraw their respective ambassadors from each other's countries, following London's support of recently upgraded U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

Tehran's relations with Britain have become increasingly strained over the past few months, largely driven by tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear program. The West says the country is developing weapons; Tehran denies the claims.

Iranian lawmakers voted for the bill requiring the country to reduce its relationship with Britain to the level of charge d'affaires within two weeks.

Tensions have been rising between Iran and the West since the release of a report earlier this month by the International Atomic Energy Agency that said for the first time that Tehran is suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear arms
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy

Caveat:  *initial* report only.....


> Reports from Iran Monday night said that a large explosion had been heard in Isfahan, where several key nuclear facilities are located, particularly a uranium conversion plant. If correct, Monday's explosion would be the second in about two weeks, after 21 members of an elite Iranian army unit were killed outside Bidganeh village, 40 kilometers southwest of Tehran.
> 
> A spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard was quoted as saying that the explosion Monday occurred as some weapons were being transported in the area.


Arutz Sheva (ISR), 28 Nov 11

Federation of American Scientists' backgrounder of what's of interest in Isfahan/Esfahan:


> Esfahan (Isfahan) is said to be the primary location of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Nuclear Technology/Research Center in Esfahan is Iran's largest nuclear research center, and is said to employ as many as 3,000 scientists. Iran signed an agreement France in 1975 to build a nuclear research center in Isfahan, to provide training for personnel to operate the Bushehr reactor, located at the University of Isfahan. As of 1977 Iran reportedly planned to have at least one reactor and a small French-built fuel reprocessing facility in Isfahan by 1980.
> 
> The University of Isfahan, with over 50 years of experience, is one of the leading higher educational institutes in Iran. The university embraces seven faculties with thirty departments as well as an evening school. The University of Isfahan has a unique location at the foot of the Kuh Sofeh (Sofeh mountain, 32o35'00"N 51o38'00"E) with an area of 4.5 million square meters. Over 1000 graduate students and 10,000 under-graduate students are trained in various fields of Science, Engineering, Human Science, Economics, Linguistics, Educational Science and Sport Science ....


Google Maps link to Isfahan/Esfahan, IRN


----------



## jollyjacktar

Man oh man, they seem to have Homer Simpson working for them.  Oh well, natural selection will weed out the more incompetent workers as the more recent evens seem to play out.


----------



## The Bread Guy

IRN officials, media:  What boom?





> Deputy Governor of Isfahan in Political Security Affairs and Monday night denied news broadcasted on some news lines on spread of a heavy sound in city, quoted on his behalf.  Deputy Isfahan Gov. denies news on speaking of heavy sound in city
> Mohammad-Mahdi Esma'ili added in a phone talk with IRNA, 'I have had no interview with any media today (Monday morning) in that respect and the broadcasted news on my behalf if sheer lies.'
> He meanwhile stressed that the Isfahan Governorate would pursue the matter at the judiciary.
> Meanwhile, the Public Relations Manager of Isfahan Fire Department Mas'oud Anayeb, too, while rejecting the news broadcasted on the horrendous noise in Isfahan, said, 'So far the Fire Department has received no news in this respect.'  Some news sites on Monday afternoon quoted some provincial officials as saying that a horrendous sound had been heard in Isfahan.


IRNA official state media page, 28 Nov 11


----------



## a_majoor

More on the explosion:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/11/breaking-huge-explosion-in-iraqs-nuke.html



> *BREAKING: Huge Explosion In IRAN's Nuke City*
> 
> Less than two weeks after a mysterious explosion destroyed an Iranian missile development base, and the same day the Israeli Military reported on the effect of that explosion, Iran's official news agency FARS reported that a loud blast was heard in the city of Isfahan at 2:40 pm local time (6:10am EST).
> 
> Iran operates a uranium conversion plant near Isfahan, which has a major role in the nuclear weapons process. first went into operation in 2004, taking uranium from mines and producing uranium fluoride gas, which then feeds the centrifuges that enrich the uranium.
> 
> Since 2004 (thank you France) , thousands of tons of uranium flouride gas were stockpiled at Isfahan and subsequently sent to the enrichment plant in Natanz. Search and rescue teams called to the scene confirmed the blast, but as of yet no injuries have been reported.
> 
> Iran's uranium enrichment plant is located just outside the city of Isfahan – one of Iran's largest cities.
> 
> According to the FARS report, a security official confirmed that the explosion had occurred, but refused to give further details. The district's security department head Muhammad Mahdi Ismaili said "we have no exact information; the incident is being investigated.
> 
> Earlier today, Israeli military intelligence commented on the last Iranian explosion, the one two weeks ago which destroyed a missile technology production site at a military base in Tehran which killed one of Iran's missile project heads.
> "The blast in the site where surface-to-surface missiles were developed can delay or bring to a complete halt the production of the missiles at that site," said head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence Research Section Department Brigadier General Itai baron at a briefing in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
> 
> "However," Baron cautioned, "It must be emphasized that Iran has other development sites other than the one that was destroyed."
> It will be interesting to see if this explosion (and the one two weeks ago) is the result of Iranian incompetence, bad luck, or some outside source.
> 
> More to come.
> 
> 
> Update 1: Mmmmm..
> 
> 
> Update 2:
> 
> Elder of Zion Adds
> 
> A BBC reporter tweets his father in Isfahan heard the explosion.
> 
> A Second Iranian news source confirms it, unclear if it was 2:40 AM or PM. Make that three.
> Iranian tweeters are all saying it was either an arms depot or an ammunition depot.
> 
> Isfahan's governor is now claiming that it was from a "military exercise."
> 
> Update #3 5:30pm EST.
> 
> Since the news broke earlier today, the Iranians have been tripping over their underwear trying to explain away the explosion, offering excuses such as it was a military exercise, a gas station blew up and of course the all-purpose "it never happened."
> 
> The British paper the Telegraph is certain that it was sabotage, and it was caused by the Jooose.
> Residents of the city were independently telling relatives and friends overseas that the city had been shaken by a massive blast in the early afternoon.
> 
> The reports immediately prompted speculation that Iran had suffered another sabotage attack, just two weeks after a blast at a missile base gave rise to similar suspicions.
> 
> Military analysts however said the intensity of the explosion suggested a targeted attempt at sabotaging Iran's nuclear-related missile development programme, most probably carried out by Mossad.
> If it was Mossad or any other Israeli organization, we will never know for sure, Israel does not confirm this kind of information pro or con.
> 
> As for what exactly exploded and how bad--that will take a few hours or even days. Stay tuned, will update this page throughout the night.


----------



## WingsofFury

In hopes of keeping this thread serious but with the occasional bit of laughter thrown in, I submit to you the following:

Iranian Engineers - Be Afraid!


----------



## The Bread Guy

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> In hopes of keeping this thread serious but with the occasional bit of laughter thrown in, I submit to you the following:
> 
> Iranian Engineers - Be Afraid!


 :rofl:
Here's hoping the same folks are working on the nuke program!


----------



## a_majoor

I hope they are not building bridges in Montreal!


----------



## a_majoor

On a more serious note:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility-has-exploded-as-diplomatic-tensions-rise-between-the-west-and-tehran/story-e6frg6so-1226209996774



> *A second Iranian nuclear facility has exploded, as diplomatic tensions rise between the West and Tehran*
> BY: SHEERA FRENKEL From: The Times November 30, 2011 11:00AM
> 
> 
> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visits the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility south of the capital, Tehran, Iran. Source: AP
> AN IRANIAN nuclear facility has been hit by a huge explosion, the second such blast in a month, prompting speculation that Tehran's military and atomic sites are under attack.
> 
> Satellite imagery seen by The Times confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran.
> 
> The images clearly showed billowing smoke and destruction, negating Iranian claims yesterday that no such explosion had taken place. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was "no doubt" that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was "no accident".
> 
> The explosion at Iran's third-largest city came as satellite images emerged of the damage caused by one at a military base outside Tehran two weeks ago that killed about 30 members of the Revolutionary Guard, including General Hassan Moghaddam, the head of the Iranian missile defence program.
> 
> Iran claimed that the Tehran explosion occurred during testing on a new weapons system designed to strike at Israel. But several Israeli officials have confirmed that the blast was intentional and part of an effort to target Iran's nuclear weapons program.
> 
> On Monday, Isfahan residents reported a blast that shook tower blocks in the city at about 2.40pm and seeing a cloud of smoke rising over the nuclear facility on the edge of the city.
> 
> "This caused damage to the facilities in Isfahan, particularly to the elements we believe were involved in storage of raw materials," said one military intelligence source.
> 
> He would not confirm or deny Israel's involvement in the blast, instead saying that there were "many different parties looking to sabotage, stop or coerce Iran into stopping its nuclear weapons program".
> 
> Iran went into frantic denial yesterday as news of the explosion at Isfahan emerged. Alireza Zaker-Isfahani, the city's governor, claimed that the blast had been caused by a military exercise in the area but state-owned agencies in Tehran soon removed this story and issued a government denial that any explosion had taken place at all.
> 
> On Monday, Dan Meridor. the Israeli Intelligence Minister, said: "There are countries who impose economic sanctions and there are countries who act in other ways in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat."
> 
> Major-General Giora Eiland, Israel's former director of national security, told Israel's army radio that the Isfahan blast was no accident. "There aren't many coincidences, and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it's the hand of God," he said.
> 
> A former Israeli intelligence official cited at least two other explosions that have "successfully neutralized" Iranian bases associated with the Shahab-3, the medium-range missile that could be adapted to carry a nuclear warhead. "This is something everyone in the West wanted to see happen," he added.
> 
> Iran has repeatedly denied the existence of a nuclear weapons program, and strongly condemned the International Atomic Energy Agency's report last month that accused Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon.



Michael Ledeen offers a dissenting opinion that these events are caused by dissenting elements within Iran's power structure or perhaps the "Green Revolution". Either way, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat, and the Iranians are being skinned pretty good without airstrikes or other overt military actions (and who knows, perhaps the accidents are the result of shoddy work practices and poor maintenance).


----------



## jollyjacktar

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> In hopes of keeping this thread serious but with the occasional bit of laughter thrown in, I submit to you the following:
> 
> Iranian Engineers - Be Afraid!



I don't know.  I think it is perfect, they should all try it at high speed.


----------



## cupper

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> In hopes of keeping this thread serious but with the occasional bit of laughter thrown in, I submit to you the following:
> 
> Iranian Engineers - Be Afraid!



As a Professional Engineer, I'm not allowed to disparage my fellow Engineers.  :facepalm:

But that is self disparaging so no further comment needed.


----------



## cupper

As for the invasion of the British Embassy, I fall back to my solution when they took over the US Embassy in 1979.

Just plow the whole country under, then pave it over.


----------



## GAP

because the picture is in Java...I can't get the before pic....see the website...

Image captures Iran military base explosion damage
Article Link
30 November 2011 

A satellite image has captured apparently extensive damage from an explosion at a military base near Tehran earlier this month.

Some buildings at the Revolutionary Guards base seem to have been completely destroyed in the explosion.

The 12 November blast killed 17 soldiers and has been widely blamed in Iran on foreign intelligence services.

On Monday, another in a series of unexplained explosions was reported in central Isfahan province.

They come at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

US and European powers fear that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, though Iran says its nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6

Here is the before image.


----------



## GAP

That was one big boom.....


----------



## jollyjacktar

That was careless of them.   ;D


----------



## 57Chevy

Quote from article:
"This caused damage to the facilities in Isfahan, particularly to the elements we believe were involved in storage of raw materials," said one military intelligence source."


IMO the explosion may not have actually affected the uranium enrichment facility. (Centrifuges)

Here's why,

Natanz is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth.


----------



## cupper

The last thing they heard before the Boom?

OOPS!


----------



## a_majoor

Editorial from Investor's Business Daily:

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=593823&p=2



> *Whoever's Behind Sabotage, Attacks In Iran: Keep It Up*
> Posted 12/05/2011 06:57 PM ET
> 
> Proper Response: Iran's military bases are blowing up and its nuclear scientists are dying early. Who's responsible? Hard to tell. But it appears someone recognizes that Tehran is at war with civilization and is fighting back.
> 
> In the last two years, there have been more than two dozen mysterious explosions at Iranian military facilities, including one last week that the New York Times characterized as a "major setback for Iran's most advanced long-range missile program."
> 
> Many of Iran's nuclear scientists have also been terminated under similarly peculiar circumstances. They've been "assassinated" by masked motorcycle riders who attach magnetic bombs to their cars, common car bombs, radioactive poisoning and other clandestine-looking attacks. There have also been a few "accidental" deaths among the scientists.
> 
> Additional plagues that have afflicted Tehran's nuclear weapons program include the Stuxnet cyberworm that sent centrifuges out of control, and a covert campaign that, according to the Los Angeles Times, has supplied it with "faulty parts, plans or software."
> 
> Who's behind the apparent sabotage?
> 
> Some say the U.S. and Israel's Mossad have been working together to derail Tehran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Others suspect European involvement, either alone or in association with the U.S. and/or Israel.
> 
> Given the nature of the attacks and the idiosyncracies of a world that indulges rogue nations such as Iran and loathes open and respectable nations such as Israel and the U.S, it's impossible to know.
> 
> But we say: Whoever you are, please keep it up.
> 
> Iran is neither an ally nor a benign nation that doesn't need to be watched. It is run by a militant regime and its president is an Islamist who has made it clear that the destruction of Israel is one of Tehran's ultimate goals.
> 
> A cabal of religious clerics — the mullahs — rule behind the scenes and have trafficked heavily in both domestic and international terrorism.
> 
> The reality is Iran has been at war with the U.S. since radicals invaded the U.S. embassy in 1979 and took Americans hostage. A new generation of radicals just last week overran the British Embassy in Tehran.
> 
> In between these acts of war, Iran has supported and armed terrorists in Iraq who have killed American soldiers; attacked Israel through surrogates Hezbollah, Hamas and a number of other Palestinian groups; shipped weapons to Afghanistan and trained the Taliban there; and plotted to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. on American soil.
> 
> The Iranian government has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department since 1984 and "remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2010."
> 
> The regime has not only serially ignored the many United Nations sanctions aimed at stopping it from becoming a nuclear arms proliferator, it has taunted the U.N. and the West over those sanctions.
> 
> Clearly this is not a government that should be allowed to acquire the power and status that a nuclear weapons arsenal would provide. It is a government that needs to be brought down and replaced with one dedicated to peace abroad and freedom at home.
> 
> While the long-term goal is regime change — provided Iran isn't plunged into an Islamist winter — the immediate priority is to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power. If that requires an outright military attack, then the West has to accept that and respond decisively.
> 
> In the meantime, though, it's comforting to see that someone is softening up the inside.


----------



## OldSolduer

Crazy thought here - hear me out:

What if elements within the Iranian government itself is blowing these things up? 

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## a_majoor

Michael Ledeen has floated that idea, as well as this being the work of the Green Revolution. Internal dissent is probably the best way to crack the problem, but it needs to have the classical external support and safe area to become a successful insurgency; neither of which seem to be offered at the present time.


----------



## TN2IC

No Fly Zone: Iran shoots down US drone

Try not to laugh at this quack job    ;D


----------



## a_majoor

More on the internal factor:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/12/14/whos-really-blowing-up-iran/?print=1



> *Who’s REALLY Blowing Up Iran?*
> 
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On December 14, 2011 @ 7:37 pm In Uncategorized | 1 Comment
> 
> It just has to be Israel, according to the pundit class.  You know, that warmonger Netanyahu.  Or maybe it’s us.  Maybe it’s Obama, who after all killed bin Laden and Qadaffi, toppled Mubarak and bin Ali, and has proclaimed that “Assad must go.” Who else could be behind the “mysterious” wave of assassination, sabotage and explosions all over the country, from military bases to factories, from pipelines carrying natural gas to the Turks to automobiles in downtown Tehran carrying nuclear physicists to or from work?
> 
> Until recently, I was the only one writing about the systematic campaign of sabotage.  Now it’s all the rage.
> 
> The latest attack [1] against a major Iranian target came a few days ago against a plant that manufactures “special steel” that is used, inter alia, for nose cones and other parts of missiles.  It’s the fourth major attack in the past couple of months, three of which you’ve probably read about, and one which has largely escaped notice.  The three you know are the steel plant three days ago, the monster blast at Karaj on November 12th, and the explosion on November 28th at a military complex at Isfahan.  The one you didn’t hear about  took place on yet another military facility in Khorramabad, near the Iraqi border, a couple of days after Karaj.
> 
> And then there are “minor” events, such as a couple of Basij gunned down in Balouchistan the other day.
> 
> Before we get to the whys and wherefores, a bit of detail:  the huge detonation at Karaj, which, as I have explained, surprised the attackers and distorted our understanding.  The operation was aimed at the Revolutionary Guards Corps, specifically at General Hassan Tehrani Moghadam, who was both the architect of the national missile program and one of the nastiest officials in that legendarily nasty organization.  The attackers did not know that there was a large quantity of rocket fuel on the base that day (which was the reason Moghadam was there).  The special fuel came from North Korea, and it was supposed to double tne range of Iran’s missiles.  The explosion that killed Moghadam and scores of his comrades ignited the rocket fuel, with dramatic results.  To date, 377 dead have been reported to the supreme leader’s office.  Among the dead are the attackers–they couldn’t escape the big explosion–and at least four North Korean officials, who were there for the celebration.
> 
> The attackers came from the internal opposition, and so far as I know they had no ties to any foreign anything, not a foreign intelligence service, not a foreign military organization, not a foreign government.
> 
> Of course, as always with things Iranians, you’ve got to caveat what you think you know.  It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been misinformed.  But, on the other hand, I’ve been a lonely voice for quite a while, saying that the opposition (call it the Green Movement, for lack of an updated logo) would become more violent, that the movement was, if anything, more powerful than it was at the time of the big demonstrations a year and two years ago, and that the regime was full of opposition sympathizers and collaborators.
> 
> Because it’s obvious that whoever’s blowing up Iran, they’ve got a lot of help from some very important insiders.  Don’t take it from me;  ask Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.  He knows that if his enemies can blow up those installations, they can blow up most anything.  Of late, Khamenei hasn’t been particularly active in public events.  Like his buddy, Hezbollah chief Nasrullah, he’s keeping his head down and his profile low.
> 
> Not that Khamenei has taken vows of solitude and silence.  He’s fired several top Revolutionary Guards generals and colonels.  Al Arabiya  and other lovers of fairy tales would have us believe that Khamenei was the target [2] of the Karaj bombing, and therefore he purged the Guards.  But Khamenei wasn’t the target (there was no reason to believe he would attend the ceremony;  after all, he didn’t even show up for the inauguration of the Bushehr nuclear plant), and while some of the Guards were indeed fired because of the bombings–they came from the counter-intelligence and “defense” organizations who are supposed to protect such facilities–others were fired because of their involvement in the burgeoning financial scandal.  Other “analysts” suggest that Khamenei’s son had joined President Ahmadinejad in trying to kill the old man, but there is nothing to it.  Ahmadinejad might well want Khamenei to reach paradise with all due speed, but he wasn’t involved in this affair.
> 
> The sources upon whom I rely for such information tell me there is more to come, and I’m sure that the supreme leader believes just that.  He may not know the provenance of the army amassed against him and his regime, and he may well convince himself, as our own entrail readers have convinced themselves, that he is under siege from the satanic forces in Washington and Jerusalem.  But I don’t believe it.  Maybe–probably, even-Stuxnet.  I don’t think the Greens are up to that one.  Maybe, if you insist, some of the assassinations of the physicists, although I rather suspect they were suspected of disloyalty and were rubbed out by the regime.
> 
> But this is a major campaign, and I think it represents the revenge of the Iranian people against their torturers, murderers and oppressors.
> 
> Who could blame them?
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/12/14/whos-really-blowing-up-iran/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] The latest attack: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4160500,00.html
> 
> [2] Khamenei was the target: http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/12/13/reporters-notebook-4-iran/


----------



## a_majoor

More reports of explosions. No links or second sources, however:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/20/wow-theyre-still-blowing-up-iran/



> *Wow, They’re Still Blowing Up Iran*
> 
> Two more explosions today.  One at the big refinery in Isfahan, the other at the very important Revolutionary Guards base in Kerman, which is the headquarters for the RG’s operations in the East (think Afghanistan, etc.).
> 
> I don’t have casualty figures yet, but the Kerman blast was a biggie.
> 
> I am told that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei hasn’t made a public appearance in more than two weeks.  I don’t have any way to check this, but he certainly hasn’t been hogging the spotlight of late.  That role is being played by the Iranian currency, the rial, which is in the same death spiral as the regime.  It’s dropped from 1300-and-change to the dollar to 1500-plus in a couple of weeks.  Maybe Khamenei doesn’t want to talk about the resounding success of his regime?



Ledeen's theory is these activities are the work of the "Green Revoution", since their calls for help went unheeded after the last election. Most people would believe this is the work of the Mossad or CIA, or perhaps another "black" outfit. The story, when it comes out, will be very interesting.


----------



## a_majoor

Sanctions are starting to work, and may be the cause of the downfall when the Iranian economy collapses:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/01/02/iran-in-convulsion-the-death-spiral-continues/?print=1



> *Iran in Convulsion (the death spiral continues)*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On January 2, 2012 @ 8:51 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments
> 
> Big news today from Iran, confirming once again that the hapless regime in Tehran proceeds down its death spiral. The first is the spectacular collapse of the national currency, which has lost 35% of its value since September. The second headline, in an extraordinary press conference by the effective commander of the revolutionary guards, is the admission that the incarcerated leaders of the green movement have so much powerful support that the regime dares not arrest them.
> 
> The crash of the rial him has been linked to the latest round of sanctions, the ones aimed against the Iranian central bank. These are, at least for the moment, unilateral American sanctions, but their import is global, since they are aimed at anyone doing business in Iran’s oil sector. Those transactions invariably go through the central bank, and the American sanctions confront would-be purchasers of Iranian crude oil with an unpleasant choice: either do business with America or do business with Iran.
> 
> The ayatollahs, in their usual blustery way, have pooh-poohed the effect of the sanctions, insisting that Iran is so strong that even such harsh measures will have little effect.  But nobody in Iran believes that.  There are long lines at the money changers, and one leading government supporter puts the matter in chilling perspective [1]:   Iranian industry “cannot continue to exist” [2] with the rial at today’s level.
> 
> As the Washington Post’s man in Tehran says, [3] this is a devastating blow to the regime, both because it further exposes their inability to cope with the Great Satan—whose destruction, after all, is the core mission of the Islamic Republic—and because the Iranian people know that their oppressors are making  out like bandits, as Treasury Undersecretary David Cohen explains [4]:
> 
> The 39 percent difference between the central bank’s official rate and market rates on Dec. 21 was the largest in almost two decades, economists in Tehran and Washington said in interviews.
> 
> U.S. Treasury Undersecretary David Cohen said the gap between the two rates has provided an arbitrage opportunity exploited by officials and businesses affiliated with the IRGC, the elite military arm that’s under international sanctions for suspected nuclear weapons work and terrorism. They are among regime elements able to obtain foreign currency at the favorable official exchange rate and sell it for a profit in exchange bureaus at the market rate, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in written testimony Dec. 1.
> 
> “Ordinary Iranians are urgently seeking out foreign currency such as dollars or euros for safety, yet they are having trouble accessing hard currency, and when they can, they have to pay the unofficial market rate,” said Cohen, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
> 
> There are stories from Tehran about people desperately trying to buy commodities, from gold to steel,  about people selling cars and motorcycles to get cash they can convert to hard currency, and, inevitably, about people offering their kidneys for sale (a story we’ve heard about desperate people everywhere from Africa to China.  Is it true?).
> 
> So the regime is failing to meet the basic needs of the Iranian people (nothing really new there; strikers at the Shiraz Telecommunications Factory haven’t been paid for 26 months), and the people don’t like it.
> 
> This debacle coincides with an amazing confession of weakness from the highest level of the regime:  Ali Saeedi is the supreme leader’s representative to the Revolutionary Guards, and since Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei commands the Guards, Saeedi’s words are authoritative.  Asked why Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi–the two Green Movement leaders who have been held in isolation for more than ten months—Saeedi publicly stated that it can’t be done, because the two have such powerful support. The opposition leaders can’t be prosecuted, he said [5],  “because they have supporters and followers” as well as “a few turban-heads [clerics] who continue to back elements within the sedition.”
> 
> Indeed, Karroubi’s wife has been released from captivity, and she communicates her husband’s thoughts to the Green Movement.  Most recently, this consisted of instructions to boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for March.  This is yet another direct challenge to Khamenei, who has always boasted (often falsely) that Iranian elections produce huge turnouts.
> 
> Those who believe the Green Movement has been crushed need to reflect on these developments, which seem to me to prove the opposite:  the regime fears the movement, doesn’t dare take decisive action against its leaders, and faces further protests against a background of mounting failure.
> 
> And yet, Khamenei’s killers continue to attack us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we still have not openly supported his opponents, any more than we have supported Assad’s opponents in Syria.  How many Americans have to die at the hands of this wicked regime before we help the Iranian and Syrian people put an end to their long national agony?
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/01/02/iran-in-convulsion-the-death-spiral-continues/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] one leading government supporter puts the matter in chilling perspective: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/1/2/the-latest-from-iran-2-january-the-currency-is-falling.html
> [2] Iranian industry “cannot continue to exist”: http://www.peykeiran.com/Content.aspx?ID=42914
> [3] the Washington Post’s man in Tehran says,: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/irans-rial-slides-under-latest-us-sanctions/2012/01/02/gIQAHX8MWP_story.html
> [4] Undersecretary David Cohen explains: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-30/iran-regime-profiting-from-currency-decline-u-s-treasury-says.html
> [5] The opposition leaders can’t be prosecuted, he said: http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2012/jan/03/3436


----------



## HavokFour

*UK signals ready to use force to keep Strait open*​
Source



> (Reuters) - Britain on Thursday signaled its readiness to use military force if necessary to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, warning Iran not to miscalculate over the West's determination to prevent disruption to the key shipping route.
> 
> Iran threatened last week to stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz if foreign sanctions were imposed on its crude exports over its nuclear ambitions, a move that could trigger military conflict with economies dependent on Gulf oil.
> 
> "Alongside the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Gulf, we have naval assets, we have mine counter-measures capability, we have a frigate present there, and we are an integrated part of the allied naval task force in the Gulf and one of the missions of that task force is to ensure that those shipping lanes remain open," British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told Sky News.
> 
> Iran had made similar threats before, but "there should be no miscalculation by the Iranians about the importance that the international community attaches to keeping the Straits of Hormuz open," Hammond said, speaking from Washington where he has gone for talks with his U.S. counterpart Leon Panetta.
> 
> Fears of supply disruptions due to rising tensions between the West and Iran have sent oil prices higher.
> 
> "Any attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz would be illegal and we need to send a very clear message to Iran that we are determined that the straits should remain open," Hammond said.
> 
> Britain's Royal Navy participates in the Combined Maritime Forces, a U.S.-led, Bahrain-based naval flotilla drawn from 25 nations whose missions include counter-piracy, counter-terrorism and security in the Gulf.
> 
> The Strait of Hormuz was one of the world's great commercial arteries and its closure would have very significant consequences for the economies of the world, Hammond said.
> 
> He said in a speech in Washington earlier that any attempt by Iran to close the strait would fail.
> 
> OLIVE BRANCH
> 
> At the same time, Hammond held out an olive branch to Iran by urging it to return to negotiations to find a peaceful solution to its nuclear dispute with the West.
> 
> The West suspects Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear bomb although Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.
> 
> The last round of talks between Iran and six major powers, including Britain, in Istanbul a year ago, got nowhere. Turkey delivered a Western offer for a resumption to Tehran on Thursday and expressed hope they could restart soon.
> 
> Britain shut Iran's embassy in London and expelled all its staff after the British Embassy in Tehran was attacked last November by a crowd angry at British sanctions. Britain also closed its Tehran embassy and evacuated its staff.
> 
> Hammond, appointed to the job last October, made his first trip to Washington as defence secretary as President Barack Obama unveiled a new defence strategy in line with Pentagon plans to cut spending after a decade of war.
> 
> Hammond said there was a "clear view both in the UK and the U.S. and indeed in many other allied countries that we will be seeking to avoid prolonged boots-on-the-ground engagements ... of the type that we had in Iraq and that we currently have in Afghanistan (and) that we should invest more in prevention."
> 
> "At the same time, of course, the U.S. has to have an eye on the emerging strength of China as a new major military power," he said.
> 
> (Reporting by Adrian Croft; Editing by Mohammed Abbas)


----------



## 57Chevy

From the Huffington Post and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Various Iran War Games videos at link

UK Warns Iran Over Strait Of Hormuz Threat 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/uk-warns-iran-over-strait_n_1186686.html

LONDON -- Britain's defense secretary warned Iran Thursday that any attempt to block the key global oil passageway the Strait of Hormuz would be illegal and unsuccessful – hinting at a robust international response.

During his first visit to the Pentagon for talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Philip Hammond told the Atlantic Council in Washington that the presence of British and American naval ships in the Persian Gulf would ensure the route is kept open for trade.

Iran has threatened to close the route in possible retaliation to new U.S. and European economic sanctions, a tactic the U.S. already has said it would not tolerate.

About one-sixth of the world's oil passes on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, and analysts have warned the price of Brent crude could temporarily jump to as high as $210 if the strait is closed.

"Disruption to the flow of oil through Strait of Hormuz would threaten regional and global economic growth. Any attempt by Iran to do this would be illegal and unsuccessful," said Hammond, who was appointed as Britain's top defense minister in October.

U.S. officials have said the Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in nearby Bahrain, is prepared to defend the shipping route.

Britain has already downgraded ties with Iran following a major attack on its embassy in Tehran in November, which it insists was sanctioned by the country's ruling elite.

In response, Britain pulled all of its diplomats out of Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats from U.K. soil.

Though Hammond did not specifically threaten a military response if Iran blocks the movement of oil tankers, he warned Tehran that both British and U.S. forces would be close at hand.

"It is in all our interests that the arteries of global trade are kept free, opening and running," Hammond said. "For example, our joint naval presence in the Arabian Gulf, something our regional partners appreciate, is key to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for international trade."

The U.S. and the 27-nation EU have both imposed sanctions against Iran over its contentious nuclear program, which the West insists is aimed at producing atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, claiming the program aims to generate civilian electricity and produce medical radioisotopes needed to treat cancer patients.

"My working assumption is that they are working flat out" to produce a nuclear weapon, Hammond said during a question session at the Atlantic Council. However, he also insisted that Britain "would not be in favor of a pre-emptive strike on Iran."


----------



## ht90

This is starting to sound more and more like something big is going to happen... :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Stephen Harper has called the escalating standoff between Iran and the West the greatest threat to world peace. The prime minister offered that assessment of the growing tensions in the Persian Gulf during an interview Thursday on an Alberta radio program. "Your listeners should be under no illusion, Iran is a very serious threat to international peace and security. In my judgment, it is the world's most serious threat to international peace and security," Harper said during an appearance on the Rutherford Show, an Alberta-wide radio call-in program. Harper also said he has no doubt Iran wants a nuclear weapon and would be prepared to use one ....


The Canadian Press, 5 Jan 12



> A Federal Court judge has temporarily halted the deportation of the mother of an alleged former employee of Iran's nuclear program, after both women defected and fled to Canada. A Jan. 4 decision by Justice Michel Shore, posted on the Federal Court website, grants a stay of execution on an immigration removal order of the unnamed woman, pending a judicial review of her case. The woman's daughter claims to have been an employee of the state organization responsible for Iran's controversial nuclear program, which many fear is developing weapons as well as energy-producing capabilities. Shore's order says that "the controversy in regard to Iran's nuclear program and intentions have a direct (internal and external) bearing on this case." ....


CBC.ca, 5 Jan 12


----------



## Old Sweat

While highly speculative, the story from the National Post's website, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, does provide a scenario which could appear attractive to the Iranian regime. It does make a certain amount of sense as an explanation of the current round of sabre rattling.

A secret nuclear test could be Iran’s trump card in Strait of Hormuz showdown: Goodspeed analysis

Peter Goodspeed Jan 6, 2012 – 10:56 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 6, 2012 12:59 PM ET

Iran’s ultimate trump card in its current showdown with the international community isn’t merely to close the Strait of Hormuz and choke off the world’s oil supply – it is to secretly test a nuclear device.

By dramatically ending the guessing game over their nuclear intentions, Iran’s leaders could bolster their political position at home — just in time for parliamentary elections in March — while transforming the regional military balance.

Any kind of nuclear test, similar to North Korea’s ambiguous 2006 one megaton explosion, could give the Iranians exactly what they want – an uncertain standoff that will pre-empt any conventional attacks by its enemies.

Iran’s bluster about closing the Strait of Hormuz is really more diversion than danger. Any move to choke off oil shipments would leave Iran utterly isolated on the world stage and could trigger a conventional conflict that Iran can’t possibly win. An Iranian attack on an oil tanker or a U.S. Navy ship would be an open invitation to a massive counterattack that would lay waste to Iran’s air defence systems in a matter of days, if not hours.

That in turn would leave Iran’s nuclear program vulnerable to repeated attacks by U.S. or Israeli aircraft. Simply laying mines in the Strait could trigger a similar response, being regarded by the rest of the world as an act of war that justifies a massive military response.

In any conventional conflict, Iran is at a distinct disadvantage. Despite last week’s carefully choreographed display of anti-ship missiles and attack boats during 10 days of naval war games, Iran lacks a modern navy or air force. Tehran never really rebuilt its conventional armed forces after the 1979 Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah. It relies extensively on equipment the Shah bought more than 30 years ago.


During the Iran-Iraq War, when Tehran had to resort to using children as human mine sweepers, it tried unsuccessfully to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic and damaged a U.S. guided missile frigate, the USS Samuel B. Roberts with a mine. The U.S. response was to launch Operation Praying Mantis, the largest U.S. naval engagement since World War Two, in which U.S. forces simultaneously attacked Iran’s oil export platforms, destroyed an Iranian frigate, a gunboat and three speed boats.

The attack was so devastating it pushed Iran to end its eight-year war with Iraq.

Iran doesn’t want to see history repeat itself. In fact that is one of the main reasons it is seeking nuclear weapons. Iran’s ayatollahs firmly believe a nuclear deterrent can make up for the weakness of their conventional forces and will force the rest of the world to treat them with a little more caution.

So, like North Korea before it, Iran may be rushing right now to prepare even the smallest of nuclear test explosions, in an effort to shift the international debate on what to do with Iran to an entirely different plane. Just two weeks ago U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta predicted Iran could have nuclear weapons in “probably about a year . . . perhaps a little less”. About the same time, Washington’s Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre published a report that predicted: “If Iran were to now make an all-out effort to acquire nuclear weapons, it could probably do so in two to six months.”

That timeline could be sped up considerably, if Iran has an as-yet undetected clandestine nuclear enrichment facility, the study said.

Don’t be surprised to wake up some morning soon to hear Iran has gone ahead with a nuclear test and is suddenly ready to reopen diplomatic talks with its critics.

National Post


----------



## Rifleman62

> Any kind of nuclear test, similar to North Korea’s ambiguous 2006 one megaton explosion, could give the Iranians exactly what they want – an uncertain standoff that will pre-empt any conventional attacks by its enemies.



Possibly the world has learned it's lesson that sitting on your hands leads to more problems. 

Take the risk that Iran has set off it's one and only devise and strike very hard and fast. Is that the reason for the saber rattling by GB, Canada and the USA?


----------



## 57Chevy

Who's to say that they don't already have Nuclear Weapons.

According to this article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act and
published by The Washington Times in Oct 2011, it suggests that they do.


Washington Times makes it official: Iran already nuclear armed
Sean Osborne
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/5304

30 October 2011: Last Thursday, 27 October 2011, The Washington Times published an article written by the pseudonym and former-CIA mole within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps (IRGC) ‘Reza Khalili.’ The article, “KAHLILI: Iran Already Has Nuclear Weapons,” should come as no surprise to long-time readers of the Northeast Intelligence Network. I began reporting the same information back in March 2005 with updates and additional information published in 2006, 2007, 2008 and then in 2009 with my  *2008 report carried by Canada Free Press. Not to steal any thunder from Reza Kahlili’s report, but the Northeast Intelligence Network was ahead of the curve on the nuclear-armed Iran issue by a whopping six years, or just enough time to put the finishing touches on a working warhead design to mount on a validated ballistic missile delivery system.

Kahlili’s report provides several paragraphs of necessary background information on the Iranian nuclear weapons program given the acuteness of the American public’s attention deficit disorder. Apparently most of us believed our Bush Administration’s stated position that Iran under an apocalyptic-minded “Twelver” regime would never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapons production capability. In November 2008 a majority of American’s opted for “change you can believe in” and the Obama Administration’s pledge that sanctions along with our allies nuclear non-proliferation regime was up to the task.

Americans were wrong on both counts. Kahlili reveals in this article that former US Air Force Captain Mathew Nasuti attended a U.S. State Department briefing in March 2008 in which the briefer asserted it was “common knowledge” that Iran had “acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.” Oh, you mean like the Kh-55 cruise missiles with their 200kT nuclear warheads smuggled out of the Ukraine? Kahlili also reports that Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer of “Able Danger” fame said his sources reveal that Iran has ” two workable nuclear warheads.”

What amazes me is that it took this long, six full years, for an American mainstream newspaper to finally publish something more than prima facia evidence of a clear and present Iranian nuclear threat to these United States. Remember, Iran has been at war with the United States since the current regime of Ayatollah’s invaded our Embassy in Tehran 32 years ago. What will amaze me even further is if the Obama Administration will actually act in the defense of the United states and our allies against this Iranian threat. If only a true Ronald Reagan-minded Conservative with the testicular fortitude to act were present and accounted for we might have a fighting chance before an Iranian nuke turns off our electrical grid.
                             __________________________________________________


 *2008 report carried by Canada Free Press


Iran Launches Space Vehicle
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4520
18 AUGUST 2008: Yesterday Iran sent into earth orbit it’s “Safir” (Emissary/Ambassador) satellite launch vehicle (SLV). According to some uncorroborated reports the sudden launch caught Western intelligence agencies, the U.S. and Israel in particular, by surprise.

The launch vehicle is known as the IRILV (Islamic Republic of Iran Launch Vehicle) and is assessed by many to be an Iranian Shahab 5/6 ICBM with a projected range of 5,000 to 7,000 km (3,000-4,300 miles). As a suborbital ICBM this launch vehicle places all major European capital cities easily within range of an Iranian nuclear warhead, and, theoretically, as an orbital warhead launch vehicle virtually any location on earth could be targeted by a programed de-orbiting of the warhead. The Iranian payload launched on Sunday is reported to be orbiting the earth at an atltitude of 400 miles once every four hours.

The launch was conducted on the birthday of the 8th century Shi’a Imam Mahdi who disapeared as a boy and who the current regime is commited to hastening his return as their Islamic messiah. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad is reported to have personally conducted the launch countdown.


----------



## GAP

Turkey and Iran carve up a ruptured Arab world
Many analysts say the Middle East is the focus of a geopolitical power struggle between the United States and Iran. That misses the primary thread of events – namely, the ongoing soft partition of the Arab republics between Turkey and Iran, with Turkey the stronger power.
Article Link
 By Jason Pack and Martin van Creveld / January 6, 2012 

During the last decade many right-wing American and Israeli analysts have described the geostrategic struggles unfolding in the Middle East as a new “cold war” pitting the United States against Shiite Iran. They have warned of an Arab “Shiite crescent” – stretching from Lebanon to Iraq – connected to Iran via ties of religion, commerce, and geostrategy.

The new year has started with an attempted Shiite power play by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to dominate the government, and an Iranian demonstration of missile and nuclear fuel rod capacity coupled with threats to close the Straits of Hormuz if Iranian oil exports are blocked.

These events can be interpreted as ample evidence of Iranian expansionism, combined with fears that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon, rendering its present regime and regional clients untouchable.

What this view of the Middle East overlooks is the fact that both the US and Iran are mired in internal political and economic difficulties. Simultaneously, inside the region, both are being outmaneuvered by an ascendant Turkey.

Moreover, Western observers have missed the primary thread of events – namely, the ongoing asymmetric Turkish-Iranian soft partition of the Arab republics. Concomitantly, the American position as regional hegemon is vanishing. Today, only the Arab monarchies and Israel continue to look to the US as their primary patron.

To investigate how these changing dynamics are seen by actors within the region, Mr. Pack spent his Christmas holidays in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of Iraq.

Following the US withdrawal from Iraq, KRG officials bemoaned their need of a regional patron to protect them from dominance by Baghdad. Landlocked Iraqi Kurdistan also needs a conduit to export its oil to the West. The only country that can fulfill both roles is Turkey. That is why KRG officials, instead of supporting their ethnic brethren inside Turkey, have often sided with Ankara against the Kurdish separatist PKK.

All this explains why a bombing on Dec. 28, in which the Turks killed 35 Kurdish smugglers whom they mistook for terrorists, provoked little outrage in Iraqi Kurdistan. On the streets of Erbil there are no signs of protests against Turkey. Instead, one notices Turkey’s ubiquitous presence in the form of construction, investment, consumer goods, and tourists.

Should more pipelines leading from Iraqi Kurdistan to the Mediterranean via Turkey be built, the result will be the de facto creation of an Iraqi-Kurdish buffer state. Dependent on Turkey for its survival, such a state would also form a barrier to Iranian (or American, or PKK) interference in Turkish affairs.

In the southern part of Iraq, the situation is just the opposite. There, a Shiite Arab buffer state, buttressed by Iran as a bulwark against Turkish, American, or Saudi encroachments, is being created. The last two weeks’ events have removed any doubt that Prime Minister Maliki is “Iran’s man” in Baghdad.
Yet despite this de facto partitioning of Iraq over the last month, Turkey and Iran are not challenging each other’s spheres of influence. Thus, Iraq has reverted to its traditional position as the Poland of the Middle East.

In post-Arab Spring North Africa, too, Turkey and Iran have essentially partitioned the resurgent Islamist movements between themselves. The Turks support the victorious “moderate” Islamists from Tunisia to Egypt. Iran backs the Salafist spoilers, even though they are Sunni.

In the Egyptian and Tunisian elections, and in Libya’s inter-militia civil strife, both wings of Islamist opinion have supported each other against Western-backed secularists and neo-liberals. Since North Africa lacks indigenous Shiite populations and the “moderate” Islamists have now emerged as the main players in the region, it is Sunni Turkey, along with Qatar, that appears to be the rising political and commercial patron in North Africa.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6

New Iranian nuclear underground facility complete with SAM's.


----------



## vonGarvin

I have to admit that I'm all rather confused as to *why* Iran is doing all of this.  What level of a Maslowian heirarchy of needs are they trying to fulfil by doing all of this?  Is the Iranian government just seeking to remain in power and is therefore presenting "us" as a legitimate threat?  If they wish to be a regional power, I get that, but if they want to do more than just secure their borders, why would they seek The Bomb?


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I have to admit that I'm all rather confused as to *why* Iran is doing all of this.  What level of a Maslowian heirarchy of needs are they trying to fulfil by doing all of this?  Is the Iranian government just seeking to remain in power and is therefore presenting "us" as a legitimate threat?  If they wish to be a regional power, I get that, but if they want to do more than just secure their borders, why would they seek The Bomb?



Personally FWIW, from what I have seen on the media they want The Bomb and a delivery system to obliterate Israel. Just my thoughts and  :2c: before GST and PST.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think there is a "nature abhors a vacum" sort of thing at play here.

There is no longer a _natural_ leader in the Middle East nor in the larger North Africa/Middle East/West Asia region. Egypt, with British backing, got close between 1915 and 1975, but that all fell apart. Egypt, Iran and Turkey are all _natural_ candidates for the role ~ but the Saudis and other lesser lights have eyes on the prize, too. The goal might be to reestablish a _caliphate_ or, more likely, just to fill the void.


----------



## GR66

I think that it's perfectly logical for Iran to want to obtain nuclear weapons.  They don't need a large arsenal either...just having the capability may be enough to act as a deterent to Israel.  I personally don't think that (even) Iran would be crazy enough to launch a non-retaliatory attack against Israel because they would virtually guarantee the destruction of their country.

However, Israel is a very small country.  Even the detonation of a single warhead would be a major threat to them.  That risk...even against a small Iranian nuclear arsenal, or even the risk of a warhead being smuggled in and detonated in place may be enough to stop Israel from launching a first strike.  It may also be enough to give the Israelis pause in overtly opposing some of Iran's allies or potential allies in the region.  

This umbrella protection might just be enough to give Iran the freedom to exert more influence in the region without fear of direct confrontation, or at the very least force the Israelis to keep pumping massive amounts of money into defensive measures and tight (oppressive/confrontational?) security measures.  It's easier to paint Israel as the big, bad bogeyman to your own population and your neighbours when you're forcing them to continually build up a more and more advanced (and expensive) military to counter your threat.


----------



## a_majoor

Other Gulf states embark on a buying spree to counter Iran. There will be a huge conventional arms imbalance, and Iran's presumptive nuclear arsenal is likely to be very small: how many targets can they realistically threaten. As well, Iran is now in the sights of the Turks, the Arab Sunnis, Israel and the West, so may be facing an exponential increase in threats. 

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gulf-states-on-arms-buying-binge-to-counter-iran-threat/?print=1



> *Gulf States on Arms Buying Binge to Counter Iran Threat*
> 
> Posted By Phillip Smyth On January 8, 2012 @ 12:03 am In Iraq,Middle East,Politics,World News | 21 Comments
> 
> Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf monarchies are buying huge amounts of advanced arms from the United States and Europe. The weaponry is clearly aimed to counter the growing threat they see coming from Iran.
> 
> The United States alone has around $100 billion in potential sales in the pipeline right now. The biggest is a Saudi deal, initiated in 2010 and approved by Congress, totaling around $60 billion [1]. The package includes jets, helicopters, hundreds of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, training, and logistical services. Israel, initially worried about the sale, agreed — after U.S. assurances — to support it in September [2].
> 
> In the updated version, the Saudis will  [3]receive [3]84 brand new F-15SAs and have 70 F-15s upgraded. The SA model is based on the F-15SE and incorporates stealth technology, the ability to carry a heavy payload, and a long-range capability.
> 
> European countries have also received orders. In 2008 the Saudis purchased 72 multi-role Eurofighter Typhoons. Both Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE.) have approached France [4] to buy 24 and 60 (respectively) advanced Dassault Rafale multirole fighters.
> 
> The UAE has embarked on a major military build-up to counter Iran. On December 25, a $3.5 billion weapons deal [5] was signed and included a missile defense system.  In late 2011, the UAE requested that the United States sell them 4,900 kits to transform so-called “dumb bombs” into guided “smart” munitions. The proposal [6] includes the sale of bunker buster bombs. The Department of Defense claimed this purchase would serve “U.S. interests by deterring regional aggression,” a reference to Iran.
> 
> In October, 2011, Oman asked for $1.24 billion [7] worth of American anti-aircraft systems.
> 
> Gulf states have also begun modernizing and expanding their navies. Last July, the UAE’s naval commander called on [8]the Gulf Cooperation Council to “co-operate to reduce vulnerabilities.”
> 
> Iraq has already received six coastal patrol boats [9]. Responding to the threat of Iranian Kilo-class submarines and surface ships, Bahrain requested 6 SH-60 maritime patrol helicopters [10].  In 2006, the UAE purchased two German minesweepers and reported [11]ly also opened a naval base to help attack any Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
> 
> The Saudis announced a potential $20-$23 billion deal called the “Saudi Naval Expansion Program-II [12].”  As part of the program, Riyadh has expressed interest in buying Aegis radar equipped destroyers. Defense News noted [13], “Aegis BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] would provide the Saudis with a considerable anti-missile capability, possibly in excess of any other gulf-region country, including Israel.”
> 
> Gulf states have added other capabilities to their defense structures. In May 2011, the NY Times reported [14] that the UAE had a $529 million project to build an “800-member battalion of foreign troops.”  Emirati leaders viewed their own military as “inadequate” and hoped the “troops could blunt the regional aggression of Iran.”
> 
> In Bahrain, the Sunni minority regime that hosts the U.S. naval base in the Gulf seeks to buy up-armored Humvees and TOW missile systems. The Department of Defense felt the deal [15] would “improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”
> 
> However, due to outside pressure resulting from the government’s human rights abuses against protesters, Congress has been reluctant to approve [16].  The Bahrainis are trying to convince them that their human rights record has improved.
> 
> In a controversial deal, the U.S. is selling Iraq $11 billion in equipment and training [17].  Following the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops, Iraq has big domestic political problems that include an attempt to monopolize power by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Some of the weapons sold to Baghdad are 18 F-16IQ Block-52 fighter [18]s.
> 
> While the aircraft are slightly downgraded models from the advanced F-16s the U.S. Air Force fly, Defense Industry Daily noted [19] the sale “seems cleverly calibrated to give Iraq an air defense force that can handle aging threats from Syria or Iran relatively well, and perform strike missions within Iraq, without being a serious threat to more advanced air forces in the region,” presumably Israel.
> 
> Iran has taken notice of these massive arms deals [20]. Aside from its nuclear weapons’ program, Iran has tested medium-range “radar-evading” missiles and is engaged in its own military build-up.  Tehran dismisses the Gulf Arab efforts as merely wasting billions of dollars.
> 
> Iran might be right in a sense, since the ability of these countries to use advanced arms against Iran is limited. They still depend on an increasingly questionable U.S. protection. Some of the money being spent is to make the Gulf Arab elites feel better. Another aspect is to tie the U.S. and European states closer to themselves.  Increasingly, one can wonder whether all of these weapons will some day be used in a new Gulf war.
> 
> Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/gulf-states-on-arms-buying-binge-to-counter-iran-threat/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] around $60 billion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16358068
> 
> [2] in September: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/14/2740902/israel-reportedly-oks-us-saudi-arms-deal
> 
> [3] will : http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/29/4151219/boeing-statement-on-saudi-arabia.html
> 
> [4] have approached France: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/uae-sets-requirements-in-deal-for-60-french-fighter-aircraft
> 
> [5] a $3.5 billion weapons deal: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/01/01/usa-uae-iran-idINDEE80002R20120101
> 
> [6] The proposal: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/UAE_10-56.pdf
> 
> [7] Oman asked for $1.24 billion: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Oman_11-38.pdf
> 
> [8] called on : http://www.thenational.ae/featured-content/home/middle-headlines/gulf-navies-must-all-work-together-uae-naval-chief
> 
> [9] six coastal patrol boats: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/03NOV11-04.aspx
> 
> [10] Bahrain requested 6 SH-60 maritime patrol helicopters: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Qatar_11-26.pdf
> 
> [11] and reported: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jjyF66HHTC4jM0WdcxUnaUYYY7Yw?docId=CNG.6bae75beb5109d22b4ea0904453bd91c.ab1
> 
> [12] Saudi Naval Expansion Program-II: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/9603/Business/Economy/Saudi-eyes-cost-of-naval-expansion.aspx
> 
> [13] Defense News noted: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6799195
> 
> [14] the NY Times reported: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> [15] The Department of Defense felt the deal: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Bahrain_10-71.pdf
> 
> [16] Congress has been reluctant to approve: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-arms-deal-to-bahrain-faces-resistance/2011/10/13/gIQA5J1bhL_blog.html
> 
> [17] $11 billion in equipment and training: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/12/29/Arms-sale-to-Iraq-on-despite-misgivings/UPI-52961325162525/?spt=hs&or=tn
> 
> [18] 18 F-16IQ Block-52 fighter: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Iraq_11-46.pdf
> 
> [19] Defense Industry Daily noted: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraq-Seeks-F-16-Fighters-05057/
> 
> [20] Iran has taken notice of these massive arms deals: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-claims-nuclear-fuel-advance-test-fires-missile-in-gulf/2012/01/01/gIQAbrXpUP_story.html?tid=pm_pop


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Gulf State Arabs can buy as much as they want ... and I hope they buy more and more and more, from us, because our factory workers need the jobs.

But no matter how much kit the Arabs have they will remain militarily useless, completely non-effective, because they rely, about 99.99%, on foreign contractors to maintain the stuff. If you cannot maintain your own kit then your fighting effectiveness is near zero. Look at the coalition's efforts in Gulf War I - the bright, shiny Arab kit hardly moved out of its barracks. How many of the aircraft from Qatar and UAE actually flew combat missions against Libya last year?

If, Big IF, there is an Arab/Persian war, my money is on the Iranians ... ramshackle as they may be.


----------



## tomahawk6

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think that it's perfectly logical for Iran to want to obtain nuclear weapons.  They don't need a large arsenal either...just having the capability may be enough to act as a deterent to Israel.  I personally don't think that (even) Iran would be crazy enough to launch a non-retaliatory attack against Israel because they would virtually guarantee the destruction of their country.
> 
> However, Israel is a very small country.  Even the detonation of a single warhead would be a major threat to them.  That risk...even against a small Iranian nuclear arsenal, or even the risk of a warhead being smuggled in and detonated in place may be enough to stop Israel from launching a first strike.  It may also be enough to give the Israelis pause in overtly opposing some of Iran's allies or potential allies in the region.
> 
> This umbrella protection might just be enough to give Iran the freedom to exert more influence in the region without fear of direct confrontation, or at the very least force the Israelis to keep pumping massive amounts of money into defensive measures and tight (oppressive/confrontational?) security measures.  It's easier to paint Israel as the big, bad bogeyman to your own population and your neighbours when you're forcing them to continually build up a more and more advanced (and expensive) military to counter your threat.



Yep thats all we need is more Iranian influence in the region. :


----------



## The Bread Guy

> A university lecturer and nuclear scientist has been killed in a car explosion in north Tehran, reports say.
> 
> Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, an academic who also worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person were killed in the attack.
> 
> The blast happened after a motorcyclist stuck an apparent bomb to the car.
> 
> Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years, with Iran blaming Israel and the US.
> 
> Both countries deny the accusations.
> 
> Iran's Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told state television that the attack against Mr Ahmadi-Roshan would not stop "progress" in the country's nuclear programme.
> 
> He called the killing "evidence of [foreign] government-sponsored terrorism".
> 
> Local sources said Wednesday's blast took place at a faculty of Iran's Allameh Tabatai university.
> 
> Two others were reportedly also injured in the blast, which took place near Gol Nabi Street, in the north of the capital.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Mr Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, was a graduate of Sharif University and supervised a department at Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province, semi-official news agency Fars reported.
> 
> "The bomb was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and the work of the Zionists [Israelis]," deputy Tehran governor Safarali Baratloo said.
> 
> Witnesses said they had seen two people on the motorbike fix the bomb to the car, reported to be a Peugeot 405. A second person died in the attack though the car itself remained virtually intact ....


BBC online, 11 Jan 12

Dangerous line of work this "nuclear scientist in Iran near motorcycles" thing - from the same BBC article above:


> Attacks on Iranian scientists
> 
> Jan 2012 - Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a professor at the Technical University of Tehran, died after bomb was placed on his car by a motorcyclist
> 
> Nov 2010 - Majid Shahriari, member of nuclear engineering faculty at Shahid Beheshti University, killed in Tehran after bomb attached to his car by motorcyclist in Tehran. Another scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi Davani - future head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran - is hurt in a separate attack
> 
> Jan 2010 - Massoud Ali Mohammadi, a physics professor, died when a motorcycle rigged with explosives exploded near his car



More here (via Google News).


----------



## aesop081

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/exclusive-u-s-harassed-by-iranian-ships/?hpt=hp_t3



> At a time of heightened tensions with Iran, U.S. military officials told CNN Friday that U.S. military and Coast Guard ships had two close encounters earlier this month with high-speed Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf that exhibited provocative behavior.
> 
> The incidents occurred January 6, according to a senior U.S. military official.
> 
> The USS New Orleans, an amphibious transport ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf last Friday when three Iranian Navy speed boats rapidly approached within 500 yards of the ship, the official said. The Iranians did not respond to whistle signals or voice queries from the New Orleans. The lack of response disregards standard maritime protocols, the official said. The boats eventually broke away.
> 
> On the same day, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Adak was also harassed by high-speed Iranian Navy boats while operating 75 miles east of Kuwait City. Iranian personnel in the small boats appeared to be holding AK-47 rifles and at least one video camera, the official said. U.S. personnel on the cutter also reported seeing a forward gun that was manned on one of the Iranian boats, according to the official. Eventually, communications with a larger Iranian vessel in the area were established and the speed boats stopped their harassment.
> 
> No shots were fired in either incident, both of which were videotaped. The Pentagon may release that footage later Friday.
> 
> While the U.S. Navy has had routine encounters with Iranian naval forces for years, the Navy has reported seeing more aggressive action in recent weeks from Iranian-flagged vessels. Officials believe such aggressive action carries the potential for miscalculation. Typically, Iranian small boats are operated by forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps force and are considered to be more aggressive than regular Iranian forces.
> 
> Word of the aggressive encounters by Iran comes as the United States has conducted two recent rescues of Iranian mariners at sea at a time of rising tensions in the region.
> 
> Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the only outlet from the Persian Gulf, as it faces increased scrutiny over its nuclear program. The critical shipping lane had 17 million barrels of oil per day passing through in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
> 
> Iran threatened to block the strait if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. France, Britain and Germany have proposed sanctions to punish Iran's lack of cooperation on its nuclear program.


----------



## sean m

Hello. Hopefully this is acceptable to post, Iran has one of the largest jewish communities in the world.  On Charlie Rose, which is on PBS, there was an individual who had knowledge of Mossad. He stated that Mossad had assets in Iran. Due to the recent assassination of another Iranian scientist, and increasing tension between the West- Israel and Iran, as posted by the previous individuals. Does anyone believe it could be possible  that the Persian Jews in Iran could be supporting Mossad in Iran>


----------



## exabedtech

Please tell me we aren't going to war with Iran... No, they are not going to rain nuclear warheads on us no matter what some right wing kook tells you.  I'd trust Iran before I trust Pakistan and you don't see them bombing us despite the fact that NATO regularly targets them (accident or not).  Yes, the guy who may or may not be running the place is a nut but I doubt he's suicidal and you can expect that most of the drivel he spouts is intended mainly for domestic consumption.
Yes they have oil, but I guarantee the environmental impact and cost of a couple pipelines out of Alberta would be a far better option on so many levels than another foolish attempt to impart western values on an Islamic population.
About the only thing an attack could gain is a pleasant distraction from the economic disaster south of the border.  You can bet Obama has considered exactly this.
If its security we want, lets face it... we already have it.  If its oil we want, we have that too.  If its saving people from their repressive leaders then maybe someone should explain to me why we aren't in half the African countries.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## a_majoor

The next cards are put on the table; holding the nuclear facilities at risk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-strike-idUSTRE80B22020120112



> *Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"*
> 
> LONDON | Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:52pm EST
> 
> (Reuters) - With its nuclear program beset as never before by sanctions, sabotage and assassination, Iran must now make a new addition to its list of concerns: One of the biggest conventional bombs ever built.
> 
> Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last resort against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
> 
> The behemoth, carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosive, was delivered with minimal fanfare to Whiteman U.S. Air Force Base, Missouri in September. It is designed for delivery by B-2 Stealth bombers.
> 
> Would that weapon, delivered in a gouging combination with other precision-guided munitions, pulverize enough rock to reach down and destroy the uranium enrichment chamber sunk deep in a mountain at Fordow, Iran's best sheltered nuclear site?
> 
> While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters.
> 
> A "second best" result might be merely to block the plant's surface entrances, securing its temporary closure, some said.
> 
> One U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described an attack on the underground site, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran near the Iranian holy city of Qom, as "hard but not impossible."
> 
> The United States is the only country with any chance of damaging the Fordow chamber using just conventional air power, most experts say.
> 
> Israel, the nation seen as most likely to attempt a raid, has great experience in long range bombing include its 1981 raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq and a 2007 strike on a presumed nuclear facility in Syria.
> 
> But it lacks the air assets to reach Fordow's depths, and has no MOP-sized bunker buster. An Israeli raid would therefore likely require other elements such as sabotage or special forces.
> 
> The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.
> 
> The same day a State Department spokeswoman declared that if Iran was enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow this would be a "further escalation" of its pattern of violating its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions.
> 
> TURMOIL
> 
> Western powers suspect the program is aimed at developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is strictly for civilian uses.
> 
> Critics of Iran's nuclear program tend to agree that military action against Iran's nuclear work would be their last and worst option. Not only would this risk civilian casualties, but Iran would seek to retaliate against Western targets in the region, raising the risk of a regional war and risking global economic turmoil.
> 
> Once it had recovered it would probably decide unequivocally to pursue a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Critics of the military option further point out that non-military pressure is increasing. Apart from tools of statecraft such as sanctions and diplomacy, covert means against Iran's nuclear work probably include sabotage, cyber attacks, measures to supply Iran with faulty parts and interception of nuclear supplies. It may also involve assassinations of nuclear experts such as Wednesday's killing of a scientist in Tehran.
> 
> A strike, furthermore, would only delay, not destroy, an Iranian nuclear program whose known sites are widely dispersed and fortified against attack.
> 
> But Washington sees the plausibility of a U.S. strike on Iran's main nuclear sites as a vital adjunct to the campaign of pressure. The narrow, technical question of whether such an attack is feasible is therefore central to strategy.
> 
> "You don't take any option off the table," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta said on CBS's Face the Nation television program on Jan 8.
> 
> Asked on the same program how hard it would be to "take out" Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. chief of staff General Martin Demspey said: "Well, I'd rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that. But I will say that our, my, responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on."
> 
> Asked if the United States could act against Iran's nuclear capability using conventional weapons, he replied: "Well, I certainly want them to believe that that's the case."
> 
> The credibility of that implicit threat got a freshening-up with the arrival of the big new bomb in the U.S. arsenal.
> 
> Military satisfaction was evident.
> 
> ENEMIES
> 
> As Air Force Brigadier General Scott Vander Hamm explained to Air Force Magazine, the MOP "is specifically designed to go after very dense targets-solid granite, 20,000 (pounds per square inch) concrete, and those hard and deeply buried complexes-where enemies are putting things that the President of the United States wants to hold at risk."
> 
> He said MOP "kind of bridges the gap" between conventional munitions and nuclear weapons in terms of the effects that it can create. Whereas in the past, "you'd have to break that nuclear threshold" to attack such HDBT (hard and deeply buried targets), "with the MOP, you don't have to," the magazine reported.
> 
> Four months on from the bomb's arrival in the U.S. arsenal, the Fordow announcement has sharpened the Western strategic focus on U.S. military capacity.
> 
> Experts differ on the extent of the challenge at Fordow, but all agree it presents greater complexity than Iran's other underground site at Natanz, 230 km (140 miles) south of Tehran where enrichment happens in a chamber estimated to be 20 meters underground, or less than a third of Fordow's presumed depth.
> 
> The other likely targets are Iran's uranium ore processing plant at Isfahan, some 400 km (250 miles) south of Tehran and plutonium producing research reactor under construction at Arak 190 km (120 miles) southwest of Tehran. They are both above ground and considered vulnerable to attack.
> 
> Austin Long, an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, told Reuters the arrival of the MOP "does not solve the Fordow problem but it does make it easier."
> 
> Many experts are skeptical.
> 
> Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Natanz was buried under several layers of dirt and concrete but it was "nevertheless possible to damage it with precision bombing with one sortie to create a crater and second sortie to burst through the bottom of the crater to the facility below."
> 
> But the chamber at Fordow might be "impenetrable," he said, due to its presumed depth.
> 
> His doubts were echoed by Robert Hewson, Editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, to Reuters, who said it was likely that Fordow had been built to survive a sustained assault.
> 
> "We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner," he said.
> 
> "Given that it (Fordow) is a relatively recent development, it has probably been designed with a lot of attention to protecting it against conventional strikes. You don't necessarily have to obliterate it, mind. You could block the exits, block access to power, isolate it from life outside, and then you have effectively switched it off.
> 
> DESTRUCTION, OR MERELY A SETBACK?
> 
> "But for sure it will have been designed with all of that in mind, and the Iranians will have done the best job they can to make it survivable."
> 
> Sam Gardiner, a retired USAF colonel who runs wargames for various Washington agencies, told Reuters a major problem was simply a lack of confirmed information about the Fordow plant.
> 
> "With the Natanz facility, as it was being constructed, satellites gave us the information on where and how deep enrichment was to take place. Fordow on the other hand is an unknown. Where is the enrichment chamber? How deep? Which direction does the tunnel go?"
> 
> "For Israel, or even the United States, destruction would be very difficult. The entrance to the underground tunnel can be shut, but that would only be a temporary set back."
> 
> Diplomats point out that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visit Fordow and are familiar with its layout. While their work is confidential, it is widely believed that Western intelligence agencies have some knowledge of the site's interior.
> 
> John Cochrane, a defense specialist at the London-based Exclusive Analyst risk consultancy, said he believed the bunker-busting MOP might make a difference. But he suggested Fordow was at the very limit of the bomb's capacities, which he said could reach down to a maximum of 60 meters.
> 
> "Repeated strikes by Tomahawk cruise missiles and MOP might be effective in penetrating the site, if it is not as deep as 80m but, even then, we question whether an attack would have the same level of assurance in terms of damage as strikes on other 'softer' sites," he told Reuters.
> 
> "We question from what little we have seen of open source imagery whether it is as deep as 80 meters. If it is, we don't know for a fact but we think that is probably too deep for any form of air-delivered munitions, including MOP Cyber attack or physical assault by Special Forces may be the only attack options."
> 
> Cochrane noted that the supply of the MOP to Israel, even if the U.S. were prepared to release it, would also require a suitable aircraft to deliver it and Israelis did not have one.
> 
> ATTACKING "THE HARD WAY"
> 
> In a 2010 study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program," analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the U.S. think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, if all peaceful options had been exhausted, the U.S. was the only country that could launch a successful military strike.
> 
> Even that study predicated its finding on a strike merely blocking Fordow's two entrances, not destroying the underground chamber.
> 
> But in a November 2011 article in Israel's Tablet magazine, Columbia University's Long concluded that Israel had the ability to attack the Fordow site using 75 bunker busters, each delivering a smaller explosive charge of about 1,000 pounds. However, he said it would require an unprecedented level of precision.
> 
> Long's scenario sees Israeli jets having "to do things the hard way," delivering 75 bunker busters on a single point to burrow through the rock.
> 
> There were two principal challenges, he said.
> 
> First, the weapons themselves, dropped from miles away and thousands of feet in the air, had to arrive at very close to the same angle to create a pathway each subsequent weapon could follow, he wrote. "Otherwise much of the penetrating power of the bombs will be wasted."
> 
> The second unknown was the "spoil problem," where the sides of the pathway, destroyed by previous explosions, clog the pathway for subsequent bombs.
> 
> Long subsequently told Reuters in emailed remarks the main feedback he had had from military readers was that "the kind of operation I discuss is really, really hard to coordinate."
> 
> "I agree, though I don't think that makes it impossible, just very difficult, as I noted." (Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Phil Stewart in Washington and Fredrik Dahl in Vienna)


----------



## a_majoor

Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz will change a lot of calculations in the region, and certainly reduce the amount of pressure the Iranians can place on the world oil markets through threats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/pipeline-avoids-strait-of-hormuz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print



> *Pipeline Avoids Strait of Hormuz*
> By SARA HAMDAN
> 
> DUBAI — The United Arab Emirates has nearly completed an oil export pipeline from Abu Dhabi, on the Gulf, to the Gulf of Oman, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, Mohamed bin Dhaen al-Hamli, the U.A.E.’s oil minister, said this week.
> 
> His remarks came as tension was rising between Iran and Western governments over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Over the past month, Iran has stepped up threats to block the strait in response to increasingly tough sanctions imposed by the United States and the possibility of an embargo on Iranian oil in the European Union.
> 
> Nearly 35 percent of globally traded oil shipments pass daily through the strait, according to IHS Global Insight, a forecasting and market intelligence firm.
> 
> Construction of the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline project, or Adcop, previously scheduled for completion in April, has been dogged by repeated delays over the past few years. But now “the pipeline is almost complete, and will hopefully be operational within six months, by May or June,” Mr. Hamli said Monday on the sidelines of an energy forum in Abu Dhabi. “The first tanker loaded will be in about six months’ time, ready for export.”
> 
> The $3.29 billion pipeline, with a capacity of about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, will stretch 370 kilometers, or 230 miles, from Habshan in Abu Dhabi — the collection point for Abu Dhabi’s onshore crude oil production — to an offshore oil terminal in the emirate of Fujairah.
> 
> The project aims to “offset reliance on Arabian Gulf oil terminals while reducing shipping congestion through the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a statement on the Web site of International Petroleum Investment Co., which oversees it. “To this end, it aims to strengthen the overall export capability on the eastern coast of the U.A.E.”
> 
> On average, 14 crude tankers pass through the strait daily, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Data for 2010 showed 17 million barrels of oil transiting the strait daily, mainly from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar and Iran.
> 
> “There are political implications for Iran, in the sense that its neighbors are incredibly concerned and want to protect their ability to export oil regardless of a rise in tensions with Iran,” said Gala Riani, IHS Global Insight’s senior analyst covering the Middle East and North Africa, in an e-mail.
> 
> An IHS Global Insight research note by Ms. Riani and Catherine Hunter, issued Jan. 3, said that “Iran’s potential ability to close the choke point is a key trump card that could give it the upper hand” in its face-off with the United States and its allies.
> 
> Still, though Iran has shown it is able and willing to take drastic action to respond to foreign pressure, it is unlikely that it will close the strait, the research note said.
> 
> “Much of Iran’s own oil exports pass through the strait, so there would be limited logic in closing it as it would go against its own economic interests,” Ms. Riani wrote. “Nevertheless, it is not impossible that Iran would attempt to close it, although probably only as a last resort reaction to a foreign move that it would consider tantamount to an act of war — such as Western attempts to block Iranian oil exports.”
> 
> Iranian officials have repeated the threat of a blockade in recent weeks as sanctions against Iran by Western states have tightened. The European Union has talked of imposing an oil embargo in the coming months, and on Dec. 31 President Barack Obama signed into law sanctions against foreign institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank. That measure was part of a package to block access to the U.S. financial system for any institution that continues to deal with Iran, IHS Global Insight said. The sanctions will be implemented after a warning period of 120 days to allow firms to adjust and review their dealings with Tehran.
> 
> As an alternative to total closure of the strait, Iran could disrupt shipping in the Gulf by carrying out ship searches, adding time and cost to the transit, under the pretense of securing the waterways against potential piracy, said Siamak Namazi, an energy consultant in Dubai.
> 
> “The Iranians are unlikely to just stare, nonplussed, if the U.S. succeeds in choking their central bank and oil sales,” Mr. Namazi said. “Then again, we still don’t know the scale of the new American law yet, so it’s difficult to gauge its impact.
> 
> “It is, however, safe to say that some of Iran’s traditional buyers will find new sources for their crude oil and that supply risks have changed with the new legislation.”
> 
> Major buyers of Iranian oil, including China, Japan and India, are reconsidering their oil imports from Iran. The IHS research note said South Korea, one of the five biggest importers of Iranian crude, had already adopted some trade restrictions while China had begun to turn to alternative suppliers, including Iraq, where production is slowly rising, to displace some of the 500,000 barrels that it imports daily from Iran.
> 
> In Europe, Spain and Italy accounted for 13 percent of Iran’s exports in the first half of 2011, according to figures from Platts. Analysts say a potential E.U. ban on Iranian oil would complicate the logistics of doing business there.
> 
> Turkey obtains 30 percent of its oil from Iran. According to news reports, its largest refiner, Tupras, is currently seeking a waiver from Washington to exempt it from the new sections on institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank.
> 
> Adjustments in oil supply relationships to respond to the new U.S. legislation will be difficult and will have an effect on oil prices — as, too, would any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say. Current-month crude oil futures traded Wednesday at over $101 a barrel in New York.
> 
> Because Iran has up to two million barrels a day of crude exports to sell, expected to generate about $110 billion to its budget this year, the smooth, steady export of crude remains integral to the country’s political and economic fortunes, the IHS research note said.
> 
> Still, amid the brinkmanship and the uncertainties of the confrontation, analysts say completion of the Abu Dhabi pipeline would be a positive step toward greater supply security.
> 
> “The new pipeline that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz is an improvement in energy security since the last threat of blockages,” Ms. Hunter said, referring to the 1980s, when Iran attacked Kuwaiti tankers carrying Iraqi oil during the war between the two countries.


----------



## GAP

Iran cracks down on Barbie peddlers
By Mitra Amir, Reuters 
Article Link

TEHRAN - Iran’s morality police are cracking down on the sale of Barbie dolls to protect the public from what they see as pernicious western culture eroding Islamic values, shopkeepers said on Monday.

As the West imposes the toughest ever sanctions on Iran and tensions rise over its nuclear programme, inside the country the Barbie ban is part of what the government calls a “soft war” against decadent cultural influences.

“About three weeks ago they (the morality police) came to our shop, asking us to remove all the Barbies,” said a shopkeeper in a toy shop in northern Tehran.

Iran’s religious rulers first declared Barbie, made by U.S. company Mattel Inc, un-Islamic in 1996, citing its “destructive cultural and social consequences”. Despite the ban, the doll has until recently been openly on sale in Tehran shops.

The new order, issued around three weeks ago, forced shopkeepers to hide the leggy, busty blonde behind other toys as a way of meeting popular demand for the dolls while avoiding being closed down by the police.

A range of officially approved dolls launched in 2002 to counter demand for Barbie have not proven successful, merchants told Reuters.
More on link


----------



## Kalatzi

False FlagA series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran. 
BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012 
link here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag


...
"The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts. 

"It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought." "

...

The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents. 

"The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians
 ...

"It's easy to understand why Bush was so angry," a former intelligence officer said. "After all, it's hard to engage with a foreign government if they're convinced you're killing their people. Once you start doing that, they feel they can do the same." 

Edit - Gee No Kidding

A senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, according to a U.S. intelligence officer. But the United States did nothing -- a result that the officer attributed to "political and bureaucratic inertia."


Ahh yes - Two cheers for the special relationship and our valiant ally


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> False FlagA series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
> BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012
> link here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
> 
> 
> ...
> "The officials did not know whether the Israeli program to recruit and use Jundallah is ongoing. Nevertheless, they were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad's efforts.
> 
> "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought." "
> 
> ...
> 
> The report then made its way to the White House, according to the currently serving U.S. intelligence officer. The officer said that Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when briefed on its contents.
> 
> "The report sparked White House concerns that Israel's program was putting Americans at risk," the intelligence officer told me. "There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians
> ...
> 
> "It's easy to understand why Bush was so angry," a former intelligence officer said. "After all, it's hard to engage with a foreign government if they're convinced you're killing their people. Once you start doing that, they feel they can do the same."
> 
> Edit - Gee No Kidding
> 
> A senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, according to a U.S. intelligence officer. But the United States did nothing -- a result that the officer attributed to "political and bureaucratic inertia."
> 
> 
> Ahh yes - Two cheers for the special relationship and our valiant ally




I think that anyone who believes that the Israelis will sacrifice one iota of their perceived security interests to make the US happy totally misunderstands the Israeli mindset.

In my admittedly inexpert opinion the Israelis believe the Americans are fair weather friends, trustworthy until *really* needed but, because of domestic political issues, a fairly reliable _sugar-daddy_.I also suspect that the Israelis cannot see the strategic logic of the Americans' Middle East policies - I know I cannot.


----------



## jollyjacktar

If you read "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer is a book written by Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy" and accept it as truthful, it claims that Israel trusts no one but themselves and uses everyone to their advantage.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If you read "By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer is a book written by Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy" and accept it as truthful, it claims that Israel trusts no one but themselves and uses everyone to their advantage.




Not a bad principle for every country to follow.


----------



## 57Chevy

GAP said:
			
		

> Iran cracks down on Barbie peddlers
> By Mitra Amir, Reuters
> Article Link
> 
> TEHRAN - Iran’s morality police are cracking down on the sale of Barbie dolls to protect the public



especially these ones......
  :nod:


----------



## sean m

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/world/europe/turkey-accepts-missile-radar-for-nato-defense-against-iran.html

This article is a bit old yet it correlates with this article,

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/turkey-to-host-nato-strategic-early-warning-radar-system-1.382164

Does it seem that  the United States and the West doing to Iran, what they did to the USSR by positioning missiles in Turkey in order to create more fear for the Iranian government to continue or to launch any nuclear or other extremely powerful rocket?


----------



## Kalatzi

Assassinate Obama if he won’t attack Iran for Israel, Jewish monthly suggests  

And if that is'nt enough to make him mend his ways, do it again! Some people are just soooo unreasonable. 

Link here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/

And now for a little context. Partial reply to those who suggest that Islam is the main source of fanaticism and general Bat-Sh*t craziness. 

The extremist cores of all religons have their kook followings. 

In this case its a pretty small circulation paper. What'e more interesting is the reponse from Haaretz

“Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual,” opined Chemi Shalev, a political analyst at the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “They were not taken out of thin air. Rather, they are the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom that some of Obama’s political rivals, Jews and non-Jews alike, have been spewing for the last three years.” 

Sheesh


----------



## OldSolduer

You are correct - every religion has batsh!t crazy fanatics. Witness the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, some fanatic Christian religious sects are about one step away in beliefs from the fanatic Muslim beliefs.
NO Dancing, NO listening to radios or watching TV, NO modern clothing, No makeup and subjugation of women are some of the things silly beliefs that some of the fanatic Christians cherish.

There - I had to add a few NOs - oh and lets not forget - NO BARBIE DOLLS!!!


----------



## GAP

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You are correct - every religion has batsh!t crazy fanatics. Witness the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, some fanatic Christian religious sects are about one step away in beliefs from the fanatic Muslim beliefs.
> Dancing, listening to radios or watching TV, no modern clothing, no makeup and subjugation of women are some of the things silly beleifs that some of the fanatic Christians cherish.



Hey !! I work for them!!  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

I can't help but think that the threat to shut down the Straits of Hormuz is an idle one.  What mileage do the Iranians get out of closing the Straits if the Americans defy them?  

"If you Yanks come any closer we're going to shoot the Chinese?"



> Strait of Hormuz
> The Strait of Hormuz is by far the world's most important chokepoint with an oil flow of almost 17 million barrels per day in 2011. Located between Oman and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Hormuz is the world's most important oil chokepoint due to its daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010. Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.
> 
> On average, 14 crude oil tankers per day passed through the Strait in 2011, with a corresponding amount of empty tankers entering to pick up new cargos. *More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets*, with Japan, India, South Korea, and *China * representing the largest destinations.



World Oil Transit Chokepoints


----------



## GAP

'US posts elite commandos near Iran'
Article Link

The US-based Wired magazine says Washington has stationed a special team of highly trained commandos near Iran's border for possible sabotage operations.


Quoting a US Army officer speaking on behalf of Special Forces, the report by the magazine's columnist, Spender Ackerman, said a team of “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments” are operating near Iran. 

According to Ackerman, the team called Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Coordinating Council (JSOTF-GCC) is now on the ground to instruct local troops in special operations. This is the first time the US has acknowledged the existence of the team, which apparently did not exist before the middle of 2009. 

“The primary, day-to-day mission of the team…is to mentor military units belonging to the US oil-rich Arab allies…[which] consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat,” he added. 

Ackerman also quoted Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, as saying that the task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” and “seeks to confront irregular threats.” 

The report said the unit began its existence in mid-2009 - around the time that Iran rejected President Barack Obama's offer of diplomatic dialogue. 

“Whatever the task force does about Iran - or might do in the future - is a sensitive subject with the military,” it added. 

“It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt said when asked about a possible link between the unit and terrorist operations in Iran. 
More on link


----------



## cupper

GAP said:
			
		

> 'US posts elite commandos near Iran'
> Article Link
> 
> The US-based Wired magazine says Washington has stationed a special team of highly trained commandos near Iran's border for possible sabotage operations.
> 
> 
> Quoting a US Army officer speaking on behalf of Special Forces, the report by the magazine's columnist, Spender Ackerman, said a team of “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments” are operating near Iran.
> 
> According to Ackerman, the team called Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Coordinating Council (JSOTF-GCC) is now on the ground to instruct local troops in special operations. This is the first time the US has acknowledged the existence of the team, which apparently did not exist before the middle of 2009.
> 
> “The primary, day-to-day mission of the team…is to mentor military units belonging to the US oil-rich Arab allies…[which] consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat,” he added.
> 
> Ackerman also quoted Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, as saying that the task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” and “seeks to confront irregular threats.”
> 
> The report said the unit began its existence in mid-2009 - around the time that Iran rejected President Barack Obama's offer of diplomatic dialogue.
> 
> “Whatever the task force does about Iran - or might do in the future - is a sensitive subject with the military,” it added.
> 
> “It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt said when asked about a possible link between the unit and terrorist operations in Iran.
> More on link



Gotta wonder about the truth about this. Wouldn't exactly be something the US Government or Military would want as public knowledge.


----------



## OldSolduer

GAP said:
			
		

> Hey !! I work for them!!  :nod:



Who? The Spanish Inquistion?

Nobody expects the Spanish.....oh bugger....


----------



## exabedtech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/eu-iran-oil-embargo_n_1223012.html?ref=world&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Other than an outright military attack, nothing could be a more clear declaration of war than this.  I'd like to think we've thought through to the endgame on this one. :facepalm:


----------



## sean m

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=0,0

Interesting  article.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran lost an F-14 today.Flight crew was killed in the crash.


----------



## cupper

This has some interesting potential:


*Navy wants commando ‘mothership’ in Middle East*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-wants-commando-mother-ship/2012/01/27/gIQA66rGWQ_story.html?hpid=z1

The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East as tensions rise with Iran, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates, among other threats.

In response to requests from the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, the Navy is converting an aging warship it had planned to decommission into a makeshift staging base for the commandos. Unofficially dubbed a “mothership,” the floating base could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs, procurement documents show.


----------



## Sythen

ISRAEL-IRAN CLASH IMMINENT: REPORTS



> Reports warn that Israel is likely to launch a military strike on Israel within months unless the rogue state abandons its nuclear ambitions.
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his U.S. counterpart Leon Panetta have both warned that an attack is increasingly likely. Speaking to the media Thursday, Barak said recent sanctions against Iran are a positive step, but that Israel is other options.
> 
> "Today, unlike in the past, there is a wide understanding in the world that if the sanctions do not achieve the desired goal of stopping the [Iranian] military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action," he said.
> 
> Sneha Kulkarni has more on this developing story.



Accompanying video on link


----------



## aesop081

Sythen said:
			
		

> ISRAEL-IRAN CLASH IMMINENT: REPORTS



See if you can spot the mistake :



> Reports warn that Israel is likely to launch a military strike on Israel within months


----------



## Jimmy_D

Where is the link?


----------



## sean m

Continuing the topic related to  Mr. Sythen's article,

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service also believes to that Iran is an "urgent" nuclear threat

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/iran-is-an-urgent-nuclear-threat-csis/.

Just speculating at the bare minimal level , woudn't an agency like CSIS need human intelligence inside Iran to determine the possibility of Iran's nuclear capability? or would an agency like ours mainly rely on information provided by other foreign intelligence agencies like Mossad. From reading it seems that one role of a HUMINT agency like CSIS is nuclear proliferation, so since CSIS is having a more active presence abroad, if this is alright to ask, could CSIS have first hand knowledge of the Iran's capabilities?


----------



## George Wallace

sean m said:
			
		

> Continuing the topic related to  Mr. Sythen's article,
> 
> The Canadian Security Intelligence Service also believes to that Iran is an "urgent" nuclear threat
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/iran-is-an-urgent-nuclear-threat-csis/.
> 
> Just speculating at the bare minimal level , woudn't an agency like CSIS need human intelligence inside Iran to determine the possibility of Iran's nuclear capability? or would an agency like ours mainly rely on information provided by other foreign intelligence agencies like Mossad. From reading it seems that one role of a HUMINT agency like CSIS is nuclear proliferation, so since CSIS is having a more active presence abroad, if this is alright to ask, could CSIS have first hand knowledge of the Iran's capabilities?




Now, that would be telling now, wouldn't it and a sure give away as to what our capabilities really are.  I suppose you could be working for a foreign intelligence agency and phishing for info, and again, that would be picked upon.  Do you really want to raise attention to yourself (as if you haven't already) by asking these questions?


----------



## aesop081

sean m said:
			
		

> a HUMINT agency like CSIS



HUMINT is one thing CSIS does. It is not a "HUMIT agency".


----------



## Bart905

Ok lets say Israel Attacks Iran and Iran responds back with heavy force . America gets involved and as usual Canada will follow . In that case would the CF hire more recruits ? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTWDWPf9yCg 

watch Iran's Supreme leader give a speech to his military supporters. Scary indeed ,


----------



## GAP

yes...yes...then they'd hire you...... :sarcasm:


----------



## Bart905

ill take that as a No ..


----------



## cupper

Let's not forget that Israel does have a history of taking unilateral military action against other states when it comes to preventing said states from obtaining nuclear weapons.

If Saddam Hussain was still around, he could provide some input on the matter.

The question then becomes, what kind of response could Iran put together. I suspect (read speculate) that it would be a two part / phase plan that involves some sort of overt military posturing / minor attack to "save face", but a second more covert use of their proxy armies of Hezbollah and Hamas to launch a terror campaign. :Tin-Foil-Hat: :2c:


----------



## Apple2018

I would hope for Canada to stay out of such a conflict. It would be a false flag war and, the Canadian people will not tolerate such action! If Harper tries to draw us in I recommend our soldiers go AWOL the Canadian people will support this action, by numerous unconventional means.


----------



## aesop081

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I recommend



I recommend you STFU.

Ok...polite version :

Soldiers go where the government tells them to. We all volunteered for this.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I would hope for Canada to stay out of such a conflict. It would be a false flag war and, the Canadian people will not tolerate such action! If Harper tries to draw us in I recommend our soldiers go AWOL the Canadian people will support this action, by numerous unconventional means.



Fuckwit


----------



## exabedtech

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I would hope for Canada to stay out of such a conflict. It would be a false flag war and, the Canadian people will not tolerate such action! If Harper tries to draw us in I recommend our soldiers go AWOL the Canadian people will support this action, by numerous unconventional means.


WTF?!?  I'm guessing you've never met a Canadian soldier.  If you had, you'd realize the complete stupidity of suggesting anything as ridiculous as this.  :facepalm:
Don't like the government?  Vote against them, as is your right.  No idea what you might understand as 'unconventional means', but if you're thinking for a minute that our soldiers would turn on the elected government, then maybe the chinstrap is a bit tight on that tin foil hat.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I would hope for Canada to stay out of such a conflict. It would be a false flag war and, the Canadian people will not tolerate such action! If Harper tries to draw us in I recommend our soldiers go AWOL the Canadian people will support this action, by numerous unconventional means.


----------



## Apple2018

Along time ago we fought for freedom against oppression now fight for corporations. We fight Harper who hates Canada, and I quote "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.”

Harper feels we are defeatists:

“I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it.”

Harper hates the Atlantic provinces:

“I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. … Atlantic Canada’s culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country.”


----------



## vonGarvin

Harper also hates babies.  

"I hate babies."


----------



## larry Strong

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I would hope for Canada to stay out of such a conflict. It would be a false flag war and, the Canadian people will not tolerate such action! If Harper tries to draw us in I recommend our soldiers go AWOL the Canadian people will support this action, by numerous unconventional means.



I am guessing the "Canadian People" he is talking about would be these people, I can't see many hardworking, upstanding members of the community advocating mutiny:


----------



## exabedtech

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> Along time ago we fought for freedom against oppression now fight for corporations. We fight Harper who hates Canada, and I quote "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.”
> 
> Harper feels we are defeatists:
> 
> “I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it.”
> 
> Harper hates the Atlantic provinces:
> 
> “I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. … Atlantic Canada’s culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country.”


Wait till you're all grown up, put away the hash pipe, get a job.  After all that, you can come and have an intelligent discussion about politics.  For now, why not just go grab some munchies and crash for a bit in your 'occupy' tent?


----------



## larry Strong

Apple2018's heros:

Justin Colby
Dan Felushko 
Patrick Hart
Brandon Hughey 
Peter Jemley
Ryan Johnson  
Christian Kjar
Dale Landry
Kevin Lee
Brad McCall
Phil McDowell


Spineless cowards...every last one of them


----------



## exabedtech

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Harper also hates babies.
> 
> "I hate babies."


 :rofl:


----------



## Scott

Moderators hate trolls.

"Applesauce, so some more reading and less posting."


----------



## Teeps74

Warning NSFW:

http://youtu.be/FMEe7JqBgvg

There is a way to beat trolls. Watch the video to the end!


----------



## Apple2018

It's amassing how powerful an ideal can be! Iran posses no real threat we have been watching intently with the use of social media, public action groups within Iran whom. I would have to say are more credible then our Western intelligence agencies. Harper can bang on the war drums as much as he wants however, the Canadian people are now numbed to the sounds of the West's need for war. 

It is always the governments that want war not the peoples of the world. Because of this, action groups around the globe are now educating their peoples that we do not given to fear as that empowers the government to create laws that are in turn used against we the people. An American example the US patriot Act and the NDAA! 

Would our own military fire upon its people if ordered by Ottawa? If so what make us more ethical or moral. The world wants complete freedom at any cost.


----------



## aesop081

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> Along time ago we fought for freedom against oppression now fight for corporations.



*YOU* aren't fighting for anything. We, members of the CF, are doing the fighting.

You just sit comfortably at home, criticize and think you know everything.

Troll.



			
				Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I would have to say are more credible then our Western intelligence agencies



Because you have lots of actual experience with that, right ?





> The world wants complete freedom at any cost.



Yup, any cost. But they don't want to be the ones to pay for it. All this freedom ain't free. Soldiers paid for it.


----------



## exabedtech

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> It's amassing how powerful an ideal can be! Iran posses no real threat we have been watching intently with the use of social media, public action groups within Iran whom. I would have to say are more credible then our Western intelligence agencies. Harper can bang on the war drums as much as he wants however, the Canadian people are now numbed to the sounds of the West's need for war.
> 
> It is always the governments that want war not the peoples of the world. Because of this, action groups around the globe are now educating their peoples that we do not given to fear as that empowers the government to create laws that are in turn used against we the people. An American example the US patriot Act and the NDAA!
> 
> Would our own military fire upon its people if ordered by Ottawa? If so what make us more ethical or moral. The world wants complete freedom at any cost.



Hey... wanna just go for a coffee?  Need a friend??   :mg:


----------



## Scott

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> It's amassing how powerful...


...spellcheck can be?

...reason can be?

Christ, and it's not even reading week yet.


----------



## Apple2018

I don't know if militaries have a future? Many feel governments are only heading the voices of the mega rich. 

Were facing an age of sensor ship with ACTA and SOPA the freedoms we enjoy are being taken not by force but by legislation.


----------



## Teeps74

Apple, others have suggested it and now I echo them. Freedom of speech, the ability to have different opinions, is very important to our way of life... But with all freedoms comes responsibility, in this case, you really should sit back, cool your heels and read several threads on these boards.

Looking at your posts, it is very easy for one on our side of the fence to see that you are deliberately picking a fight, to which I have to wonder, to what end?


----------



## Apple2018

I am not after an argument. I'm not the best at getting an idea's across on a written forum is all perhaps a better orator. I am angry at our governments seemingly ignorant stance on not hearing Canadians out. They will hear the voices of big oil but not ours. 

I have just as much at stake in Canada as anyone else, and I see Harper as a threat to my future and my families. His policies are not guaranteed to work. I have a right to question him as he is my Prime Minister too. I know military personal do not get to question,except at voting time; but I am taught there is no such thing as an expert we all have vested interests, and thus a right to question everything and anything. 

In the summer months I work in the oil sands to pay for my education, and I can see first hand the big oil mentality. The Canadian people do not exist in the oil sands, we are just labour if we do not get the amount of progress they want, they send in foreign workers as we are starting to see with Harpers immigration plan to bring in 40k people.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Warning NSFW:
> 
> http://youtu.be/FMEe7JqBgvg
> 
> There is a way to beat trolls. Watch the video to the end!



BWahahahah fricken brilliant, I also love the Grammar Nazi by them!

dileas

tess


----------



## jollyjacktar

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> BWahahahah fricken brilliant, I also love the Grammar Nazi by them!
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess


 :rofl: :goodpost:


----------



## aesop081

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I am not after an argument.............*.blah blah blah* ...............



 :


----------



## blacktriangle

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I am not after an argument. I'm not the best at getting an idea's across on a written forum is all perhaps a better orator. I am angry at our governments seemingly ignorant stance on not hearing Canadians out. They will hear the voices of big oil but not ours.
> 
> I have just as much at stake in Canada as anyone else, and I see Harper as a threat to my future and my families. His policies are not guaranteed to work. I have a right to question him as he is my Prime Minister too. I know military personal do not get to question,except at voting time; but I am taught there is no such thing as an expert we all have vested interests, and thus a right to question everything and anything.
> 
> In the summer months I work in the oil sands to pay for my education, and I can see first hand the big oil mentality. The Canadian people do not exist in the oil sands, we are just labour if we do not get the amount of progress they want, they send in foreign workers as we are starting to see with Harpers immigration plan to bring in 40k people.



You work in the Oil Sands...you are yourself a soldier of the New World Order!!! No war for Oil etc, but it's fine if you work in that industry and pay off your education!? So much for being a true believer, man! Guess camping out with the Occupy protesters is below you...  >


----------



## GAP

how else can anyone afford to camp in the inner city.....gotta work you know.............. :nod:


----------



## blacktriangle

Tell me about it, maaaaaan! I'm posted to a city!

Why do I have to work this frickin' job man? Luxury condos should be free!


----------



## cupper

Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I am not after an argument. I'm not the best at getting an idea's across on a written forum is all perhaps a better orator. I am angry at our governments seemingly ignorant stance on not hearing Canadians out. They will hear the voices of big oil but not ours.
> 
> I have just as much at stake in Canada as anyone else, and I see Harper as a threat to my future and my families. His policies are not guaranteed to work. I have a right to question him as he is my Prime Minister too. I know military personal do not get to question,except at voting time; but I am taught there is no such thing as an expert we all have vested interests, and thus a right to question everything and anything.
> 
> In the summer months I work in the oil sands to pay for my education, and I can see first hand the big oil mentality. The Canadian people do not exist in the oil sands, we are just labour if we do not get the amount of progress they want, they send in foreign workers as we are starting to see with Harpers immigration plan to bring in 40k people.



You should seek immediate medical attention, as it is obvious the volitile solutes you have been exposed to during your time on the oil sands has seriously diminished your capacity to formulate a coherent argument, sentence or thought.

Now back to our original programming, already in progress.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I think he gets the picture.........


MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## Foxhound

I know I'm not supposed to feed trolls, however this stood out.



			
				Apple2018 said:
			
		

> I am angry at our governments seemingly ignorant stance on not hearing Canadians out. They will hear the voices of big oil but not ours.



But you see, Apple, they _have_ heard our voices, and they are doing their best at doing what we told them to do.  It's called an election.

Here's how that works:  We need someone to run the day-to-day operations of the country, so some people tell us to vote for them, then they tell us why we should vote for them, then they tell us why we should not vote for the other people.  Whoever gets the most votes gets to do what they told us they were going to do.  Then they do it.

If the winners don't do the things the other people in the election said _they_ would do, then the people who voted for the people who didn't win tend to get upset and yell about how the government doesn't listen.  But, guess what?  You, the upset non-winning voter, have several options.

You can:
Vote again for the people who didn't win, in the next election.  (Suggest you read more between now and then, however.)
Contact the people who didn't win and tell them how upset you are.  (Not that it will help you in any way.)
Contact the people who _did_ win and tell them upset you are and how they can make you feel better.  (Be prepared to provide more facts and less hyperbole.)

Dont forget: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)


----------



## cupper

Foxhound said:
			
		

> I know I'm not supposed to feed trolls, however this stood out.
> 
> But you see, Apple, they _have_ heard our voices, and they are doing their best at doing what we told them to do.  It's called an election.
> 
> Here's how that works:  We need someone to run the day-to-day operations of the country, so some people tell us to vote for them, then they tell us why we should vote for them, then they tell us why we should not vote for the other people.  Whoever gets the most votes gets to do what they told us they were going to do.  Then they do it.
> 
> If the winners don't do the things the other people in the election said _they_ would do, then the people who voted for the people who didn't win tend to get upset and yell about how the government doesn't listen.  But, guess what?  You, the upset non-winning voter, have several options.
> 
> You can:
> Vote again for the people who didn't win, in the next election.  (Suggest you read more between now and then, however.)
> Contact the people who didn't win and tell them how upset you are.  (Not that it will help you in any way.)
> Contact the people who _did_ win and tell them upset you are and how they can make you feel better.  (Be prepared to provide more facts and less hyperbole.)
> 
> Dont forget: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)



I agree with everything you said, except the first premise that the politicians run the day to day operations of the country. Actually it is the unelected bureaucracy that takes care of the day to day issues of keeping the country going. The elected Members set policy and create the laws around which the country functions.


----------



## Foxhound

cupper said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you said, except the first premise that the politicians run the day to day operations of the country. Actually it is the unelected bureaucracy that takes care of the day to day issues of keeping the country going. The elected Members set policy and create the laws around which the country functions.



Wholeheartedly agree.  I should have made that clearer.


----------



## a_majoor

The regime attempts to gain control by cutting off the Internet:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099549/Iran-government-cuts-internet-access-hardline-regime-makes-stand.html



> *Iran government cuts off internet access as hardline regime makes a stand*
> 
> By John Hutchinson
> 
> Last updated at 9:01 PM on 10th February 2012
> 
> Iran has demonstrated further evidence of its strict regime after the government cut internet links leaving millions without email and social networks.
> 
> Interestingly, the shutdown comes at a time when inhabitants are preparing to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, with rumours of anti-government protests also planned.
> 
> But some internet boffins are rising above the crackdown, and accessing the web by using proxy servers over VPN connections.
> 
> Gmail, Google and Yahoo are all thought to have been restricted, and users have been unable to log in to their online banking.
> 
> 'The interesting thing is that when asked, they deny the fact that all these services are all blocked,' an Iranian contacted by CNET said.
> 
> 'I don't know the the infrastructure that they will use but I don't think we have a way out of that one.
> 
> 'We are getting closer and closer to North Korea.'
> 
> Blanket ban: Internet users in Iran are again facing an outage as the government tries to crack down on any opposition
> 
> Blanket ban: Internet users in Iran are again facing an outage as the government tries to crack down on any opposition
> 
> Only last month, Mail Online reported how two Iranian bloggers had been captured and set to be executed, accused of 'spreading corruption' ahead of the parliamentary elections.
> 
> Four journalist were also arrested as Tehran cracked down on freedom of expression - much to the dismay of the Western world.
> 
> Also last month, the country's Information Minister announced plans for a goverment-run intranet, giving the state the upper hand in its cyber-battle with opponents.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099549/Iran-government-cuts-internet-access-hardline-regime-makes-stand.html#ixzz1m3H5GmAd


----------



## a_majoor

Almost all of the elements for a nuclear Iran are in place. The number of options are rapidly diminishing for those who oppose a nuclear Iran and especially a nuclear theocratic regime:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-irans-fordow-nuke-plant-now-fully-operational/?print=1



> *Breaking: Iran’s ‘Fordow’ Nuke Plant Now Fully Operational*
> Posted By Reza Kahlili On February 12, 2012 @ 9:37 pm In Uncategorized | 33 Comments
> 
> According to Mehr News Agency, sources within Iran revealed [1] that there will be an announcement in a few days that the previously secret nuclear site, the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, is now fully operational and enriching uranium at a 20% level.
> 
> The world learned about the existence of this site in 2009 when the Iranians disclosed it to the IAEA right before President Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France made statements at the G-20 summit in Pittsburg that referenced the secret Iranian site.
> 
> The site is built deep into a mountain on a Revolutionary Guards’ base near the city of Qom.
> 
> The Iranian leaders had intended to transfer much of their low-enriched uranium stock from Natanz to Fordow and to start the process of enrichment at a much higher level with protection against any attack.
> 
> It is reported that the site cannot be destroyed even with the current bunker-buster bombs kept in the U.S. military’s arsenal.
> 
> It should be noted that the Fordow facility can only house 3,000 centrifuges, and is therefore useless for providing fuel for a nuclear power plant. The only purpose is for clandestine use or for making a nuclear bomb. It is also important to note that enriching uranium to the 20% level is 9/10 of the way to weaponization.
> 
> Iran currently has enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs and continues its illicit nuclear activities despite four different sets of UN sanctions already in place.
> 
> On Saturday, marking the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to announce important news within days on the Iranian nuclear program. At the same time, the Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, stated [2] that Iran is ready for the worst-case scenario in its confrontation with the West over its nuclear program.
> 
> Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, during his recent Friday prayer sermon, called Israel “a cancerous tumor that should and will be cut [3],” and warned the U.S. that any aggression will result in a response ten times greater on America.
> 
> As reported recently [4], the Iranians not only have received intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology from China and are working with North Korea on assembling the missiles, but they also have succeeded in completing the component for a nuclear bomb trigger [5], overcoming a major obstacle in obtaining the bomb.
> 
> Reza Kahlili [6] is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award winning book, A Time to Betray [7]. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America [8] and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).
> 
> Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-irans-fordow-nuke-plant-now-fully-operational/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] sources within Iran revealed: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1532512
> [2] Ali Akbar Salehi, stated: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1531611
> [3] a cancerous tumor that should and will be cut: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june12/iran1_02-03.html
> [4] As reported recently: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/china-is-helping-to-arm-iran-and-sidestep-sanctions-thanks-to-an-assist-from-north-korea/
> [5] completing the component for a nuclear bomb trigger: http://atimetobetray.com/blog/countdown-irans-finger-on-nuclear-trigger/
> [6] Reza Kahlili: http://atimetobetray.com/
> [7] A Time to Betray: http://www.amazon.com/Time-Betray-Astonishing-Double-Revolutionary/dp/143918903X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267629519&sr=1-1
> [8] EMPact America: http://empactamerica.org/


----------



## GAP

Iran cuts oil exports to six European nations, says state TV
Published 21 minutes ago
Article Link
Associated Press

TEHRAN- Iranian state TV says Tehran has cut oil exports to six European countries in response to European Union sanctions, which include a boycott of new oil contracts with Iran.

No details were immediately made available on the Press TV report Wednesday, including which six nations were affected by the decision.

The move comes days after Iran’s oil minister, Rostam Qassemi, said Tehran could cut off oil exports to “hostile” European nations as tensions rise over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Iran argues that the EU oil embargo will not cripple its economy, claiming that the country already has identified new customers. European sales account for about 18 per cent of Iran’s total crude exports.
end


----------



## cupper

Yep makes perfect sense.

You won't buy our oil because we want to build a nuke, so in retaliation, we're not going to sell you the oil that you won't buy.

 :facepalm:


----------



## GAP

I think the article is right in that the leadership is playing to a domestic audience....unrest is increasing, Ahmadinejad is putting pressure on the corrupt clergy, and they are trying again to create an outside threat to gather the fold in in support of Iran.............anyone remember the cake made of Yellow Cake?

Aggressive Acts by Iran Signal Pressure on Its Leadership
By SCOTT SHANE and ROBERT F. WORTH  February 15, 2012 
Article Link

WASHINGTON — A string of aggressive gestures by Iran this week — assassination attempts on Israelis living abroad that were attributed to Tehran, renewed posturing over its nuclear program and fresh threats of economic retaliation — suggest that Iranian leaders are responding frantically, and with increasing unpredictability, to the tightening of sanctions by the West. 

As investigators unearthed new evidence implicating Iran in the attacks this week in Thailand, India and Georgia, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran announced Wednesday what he said was his country’s latest nuclear advance, and Iran’s Oil Ministry threatened to pre-empt a European oil embargo by cutting off sales to six countries there.

“These are all facets of the same message,” said Muhammad Sahimi, an analyst and professor at the University of Southern California. “Iran is saying, ‘If you hit us, we will hit back, and we are not going to sacrifice our nuclear program.’ ”

The flurry of Iranian actions and statements comes as Western governments are watching closely for signs of Iran’s reaction to the tougher sanctions they have imposed. But the intentions of Iran’s divided leadership are notoriously difficult to divine, and even as Mr. Ahmadinejad declared defiantly that “the era of bullying nations has passed,” another Iranian official said Tehran was ready for new talks on the nuclear issue.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, confirmed on Wednesday that she had received a reply from a top Iranian official responding to her invitation to negotiations over the future of its nuclear program. Iran’s Al Alam television said the country had offered to “hold new talks over its nuclear program in a constructive way.”

American officials reacted with caution to the reported offer to talk and said they saw little substance in either the oil threat or Mr. Ahmadinejad’s announcement that Iran had new centrifuges able to enrich uranium more quickly. The Iranian president was shown on live television overseeing the loading of what was described as an Iranian-made fuel rod into a research reactor and declaring that “the arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed.”

Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, said that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks appeared “calibrated mostly for a domestic audience.” 
More on link


----------



## Northalbertan

cupper said:
			
		

> You should seek immediate medical attention, as it is obvious the volitile solutes you have been exposed to during your time on the oil sands has seriously diminished your capacity to formulate a coherent argument, sentence or thought.
> 
> Now back to our original programming, already in progress.



OMG, Apple is a political science major?  Attending university somehere.?.  How the hell did he get admitted with sentence structure and spelling like that?  I can only imagine what sort of summer job he has in the oilsands, survey crew comes to mind, for a couple of reasons.  And really, Big Oil can't be that bad, they are helping him get his @ss through school.  I don't usually slag anybody but really?  This kid needs a severe dose of reality.   He is welcome to his views but man are they ever out there.


----------



## GAP

Global clearinghouse ready to evict Iranian banks
By Anne Gearan and Slobodan Lekic Associated Press Friday, February 17, 2012 
Article Link

BRUSSELS — An international banking clearinghouse crucial to Iran’s oil sales said Friday that it is preparing to discontinue services to Iranian financial institutions, an unprecedented and potentially devastating blow to Tehran as the West ramps up a campaign to stop its nuclear program.

The statement by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as SWIFT, suggests that the European Union — under pressure from Washington — is close to approving regulations that will require the Brussels-based hub to evict Iranian institutions from its ranks.

Some U.S. lawmakers are pushing for sanctions on SWIFT itself if it keeps up its services to Iran. SWIFT lawyers were coming to Washington next week for meetings with Congress, and Friday’s announcement was widely seen as a way to head off that action.

The Obama administration wants to see Iran barred from using the financial pass-through, which is used by virtually every nation in the world and overseen by major central banks, but it has no direct leverage. Washington was keen to see Europe act first, or to have SWIFT act on its own.

A U.S. Treasury Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because SWIFT’s action is still pending, said that the U.S. welcomes the move. The official said the U.S. will continue to urge the EU to act quickly.

Mark Dubowitz, an Iran sanctions expert advising the Obama administration, said an EU directive to SWIFT is expected within a few weeks.

More than 40 Iranian banks and institutions use SWIFT to process financial transactions, and losing access to that flow of international funds could badly damage the Islamic republic’s economy. It would also probably hurt average Iranians more than the welter of existing banking sanctions already in place since prices for household goods would rise while the value of Iranian currency would drop
More on link


----------



## Rifleman62

Can Iran bypass this through China and/or Russia? Money laundering?


----------



## aesop081

Top Gun, Iran style.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W53rJGzrViI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh9RkKBZYX8&feature=related


----------



## Bart905

I was at the barber shop today and the news was on and it said .... Iran threatens to strike first . No offense to our Israeli allies but Iran is not a pawn on the chess board . Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win, but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().


----------



## aesop081

Bart905 said:
			
		

> Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win,



Oh, do explain.


----------



## lethalLemon

Bart905 said:
			
		

> I was at the barber shop today and the news was on and it said .... Iran threatens to strike first . No offense to our Israeli allies but Iran is not a pawn on the chess board . Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win, but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().



Need I remind you of the Yom Kippur war? Six-Day War? Or how about the time Israel invaded Lebanon and held a sector in the southern part of the country after a little group of PLO guerillas decided to kill and injure no more than 100 people? (oh sorry, they actually invaded twice). 1981, they bombed Iraq's only nuclear power plant in Baghdad.

Israel can fight, and they fight hard. Plus they've got the US of A following in right behind them if they need it.
Israel has never lost a conflict, and they're not going to start.


----------



## a_majoor

Israel cannot afford to lose a war, so will fight as hard as they can to win, and will become very savage should their backs be to the wall (or sea in this case) and on the verge of destruction.

The United States may or may not be involved under this administration, nor should we expect the UN to intervene, except against Israel. Watching the anti semetic fireworks in the so called Durban conference or the UN and world reaction during "OPERATION CAST LEAD" to clear out Hamas rocket teams from the Gaza strip should clear your head of any notions of UN intervention against Iran.

That being said, from a logistical perspective, Israel will have great difficulties beyond a fairly limited series of goals in any campaign against Iran, you can wargame various combinations but once you start getting mission creep then you will get into difficulties. Iran OTOH also has logistical issues of its own, and needs to consider that they are considered ethnic and religious enemies of the Arabs and the Turks as well, so needs to meter its use of force accordingly.


----------



## cupper

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Quote from: Bart905 on Yesterday at 22:57:30
> Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win,
> 
> Oh, do explain.



Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:



			
				Bart905 said:
			
		

> but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:



Yes, I want to read that as well.


----------



## larry Strong

I want him to explain how "diffidently" fits into the equation!!


dif·fi·dent (df-dnt, -dnt)
adj.
1. Lacking or marked by a lack of self-confidence; shy and timid. See Synonyms at shy1.
2. Reserved in manner.


----------



## lethalLemon

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Israel cannot afford to lose a war, so will fight as hard as they can to win, and will become very savage should their backs be to the wall (or sea in this case) and on the verge of destruction.
> 
> The United States may or may not be involved under this administration, nor should we expect the UN to intervene, except against Israel. Watching the anti semetic fireworks in the so called Durban conference or the UN and world reaction during "OPERATION CAST LEAD" to clear out Hamas rocket teams from the Gaza strip should clear your head of any notions of UN intervention against Iran.
> 
> That being said, from a logistical perspective, Israel will have great difficulties beyond a fairly limited series of goals in any campaign against Iran, you can wargame various combinations but once you start getting mission creep then you will get into difficulties. Iran OTOH also has logistical issues of its own, and needs to consider that they are considered ethnic and religious enemies of the Arabs and the Turks as well, so needs to meter its use of force accordingly.



The UN is a joke (and even that's an understatement). Sure, they've probably done some remote good for someone, somewhere; but I am not in the slightest pleased with much of anything they've ever done (and I doubt anything in the future will be any different either, knowing their track record).


----------



## estoguy

The possible sanctions could hold up 20% of the world's oil... its bullshit, because in the end its only going to hurt consumers and the economy. 

Let them have their nuclear program and if they make nukes, so what?  Fat chance they will ever use them.  Even though Ammadinnajacket might be a bit of a loon, the man has publicly acknowledged that if they did produce nuclear weapons and used them, they would just be ensuring their own destruction. The chances of them using the weapons are small.

Isreal has over 150 nuclear weapons already.  Why are they allowed to have them?  Oh right, its only Muslims that can't have WMD.  Right.  I think, if anything, Iran having nukes would equalize the playing field in the middle east and cause a Cold War Detente-type situation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

estoguy said:
			
		

> The possible sanctions could hold up 20% of the world's oil... its bullshit, because in the end its only going to hurt consumers and the economy.
> 
> Let them have their nuclear program and if they make nukes, so what?  Fat chance they will ever use them.  Even though Ammadinnajacket might be a bit of a loon, the man has publicly acknowledged that if they did produce nuclear weapons and used them, they would just be ensuring their own destruction. The chances of them using the weapons are small.
> 
> Isreal has over 150 nuclear weapons already.  Why are they allowed to have them?  Oh right, its only Muslims that can't have WMD.  Right.  I think, if anything, Iran having nukes would equalize the playing field in the middle east and cause a Cold War Detente-type situation.




I think that "doing nothing" - allowing Iran to _go nuclear_ - might provoke a major, nuclear war in the region ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
... which might not be an altogether bad thing. It, a Middle Eastern, even West Asian nuclear war, is not _unthinkable_: the casualties would number in the hundreds of thousands, at least - almost all civilians, and the destruction would be quite extensive but, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated, both people and things can be replaced and, on the bright side, the _stalemate_ might be broken. I'm not 100% certain that, in a major regional conflagration, Israel would be absolutely alone - some Arab states hate and fear Iran and the Shias more than they hate and fear the Jews and Israel.


----------



## a_majoor

Going nuclear is probably the worst case scenario, but consider the Islamic world is split between the Shia and Sunnis, and the Islamic middle east is divided in three major ethnic divisions (Turkish, Persian and Arab), as well as dozens of subsets of Islam and ethnic groups. The current revolt in Syria is creating strange bedfellows, the Assad regime is built around a religious minority, and other minority groups like the Christians are backing the Assad regime since victory by ethnic/religious majority will probably unleash a bloodbath.

WRT nuclear Iran, no one has openly considered how nuclear Pakistan fits into the equation. Pakistan is from a different ethnic group from Iran, and also a different branch of Islam. They have been in the background supplying Iran with nuclear know how, but do they share enough interests in common to be considered allied, neutral or hostile to Iran? In the past, the Persian empire(s) claimed regions of what we know as Pakistan, and the Mughal Empire's relationship with the Persians was also complex (now transfer that to a nuclear India).

A nuclear Iran will be a huge destabilizing factor throughout central and west Asia, and considering the vast number of pieces on the board, will create very unpredictable results.


----------



## Nemo888

If you were Iran sandwiched between US forces in Iraq and US forces in Afghanistan wouldn't you want nukes. I sure as hell would. Only carrots would make me put that idea away. Sticks only prove the point that I need them. The US does not mess with nuclear capable North Korea.  I'd like to sell my oil on my own terms thank you very much. My thinking would be respect my sovereignty or watch me build a nuke a-holes.

I doubt anyone with an address would use nukes on us. Why? Because we have nukes or an ally with them. I expect smaller nations will start sucking up to nuke capable powers once Iran goes nuclear. So much cheaper than building them yourself. They cost billions.


----------



## a_majoor

1. The Iranians are looking to regain the status of regional hegemon, and would be on a similar trajectory regardless of where US forces were parked in the region (or even if they were there at all)

2. Sadly, nuclear fission weapons are dirt cheap, and within the capacity of any reasonably technical individual, excepting only the acquisition of the fissionables. Even the fissionables *could* be arranged without the creation of your own multi billion dollar enrichment program, although that brings other issues to the table


----------



## Nemo888

I'm sure having your sworn enemy and previous colonial exploiter invade and occupy two neighboring countries has a very real visceral effect. They know how vulnerable they are in the coming times of resource scarcity. If I was Iran I would get nukes now at almost any cost. I see great difficulties remaining a sovereign state without them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I'm sure having your sworn enemy and previous colonial exploiter invade and occupy two neighboring countries has a very real visceral effect. They know how vulnerable they are in the coming times of resource scarcity. If I was Iran I would get nukes now at almost any cost. I see great difficulties remaining a sovereign state without them.




I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, Nemo888; were I the grand vizir or ayatolla or whatever I think I would want to _go nuclear_, too - despite the very real threat from Israel.

Our, Western, strategic calculus is a little less obvious.

My personal preference is a combination of _isolation_ and *provocation*.

_Isolation_: I would like to see the US led West withdraw, nearly completely from the Western end of the Islamic Crescent - no military bases or support, no government aid, not even to Egypt, to any country from Morocco to Pakistan, including Afghanistan and throughout the _Horn of Africa_, from Somalia to Sudan; limited trade, through third parties only; no visas for any resident of any of those countries, except for diplomats (and families); no aid for our citizens who live and work in those countries except for emergency evacuation when, not if, real crises occur.

*Provocation*: I would like us to take _covert_ action, through whatever groups we can find, to ferment internecine conflicts, revolutions and wars in the region. But no arms sales or supplies - let 'em kill one another with _Kalashnikovs_ and QBZ-95s.

And what about Israel? It can look after itself and if/when worst comes to worst we in the West will welcome millions of educated, sophisticated, Jewish refugees. And Muslim refugees? Well, as in 1945, _"None is too many."_


----------



## GR66

Define "win" in a war between Israel and Iran.  

Isreal's military is essentially defensive in nature.  While their goal is always forward defense (preferably on Arab territory), they don't have the numbers, capability or even interest in trying to project their ground forces into Iran.  They're way too small a country to even contemplate taking and holding Iranian territory and what would they gain by doing so?  For Israel a "win" would be at least delaying Iran's nuclear program (hopefully until a more moderate regime eventually comes into power in Tehran) and eliminating as much of Iran's other key military/industrial capabilities as possible (it's limited airforce, air defense, and most importantly it's missile capabilities).  

For Iran the situation is very different.  They have a large military, large population and large country with complex terrain.  They are likely reasonably well suited to defend themselves against an invading army and are likely _hoping_ that they can at least put up some kind of effective resistance against enemy air attacks.  However I don't see them having the capability to launch any type of ground-based attack against Israel.  They'd have alot of pretty unfriendly territory to try and cross with their antiquated forces and would be extremely vulnerable to air attack along the way.  I can't see even the loons leading in Tehran throwing away their forces like that.  A "win" for them would be to give any attacking forces enough of a bloody nose to be able to declare some kind of "moral" victory.  In desperate straights they may even launch missiles against Isreal but that would be a very dangerous game for them.  If their attacks fail then it strengthens Israel's standing in the region and makes them look invulnerable.  Do too much damage and they risk a massive nuclear response that would wipe them out.  

A more likely situation (in my opinion) would be for Iran to actively defend it's own airspace and also conduct more limited attacks against regional targets.  This would maybe include mining the Straights of Hormuz and attacking shipping, missile/commando attacks against oil infrastructure targets and airfields, high-visibility targets in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc).  I'd also imagine they'd use their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza/the West Bank to conduct attacks against Israel proper.  I think this strategy would have a greater political payoff for them than a more general attack.  Israeli retaliation would undoubtably hit Palestinian and Lebanese (as well as Iranian) civilian targets while Iranian/allied attacks would not be seen as a threat to the actual existence of Israel.  This would allow Russia (and others) to justify support to Iran both in the UN Security Council (by vetoing any US-led anti-Iran motions) as well as possibly through quiet material support for Iran.

Lots of room for miscalculation though.  It could easily escalate into something a whole lot worse with a single stupid, (un)lucky move by either side.


----------



## GAP

How soon the Iran-Iraq war is forgotten, as is the tens of thousands used as human mine detectors and meat for the mill....


----------



## GR66

GAP said:
			
		

> How soon the Iran-Iraq war is forgotten, as is the tens of thousands used as human mine detectors and meat for the mill....



No illusions about the leaders of Iran having much (any) regard at all for the lives of their own people.  Sending 10's of thousands of their soldiers into a meat-grinder right along their own border to capture a fairly clearly defined piece of territory is one thing though...sending them trecking across the width of Iraq and Jordan/Syria to Isreal, facing non-stop air attack without any effective air support of their own before they even reach their enemy at the end of a very long and vulnerable supply line is another.  Heck...great if they give it a try...would sure make a quick end to the regime...I just don't see it happening.


----------



## Bart905

cupper said:
			
		

> Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:



Who owns most the banks in America ? after you do some research and find out the answer I will no longer need to answer this question


----------



## aesop081

Bart905 said:
			
		

> Who owns most the banks in America ? after you do some research and find out the answer I will no longer need to answer this question



Lame response. You would think that with a brilliant post such as "the UN will step in and kick Iran's ***", you would have some intelligent input as to why and how the UN could do that.


----------



## a_majoor

With the highly expanded modalities of warfare, Israel's air force and strategic missiles are only one part of the equation (and even if they are highly visible and everyone fixates on them, they are not the only ones).

What is needed is a means to collapse the ability of Iran to threaten or project power without uniting the Iranian people behind the current regime. Direct attack is therefore the final option, and only to be used if there are no other options left (or to respond to an attack by Iranian missiles or proxy forces).

The current campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists and the cyberwar effort against the nuclear program show some of the other potential steps that can be taken. To topple the regime, you would need to rapidly escalate the economic misery of the people without overt outside influence, and at the same time degrade the command and control architecture to the point the Revolutionary Guards and Basji are paralyzed and out of contact with the regime. Shutting down the power and transport grids would also be positives in this sort of scenario.

Selective sabotage by SOF operators, arming and training elements of the Green Revolution, assasinating high ranking members of the Revolutionary Guards and Basji and introducing multiple computer virus into the banking, transportation, communications and industrial systems would all serve to disrupt the ability of Iran to carry out its hostile intentions, and disruption of banking and communication in particular would also serve to cut off Hezbollah and Hamas from their main source of supply and finance. Collapsing the internal banking system would bring people out into the streets, and disrupting the regime's communications while leaving open channels for the population could cause enough chaos to bring an end to the regime (although the question always remains what will take its place?)

As an aside, Iran does have some conventional force projection capabilites, but seems to have been deterred by unknown forces:

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-mystery-of-irans-wandering-war-ships/



> *The Mystery of Iran’s Wandering War Ships*
> Posted By Claudia Rosett On February 21, 2012 @ 11:55 pm In Uncategorized | 39 Comments
> 
> Did they dock in Syria, or didn’t they? Last week, two Iranian war ships, a destroyer and a supply ship, passed through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean. According to Iran’s government, they docked in the Syrian port of Tartus. According to the U.S. government, they did no such thing.
> 
> More specifically, on Saturday Iran’s state-owned PressTV reported that the two Iranian vessels had docked in the Syrian port of Tartus [1]. On Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman [2], George Little, told the press, “We have absolutely no indication whatsoever the Iranian ships ever docked in Syrian ports.”
> 
> What’s going on here? One day there are two Iranian ships docking in Syria. Three days later, it seems that, like the Flying Dutchman, they never made port. Whatever they did during their swing through the eastern Mediterranean, they are now reported as having left the area, heading back through the Suez Canal.
> 
> These are not phantoms, or flyspecks invisible to the hi-tech eye. These are ships, substantial objects, which the U.S. certainly has the ability to track. I can’t claim to know what actually happened, and, alas, I have no inside sources here. So this is pure speculation. But it sounds as if the Iranian ships were indeed heading for Tartus,  and then ran into some reason to back off — leaving the Iranian government to  bluster that the ships had docked, rather than admit they’d chickened out.
> 
> If so, what might have blocked those ships? We know this much: There was no “Freedom Flotilla” launched from, say, Turkey, to try to deflect the arrival of Iranian war ships potentially stuffed with supplies for the terror-sponsoring regime of Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, now using heavy weapons against his own people. There was no naval blockade mandated by, say, the United Nations, where China and Russia are now blocking any Security Council resolution on Syria. There was no grand effort put forth by the combined naval forces of the Arab League.
> 
> Assuming that something, or someone, intervened in some way to persuade those ships to wave off, that was good work. I’d like to think that the deciding factor was a sharp warning from the U.S. —  though if that was the case, it would have been far better had America found a way to deter Iran before those ships ever entered the Suez Canal. Or, as with too many showdowns on the front lines of Tehran’s aggression, was the job, and the risk, left to the Israelis?
> 
> And if the Tartus docking was an Iranian lie, it does not obviate the fact that Iran’s regime felt free to send war ships through the Suez Canal for the second time in a year, and this time felt free to boast they’d docked in Syria. Within the propaganda fog are real ships, real guns, real threats. What next?
> 
> Article printed from The Rosett Report: http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-mystery-of-irans-wandering-war-ships/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] docked in the Syrian port of Tartus: http://presstv.com/detail/227298.html
> [2] Pentagon spokesman: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL2E8DL7ZB20120221


----------



## Bart905

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AQ8m-7WPU

Israel owns the American Government . Search it your self who owns banks , who funds the campaigns for the presidents ?  UN is another puppet of America and Israel , I was wrong about saying " The UN " I should of said most countries of the " UN " . If Israel gets attacked or attacks it needs America's support a long side with the British and so on ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bart905 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AQ8m-7WPU
> 
> Israel owns the American Government . Search it your self who owns banks , who funds the campaigns for the presidents ?  UN is another puppet of America and Israel , I was wrong about saying " The UN " I should of said most countries of the " UN " . If Israel gets attacked or attacks it needs America's support a long side with the British and so on ....




Right, and the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ is a standard reference text too, isn't it?

  :ignore:


----------



## cupper

To quote Bill Engvall


*HERE'S YOUR SIGN*


 :facepalm:


----------



## aesop081

Bart905 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AQ8m-7WPU
> 
> Israel owns the American Government . Search it your self who owns banks , who funds the campaigns for the presidents ?  UN is another puppet of America and Israel , I was wrong about saying " The UN " I should of said most countries of the " UN " . If Israel gets attacked or attacks it needs America's support a long side with the British and so on ....



To think i was worried you might come up with something intelligent.


----------



## 57Chevy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-mystery-of-irans-wandering-war-ships/



Misinformation has always served a purpose.
According to this article from Trade Newswire and shared with provisions of The copyright Act
they did dock at Tartus. Surely they did just wander around the Med like on some sort of cruise vacation.
But, if that be so, it only brings one thing to mind; Submarines.

Iranian ships docked at Syrian port lead to Israeli worries
http://www.tradenewswire.net/tag/maritime

The Israeli regime has publicized its worries about the presence of two Iranian naval ships at the Syrian port of Tartus, declaring that the ships would be watched “very closely” in case they come near its waters. “If the boats come near our territorial waters, we will monitor them very closely,” Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said on Sunday.

Two Iranian Navy ships docked at the Syrian port of Tartus on Saturday to provide maritime training to naval forces of Syria under an agreement signed between Tehran and Damascus a year ago.

article continues at link...


----------



## a_majoor

So the question becomes why did the US claim the ships did not dock in the Syrian port?


----------



## GAP

To reduce the expectations of their capabilities?


----------



## 57Chevy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So the question becomes why did the US claim the ships did not dock in the Syrian port?



Good question.
I think it may be that the denial of such would undermine what may be seen as an
intended provocation by Iran, and if so, 
well played.


----------



## lethalLemon

Bart905 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AQ8m-7WPU
> 
> Israel owns the American Government . Search it your self who owns banks , who funds the campaigns for the presidents ?  UN is another puppet of America and Israel , I was wrong about saying " The UN " I should of said most countries of the " UN " . If Israel gets attacked or attacks it needs America's support a long side with the British and so on ....



Oh boy... Not one of _those_ again.  :


----------



## a_majoor

An ancient rivalry moves into the 21rst century:

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65040



> *Turkey and Iran: Amidst the Smiles, A Rivalry Intensifies*
> February 23, 2012 - 11:37am, by Yigal Schleifer Iran Turkey EurasiaNet's Weekly Digest Geopolitics Iran
> 
> Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party appears to be recalibrating its Iran policy and increasingly distancing itself from the more vocal support it previously gave the Iranian regime. As the two powers tussle over Syria, Iraq and other issues, analysts warn that their rivalry for leadership in the Middle East is only likely to sharpen.
> 
> But, for now, at least officially, Turkey maintains that it is still committed to maintaining its outreach to Iran and moving beyond the mutual suspicions that characterized the two countries’ relations in decades past.
> 
> “We are doing our best to create the atmosphere for dialogue,” one senior Turkish diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told EurasiaNet.org. “Yes, we don’t agree about all issues with Iran -- about what’s happening in Iraq, in Syria -- but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk with them. We are expressing our concerns and reactions with them about everything face-to-face.”
> 
> Some recent statements from Turkish officials, though, suggest a more complex picture.
> 
> At a February 5 meeting of the Justice and Development Party, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc delivered a blistering critique of Iran’s policy of support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad despite the Syrian government’s bloody crackdown on opposition strongholds.
> 
> “I am addressing the Islamic Republic of Iran: I do not know if you are worthy of being called Islamic,” Arinc said, according to the Anatolia state news agency. “Have you said a single thing about what is happening in Syria?”
> 
> This tone represents quite a change from 2009, when Turkish President Abdullah Gül was among the first world leaders to congratulate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on his contested reelection, or in 2010, when Ankara put its relationship with Washington on the line by voting against Iran sanctions in the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> News coverage also comes with a sharper edge. The Turkish press has increasingly started running articles that cast suspicions on Iran’s intentions in the region and in Turkey, with some recent reports and columns suggesting that the Revolutionary Guards were planning attacks inside Turkey and that Iran is smuggling weapons through the country to Syria.
> 
> Hugh Pope, Turkey project director for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, and one of the authors of a report on Iran and Turkey to be released on February 23, believes that Ankara’s more critical stance toward Iran indicates that “[t]he more hawkish faction in Ankara, the kind that thinks Iran is crossing the line in Syria and Iraq, is becoming more pronounced . . .”
> 
> Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan “feels personally burned by the Iranians . . . ” Pope commented. “Erdoğan likes to have wins and the risks he took for Iran did not pay off, either in the US or Iran.”
> 
> But the two sides’ mutual wariness is not always consistent. An Iranian general earlier threatened a retaliatory strike if Turkey hosted a North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile radar, but, nonetheless, Tehran has also proposed Istanbul as a possible site for another round of talks about Iran’s nuclear research program.
> 
> Much of the Turkish-Iranian sparring is done instead via proxies. In Iraq, Turkey’s neighbor to the south, Ankara’s support for the Sunni Iraqiya alliance resulted in a falling out with Iranian-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has since gone on to accuse Ankara of “interfering” in Iraq’s internal affairs.
> 
> “There is quite a strong and growing rivalry between the two countries inside of Iraq, and it stems from having genuinely different interests,” said Sean Kane, a former UN official in Iraq and the author of a 2011 report on Turkish-Iranian competition in Iraq for the United States Institute of Peace.
> 
> “For Turkey, having a strong Iraq has historically been a bulwark against Kurdish separatism and Iranian adventurism. Iran looks at all of this very differently. A strong Iraq is a rival, and historically has been a hard security threat.”
> 
> Trade between Iran and Turkey, long a buffer against bad relations, also appears to offer little room for cooperation.
> 
> While trade between Turkey and Iran shot up from $1 billion in 2000 to $16 billion last year, most of that consists of Turkish imports of natural gas and oil. Joint ventures between Turkish and Iranian companies have failed to materialize and several large projects that were given to Turkish concerns ended up being taken away with little warning or explanation.
> 
> “I don't see Turkey's outreach to Iran working,” said an executive at a large Turkish trade organization. “There's no transparency or accountability in Iran. Turkish companies have had a very hard time penetrating the Iranian market.”
> 
> Despite Prime Minister Erdoğan’s multiple trips to the country, “Turkey didn’t get any deals out of Iran,” added the executive, who declined to be named. “Recent developments . . . will only make it harder.”
> 
> Still, despite the numerous points of friction and the growing rivalry, few observers expect outright conflict between Ankara and Tehran.
> 
> “I don’t think Turkey has any intent to fight Iran. In fact, it would like to avoid that at any cost,” said Turkish political analyst Soli Ozel, a professor of international relations at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University. “There are too many common interests between the two countries, although that’s never stopped them from competing fiercely in the region.”
> 
> What is most likely, Ozel said, is that Turkey and Iran will revert to the elaborate kind of diplomatic gamesmanship that has characterized the relations between these two regional powers and rivals for centuries.
> 
> “It’s all smiles between Turkey and Iran, but that’s very typical of the relationship between these two countries, which is competition and cooperation wrapped up in a total lack of trust.”
> 
> Editor's note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist who focuses on Turkey. He is the editor of Eurasianet's Turkofile and Kebabistan blogs.


----------



## a_majoor

The Green revolution asked for help, but were rebuffed or ignored. If there had been open support, it may have been enough to topple the regime and ignite the Arab Spring two years early (and perhaps on better terms for us, if the Muslim Brotherhoods and other radicals were cought by surprise or forced into the background by the knowledge a powerful West was supporting the liberal democratic revolutionaries. OF course, it could also have devolved into chaos; history is not an experiment we can reset and do again...

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/02/27/obama-administration-ignored-iranian-oppositions-advice/?print=1



> *Obama Administration Ignored Iranian Opposition’s Advice*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On February 27, 2012 @ 11:12 pm In Uncategorized | 59 Comments
> 
> When mass demonstrations against the Iranian regime erupted in the summer of 2009, the Obama administration found itself facing a totally unexpected problem.  President Obama had gone to great lengths to try to strike a bargain with the regime, and had ignored the internal opposition.  Now he suddenly needed a crash course on the regime’s domestic challengers, and possibly to try helping them.
> 
> The president had come to office promising to establish good relations [1] with the Islamic Republic, but no progress had (or has) been made [2].  Moreover, there was mounting public evidence of the Iranian role in both Iraq and Afghanistan, ranging from the provision of explosives and components of the murderous IEDs (the so-called “roadside bombs”), to training terrorists (who subsequently killed Americans) inside Iran, to supporting and housing al-Qaeda members, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, to sending officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary Guards Corps onto the battlefield (several hundred were in American military detention camps in Iraq).
> 
> The president was personally committed to reaching an accord with the leaders of the Iranian regime, and he had pursued this goal with considerable energy, both through traditional diplomatic channels, and more informal discussions.  Over time, the Swiss Foreign Ministry (which, in the absence of formal relations between Iran and the United States, has long served as the official middleman), the sultan of Oman, Iraqi President Talabani, and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan have carried messages, suggested actions, and arranged tactical agreements (such as the release of the American hikers held hostage in Iran starting in July 2009).
> 
> American-Iranian relations have always involved a mix of semi-official meetings and secret middlemen, and the Obama administration was no exception.  Some “informal” and unannounced conversations took place (to the annoyance of the other participants) on the sidelines of several meetings between Iranians and the group of EU countries and the United States, dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Others were conducted by the so-called “Track 2” teams of American and foreign policy wonks and former government officials, on the one side, and similar Iranians on the other.  These were confirmed by some of the participants, who insist on anonymity, but an American participant stressed that the Obama administration knew in advance of the meetings, and was briefed in considerable detail on the substance of the talks.  Nonetheless, when queried by Sara Carter of the Examiner — who writes today [3] about her own long investigation of these questions — the White House would not confirm knowledge of the Track 2 meetings, even though the existence of the Track 2 channel has been known for years [4].
> 
> There are also reports of a meeting as recently as last November in Turkey, involving a State Department official.  This, too, was officially denied.
> 
> Devoted as he was to reaching an agreement with Tehran, the president did not authorize any contacts with the leading component of the Iranian opposition, the so-called Green Movement, whose candidate for the presidency, Mir Hossein Mousavi, almost certainly won the elections of June 2009.  Throughout the eruptions of the summer and early fall, Mousavi and the other top leaders of the Greens received no communication from the U.S. government.
> 
> This was undoubtedly due to two factors:
> 
> –if such contacts were discovered by the regime, it would have made any deal with Tehran much more difficult;
> 
> –the U.S. intelligence community did not believe there was any serious possibility of regime change in Iran.  Top analysts told the policy makers that the regime was strong and stable, and any street demonstrations or labor protests would be ineffective, and short-lived.
> 
> This assessment proved erroneous — as would similar evaluations in subsequent uprisings in Arab countries — and as the demonstrations continued to roil the streets of Iran’s major cities, the administration was forced to at least consider the possibility of reaching out to the Iranian opposition.  They accordingly contacted “experts” in Europe and the United States for help.
> 
> They decided to try to secretly contact the Greens, and I have learned from persons with first-hand knowledge of the events that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received help from an old friend and Senate colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer.  The New York senator knew a person — a distinguished Iranian-American with no history of political involvement, and with a reputation for impeccable honesty and morality — who had a way to contact the Green leaders.
> 
> According to a person familiar with the details of the process, Schumer’s acquaintance was asked to pass two questions to the Green leaders on behalf of the administration:  The Greens were given to understand that the questions came from the secretary of state.  The questions were: “What should we do?  What should we NOT do?”
> 
> They were good questions, and they were passed through at least two persons, both known to me, one in the United States, the other in Europe. The person in Europe is well known and admired by the Greens, who now faced a very delicate problem.  It was one of Obama’s problems in reverse:  if any exchange between the Greens and the administration leaked out, the consequences might be very grave.  On the other hand, it would not do to ignore such questions from such a source.
> 
> The reply is in the form of a lengthy memorandum, dated November 30, 2009.
> 
> You can read it here. [5]
> 
> As you will see, it was written very carefully.  It is unsigned, and there is no hint of the author’s (or authors’) identity (I have good reason to believe that several people worked on it).  Instead of answering the two questions directly, the memo presents a snapshot of Iran under a theocratic tyranny, which is described in very harsh terms (“It is as if the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ were to be reestablished in the West,” and, later on, “the regime is a brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship that tries to survive by means of suppression of its own people, military force, theft of national resources and economic stealth”).  The memo says that the regime cannot change;  like all totalitarian regimes it cannot be reformed.  But the memo insists that the forces for change within Iran are strong and well led.
> 
> It cautions that any agreement with the regime would require the United States to recognize the legitimacy of the regime, promise to maintain silence on questions of human rights inside the country, and abandon the Middle East.  And even if the regime promised to abandon its nuclear program and cease its support for terror, it would not honor these commitments.  It needs both terror and nukes in order to survive.
> 
> So far as I can tell, the demands for American silence on Iranian affairs, recognition of the regime’s legitimacy, and withdrawal from the region are precisely what  the Obama administration has received through all their contacts with the Iranian regime.
> 
> Finally, the Greens pointedly present the American government with its real options:
> 
> “…at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance Western interests and world peace?”
> 
> The memo, all eight pages of it, was delivered to Schumer’s friend/acquaintance, who undoubtedly passed it to the senator.  The State Department says they know nothing about the memo. And the Obama administration, like all its predecessors since the revolution of 1979, has done nothing serious for the people of Iran.
> 
> An unnamed State Department official says “most leaders in the Green Movement made clear they did not desire financial or other support from the United States,” and adds that the United States doesn’t give “financial” support to any opposition group in Iran.  Hillary actually put the entire blame for the lack of American support on the victims themselves:
> 
> …we wanted to be full-hearted in favor of what was going on inside Iran, and we kept being cautioned that we would put people’s lives in danger, we would discredit the movement, we would undermine their aspirations. I think if something were to happen again, it would be smart for the Green Movement or some other movement inside Iran to say, “We want the voices of the world. We want the support of the world behind us.”
> 
> Yet anyone reading the memo can see that its clear message is that the West should support the Iranian opposition.
> 
> There was no feedback to the Greens.  The entire exchange consists of Schumer’s two questions and the Greens’ memorandum.
> 
> What are we to make of the administration’s denials (and Schumer’s refusal to respond to any and all questions about the matter)?  An administration that won’t even discuss such a well-documented phenomenon as Track 2 talks is hard to believe on more delicate matters.  Nonetheless, it is quite possible that people outside Iran, claiming to represent the Green Movement, asked the administration to stay away, which would justify the State Department’s carefully worded statement “most leaders…did not desire…support.”  If so, it’s yet another intelligence failure, since the top Green leaders in Iran have said over and over again that they have no representatives and no spokesmen outside their country.
> 
> The administration may also be telling the (technical) truth when they say they are unaware of this memo.  Schumer’s friend, or Schumer himself, may have reasoned that it was too long for a busy policy maker, and edited out some of the historical and/or theological discussions.  If anyone in Congress or in the press wishes to pursue the matter, they should be careful how they phrase the question.  The administration should be asked if they received “any or all” of the document, and Senator Schumer should be asked in a private session about his role in the affair, which seems entirely honorable.
> 
> Of course, there is a scandal here.  A terrible policy scandal.  The Obama administration didn’t do — and still hasn’t done — anything to help the opposition in Iran.  The Green Movement’s top leaders have been held in solitary confinement for more than a year.  Thousands of dissidents, journalists, bloggers, and normal citizens have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed, and the dreadful repression continues apace, as does the terror war against us and our soldiers on the battlefield.  The president has still not called for an end to the monstrous theocratic tyranny.  Instead, he has catered to the needs of the evil regime, at the cost of American lives, our national security, and his personal legacy.
> 
> He should have listened to the Greens in 2009 when they asked rhetorically: “Will (the countries of the West) continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late?”
> 
> So far, he has done just that, and thereby become an accomplice to evil.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/02/27/obama-administration-ignored-iranian-oppositions-advice/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] promising to establish good relations: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html
> [2] no progress had (or has) been made: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/world/middleeast/23nuke.html?pagewanted=all
> [3] writes today: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2012/02/secret-memo-suggests-white-house-ignored-sos-iranian-opposition/318891
> [4] known for years: http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/track-ii-diplomacy
> [5] read it here.: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/files/2012/02/memo_to_US_from_Greens_20091.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell

A very reasonable opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some interesting speculation on Israel's deception plans in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/israels-vow-of-silence-on-iran-strike-may-be-a-message-to-washington/article2352400/


> Israel’s vow of silence on Iran strike may be a message to Washington
> 
> PAUL KORING
> 
> Washington— Globe and Mail Update
> Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
> 
> If Israeli warplanes attack Iran’s nuclear sites, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to keep President Barack Obama in the dark, according to senior American intelligence officials.
> 
> Given the mutual antipathy – verging on open disdain – between the two leaders, such a snub might seem unsurprising. But far more is at stake than the chilliest relations between an American president and an Israeli leader since the United States backstopped the creation of the Jewish State six decades ago.
> 
> Claiming it will keep Washington ignorant about any decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites – Israeli’s openly mooted option of pre-emptive attacks to keep Tehran’s ruling mullahs from getting nuclear weapons – may be more about posturing than any military reality.
> 
> Previous Israeli attacks on nuclear sites – in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 – were single-strike events, against much-closer Arab countries with far-weaker air defences and all of their, still-under-construction, nuclear facilities clustered at one target site. Whether Washington was tipped off in advance remains an official secret but in neither case was American connivance needed. So plausible deniability remained.
> 
> Attacking Iran poses a vastly bigger, far riskier military operation. Unless Israel plans to use its own nuclear bombs, destroying Iran’s multiple, dispersed, and sometimes deeply-buried nuclear sites will require days – perhaps weeks – of repeated air strikes with special bunker-busting bombs. It will be an bombing campaign, not a single attack.
> 
> The military complexity and difficulty of wreaking lasting damage on Tehran’s hidden, heavily-defended nuclear installations is daunting.
> 
> It would be even for the American military, which has hundreds of warplanes already based in neighbouring Afghanistan, just across the narrow Persian Gulf and aboard aircraft carriers off Iran’s shores.
> 
> For Israeli warplanes to reach targets in Iran they would need to fly thousands of kilometres, refuel multiple times and flout the sovereignty of one or more of Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia –all U.S. allies. Even the first strike would take many hours across airspace under constant American surveillance.
> 
> Even if Israel’s first strike managed to catch Washington (as well as Tehran) by surprise, the military reality remains that any and all follow-on strikes would require – at very least – a decision by the Obama administration to sit by as the threat of a full-blown Middle East war unfolded.
> 
> Yet Israeli leaders have reportedly made oft-repeated, and unambiguous warnings to Washington that it won’t tell Mr. Obama before striking Tehran.
> 
> According to the Associated Press, Mr. Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have delivered that message to high-level U.S. visitors, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser, the director of national intelligence and top U.S. lawmakers.
> 
> The White House and Pentagon declined to respond to the report.
> 
> Mr. Obama has said he will do whatever is necessary to prevent Tehran’s ruling mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons. And, as is Oval Office routine, the president has pointedly said that “all options,” meaning military action if necessary, remain on the table.
> 
> But previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican, made the same not-so-veiled threats about North Korea and yet failed to prevent Pyongyang from joining the nuclear weapons club.
> 
> Tehran insists its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes.
> 
> Israel regards Iran as an existential threat – not least because Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the end of the Jewish state.
> 
> Both Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak are due in Washington over the next 10 days. With Mr. Obama’s Republican rivals accusing him of being soft on Tehran and vowing tougher action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the latest Israeli sabre-rattling may be intended to send a message to Washington as much as Tehran.




A few points:

1. Israeli-American relations are far deeper and far more complex than Obama/Netanyahu - Israel is loved and loathed, in almost equal measure, in the White House (more loathed than loved), the Congress (more loved than loathed), the Pentagon (more loathed than loved) and the public at large (more loved than loathed).

2. Israel *needs* American support if there is to be a _conventional_ "bunker busting" bombing campaign.

3. A _conventional_ "bunker busting" campaign increases the risk of Russian involvement and that gives the US, especially the Pentagon, leverage which the Israelis hate to give to anyone - especially the Pentagon. It begs the question: why take that risk? Why not "go ugly early" and use a nuclear first strike ~ maybe ten or fifteen of 'em?


----------



## vonGarvin

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to dig a bomb shelter in my back yard and wait for the world to implode over this...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to dig a bomb shelter in my back yard and wait for the world to implode over this...




I'm not so sure ... let's say the Israelis can acquire suitable targets for and can deliver, pretty much simultaneously: 5X _Hiroshima_ warheads; 5 X _Hiroshima X 10_ warheads; and 5 X _Hiroshima X 50_ warheads. That would set Tehran's nuclear projects  back several years, at least, and might topple the whole political edifice. Who would retaliate and how? Russia? And risk a real, shooting war with the USA (and maybe China, just because it would be a wonderful opportunity)? What would be the _downstream_ consequences? Dreadful for Iran, to be sure, but for everyone else? Not so bad ... stop digging, TV, buy stocks in big international construction (think UN funded cleanup and reconstruction) companies.


----------



## Old Sweat

I'm certainly not going to debate hypothetical scenarios, but I question if the Israelis have the ability to even deliver the 15 devices, unless their missile capability is pretty well developed. In any case, there always is the chance that the big powers might not just agree to swat the fly after the first nukes fly. If I was doing the targeting estimate - aka the fire plan - I might have a hard look at taking out the national command infrastructure or the power grid or . . . instead, and perhaps by conventional means.

I would love to say that hopefully a peaceful solution will be found, but hoping is not a very effective way of resolving difficult issues.


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure ... let's say the Israelis can acquire suitable targets for and can deliver, pretty much simultaneously: 5X _Hiroshima_ warheads; 5 X _Hiroshima X 10_ warheads; and 5 X _Hiroshima X 50_ warheads. That would set Tehran's nuclear projects  back several years, at least, and might topple the whole political edifice. *Who would retaliate and how? Russia? And risk a real, shooting war with the USA (and maybe China, just because it would be a wonderful opportunity)?  * What would be the _downstream_ consequences? Dreadful for Iran, to be sure, but for everyone else? Not so bad ... stop digging, TV, buy stocks in big international construction (think UN funded cleanup and reconstruction) companies.


I'll have options.  I'll buy stocks in those corporations AND dig.  Best of both worlds.  "just in case"...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Holy hell I hope Canada sends troops to join our American brothers in this venture of freedom.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Do you really thing we, the US led West, _need_ another war in the Middle East?

What would be the aim?

If it just to topple the current theocrats and leave a rubble heap for the next gang to clean up, à la Afghanistan in 2002 or Libya in 2011, then, yes, maybe, there is some useful military role ... but we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now ... did we win? Do we know what "win" means?


----------



## Jarnhamar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Do you really thing we, the US led West, _need_ another war in the Middle East?
> 
> What would be the aim?
> 
> If it just to topple the current theocrats and leave a rubble heap for the next gang to clean up, à la Afghanistan in 2002 or Libya in 2011, then, yes, maybe, there is some useful military role ... but we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now ... did we win? Do we know what "win" means?



I would prefer another war in the middle east than a war in the west- though that's fairly unlikely to happen in my life time.
(Mind you the premise of the video game Homefront is interesting..)
On the selfish short sighted side I enjoy deploying.

We didn't win in Afghanistan because we have unrealistic goals.  
One however can't deny that it turned the CF around and revitalized us, at a great price.   I think some places in the world need to be put in their place and kept there.


----------



## a_majoor

We are thinking in almost WWII terms here: send in the "Dambusters" with some really cool ordinance designed by Barnes Wallis to vaporize the enemy bunkers.

Why spend hours in hostile airspace when you can attack at the speed of light? I'm willing to bet there are plenty of Iranian military, commercial, banking, communications and government sites that have been primed with computer malware waiting for a go/no go signal (or perhaps there is a "dead man switch" that will trigger the malware if a certain signal is not received each 24 hr period).

If that is too gimmicky, there are probably people on the ground who can perform various tasks ranging from "wet" work to simple industrial sabotage and everything in between. Causing the traffic signals to fail isn't an obvous sign of war, but the impact on the economy and transportation net could support other activities.

Israel already has a well known capability to launch rockets and advanced missiles; during the 1991 Persian Gulf War's "Scud campaign" against Israel the US reportedly saw a missile launch from Israel into the Mediterranean which (by odd coincidence) was exactly the same distance as from the launch site to Bagdad. Very soon after many of the planes from the Desert Storm air campaign were racing over the Iraqi desert looking for mobile SCUD launchers (and the story of Bravo 2 Zero also comes from this campaign). There should be no question that IRBMs can be used if that is the COA desired.

So don't think that there are not calibrated responses that the US does not "need to know", and ones that Israel can hope to deploy either singly, in concert or in support of general military action to support their desired goals.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some interesting thought about post-strike consequences in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137300/ehud-eiran/what-happens-after-israel-attacks-iran?page=show


> What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran
> *Public Debate Can Prevent a Strategic Disaster*
> 
> Ehud Eiran
> 
> February 23, 2012
> 
> _This article is part of a Foreign Affairs package: The Iran Debate -- To Strike or Not to Strike? (lrargerich / flickr)_
> 
> Since its birth in 1948, Israel has launched numerous preemptive military strikes against its foes. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, operations that did not lead to war. But now, Israelis are discussing the possibility of another preemptive attack -- against Iran -- that might result in a wider conflict.
> 
> The public debate in Israel about whether Jerusalem should order a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is surprisingly frank. Politicians and policymakers often discuss the merits of an attack in public; over the past year, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have sparred regularly and openly with former Mossad director Meir Dagan, the most prominent opponent of an Israeli operation. But much of the conversation is focused on whether Israel should strike, not on what might happen if it does -- in other words, the result on the “day after.”
> 
> Indeed, the analysis in Israel about the possible effects of a bombing campaign against Iran is limited to a small, professional elite, mostly in government and behind closed doors. This intimate circle that does consider scenarios of the “day after” concentrates almost exclusively on what an Iranian response, direct or through proxies, might look like. This is not surprising, given that Israel must worry first and foremost about the immediate military implications of an Iranian counterattack. But in doing so, Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term aspects of a strike: the preparedness of Israel’s home front; the contours of an Israeli exit strategy; the impact on U.S.-Israel relations; the global diplomatic fallout; the stability of world energy markets; and the outcome within Iran itself. Should Israel fail to openly debate and account for these factors in advance of an attack, it may end up with a strategic debacle, even if it achieves its narrow military goals.
> 
> Israeli officials have thought extensively about how the first moves of a military conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran might play out. Ephraim Kam, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and deputy head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), reflected the general consensus in the security establishment when he wrote in the Institute’s 2010 strategic assessment that Iran may respond in two possible ways to an Israeli operation: missile strikes on Israel, either directly or through allied organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas; or terror attacks, likely on Israeli targets abroad by Iranians or those proxy groups.
> 
> A direct Iranian response would involve a missile barrage from Iran onto Israeli territory, similar to the volley of rockets launched at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Only one Israeli citizen died then, and it seems that Israeli officials estimate that the damage of a similar Iranian strike would be greater, but still limited. This past November, Ehud Barak, referring to possible direct and proxy-based Iranian retaliation, said that “There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed -- and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.” Barak’s calm also reflects Israel’s previous experience in preempting nuclear threats. Iraq did not respond when Israel destroyed its nuclear facility in 1981, disproving the doomsday predictions made by several Israeli experts prior to the strike, and Syria remained silent when Israel bombed its nascent reactor in 2007.
> 
> Israeli policymakers also do not seem particularly concerned about the prospect of a proxy response. They recognize that Hezbollah, as it did in 2006, can target Israel with a large number of rockets. Yet in an interview with Ronen Bergman in The New York Times late last month, several Israeli experts argued that, regardless of a potential battle with Iran, the probability of an extended conflict with Hezbollah is already high. According to this logic, an attack on Iran would merely hasten the inevitable and might actually be easier to sustain before, not after, Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In addition, the new constraints now operating against Hezbollah -- the ongoing revolt in Syria chief among them -- might even limit the ability of the organization to harm Israel in a future conflict. Indeed, over the past several months, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has emphasized the group’s independence, saying on February 7 that “the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On [the day of an Israeli attack on Iran], we will sit, think, and decide what we will do.”
> 
> Meanwhile, the Israeli security establishment remains confident that Iran and its proxies will have trouble staging large-scale attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets abroad. Iran and Hezbollah have done so successfully in the past, most notably in response to Israel’s assassination, in 1992, of Hezbollah’s first secretary general (they are strongly suspected to have directed suicide bombings against the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, respectively). Israeli experts such as Kam agree that similar attacks could occur again in the wake of a strike on Iran, but argue that Tehran’s ability to respond is limited, likely due to its own handicaps and the restrictions posed by the post-9/11 global effort against terrorism. They gained support for their theory in mid-February, when, according to preliminary evidence, Iranian agents staged clumsy, botched attacks on Israeli targets in Georgia, India, and Thailand, injuring only one person in New Delhi and ending in humiliation in Bangkok, with one operative accidentally blowing off his legs.
> 
> Balanced against these threats is the expected benefit of an Israeli bombing campaign. According to Bergman, the Israeli defense community estimates that it can inflict a three-to-five-year delay on the Iranian nuclear project. But in its optimistic estimation about the success of an attack and about Israel’s ability to deter any response, it has failed to address, at least publicly, several crucial factors.
> 
> Although Israel has buttressed its home-front preparedness since its 2006 war with Hezbollah, it seems that it must do much more to ready the country for the rocket and missile attacks that it is expected to endure after a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. In a move that Israelis are now sardonically mocking, the former minister for home front defense, Matan Vilnai, left his post in February to become Israel’s ambassador to China. Before departing, Vilnai staged an angry outburst during a Knesset subcommittee meeting on February 7 over the lack of homeland preparedness, creating such a stir that the chairman had to end the meeting. Data presented at the session reveal the source of Vilnai’s frustration: a quarter of all Israelis do not have the most basic physical shelter needed to weather sustained rocket fire. Gas masks, a basic safety measure against a chemical attack, are available to only 60 percent of the population. And Vilnai’s former ministry lacks the bureaucratic muscle to win the resources and funds necessary to improve the situation. When the Netanyahu administration established the ministry early last year, the Israeli journalist Ofer Shelah called it “the big lie” because it “has no authority, no independent budget, and no ability to affect national priorities.”
> 
> The lack of readiness within Israel is all the more worrisome in light of the fact that Israeli analysts have spent little time discussing an exit strategy. An Israeli strike might follow a version of the previous attacks against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs, which did not lead to conflict. Or, following the example of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it might spark a prolonged war. That operation, intended to remove the threat of armed Palestinian groups within two days, instead lasted 18 years, and contributed to the evolution of a new enemy in Hezbollah. Similarly, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006 had no clear exit strategy and lasted an unexpected 33 days, ending in confusion. Without serious public discussion about the possibility of a long war with Iran, Israel could enter an extended conflict unprepared to provide for and defend its citizens.
> 
> Israeli leaders have also failed to address in public the effect of an Israeli strike on U.S.-Israel relations. There is, of course, much conversation about whether the United States and Israel agree on the need for a strike, and, if so, when it should occur. So far, it seems, Jerusalem and Washington remain united in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, but are not yet in agreement about the time for military action; indeed, Israel has refused to commit to warning Washington in advance of an attack. Should Israel bomb Iran, it could easily provoke a crisis even if it did first warn the United States, especially if the Obama administration has to intervene. Once again, Israeli strategic thinking on the issue is likely informed by the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The attack infuriated the White House, which condemned it and, in punishment, suspended the delivery of some aircraft to Israel. Yet Washington retroactively approved of the strike and restored and even strengthened its relationship with Jerusalem -- a process that Netanyahu may expect to repeat itself. The prime minister might also be calculating that, in an election year, Obama would prefer to avoid openly criticizing Israel after an attack.
> 
> In addition, the broader diplomatic impact of an Israeli strike has also received little open attention. The former Mossad director Meir Dagan has raised the possibility that an attack might disrupt the existing international pressure on Iran, which is now beginning to place severe strain on the regime, and make it harder for that coalition to re-form in the event that Iran restarts its program. On the whole, however, Israeli leaders have not confronted that possibility, seeming to place faith in the efficacy of the three-to-five year delay that they hope a strike will achieve.
> 
> Also largely missing from Israel’s public analysis is the question of how a bombing campaign would affect worldwide energy markets. As a small country with a limited global perspective, Israel rarely needs to consider the international impact of its actions. The few Israeli analysts who have looked into this question have tended to underplay Iran’s intention, and capability, of acting on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Last month, for example, Amos Yadlin, the former director of Israel's military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, the former head of the Iran desk of Israel’s national security council, argued in a paper for the INSS that it is highly doubtful that Iran would block the waterway.
> 
> That lack of perspective extends to what might happen inside of Iran after a strike. The public discourse about an attack rarely includes any consideration of whether a bombing campaign would galvanize Iranians to rally around the current leadership, ruining any chance of the regime change that might ultimately be necessary to end the threat of a nuclear program. Israel remains unwilling to estimate whether a strike would hurt or help the cause of the dissidents; its failure to predict the Arab Spring has humbled its proclivity for making such forecasts.
> 
> And so there is a gap in Israel's debate about Iran. Although Israeli experts focus heavily on the immediate implications of the “day after,” they neglect, with a few exceptions, the broader repercussions of an attack. Ironically, then, at the core of the elite, scientific calculations regarding an attack on Iran and its aftermath stands a certain kind of fatalism. It is based on the traditional trust that Israelis place in their leaders, and on their sense that open conversation might in fact harm Israeli interests. But the lack of public debate may, in the event of an attack, leave Israel handicapped both in its ability to strike and to defend itself.
> 
> In particular, a lack of open discussion leaves the Israel Defense Forces as the primary source of information and analysis on a strike. The IDF, given its narrow focus on the military aspects of an attack, may fail to fully consider its potential political and diplomatic impact. A more public debate might strengthen those in the bureaucracy who are urging the Israeli government to weigh those other factors as carefully as the military planning. The elevation of those voices could then prevent Israeli leaders from operating on the basis of limited information and faulty assumptions. If history is any guide, Israeli policymakers could benefit from such an expansion of the conversation. Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with a war plan that the public had not vetted. The operation ended after overwhelming pressure from civil society, a process that took nearly two decades. To avoid a similar strategic blunder in confronting Iran’s nuclear program -- either as a result of an attack, or a failure to do so -- Israel should give the public a stake in the debate about the “day after” much sooner than that.




Ehud Eiran is a Research Fellow at the Belfer Center’s International Security Program and a contributor to the Harvard Law School's Program on Negotiation.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting statement from some Hamas folks (_possibly_ freeing up one of Israel's flanks?) - then again, not unheard of for Hamas to renege if in their interests (and it only takes a few hotheads to fire missiles):


> Hamas will not do Iran's bidding in any war with Israel, according to senior figures within the militant Islamic group.
> 
> "If there is a war between two powers, Hamas will not be part of such a war," Salah Bardawil, a member of the organisation's political bureau in Gaza City, told the Guardian.
> 
> He denied the group would launch rockets into Israel at Tehran's request in response to a strike on its nuclear sites. "Hamas is not part of military alliances in the region," said Bardawil. "Our strategy is to defend our rights"
> 
> The stance underscores Hamas's rift with its key financial sponsor and its realignment with the Muslim Brotherhood and popular protest movements in the Arab world.
> 
> Bardawil's words were echoed by a second senior Hamas figure, who declined to be named. Hamas, he said, "would not get involved" in any war between Iran and Israel.
> 
> Speculation in Israel about the repercussions of a military strike on Iran has encompassed the likelihood of the Jewish state coming under sustained rocket fire from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both organisations are routinely described by Israeli officials as "proxies" for the Iranian regime ....


_The Guardian_ (UK), 6 Mar 12


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an explanation of President Obama's startegy from Clifford Orwin (U of T):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/is-obama-trying-to-leave-israel-no-choice/article2360574/


> Is Obama trying to leave Israel no choice?
> 
> CLIFFORD ORWIN
> 
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2012
> 
> 
> “Obama to warn Netanyahu against military strikes on Iran.” So proclaimed the headline in Saturday’s Washington Post. At their meeting on Monday, Barack Obama reportedly did just that, while reaffirming America’s commitment to Israel’s safety. And yet … could this be very different than it seems? Is it the cagey exterior of a policy aimed at leaving Israel no choice but to strike?
> 
> Look at it this way. Suppose you were the Obama administration, confronted by an intransigent Iran but facing an election in November and an American public weary of Middle Eastern wars. Wouldn’t you rather shoehorn an ally into undertaking this risky and unpleasant business in your place? Then, even if you too had to intervene (as you would, at the very least to keep open the Strait of Hormuz), you’d have avoided blame for starting the conflict.
> 
> It’s happened before, and not just once. Twice already, the United States has declined to intervene against nuclear threats in the Middle East, and twice already, Israel has concluded that it had no choice but to do the job itself. In 1981, it destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and in 2007, a secret nuclear plant under construction in Syria. In neither case, so far as is known, was there a green light from Washington. But both countries reaped the benefits of actions that were effectively outsourced to Israel.
> 
> The Iranian threat is much graver than those. The task of eliminating it is harder and the expected retaliation is more dire. In such a situation, each ally would gladly shift the burden to the other. Israel has naturally been hoping that the United States would dispose of the matter, as befitted the senior partner in the alliance. So far, this has proved wishful thinking under Mr. Obama, as it did under George W. Bush. As the weaker of the two partners, Israel lacks the means to force the United States to act. Washington, however, possesses ample means to coerce Tel Aviv.
> 
> The asymmetricality here lies in Iran’s two different “zones of immunity” from attack. Washington has weapons capable of eliminating Iran’s installations at a later stage of hardening than anything known to be in Israel’s arsenal. It can wait for sanctions to fail before launching its hypothetical attack. Israel can’t.
> 
> As Yossi Klein Halevi has argued, Israel faces an agonizing choice. Either it strikes Iran’s program while it is still within its power to wreck it, or having missed its chance, it would be reduced to relying on Washington to do so. Either it attacks, risking a break with its closest ally, or it becomes completely dependent on that ally to deal with an existential threat. The former choice would be wrenching, but the latter would violate a fundamental Zionist principle: that the survival of the Jewish state and people must never again be left to the unreliable mercies of others. It was one thing to hope for America to act while Israel remained capable of doing so if necessary. It would be quite another to have forfeited all initiative to it.
> 
> The basic problem goes much deeper, then, than Israel’s mistrust of Mr. Obama. Even presidents deemed staunch friends have faltered when Israel most needed them. Two countries are two countries.
> 
> At this point, Israel has good reason to doubt that even the toughest sanctions will prevent or delay Iran from building nuclear weapons. Like most sanctions, these have come too late. The findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency confirm that the mullahs can now enrich uranium at their leisure. And every spokesman for the regime, from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on down, has insisted that nothing will deter it from its oh-so-peaceful nuclear quest – or its doubtless equally “peaceful” resolve to annihilate Israel.
> 
> Looking beyond sanctions, Israel sees too much ambiguity in the Obama administration’s positions, too much demonstrated irresoluteness, too many signs of willingness to tolerate a more advanced stage of Iranian nuclearization than Israel deems compatible with its safety. Especially in election years, American fulmination is cheap. (Just ask North Korea, as snug as a bug in a rug with its nuclear weapons that successive administrations in Washington had declared they would never permit.)
> 
> Is Washington really seeking to push Israel into intervening before its perceived window of effectiveness shuts? I doubt it. Mr. Obama likely still hopes that, with Iran being a “rational actor,” sanctions will suffice to sway it. But if it were my plan to finagle Israel into attacking, I wouldn’t practice a public diplomacy much different from Mr. Obama’s.
> 
> _Clifford Orwin is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution._




The case, as Prof. Orwin suggests, is unproven and unprovable but Obama's perfectly understandable _dithering_ may have the effect of pushing Israel into precipitous action.

I need to repeat my assertion that I am not convinced that a big, even nuclear war in the Middle East is a bad thing; it may be what is needed to move everyone off dead centre and allow some actors to move in more productive directions, after the clean up.


----------



## a_majoor

It is nice to see that there is some action in the House and Senate, even if the Administration continues to dither. The fact that a Democrat member is taking the lead is also interesting. The open question remains; will sanctions and diplomacy work now (even if they have not been particularly effective in the past?) or has time essentially run out?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/house-dem-sees-years-long-iran-fight-coming-to-a-head/?print=1



> *House Dem Sees Years-Long Iran Fight Coming to a Head*
> 
> Posted By Bridget Johnson On March 7, 2012 @ 4:56 pm In Iran,Israel,Middle East,Politics | 7 Comments
> 
> A veteran congressman who has consistently called for tougher, targeted punitive measures against Iran warned AIPAC that the Islamic Republic wants more than a nuclear capability: hegemony, “terrorism with impunity,” and the destruction of Israel.
> 
> As a Democrat, Rep. Brad Sherman, who represents California’s San Fernando Valley, has long known that the fight against this menace transcends party.
> 
> And his goal at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference was to arm attendees with the truth to confront those who contend that Iran is not a threat to the U.S., that it can be contained like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, that Israel’s suspected nuclear program is also defiance.
> 
> “People, particularly those too young to have lost their hair, look back on our confrontations with the Soviet Union in the ’50s and ’60s as if that was a ‘Happy Days’ TV show,” Sherman told PJM. “We had happy days in those happy days, but we also had a lot of scare and bomb drills where you get your head under the desk. Just because we survived many difficulties with the Soviet Union is no guarantee that you can roll the dice another dozen times and it will all come out just fine.”
> 
> The congressman’s staff was taking down email addresses of interested audience members before and after Monday’s breakout session. Sherman promised them that in about a week he’ll send out the full, updated text of his address, with footnotes, to keep them up to date on what’s happening on the congressional front in regards to Iran.
> 
> Like past years at AIPAC, Sherman’s straight-talk assessment of the need to get real about Iran’s weapons program was one of the best of the conference. But it’s not surprising, as he’s had years of practice trying to get two very different administrations to get seriously tough on the Islamic Republic.
> 
> He stressed to the large meeting room full of AIPAC delegates that Iran cannot be compared with other nuclear production crises such as North Korea, which blusters and then proceeds to “extort the world for 240,000 metric tons of food aid.”
> 
> “If that was the problem with Iran, I’d buy wheat futures and leave it alone,” Sherman said. Yet the world looks at the U.S. and sees Washington using almost the same language the Bush administration used against Pyongyang, he said, and now they have about a dozen weapons.
> 
> “This is not a country just trying to live peaceably within its own borders … there is no point on the globe further from Tehran than Buenos Aires,” he said, referencing the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defense minister, Ahmad Vahidi, is among those wanted by Interpol in connection with the terrorist attack.
> 
> “No one in the world is holding a demonstration calling for the abolition of Persia,” he later added.
> 
> Sherman stressed that the nuclear energy argument is bunk. As the country with the second largest gas reserves in the world — so much they have to flare 10 percent of it — “they could generate kilowatts for a couple cents,” he said. “It makes absolutely no sense for them to have Bushehr or any other facility and yet they do.”
> 
> He noted that “good luck and considerable restraint” on both sides defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a comparison to today’s crisis doesn’t hold water.
> 
> “Do you think that either one of those things is in big supply in the Middle East?” he said.
> 
> Sherman warned that when Iranians develop a nuclear weapon, it won’t be delivered in a conventional fashion. About the size of a person, such a weapon will be smuggled, he predicted.
> 
> “I’m from California,” he said. “I’ve seen evidence that it is possible to sneak a person into the United States.”
> 
> The congressman added smuggling works in Iran’s favor because, after a city is hit in this fashion, a presidential panel would be convened to determine what happened, and if that panel decides 90 days later with 93 percent assurance that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is to blame, it’s too late for a retaliatory strike.
> 
> He told the crowd that sanctions, like the tough ones against the Central Bank of Iran in the bill pushed into law by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), need to be so brutal that they force Tehran to choose between regime survival and a nuclear weapon.
> 
> “No one ever gave up their firstborn just to avoid excessive ATM fees,” he quipped. “…We need to sanction all Iranian banks and we needed to do it 10 years ago.”
> 
> Sherman noted that successful strikes against Iran wouldn’t necessarily just hit nuclear sites, which could just be rebuilt. Israel could take out their air defenses, he said, hit nuclear facilities as hard as possible, and then demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency be brought in to dismantle the program — “otherwise something might happen to all of their oil production facilities,” which are above ground, spread out and “a regime without oil wells is not a regime that survives.”
> 
> Sherman, a seven-term congressman, faces a tough Democratic primary June 5 against Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This is the first year California voters will experience an open primary.
> 
> Today, Sherman met with the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to persuade it to exclude all Iranian banks. He also looks for sanctions “that will have their effect very quickly,” such as keeping Iran from obtaining replacement parts for all of the Western equipment they’ve acquired over the years.
> 
> At the AIPAC panel, the congressman alluded to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s comments last month [1] on Iran. “It is said this government is rational,” Sherman said. “Might be. Stalin was probably classified as rational.”
> 
> After the panel, I asked for his thoughts on Dempsey’s remarks.
> 
> “Depending on what your definition of rational is, it’s not a false statement,” Sherman said.”Just because a government’s changed and if you’re just on the edge of being rational today, there’s no rule that says your change is going to be toward rationality; you can go further away.”
> 
> The examples he gave in his speech were the Stalinist regimes of the Soviet Union, where Mikhail Gorbachev gave in at the end of the Cold War, and Cambodia, which devolved into genocide under Pol Pot.
> 
> I noted that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told me [2] before she took the gavel in the 112th Congress that she wanted Iran to be “No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3” on the panel’s to-do list.
> 
> “I think the committee has spent a lot of time focusing on Iran,” Sheman said. “I think that America as a whole has been way to slow to implement sanctions that are way too mild. I would say that Ileana is one of those pushing the envelope in the right direction. She’s not inclined to push the envelope to the point where you might break it and she’s not inclined to pass legislation that the administration would violently oppose.
> 
> “But — it’s nice to be a senator — I give a lot of credit to Menendez and Kirk for forcing the administration to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, something [the White House has] had the power to do for many years and have chosen not to do,” he added. “And I should never criticize the Obama administration without pointing out that they’re much much tougher on Iran than was the Bush administration.”
> 
> Sherman, like many other Democrats, has joined hands with his colleagues across the aisle on numerous Iran measures, demonstrating once again the “overwhelming” bipartisan nature of congressional support for Israel and getting tough on Tehran.
> 
> “But the more biting the sanctions, the more disruptive, the more they anger multinational corporations, the less unity there is,” he said. “So a resolution saying containment is not an option is consistent with the president’s speech, whereas preventing General Electric from fixing the engines on the Air Iran aircraft — I don’t know how that’s going to turn out, but it’s not going to be overwhelming in either direction. And that’s just the skirmish line.
> 
> “If you want to go to a point to say any company that sells a spare part to Iran is going to be prohibited from any contract with the United States, and apply that to an entire corporate family, not just its subsidiaries but all the corporations owned by the same parent, that’s not going to be overwhelming,” he said. “The sanctions on the cutting edge, I’ll be happy if we get them passed by one percent. I don’t need 100 percent.”
> 
> I asked the question I’d been wondering the whole conference, in regards to the attendees but especially directed toward the members of the House and Senate who were fielding concerns that Obama’s speech was just a speech.
> 
> In 2010, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) led a congressional letter [3] telling  Obama, “The hour is late. Now is the time for action.”
> 
> “Mr. President, you have stated this issue is a priority for your administration,” the letter, signed by Sherman and 362 House colleagues, stated in part. “You have attempted to engage the Iranian regime for over a year. You have gone to the United Nations Security Council in an effort to impose tough new sanctions on Iran. But time is not on our side. We cannot allow those who would oppose or delay sanctions to govern either the timing or content of our efforts.”
> 
> It’s now 2012, I said to Sherman. Is there a point when national-security-minded Democrats break with the president?
> 
> “To some extent the Menendez-Kirk amendment did not authorize the administration to do something they wanted to do; it forced the administration to take an action that they had declined to take earlier,” Sherman said. “I think we already have people pushing the administration further or faster than is its natural inclination.”
> 
> Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/house-dem-sees-years-long-iran-fight-coming-to-a-head/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] comments last month: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-futility-of-trying-to-wish-iran-into-being-rational/
> 
> [2] told me: http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/foreign-policy/134423-incoming-foreign-affairs-chairwoman-has-iran-no-1-no-2-and-no-3-on-to-do-list
> 
> [3] congressional letter: http://jackson.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=435&Itemid=86


----------



## a_majoor

Smaller, possibly rocket powered bunker busters may be on the way. These do not have to be lifted by a B-2 or B-52 sized airplane:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/penetrate-faster-harder-with-n.html



> *Penetrate faster, harder with new AFRL weapon
> *
> By
> Stephen Trimble
> on February 20, 2011 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis
> 
> My trip to Brazil has been unexpectedly delayed by an unplanned, extended pit-stop in Caracas, where my Boeing 767 is currently parked with a flat tire. If you detect a note of innuendo in the headline, it's the lack of sleep talking. Meanwhile, what better way to spend my first day in Venezuela than blogging about new bunker-busters!  Meet the US Air Force's latest unintentional metaphor of a missile:
> 
> An Air Force Research Laboratory fact sheet with a 2011 time-stamp for public release approval tells us that a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within three years.
> 
> "Future fighters will be able to deliver bunker-busting capabilities currently associated with the bomber fleet," the fact sheet says.
> 
> I found the fact sheet for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) in the AFRL munitions directorate booth at the Air Warfare Symposium a few days ago. The document reveals the USAF has shifted its focus on next-generation penetrator technology on a couple of different levels.
> 
> Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. Mass is the key design point for the free-falling, 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker buster and the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
> 
> For the next generation penetrator weapon, the AFRL appears to have shifted the focus to velocity. Packing a solid rocket propulsion system "with mission tailored boost and terminal velocities, intelligent fuzing and optimized explosive," the HVPW blasts into bunkers using speed in place of raw mass.
> 
> But the HPVW also may reflect a shift from previous interest in an air-breathing, high-speed penetrator, such as the Mach 3.0 Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time critical long-range strike (RATTLRS) demonstrator.
> 
> Like RATTLRS, the HPVW is designed to be carried inside the Lockheed Martin F-35's internal weapons bay, but will also enable "other fighter/bombers", the fact sheet says.
> 
> It's clear the USAF is in the market for a new penetrator weapon for the next generation bomber. Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, actually confused the air force's message in his opening remarks at the symposium on 17 February. Fraser said that the next generation bomber would leverage several existing technologies, and he included the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on the list.
> 
> I asked Lt Gen Jim Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, about that the next day. He clarified that Fraser means the next generation bomber will leverage the bunker-buster effect of the massive ordnance penetrator, but not necessarily its mass. In the aforementioned force equation, that implies a shift toward higher speed, although Kowalski declined to confirm that theory.


----------



## a_majoor

A look at some other options Israel might use.  The real center of gravity in any campaign isn't the nuclear facilities, but rather the apparatus that controls them. This might mean an attack against the Revolutionary Guards and Basji, and their C3I apparatus rather than bunker busters or the sort of attack described here:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/09/lawrence-solomon-time-for-israel-to-act/



> *Lawrence Solomon: Time for Israel to act*
> 
> Lawrence Solomon  Mar 9, 2012 – 10:39 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 9, 2012 11:22 PM ET
> 
> Israel should hit Iran’s pipelines, refineries and ports, in addition to its nuclear facilities. Destroying its energy infrastructure would severely weaken Iran.
> 
> Arab Spring reduces the risks of an attack on Israel
> 
> President Barack Obama recently provided Israel with a choice: Rather than bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities now, when success would be iffy at best, give diplomacy and “crippling” economic sanctions time to work. If crippling sanctions don’t work, Israel would still have the option to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities later, and with the promise of U.S. help.
> 
> But Israel, frustrated at the West’s tardiness in applying economic sanctions, has a third option that could have a high probability of success. In addition to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel could unilaterally cripple Iran’s economy by bombing its commercial energy facilities. Doing so soon — rather than after the U.S. election, as Obama requests — might have added merits, too: For Israel, the likelihood of a shorter and much narrower war with far fewer Israeli casualties; for the West, less likelihood of a prolonged oil crisis that would trigger another global recession.
> 
> The Arab Spring provides a constellation of reasons that motivates Israel to act soon. Prior to the rebellions that broke out last year throughout the Middle East, Iran had one Sunni ally against Israel, the Hamas-run statelet of Gaza, and two Sunni-hating allies, the Allawite-led government of Syria and the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. In a war against Israel prior to the Arab Spring, at least two and possibly all three would have eagerly joined in the fight, presenting Israel with the dread prospect of a multi-front war.
> 
> Now, and for as long as the turmoil of the Arab Spring persists, many Israeli analysts believe Israel has partial immunity from attack. Syria’s Assad, who is winning his brutal war against the Free Syrian rebels, knows that his government could fall if he gives Israel reason to join the rebels, who have reportedly asked Israel for help in countering Assad. Syria, the most formidable of Israel’s direct neighbours, would almost certainly refrain from attacking Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.
> 
> Hamas, which broke with Assad over his brutality toward fellow Sunnis, which now supports the Syrian rebels, and which, as a result, lost its Iranian funding of $23-million per month, may also stay on the sidelines in a war between Iran and Israel. “Hamas will not be part of such a war,” a member of Hamas’s political bureau in Gaza City told The Guardian this week. Even if Hamas does join the fight to maintain its anti-Israel credentials, it would be restrained, in deference to its new paymasters among the Saudis and other Sunnis — it is an open secret that the Saudis, who fear Iran as much as Israel does, are allied with Israel.
> Advertisement
> 
> Even Lebanon-based Hezbollah would think twice about attacking Israel. For one thing, Hezbollah knows that Israel is unlikely to pull its punches in a new war with Hezbollah, as Israel did to its regret in their 2006 stalemate war. For another, Hezbollah’s Sunni neighbours within Lebanon have been increasingly vocal against Hezbollah’s support of Assad’s brutality, and may turn on Hezbollah should war between Hezbollah and Israel break out.
> 
> Israel knows that the fortuitous circumstances that it finds itself in could end abruptly. If Syria completes its crushing of its opposition soon, as many predict, the pre-Arab Spring status quo would have largely been restored. Iran would once again have Syria and Hezbollah as active allies.
> 
> The stars are also today aligned in Israel’s favour because of the U.S. election. In any attack by Israel on Iran, the U.S. government is sure to be supportive — Obama cannot afford to alienate the Jewish vote during his re-election campaign, even if, as most Israelis fear, he ordinarily works to undermine Israel.
> 
> Destroying Iran’s energy infrastructure — its oil and gas pipelines, its refineries, and its port facilities — would be relatively easy for Israel’s military and devastating for Iran, which depends on energy sales for some 80% of its export earnings and nearly 70% of its government’s revenue. Not only would Iran face bankruptcy without its energy economy, it would also face day-to-day chaos because Iran has a surprising dependence on natural gas and gasoline imports, making rationing a sudden necessity and daily life a hardship.
> 
> What might Iran do in the event of an Israeli attack? Prior to the Arab Spring, the West saw a high probability that Iran would attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. military installations in the Middle East, and launch terrorist attacks against Western targets. Israel prepared itself for a barrage of tens of thousands of missiles to be launched against it. But now, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the calculations may have changed. Without dependable allies, some believe Iran might be restrained in its response, launching its missiles in a long-distance attack on Israel and little else. Iran might now be far less likely to engage the U.S. overtly, making war short-lived and less disruptive to energy markets, and even if Iran did attempt to use the oil weapon by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. believes Iran would not succeed for long. While oil prices would rise, the Saudis and others promise to pump additional oil to minimize the disruption to world oil markets.
> 
> The upshot? Following an Israeli attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure as well as its nuclear installations, Iran would be weakened economically as well as militarily, possibly unable to rehabilitate the remnants of its nuclear program, certainly unable to finance the needs of its terrorist proxies. Even if Iran’s mullahs were able to hold onto power amid the chaos of war against their many political rivals, they would be in no position to rebuild their energy infrastructure without the U.S. first convincing Israel to refrain from future attacks. The price that Iran might have to pay for that U.S. intervention might be Iran’s agreement to finally sit down for meaningful negotiations with the U.S. aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.
> 
> LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com


----------



## Nemo888

Odd how we let Pakistan and North Korea build them but when Iran wants them we suddenly have to beat the drums of war. I think some powerful people are pulling the media's strings.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Odd how we let Pakistan and North Korea build them but when Iran wants them we suddenly have to beat the drums of war. I think some powerful people are pulling the media's strings.




And, of course, that would be because of ...









... right?





:sarcasm:
(Just in case it's not intuitively obvious.)


----------



## OldSolduer

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Odd how we let Pakistan and North Korea build them but when Iran wants them we suddenly have to beat the drums of war. I think some powerful people are pulling the media's strings.



Pakistan is somewhat stable and has a neighbor with nuclear arms. North Korea, although not what we like, has China as a neighbor...who may wield some influence over the regime of North Korea.

Iran, despite having a "president" is actually ruled by a theocracy....the "president " is a puppet who does what he is told by the ayatollahs. Those ayatollahs talk to terrorists....get it?


----------



## Edward Campbell

An interesting perspective on some of the consequences of an attack on Iran, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Bloomberg_:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/protracted-iran-conflict-could-drive-oil-prices-up-60-barrel.html


> Protracted Iran Conflict Could Drive Oil Prices Up $60 Barrel
> 
> By Romesh Ratnesar
> 
> Mar 8, 2012
> 
> “Nobody’s announced a war, young lady,” President Barack Obama said in New York on March 2, wagging his finger at an audience member who decried the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran. “But we appreciate your sentiment.”
> 
> The crowd cheered, and a smile crossed the president’s face. It’s too soon to say when, or whether, the long-simmering dispute over Iran’s nuclear program will erupt in armed conflict, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its March 12 issue.
> 
> “There is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution,” Obama said before meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 5.
> 
> A raft of Western economic sanctions against Tehran, including a looming embargo on Iranian oil exports to the European Union, have made the country’s rulers more willing to “recommence negotiations without preconditions, which isn’t something they were amenable to last year,” according to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. War with Iran in 2012 “is plausible but not probable,” he says.
> 
> The economic case against war is strong. Jitters about instability in the Middle East have caused the price of Brent crude to rise some 9 percent since the beginning of the year.
> 
> *Insurance Premiums*
> 
> Even a limited conflict with Iran -- the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, after Saudi Arabia -- would jack up insurance premiums on oil tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf.
> Iran exports 2.5 million barrels per day, and OPEC lacks the spare capacity to make up for the likely loss of Iranian supply in the event of an attack, according to Robert McNally, president of the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm. That’s a formula for an oil shock far more painful than what global consumers are currently experiencing.
> 
> “What we see now is a market that is very fearful and very tight,” says McNally, a former senior director for international energy at the National Security Council. “In those conditions, it doesn’t take much to send the cost of oil soaring.”
> Just how high prices might climb if war breaks out, and the broader consequences to the world economy, depend on two factors: whether military action is initiated by Israel or by the U.S., and how Iran responds.
> 
> *Four Facilities*
> 
> A strike conducted by Israel, which has limited air power, might be over in a matter of hours. It would target the four main Iranian nuclear facilities the world knows about, but there’s no guarantee that Israel’s bombs would be able to penetrate Iran’s deepest underground sites.
> 
> An attack carried out by the U.S. military, on the other hand, would be longer and more extensive, according to Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. He says a two-week U.S. bombing campaign could wipe out not just Iran’s nuclear program but also its air defenses and some missile capabilities.
> 
> The Pentagon’s newest generation of 30,000-pound “bunker- buster” bombs are thought to be capable of pulverizing targets as much as 200 feet below ground.
> “There’s a lot of confusion between what an Israeli strike would do and what an American strike could do,” Kroenig says. “Israel would set Iran’s nuclear program back between one and three years. The U.S. can set it back 10 years.”
> 
> *‘Less to Lose’*
> 
> The costs of doing so could be steep, however. If the U.S. attacks, “the Iranians might feel they have less to lose” by retaliating aggressively, says Michael Makovsky, foreign policy director of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.
> 
> Tehran might attempt to sabotage oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq, launch missiles into Israel, or deploy small attack vessels to harass tankers in the Arabian Sea.
> 
> The nightmare scenario would be a move by Iran to choke off access to the Strait of Hormuz -- most likely by unleashing its stockpile of 2,000 mines -- through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil supply travels.
> 
> The U.S. has warned that such a step would provoke an all- out assault on Iran’s military. Would Tehran take that risk?
> 
> “If Iran concluded its regime were threatened, it might try to make the conflict as big as possible, as quickly as possible, to bring other powers in to mediate,” says McNally.
> 
> An analysis by the Rapidan Group predicts that a targeted airstrike on Iran, followed by a token Iranian response, would cause oil prices to jump $23 a barrel before settling back down. (As of March 6, Brent crude was trading at $122 a barrel.)
> 
> *‘Geopolitical Disruption’*
> 
> A more protracted conflict, if it involved even a brief closure of the strait, might cause oil prices to spike by more than $60 a barrel.
> 
> “It would be the biggest geopolitical disruption in the history of the global oil market,” McNally says.
> 
> Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup, estimates that if oil reaches $150 a barrel, the U.S. would lose 2 percentage points in economic growth, enough to turn the nascent recovery into a recession.
> 
> The dilemma for the Obama administration is that the alternatives might be even worse.
> 
> “If we don’t have this confrontation now, but we end up with a nuclear Iran, we have to factor in the consequences of dealing with a nuclear arms race in the Gulf,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. At minimum, the Pentagon would need to invest in new anti- missile technologies and maintain a sizable footprint in the region, just as it is winding down two wars there.
> 
> “It could have a major impact on the U.S.’s interest in reducing defense spending,” says Cordesman.
> 
> And because a nuclear Iran would make the Middle East and the world less stable, living with the bomb also means living with higher oil prices for an indeterminate future.
> 
> “The worst outcome for the global economy, by far,” says McNally, “would be a hostile, nuclear-armed Iran.”




I'm not sure that, as others have discussed here, Israel would attack nuclear facilities, _per se_; an Israeli strike/Israeli strikes might be better aimed at _decapitating_ the Iranian nuclear programme by destroying the Tehran based leadership (religious, political, military and scientific)  ~ a few nukes might do the job.

But I agree with Robert McNally: _“The worst outcome for the global economy, by far would be a hostile, nuclear-armed Iran.”_  A small nuclear war, a few tens of thousands of dead Iranians (who, I hasten to acknowledge, are, mostly, innocent civilians) and a few years of $200/bbl oil is, probably a small price to pay.


----------



## Kalatzi

"But I agree with Robert McNally: “The worst outcome for the global economy, by far would be a hostile, nuclear-armed Iran.”  A small nuclear war, a few tens of thousands of dead Iranians (who, I hasten to acknowledge, are, mostly, innocent civilians) and a few years of $200/bbl oil is, probably a small price to pay."

I don't recall the titles, but there are a couple of recent books out. Their thesis is that "The experts"do not have a very good track record at getting things right  and are best disregarded. 

That said I have not read the above gentlemans work, nor do I know of his track record. So I could be completely wrong. 

I also suggest that there are some interesting jokers and very wild cards in the deck. The obvious ones that come to mind are Russian reaction, Chinese Reaction, Pakistani Reaction. 

I am going to reach even further and suggest that the Iranians are the perfect replacement for the Soviet Union for the West. 

I'm thinking that Andrew Cockburn Author of "The Threat: Inside the Soviet military machine" might find 
a good market for a new edition. 

An even wilder card 'If Iran does get taken out - I would imagine that the North Koreans would decide that their next on the hit list, and if that's the case they could go preemptive.  An that wouldn't be pretty.


----------



## a_majoor

We are very close to deploying an "oil weapon" of our own; massive new discoveries in North America (by using refined prospecting techniques) and powerful new production techniques to revive old wells and produce oil from deposits previously inaccessible (oil sands, oil shale and "tight" deposits) could cut the economic legs out from under the entire middle east region.

The Persians, Turks and Arabs who are Imperial minded will discover that without the constant flow of funds from the sale of oil, their little exercises in Empire building may well fizzle out without the logistical horsepower needed. The downside might be epic wars between Turkey, Iran and coalitions of Arabic powers on a scale rivalling WWI in an attempt to gain regional hegemony, and deployment of terrorism across the globe to try to influence the rest of the world to pay attention. How the rest of the Islamic arc in Africa, central Asia and through the South East Asian archipelago will respond to this is an open question.


----------



## sean m

Iran's growing ambition- STRATFOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsYmm-dDXvM&feature=plcp&context=C42c4166VDvjVQa1PpcFNc4AgIUHVQw7L-3Ayl3Vo0MGYxVA9c3iQ%3D

They seem to say that israel will not strike and the people talking on the video seem to think Israel is bluffing with attacking Iran, Iranian influence will expand in the region, especially if the Assad regime survives ( and George Friedman, Robert Kaplan seem to think so).  They say that Iranian is trying to achieve the role Iran had in ancient times. Do people here believe this


----------



## Privateer

Iran's banks will be "delinked" from the global SWIFT banking system, per BBC News:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17390456



> Swift, the body that handles global banking transactions, says it will cut Iran's banks out of the system on Saturday to enforce sanctions.
> 
> The move will isolate Iran financially by making it almost impossible for money to flow in and out of the country via official banking channels.



More at link


----------



## Edward Campbell

sean m said:
			
		

> Iran's growing ambition- STRATFOR
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsYmm-dDXvM&feature=plcp&context=C42c4166VDvjVQa1PpcFNc4AgIUHVQw7L-3Ayl3Vo0MGYxVA9c3iQ%3D
> 
> They seem to say that israel will not strike and the people talking on the video seem to think Israel is bluffing with attacking Iran, Iranian influence will expand in the region, especially if the Assad regime survives ( and George Friedman, Robert Kaplan seem to think so).  They say that Iranian is trying to achieve the role Iran had in ancient times. Do people here believe this




There is one scenario where Iran's rise to regional hemegon status *serves* serves Israel's interests: it pits ALL the Arabs against a new common enemy, one they hate and fear more than they hate and fear Israel, and it puts Turkey in an awkward position.

But a hostile Iran with nuclear weapons is, in my opinion, an existential threat to Israel and Judaism and I doubt Israel will give more than a passing thought to global economic crises when it launches an all out nuclear attack on Tehran ~ after all the world didn't give even that passing thought when the Jews were marched to the gas chambres 70 years ago: turn about is fair play, no?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Posted under the Fair Dealings and Copyright Act

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/03/14/19504301.html

*Iran-First Nations meeting dubbed a 'publicity stunt' *  

By ROSS ROMANIUK 

Video on link
    


> An official with a prominent Jewish organization is dismissing former First Nations chief Terry Nelson's meeting with Iranian embassy officials about alleged Canadian oppression as a "publicity stunt" in which both parties are seeking attention for their own purposes.
> 
> "It's part of a game being played," Ruth Klein, national director of advocacy for B'Nai Brith Canada, told QMI Agency on Wednesday from Toronto.
> 
> "Canada takes the lead at the United Nations in trying to focus attention on Iran's human rights record -- and to retaliate, Iran attacks Canada."
> 
> Klein added it's "absurd" that Nelson -- former chief of Roseau River First Nation -- and three other current or former First Nations chiefs from Manitoba are trying to arrange a further meeting with leaders of Iran's "oppressive regime" in that country to discuss the struggles facing aboriginals in Canada.
> 
> "Its record is so abysmal. Nobody really can take this seriously," she said. "But from Iran's point of view, it gives them a sort of public relations advantage because it can sort of hit back at Canada."
> 
> Klein pointed to the arrests of 13 Iranian Jews in 1999 on what she called "trumped-up" charges and arrests of 528 Baha'is in Iran since August 2004 -- 97 of whom remain in prison.
> 
> Nelson and chiefs Frank Brown of Canupawakpa and Orville Smoke of Dakota Plains Wahpeton, as well as former Sioux Valley chief Ken Whitecloud, met Monday with officials of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa.
> 
> Nelson later said that their requested meeting with the Iranian government in Tehran is likely "going to happen pretty quick."
> 
> Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani, head of mission of the Iranian embassy in Canada, confirmed that the First Nations delegates outlined their complaints of "injustice" during Monday's meeting and that "we listened to their views while emphasizing our respect" for Canada's sovereignty.
> 
> "They have also requested to travel to Iran and speak at the Iranian parliament. Their wish has been sent to the relevant officials for consideration," Sheikh-Hassani said in an e-mailed statement.
> 
> "We believe that all countries should respect their international obligations and responsibilities, through co-operation with their indigenous communities to find a just and sustainable resolution."



 :sarcasm:

We should wait for Iran to give the First Nations a couple of billion and then seize it under the current sanctions in place against Iran. ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Funny, when George W Bush was looking at the problem limited strikes were provocative and unilateral "cowboy diplomacy". Of course going back a little farther in the past we see the same cast of characters who were for something before they were against it (despite reading the same intelligence summaries as the President). The issue is so wrapped up in domestic politics that I don't think any sort of coherent policy will emerge in a timely manner, and the issue wil probably be sorted by the traditional Imperial powers of the region:: Turkey, Egypt and Persia.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/obama-in-2004-surgical-airstrikes-might-be-necessary-to-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/



> *Obama in 2004: Surgical airstrikes might be necessary to stop Iran from going nuclear*
> POSTED AT 4:30 PM ON MARCH 18, 2012 BY TINA KORBE
> 
> BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski finds that, once upon a time, Barack Obama thought surgical airstrikes should be among the potential means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Much of what Senate candidate Obama said about Iran in a 2004 interview with the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune sounds familiar — then as now, he emphasized economic sanctions, for example — but some of it does not:
> 
> “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
> 
> Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
> 
> “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
> 
> “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
> 
> Today, it’s Benjamine Netanyahu who does all the talking about launching air and missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, while Obama continues to push for a diplomatic solution. No doubt about it, though: A diplomatic solution is probable in proportion to the perceived sincerity of Bibi’s threats. The rhetorical backup Obama unwittingly provided Netanyahu in 2004 might be of benefit in the same way.
> 
> Note that Obama even then thought international opinion should be a prime consideration when it came to what to do about Iran, though. “My instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran,” he said, as though it might be equally reasonable to err on the other side. That he would even think it might be worth it to allow those weapons into the ruling clerics’ hands for the sake of sycophantic praise from a war-weary world is troubling. Surely security should always be the most important of foreign policy considerations.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is an interesting article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, that suggests that I am wrong in assuming that Israel should "go ugly early," by using nukes in the near future, because US intelligence suggests that Iran doesn't have a bomb and might not even want one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/23/u-s-and-allies-agree-iran-does-not-have-a-nuclear-bomb-may-not-want-one-and-is-far-from-building-one/


> U.S. and allies agree: Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, may not want one and is far from building one
> 
> Reuters
> 
> Mar 23, 2012
> 
> 
> By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball
> 
> WASHINGTON — The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.
> 
> Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> “They’re keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it,” a U.S. administration official said.
> 
> Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran’s nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
> 
> That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
> 
> Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of UN nuclear inspections.
> 
> They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
> 
> These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama’s argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran’s leaders to halt any program.
> 
> The Obama administration, relying on a top-priority intelligence collection program and after countless hours of debate, has concluded that Iranian leaders have not decided whether to actively construct a nuclear weapon, current and former officials said.
> 
> There is little argument, however, that Iran’s leaders have taken steps that would give them the option of becoming a nuclear-armed power.
> 
> Iran has enriched uranium, although not yet of sufficient quantity or purity to fuel a bomb, and has built secret enrichment sites, which were acknowledged only when unmasked.
> 
> Iran has, in years past, worked on designing a nuclear warhead, the complicated package of electronics and explosives that would transform highly enriched uranium into a fission bomb.
> 
> And it is developing missiles that could in theory launch such a weapon at a target in enemy territory.
> 
> There are also blind spots in U.S. and allied agencies’ knowledge. A crucial unknown is the intentions of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another question is exactly how much progress Iran made in designing a warhead before mothballing its program. The allies disagree on how fast Iran is progressing toward bomb-building ability: the U.S. thinks progress is relatively slow; the Europeans and Israelis believe it’s faster.
> 
> U.S. officials assert that intelligence reporting on Iran’s nuclear program is better than it was on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which proved to be non-existent but which President George W. Bush and his aides used to make the case for the 2003 invasion.
> 
> That case and others, such as the U.S. failure to predict India’s 1998 underground nuclear test, illustrate the perils of divining secrets about others’ weapons programs.
> 
> “The quality of intelligence varies from case to case,” a U.S. administration official said. Intelligence on North Korea and Iraq was more limited, but there was “extraordinarily good intelligence” on Iran, the official said.
> 
> Israel, which regards a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, has a different calculation. It studies the same intelligence and timetable, but sees a closing window of opportunity to take unilateral military action and set back Iran’s ambitions. Israel worries that Iran will soon have moved enough of its nuclear program underground — or spread it far enough around the country — as to make it virtually impervious to a unilateral Israeli attack, creating what Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently referred to as a “zone of immunity.”
> 
> While Israel would not be able to launch an effective offensive in this analysis, the U.S., with its deeper-penetrating bombs and in-air refueling capability, believes it could still get results from a military strike.
> 
> Israel has not publicly defined how or when Iran would enter this phase of a nuclear weapons program. Barak said last month that relying on an ability to detect an order by Khamenei to build a bomb “oversimplifies the issue dramatically.”
> 
> *CONFIDENCE IN INTELLIGENCE*
> 
> U.S. confidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weaponization program in 2003 traces back to a stream of intelligence obtained in 2006 or early 2007, which dramatically shifted the view of spy agencies.
> 
> Sources familiar with the intelligence confirmed the intercept of Fakhrizadeh’s communications. The United States had both telephone and email intercepts in which Iranian scientists complained about how the leadership ordered them to shut down the program in 2003, a senior European official said.
> 
> U.S. officials said they are very confident that the intercepts were authentic – and not disinformation planted by Iran.
> 
> “Iran has been a high-priority intelligence target for years. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes we really are good,” said Thomas Fingar, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when it compiled the 2007 intelligence estimate.
> 
> While declining to provide specific details, Fingar, now at Stanford University, said: “We got information that we had never been able to obtain before. We knew the provenance of the information, and we knew that we had been able to obtain it from multiple sources. Years of hard work had finally paid off.”
> 
> The judgment that Iran had stopped work on the weapons program stunned the Bush White House and U.S. allies. Critics accused U.S. spy agencies of over-compensating for their flawed 2002 analysis that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.
> 
> The 2007 report gummed up efforts by the Bush administration to persuade the UN Security Council and others to add pressure on Iran with more sanctions. It was greeted with disbelief by Israel and some European allies.
> 
> “It really pulled the rug out of our sanctions effort until we got it back on track in 2008,” recalled Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Bush.
> 
> Overlooked by many was that the report said Iran had been pursuing a nuclear weapon and was keeping its options open for developing one, he said. “The problem was that it was misinterpreted as an all-clear when it wasn’t that at all,” Hadley said.
> 
> A November 2011 report by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency said suspected nuclear weaponization efforts led by Fakhrizadeh were “stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order’ instruction issued in late 2003 by senior Iranian officials.”
> 
> The reasons for this are not clear. Western experts say it was probably related to a fear of being next on the hit list after the United States toppled Saddam next door.
> 
> Iran emphasizes its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. Ayatollah Khamenei this week said Iran does not have nuclear weapons and will not build them.
> 
> *DISMEMBERED AND BURIED*
> 
> Some key U.S. allies were never entirely comfortable with the 2007 U.S. intelligence estimate. The Europeans conceded that a centrally directed weaponization program probably stopped, but believed pieces of the program were being pursued separately.
> 
> Many European experts believed the Iranians had dismembered their bomb program and scattered and buried its parts, some of them in military or scientific installations, some in obscure academic institutions.
> 
> Under pressure from both European allies and Israel’s supporters, U.S. intelligence agencies late in the Bush administration and early in Obama’s tenure began to take a second look at the 2007 estimate. Some consideration was given to bringing it more into line with European views. Intelligence received after publication of the 2007 estimate suggested that in 2006, Iran believed the United States was going to have to abandon its troubled venture in Iraq. Wisps of information were gathered that Iranian officials were talking about restarting elements of the bomb program, a U.S. intelligence official said on condition of anonymity. But analysts were divided about the significance of the new information. The revised estimate was delayed for months. Eventually, at the very end of 2010, an updated version was circulated within the government. Unlike the 2007 estimate, the White House made public no extracts of this document. A consensus emerged among U.S. experts that the new intelligence information wasn’t as alarming as originally thought, according to officials familiar with the result. The 2010 update largely stuck to the same assessments as the 2007 report, these officials said. U.S. intelligence chiefs issued a vague public acknowledgement of the ambiguities of their latest assessment.
> 
> Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress in February 2011 that “Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so.”
> 
> *TIME FRAME*
> 
> The United States and Israel are on the same page in judging how long it would take Iran to have a nuclear weapon that could strike a target: About a year to produce a bomb and then another one to two years to put it on a missile.
> 
> Both countries believe Iran has not made a decision to build a bomb, so even if Tehran decided to move forward, it would be unlikely to have a working nuclear device this year, let alone a missile to deliver it.
> 
> “I think they are years away from having a nuclear weapon,” a U.S. administration official said.
> 
> Three main pieces are needed for a nuclear arsenal: highly enriched uranium to fuel a bomb, a nuclear warhead to detonate it, and a missile or other platform to deliver it. For Iran’s program, the West has the most information about the first.
> 
> Iran has a declared nuclear program for medical research and producing energy, is a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows UN nuclear inspectors into its facilities.
> 
> The inspections are conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its reports provide some of the best snapshots of where Iran’s program stands.
> 
> Iran conducts uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant in central Iran and at a site at Fordow buried deep in a mountainous region near the holy city of Qom. Both sites were built secretly and made public by others.
> 
> Natanz was unveiled in 2002 by an Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Obama and other world leaders announced the existence of the Fordow site in 2009.
> 
> Natanz houses about 8,800 centrifuge machines spinning to increase the concentration of U-235, the type of uranium that yields fissile material. Fordow is built to contain about 3,000 centrifuge machines, but the most recent IAEA report says about 700 are operational.
> 
> Most of Iran’s stockpile is 3.5% low enriched uranium. When Tehran declared in February 2010 that it would begin enriching uranium up to 20 percent purity, that sharply increased the anxiety of Israel and others.
> 
> Nuclear experts say that enriching uranium from the naturally occurring 0.7% concentration of U-235 to the low-level 3.5 percent accomplishes about 70% of the enrichment work toward weapons-grade uranium. At 20 percent concentration, about nine-tenths of the work has been completed. For Iran, getting to 90 percent would require changing some of the plumbing in the centrifuges, experts said.
> 
> “From 20 to 90 is exponentially easier,” a U.S. intelligence official said.
> 
> An IAEA report last month said that Iran has produced nearly 110 kilograms (240 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20 percent. That is less than the roughly 250 kilograms (550 pounds) that nuclear experts say would be required, when purified further, for one nuclear weapon.
> 
> Iran’s enrichment program was set back by the Stuxnet computer virus, which many security experts suspect was created by Israeli intelligence, possibly with U.S. assistance. It wormed its way into Iranian centrifuge machinery as early as 2009. The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that Stuxnet damaged about 1,000 centrifuges at Natanz and stalled its enrichment capability from growing for about a year.
> 
> But it isn’t clear how lasting an impact Stuxnet has had. Reuters reported last month that U.S. and European officials and private experts believe Iranian engineers have neutralized and purged the virus.
> 
> *EYES IN THE SKY*
> 
> U.S. officials and experts are confident that Iran would be detected if it jumped to a higher level of enrichment.
> 
> The IAEA monitors Iran’s enrichment facilities closely, watching with cameras and taking measurements during inspections. Seals would have to be broken if containers that collect the enriched material were moved or tampered with.
> 
> U.S. and European intelligence agencies are also keeping tabs through satellites, sensors and other methods. They watched for years as a hole was dug into a mountainside near Qom and determined – it is unclear precisely how – late in the Bush administration that Fordow was likely a secret uranium enrichment site.
> 
> Obama was briefed on Qom when he was president-elect and was the one to publicly announce it to the world in September 2009.
> 
> “They had a deep understanding of the facility, which allowed them to blow the whistle on Tehran with confidence,” a U.S. official said.
> 
> Rumors periodically pop up of other secret enrichment sites, but so far they have not been substantiated. “Most of the people who make the argument that they might have a covert facility or a series of covert facilities are doing that to justify bombing them sooner rather than later,” said Colin Kahl, a former defense official focused on the Middle East.
> 
> “We are very confident that there is no secret site now,” a U.S. administration official said. But given Iran’s history of secretly building facilities, the official predicted Tehran would eventually construct another covert plant.
> 
> *THE UNKNOWN*
> 
> One of the biggest question marks is how far Iran advanced in designing a nuclear device – a task considered to be less complicated than producing highly enriched uranium.
> 
> The more primitive the device, the more enriched uranium is required. Making it small enough to fit on the tip of a missile would be another challenge.
> 
> The IAEA has information that Iran built a large containment chamber to conduct high-explosives tests at the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran. Conventional weapons are tested at that base, and the U.S. government appears convinced that any nuclear-related tests occurred prior to the 2003 halt.
> 
> But Iran denied the IAEA access to the Parchin site in February, raising more suspicion, and the nuclear agency seems less confident that weapons work has halted altogether.
> 
> IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said recently, “We have information that some activity is ongoing there.”
> 
> In its November 2011 report, the IAEA said it had “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
> 
> It cited Iran’s efforts to procure nuclear-related and dual-use equipment, acquisition of nuclear-weapons development information and work on developing a nuclear weapon design in the program that was stopped in late 2003.
> 
> “There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing,” the IAEA said.
> 
> While Iran does not yet have a nuclear warhead that can fit on a missile, it does have the missiles.
> 
> Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and many of those projectiles could be repurposed to deliver a nuclear device, intelligence director Clapper said in congressional testimony.
> 
> Western experts also point to Iran’s test firing of a rocket that can launch satellites into space as an example of a growing capability that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons.
> 
> “The nuclear threat is growing. They are getting relatively close to the place where they can make the decision to assemble all three parts of their program — enrichment, missile, weaponization,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said in an interview. Khamenei “hasn’t said ‘put it together’ yet,” said Rogers, a Republican. “Have they decided to sprint to making the device that blows up? Probably not. But are they walking to a device that blows up? Yes.”
> 
> The debate over air strikes, supercharged by Israel’s anxiety and U.S. election-year politics, has raised the specter of the Iraq war. The White House justified that conflict on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, as well as significant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Both proved to be mirages.
> 
> “There are lots of disturbing similarities. One has to note the differences, too,” said Paul Pillar, a former top CIA analyst.
> 
> “The huge difference being we don’t have an administration in office that is the one hankering for the war. This administration is not hankering for a war,” said Pillar.
> 
> © Thomson Reuters 2012




I just wish my faith in the US intelligence community's conclusions was as boundless as President Obama's is.


----------



## GAP

I agree.....the article is pap, pure and simple. It actually sounds like it's offering an excuse for Obama to not have to make a decision in an election year.


----------



## a_majoor

This intelligence report seems to be designed more to support a political faction than anything else. After all, the intelligence community had been reporting on Iranian progress towards making nuclear weapons on a regular basis, then abruptly swept the rug out from under President George W Bush by relaseing a very similar assessment that Iran was not working on nuclear weapons.

If there had been an honest mistake, then the next several years would not have seen a "return to normal" reporting of enhanced Iranian nuclear activity, essentially redacting the report without ever saying so.

Common sense argues against this report as well; revelations of new facilities like the deeply buried Fordo enrichment plant and Iran test launching rockets capable of reaching targets in Europe really don't square with the idea that Iran is neither close to developing a bomb, nor wants one. from a technical POV, while enriching Uranium is perhaps difficut and time consuming, building a Uranium powered "gun" bomb is actually quite simple. Once they have the enriched material, the time to actually manufacture a crude bomb is quite short (you could use a simple piece of pipe as the positive saftey and a Mickey Mouse watch as the timing device), even a sophisticated weapon that can fit on a missile isn't too much farther away.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A decent overview of the latest from the Congressional Research Service (52 pg. PDF) - this from the summary (carefully caveated at the end):





> Several published reports indicate that top Israeli decision makers now are seriously considering whether to order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if so, when.  Twice in Israel’s history, it has conducted air strikes aimed at halting or delaying what Israeli policymakers believed to be efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by a Middle Eastern state—destroying Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and a facility the Israelis identified as a reactor under construction in Syria in 2007. Today, Israeli officials generally view the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable threat to Israeli security—with some viewing it as an existential threat.
> 
> This report analyzes key factors that may influence current Israeli political decisions relating to a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. These include, but are not limited to, the views of and relationships among Israeli leaders; the views of the Israeli public; U.S., regional, and international stances and responses as perceived and anticipated by Israel; Israeli estimates of the potential effectiveness and risks of a possible strike; and responses Israeli leaders anticipate from Iran and Iranian-allied actors—including Hezbollah and Hamas—regionally and internationally.
> 
> For Congress, the potential impact—short- and long-term—of an Israeli decision regarding Iran and its implementation is a critical issue of concern. By all accounts, such an attack could have considerable regional and global security, political, and economic repercussions, not least for the United States, Israel, and their bilateral relationship. It is unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The current Israeli government, President Barack Obama, and many Members of Congress have shared concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. They appear to have a range of views on how best to address those shared concerns. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful, civilian energy purposes, and U.S. intelligence assessments say that Iran has not made a decision to build nuclear weapons. However, Iran continues to enrich uranium in militarily hardened sites and questions remain about its nuclear weapons capabilities and intentions.
> 
> Short- and long-term questions for Members of Congress to consider regarding a possible Israeli decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities militarily might include, but are not limited to, the following:
> 
> • How might an Israeli strike affect options and debate regarding short-term and long-term U.S. relations and security cooperation with, and foreign assistance to, Israel and other regional countries?
> • Would an Israeli strike be considered self-defense? Why or why not? What would be the legal and policy implications either way?
> • How might a strike affect the implementation of existing sanctions legislation on Iran or options and debate over new legislation on the subject?
> • How might Congress consult with the Obama Administration on and provide oversight with respect to various political and military options?
> 
> *This report has many aspects that are the subject of vigorous debate and remain fully or partially outside public knowledge. CRS does not claim to independently confirm any sources cited within this report that attribute specific positions or views to various U.S. and Israeli officials.*


----------



## 57Chevy

According to these articles shared with provisions of The Copyright Act,
sanctions seem to be taking their toll, or are they ?

Iran Sanctions Fuel 'Junk for Oil' Barter With China, India
Bloomberg News Friday, March 30, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/30/bloomberg_articlesM1L1AA0D9L3501-M1PDP.DTL

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Iran and its leading oil buyers, China and India, are finding ways to skirt U.S. and European Union financial sanctions on the Islamic republic by agreeing to trade oil for local currencies and goods including wheat, soybean meal and consumer products.

India, the second-biggest importer of Iran's oil, has set up a rupee account at a state-owned bank to settle as much as much as 45 percent of its bill, according to Indian officials. China, Iran's largest oil customer, already settles some of its oil debts through barter, Mahmoud Bahmani, Iran's central bank governor, said Feb. 28. Iran also has sought to trade oil for wheat from Pakistan and Russia, according to media reports from the two countries.

The trend is growing, sanctions specialists and U.S. officials say, and is denying the Islamic Republic hard currency to prop up the plummeting value of the rial and to fund nuclear and missile programs. Iran already is starved for dollars and euros to support the rial, and barter deals will force it to spend billions of dollars of oil revenue on goods, according to Kenneth Katzman at the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan government-research institute in Washington.

"Iran cannot stabilize the value of its currency with such unorthodox payment methods, and that is why its economy is collapsing," Katzman, an Iran sanctions specialist, said in an interview. "Iran is essentially on a junk-for-oil program."

more at link...
                           ____________________________________________________

Kuala Lumpur seizes suitcases of counterfeit US dollars traced to Iran 
DEBKAfile Special Report March 28, 2012
http://www.debka.com/article/21868/

Two suitcases crammed with counterfeit $100 bills were seized in Kuala Lumpur this week from two Iranian traders who flew in to the Malaysian capital on direct flights from Tehran. One contained 153,000 forged dollars and the second 203,000. The traders claimed they were issued the bills by tellers at the Iranian central bank CBI to finance their business transactions and had no notion they had not been dealt genuine greenbacks.

debkafile’s sources report that alert local businessmen spotted the fake currency despite its quality workmanship when they used it to pay for their purchases.
According to a Malaysian source, the bills were finely printed on special paper. The initial investigation identified the paper as made in China especially for use in printing currency and a supply recently reached Iran.
Malaysian authorities have not identified the Iranian traders who were taken in custody except by their initials – H.M. and A. G.

Kuala Lumpur finds itself in the middle of an international scandal developing around the affair and involving the US, China and Iran. The Iranian embassy is leaning hard on the government to keep it hushed up, threatening to cut off commercial ties if the story is made public, or if the two traders are forced to stay in the country until the legal proceedings take their course.

Tehran fears the embarrassment attending disclosure of its suspected traffic in counterfeit US currency as the April 13 date approaches for important nuclear negotiations with the six world powers. Iran would find itself badly compromised on world financial markets on top of the difficulties it already faces as a result of the tough international financial sanctions clamped down by America and Europe.

debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose that American undercover agents are in Malaysia trying to get hold of some of the fake bills on order to have them tested in their US laboratories for clues to their provenance. They could then be compared with other forged $100 bills seized last year in several Middle Eastern countries.

Comparison with fake bills impounded recently in Iraq, for example, or in the Persian Gulf countries, might shed light on dark corners of Iran’s industry for the counterfeiting and circulation of American dollars and establish whether it is run by criminal mafias or clandestine elements tied to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Chinese secret agents have also arrived to track the paper’s trail to Iran The special paper used for the dollar bills seized in Kuala Lumpur is exported from China only under special license..

Evidence that the Islamic regime of Iran was responsible for the wholesale forgery of the emblematic American dollar would have harsh consequences. Washington would not pull its punches and would convince a widening circle of world governments to step up sanctions against Tehran for the crime of undermining international currency.

Since the international money transfer firm SWIFT severed its ties with most of Iran’s banks, the traders have had to travel abroad in person carrying suitcases full of cash for contracting their business operations.

Five months ago, Western intelligence circles issued a warning that Iran would try and overcome the shortage of available foreign currency reserves caused by sanctions by printing counterfeit $100 bills.

In 2010, when US forces were still present in Iraq, they captured several million American dollars suspected to have been forged in Iran and smuggled into Iraq.
In 2010, the US Federal Reserve Board had a new $100 bill designed to defeat counterfeiters. Its release was delayed by printing defects.


----------



## Pelliparius

Fairly interesting article from Chatham House.  
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/The%20World%20Today/2012/april/0412lewis.pdf

Another from aviationweek concerning Syria's strategic importance to Iran and Russia's role in upgrading their defense systems.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/03/05/AW_03_05_2012_p28-431083.xml


----------



## Kirkhill

I didn't know where to put this.  It could go under Iran, China, India or Afghanistan.  This was the best that my poker dice could come up with.

Looking at the first map below, from the Washington Post, drove home to me the strategic imperatives of the region and the rationales for the discussions about the Russian/British Great Game, the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline, the Chinese support of Pakistan and in particular the Gwadar harbour.  

It also suggested to me a geopolitical strategy that Canada could/should support.

Iran, as ancient as it is, is a nation of indigenous peoples that have been subsumed over the millenia by a variety of horse oriented cultures originating in the steppes now largely identified with Russia but actually also held by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, not to mention Mongolia and Xinjiang Province.  

Those horsemen dominated the interior of the country but became progressively less effective as the terrain moved to the mountains and to the seas.  Consequently the borders of Iran are very ragged.  By this I mean that, for example, in the North West Iran couldn't dominate the Anatolian mountains any more than their northern brethren the Turks could.  Consequently they had to settle for accepting a situation that left in place a border community that survived like many other borderers, on the fault lines.  For the Iranians, Syrians and Turks this problem community is the Kurds.

The Iranians have an identical problem in the South East.  The community down there is the Balochi.  There the problem is shared by Pakistan.  It is in Pakistani Balochistan that China is buiding the port at Gwadar.  That is the port that Russia always wanted, probably still does, and which Britain struggled so hard to deny Russia.  It is also the reason that Iranian horsemen and Afghan hillmen have fought so often over the millenia.  

That harbour would allow whoever owns it to do an end run around the choke point known as the Straits of Hormuz and permit direct access to the Indian Ocean via the Gulf of Oman.   Oman and the Balochis have a shared history.  They are both sea going peoples.  The Balochis supplied many of the Lascars that kept the old British merchant steam fleet going.  The Arabs and Iranians both have had hates on for them because traditionally they kept them bottled up on the back side of Hormuz.  The British exploited this from the late 18th century by co-opting the Omani control of the Indian Ocean using various carrots and sticks to keep the Omanis on side.

All this background is to support the basic suggestion.

In Northern Iran the west (US and UK) supported the rise of an identifiable Kurdish polity under an enforced No Fly zone.  That polity has gained some autonomy within Iraq and is considered a threat to the governments of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria.  For a variety of reasons I can see that state being supported by Turkey and a Post-Assad Syria, as well as various western states and Israel.  Turkey, I think, could be convinced of the value of a Kurdish buffer state between it and the Arabs.  This would/could reduce their expenditures on trying to keep the Kurds under control.  It would be cheaper to have them on side.  

The No-Fly policy has also been effective in the Libyan context.

It could be argued that the Post 9/11 strategy in Afghanistan was an extension of the same strategy. Western domination of the skies permitted indigenous forces freedom of movement, so long as they moved in directions approved by the Flyers.

In the case of Libya Canada has asserted the Canadian sponsored, UN-sanctioned policy of R2P or "Right to Protect".  This is the same policy that is anathema to Russia, China and all other non-democratic governments.

Suggestion:

Canada, under the auspices of R2P, should join with India (a rising trading partner) and the West (US, UK, France) in supporting the Independent Balochistan Movement and agitate for the establishment of a No-Fly Zone over Baluchistan.  It could be supported from land bases in Oman and India as well as from Carriers in the Gulf of Oman.

There might be a bit of pushback from the Pakistanis, Iranians, Chinese and Russians, and the fact that 3 out of the 4, and possibly 4 out of 4, have nukes does present a complication or two.

More broadly:

It appears to me to be in Canada's interest to continue to act on the world scene in support of small, independent nation-states loosely associated by trade agreements (as they appear to be doing in Asia).  Supplying those small nation-states the freedom to act independently can be achieved by the use of free trade agreements, diplomatic pressure and contributing to multi-national efforts like No-Fly Zones and "Anti-Piracy" Patrols.

In that context a strong expeditionary Navy and Air Force makes sense, and I would argue, assists in justifying the purchase of the F-35 to be able to operate in "non-permissive" environments.

(As an aside, in my opinion, it would also be in Canada's interest to use its free trade negotiations with the EU to promote the "Anglo-Saxon" or Viking vision of the EU as a free-trade association and not another attempt to establish an empire.)

The effect of this particular strategy in the Iran/Afghan/Pakistan context would be to establish a Pro-Trade (not necessarily a Pro-Western) government on the north shore of the Gulf of Oman which would reduce Iran's influence on the Straits of Hormuz, reduce the geo-political importance of Pakistan, take the pressure off of Indo-Pakistani-Chinese relations with Pakistan being, and eliminate the isolation of Afghanistan, permitting the government of Afghanistan more flexibility in dealing with internal problems because of less outside interference.

Where many of the players in the game, especially China, Russia, Iran and the EU, are hard-wired to solve problems by exerting  dominating force and centralized control, the "Anglo-Saxon" vision of loose association should be more appealing to many people around the world.

Canada can and should support that vision.   Not to impose democracy at the local level, but to give the locals breathing room to make their own choices (and mistakes). 

The Balochistan map is from the Wikipedia article on Balochistan
The Kurdistan map is from this site


----------



## Old Sweat

This link is to a long and rather pessimistic - but plausible - look at the probability of war in the Middle East. Read 'er and weep.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/07/goodspeed-analysis-middle-east-could-collapse-into-full-conflict-if-international-talks-fail-next-week/


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This link is to a long and rather pessimistic - but plausible - look at the probability of war in the Middle East. Read 'er and weep.
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/07/goodspeed-analysis-middle-east-could-collapse-into-full-conflict-if-international-talks-fail-next-week/




I find the scenario very plausible; I think Col (ret'd) Sam Gardner is right: when Israel perceives its very existence to be threatened it will strike, boldly, massively, over great distances and without regard to America's wishes or Russia's posturing.


----------



## a_majoor

There are so many pieces on the board that shifting one piece (such as the projected Israeli attack on Iran) could set off multiple reactions and realignments in the region.

On the top tier is the ancient antagonism between the Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Next level is the three traditional Imperial powers of the region all flexing their muscles at roughly the same time: Turkey, Egypt and Iran. Ancient ethnic rivalries also underlie the regional conflicts 
Below that are the shifting religious, tribal and ethnic sub groups, including Christians, Kurds and a host of other, smaller distinct groupings. (This is the level Kirkhill was talking about, and many of these peoples were exploited by one or more of the major Imperial Powers in the past. Courting them to make trouble for the rival empires or at least working for the minorities to remain neutral is probably going to be the major effort by the would be hegemons in the coming decades).

Since their economies are small and not very diversified, and the numbers of trained and skilled personell are limited, the shiny modern weapons systems they have bought over the years won't last too long. We will probably see battlefields and butchery rivaling the First World War as the various factions start taking up arms. Iranian human wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war are probably a foretaste of the coming wars in the next decades.

Now intervening on the side of smaller nations and ethnic minorities might be an inexpensive way of preventing any single power from gaining outright victory, but in the larger sense use of the upcoming American "oil weapon" and collapsing the demand and price of Middle Eastern Oil will do a lot to contain the battles to the region and preventing it from spreading too far beyond.


----------



## Trick

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17716241 

"Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul 'constructive'"

Seemingly good news from the initial talks. That said, neither party would have anything to gain by taking a belligerent stance at the talks, so take the superficial optimism with a grain of salt. All the smiles and hand-shakes in the world don't really change the fact that unless actual *actions* are taken soon, the government of Israel is likely to act on its own.


----------



## GAP

Latest cyberattack on Iran targets oil export facilities

Computer servers at the government oil ministry and the National Iranian Oil Co. are the apparent target of a cyberattack via a data-deleting virus, Iranian officials have acknowledged. Previous attacks struck at Iran's nuclear program.

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 23, 2012 
Article Link

Iran's oil export facilities are the apparent target of computer malware, an attack that penetrated computer servers at both the government oil ministry and the National Iranian Oil Co.

The cyberattack – one of several Iran has endured over the past few years – comes as Iran and an international coalition of six nations, including the US, prepare for more talks next month over the extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions. To put pressure on Iran to cooperate with efforts to verify the scope of its nuclear program, the United States has been discouraging the international community from buying Iranian oil.

Initial reports from Iran are that a computer virus, dubbed "Viper," wiped data from the targeted servers.

Alireza Nikzad, a spokesman for Iran's oil ministry, told the Fars news agency, which has ties to the government, that Sunday's attack was a "virus" that "attempted to delete data on oil ministry servers." Another Iranian news agency cited Mr. Nikzad as identifying the virus as Viper.

"This cyberattack has not damaged the main data of the oil ministry and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) since the general servers are separate from the main servers; even their cables are not linked to each other and are not linked to Internet service," Nikzad said in the reports. "We have a backup from all our main or secondary data, and there is no problem in this regard."

But in another statement posted on the oil ministry's news website, SHANA, Nikzad said the virus did indeed wipe some data from official servers – but with limited damage, Agence France Presse reported.

"To say that no data was harmed is not right. Only data related to some of the users have been compromised," Nikzad said, according to AFP. Websites of the Iranian oil ministry and NIOC were also knocked offline, reports said.

Authorities told Iranian news agencies that oil exports were not disrupted. At least 80 percent of Iranian oil is shipped from Kharg Island, the nation's big export terminal.

The cyberattack on Iran's oil facilities could be perpetrated by a nation sending Iran a not-too-subtle message: Start negotiating with the international community over your nuclear weapons program or lose the ability to export oil, say some US cyberwarfare experts. Or, it could be the work of a lone hacker taking a digital potshot.

Either way, Iran is expected to take the attack seriously, these experts say.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

More conventional sticks are being assembled in the region as well:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/armada-masses-near-iran/



> *U.S. Amasses Stealth-Jet Armada Near Iran*
> 
> By David Axe
> Email Author
> April 27, 2012 |
> 9:42 am |
> Categories: Air Force
> 
> The U.S. Air Force is quietly assembling the world’s most powerful air-to-air fighting team at bases near Iran. Stealthy F-22 Raptors on their first front-line deployment have joined a potent mix of active-duty and Air National Guard F-15 Eagles, including some fitted with the latest advanced radars. The Raptor-Eagle team has been honing special tactics for clearing the air of Iranian fighters in the event of war.
> 
> The fighters join a growing naval armada that includes Navy carriers, submarines, cruisers and destroyers plus patrol boats and minesweepers enhanced with the latest close-in weaponry.
> 
> It’s been years since the Air Force has maintained a significant dogfighting presence in the Middle East. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq Boeing-made F-15Cs flew air patrols from Saudi Arabia, but the Iraqi air force put up no resistance and the Eagle squadrons soon departed. For the next nine years Air Force deployments to the Middle East were handled by ground-attack planes such as A-10s, F-16s and twin-seat F-15E Strike Eagles.
> 
> The 1980s-vintage F-15Cs, plagued by structural problems, stayed home in the U.S. and Japan. The brand-new F-22s, built by Lockheed Martin, suffered their own mechanical and safety problems. When they ventured from their home bases in Virginia, Alaska and New Mexico, it was only for short training exercises over the Pacific. The F-15Cs and F-22s sat out last year’s Libya war.
> 
> The Air Force fixed the F-15s and partially patched up the F-22s just in time for the escalating stand-off over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. In March the Air Force deployed the Massachusetts Air National Guard’s 104th Fighter Wing, flying 20 standard F-15Cs, to an “undisclosed” air base in Southwest Asia — probably either Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates or Al Udeid in Qatar. The highly-experienced Massachusetts Guardsmen, who typically have several years more experience than their active-duty counterparts, would be ready “should Iran test the 104th,” said wing commander Col. Robert Brooks.
> 
> Upgraded F-15Cs from the 18th Wing in Japan joined the Guard Eagles. The Japan-based fighters have the latest APG-63(V)2 and (V)3 radars, manufactured by Raytheon. They’re electronically-scanned radars that radiate many individual beams from fixed antenna clusters and track more targets, faster, than old-model mechanical radars that must physically swivel back and forth. The 18th Wing is working up a fleet of 54 updated Eagles spread across two squadrons. The video above, shot by an F-15 pilot, depicts some of the wing’s training.
> 
> F-22s followed this month. “Multiple” Raptors deployed to Al Dhafra, according to Amy Butler at Aviation Week. Air Force spokesman Capt. Phil Ventura confirmed the deployment. It’s not clear where the Raptors came from. If they’re from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing, they’re the latest Increment 3.1 model with boosted bombing capabilities in addition to the standard air-to-air weaponry. In any event, the Middle East mission represents the first time F-22s are anywhere near a possible combat zone.
> 
> The mix of old and upgraded F-15s and ultra-modern F-22s is no accident. When the Pentagon stopped producing the nearly $400-million-a-copy Raptor after 187 units — half as many as the Air Force said it needed — the flying branch committed to keeping 250 F-15Cs in service until 2025 at the earliest. Pilots began developing team tactics for the two fighter types.
> 
> “We have a woefully tiny F-22 fleet,” said Gen. Mike Hostage, the Air Force’s main fighter commander. So the flying branch worked out a system whereby large numbers of F-15s cover for small numbers of Raptors that sneak in around an enemy’s flank in full stealth mode. “Our objective is to fly in front with the F-22s, and have the persistence to stay there while the [F-22s] are conducting their [low-observable] attack,” Maj. Todd Giggy, an Eagle pilot, told Aviation Week.
> 
> One thing to look for is the presence in the Middle East of one of the Air Force’s handful of bizjets and Global Hawk drones fitted with the Northrop Grumman Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, or Bacon. The F-22, once envisioned as a solitary hunter, was designed without the radio data-links that are standard on F-15s and many other jets. Instead, the Raptor has its own unique link that is incompatible with the Eagle. Bacon helps translate the radio signals so the two jet types can swap information. With a Bacon plane nearby, F-22s and F-15s can silently exchange data — for example, stealthy Raptors spotting targets for the Eagles.
> 
> It’s the methods above that the U.S. dogfighting armada would likely use to wipe out the antiquated but determined Iranian air force if the unthinkable occurred and fighting broke out. The warplanes are in place. The pilots are ready. Hopefully they won’t be needed.



Of course this is a very tiny force to be called an "armada" and it is easy to think this could be quickly derailed by somthing as simple as discovering a need for a software fix or a structural issue in the F-15 or F-22 fleet.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

Iran the target for the world's most complex computer spy virus
Damien McElroy and Christopher Williams, The Daily Telegraph  28 May 
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Iran+target+most+complex+virus/6691435/story.html#ixzz1wDVGXLSW

The world's most complex computer virus, possessing a range of espionage capabilities, including the ability to secretly record conversations, has been exposed.

Middle Eastern states were targets and Iran ordered an emergency review of official computer installations after the discovery of the new virus, known as Flame.

Experts said the malicious software was 20 times more powerful than other known cyber warfare programs, including the Stuxnet virus, and could only have been created by a state. It is the third cyber attack aimed at systems in the Middle East to be exposed in recent years.

Iran has alleged that the West and Israel are orchestrating a secret war of sabotage using cyber warfare and targeted assassinations of its scientists as part of the dispute over its nuclear program. Stuxnet attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, while a related program, Duqu, named after the Star Wars villain, stole data.

Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on computer microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and copy instant messaging chats.

The virus was discovered by a Russian security company that specialises in malicious computer code. It made the 20 gigabyte virus available to other researchers yesterday (Monday), claiming that it did not fully understand its scope and said its code was 100 times the size of the most malicious software.

Kaspersky Labs said the program appeared to have been released five years ago and had infected machines in Iran, Israel, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. "If Flame went on undiscovered for five years, the only logical conclusion is that there are other operations ongoing that we don't know about," Roel Schouwenberg, a Kaspersky security senior researcher, said.

Prof Alan Woodward, from the department of computing at the University of Surrey, said the virus was extremely invasive. It could "vacuum up" information by copying keyboard strokes and the voices of people nearby.

"This wasn't written by some spotty teenager in his/her bedroom. It is large, complicated and dedicated to stealing data whilst remaining hidden for a long time," he said.

The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which attacked an Iranian uranium enrichment facility, causing centrifuges to fail.

Mr Schouwenberg said there was evidence to suggest that the code was commissioned by the same nation or nations behind Stuxnet and Duqu. Iran's computer emergency response team said it was "a close relation" of Stuxnet, which has itself been linked to Duqu, another complicated information-stealing virus which is believed to be the work of state intelligence. It said organisations had been given software to detect and remove the discovered virus at the beginning of this month

Crysys Lab, which analyses computer viruses at Budapest University. said the technical evidence for a link between Flame and Stuxnet or Duqu was inconclusive.

The newly discovered virus does not spread itself automatically but only when hidden controllers allow it.

The file, which infects Microsoft Windows computers, has five encryption algorithms, exotic data storage formats and the ability to steal documents, spy on computer users and more.

Components enable those behind it, who use a network of rapidly-shifting "command and control" servers to direct the virus, to turn microphones into listening devices, siphon off documents and log keystrokes.

Eugene Kaspersky, the founder of Kaspersky Lab, noted that "it took us six months to analyse Stuxnet. [This] is 20 times more complicated".

Once a machine is infected, additional modules can be added to the system, allowing the machine to undertake specific tracking projects.


Related threads: 
U.S. sees "huge" cyber threat in the future ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97622.0.html )
+
Stuxnet 'cyber superweapon' ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97741.0.html )

The complexities of the Flame virus brings this to mind;

The robot general
Implications of Watson on military operations
BY LT. COL. ANTHONY S. CRUZ
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2011/06/6187209
or see thread ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105118/post-1128380.html#msg1128380 )


----------



## Nemo888

It wasn't found by Kapersky. It was found by the Iranians. That was when Kapersky started looking through their MD5 submission hashes for something similar. They did not get an exact match. But it is very close. Initial infection is by USB sticks and it can then infect entire networks. It listens on the line for network traffic containing admin logon hashes then takes over entire networks. It is obviously military grade kit. Inital payload is 6mb. Once screen capture, the module to turn on the mic and various other functions are enabled it is 20Mb. That would be 40 times as much code as Stuxnet or Duqu which were only 500Kb.  It can still infect a fully updated Win 7 machine. The exploit is as yet undiscovered.

It is most likely that AV compnaies like McAfee and Norton were already aware of it and were told not to add it to their detection list. A common practice in the industry.


----------



## a_majoor

More cyberwar systems found deployed in Iran (and spreading throughout the Middle East). What other cyberwar tools hve been deployed?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/flame/



> *Meet ‘Flame’, The Massive Spy Malware Infiltrating Iranian Computers*
> 
> By Kim Zetter
> Email Author
> May 28, 2012 |
> 9:00 am |
> Categories: Cybersecurity, DuQu, Stuxnet
> 
> Map showing the number and geographical location of Flame infections detected by Kaspersky Lab on customer machines. Courtesy of Kaspersky
> 
> A massive, highly sophisticated piece of malware has been newly found infecting systems in Iran and elsewhere and is believed to be part of a well-coordinated, ongoing, state-run cyberespionage operation.
> 
> The malware, discovered by Russia-based anti-virus firm Kaspersky Lab, is an espionage toolkit that has been infecting targeted systems in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, the Israeli Occupied Territories and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa for at least two years.
> 
> Dubbed “Flame” by Kaspersky, the malicious code dwarfs Stuxnet in size – the groundbreaking infrastructure-sabotaging malware that is believed to have wreaked havoc on Iran’s nuclear program in 2009 and 2010. Although Flame has both a different purpose and composition than Stuxnet, and appears to have been written by different programmers, its complexity, the geographic scope of its infections and its behavior indicate strongly that a nation-state is behind Flame, rather than common cyber-criminals — marking it as yet another tool in the growing arsenal of cyberweaponry.
> 
> The researchers say that Flame may be part of a parallel project created by contractors who were hired by the same nation-state team that was behind Stuxnet and its sister malware, DuQu.
> 
> “Stuxnet and Duqu belonged to a single chain of attacks, which raised cyberwar-related concerns worldwide,” said Eugene Kaspersky, CEO and co-founder of Kaspersky Lab, in a statement. “The Flame malware looks to be another phase in this war, and it’s important to understand that such cyber weapons can easily be used against any country.”
> 
> Early analysis of Flame by the Lab indicates that it’s designed primarily to spy on the users of infected computers and steal data from them, including documents, recorded conversations and keystrokes. It also opens a backdoor to infected systems to allow the attackers to tweak the toolkit and add new functionality.
> 
> The malware, which is 20 megabytes when all of its modules are installed, contains multiple libraries, SQLite3 databases, various levels of encryption — some strong, some weak — and 20 plug-ins that can be swapped in and out to provide various functionality for the attackers. It even contains some code that is written in the LUA programming language — an uncommon choice for malware.
> 
> Kaspersky Lab is calling it “one of the most complex threats ever discovered.”
> 
> “It’s pretty fantastic and incredible in complexity,” said Alexander Gostev, chief security expert at Kaspersky Lab.
> 
> Flame appears to have been operating in the wild as early as March 2010, though it remained undetected by antivirus companies.
> 
> “It’s a very big chunk of code. Because of that, it’s quite interesting that it stayed undetected for at least two years,” Gostev said. He noted that there are clues that the malware may actually date back to as early as 2007, around the same time-period when Stuxnet and DuQu are believed to have been created.
> 
> Gostev says that because of its size and complexity, complete analysis of the code may take years.
> 
> “It took us half-a-year to analyze Stuxnet,” he said. “This is 20-times more complicated. It will take us 10 years to fully understand everything.”
> 
> Kaspersky discovered the malware about two weeks ago after the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union asked the Lab to look into reports in April that computers belonging to the Iranian Oil Ministry and the Iranian National Oil Company had been hit with malware that was stealing and deleting information from the systems. The malware was named alternatively in news articles as “Wiper” and “Viper,” a discrepancy that may be due to a translation mixup.
> 
> Kaspersky researchers searched through their reporting archive, which contains suspicious filenames sent automatically from customer machines so the names can be checked against whitelists of known malware, and found an MD5 hash and filename that appeared to have been deployed only on machines in Iran and other Middle East countries. As the researchers dug further, they found other components infecting machines in the region, which they pieced together as parts of Flame.
> 
> Kaspersky, however, is currently treating Flame as if it is not connected to Wiper/Viper, and believes it is a separate infection entirely. The researchers dubbed the toolkit “Flame” after the name of a module inside it.
> 
> Flame is named after one of the main modules inside the toolkit. Courtesy of Kaspersky
> 
> Among Flame’s many modules is one that turns on the internal microphone of an infected machine to secretly record conversations that occur either over Skype or in the computer’s near vicinity; a module that turns Bluetooth-enabled computers into a Bluetooth beacon, which scans for other Bluetooth-enabled devices in the vicinity to siphon names and phone numbers from their contacts folder; and a module that grabs and stores frequent screenshots of activity on the machine, such as instant-messaging and email communications, and sends them via a covert SSL channel to the attackers’ command-and-control servers.
> 
> The malware also has a sniffer component that can scan all of the traffic on an infected machine’s local network and collect usernames and password hashes that are transmitted across the network. The attackers appear to use this component to hijack administrative accounts and gain high-level privileges to other machines and parts of the network.
> 
> Flame does contain a module named Viper, adding more confusion to the Wiper/Viper issue, but this component is used to transfer stolen data from infected machines to command-and-control servers. News reports out of Iran indicated the Wiper/Viper program that infected the oil ministry was designed to delete large swaths of data from infected systems.
> 
> Kaspersky’s researchers examined a system that was destroyed by Wiper/Viper and found no traces of that malware on it, preventing them from comparing it to the Flame files. The disk destroyed by Wiper/Viper was filled primarily with random trash, and almost nothing could be recovered from it, Gostev said. “We did not see any sign of Flame on that disk.”
> 
> Because Flame is so big, it gets loaded to a system in pieces. The machine first gets hit with a 6-megabyte component, which contains about half-a-dozen other compressed modules inside. The main component extracts, decompresses and decrypts these modules and writes them to various locations on disk. The number of modules in an infection depends on what the attackers want to do on a particular machine.
> 
> Once the modules are unpacked and loaded, the malware connects to one of about 80 command-and-control domains to deliver information about the infected machine to the attackers and await further instruction from them. The malware contains a hardcoded list of about five domains, but also has an updatable list, to which the attackers can add new domains if these others have been taken down or abandoned.
> 
> While the malware awaits further instruction, the various modules in it might take screenshots and sniff the network. The screenshot module grabs desktop images every 15 seconds when a high-value communication application is being used, such as instant messaging or Outlook, and once every 60 seconds when other applications are being used.
> 
> Although the Flame toolkit does not appear to have been written by the same programmers who wrote Stuxnet and DuQu, it does share a few interesting things with Stuxnet.
> 
> Stuxnet is believed to have been written through a partnership between Israel and the United States, and was first launched in June 2009. It is widely believed to have been designed to sabotage centrifuges used in Iran’s uranium enrichment program. DuQu was an espionage tool discovered on machines in Iran, Sudan, and elsewhere in 2011 that was designed to steal documents and other data from machines. Stuxnet and DuQu appeared to have been built on the same framework, using identical parts and using similar techniques.
> 
> But Flame doesn’t resemble either of these in framework, design or functionality.
> 
> Researchers aren't certain how Flame infects its initial target before spreading to other machines, but this graph suggests possible infection vectors. Courtesy of Kaspersky
> 
> Stuxnet and DuQu were made of compact and efficient code that was pared down to its essentials. Flame is 20 megabytes in size, compared to Stuxnet’s 500 kilobytes, and contains a lot of components that are not used by the code by default, but appear to be there to provide the attackers with options to turn on post-installation.
> 
> “It was obvious DuQu was from the same source as Stuxnet. But no matter how much we looked for similarities [in Flame], there are zero similarities,” Gostev said. “Everything is completely different, with the exception of two specific things.”
> 
> One of these is an interesting export function in both Stuxnet and Flame, which may turn out to link the two pieces of malware upon further analysis, Gostev said. The export function allows the malware to be executed on the system.
> 
> Also, like Stuxnet, Flame has the ability to spread by infecting USB sticks using the autorun and .lnk vulnerabilities that Stuxnet used. It also uses the same print spooler vulnerability that Stuxnet used to spread to computers on a local network. This suggests that the authors of Flame may have had access to the same menu of exploits that the creators of Stuxnet used.
> 
> Unlike Stuxnet, however, Flame does not replicate automatically by itself. The spreading mechanisms are turned off by default and must be switched on by the attackers before the malware will spread. Once it infects a USB stick inserted into an infected machine, the USB exploit is disabled immediately.
> 
> This is likely intended to control the spread of the malware and lessen the likelihood that it will be detected. This may be the attackers’ response to the out-of-control spreading that occurred with Stuxnet and accelerated the discovery of that malware.
> 
> It’s possible the exploits were enabled in early versions of the malware to allow the malware to spread automatically, but were then disabled after Stuxnet went public in July 2010 and after the .lnk and print spooler vulnerabilities were patched. Flame was launched prior to Stuxnet’s discovery, and Microsoft patched the .lnk and print spooler vulnerabilities in August and September 2010. Any malware attempting to use the vulnerabilities now would be detected if the infected machines were running updated versions of antivirus programs. Flame, in fact, checks for the presence of updated versions of these programs on a machine and, based on what it finds, determines if the environment is conducive for using the exploits to spread.
> 
> The researchers say they don’t know yet how an initial infection of Flame occurs on a machine before it starts spreading. The malware has the ability to infect a fully patched Windows 7 computer, which suggests that there may be a zero-day exploit in the code that the researchers have not yet found.
> 
> The earliest sign of Flame that Kaspersky found on customer systems is a filename belonging to Flame that popped up on a customer’s machine in Lebanon on Aug. 23, 2010. An internet search on the file’s name showed that security firm Webroot had reported the same filename appearing on a computer in Iran on Mar. 1, 2010. But online searches for the names of other unique files found in Flame show that it may have been in the wild even earlier than this. At least one component of Flame appears to have popped up on machines in Europe on Dec. 5, 2007 and in Dubai on Apr. 28, 2008.
> 
> Kaspersky estimates that Flame has infected about 1,000 machines. The researchers arrived at this figure by calculating the number of its own customers who have been infected and extrapolating that to estimate the number of infected machines belonging to customers of other antivirus firms.
> 
> All of the infections of Kaspersky customers appear to have been targeted and show no indication that a specific industry, such as the energy industry, or specific systems, such as industrial control systems, were singled out. Instead, the researchers believe Flame was designed to be an all-purpose tool that so far has infected a wide variety of victims. Among those hit have been individuals, private companies, educational institutions and government-run organizations.
> 
> Symantec, which has also begun analyzing Flame (which it calls “Flamer”), says the majority of its customers who have been hit by the malware reside in the Palestinian West Bank, Hungary, Iran, and Lebanon. They have received additional reports from customer machines in Austria, Russia, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates.
> 
> Researchers say the compilation date of modules in Flame appear to have been manipulated by the attackers, perhaps in an attempt to thwart researchers from determining when they were created.
> 
> “Whoever created it was careful to mess up the compilation dates in every single module,” Gostev said. “The modules appear to have been compiled in 1994 and 1995, but they’re using code that was only released in 2010.”
> 
> The malware has no kill date, though the operators have the ability to send a kill module to it if needed. The kill module, named browse32, searches for every trace of the malware on the system, including stored files full of screenshots and data stolen by the malware, and eliminates them, picking up any breadcrumbs that might be left behind.
> 
> “When the kill module is activated, there’s nothing left whatsoever,” Gostev said.
> 
> UPDATE 9am PST: Iran’s Computer Emergency Response Team announced on Monday that it had developed a detector to uncover what it calls the “Flamer” malware on infected machines and delivered it to select organizations at the beginning of May. It has also developed a removal tool for the malware. Kaspersky believes the “Flamer” malware is the same as the Flame malware its researchers analyzed.


----------



## 57Chevy

It may not be the ideal place for this article from The Province and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act, however,

UN agency plans major warning on Flame virus risk
Jim Finkle, Reuters 30 May

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/agency+plans+major+warning+Flame+virus+risk/6702892/story.html#ixzz1wO4WUTag

BOSTON - A United Nations agency charged with helping member nations secure their national infrastructures plans to issue a sharp warning about the risk of the Flame computer virus that was recently discovered in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

"This is the most serious (cyber) warning we have ever put out," said Marco Obiso, cyber security co-ordinator for the UN's Geneva-based International Telecommunications Union.

The confidential warning will tell member nations that the Flame virus is a dangerous espionage tool that could potentially be used to attack critical infrastructure, he told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday.

"They should be on alert," he said, adding that he believed Flame was likely built on behalf of a nation state.

The warning is the latest signal that a new era of cyber warfare has begun following the 2010 Stuxnet virus attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program. The United States explicitly stated for the first time last year that it reserved the right to retaliate with force against a cyber attack.

Evidence suggests that the Flame virus may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, according to Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security software maker that took credit for discovering the infections.

"I think it is a much more serious threat than Stuxnet," Obiso said.

He said the ITU would set up a program to collect data, including virus samples, to track Flame's spread around the globe and observe any changes in its composition.

Kaspersky Lab said it found the Flame infection after the ITU asked the Russian company to investigate recent reports from Tehran that a mysterious virus was responsible for massive data losses on some Iranian computer systems.

So far, the Kaspersky team has not turned up the original data-wiping virus that they were seeking and the Iranian government has not provided Kaspersky a sample of that software, Obiso said.


SOME SKEPTICAL

A Pentagon spokesman asked about Flame referred reporters to the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS officials declined to respond to specific questions about the virus, but an agency spokesman issued a brief written statement that said: "DHS was notified of the malware and has been working with our federal partners to determine and analyze its potential impact on the U.S."

Some industry participants appeared skeptical that the threat was as serious as the UN agency and Kaspersky had suggested.

Jeff Moss, a respected hacking expert who sits on the U.S. government's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said that the ITU and Kaspersky were "over-reacting" to the spread of Flame.

"It will take time to disassemble, but it is not the end of the Net," said Moss, who serves as chief security officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which manages some of the Internet's key infrastructure.

"We seem to be getting to a point where every time new malware is discovered it's branded 'the worst ever,"' said Marcus Carey, a researcher at with cyber security firm Rapid7.

Organizations involved in cyber security keep some of their communications confidential to keep adversaries from developing strategies to combat their defenses and also to keep other hackers from obtaining details about emerging threats that they could use to build other pieces of malicious software.

Meanwhile on Tuesday Japanese security software maker Trend Micro Inc. said it had discovered a complex cyber campaign to steal information using a piece of malicious software dubbed IXESHE. It had infected government computers in major East Asian countries along with Taiwanese electronics manufacturers and German telecommunications firms operating across Asia.

Trend Micro officials declined to identify the targets or say who they suspect was behind IXESHE (pronounced "i-sushi").

IXESHE infected PCs with tainted PDF files sent to victims via email, then stole large quantities of data from the PCs and sent it to servers in countries including Taiwan, the United States, South Korea, Brazil, Italy and Japan.

"The amount of data that the adversaries exfiltrated from these systems is astounding. These systems have essentially been colonized," Trend Micro Vice President Tom Kellermann said in an interview.


----------



## Sythen

> Iran is prepared to launch missiles at US bases throughout the Gulf within minutes of an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to a commander of the country's Revolutionary Guards.
> 
> In an apparent response to reports that the US has increased its military presence in the Gulf, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards' air force said on Wednesdaythat missiles had been aimed at 35 US military bases in the Gulf as well as targets in Israel, ready to be launched in case of an attack.
> 
> The semi-official Fars news agency reported Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh as saying: "We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/iran-ready-missiles-us-bases

More on link.


----------



## a_majoor

Walter Russel Mead on how the US is slowly foreclosing its options in the Persian Gulf. A cynical person might suggest the Administration is trying to orchestrate some sort of "October surprise" in the Gulf region for the election, but events have a way of developing their own momentum and the iranians have their own agenda:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/12/growing-u-s-military-presence-in-the-gulf-leaves-obama-with-fewer-options/



> *Growing U.S. Military Presence in the Gulf Leaves Obama with Fewer Options*
> 
> The sabre rattling in the Persian Gulf continues with the deployment of the USS Ponce. Up until recently, the vessel was simply an aging transport ship destined for the scrap heap, but it appears that the Navy has retrofitted the ship, turning it into a command and control station for a variety of missions designed to put pressure on the Iranian regime. The New York Times reports:
> 
> The first mission of the reborn Ponce was designed to be low profile and defensive, as an operations hub for mine clearing in the Strait of Hormuz, a counter to threats from Tehran to close the vital commercial waterway. In that role, the Ponce will be a launching pad for helicopters, a home to underwater diver teams and a seaborne service station providing fuel and maintenance for minesweeping ships.
> 
> But with the relatively simple addition of a modular barracks on the deck, the Ponce can also be a mobile base for several hundred Special Operations forces to carry out missions like hostage rescue, counterterrorism, reconnaissance, sabotage and direct strikes. Even with the addition of the barracks, there is ample room for helicopters and the small, fast boats favored by commandos.
> 
> This latest deployment, as well as last week’s report of a steadily increasing U.S. military presence, may have unintended consequences for U.S. policy. Every step forward makes it more difficult for the Obama administration to back down. There’s not a lot of news in the very slow running contest between the United States and Iran, but the fuse on this bomb is lit, and at some point either Iran is going to back down, the United States is going to back down, or there is going to be war.


----------



## cupper

If the Israelis can definitively track this back to Iran, things have just gotten very interesting, and not in a good way.

*At least 6 killed in Bulgaria in blast on bus carrying Israeli tourists*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/at-least-6-killed-in-bulgaria-in-blast-on-bus-carrying-israeli-tourists/2012/07/18/gJQA1iUBuW_story.html?hpid=z4



> JERUSALEM — At least six people were killed Wednesday when a bus carrying Israeli tourists exploded in a Bulgarian resort city, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly deemed the incident a terrorist attack orchestrated by Iran.
> 
> The attack threatened to escalate tensions between Israel and Iran at a time when Israel is threatening military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and international efforts to stop the Iranians’ alleged program are faltering. Netanyahu vowed to respond to the bus attack “firmly.”
> 
> The blast occurred in the late afternoon outside the airport in the Black Sea city of Burgas shortly after a charter flight carrying 154 people, all but three of them Israeli citizens, arrived from Tel Aviv, the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry said. Israeli and Bulgarian media reported that the travelers had boarded buses that were to take them to a hotel, and the Bulgarian interior minister told Bulgarian radio that explosives had been planted on the vehicle, perhaps in passengers’ luggage. The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was “working on the theory that this was a terrorist attack.”
> 
> The blast came five months after Israel blamed Iran for twin bombing attempts targeting Israeli Embassy personnel in India and Georgia, and it fell on the 18th anniversary of a suicide bombing at a Jewish organization in Buenos Aires. That attack, carried out by the Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah, killed 85 people.
> 
> “All signs point towards Iran,” Netanyahu said in a statement. Referring to the Argentina attack, he said: “Deadly Iranian terrorism continues to strike at innocent people. This is a global Iranian terror onslaught and Israel will react firmly to it.”
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also declared the Bulgarian bombing a terrorist attack, “initiated probably by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or another group under the terror auspices of either Iran or other radical Islamic groups” and pledged that Israel would “settle the account.”
> 
> There was no immediate response from Tehran.
> 
> In Washington, President Obama condemned what he called “a barbaric terrorist attack” on Israelis. “As Israel has tragically once more been a target of terrorism,” he said in a statement, “the United States reaffirms our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, and our deep friendship and solidarity with the Israeli people.”
> 
> Israel and Iran are bitter enemies that have been engaged in an escalating rhetorical battle and, security analysts say, a covert war of attacks and assassinations. Israel considers Iran a mortal danger and has threatened to strike its nuclear facilities to prevent it from building a bomb. Although Iran has denied involvement in attacks on Israelis, many analysts believe it has carried out or planned some of them to avenge what it says are Israeli-directed assassinations of some of its nuclear scientists.
> 
> Israel had warned recently that Islamist militants might target its citizens in Bulgaria, a popular tourism destination for Israelis. Bulgaria’s Foreign Ministry said 32 people were wounded in Wednesday’s blast, and it was unclear how many of the wounded and dead were Israelis. In a brief statement, the Interior Ministry said the wounded had been taken to a local hospital and that the airport had been closed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_ is an article that gets to the real goal - how to ferment a real revolution in Iran, one that will topple the current theocracy:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137803/michael-ledeen/tehran-takedown?page=show


> Tehran Takedown
> *How to Spark an Iranian Revolution*
> 
> Michael Ledeen
> 
> July 31, 2012
> 
> The nuclear question is at the center of most countries' Iran policies. China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all engaged in negotiations to convince Tehran to give up its presumed quest for the bomb. Now, with talks sputtering, Western powers have implemented increasingly tough sanctions, including the European Union's recent embargo on Iranian oil, in the hope of compelling the regime to reverse course.
> 
> Yet history suggests, and even many sanctions advocates agree, that sanctions will not compel Iran's leaders to scrap their nuclear program. In fact, from Fidel Castro's Cuba to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, hostile countries have rarely changed policy in response to Western embargoes. Some sanctions advocates counter that sanctions did work to get Chile to abandon communism, South Africa to end apartheid, and Libya to give up its nuclear program. But the Chilean and South African governments were not hostile -- they were pro-Western, and thus more amenable to the West's demands. And Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi ended his nuclear pursuit only after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, fearing that he would suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Iran, which is clearly hostile and which watched what just happened to a disarmed Libya, will not back down. Some therefore see sanctions as only a prelude to military action -- by Israel, the United States, or both. In other words, current Iran strategy boils down to an eventual choice between appeasement and attack. Neither outcome is attractive. However, if the United States and its allies broadened their perspective and paid attention not merely to Iran's nuclear program but also to the Islamic Republic's larger assault on the West, they would see that a third and better option exists: supporting a democratic revolution in Iran.
> 
> Obsession with the nuclear question has obscured the fact that, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has waged a low-level war on the United States. That war began in earnest in 1983, when, evidence suggests, Iranian-backed operatives bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Such violence continued throughout the 1980s, as Hezbollah, a terrorist organization created by Iran, kidnapped and murdered Americans in Lebanon. In addition to supporting Hezbollah, Iran started funding other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In the last decade, Iranian agents have attacked U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Late last year, the Obama administration revealed that Iranian agents had attempted to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and to blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C.
> 
> In short, the nuclear program is not the central issue in Iran policymaking -- defending the United States and its allies from Iranian terrorists and their proxies is. To meet that goal, Washington must replace the Islamic Republic's regime. The theocrats in Tehran call the United States "the great Satan," and waging war against it is one of the Iranian leadership's core missions. The Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed that as his goal very soon after the shah was overthrown in 1979. Calls of "Death to America" have been a constant refrain ever since. Regime change cannot be achieved by sanctions and diplomacy alone. And, although war might bring down the regime, it is neither necessary nor desirable. Supporting a domestic revolution is a wiser strategy.
> 
> The Iranian regime is not only at war with the United States and its allies; it is also at war with its own people. The regime represses Iranian citizens, restricting their civil liberties and imprisoning, torturing, and killing political opponents. Popular discontent boiled over into open protest after a rigged election in June 2009, as what came to be known as the Green Movement launched an open challenge to the political status quo. The regime brutally suppressed the protests and is keeping the movement's two leaders, presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, along with Mr. Mousavi's wife, under house arrest.
> 
> Conventional wisdom describes the Green Movement as a spent force, citing the lack of mass demonstrations over the past year and half. Iranian authorities regularly restrict and censor the Internet and intercept and block cell phone and satellite communications, and they have increased deployments of security forces in cities across the country. In such an atmosphere, skeptics argue, there can be little opposition to speak of, let alone one with the leadership and mass support to challenge the regime.
> 
> But this was also the conventional wisdom back in early 2009, and it is as wrong now as it was then. The West was caught unawares by the explosion of popular rage after Mousavi's election was stolen, and it failed to support the opposition. The regime paid no price for its crackdown.
> 
> In fact, despite the government lockdown, dissenters today have continued to strike out against the regime through acts such as the sabotage of oil and natural gas pipelines. The disruption of the natural gas line between Iran and Turkey in late June, which was reported by the state-run Press TV, is only the latest of many such attacks. Last March, opposition activists privately claimed responsibility for attacks on two Revolutionary Guards Corps installations. One was Zarin Dasht, where missile fuel and warheads are manufactured. The other was Natanz, a major uranium enrichment center. The explosion took place deep underground, leading to a shutdown of the entire complex.
> 
> Meanwhile, although the Green Movement's leaders are still under house arrest, they continue to issue statements to their supporters. And according to a recent online government poll, the population is fed up. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that they favored giving up the nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions. The poll was quickly yanked off the Web site.
> 
> For their part, Iranian authorities are worried. In January, Ali Saeedi, Khamenei's representative to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, admitted that the regime continues to fear the strength of the Green Movement. Regime leaders are at pains to reassure the public that Mousavi and Karroubi are being well treated. If Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted to demonstrate the weakness of the opposition, he would have subjected both to the same harsh treatment that has been meted out to many of their followers. But as Saeedi told Fars, the Iranian state news agency, Mousavi and Karroubi have "supporters and followers," as well as "a few [clerics] who continue to back elements within the sedition" -- the term used by the regime to refer to the Green Movement.
> 
> The regime's anxiety about the Green Movement also led it to delay all elections in the country for three years. And when it finally held parliamentary elections this past May, it banned scores of candidates from running and deployed thousands of security forces at polling stations to prevent protests. Their fear might also be the reason that Khamenei avoided speaking at the Revolutionary Guards Day festivities in late June, the first time he had done so in over two decades. Similarly, the regime has reduced the number of anti-American protests it stages, perhaps worrying that the reformers would hijack them. When two popular (and apolitical) Iranian artists died this summer -- the actor Iraj Ghaderi and the musician Hassan Kassai -- their funerals were held without fanfare and in the middle of the night. The regime is clearly doing all it can to keep Iranians from gathering in the streets.
> 
> By themselves, the strength of the opposition and the regime's fears do not justify Western intervention. After all, several Middle Eastern dictators have fallen of late, only to be replaced by actors more hostile to U.S. interests. And some experts contend that the same could happen in Iran. Mousavi served as prime minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989 and played a key role in the creation of the Islamic Republic. Many, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have raised the possibility that his accession might not change much. So, before jumping into the fray on behalf of the opposition, the United States and its allies must ask whether the Green Movement would end Iran's support for terrorism against the United States and its allies, stop oppressing its own people, and terminate the country's nuclear weapons program.
> 
> Although it is dangerous for opposition leaders to be totally explicit about all such matters, their answers are encouraging. During the 2009 electoral campaign, and on several subsequent occasions, Mousavi promised to end Iranian backing for terrorist organizations -- a promise that resonates with large numbers of Iranian citizens. In February 2011, demonstrators carried banners decrying the regime's support for foreign terrorist groups, with slogans such as "Don't talk to us about the Palestinians, talk about us."
> 
> The Green Movement has also pledged to dismantle many oppressive practices of the Islamic Republic. Although the group's leaders claim that they want to restore the values of the 1979 revolution, during the 2009 presidential election, Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, campaigned alongside him and declared her support of women who dispense with wearing the veil. It was a stark act of defiance against a deeply misogynistic regime. Mousavi, meanwhile, has promised tolerance of religious dissenters, the release of all political prisoners, and greater separation of church and state. As the Green leaders wrote to the Obama administration in November 2009, "religion, by the will of the Iranian people of today, has to be separated from the state in order to guarantee unity of Iran."
> 
> Even from house arrest, Mousavi has continued to send signals that he would overturn the policies of the current regime. In the past year, he urged Iranians to read two books: News of a Kidnapping, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and The Right to Heresy, by Stefan Zweig. The first volume, which deals with a wave of kidnappings in Colombia by drug gangs, inspired a popular Iranian Facebook page called "News of a Kidnapping, the status of a president in captivity." The second book addresses a revolt against John Calvin by the sixteenth century cleric Sebastian Castellio, after the torture and execution of the heretic Michael Servetus. It is at once a call for religious toleration and an essay on those thinkers who were crushed during their lifetime, only to emerge triumphant in death. By turning to these texts, Mousavi issued a direct challenge to Khamenei and oriented his movement with Western values.
> 
> It is hard to pinpoint the nuclear intentions of the Green Movement's leaders, but there is reason for guarded optimism; they have repeatedly condemned the regime's "adventurism" in foreign affairs, and would certainly seek better relations with the West. As Iranian crude oil production drops, a democratic Iran might opt for nuclear energy, but it seems unlikely that such a government would continue the secret weapons program. And the West, including Israel, would have far less to fear from a free Iran, whatever weapons it might possess, than it does from the current regime.
> 
> Given the potential for a successful democratic revolution in Iran -- and the potential for a democratic government to end Iran's war against us -- the question is how the United States and its allies can best support the Green Movement.
> 
> Although an Iranian revolution may seem unlikely to the casual observer, the Iranian people can be said to have revolution in their DNA, having carried out three revolutions in the twentieth century. Many skeptics argue that any Western aid to the Green Movement would delegitimize it in such a nationalist country. Yet, during the mass demonstrations in 2009 and 2010, protesters waved signs and banners saying "Obama, where are you?" Moreover, in a carefully unsigned letter to the White House in late 2009, Green Movement leaders responded to an administration query by saying that "it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they... push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance Western interests and world peace?"
> 
> Even so, the West snubbed the uprising, insisting that the Iranian opposition did not want outside help. As far as I know,  there is no evidence to suggest that an attempt has been made since then to speak directly with the Green Movement inside the country. (Mousavi has said several times that the Green Movement does not have spokespeople or representatives outside Iran.) Unable or unwilling to engage with the opposition, the West has devoted its energy to the nuclear question alone, pursuing a policy that will produce war or diplomatic and strategic failure.
> 
> That is why the time has come for the United States and other Western nations to actively support Iran's democratic dissidents. The same methods that took down the Soviet regime should work: call for the end of the regime, broadcast unbiased news about Iran to the Iranian people, demand the release of political prisoners (naming them whenever possible), help those prisoners communicate with one another, enlist international trade unions to build a strike fund for Iranian workers, and perhaps find ways to provide other kinds of economic and technological support. Meanwhile, the West should continue nuclear negotiations and stick to the sanctions regime, which shows the Iranian people resistance to their oppressive leaders.
> 
> Iran's democratic revolutionaries themselves must decide what kind of Western help they most need, and how to use it. But they will be greatly encouraged to see the United States and its allies behind them. There are many good reasons to believe that this strategy can succeed. Not least, the Iranian people have already demonstrated their willingness to confront the regime; the regime's behavior shows its fear of the people. The missing link is a Western decision to embrace and support democratic revolution in Iran -- the country that, after all, initiated the challenge to the region's tyrants three summers ago.




Basically, Michael Ledeen is suggesting that we prevent the Iranian bomb by finding and funding those opposition movement that are most likely to rise up and overthrow the ayatollas.  Works for me!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Something from _Small Wars Journal_, _"The Costs of War with Iran: An Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield"_.....


> This paper describes the possible Iranian responses to American or Israeli air strikes. Using the U.S. Army’s analytical tool, “Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield,” it will define the operational environment of a war with Iran, and describe Iran’s terrain broadly. The paper describes how Iran’s military has adopted asymmetric tactics to defeat conventionally superior enemies, like America. Using this background, I will lay out the “courses of action” available to Iran at sea, air, ground, in other countries and by conducting terrorism around the globe ....


Also attached if link doesn't work for you.


----------



## 57Chevy

From link above.
Quote:
"Iranian naval forces will likely try to attack U.S. vessels with a combination of different attacks. It will also try to swarm U.S. vessels with multiple small craft at the same time, overwhelming U.S. defense."

With these;


Iran's SUPER-FAST GUNSHIPS! ( which isshared with provisions of The Copyright Act)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7wv74vdzmA


----------



## Edward Campbell

According to a breaking news report in the _Globe and Mail_, *"Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he’s cutting ties with Iran amid worries about the safety of Canadian diplomats in the country. Mr. Baird says the Canadian embassy in Tehran will close immediately and Iranian diplomats in Canada have been given five days to leave."*


----------



## TN2IC

From cbc.ca/news 07 Sept 12



> Canada closes embassy in Iran
> 
> Canada has suspended diplomatic relations with Iran and is expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced in a statement today.
> 
> Speaking to reporters in Russia, where he's attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-Operation summit, Baird said the government is formally listing Iran today as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. That will theoretically allow Canadians affected by terrorism supported by the Iranian regime to sue.
> 
> "Iran is among the world's worst violators of human rights. It shelters and materially supports terrorist groups," Baird said.
> 
> "Unequivocally, we have no information about a military strike on Iran," he added



More on link


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to a breaking news report in the _Globe and Mail_, *"Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he’s cutting ties with Iran amid worries about the safety of Canadian diplomats in the country. Mr. Baird says the Canadian embassy in Tehran will close immediately and Iranian diplomats in Canada have been given five days to leave."*



My only question is: *Why now?*  :dunno:


----------



## Rifleman62

cupper, it should be obvious to you and Redeye.

PM Harper's Canada is a trusted friend of Israel, and President Obama's USA is not. We were told, and the Dems were not (even after the Dems flip flop on 1 of 4 middle Eastern issues).


----------



## OldSolduer

I have to say this surprised me when I heard that Canada is cutting ties with Iran. We aren't usually this blunt.


----------



## cupper

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> cupper, it should be obvious to you and Redeye.
> 
> PM Harper's Canada is a trusted friend of Israel, and President Obama's USA is not. We were told, and the Dems were not (even after the Dems flip flop on 1 of 4 middle Eastern issues).



Put your  :Tin-Foil-Hat: back in the closet, this isn't the US Election thread.

Harper needed to wait this long to pull the plug? Really?

I can think of many MANY opportunities that were ripe for cutting ties. 

But we waited until a slow news day to pull this?

I have to agree with Jim, this is out of character, and the timing makes little sense.


----------



## Vanguard48

Here is a link lads.

http://news.sympatico.ctvnews.ca/home/canada_closes_embassy_in_iran_expels_iranian_diplomats/bc8b12f5

By Sympatico News powered by CTV News

The tension seems to be building up again once more.

Thoughts/Comments?


----------



## brihard

USS John Stennis is currently relieving-in-place USS Enterprise. While it's there, the combined force will be conducting a week or so long exercise. That puts three carrier strike groups - fully half of America's operational carrier force, and 60% of what's at sea - in the gulf at once, until Big E sails for home. I'd be twitchy if I were Iran.


----------



## dimsum

:sarcasm: 

Clearly this is because Argo is coming out soon.  Actually, maybe it isn't sarcastic.


----------



## Robert0288

I hope Argo is good.  Back on topic; it is impossible to guess because there is too much information missing.  Most of it probably behind the scenes and you wont hear about it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Shit.
I should have kept my elcan specter


----------



## Jarnhamar

cupper said:
			
		

> Harper needed to wait this long to pull the plug? Really?


You would question His will?


----------



## cupper

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You would question His will?



His will? Hell, I'm still surprised that we had diplomatic ties post 1979.


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> Put your  :Tin-Foil-Hat: back in the closet...
> I have to agree with Jim, this is out of character, and the timing makes little sense.



Where do we get those tin foil hats again?

Could these be a prelude to something a bit more severe?


----------



## GAP

well, if ever there was a right time to hit Iran......

existing Pres wanting a poll lift
3 carrier groups in place
the rest of the world pretty quiet
Israel chomping at the bit
Iran not quite dug in so deeply that it couldn't be explosively dug out
probably a whole bunch I didn't twig to.......


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to a breaking news report in the _Globe and Mail_, *"Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he’s cutting ties with Iran amid worries about the safety of Canadian diplomats in the country. Mr. Baird says the Canadian embassy in Tehran will close immediately and Iranian diplomats in Canada have been given five days to leave."*


A bit more from the DFAIT Info-machine:





> Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, today announced that Canada has listed both Iran and Syria as states that support terrorism.
> 
> “Canada is committed to fighting global terrorism and to holding perpetrators of terrorism—and those who provide them support—accountable for their actions,” said Minister Baird.
> 
> “Building resilience against terrorism is a priority for our government, and respect for the rule of law prevails in a resilient society,” said Minister Toews. “Canada recognizes victims of terrorism, and we are providing those victims with a means to seek justice.”
> 
> The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and those who support them, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that has occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world.



Translation:  if you're a victim of terrorism linked to Syria or Iran, come to Canada and sue your hearts out?


----------



## tomahawk6

If I was the Israeli PM I would strike Iran when it would hurt President Obama the most. Late October to early November. >


----------



## brihard

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If I was the Israeli PM I would strike Iran when it would hurt President Obama the most. Late October to early November. >



With what?

F-15s and F-16s don't have the legs without significant air to air refueling. What would you say a refueler's chances are over Iraq, Jordan, Saudi or Syria?

Natanz is buried under thirty meters of earth and reinforces concrete. What does Israel have that will do the job reliably short of nukes?


----------



## aesop081

Canada suddenly cuts ties, kicks out Iranian diplomats........I wonder..........


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9526858/Iran-sends-elite-troops-to-aid-Bashar-al-Assad-regime-in-Syria.html



> *Iran sends elite troops to aid Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria*
> 
> _Iran is intensifying its support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad by sending 150 senior Revolutionary Guards commanders to Syria to help repel opposition attempts to overthrow the government._
> 
> Western intelligence officials say that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has personally sanctioned the dispatch of the experienced officers to ensure that the Assad regime, Iran's most important regional ally, survives the threat to its survival.
> 
> In addition, Iran has shipped hundreds of tons of military equipment, including guns, rockets, and shells, to Syria through the regular air corridor that has been established between Damascus and Tehran.
> 
> Intelligence officials believe the increased Iranian support has been responsible for the growing effectiveness of the Assad regime's tactics in forcing anti-government rebel groups on the defensive.
> 
> In the past few weeks, pro-Assad forces have seized the offensive by launching a series of well-coordinated attacks against rebel strongholds in Damascus and Aleppo.
> 
> The Iranian operation to support Mr Assad is being masterminded by Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Guards' Quds force which is responsible for overseeing Iran's overseas operations. The decision to increase Iran's support for Syria was taken after the Syrian defence minister and Assad's brother-in-law were killed in a suicide bomb attack at Syria's national security headquarters in July, together with a number of other senior defence officials.


----------



## dapaterson

Meanwhile, at the Toronto International Film Festival, they're premiereing the movie "Argo", based on the exfiltration of US embassy staff from Iran.  US staffers who escaped the initial seizure of the embassy found refuge with the Canadian ambassador and his staff, and later left Tehran posing as crew for a science fiction movie, under legitimate Canadian passports and faked entry credentials.


----------



## tomahawk6

Brihard said:
			
		

> With what?
> 
> F-15s and F-16s don't have the legs without significant air to air refueling. What would you say a refueler's chances are over Iraq, Jordan, Saudi or Syria?
> 
> Natanz is buried under thirty meters of earth and reinforces concrete. What does Israel have that will do the job reliably short of nukes?



Jericho 3 missiles. One study estimated it would take 42 missiles to strike Iran's dispersed targets.


----------



## brihard

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Jericho 3 missiles. One study estimated it would take 42 missiles to strike Iran's dispersed targets.



The sad bit is I bet there are those who would cheer Israel perpetrating nuclear war against Iran... No conventional weapons are likely to do the job on some sites.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Do we recognize the theat Iran poses to humanity (touching off ww3) and wear the mantle of bad guy and pull off a first strike or do we wait and see what Iran does with their nukes?


----------



## Rifleman62

You are absolutely correct. Israel only has to lose once, and then it will be over forever for Israel.

Modified.


----------



## estoguy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You are absolutely correct. Israel only has to lose once, and then it will be over forever.



^^^

Um, not sure if serious...


----------



## Bigmac

Israel will not wait much longer for world diplomacy with Iran that is clearly failing. The problem is if Israel strikes Iran first it will ignite a full scale war in the Gulf. If an attack is imminent it will likely be a strategic air strike of Iranian nuclear facilities by a united coalition.  Canada is cutting ties with Iran for a reason. Something is coming soon.  :2c:


----------



## tomahawk6

I think this is a prudent move by your government. All Canadian citizens should follow.


----------



## Bigmac

> Analysis: Can Israel surprise Iran? Maybe not, but could still strike



More on following link:  http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE88807820120909?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

Does the world sit back and let Iran continually lie about it's nuclear program and ignore requests to inspect their facilities. The Iran regime has made no bones about their desire to wipe Israel off the map and have not ruled out an attack in the future. Iran has also stated that if they are attacked by western forces their first target will still be Israel. 

The talking is over.  :2c:


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel could surprise Iran - with an EMP. A nuclear bomb exploding 240 miles above Iran would destroy all of Iran's nuclear program including those deep underground or render them inert for decades. In 1962 the US tested an EMP it was called Starfish Prime. Picture Iran with no electricity and no cell phone service. A complete shut down of their economy and military air defenses.They would be wide open to revolution or follow on strikes by conventional forces.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA531197&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXlrn6-ypg


----------



## cphansen

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Israel could surprise Iran - with an EMP. A nuclear bomb exploding 240 miles above Iran would destroy all of Iran's nuclear program including those deep underground or render them inert for decades. In 1962 the US tested an EMP it was called Starfish Prime. Picture Iran with no electricity and no cell phone service. A complete shut down of their economy and military air defenses.They would be wide open to revolution or follow on strikes by conventional forces.
> 
> http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA531197&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXlrn6-ypg



Just doing a little checking, I wonder how the nations around Iran would feel about having their electrical systems attacked along with Iran.

It's a question of weapon range, i.e. from a range of 750 KM for a 1 KT bomb exploded at 40 KM to a US wide range for a MT device exploded at 400 KM.

I suspect Israel would not have a MT device available and probably wouldn't worry too much about spill over onto the countries bordering on Iran , since these countries are not Israel's allies.

However these countries like Saudi Arabia, Quatar, the UAE, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria are mostly American allies, not to metion the Straits of Hormuzm a major highway for the world's oil. I think the potential for collateral damage from an EMP device is potentially too high to make it's use likely,


----------



## tomahawk6

The original EMP tests were done with a 1.4 megaton warhead. A much smaller warhead or 2 would do the trick and have little to no impact outside of Iran's borders. The Russians conducted a number of EMP tests over Kazakhstan in various sizes of warheads. The one that caused the most trouble was a 290km 300kt warhead. Smaller sized warheads may be more surgical.


----------



## Nemo888

120 countries, roughly two thirds of UN members, over 50% of the world's population still _publicly_ support Iran. This crying out to nuke them in the echo chamber is rather counter productive. Wouldn't Iran's only option to prevent being stepped on again be getting nukes. Nukes are the only reason Pakistan and North Korea get their ass kissed by the USA.

Perhaps apologizing for overthrowing democratically elected Mossedeq and installing the Shah would be the first step in a global information operation.  Providing close protection and funding dissidents to start broadcasting by satellite and internet would be infinitely more cost effective. A bit of respect goes a long way in the honour culture of the Middle East.


----------



## brihard

An EMP attack would still be a nuclear strike on Iran- one that would have devastating consequences to their civilian population; it would be a crime of humanity the likes of which has seldom been paralleled. It sure as hell would not be discriminate, proportionate, militarily necessary, nor least necessary force. It would also be an act of war against any affected neighbouring countries.


----------



## tomahawk6

Brihard said:
			
		

> An EMP attack would still be a nuclear strike on Iran- one that would have devastating consequences to their civilian population; it would be a crime of humanity the likes of which has seldom been paralleled. It sure as hell would not be discriminate, proportionate, militarily necessary, nor least necessary force. It would also be an act of war against any affected neighbouring countries.



Crime against humanity ? Hardly. Its not at all like vaporizing a city. Few if any casualties because the explosion is in space essentially. It is simply an overload of the electric grid and anything that requires electricity stops working. Its the best way to stop the nuclear program without massive loss of life.Should the Iranians gain nuclear weapons their version of an EMP wont be far away.They would love to bring the US to its knees and an EMP would do it.


----------



## blacktriangle

Do you realize how many essential services in modern and developing countries rely on computers and other electronics? It would be devastating to any population and would no doubt result in a break down of civil order. EMP doesn't discriminate. Sure the people won't be obliterated, but they will enjoy hunger, disease, looting, and all that good stuff. 

I'd rather be nuked, thanks.


----------



## a_majoor

EMP can be generated by non nuclear devices as well, and it wouldn't take much to smuggle some in via truck and detonate them beside a transformer farm outside a city or the central bank to paralyze large segments of the economy. Crippling the power grid or communications grid would impair the ability of the Revolutionary guard to operate.  You can use your own scenario.


----------



## cphansen

Thucydides said:
			
		

> EMP can be generated by non nuclear devices as well, and it wouldn't take much to smuggle some in via truck and detonate them beside a transformer farm outside a city or the central bank to paralyze large segments of the economy. Crippling the power grid or communications grid would impair the ability of the Revolutionary guard to operate.  You can use your own scenario.



At least using these non nuclear devices, you can minimize the political issues,  and reduce collateral damage.  Producing a nuclear EMP would definitely be against everyone's interests. The article about the EMP did make the point the US could protect it's electrical distribution system for only 40 billion dollars.

Maybe we should redirect the monies for the F35 into protecting our electrical systems.

After all the sun can and has caused EMP events before, After all during the late 19th century, the telegraph system had wires burned out by an EMP event and telegraphists killed while sending during an EMP event.


----------



## FutureQYR

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Do you realize how many essential services in modern and developing countries rely on computers and other electronics? It would be devastating to any population and would no doubt result in a break down of civil order. EMP doesn't discriminate. Sure the people won't be obliterated, but they will enjoy hunger, disease, looting, and all that good stuff.
> 
> I'd rather be nuked, thanks.



I don't know, maybe its just me but i'd rather stand some chance of survival then a very bleak death in a nuclear explosion, or the agonizing ordeal of dying from radioactive exposure...


----------



## Nemo888

So what happens after you nuke their electrical grid?  Iran magically becomes a western friendly democracy?  Destroying infrastructure went so well next door let's double down on that strategy. They have support from half the world  and huge amounts of natural resources to sell. They would rebuild and become an even worse enemy.  Antagonizing Iran_ again_ is not the way forward unless the plan includes genocide. There will be no popular revolt if it is clear that it is just another ploy  by western powers to subjugate the nation.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>120 countries, roughly two thirds of UN members, over 50% of the world's population still publicly support Iran.

120 countries, roughly two thirds of UN members, containing over 50% of the world's population still publicly support Iran.

I don't think anyone can infer support for Iran among people based on the posture of their governments.

An EMP attack is wrong because it is an attack using WMD.  What a lot of sh!tty little tyrannies think about Iran or the countries Iran doesn't like is beside the point.


----------



## Journeyman

Getting back to my apparently tired old hobby-horse that _informed_ opinions are of greater value than mere opinions.....

*Why Iran Should Get the Bomb*: 
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability
By Kenneth N. Waltz
_Foreign Affairs_, July/August 2012 

Obviously this article (or summary if you're not a subscriber) provides a contentious argument; it also links to several relevant articles presenting varied views on the topic, all of which make for interesting reading before jumping directly to deciding here what megatonage a US/Israeli coalition needs to lead with against Iran.

Now, for clarity, I'm not arguing one way or the other against Iran. I believe it as a regional problem, with the greatest risk for expansion beyond the Middle East being closing the Straits of Hormuz. Seeing such an act as both economic suicide and a credible tipping point for outside intervention (nuclear or otherwise), my belief in rational actors raises doubts that this will occur.


----------



## Edward Campbell

To my knowledge, which I admit is highly imperfect, there is no treaty that forbids the use of weapons of mass destruction ~ they are not illegal under the laws and usages of war, not, at least, so long as the intent of their use is to attack a military/_strategic_ target and the "mass destruction" of civilians, buildings, etc is _collateral_.

I'm not sure that I see a real difference between e.g. a nuclear weapon and, say, napalm.







People survive both.

The choices of size and type of detonation mean that nuclear 'targeters' can 'tailor' a strike so that it does the most possible damage to the military target and the least possible to nearby civilians.

I guess there are some good acceptable alternatives to a nuclear attack, but I do not know what they are.

Nuclear war is not unthinkable ....






I have visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki ~ they are thriving, modern cities filled with happy, productive people.


----------



## observor 69

IMHO an excellent segment from last nights "The National."  Always great to hear Janice Stein, the lady appears to have some great contacts.

The National | Sep 9, 2012 | 10:16

Why cut ties with Iran?

Munk School of Global Affairs director Janice Stein, Wilson Center scholar Aaron David Miller and author Hooman Majd discuss Ottawa's decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2277382969/


----------



## Vanguard48

I have read more into the situation and have found another great link with a few more facts than my last post. This is from the Globe and Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadians-in-iran-faced-very-real-threat-officials-warn/article4531983/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I didn't know before hand were the following details. Was anyone else surprised?

"Iran has blasted the government of Stephen Harper as extremist following the embassy closing and the expulsion of Iran’s diplomats. It has also threatened retaliation."  

"The expulsion in 2007 came after Canada rejected the two people Iran had successively nominated to be ambassador to Ottawa – both had apparently been involved in seizing the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and taking its diplomats hostage."

Cant wait to go see the film "Argo". Very nice video by the way Baden Guy


----------



## brihard

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Crime against humanity ? Hardly. Its not at all like vaporizing a city. Few if any casualties because the explosion is in space essentially. It is simply an overload of the electric grid and anything that requires electricity stops working. Its the best way to stop the nuclear program without massive loss of life.Should the Iranians gain nuclear weapons their version of an EMP wont be far away.They would love to bring the US to its knees and an EMP would do it.



I don't know what you're smoking, but I probably wouldn't pass my next piss test if you shared.

Think- seriously THINK - about what would be the ramifications if a power grid just shut down and most electrical backups were destroyed by a weaponized EMP.

You just killed pretty much anyone who was on any form of medical life support. Good luck running dialysis machines, or any number of other medically critical systems. Then there are all those folks living in an extremely hot climate who in a particularly hot week could die if there's no AC available.

Water treatment, I'm quite sure, uses electricity these days. Even elsewhere in the world. Most fuel pumps I suspect you'll find are electrically powered- have fun refueling emergency vehicles. Most of the telecommunications system would be gone. Any plane currently in the air would probably thunder in.

All refrigeration for food and medicine is now gone. Yes, there are some non-technological alternatives, but that won't make do across the board by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm sure you could think of many more.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> To my knowledge, which I admit is highly imperfect, there is no treaty that forbids the use of weapons of mass destruction ~ they are not illegal under the laws and usages of war, not, at least, so long as the intent of their use is to attack a military/_strategic_ target and the "mass destruction" of civilians, buildings, etc is _collateral_.
> 
> I'm not sure that I see a real difference between e.g. a nuclear weapon and, say, napalm.



The highest legal decision on nukes came form the ICJ in 1996- the 'advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons'. In brief, it was found that nukes are a wholly distinct class of weapons, the use or threatened use of which is wholly contrary to international law, with the sole remaining ambiguity of the case of clear self defense against a threat to the very existence of the state. Nuking a country tha thasn't even exceeded 20% Uranium enrichment certainly wouldn't suffice.

Napalm, incidentally, is held to be illegal in certain circumstances under customary international law, and specifically under the 3rd protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The circumstances are when incendiary weapons are used near concentrations of civilians even where other weapons would be held to be 'proportional', because of the particular degree of suffering incendiaries cause. Obviously not every country has signed this protocol, and it has not achieved the status of being a 'peremptory norm' of international law. But it's quite compelling nonetheless.


----------



## a_majoor

Yes, a lot of people will die in an EMP strike, but a lot of people will die in a nuclear attack or conventional strike as well. Israel first and foremost will need do decide if Iran iis an existential threat, and ifthe answer turns out to be "yes", then the Israeli government needs to determine how to deal with the threat in the most effective maner possible.

The second factor that hasn't been mentioned much is Iran is flexing some old "imperial" muscles, and having a nuclear arsenal would provide a means of regaining control of areas that were under "Persian" dominance in the past.

The third factor is that Turkey is also seeming to consider an "Imperial" resurgence (of the Ottoman Empire), and wold not take very kindly to a nuclear armed "Persian" empire taking over a large portion of the ME. Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a decades long plan to spread Whabbi islam throughout the ME and the world, so would also have a great deal to loose if the Iranian Theocracy were to succeed in their aims.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...
> The highest legal decision on nukes came form the ICJ in 1996- the 'advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons'. In brief, it was found that nukes are a wholly distinct class of weapons, the use or threatened use of which is wholly contrary to international law, with the sole remaining ambiguity of the case of clear self defense against a threat to the very existence of the state. Nuking a country tha thasn't even exceeded 20% Uranium enrichment certainly wouldn't suffice.
> ...




Thanks for that citation; perhaps that why Benjamin Natanyahu and some very senior US officials refer to Iran as an *existential threat* to Israel. I don't think anyone would be able to adjudicate Iranian progress towards a nuc, so _sufficiency_ is unlikely to matter much to most Israelis; global popular opinion would be wholly against Israel, but global popular opinion is, by and large, wholly against Israel on almost every issue, even existential ones, anyway so that isn't likely to bother Israel either.


----------



## hagan_91

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19274866

Does Isreal really believe that war with Iran will go that smooth? I see hundreds of thousands of casualties, on both sides if war begins.


----------



## hagan_91

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/11/iranian-people-believe-government-will-go-to-war-to-stay-in-power/


----------



## cupper

cupper said:
			
		

> My only question is: *Why now?*  :dunno:



Brian Stewart is asking the same question, and has an interesting take on a possible answer.

*Did intelligence fears prompt Canada to cut Iran ties?
Brian Stewart on the real reason behind the diplomatic rift*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/10/f-vp-stewart-iran-canada.html



> As a general principle, serious nations don’t embrace surprise and bafflement as elements of their foreign policy. Canada’s overnight liquidation of all relations with Iran on Friday would suggest an astonishing exception.
> 
> It’s not just the speed of that decision but the cluster of official explanations that set off so much head-scratching at home and abroad.
> 
> Predictably, the Harper government’s actions won immediate praise from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it “bold leadership… a clear message to Iran and the entire world.”
> 
> But elsewhere, the reaction was more a mystified “What’s up? Why now?”
> 
> Why did Canada seemingly break away from the general line of allied and friendly nations supporting tough, U.S.- led sanctions on Iran to elbow its way into a position of all-out diplomatic confrontation?
> 
> I believe there’s another story yet to emerge, which I’ll come to shortly.
> 
> *Old complaints*
> 
> The only relatively new complaint cited by foreign affairs minister John Baird involved Iran’s support for Syria’s oppressive Assad regime. The other grievances have been around for years, including threats against Israel, anti-Semitism in general, Iran’s nuclear program, its funding of terrorist organizations and notorious disregard for diplomatic rules.
> 
> A nasty package, for sure, and a nasty regime.
> 
> Yet does this not suggest Canada should remain firm alongside other nations in trying to keep as many diplomatic eyes and ears as possible functioning inside Iran?
> 
> That’s a point made by Canada’s former ambassador to Iran, John Mundy, who called the recent severing of diplomatic ties a “grave step” not easily repaired.
> 
> Canada no longer has any dialogue with Iran, Mundy told the Globe and Mail, and is unable to provide consular services to Canadians in distress or even gather analysis of what’s happening there.
> 
> “I really can’t see the rationale of this move,” said Kenneth Taylor, the former ambassador famed for his role in helping U.S. officials escape a hostile Iran in the famous “Canadian Caper” in 1980. “It’s a very bold stroke to sever diplomatic relations and close the embassy within five days.”
> 
> After all, Canada didn’t bail out of Moscow even during the most dangerous era of the cold war, and prided itself on its China mission while human rights abuses were monstrous in the 70’s and ‘80’s. The Harper government even maintained relations with Libya’s gruesome Gadhafi dictatorship right up to the point we decided to bomb it (alongside our NATO allies).
> 
> Inevitably, Canada’s abrupt move with Iran stoked fears that something very dangerous was afoot in the Middle East. Hasty diplomatic departures will do that.
> 
> *Theory about Israeli attack*
> 
> One theory is that Ottawa has intelligence that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, with or without U.S. help, is imminent – dangerous news given our close ties with Israel. Many analysts, however, doubt such an attack is likely in this U.S. election year.
> 
> There were even suggestions in some foreign media that Canada bailed out of Tehran because Iranian security suspected our mission there had been collecting intelligence for the U.S., Britain and perhaps Israel — and that we were on the verge of expulsion, or even worse.
> 
> However, there seem to be no grounds to believe Canadian officials did more than collect and trade the normal open-source intel and street chatter all embassies pick up.
> 
> So we’re still puzzled. Perhaps because we’re looking in the wrong direction.
> 
> I believe Harper acted on new intelligence. But the warnings were likely more about the Iranian embassy activities in Canada than they were about the safety of our personnel abroad.
> 
> Indeed, the sheer number of reasons given for the diplomatic break may mask the true one: Iran’s aggressive use of diplomatic cover to prepare guerrilla cells to attack in the west should Iran itself be attacked.
> 
> Western intelligence has been ringing top-secret alarm bells for governments for over a year, warning of an extraordinary build-up of Iranian personnel in Europe, Africa and particularly in Latin America, many of them believed to be linked to Iran’s notorious Quds Force. That’s the elite arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, tasked with “extraterritorial operations.”
> 
> Iran has powered up its diplomatic arm in the Americas, from a handful of embassies a dozen years ago to 10 today, along with 17 “cultural centres” in various countries. Most posts are staffed with far more officials than required for normal duties – 150 in Nicaragua alone.
> 
> *Iran's 'extraterritorial operations'*
> 
> In January, America’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, publicly stated that Iranian diplomats abroad were setting up sleeper cells designed to attack U.S. and allied interests around the world in the event of war.
> 
> Tehran has made no secret of the fact it has elaborate plans to wreak as much havoc as possible among nations supporting the U.S. and Israel should it come under attack.
> 
> In fact, just days before Canada hastily broke off relations, the head of the Iranian army’s joint chiefs of staff boasted to the Fars News Agency that if Iran was attacked, America and its allies should expect major terror attacks in their homeland. The deputy chief commander of the Revolutionary Guard echoed this, vowing “Any aggression against Iran will expand the war into the borders of the enemies. They know our power…”
> 
> Intelligence officials give credence to these threats because it makes grim strategic sense for Iran to hit back in this way, as its conventional forces are no match for Israel and the U.S. It also has ruthless allies to call on for joint operations, including Hezbollah, which is deemed a terrorist organization by Canada.
> 
> Canada’s intelligence service believes Canada’s increasing identification with Israel inevitably leave us a target for bombings, kidnappings or assassinations in an armed conflict. For years it has warned of the Iranian embassy’s efforts to threaten and blackmail some of the more than 100,000 Iranians living here into “cooperation.” That’s why Canada has refused Iran’s repeated requests for consuls outside Ottawa.
> 
> Some type of new intelligence seems to have seriously shaken Harper’s government. Former CSIS assistant director Ray Boisvert told CBC such an unprecedented move “usually only happens in very serious conditions.”
> 
> Boisvert insisted the Iranian embassy was “running some kind of threatening operation aimed at the Iranian community in Canada that absolutely poses a security threat in Canada.”
> 
> Expect more of this story to come out in the next few weeks, when MPs return to Parliament, anxious to move beyond the current state of surprise and bafflement.


----------



## brihard

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that citation; perhaps that why Benjamin Natanyahu and some very senior US officials refer to Iran as an *existential threat* to Israel. I don't think anyone would be able to adjudicate Iranian progress towards a nuc, so _sufficiency_ is unlikely to matter much to most Israelis; global popular opinion would be wholly against Israel, but global popular opinion is, by and large, wholly against Israel on almost every issue, even existential ones, anyway so that isn't likely to bother Israel either.



I've no doubt that's why they use the term. I don't personally buy it.

What's being done so far seems to be working. Cybersabotage has set their program back by a good bit. I have no real issue with killing off their weapons scientists. The sanctions are having a tremendous impact on their economy. I genuinely believe that the Iranian population will have a finite tolerance for the considerable negative impact on their way of life that the regime is causing. They are no less intelligent or sophisticated than you or I, and they are certainly capable of understanding what is making their country a pariah- this isn't North Korea, with the civilian population cut off from the outside world.

We still have time- plenty of it. Undue haste will only halt the inertia of things that are already happening that will be beneficial to our side of this. The Iranian population needs to be given time to continue to rise. Remember, this is the same people who got shot down in the streets in 2009. There are tremendous political undercurrents that work to our advantage in precluding the need for a war if we only let them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The TV News is reporting that the White House rejects Netanyahu meeting. Apparently Prime Minister Netanyahu asked for a meeting with President Obama when he (Netanyahu) come to America later this month to address the UN. The news report I saw said that President Obama declined on the grounds that he and the Israeli PM would, not be in New York at the same time.

But I think Obama's _reaction_ is more understandable on two grounds:

1. Politically, Netanyahu is very, very unpopular with Obama's core supporters - meeting with him would not do Obama any good in the lead up to an election; and

2. I think there is a consensus in the USA ~ in the White House, State and the Pentagon and amongst people in the think tanks and universities who will be in the White House, State and the Pentagon IF the GOP wins the November election ~ about the need to stay away from the Muslim world.

There is an interesting article in _Foreign Affairs_ by Melvyn P. Leffler; some extracts follow:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68201/melvyn-p-leffler/september-11-in-retrospect


> September 11 in Retrospect
> *George W. Bush’s Grand Strategy, Reconsidered*
> 
> By Melvyn P. Leffler
> 
> September/October 2011
> 
> Ten years after 9/11, we can begin to gain some perspective on the impact of that day's terrorist attacks on U.S. foreign policy. There was, and there remains, a natural tendency to say that the attacks changed everything. But a decade on, such conclusions seem unjustified. September 11 did alter the focus and foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. But the administration's new approach, one that garnered so much praise and so much criticism, was less transformative than contemporaries thought. Much of it was consistent with long-term trends in U.S. foreign policy, and much has been continued by President Barack Obama. Some aspects merit the scorn often heaped on them; other aspects merit praise that was only grudging in the moment. Wherever one positions oneself, it is time to place the era in context and assess it as judiciously as possible.
> 
> BEFORE AND AFTER
> 
> Before 9/11, the Bush administration had focused its foreign policy attention on China and Russia; on determining whether a Middle East peace settlement was in the cards; on building a ballistic missile defense system; and on contemplating how to deal with "rogue" states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. At many meetings of the National Security Council, officials debated the pros and cons of a new sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein's dictatorial government in Baghdad; they also discussed what would be done if U.S. planes enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq were shot down. Little was agreed on.
> 
> Top officials did not consider terrorism or radical Islamism a high priority. Richard Clarke, the chief counterterrorism expert on the National Security Council staff, might hector them relentlessly about the imminence of the threat, and CIA Director George Tenet might say the lights were blinking red. But Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were not convinced. Nor was Bush. In August 2001, he went to his ranch for a long vacation. Osama bin Laden was not his overriding concern.
> 
> Bush's foreign policy and defense advisers were trying to define a strategic framework and adapt U.S. armed forces to the so-called revolution in military affairs. The president himself was beginning to speak more about free trade and remaking U.S. foreign aid. During the presidential campaign, he had talked about both a humbler foreign policy and a reinvigorated defense establishment; how he was going to reconcile those goals was still unclear. But in truth, the president's focus was elsewhere, on the domestic arena -- tax cuts, education reform, faith-based voluntarism, energy policy. And then, suddenly, disaster struck.
> 
> ...
> 
> Alongside its security policies, the administration embraced free markets, trade liberalization, and economic development. It reconfigured and hugely augmented the United States' foreign aid commitments, increasing economic assistance, for example, from about $13 billion in 2000 to about $34 billion in 2008. The administration fought disease, becoming the largest donor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It negotiated a deal reducing strategic warheads with Russia, reconfigured the United States' relationship with India, and smoothed over its rocky start with China. And it continued to try to thwart the proliferation of WMD while forging ahead with its work on a ballistic missile defense system. These efforts complemented each other, as the administration was intent on not allowing the proliferation of WMD to stymie its freedom of action in regions deemed important. Nor did it wish to risk the possibility that rogue states might give or sell WMD to terrorists.
> 
> Most of these policies -- preemption (really prevention), unilateralism, military supremacy, democratization, free trade, economic growth, alliance cohesion, and great-power partnerships -- were outlined in the administration's 2002 National Security Strategy, a document composed not in the Office of the Vice President or the Pentagon by neoconservatives but in the office of then National Security Adviser Rice, largely by Philip Zelikow, an outside consultant, and revised by Rice and her aides before being edited by Bush himself.
> 
> September 11, in short, galvanized the Bush administration and prompted it to shift its focus. Fear inspired action, as did a sense of U.S. power, a pride in national institutions and values, a feeling of responsibility for the safety of the public, and a sense of guilt over having allowed the country to be struck. As the White House adviser Karl Rove would write, "We worked to numb ourselves to the fact of an attack on American soil that involved the death of thousands." Reshaping U.S. policy after 9/11 meant resolving the ambiguities and shattering the paralysis that had marked the first nine months of the administration. Before 9/11, the United States' primacy and security had been taken for granted; after 9/11, Washington had to make clear that it could protect the U.S. homeland, defend its allies, oversee an open world economy, and propagate its institutions.
> 
> AMERICA'S QUEST FOR PRIMACY
> 
> Some observers have compared the impact of 9/11 on U.S. policy to the impact on U.S. policy of North Korea's attack on South Korea in June 1950. Back then, the Truman administration had also been stunned. It had been pondering new initiatives, but the president was still waffling. He had approved the National Security Council report known as NSC-68 but was not quite ready to implement it. The dimensions of a coming U.S. military buildup were uncertain; the global nature of the Cold War still unclear; the ideological crusade still somewhat inchoate. But Dean Acheson, the secretary of state, and Paul Nitze, the director of policy planning at the State Department, knew they had to reconfirm the United States' preponderance of power, recently shattered by the Soviets' first nuclear test. They knew they had to increase the United States' military capabilities, regain the country's self-confidence, and avoid being self-deterred. They knew they had to take responsibility for the operation of global free trade and the reconstruction of the West German and Japanese economies (their successful resuscitation was still uncertain). They knew the United States' supremacy was being contested by a brutal and formidable rival with an ideology that had considerable appeal to impoverished peoples beginning to yearn for autonomy, equality, independence, and nationhood. In this context, the North Korean attack not only led to the Korean War but also unleashed a major expansion of U.S. global policy more generally.
> 
> Whether or not one thinks that such analogies are appropriate, it is incontestable that Bush and his advisers saw themselves as being locked in a similar struggle. And they, too, sought to preserve and reassert the primacy of the United States while they struggled to thwart any follow-up attacks on U.S. citizens or U.S. territory. Like Acheson and Nitze, they were certain that they were protecting a way of life, that the configuration of power in the international arena and the mitigation of threats abroad were vital to the preservation of freedom at home.
> 
> More than Acheson and Nitze, Bush's advisers had trouble weaving the elements of their policy into a coherent strategy that could address the challenges they considered most urgent. It seems clear now that many of their foreign policy initiatives, along with their tax cuts and unwillingness to call for domestic sacrifices, undercut the very goals they were designed to achieve.
> 
> Thus, U.S. primacy was ultimately damaged by the failure to execute the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq effectively and by the anti-Americanism that these flawed enterprises helped magnify. U.S. officials might declare the universal appeal of freedom and proclaim that history has demonstrated the viability of only one form of political economy, but opinion polls throughout the Muslim world have shown that the United States' actions in Iraq and support of Israel were a toxic combination. As liberation turned into occupation and counterinsurgency, the United States and its power were thrown into disrepute.
> 
> Rather than preventing peer competitors from rising, the United States' interventions abroad and budgetary and economic woes at home put Washington at a growing disadvantage vis-à-vis its rivals, most notably Beijing ...
> 
> Rather than preserving regional balances, U.S. actions upset the balance in the region that U.S. officials cared most about, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East more generally. The United States' credibility in the region withered ...
> 
> Rather than thwarting proliferation, U.S. interventions on behalf of regime change provided additional incentives for rogue nations to pursue WMD. Iranian and North Korean leaders seem to have calculated that, more than ever before, their countries' survival depended on possessing a WMD deterrent ...
> 
> Rather than promoting free markets, U.S. economic woes spurred protectionist impulses at home and complicated trade negotiations abroad ...
> 
> Rather than promoting liberty, the war on terror coexisted with democratic backsliding globally (at least until the recent Arab Spring). U.S. war fighting and counterterrorism nurtured Washington's unsavory relationships with some of the world's most illiberal regimes ...
> 
> And rather than thwarting terrorism and radical Islamism, U.S. actions encouraged them. During the war on terror, the number of terrorist incidents rose, and possibly so did the number of jihadists ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Conventional wisdom says that Democratic officials might have acted differently after 9/11, and it seems likely that they would have worked more diligently to cooperate with allies in Europe. But the Bush administration's use of force to bring about regime change in countries perceived to be threatening in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks comported with what most Americans believed to be desirable at the time. The administration's military buildup, meanwhile, was neither especially bold nor unprecedented. Its quest to avoid peer competitors resembled the U.S. effort to preserve an atomic monopoly after World War II, achieve military preponderance in the wake of the Korean War, preserve military superiority during the Kennedy years, regain superiority during the Reagan years, and nurture unipolarity after the Soviet Union's collapse. Clinton's Joint Chiefs of Staff embraced the term "full-spectrum superiority" to describe the country's strategic intentions. It was during the Clinton years, not the Bush years, that the United States started spending more money on defense than virtually all other nations combined.
> 
> ...
> 
> The long-term significance of 9/11 for U.S. foreign policy, therefore, should not be overestimated. The attacks that day were a terrible tragedy, an unwarranted assault on innocent civilians, and a provocation of monumental proportions. But they did not change the world or transform the long-term trajectory of U.S. grand strategy. The United States' quest for primacy, its desire to lead the world, its preference for an open door and free markets, its concern with military supremacy, its readiness to act unilaterally when deemed necessary, its eclectic merger of interests and values, its sense of indispensability -- all these remained, and remain, unchanged.
> 
> What the attacks did do was alter the United States' threat perception and highlight the global significance of nonstate actors and radical Islamism. They alerted the country to the fragility of its security and the anger, bitterness, and resentment toward the United States residing elsewhere, particularly in parts of the Islamic world. But if 9/11 highlighted vulnerabilities, its aftermath illustrated how the mobilization of U.S. power, unless disciplined, calibrated, and done in conjunction with allies, has the potential to undermine the global commons as well as to protect them.
> 
> Rather than heaping blame or casting praise on the Bush administration, ten years after 9/11 it is time for Americans to reflect more deeply about their history and their values. Americans can affirm their core values yet recognize the hubris that inheres in them. They can identify the wanton brutality of others yet acknowledge that they themselves are the source of rage in many parts of the Arab world. Americans can agree that terrorism is a threat that must be addressed but realize that it is not an existential menace akin to the military and ideological challenges posed by German Nazism and Soviet communism. They can acknowledge that the practice of projecting solutions to their problems onto the outside world means that they seek to avoid difficult choices at home, such as paying higher taxes, accepting universal conscription, or implementing a realistic energy policy. Americans can recognize that there is evil in the world, as Obama reminded his Nobel audience in December 2009, and they can admit, as he did, that force has a vital role to play in the affairs of humankind. But they can also recognize that the exercise of power can grievously injure those whom they wish to help and can undercut the very goals they seek to achieve. Americans can acknowledge the continuities in their interests and values yet wrestle with the judgments and tradeoffs that are required to design a strategy that works in a post-Cold War era, where the threats are more varied, the enemies more elusive, and power more fungible.



And I think that's the consensus: Americans are beginning to _"acknowledge that they themselves are the source of rage in many parts of the Arab world. Americans can agree that terrorism is a threat that must be addressed but realize that it is not an existential menace akin to the military and ideological challenges posed by German Nazism and Soviet communism ... acknowledge that the practice of projecting solutions to their problems onto the outside world means that they seek to avoid difficult choices at home, such as paying higher taxes, accepting universal conscription, or implementing a realistic energy policy_ ... [and]_ recognize that there is evil in the world ... and ... admit ... that force has a vital role to play in the affairs of humankind ... but .... also recognize that the exercise of power can grievously injure those whom they wish to help and can undercut the very goals they seek to achieve."_

That emerging consensus leads, I believe to a *bipartisan* goal of staying out of Iran.

Iran is, in other words, Israel's problem.

Israel has some tools for dealing with Iran but they will not earn a Nobel Peace Prize for Benjamin Netanyahu.


----------



## Nemo888

Iran's intelligence forces being active here is nothing new.  They have been threatening ex pats literally for decades. So it has been since people remembered Ken Taylor. (That was the 80's BTW). There are Iranian cultural centres in most major Canadian cities chock full of operatives. They are not embassy personnel.  This will have little effect on their network. It's a symbolic gesture, not a practical one.

+1 I really wonder why now?


----------



## Rifleman62

ERC: 





> The news report I saw said that President Obama declined on the grounds that he and the Israeli PM would, not be in New York at the same time.



Pres Obama does not want to meet him. There was a supposedly 24 + hour envelope for travel/meeting. 

Excerpt from FOX News: 





> Sources said Netanyahu, though he plans to be in New York City during his brief stay, *was offering to travel to D.C. to make the meeting happen.* However, the White House apparently said Obama’s tight schedule – the president is in the middle of a feverish campaign run -- would make a meeting difficult.
> 
> White House spokesman Tommy Vietor later confirmed to Fox News that Obama is not expected to meet with Netanyahu, though insisted it was just a scheduling problem. He said Obama will be at the United Nations on Sept. 24 and leave the following day, while Netanyahu won’t be in the city until later in the week.
> 
> Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/early-frost-white-house-gives-chilly-response-to-proposed-obama-netanyahu-talk/#ixzz26CpaR5jx


----------



## cupper

ERC

The news here is saying the same thing, but they also made a point of bringing up Hillary's comments that the US will not set a Red Line with respect to Iran's nuke process. Apparently Netanyahu made a statement that any country which refuses to set a Red Line does not stand in support of Israel (I'm paraphrasing  here).

So it could be a tit for tat situation.

But then again, the meeting with Romney last month probably didn't help matters much either.

Oh well. :boring:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...
> Pres Obama does not want to meet him ...




And my belief is that if Mitt Romney was President he would not want to meet Netanyahu either.


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And my belief is that if Mitt Romney was President he would not want to meet Netanyahu either.



But you are overlooking the fact that they are really close friends from their financial days in Boston. That's why they had a meeting during Romney's world foreign policy gaffe fest.


----------



## Edward Campbell

cupper said:
			
		

> But you are overlooking the fact that they are really close friends from their financial days in Boston. That's why they had a meeting during Romney's world foreign policy gaffe fest.




No, I'm going with my (assumed) _consensus_ - which I believe is, very largely, bipartisan - that *dictates* the main policy assumptions without reference to the president's inclinations or even wishes.


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I'm going with my (assumed) _consensus_ - which I believe is, very largely, bipartisan - that *dictates* the main policy assumptions without reference to the president's inclinations or even wishes.



Here's hoping you are right.


----------



## Nemo888

cupper said:
			
		

> Here's hoping you are right.


Moi Aussi.

"Haha.. you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia." 


edit to remove link - computer security systems are reporting embedded trojan horse activity from within the linked site.


----------



## GAP

Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike
Article Link
An armada of US and British naval power is massing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s covert nuclear weapons programme. 

 By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent  15 Sep 2012

 Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.

A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.

In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

Battleships? Did we reveal our secret time travel strike force too soon?  >


----------



## GAP

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Battleships? Did we reveal our secret time travel strike force too soon?  >



The journalist must have saw an armed canoe....


----------



## Redeye

GAP said:
			
		

> Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike
> Article Link
> An armada of US and British naval power is massing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s covert nuclear weapons programme.
> 
> By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent  15 Sep 2012
> 
> Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.
> 
> Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.
> 
> A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.
> 
> The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most congested international waterways. It is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is bordered by the Iranian coast to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the south.
> 
> In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.
> More on link



Nothing sensationalized there, is there - trumping up an annual exercise - though yes, it is something show of force aimed at Iran.


----------



## tomahawk6

While there arent any battleships ,there is a significant naval presence. Remember you dont need bunker busters to takeout the centrifuges. Recently the Iranians complained about sabotage of power line running to the centrifuge facility at Natanz.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-18/iran-claims-sabotage-at-nuclear-plant/4266792


----------



## Bigmac

A little show of force in the Gulf. An attempt to calm down Israel and remind Iran of the consequences of trying to close shipping lanes. Unfortunately accusations and threats are increasing between Israel and Iran. 

The U.S. does not want anything happening in the Gulf until after the election. Because of this the U.S. cannot be seen as a big ally to Israel or too hardline with Iran. I personally believe that U.S. / Israel relations are better than what is being reported. 

The strategic plans are most definitely already made. A timeline is in place but won't be revealed to us. Diplomacy is running out of time and the clock is ticking.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/u-s-beefs-up-presence-closer-to-irans-shores/


----------



## Edward Campbell

Great coverage by the _New York Post_:


----------



## GK .Dundas

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Great coverage by the _New York Post_:


................in their usual subtle manner! :


----------



## MikeL

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/iran-warns-its-citizens-that-canada-is-a-dangerous-place-to-travel/article4569769/



> Iran warns its citizens that Canada is a dangerous place
> PAUL KORING
> The Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, Sep. 26 2012, 2:30 PM EDT
> Last updated Wednesday, Sep. 26 2012, 2:36 PM EDT
> 
> Tehran has officially warned its citizens and expatriates that Canada is a dangerous place in the latest swipe as both government’s trade accusations.
> 
> So many Iranians live in Canada’s largest city that it’s often called ‘Tehranto’ among the moneyed elites in the Islamic Republic and thousands among the Iranian diaspora travel back and forth annually.
> 
> But with relations so seriously soured between the two governments that Canada has closed its embassy in Tehran and kicked Iranian diplomats out of Ottawa, the ruling Islamic theocracy and the conservative Harper government are now trading insults in the form of travel advisories.
> 
> “Avoid all travel,”  the Harper government warned Canadians in the latest ‘red’ advisory.
> 
> Not to be outdone, the Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday issued a stark warning about the risks for Iranians travelling to Canada .
> 
> Tehran warned – for instance – of the risks of police violence, citing clashes between students and authorities in Montreal over threatened tuition increases.
> 
> In the wake of the embassy closing, “Islamphobia and Iranphobia have not stopped in Canada, rather escalated over the past few days,” reported the semi-official news agency Irna, quoting from the Foreign Ministry travel warning.
> 
> It added Iranian expatriates has been arrested and expelled and deprived of basic rights, including banking transactions – apparently a reference to financial sanctions imposed by Canada and other governments on Iran over its controversial nuclear program.
> 
> Iran warned that murder and other violent crime was on the rise in Canada, adding that the forced closing of its embassy in Ottawa meant there were no diplomats available to assist Iranian citizens.
> 
> Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, has been strident in denouncing the Harper government in recent weeks. At one point he said the “hostile attitude of the Canadian racist government is …. dictated by the Zionist regime and the UK.”
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird has called the Islamic Regime the greatest threat to world peace.
> 
> In the battle of the travel warnings, Ottawa struck first.
> 
> “In the context of heightened regional tensions, Iranian-Canadian dual citizens may be particularly vulnerable to investigation and harassment by Iranian authorities,” Ottawa said in its travel advisory posted online. It also warned about the risk of visitors and dual nationals getting swept up in protests.
> 
> “On several occasions, demonstrations resulted in violent clashes. People near demonstrations have been assaulted, and deaths have been reported,” Canada’s warning said.
> 
> In Tehran, the government took a not-so-veiled slap at the “Canadian government’s double-standard about human rights [which] has been the focus of the world and Canadian public opinion,” it said, an apparent reference to the Harper government’s staunch support of Israel.
> 
> Few Canadians, other than those who hold dual citizenship or have family ties in Iran, have visited Iran in the decades since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. So Ottawa’s travel warning is aimed primarily at Iranian-Canadians.
> 
> However, thousands of Iranians, both tourists on group tours and individual travelers have routinely visited Canada in recent years. The flow has been so significant that Ottawa used to assign additional consular officers to the Canadian embassy in Tehran to cope. That ended last spring as relations worsened and Ottawa told Iranians they would need to get visas issued in Turkey.


----------



## dannyboy41

I keep hearing about how fragile the situation between Israel and Iran is, and it makes me question how much more each side can take before all-out war is waged. 

Granted, diplomacy may prevail, but as of yet, this does not seem to be the case.

I recall reading some articles about Canada's role in all of this, but has Canada committed to anything in the event that war breaks out, or is it remaining relatively dormant?


----------



## larry Strong

dannyboy41 said:
			
		

> I keep hearing about how fragile the situation between Israel and Iran is, and it makes me question how much more each side can take before all-out war is waged.




Well if you go by this photo, not much longer.

Full story here:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/09/20120927-165046.html

Photo credit: REUTERS/Lucas Jackson


----------



## Redeye

That's in Netanyahu's dreams, and he hardly has support in Israel, never mind from the US for an attack. Interesting piece from the New York Times arguing that an attack would actually hasten Iran getting a bomb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/how-to-help-iran-build-a-bomb.html

Shared under the usual provisions of Fair Use etc. 

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: September 28, 2012
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

ADVOCATES of airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have long held that the attacks would delay an atom bomb for years and perhaps even buy Israel enough time to topple the Iranian government. In public statements, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, has said that an attack would leave Iran’s nuclear program reeling, if not destroyed. The blow, he declared recently, would set back the Iranian effort “for a long time.”

Quite the opposite, say a surprising number of scholars and military and arms-control experts. In reports, talks, articles and interviews, they argue that a strike could actually lead to Iran’s speeding up its efforts, ensuring the realization of a bomb and hastening its arrival.

“An attack would increase the likelihood,” Scott D. Sagan, a political scientist at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said of an Iranian weapon.

The George W. Bush administration, it turns out, reached an even stronger conclusion in secret and rejected bombing as counterproductive.

 The view among Mr. Bush’s top advisers, recalled Michael V. Hayden, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was that a strike “would drive them to do what we were trying to prevent.”

Those who warn against attacking Iran say that such a move would free officials in Tehran of many constraints. An attack, for instance, would all but certainly lead to the expulsion of international inspectors, which, in turn, would allow the government to undo hundreds of monitoring devices and safeguards, including seals on underground storage units. Further, an Iran permitted to present itself to the world as the victim of an attack would receive sympathy and perhaps vital imports from nations that once backed trade bans. The thinking also goes that a strike would allow Iran to further direct its economy to military ends.

Perhaps most notably, an attack could unite what is now a fractious state, these analysts say, and build an atmosphere of mobilizing rage. As the foreign ministers of Sweden and Finland wrote earlier this year, “It’s difficult to see a single action more likely to drive Iran into taking the final decision.”

History, the analysts say, demonstrates that airstrikes and military threats often result in unbending resolve among the beleaguered to do whatever it takes to acquire nuclear arms.

“People always assume the bad guys want nukes,” says Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation specialist at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “But I think there’s usually a hesitation about the balance of risk. My sense is that the threat of military action makes bad guys feel like they need the bomb.”

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, seemed to have embodied that kind of determination when he said famously in 1965, “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.”

Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior nonproliferation official at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a prominent arms analysis group in London, said in an e-mail interview that it was “almost certain” that a military strike on Iran would result in “a Manhattan-style rush to produce nuclear weapons as fast as possible.”

These analysts maintain that the history of nuclear proliferation shows that attempting to thwart a nuclear program through an attack can have consequences opposite of those intended. Mr. Lewis of the Monterey Institute and other experts often cite Iraq. Israel’s attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981, they argue, hardened the resolve of Saddam Hussein and gave his nuclear ambitions new life.

“All of the historical evidence that I have seen,” Mr. Lewis wrote recently, “suggests Saddam had yet to decide to seek nuclear weapons until the humiliation of the strike.”

Top Israelis disagree. Amos Yadlin, one of the pilots who attacked the Iraqi reactor and a former chief of Israeli military intelligence, argued early this year that Iraq’s nuclear program “never fully resumed” and cited the bombing episode as a compelling rationale for military action against Iran.

But a number of former Israeli officials have echoed those who think the attack emboldened Mr. Hussein and worry that an attack on Iran could do the same there.

Yuval Diskin, who retired last year as director of Israel’s internal security agency, told a gathering in April that “many experts” cite the acceleration risk. “What the Iranians prefer to do today slowly and quietly,” he said, “they would have the legitimacy to do quickly and in a much shorter time."

Nuclear historians say intimidation alone can spur an atomic response, as when American hostility prompted China to seek nuclear arms. Beijing succeeded in 1964 with a thunderous blast.

In “China Builds the Bomb,” John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai wrote that Washington’s threats provoked “defiant anger and the decision to undertake the costly nuclear weapons program.”

The question of what prompts the speedups would seem to go far beyond the Iranian crisis and atomic history because the number of latent nuclear states (ones that could make bombs but choose not to, like Japan and Germany) has risen around the globe in recent decades. The estimated number now stands at around 40.

Scholars have long debated the social factors that keep countries from crossing the line.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told his colleagues before they won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 that the bomb decision often turned on nothing more complex than a “sense of security or insecurity.”

In a turbulent world, he added, that kind of evaluation could change rapidly. “Thin,” he called the margin of safety, “and worrisome.”

A New York Times reporter who has written extensively about weaponry.
A version of this news analysis appeared in print on September 30, 2012, on page SR9 of the National edition with the headline: How to Help Iran Build A Bomb


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm following the global financial press: the Iranian economy is in free fall.


----------



## a_majoor

Iranian economic implosion. Let's hope the sanctions (and maybe a few helpful nudges) can finish the job. The potential upside is enough economic misery could lead to a widespread revolt against the theocracy and the Green Revolution will finally achieve victory:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/01/irans-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-as-currency-loses-14-of-its-value-in-seven-days/



> *Iran’s economy ‘on the verge of collapse’ as currency loses 1/4 of its value in seven days*
> 
> Yeganeh Torbati, Reuters | Oct 1, 2012 4:58 PM ET
> More from Reuters
> 
> AP Photo/Bebeto MatthewsMahmoud Ahmadinejad listens during a news conference after addressing the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly last week.
> Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Email Comments More
> Iran’s rial plunged against the U.S. dollar in open-market trade on Monday, taking its loss in value over the past week to more than a quarter in further evidence that Western sanctions are shattering the economy.
> 
> The freefall suggests sanctions imposed over Iran’s nuclear program are undermining its ability to earn foreign exchange and that its reserves of hard currency may be running low.
> 
> The rial traded at 34,200 per dollar according to currency-tracking website Mazanex, down from about 29,720 on Sunday. It was trading at 24,600 last Monday, according to website Mesghal.
> 
> Related
> David Frum: Can Iran’s nuclear program be stopped without war?
> Foreign Minister John Baird delivers scathing attack on UN inaction in Syria
> Canada getting tough on Iran, but Harper not backing Netanyahu’s ‘red line’ for strike
> Canada’s act to sever diplomatic ties with Iran ‘act of moral clarity,’ Netanyahu says in meeting with Harper
> There is no clear sign that economic pain in Iran has reached levels that would prompt the government to compromise on its nuclear program, which Western nations say aims to develop an atomic bomb but which Tehran insists is peaceful.
> 
> However, the currency crisis is exposing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to criticism from enemies in parliament.
> 
> The rial’s losses have accelerated in the past week after the government launched an “exchange centre” designed to supply dollars to importers of some basic goods at a special rate slightly cheaper than the market rate.
> 
> Instead of allaying fears about the availability of dollars, the center seems to have intensified the race for hard currency by linking the special rate to the market rate, meaning that even privileged importers will face sharply higher costs.
> 
> “The government’s initiative … brought to the surface a tremendous lack of confidence in its ability to manage the currency,” said Cliff Kupchan, a Middle East expert at the Eurasia Group, a political risk research firm. “The attempt to fix it triggered a worse crisis via market psychology.”
> 
> The exchange centre is operating and once the next phase of the plan is implemented, the price of currency will drop
> The rial’s sinking value will fuel inflation, officially running at about 25 percent; economists estimate the real rate is even higher. Rising costs could worsen the job losses which Iranians say are hitting the country’s industrial sector.
> 
> On Sunday, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said Iran’s economy was “on the verge of collapse” and estimated the government had lost $45-50-billion in oil revenue because of the sanctions, which have slashed the country’s oil exports and largely frozen it out of the international banking system.
> 
> But that kind of language is premature, said Hassan Hakimian, of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, because Iran has stockpiled some basic goods.
> 
> “I am not aware of any shortages of basic necessities as yet,” he said. “Well before that, the government will resort to some kind of basic rationing so as to introduce a safety net.”
> 
> The United States and its allies have tightened sanctions this year, notably via a European Union embargo on Iranian oil and U.S. sanctions targeting banks that deal with Iran’s central bank.
> 
> In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said sanctions were “cutting deeper and deeper into the Iranian economy” and she urged Tehran’s leadership to change policy on its nuclear program.
> 
> The United States and other countries are seeking to intensify pressure on Tehran “so that it will understand that the international community is not going to tolerate Iran with a nuclear weapon,” she added. “They have to make a choice.”
> 
> When the exchange centre provides only 10% to 20% of the market’s demand, one cannot expect it any more to play a role in the exchange market
> Some Iranian officials continued to insist on Monday that the exchange center, which is supposed to be funded by dollars earned with Iran’s oil exports, would eventually meet demand for hard currency and thus strengthen the rial.
> 
> “The exchange centre is operating and once the next phase of the plan is implemented, the price of currency will drop,” said Gholamreza Mesbahi-Moghaddam, who heads parliament’s planning and budget committee, according to the Mehr news agency.
> 
> But the rial’s accelerating slide indicates many Iranians have lost faith in authorities’ ability to support it, and are scrambling to buy hard currencies to preserve their savings.
> 
> “There is very little, effectively, the central bank and authorities can do to calm the situation because even when they take extraordinary measures to calm the market … the market interprets those additional measures as a sign of abnormality,” Hakimian said.
> 
> At the end of last year, Iran had $106 billion of official foreign reserves, enough to cover an ample 13 months of imports of goods and services in normal times, according to the International Monetary Fund.
> 
> But Nader Habibi, economist at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University in the United States, estimated last month that the government now had about $50-70 billion of hard currency reserves left.
> 
> Iran does not disclose timely data on its reserves but if they have dropped steeply, the central bank may have become reluctant to run them down by supplying dollars to the market.
> 
> In a statement on Sunday, the central bank said just $181 million had been traded on the new exchange center since its launch six days earlier – a fraction of Iran’s imports of goods and services, which total around $2 billion per week in normal times.
> 
> “The president has deliberately kept the market agitated,” Elias Naderan, who sits on parliament’s economic committee, said on Sunday, according to Mehr.
> 
> “I really don’t know what Mr. Ahmadinejad is thinking. What plan does he have, what is his expectation of the system, and how does he plan to manage this disorder?”
> 
> The crisis has also prompted criticism of the central bank and authorities by private businessmen.
> 
> “When the exchange centre provides only 10% to 20% of the market’s demand, one cannot expect it any more to play a role in the exchange market,” Mohammad Nahavandian, head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by Mehr as saying on Monday.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of pretty recent reports from the U.S. Congressional Research Service (courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy Blog)....

_"Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status"_ (54 page PDF), Paul K. Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation, September 26, 2012
_"Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities"_ (61 page PDF), Jim Zanotti, Coordinator, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs; Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs; Jeremiah Gertler, Specialist in Military Aviation; Steven A. Hildreth, Specialist in Missile Defense, September 28, 2012


----------



## Pte. Jay

How much NATO support do you guys think Israel would receive for an attack like this?


----------



## 57Chevy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Iranian economic implosion. Let's hope the sanctions (and maybe a few helpful nudges) can finish the job. The potential upside is enough economic misery could lead to a widespread revolt against the theocracy and the Green Revolution will finally achieve victory:



Helpfull nudges come in all different forms and are especially potent when they cause internal strife and most importantly when they are internally created.
According to this article from Al Aribya News and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
Tehrans financial support to Damascus has caused a "rift" to root itself in the Iranian regime.

Tehran split over billions spent to support Assad’s regime: report
Monday, 01 October 2012 
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/10/01/241150.html

Tehran spends billions of dollars in the form of military and financial support to Damascus, causing a rift in the Iranian regime, a report published by The Times on Monday said, as fighting resumed across the war-torn country, leaving more deaths. 

Citing Western intelligence reports, The Times said that the support provided by Tehran to the Syrian regime of President Bashat al-Assad has caused a split between Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the country’s spymaster Qassem Suleimani, due to the failure of the latter to end the Syrian conflict in favor of Assad.

Iran has paid the salaries of the Syrian regime troops for months, in addition to providing Assad with weapons and logistic support, The Times reported citing members of the Syrian opposition.

The Syrian opposition has often accused Tehran of supporting the Syrian regime with weapons. The last few weeks have witnessed several statements by Iranian officials regarding means of Iranian interference in Syria. 

Western members of the U.N. Security Council had blasted Iran for providing Assad with weapons to help him crush an 18-month-long uprising by rebels determined to topple his government.

“Iran’s arms exports to the murderous Assad regime in Syria are of particular concern,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had told the 15-nation council during a meeting on the world body’s Iran sanctions regime.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Sunday vowed his country would stop and search any flights from Iran over its territory suspected of carrying weapons to Syria, as requested by the United States. 

Iraq plans to randomly inspect Iranian airplanes flying to Syria, the Iraqi foreign minister, Zebari told the London-based al-Hayat newspaper in an interview.

 “We have informed the Iranian officials to stop these flights and to stop arming the Syrian regime or fund any side in this crisis, we have affirmed that Iraq doesn’t accept to be a path for this, or its lands, skies and water to be used for arming or funding.”

 International efforts to end the 18-month conflict in Syria have failed to stop the violence as rebels continue the fight, which began in March 2011, to overthrow President Assad. The conflict has killed 30,000 people, according to estimates by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group.

 Fighting has been deadlocked in Aleppo since rebels pushed into the city in July. Government forces have resorted to heavy weaponry, including attack aircraft, helicopter gunships and artillery, to dislodge rebels from their positions.

 The army, for its part, shelled several other districts of Aleppo and battled rebels in Aleppo’s northern district of Jandul, the Observatory said.

 In Damascus province, rebels killed nine soldiers when they attacked a military checkpoint on the road linking the capital with Qatana to the southwest, the Observatory reported.

 A Kurdish activist, Raad Basho, was gunned down outside his home in the Kurdish city of Hasakeh in the northeast, the Observatory said.

 The northern province of Deir Ezzor, Hama in central Syria and Deraa in the south came under heavy shelling by regime forces, the Observatory said.

 It reported a total of at least 114 people killed in violence across the country on Sunday, including 57 who died in Damascus province and 39 in Deir Ezzor.


----------



## Pte. Jay

GAP said:
			
		

> The journalist must have saw an armed canoe....


With a bunch of these on board...


----------



## jollyjacktar

This interference in Syria will be the undoing of the Iranian government economically, if the news reports are to be believed.  The value of the Rial is plummeting faster than Rob Anders' reputation.  What will come of that should make for interesting watching over the next few months.  I'll be fascinated to see how and if they wriggle out of this predicament.


----------



## Redeye

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This interference in Syria will be the undoing of the Iranian government economically, if the news reports are to be believed.  The value of the Rial is plummeting faster than Rob Anders' reputation.  What will come of that should make for interesting watching over the next few months.  I'll be fascinated to see how and if they wriggle out of this predicament.



Crashing their economy is definitely going to get the attention of the people, and it seems it's already leading to demonstrations. It seems that the tightening of sanctions is causing a lot of headaches for Iran, because even those who would normally overlook their shenanigans aren't really all that interested in helping much. Perhaps, then, we'll see more of their failed "green revolution" - but with enough of a critical mass to actually bring change. I certainly don't think the average Iranian on the street wants anything to do with more war, they just don't have a particularly effective voice. Yet.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A _New Yorker_ review of the movie "Argo",
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/10/15/121015crci_cinema_lane

and Tony Mendez' (the CIA officer who ran the plan) official CIA account:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol43no3/pdf/v43i3a01p.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

Also, here's a couple of podcasts from the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C. where Mendez and a couple of American diplomats (Mark and Cora Lijek) who had to hide in a Canadian diplomat's home.
http://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/escape-from-tehran-1979-part-i/
http://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/escape-from-tehran-1979-part-ii/


----------



## MarkOttawa

The story from one of the hostages:

“I Was Rescued From Iran
It wasn’t like the movie.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/10/argo_hostage_story_mark_lijek_s_true_account_of_fleeing_iran.single.html

Though he thinks it a good flick.  The hostage, Mark Lijek, has his own website where one can buy his e-book on the exfiltration:

“Argo Adventure or Canadian Caper?”
http://marklijek.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

More on why Iran is heavily involved with Syria:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/24/how-syria-is-irans-route-to-the-sea/



> *How Syria is Iran’s route to the sea*
> 
> David Kopel • October 24, 2012 2:29 am
> 
> “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” So said Mitt Romney at the Monday debate. The Associated Press, The Guardian, The Telegraph, New York, U.S. News,  Brad DeLong, Rachel Maddow’s Maddowblog,  Comedy Central, and The Daily Kos promptly seized the opportunity to show off their superior geographical knowledge, pointing out that Iran has a coastline. The explicit or implicit explanation was that Romney does not even know basic geography. “Romney Flubs Geography” announced the A.P. headline on the Washington Post website. Readers in search of more sophisticated coverage  might have turned to Yahoo! Answers:
> 
> Q. Why did Romney say that Syria is Iran’s “route to the sea”? ...when 1) Iraq stands between Syria and Iran, and 2) Iran already has the Persian Gulf, not to mention the Indian Sea?
> 
> A. Romney was speaking in the context of the debate topic on foreign policy and the sanctions restricting the finances and trade of Iran. Although Iran is indeed located on the seacoast of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, the international trade sanctions have restricted and impeded its ability to transport armaments and other goods through its own seaports. *To defeat these trade sanctions, Iran has resorted to using its air transportation to transport goods through an air corridor in Iraqi airspace into Syria and its seaports, such as Latakia.*
> 
> Fact-checkers who actually investigate the facts might have started with expert websites such as StrategyPage. A 2006 article titled Syrian Delivery System for Iranian Nukes details the extensive seaborne smuggling operations carried out by Syrian companies operating out of Syrian ports. The article concludes:
> 
> Iran was generous with its “foreign aid” because Syria provided support for terrorists Iran backed. Now Iran is keen on getting nuclear weapons. The first ones Iran will get will be large and delicate. The only feasible intercontinental delivery system will be a ship. A ship that is accustomed to moving illicit goods.
> 
> Stratfor, which is an outstanding site for the collection and analysis open source intelligence, has the following reports involving Syria/Iran sea-related collaboration: An Iranian ship at the Syrian port of Tartus (also spelled “Tartous”) picked up Syrian oil for delivery to China, to evade the economic sanctions on Syria (Mar. 30, 2012). Iran warships docked at the port of Latakia in early 2012 (Feb. 18, 2012), and in early 2011 (Feb. 22, 2011; Feb. 24, 2011). During the 2011 visit, the Iranian navy’s commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, announced that Iran was ready to help Syria improve its port facilities, and to collaborate on technical projects with Syria. (Feb. 26, 2011). (All the Stratfor articles are behind a paywall.)
> 
> So in short, Syria is Iran’s route for the projection into the Mediterranean Sea (and from there, the Atlantic Ocean) of conventional naval power, and, perhaps soon, of nuclear weaponry.
> 
> Post-debate, the Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler at least made a start towards a serious factcheck of the Romney quote. He published an updated and condensed version of a longer piece he had written last April about Romney’s repeated use of the phrase.
> 
> In the April piece, Kessler wondered what difference Syria made, since Iranian ships can enter the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal. True, but anyone with even a mild knowledge of naval affairs could explain the utility of a Mediterranean port, as a opposed to a Persian Gulf port, for ships operating in the Mediterranean. In April and in October, Kessler wrote:
> 
> We also checked with other experts, many of whom confessed to being puzzled by Romney’s comments.  [DK: Kessler should have named all the "other" experts, and should also have included the explanation of at least one of the experts who was not among the "many" were were confused.] Tehran certainly uses Syria to supply the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, but that has little to do with the water. The relationship with Syria could also effectively allow Iran to project its power to the Mediterranean and the border with Israel. But does that really mean, “a route to the sea”?
> 
> The last two sentences are really the buried lede of the story: Romney is raising a very important issue (Syria as the base for the projection of Iranian naval power), but Romney is not explaining himself in a manner which the less well-informed members of the public (e.g., the sources linked in the 1st paragraph of this post) can understand. If Romney were a better communicator, he would have laid out the facts in greater detail, as Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill did in their own time, when warning their countrymen about the military dangers of aggressive totalitarian regimes. As Kessler wrote in April, “If Romney is elected president, he will quickly learn that words have consequences. Precision in language is especially important in diplomacy, and here Romney used a phrase that left people befuddled as to his intent and meaning, especially since he did not even make a distinction between the Mediterranean and Arabian seas.”
> 
> If you’re a journalist or a commentator, there’s no reason be ashamed just because a Washington Post writer reported a story much better than you did. But when you find yourself being outclassed by Yahoo! Answers, perhaps it’s time to rethink your assumptions that you’re much smarter and better informed than Mitt Romney.


----------



## cupper

I think this is a more salient point from the article:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If Romney were a better communicator, he would have laid out the facts in greater detail, as Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill did in their own time, when warning their countrymen about the military dangers of aggressive totalitarian regimes. As Kessler wrote in April, “If Romney is elected president, he will quickly learn that words have consequences. Precision in language is especially important in diplomacy,


----------



## cupper

I posted this in another thread, but it is relevant for this discussion as well.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108015/post-1182909.html#msg1182909


----------



## hagan_91

You would think that on the eve of war the CF would lift the recruiting freeze and start preparing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

hagan_91 said:
			
		

> You would think that on the eve of war the CF would lift the recruiting freeze and start preparing.


Any insights you'd care to share with us re:  what Canada will be doing to require more troops than it has now, even if shots are fired in anger?


----------



## hagan_91

A slight mobilization to increase the cf to 125-150000. This would allow at least a fielded CMBG, 24 fighters, and contributions to carrier groups, and all its support units.


----------



## a_majoor

Your "slight mobilization" would effectively double the size of the CF. 

Have you also made provisions for training, housing and equipping these new people?

Do you think the Canadian public will accept a military budget of $60 billion/year; plus surge costs involved in buying all the new boots, uniforms, trucks, ships, airplanes etc? 

Is Iran an existential threat to Canada?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## cupper

I'm still trying to get past the whole "eve of war" thing. :


----------



## larry Strong

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to get past the whole "eve of war" thing. :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo :


----------



## hagan_91

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Your "slight mobilization" would effectively double the size of the CF.
> 
> Have you also made provisions for training, housing and equipping these new people?
> 
> Do you think the Canadian public will accept a military budget of $60 billion/year; plus surge costs involved in buying all the new boots, uniforms, trucks, ships, airplanes etc?
> 
> Is Iran an existential threat to Canada?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.


Its that attitude that keeps the CF small.


----------



## cupper

hagan_91 said:
			
		

> Its that attitude that keeps the CF small.



No, it's government priorities and policy, along with socioeconomic realities that keep the CF small.


----------



## observor 69

Update on the Iran nuclear   Threat.

New York Times    

 October 30, 2012

Israeli Defense Chief Says Iran Postponed Nuclear Ambitions

By RICK GLADSTONE


Israel’s defense minister said Tuesday that the country had interpreted Iran’s conversion of some enriched uranium to fuel rods for civilian use as evidence that Iran had delayed ambitions to build a nuclear weapon. 

The assertion, by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, amounted to the first explanation from him as to why he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu softened their position in September over the possibility of a military strike to thwart what they called Iran’s drive toward imminent nuclear weapons capability. 

Their tough position on Iran, which they consider Israel’s most dangerous enemy, had generated tensions with the Obama administration, which has contended that Iran is many months away from the ability to make a nuclear weapon. 

Mr. Barak, who was visiting London, was quoted by the newspaper as saying an immediate crisis had been averted this summer because Iran had chosen to use a third of its enriched uranium for use as fuel rods in a medical research reactor. The conversion of that uranium, which was reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency in August, makes it much more difficult to use militarily. 

The Iranian decision, Mr. Barak said, “allows contemplating delaying the moment of truth by 8 to 10 months.” 

Asked why Iran would have decided on such a conversion, Mr. Barak said it might have taken Israeli and American warnings seriously, might have wished to delay a confrontation with Israel until after the American presidential elections, or might have been seeking to convince the agency of the sincerity of its peaceful intent. 

Iran has consistently denied it intends to build a nuclear weapon and has denounced Israel’s assertions as warmongering. 

The Iranians have also pointed out that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and that Israel, which is not, possesses an unacknowledged stockpile of nuclear weapons.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Iran showcases new domestically built Sina 7 submarines.  Pretty colours...  Full story, photos and video at link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240160/Irans-navy-showcases-bright-new-warship---damage-wont-coming.html


----------



## cupper

This could go in the China Superthread as well, but I felt it was more applicable here.

*Huawei linked to plan to sell restricted equipment to Iran

A major partner of the Chinese telecommunications gear maker offered to sell $1.7 million worth of embargoed HP computer equipment to Iran, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.*

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57561298-92/huawei-linked-to-plan-to-sell-restricted-equipment-to-iran/



> Already considered a threat to U.S. national security, Huawei is again finding itself under scrutiny, linked to an offer to sell embargoed computer equipment to Iran.
> 
> A major partner of the Chinese telecommunications gear maker offered to provide 1.3 million euros ($1.7 million) of Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran in 2010, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. However, Huawei says neither it nor Hong Kong-based Skycom, its privately-owned partner, provided the equipment to Mobile Telecommunication Co of Iran, known as MCI.
> 
> The proposal focused on expanding MCI's subscriber billing system and included at least 13 pages marked "Huawei confidential" and carrying the Huawei's company logo, according to Reuters. Those documents featured a price list for new HP equipment that included one server, 20 disk arrays, and 22 switches, as well as software.
> 
> In a statement, Huawei called the proposal a bidding document and said it was submitted by Skycom.
> _
> Huawei's business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the U.N., U.S. and E.U. This commitment has been carried out and followed strictly by our company. Further, we also require our partners to follow the same commitment and strictly abide by the relevant laws and regulations. _​
> The two Chinese companies appear to have close ties, with Reuters noting that the two share headquarters in China and Skycom employees in Tehran wear Huawei badges.
> 
> The report emerges just months after Cisco Systems ended its relationship with ZTE -- another Chinese telecommunications gear maker -- after it was revealed that ZTE was selling Cisco-branded networking equipment to Iran. The Shenzhen, China-based telecommunications giant reportedly sold restricted and banned computer equipment developed by Cisco and other U.S.-based companies to Iran's telecoms firms.
> 
> In October, House Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Huawei and ZTE of being threats to U.S. security and discouraging U.S. companies from buying their equipment.
> 
> "U.S. network providers and systems developers are strongly encouraged to seek other vendors for their projects," the committee wrote in its 52-page report. "Based on available classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems."


----------



## a_majoor

Conrad Black on the consequences if (when) Iran gets the bomb:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/12/conrad-black-if-iran-gets-the-bomb/



> *Conrad Black: If Iran gets the bomb*
> 
> Conrad Black | Jan 12, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 11, 2013 4:04 PM ET
> More from Conrad Black
> 
> The odds are that Iran will acquire a nuclear military capacity in the next year or 18 months. The subject has been bandied about for so long that the implications of such a step are now widely accepted with resignation — much as with North Korea, when it joined the nuclear club. And the United States is duly distributing anti-missile defense around the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Barack Obama never formally took the military option “off the table.” Nevertheless — if the United States, especially with John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the State Department and the Pentagon — lifts a finger to prevent Iran from crossing this threshold, it would be the greatest Middle Eastern backflip since Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem.
> 
> It would also be a welcome sight. North Korea is essentially a puppet of China’s, which the People’s Republic unleashes on the West for its own amusement from time to time, but which it can contain. Iran, as the noted behaviourist Monty Python would say, is something completely different.
> 
> All that is good that can be said about the Iranian nuclear initiative is that it exposes the nuclear disarmament regime as the fraud that it is.
> 
> The United States developed atomic weapons for their potential to save American and Allied lives in ending the Second World War, and because they were afraid the Germans would develop them first. The Soviet Union developed them because Stalin could not stand not having atomic weapons if the Americans had them. The British developed them because they and the United States were supposedly partners in the atomic weapons program, and they were the supreme criterion of military power, and so the United Kingdom felt Western Europe, and particularly Britain, should not be without them. France produced its nuclear weapons because the other three acknowledged Great Powers had them, and Charles de Gaulle declined to have France consigned to any lesser status.
> 
> China’s nuclear program was designed to strengthen that country opposite the Americans and Soviets. India’s was to endow that country with what China possessed, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because its arch-rival and enemy in the sub-continent, India, had them. Israel and the white minority regime in South Africa developed nuclear weapons because they were endangered by more numerous groups around and among them. (When the white-dominated regime ended in South Africa, the weapons were disposed of and the nuclear capability renounced.) North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, though insane, was, as has been mentioned, a Chinese puppet, and was useful to Beijing as a flail and goad of the West.
> 
> In other words: The nuclear club grew out of a form of bomb envy. And the rest of the world, which resisted the contagion, was served the pacifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, in which all signatories pledged to facilitate the use of peaceful applications of nuclear power, non-nuclear countries pledged to eschew them, and the nuclear powers pledged to seek nuclear disarmament. The NPT has been signed or acceded to by 190 countries, but North Korea withdrew and India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed.
> 
> Of course, the nuclear military powers have not made any serious effort to disarm. The Americans and Soviets have reduced absurdly excessive over-supplies of warheads and delivery systems, but disarmament is nonsense beyond a certain point, because if it were ever enacted, a North Korea or even a gangster or terror organization operating from a failed state, like the Somali pirates or a faction of the Taliban, could rule the world.
> 
> None of the nuclear powers prior to North Korea was an intolerable risk of irresponsible first use. Mao Tse-tung occasionally made vapid threats about China’s ability to absorb hundreds of millions of dead in a nuclear attack, which was neither true nor relevant, as both the United States and U.S.S.R. had the ability to incinerate every living organism in China in a nuclear attack.
> 
> Related
> 
> George Jonas: Sanctions won’t stop Iran
> Charles Krauthammer: Chuck Hagel represents the inner Obama
> 
> There have been worries about Pakistan’s political stability, but as long as its arsenal is in the hands of its military, which has provided Pakistan with the closest approximation to functioning government it has had during its 66-year tumultuous history, there is little likelihood of impetuosity. Stalin would not have hesitated to threaten nuclear destruction on anyone, but American deterrent power has always been adequate to dissuade whoever ruled in the Kremlin from trigger-happy conduct. (When Nikita Khrushchev told President Eisenhower in 1959 that the Soviet Union could overpower Western conventional forces in Germany, Ike responded at once: “If you attack us in Germany, there will be nothing conventional about our response.” The subject of a Soviet attack in Germany did not come up again between them.)
> 
> Iran is of more concern because its leaders have spoken almost ceaselessly of destroying the Jewish state, and they have often claimed a wish to die for the cause of militant Islam. They certainly have no shortage of followers ready to make such a sacrifice. But — as is indicated by the conduct of the Hamas leaders when Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon had the Israeli Defense Forces kill the head of Hamas after each terrorist outrage in Israel, and of Osama bin Laden, hiding like an animal behind high walls against American retribution — militant Islamist leaders tend to be more careful with their lives than their rhetoric might suggest.
> 
> Those truly determined and eager to die, especially if they are in positions of power, have no difficulty doing so. Iran’s leaders have not done so yet, nor come close to doing so.
> 
> But there will be terrible consequences if Iran obtains these horrible weapons, even if they do not use them. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will feel obliged to do the same, and a general movement will then spread to replace the present furtively expanding club of sensible nuclear hypocrites, arming themselves to deter aggression but not initiate it, with a vast nuclear club of unlimited membership.
> 
> Like a neighbourhood that leaps from gradually slipping gun control to being universally armed to the teeth, the world will bristle with nuclear weaponry like hand guns and switchblades on Saturday night in an American slum. This will continue to deter most countries, though most do not need to be deterred, but it will make nuclear exchanges inevitable, eventually, and deterrence will then have to regress to early Cold War massive retaliation, which will only accelerate and spread the arms race.
> 
> It is not quite too late to institute and enforce a policy of insistence on denial of nuclear weapons to countries that do not plausibly renounce first use, but the chances are eroding every day, through the irresolution and misjudgments of the U.S. government. If Iran becomes a nuclear military power, the consequences are easily foreseeable, are as described, and they will be terrifying.
> 
> National Post
> cbletters@gmail.com


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting report, if true. I suspect that if this has happened, there was some help in arranging an industrial accident:

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=301198



> *Iran denies mystery explosion at Fordow facility*
> By YAAKOV LAPPIN01/28/2013 02:04
> 
> A report claiming that a mysterious blast rocked the Fordow uranium enrichment facility in Iran last week made headlines in Israel on Sunday, but remained unverified.
> 
> An Iranian official on Sunday night denied the reports, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> Related:
> IAEA: Iran nuclear row must be solved peacefully
> Barak: US has 'surgical operation' plan against Iran
> The deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Seyyed Shamseddin Barbroudi was quoted by the IRNA as dismissing the report.
> 
> According to the report, penned by former Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Reza Kahlili, for the WND.com website, the explosion “destroyed much of the installation and trapped about 240 personnel deep underground.”
> 
> Kahlili, who says he turned CIA agent in the 1980s and 90s, cited a “source in the security forces protecting Fordow” as saying that the blast occurred last Monday at Fordow, which is located deep inside a mountain to protect it from aerial attack.
> 
> “The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran- Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast,” the report added.
> 
> The existence of the Fordow enrichment plant was kept secret by Iran, until it was discovered by Western intelligence in 2009, and the question of how long it had been in operation remains unanswered.
> 
> Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, noted on Sunday that Iran is enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow, “and it raises concerns because it is buried deep in a mountain.”
> 
> She added, “There have been many references to the fact that Israel doesn’t have strong enough bombs to penetrate it from the air, but the US MOP [massive ordnance penetrator] is reported to be able to penetrate it.”
> 
> Landau added that reports surfaced six months ago saying that the MOP is operational.
> 
> The shutting down of Fordow is one of the three demands made on Iran by the P5+1 nations during talks with the Islamic Republic.
> 
> According to a 2011 IAEA report, Iran is testing detonators for nuclear blasts at its secret base in Parchin, and has refused to allow UN inspectors access to the site.
> 
> Jpost.com staff contributed to this report.


----------



## cupper

*BOOM*

Israel: "Hey! What are you kids doing over there?"

Iran: "Nothing!"

 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

National post reports in more depth. This makes the situation even murkier, as everyone will now have to think of the effects of a new player in the game (some sides might even want to coopt the IDF as their own air force, for example). Israel must not remain engaged for a prolonged period, so their calculus is even finer. For now I would say Israeli SoF units and Intelligence is on the ground with the Air Force "on call":

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/30/israeli-airstrike-hits-truck-convoy-in-syria-that-may-contain-weapons-bound-for-hezbollah-in-lebanon/



> *Israeli airstrike hits truck convoy in Syria that may contain weapons bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon*
> 
> Associated Press | Jan 30, 2013 1:07 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 30, 2013 7:52 PM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> BEIRUT — Israel conducted an airstrike inside Syria overnight near the border with Lebanon, hitting a convoy of trucks, U.S. and regional officials said Wednesday.
> 
> The regional officials said Israel had been planning in the days leading up to the airstrike to hit a shipment of weapons bound for the Islamist militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. They said the shipment included sophisticated, Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, which would be strategically “game-changing” in the hands of Hezbollah.
> 
> Hezbollah has committed to Israel’s destruction and has gone to war against the Jewish state in the past.
> 
> A U.S. official said the strike hit a convoy of trucks.
> 
> All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the strike.
> 
> The Israeli military declined to comment.
> 
> The Syrian government said that the airstrike took place within their territory and that the building hit was a scientific research facility in the Damascus suburbs.
> 
> Top Israeli officials have recently expressed worries that if desperate, the regime of President Bashar Assad could pass chemical weapons to Hezbollah or other militant groups. U.S. officials say they are tracking Syria’s chemical weapons and that they still appear to be solidly under regime control.
> 
> Among Israeli security officials’ chief fears is that Hezbollah could get its hands on Syrian chemical arms and SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles. If that were to happen, it would change the balance of power in the region and greatly hinder Israel’s ability to conduct air sorties in Lebanon.
> 
> Related
> Israel ramps up warplane presence over Lebanon amid fears of chemical weapons in Syria
> Dozens of bodies found in Aleppo as Israel deploys Iron Dome, warning that Syria is ‘coming apart’
> Israel warns it will attack Syria to prevent transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah
> .
> Israel suspects that Damascus obtained a battery of SA-17s from Russia after an alleged Israeli airstrike in 2007 that destroyed an unfinished Syrian nuclear reactor.
> 
> Earlier this week, Israel moved a battery of its new “Iron Dome” rocket defence system to the northern city of Haifa, which was battered by Hezbollah rocket fire in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. The Israeli army called that move “routine.”
> 
> The military in Lebanon, which shares borders with both Israel and Syria, said Wednesday that Israeli warplanes have sharply increased their activity over Lebanon in the past week, including at least 12 sorties in less than 24 hours in the country’s south.
> 
> A senior Lebanese security official said there were no Israeli airstrikes inside Lebanese territory. Asked whether it could have been along the border on the Syrian side, he said that that could not be confirmed as it was out of his area of operations.
> 
> He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
> 
> A Lebanese army statement said the last of the sorties took place at 2 a.m. local time Wednesday. It said four warplanes which flew in over the southernmost coastal town of Naqoura hovered for several hours over villages in southern Lebanon before leaving Lebanese airspace.
> 
> It said similar flights by eight other warplanes were conducted Tuesday.
> 
> A Lebanese security official said the flights were part of “increased activity” in the past week but did not elaborate. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.
> 
> The area of Lebanon where the flights took place borders southern Syria.
> 
> Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace are not uncommon and Lebanese authorities routinely lodge complaints at the U.N. against the flights.



Sorry, wrong thread. Can a Mod place this in the Syria thread please?


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sorry, wrong thread. Can a Mod place this in the Syria thread please?



Actually, since Hez is a client of Iran, it may just be appropriate.


----------



## 63 Delta

Apparently Iran now has a stealth fighter... Looks like a F35 but smaller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JosSIu8lsks
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f79_1359795485

Would love to hear what the pilots of the forum think about this plane.


----------



## a_majoor

While I am not a pilot, I like to think I am a person of normal intelligence and perception (well, that's what I think anyway  )

Based on a quick look when they showed this on CTV News this morning, it is another elaborate toy, or maybe a hoax.

The position of the cockpit and size of the nose indicates that either no or a very small radar set could be carried.
The air intakes are in an unusual position and would be masked by the airframe in some flight regimes; something the pilot might not approve of.
The various angles do not seem to line up: this is one of the key marks of any "real" stealth airplane, all angles are aligned to control the direction of radar returns.

Anyway, Iran's capability to actually build high tech devices like aircraft is limited, so even if this is a real airplane, they have chosen to channel their resources in other projects, so they "might" be able to hand assemble one or two over a prolonged period of time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some bloggers noted the airspeed indicator maxes out at 300kts. No doubt this is more for internal consumption than external, unless their R&D branch wants the western bloggers to correct all their mistakes for them.


----------



## 57Chevy

According to this article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act, US Senator John McCain is quoted as saying that
Iran wants to send another monkey into space.
No offence to Mr. abadajimmyhadabadidea.  Everone should be able to make and take a joke. (highlights mine)

Iran's President Ahmadinejad offers to go into space
04 Feb  BBC News (Middle East) 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has volunteered to become the first person sent into space by his country's fledgling space programme.
"I'm ready to be the first Iranian to be sacrificed by the scientists of my country and go into space," he is quoted by state media as saying.

Iran announced last week that it had successfully sent a monkey to space.

Western nations have expressed concern that Iran's space programme is being used to develop long-range missiles.

Such missiles could potentially be used to carry nuclear warheads.

Iran denies it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes.

Worms

President Ahmadinejad made his space-travel offer during an address to scientists on Iran's national day of space technology in Tehran, state media report.

It comes a week after Iran said it had successfully sent a monkey to an altitude of some 120 km (75 miles) for a sub-orbital flight. The monkey returned unharmed. 

In the US Senator John McCain mocked Mr Ahmadinejad's announcement, using Twitter to compare the Iranian president to the nation's space monkey.

"So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space - wasn't he just there last week?" Mr McCain wrote.

The tweet provoked an angry response from many who saw racist overtones in his comparison of the dark-skinned, bearded Mr Ahmadinejad to a monkey.

That prompted Mr McCain to tweet again, saying: "Re: Iran space tweet - lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?"

Pictures released by the Iranian presidency website on Monday showed President Ahmadinejad meeting the monkey.

He also unveiled two small satellites "Nahid" and "Zohreh".

In 2010, Iran successfully sent a rat, a turtle and worms into space.

President Ahmadinejad announced in 2011 that the country planned to send a man into space by 2019. 

A domestically made satellite was sent into orbit for the first time in 2009.


----------



## OldSolduer

So if Iran sent a monkey into space I would expect PETA to vehemently protest this.


----------



## larry Strong

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So if Iran sent a monkey into space I would expect PETA to vehemently protest this.



So........how long do you think those PETA girls would last standing around nekkid in the main square in Tehran?


Larry


----------



## 57Chevy

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Apparently Iran now has a stealth fighter... Looks like a F35 but smaller.



The size of a toy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/trending-iranian-jet-turns-toy-000000721.html


----------



## a_majoor

This reads a lot like George Jonas book Vengeance. Scratch another rabid dog:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/12/erol-araf-death-of-a-master-terrorist-how-the-iranian-jackal-was-killed/



> *Erol Araf: Death of a master terrorist: How the ‘Iranian Jackal’ was killed*
> 
> Erol Araf, National Post | Feb 12, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 12, 2013 9:14 AM ET
> More from National Post
> 
> On the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Imad Mughniyah, a.k.a. “The Iranian Jackal,” much new information about the hunt for the terrorist most wanted by Mossad and the FBI has emerged. It’s a story of high-tech surveillance and old-fashioned espionage, and it’s just starting to be truly told now.
> 
> Imad Mughniyah was 20 years old when he made his debut on the international terrorist scene in 1983, with a series of spectacular and deadly bombings aimed at Western forces in Lebanon. The 1983 Beirut suicide bombings included those on April 18 at the U.S. Embassy (63 killed); on Oct. 23 at the U.S. Marine barracks (241 killed); and on Oct. 23 at the French paratrooper barracks (58 killed). A litany of bombings, hijackings, kidnappings and assassinations followed, with an ever-increasing body count. A list of the attacks he is believed to have been involved in, directly or in a leadership capacity, reads like an index of late-20th-century terrorism: Car bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish cultural center in Argentina (124 killed) in the early 1990s; the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 (6 killed); the Khobar Towers suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 (19 killed); the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 (223 killed); the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen (17 killed).
> 
> And perhaps even the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. The 9/11 Commission Report references “a senior Hezbollah operative” shepherding the future hijackers in and out of Iran. Some terrorism experts believe this was almost certainly Mughniyah. Indeed, according to Peter Lance’s book Triple Cross, Osama bin Laden spoke admiringly of Mughniyah’s lethal handiwork and in 1993 met with him in Khartoum, Sudan, to form a working alliance. That historic meeting, according to Lance, was brokered by Ali Mohamed, bin Laden’s master spy and double agent inside the FBI. Kenneth R. Timmerman, in Countdown to Crisis, quotes Major General Amos Malka, a senior Israeli military intelligence official, saying that before Sept. 11, the Israelis had picked up on numerous signs that bin Laden and Mughniyah were planning new operations against Israel and the U.S. “within the next few weeks.”
> 
> Even after the Sept. 11 attacks, Western intelligence agencies continued to track Mughniyah with interest. According Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran, in 2005 Mossad informed both the CIA and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that Mughniyah had established a Hezbollah network in Montreal to “prepare for the execution of terrorist attacks should the U.S.A. strike at Iranian nuclear installations.” He surfaced again as the prime Hezbollah strategist in the 2006 Lebanon War. Author and former CIA operative Robert Baer has argued that Mughniyah — tall, slender, well dressed and handsome — was the “most intelligent, most capable operative we have ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else. He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments on a telephone, never is predictable. He uses only people that are related to him that he can trust.”
> 
> Despite his prolific terrorism career and the keen interest in the West, it was not until June, 2007, that Mossad caught a break. The lead came from his birthplace, Tayr Dibba, a small town in south Lebanon, some 15 miles from Israel. It came from one of the operatives of the Ali al-Jarrah network, operated by Mossad. Al-Jarrah himself had been recruited while serving time in an Israeli prison, and his cousin Ziad Jarrah was the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 93. His terrorist credentials were impeccable, which made him the perfect Israeli agent. Ali and his brother Yusuf photographed Hezbollah supply routes and travelled extensively in the region, collecting information on Hezbollah activities in south Lebanon. All of this information he passed back to Israel, collecting perhaps as much as $500,000 for his services.
> 
> It was money well spent. A member of al- Jarrah’s network lived in the same village as some of Mughniyah’s family. The informer reported that the terrorist had been moving around major European cities to avoid detection, and that he had changed his appearance. He also had apparently been sending his family occasional postcards from the cities he was hiding in. It wasn’t much to go on, but Israel still sent in a special unit of undercover agents. Blending in with the locals, they worked to verify the intelligence and tap the phones of Mughniyah’s friends and relatives. Israel also began scrutinizing surgical clinics where Mughniyah might have gone to have his appearance altered.
> 
> Israel also paid particular attention to former East German Stasi agents who had maintained contacts with their Palestinian allies even after the fall of communism. When East Germany collapsed, many of its spies packed up whatever sensitive documents they could obtain and then vanished. They used the sensitive information contained in their stolen files to sustain a comfortable living for themselves even long after the end of the Cold War. Israel set about locating them and offering generous payments to anyone with useful information. Before long, a former Stasi agent reached out to a Mossad agent in Berlin: He had the Stasi file on Mughniyah, and it was available for a price. The meeting between Mossad representatives and the ex-Stasi spy took place at the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin. A large file containing Mougniyeh’s latest photographs was exchanged for a brief case containing $250,000. Le Carré would have approved.
> 
> This was a major coup in the hunt for Mughniyah, but it required a further lucky break to give Israel the information it needed to bring Mughniyah down. As recounted by David Markovsky in his article “The Silent Strike,” published last fall in The New Yorker, in 2007, Israeli agents infiltrated the home of Ibrahim Othman, head of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission. Once inside, they bugged his computer. While Israel had been looking for information about the Syrian nuclear weapons program (and indeed, in September of 2007, bombed a nascent nuclear reactor inside Syria), access to this computer allowed Israel to compromise other computers inside the supposedly secure networks of Syria’s rulers. Among the information obtained through this operation were details of weapons transfers from Syria to Mughniyah.
> 
> These Syrian files, the ex-Stasi documents and the intelligence trickling in from Mossad’s spies in Lebanon began to provide a detailed picture of Mughniyah’s recent locations and activities. Israel was getting closer, and in January of 2008 made a breakthrough — it developed intelligence indicating that Mughniyah was having an affair with a woman in Damascus, and would often spend time with her inside a luxury condo in the Syrian capital. The condo, owned by a cousin of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was put under surveillance. It is believed that Mossad was able to get photos of Mughniyah as he came and went from this condo, and that they matched the Stasi files.
> 
> By the time the bomb went off, most of the Israeli agents had already packed up and left. Their mission was accomplished. They shut down the safe houses, removed any incriminating evidence, and calmly left the country under false IDs, escaping before there was any reason for Syria to suspect their presence.
> 
> In early 2008, Mughniyah received an invitation to attend celebrations of the Iranian Revolution at the Iranian Cultural Centre and meet with his Syrian and Iranian contacts. This was scheduled for Feb. 12. Through means yet to be revealed (though perhaps related to Israel’s compromising of the Syrian computer networks), the Mossad found out about this meeting. This meant that they not only knew where he would be, and when, but also, in all likelihood, had up-to-date intelligence on what the target currently looked like.
> 
> The exact sequence of what happened next is still a secret. But enough is known, both about this operation and about Mossad’s modus operandi, to make some educated guesses. A team would be prepared, safe houses established and communications arranged. It’s believed that a squad consisting of four members was assigned to the operation. One member was charged with tracking the target while remaining in constant communication with command and the safe houses. Another member was responsible for arranging transportation and logistics inside Damascus. The third member was tasked with “cover” — monitoring potential and emerging threats to the operation and, if necessary, creating a diversion. The last member was the executioner.
> 
> Out of the safe houses, agents monitored the Iranian Cultural Centre and every place Mughniyah was believed likely to visit. The Damascus safe house had a large garage for wiring vehicles with remotely controlled explosives and altering their appearance, as well as installing mobile command, control and communication equipment. Fake IDs, changes of clothes and plenty of weapons were stashed there, as well, in case anything went wrong. Days before the assassination, Mossad obtained priority access to a recently launched Israeli satellite. State of the art, it was capable of feeding the strike team real-time intelligence 24 hours a day.
> 
> The strike team took up positions outside the Iranian Cultural Centre in Damascus, waiting for Mughniyah. At the same time, a few rented vehicles with remote controlled explosives placed inside headrests were parked, at intervals, along the street. Guests began to arrive at 7:30 p.m., with the Iranian ambassador himself arriving at 8. At 9 p.m., a silver Mitsubishi Pajero turned into the street and parked close to where two strike team members were waiting. For a moment the driver and his passenger sat checking the street. Then the passenger door opened and Imad Mughniyah emerged. He wore a dark suit and his beard had been neatly trimmed. He started to walk up the street, passing one of the cars the Israelis had planted there. It exploded, beheading Mughniyah.
> 
> By the time the bomb went off, most of the Israeli agents had already packed up and left. Their mission was accomplished. They shut down the safe houses, removed any incriminating evidence, and calmly left the country under false IDs, escaping before there was any reason for Syria to suspect their presence. The two agents who had been on the street with Mughniyah when the bomb exploded had a harder time getting out — with Syrian security on high alert, especially at the airports, the agents are reported to have crossed into Lebanon and then sailed out into the Mediterranean in inflatable boats, to be rescued by an Israeli submarine hiding beneath the waves.
> 
> The risky end to the mission, however, did little to obscure the obvious — it had been a complete success. The team had gotten in and out without detection. And, best of all, one of the most dangerous terrorists of our time had been killed, his body so thoroughly shattered that parts were found dozens of metres away from the bomb site.
> 
> “The world is a better place without this man in it,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “One way or the other he was brought to justice.” Indeed. The man who had lived by the car bomb, died by one, too.
> 
> National Post
> 
> Erol Araf is a Montreal-based international business development and strategic planning consultant with a life-long interest in cloak and dagger affairs.


----------



## a_majoor

Another "Oh Crap" moment reported by the National Post today. While it wasn't too difficult to expect that the Iranians were exploring the possibility of creating Plutonium for weapons purposes, having confirmation is still unsettling. Perhaps fortunatly, using Plutonium for nuclear weapons is more difficult than using enriched Uranium (and Plutonium is quite toxic as a heavy metal, outside of its nuclear properties), so as long as this consumes time and resources that Iran has in very liited quantities, it also means they are not going to be able to do lots of "other" things.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/irans-plan-b-for-developing-nuclear-weapons-uncovered-in-satellite-photos/



> *Iran’s Plan B for developing nuclear weapons uncovered in satellite photos*
> 
> James Kirkup, David Blair, Holly Watt and Claire Newell, National Post Wire Services | Feb 27, 2013 10:02 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 10:23 AM ET
> More from National Post Wire Services
> 
> Iran is developing a second path to a nuclear weapons capability by operating a plant that could produce plutonium, satellite images show for the first time.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph [Wednesday] disclosed details of activity at a heavily-guarded Iranian facility from which international inspectors have been barred for 18 months.
> 
> The images, taken only days ago, show that Iran has activated the Arak heavy-water production plant.
> 
> Heavy water is needed to operate a nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium, which could then be used to make a bomb.
> 
> The images show signs of activity at the Arak plant, including a cloud of steam that indicates heavy-water production.
> 
> Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been unable to visit the facility since August 2011 and Iran has refused repeated requests for information about the site, which is 150 miles south-west of the capital, Tehran.
> 
> Western governments and the IAEA have held information about activity at Arak for some time.
> 
> But today’s exclusive images are the first to put evidence of that activity into the public domain.
> 
> The details of Iran’s plutonium programme emerged as the world’s leading nations resumed talks with Tehran aimed at allaying fears over the country’s nuclear ambitions.
> 
> The new images also show details of the Fordow complex, which is concealed hundreds of feet beneath a mountain near the holy city of Qom. At talks in Kazakhstan yesterday, world leaders offered to relax sanctions on Iran in exchange for concessions over Fordow, which is heavily protected from aerial attack.
> 
> Iran insists that its nuclear facilities are for peaceful use, but Western governments fear that Tehran is seeking a nuclear weapon – or at least the ability to build one.
> 
> The striking image of steam over the Arak heavy-water complex is a vivid demonstration that the regime has more than one pathway to a potential nuclear weapon.
> 
> Related
> ‘We’re here to make concrete progress’: Negotiators offer new compromise in Iran nuclear talks
> Conrad Black: If Iran gets the bomb
> Iran could have enough uranium for a nuclear weapon in three months: Officials
> Previously, international talks on Iran’s nuclear programme have focused on the Islamic Republic’s attempts to enrich uranium at plants including Fordow.
> 
> But the new images of Arak highlight the progress Iran has made on facilities that could allow it to produce plutonium, potentially giving the country a second option in developing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> An Iranian bomb would allow the regime to survive any Western challenge and extend its influence in the Middle East.
> 
> Israel fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a mortal threat and encourage more attacks on its territory by Hizbollah militants.
> 
> Western intelligence agencies have made covert attempts to set back the Iranian nuclear programme through sabotage. Some Israeli politicians want to go further and destroy Iran’s nuclear plants from the air before the country can build a bomb.
> 
> Other images of the area around Arak show that numerous anti-aircraft missile and artillery sites protect the plant, more than are deployed around any other known nuclear site in the country.
> 
> Numerous anti-aircraft missile and artillery sites protect the plant, more than are deployed around any other known nuclear site in the country
> The missile defences are most heavily concentrated to the west of the plant, which would be the most direct line of approach for any aircraft delivering a long-range strike from Israel.
> 
> The Arak complex has two parts: the heavy-water plant and a nuclear reactor.
> 
> Unlike the heavy-water plant, the reactor has been opened to examination by inspectors from the IAEA. During a visit earlier this month, the inspectors noted that cooling and “moderator circuit” pipes at the reactor were “almost complete”.
> 
> Iran has told the IAEA that it will begin operating the reactor at Arak in the first three months of 2014.
> 
> The country still lacks the technology to reprocess plutonium and use it for a weapon.
> 
> The country still lacks the technology to reprocess plutonium and use it for a weapon
> But North Korea has successfully developed that technology, and some analysts speculate that Iran could do the same.
> 
> Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US State Department official at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggested that Arak could be part of a process that might trigger Western strikes on Iran.
> 
> One option for the Iranian regime would be to acquire the necessary reprocessing technology from North Korea, he said.
> 
> “By then, the option of a military strike on an operating reactor would present enormous complications because of the radiation that would be spread,” he explained.
> 
> “Some think Israel’s red line for military action is before Arak comes online.”
> 
> Amid growing concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme, The Daily Telegraph commissioned today’s images from commercial satellite operators. The Arak image was recorded on Feb 9.
> 
> The extent of the air defence emplacements around the site make it suspicious
> The IAEA, which is responsible for inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites, says that its inspectors are forced to rely on similar satellite images to monitor Arak.
> 
> The Telegraph’s images were analysed by Stuart Ray of McKenzie Intelligence Services, a consultancy firm.
> 
> He said: “The steam indicates that the heavy-water plant is operational and the extent of the air defence emplacements around the site make it suspicious.”
> 
> Based on its own analysis of satellite images, the IAEA has reached a similar conclusion. In a report distributed to its board last week, the agency reported “ongoing construction” at the Arak site and active heavy water production.
> 
> According to the Institute for Science and International Security, a US think tank, if the heavy-water plant reaches full capacity, it would produce about 20lb of plutonium a year.
> 
> That could be enough for two nuclear warheads if the plutonium was reprocessed.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph


----------



## 57Chevy

Pres. Jimmy Carter On Ben Affleck's Argo Movie _ The Canadians Were The Real Masterminds
Published on Feb 24, 2013 and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-lqWnN-mVw


related posts #2202, 2203, and 2204 preceeding page


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

From Iran Election Watch .com >>>>> Potential Canditate series 
                              __________________________________________________________________________
From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 
by Golnaz Esfandiari 02 March
 Who Will Be Iran's Next President?  <<<< link

Wanted: A few good men to run for Iranian president. Candidates must have strong management skills and commitment to Islamic and revolutionary values. Applicants who are unwaveringly loyal and fully obedient to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, exhibit strong anti-Western leanings, and can present a documented history of hard-line political and religious views will receive preference. All entries will be vetted by the Guardians Council. Oppositionists need not apply. 

These are among the traits and qualifications expected of candidates who plan to run in Iran's June 14 presidential election, according to Iran observers and comments coming from within the supreme leader's inner circle.

In November, the supreme leader's representative in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Hojatoleslam Ali Saeedi, listed management skills and revolutionary and Islamic values as prerequisites for "suitable and competent" candidates.

Iran observers have narrowed the list further, saying the contest will essentially be waged among traditionalists and the new guard within the conservative camp. Reformists or figures close to outgoing President Mahmud Ahmadinejad are given virtually no chance to win, if they choose to throw their hats into the ring at all.

As Washington D.C.-based political analyst Ali Afshari put its, the Islamic regime is looking for a more civilized Ahmadinejad -- that is, in the mold of the current president before he began challenging the supreme leader.

There is a long way to go before a comprehensive and official candidates list can be compiled -- none is yet confirmed -- but names are already being floated. Eventually, according to Habibollah Asgarolad, secretary-general of Iran's Islamic Coalition Party, there will be 40 potential candidates, with 25 from the conservative camp.

So, knowing the qualifications expected and the likely introduction of electoral reforms that could weed out many potential candidates, who is poised to contend? Here's a rundown.

.....at link


----------



## tamouh

a side news on Iran, they blocked VPN access to the outside world:

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/10/iran-blocks-vpn-filters-internet/



> Iran's struggle with the unfiltered internet is well documented -- the nation has spent years fending off cyber attacks, blocking access and potentially fencing its own intranet off from the outside world. Sites like YouTube and Facebook can often only be accessed by using a VPN, bypassing the country's internet filter. Sadly, Iranian users may have to get their Harlem shake fix elsewhere: Iran is putting the lid on "illegal" VPN access. "Within the last few days illegal VPN ports in the country have been blocked," explained Ramezanali Sobhani-Fard, Iran's head of information and communications technology committee. "Only legal and registered VPNs can from now on be used."......
> ......


----------



## a_majoor

Back in the Cold War, Radio America and Radio Free Europe were transmitted from the Free World and beamed across the Iron Curtain. I believe there were also efforts made to smuggle and distribute radios pre tuned to these stations in various areas, especially where the local authorities tried to block the signals.

I can imagine powerful WiFi routers  and other technologies being set up in international spaces to provide some internet access, and of course the US can recruit hordes of hackers to find or place holes in the Iranian system (just like the "Great Firewall of China" gets pierced).

In the end, these sorts of efforts are self defeating, knowledge and information are not only power but also the currency of the modern economy. The USSR tried to censor and control information (even photocopiers were kept under lock and key) a generation ago, and the throttling of information made an already brittle and inflexible system even more unable to compete with the West. The State may try to prop up some areas, but this form of censorship and information management will cause many parts of the economy to start seizing up.


----------



## a_majoor

A lesson in economics as learned on vacation in Iran. Many interesting observations about life for ordinary Iranians and the people who live and work inthe Gulf region. Long article (follow link) but two exerpts here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/my-hyperinflation-vacation/309263/



> _NEWS YOU CAN USE: “For years, I have been advising my cash-poor friends: the secret to an ultracheap international holiday is a Google News search for the words runaway inflation,” Graeme Wood writes in the Atlantic:_
> 
> The place listed in the dateline of any recent articles including that phrase should be your destination. En route to your home airport, visit the bank and withdraw U.S. dollars in crisp hundreds and fifties. At your beleaguered landing place, the local currency’s value will be melting away like a snowman in July. Your greenbacks will remain pleasantly solid. Everyone at your destination—hoteliers, restaurant staff, tour guides—will covet them and cut you deals. For you, luxuries will suddenly become affordable. Until your return flight (assuming you make it back safely, and are not robbed by an increasingly desperate local mob), you will experience the dismal science at its most cheery.
> 
> _And note this:_
> 
> Inflation happens for many reasons, but hyperinflation scenarios are nearly always the same: a government fails to harvest enough revenue to pay its bills—usually because a war has drained its treasury, or its poor fiscal policies have tanked the economy—so it prints money to make up the difference. “The central bank is just producing a lot more money than people want to hold,” Hanke says. “They’re spending much more money than they’re raising in taxes, and they can’t get credit from the private sector. At that point, you’re off to the races.” Monetary supply outstrips demand, and the wild irresponsibility of the government scares everyone away from saving cash. Instead, people buy whatever they can get, immediately, and prices rise accordingly. Anyone caught with cash loses everything.
> 
> _And anyone who has hard currency—the kind that doesn’t evanesce expensively, like smoke from a Cohiba—is sitting pretty._


----------



## CougarKing

> *Meet Iran’s “Carrier Killer”: The Khalij Fars*
> 
> Interestingly, the Fateh-110 is also the basis for Iran’s most potent anti-ship ballistic missile, Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf). According to Iranian media outlets, “the supersonic projectile, which carries a 650-kilogram warhead, is immune to interception and features high-precision systems.”
> 
> The anti-ship variant of the missile was first tested in early 2011, and coincided with Iran announcing the completion of a long-range, passive radar covering a 1,100km-radius. Later that year Iran announced that the missile had entered mass production. In tests since that time Iran has said the missile registered a 100 percent success rate in hitting ship-like platforms positioned in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Iran has long been interested in fielding anti-ship ballistic missiles, having fielded less sophisticated anti-ship missiles based on Chinese designs since at least the early 1990s, according to a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute.
> 
> *Khalij Fars makes a number of improvements on these earlier ASMs, including a longer range, uses solid fuel (which only some of the past ASMs did), and, perhaps most importantly, uses a mid-course inertial guidance (INS) for improved accuracy while in-flight. Still, some naval analysts have doubted its ability to hit non-stationary targets.
> 
> Iran has not been bashful about declaring the purpose of the missile— to frustrate the U.S. Navy’s ability to operate close to Iran’s shores in the Persian Gulf. *  As Iran’s Deputy Defense Minister General, Majid Bokayee explained last month: “We managed to employ the ballistic missiles which had previously been designed and produced for ground-to-ground missions for targeting enemy ships, and then we witnessed the U.S. naval fleets' retreat in the Persian Gulf after the first test on the missile.”
> 
> More...


----------



## tomahawk6

You forgot to mention their new stealth aircraft. ;D
With regard to the so called carrier killer,there have been no tests of the missile.Like many new wonder weapons of Iranian make,you have to wonder if they are even real.






Looks like a mock up,as the pilot is too big for the aircraft. 

or the new stealth drone


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Those look more like some sort of tank or artillery rounds, held on with hose clamps, than missles on hardpoints on the drone. The dish on the bottom, whatever it's supposed to be, doesn't look very aerodynamic either. Making it harder for the miniscule prop to push this thing off the ground.

Nice looking display, in pretty colours, for the ignorant masses though.

However, my expertise in these things is in the minus column. :dunno:


----------



## OldSolduer

Is the wing on that "drone" zap strapped on?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sure looks like it Jim. Great catch!


----------



## Old Sweat

Maybe I am reading too much into the pictures, but is what appears to be a two-bladed propellor sufficient to power an aircraft of that size?


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sure looks like it Jim. Great catch!



Thanks, maybe some air frame experts can shed some more light on this. The do look like those packing straps don't they?


----------



## George Wallace

Casing is not fluted like a tank round, and too long for an arty round.  Perhaps a Recoilless Rifle round.  

If that is the case, I wonder if this drone is designed to spin/spiral in, so as to arm the warhead, before crashing into its target?   >


----------



## AliG

Could be the angle, but the tail boom does not appear to be level. It looks higher on the left side in both photos.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is a  two part video  of an UAV called the “Hamaseh” (Epic), which is meant to be a “reconnaissance and combat drone.”  The first part of the video shows the Hamaseh taking off, flying and landing. Note that its not caring any ordnance nor the dish shaped radome. Also, notice how long it takes to get airborne. The second part shows the the UAV being unveiled and then some talking head giving some spiel (Any Farsi speakers out there?). Note this model has a different paint scheme and appears to mounting two tubes under the wings (Rockets launcher tubes?). 

Here is another  article  on the "Hemaseh" UAV that shows it mounting two MANPADS launch tubes under the left wing. Note the different nose configuration.


----------



## tomahawk6

Another angle of the drone.


----------



## CougarKing

Is this man a challenger to the status quo in Iran?



> *Ahmadinejad protégé poses challenge to Iran's leader*
> 
> Reuters By Marcus George | Reuters – 18 hours ago.
> 
> link
> 
> 
> By Marcus George
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nationalist protégé *Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie* is one of the most divisive men in Iran, and* if he is allowed to stand in June's presidential election, it would be a direct challenge to the authority of the supreme leader.
> 
> Mashaie brought to an end years of speculation on Saturday by registering as a candidate in an election that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hopes will usher in a period of much needed calm and unity*.
> 
> But Mashaie's candidacy has the potential to tear apart the already strained political divisions between non-clerical populists, like him and Ahmadinejad, and loyal lieutenants of the Islamic theocracy, just four years after Iran was rocked by widespread protests over Ahmadinejad disputed re-election.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Robert0288

Forgot it was election time again in Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

It seems Tehran is taking a more direct role with this move rather than just acting through Hezbollah...

link



> *Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria*
> 
> 
> World Exclusive: US urges UK and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing conflict
> 
> *Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.*
> 
> For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.
> 
> The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards  to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years.  Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.
> 
> In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for  2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor – a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala – continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between “Papists and Protestants”.
> 
> America’s alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan – flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees – may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle.  *Up to 3,000 American ‘advisers’ are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria ‘no-fly zone’ – opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries – will turn a crisis into a ‘hot’ war. *  So much for America’s ‘friends’.
> 
> Its enemies include the Lebanese Hizballah, the Alawite Shiite regime in Damascus and, of course, Iran. And Iraq, a largely Shiite nation which America ‘liberated’ from Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority in the hope of balancing the Shiite power of Iran, has – against all US predictions – itself now largely fallen under Tehran’s influence and power.  Iraqi Shiites as well as Hizballah members, have both fought alongside Assad’s forces.
> 
> Washington’s excuse for its new Middle East adventure – that it must arm Assad’s enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them – convinces no-one in the Middle East.  Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bush’s claim that Saddam’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> For the real reason why America has thrown its military power behind Syria’s Sunni rebels is because those same rebels are now losing their war against Assad.  The Damascus regime’s victory this month in the central Syrian town of  Qusayr, at the cost of Hizballah lives as well as those of government forces, has thrown the Syrian revolution into turmoil, threatening to humiliate American and EU demands for Assad to abandon power.  Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed – unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf – not to be sustained.  Yet Russia has given its total support to Assad, three times vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that might have allowed the West to intervene directly in the civil war.
> 
> In the Middle East, there is cynical disbelief at the American contention that it can distribute arms – almost certainly including anti-aircraft missiles – only to secular Sunni rebel forces in Syria represented by the so-called Free Syria Army.  The more powerful al-Nusrah Front, allied to al-Qaeda, dominates the battlefield on the rebel side and has been blamed for atrocities including the execution of Syrian government prisoners of war and the murder of a 14-year old boy for blasphemy.  They will be able to take new American weapons from their Free Syria Army comrades with little effort.
> 
> From now on, therefore, every suicide bombing in Damascus - every war crime committed by the rebels - will be regarded in the region as Washington’s responsibility. The very Sunni-Wahabi Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011 – who are America’s greatest enemies as well as Russia’s – are going to be proxy allies of the Obama administration. This terrible irony can only be exacerbated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s adament refusal to tolerate any form of Sunni extremism.  His experience in Chechenya, his anti-Muslim rhetoric – he has made obscene remarks about Muslim extremists in a press conference in Russian – and his belief that Russia’s old ally in Syria is facing the same threat as Moscow fought in Chechenya, plays a far greater part in his policy towards Bashar al-Assad than the continued existence of Russia’s naval port at the Syrian Mediterranean city of Tartous.
> 
> For the Russians, of course, the ‘Middle East’ is not in the ‘east’ at all, but to the south of Moscow;  and statistics are all-important. The Chechen capital of Grozny is scarcely 500 miles from the Syrian frontier.  Fifteen per cent of Russians are Muslim.  Six of the Soviet Union’s communist republics had a Muslim majority, 90 per cent of whom were Sunni.  And Sunnis around the world make up perhaps 85 per cent of all Muslims.  For a Russia intent on repositioning itself across a land mass that includes most of the former Soviet Union, Sunni Islamists of the kind now fighting the Assad regime are its principal antagonists.
> 
> *Iranian sources say they liaise constantly with Moscow, and that while Hizballah’s overall withdrawal from Syria is likely to be completed soon – with the maintenance of the militia’s ‘intelligence’ teams inside Syria – Iran’s support for Damascus will grow rather than wither.  They point out that the Taliban recently sent a formal delegation for talks in Tehran and that America will need Iran’s help in withdrawing from Afghanistan.  The US, the Iranians say, will not be able to take its armour and equipment out of the country during its continuing war against the Taliban without Iran’s active assistance.  One of the sources claimed – not without some mirth -- that the French were forced to leave 50 tanks behind when they left because they did not have Tehran’s help.
> 
> It is a sign of the changing historical template in the Middle East that within the framework of old Cold War rivalries between Washington and Moscow, Israel’s security has taken second place to the conflict in Syria.  Indeed, Israel’s policies in the region have been knocked askew by the Arab revolutions, leaving its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hopelessly adrift amid the historic changes*.
> 
> Only once over the past two years has Israel fully condemned atrocities committed by the Assad regime, and while it has given medical help to wounded rebels on the Israeli-Syrian border, it fears an Islamist caliphate in Damascus far more than a continuation of Assad’s rule.  One former Israel intelligence commander recently described Assad as “Israel’s man in Damascus”.  Only days before President Mubarak was overthrown, both Netanyahu and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Washington to ask Obama to save the Egyptian dictator.  In vain.
> 
> If the Arab world has itself been overwhelmed by the two years of revolutions, none will have suffered from the Syrian war in the long term more than the Palestinians.  The land they wish to call their future state has been so populated with Jewish Israeli colonists that it can no longer be either secure or ‘viable’.  ‘Peace’ envoy Tony Blair’s attempts to create such a state have been laughable.  A future ‘Palestine’ would be a Sunni nation.  But today, Washington scarcely mentions the Palestinians.
> 
> Another of the region’s supreme ironies is that Hamas, supposedly the ‘super-terrorists’ of Gaza, have abandoned Damascus and now support the Gulf Arabs’ desire to crush Assad.  Syrian government forces claim that Hamas has even trained Syrian rebels in the manufacture and use of home-made rockets.
> 
> In Arab eyes, Israel’s 2006 war against the Shia Hizballah was an attempt to strike at the heart of Iran. The West’s support for Syrian rebels is a strategic attempt to crush Iran. But Iran is going to take the offensive.  Even for the Middle East, these are high stakes. Against this fearful background, the Palestinian tragedy continues.


----------



## cupper

Nothing good can come of this.


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> Nothing good can come of this.



Agreed. The Middle East has always, in my memory, been unstable. This destabilizes it even further.


----------



## a_majoor

Too bad the Iranian combat troops (or Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon) can't have an "accident" while deploying to Syria. It would solve several problems at once, so long as it was not attributable....


----------



## MilEME09

With Pro-rebel forces poised ready on two borders with Syria, Iran now publically directly involved. I think it will be a clear indication of things to come if we see movement from the US sixth fleet towards Syria, we could be looking at the starting's of a all out war in the middle east.


----------



## RHIB

I don't think Iran will actually have the power to strike US soil or Canadian/UK whatever soil anytime soon, Korea has been researching nuclear missiles for years and they can barely reach outside of Korea.

Even so if they make a nuclear missiles they could very well attack Israel or another US Allie in the middle eastern area, witch is concerning considering a major upset in the middle east could cause oil prices to sky rocket.


----------



## CougarKing

link



> *Israel's Netanyahu says Iran closer to nuclear 'red line'*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Iran was getting closer to the "red line" he set for its nuclear program and warned the international community not to be distracted by the crises in Syria and Egypt.
> 
> *Tehran was continuing enrichment activities and building inter-continental ballistic missiles, which could give it a military nuclear capability, he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
> 
> At the United Nations in September, Netanyahu drew a red line across a cartoon bomb to illustrate the point at which Iran will have amassed enough uranium to fuel one nuclear bomb. He said Iran could reach that threshold by mid-2013.*
> 
> "They haven't yet reached it but they're getting closer to it and they have to be stopped," Netanyahu told CBS. He said the West's sanctions against Tehran needed to be intensified and backed up with the threat of a credible military option.
> 
> Netanyahu also said Iran was building faster centrifuges that could allow it to speed up its enrichment activities.
> 
> *Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, has issued veiled warnings for years that it might attack Iran if international sanctions and diplomacy fail to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.*
> Israel has long insisted on the need for a convincing military threat and setting clear lines beyond which Iran's nuclear activity should not advance.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CBH99

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, and I'm certainly not trying to "troll" the thread at all...

BUT...

Why do we still care about all of this crap in the middle east??  I remember listening to the news & talking about this kind of stuff with my parents when I was 10yrs old.  I'm 30 now for crying out loud - and you know what's changed??  Not a whole lot.

Iran hates Israel, we all know that.  Israel is looking for any excuse it can to turn its regional adversaries into dust.  Thus the constant and never ending political tension, stroked & relit by parties in all of the countries involved - sometimes, including Israel.  

Will Iran ever achieve the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon?  In my opinion, its inevitable.  

The rest of the world has had nuclear power & nuclear knowledge for approximately 70 years now.  The rest of the world has had this knowledge for so long, and applied this knowledge for so long, that it has become relatively mainstream for us.  Nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines - cities & entire regions powered by nuclear power plants - nuclear powered satellites, etc etc.

So if the rest of the world has an active working knowledge of how to apply nuclear power to everyday life - is it really reasonable for us to assume that Iran "may" get it sometime soonish?  My personal opinion, its a silly argument of inevitability.  

The real question should be - what does the rest of the world do, once they do achieve their goal?  Level it back to the stoneage, and continue doing so anytime they start to make technological progress towards something many of us already take for granted?  Enforce the harshest economic & military sanctions we possibly can?  Keep it permanently occupied with western military forces, to make sure things go as planned?

None of those things would work.  So again, what should the solution be WHEN (Not if) they achieve the technological ability to produce their own nuclear power, and thus potentially a working nuclear weapon?


(While I certainly don't support Mr. CantPronounceHisLastName, we have to keep certain things in perspective.  We did overthrow their democratically elected system of government back in the 50's, in order to ensure our own oil security.  And we did accidentally shoot down one of their civilian airliners.  And we did launch a few Tomahawks into Iraq, courtesy of Iranian airspace - without asking permission first.  And the list goes on and on.  

So while I DO NOT SUPPORT him & his sh*t disturbing rhetoric, we do have to understand they have a reasonable right to view us with a paranoid eye too, and take steps they feel are necessary to ensure their own self defense...even if their reasons are misguided.)


----------



## CougarKing

Yet another sign of the UN's ineptitude when it comes to situations like this... 

link



> *Russia, China block U.N. condemnation of Iran missile tests*
> Reuters
> 
> UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. Security Council committee is split over whether Iran's missile tests last year violated U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran because of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, Australia's U.N. envoy said on Monday.
> 
> That division effectively rules out any expansion of sanctions against Tehran over the tests for the time being, U.N. envoys said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Diplomats said it was Russia, backed by China, that refused to declare Tehran's missile launches a violation of the U.N. restrictions, as a U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran said was the case.
> 
> The rift on the Iran sanctions committee, which consists of all 15 Security Council members, highlights the difficulties Western powers face in persuading Russia and China to join them in keeping up the pressure on Tehran to halt banned nuclear and missile work.
> 
> Iran rejects allegations by the United States, European powers and their allies that it is developing an atomic weapons capability. It says the U.N. sanctions against it are illegal and refuses to comply with them.
> 
> As long as the sanctions committee remains divided, it will be difficult for the Security Council to add names of any Iranian individuals or entities linked to the missile tests, Security Council diplomats said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> (...)
> Western powers accuse Iran of supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and militant groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside Assad's troops in Syria to defeat rebels in the civil war there.
> 
> "Several committee members stated that the evidence presented in the report was sufficient to assert that Iran was in violation of its obligations, illustrating a pattern of sanctions evasion through arms smuggling in the Middle East," his report said.
> 
> "Other committee members stated that the lack of stronger evidence as to the provenance of the arms, such as documentation, justified the lack of a definitive conclusion," his report added.
> 
> Russia and China were the "other committee members" who opposed finding Tehran in clear violation of the U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, council diplomats said.


----------



## CougarKing

Thomas Erdbrink, who is the NY Times' Tehran bureau chief and one of few Westerners still reporting directly from Iran, weighs in on Iran's new President-elect. 



> quote:
> 
> 
> *President-Elect Stirs Optimism in Iran and West*
> 
> By THOMAS ERDBRINK
> Published: July 26, 2013
> 
> TEHRAN — Bogged down in faltering nuclear talks with the European powers nearly 10 years ago, Hassan Rouhani did something that no Iranian diplomat before or since has managed to do.
> 
> He took out his cellphone, say Western diplomats who were there, *dialed up his longtime friend and associate, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and convinced him that Iran needed to suspend nuclear enrichment. The call by Mr. Rouhani, who was elected president in June and will take office next week, resulted in an agreement in October 2003, the only nuclear deal between Iran and the West in the past 11 years. *
> 
> *“Rouhani showed that he is a central player in Iran’s political establishment,”* said Stanislas de Laboulaye, a retired director general of the French Foreign Ministry, who was a member of the European delegation during the talks between 2003 and 2005. “He was the only one able to sell something deeply unpopular to the other leaders.”
> 
> *There is growing optimism in Iran and in the West that Mr. Rouhani, 64, is ready to restart serious talks on the nuclear issue*; Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq told the United States this month that Mr. Rouhani was ready to start direct talks, and the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to engage in head-to-head dialogue after years of inclusive multiparty negotiations.
> 
> *In his campaign for president and again in recent weeks, Mr. Rouhani has made it clear that he is deeply concerned about his country’s growing economic troubles and is determined to soften the harsh tone and intransigent tactics of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which have stalled nuclear negotiations and cut off relations with most of the developed world*. But the question, as always in Iran, is the extent to which a President Rouhani can accomplish these goals.
> 
> <break>
> 
> Read more of this two page article here:
> 
> New York Times link


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, and I'm certainly not trying to "troll" the thread at all...
> 
> BUT...
> 
> Why do we still care about all of this crap in the middle east??  I remember listening to the news & talking about this kind of stuff with my parents when I was 10yrs old.  I'm 30 now for crying out loud - and you know what's changed??  Not a whole lot.
> 
> Iran hates Israel, we all know that.  Israel is looking for any excuse it can to turn its regional adversaries into dust.  Thus the constant and never ending political tension, stroked & relit by parties in all of the countries involved - sometimes, including Israel.
> 
> Will Iran ever achieve the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon?  In my opinion, its inevitable.
> 
> The rest of the world has had nuclear power & nuclear knowledge for approximately 70 years now.  The rest of the world has had this knowledge for so long, and applied this knowledge for so long, that it has become relatively mainstream for us.  Nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines - cities & entire regions powered by nuclear power plants - nuclear powered satellites, etc etc.
> 
> So if the rest of the world has an active working knowledge of how to apply nuclear power to everyday life - is it really reasonable for us to assume that Iran "may" get it sometime soonish?  My personal opinion, its a silly argument of inevitability.
> 
> The real question should be - what does the rest of the world do, once they do achieve their goal?  Level it back to the stoneage, and continue doing so anytime they start to make technological progress towards something many of us already take for granted?  Enforce the harshest economic & military sanctions we possibly can?  Keep it permanently occupied with western military forces, to make sure things go as planned?
> 
> None of those things would work.  So again, what should the solution be WHEN (Not if) they achieve the technological ability to produce their own nuclear power, and thus potentially a working nuclear weapon?
> 
> 
> (While I certainly don't support Mr. CantPronounceHisLastName, we have to keep certain things in perspective.  We did overthrow their democratically elected system of government back in the 50's, in order to ensure our own oil security.  And we did accidentally shoot down one of their civilian airliners.  And we did launch a few Tomahawks into Iraq, courtesy of Iranian airspace - without asking permission first.  And the list goes on and on.
> 
> So while I DO NOT SUPPORT him & his sh*t disturbing rhetoric, we do have to understand they have a reasonable right to view us with a paranoid eye too, and take steps they feel are necessary to ensure their own self defense...even if their reasons are misguided.)



You said you didn't want to troll the thread, then, immediately, come out with a ridiculous, inflammatory statement like that.

It's where I stopped reading your post.


----------



## Nemo888

Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.

Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year. 

Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.
> 
> Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year.
> 
> Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.



This is, quite possibly, your least coherent post.  Ever.  And that is saying something.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is, quite possibly, your least coherent post.  Ever.  And that is saying something.


It does reaffirm though why he's on <ignore>   I could have blissfully missed it had you not quoted it.   :nod:


----------



## cupper

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, and I'm certainly not trying to "troll" the thread at all...
> 
> BUT...
> 
> Why do we still care about all of this crap in the middle east??  I remember listening to the news & talking about this kind of stuff with my parents when I was 10yrs old.  I'm 30 now for crying out loud - and you know what's changed??  Not a whole lot.
> 
> Iran hates Israel, we all know that.  Israel is looking for any excuse it can to turn its regional adversaries into dust.  Thus the constant and never ending political tension, stroked & relit by parties in all of the countries involved - sometimes, including Israel.
> 
> Will Iran ever achieve the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon?  In my opinion, its inevitable.
> 
> The rest of the world has had nuclear power & nuclear knowledge for approximately 70 years now.  The rest of the world has had this knowledge for so long, and applied this knowledge for so long, that it has become relatively mainstream for us.  Nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines - cities & entire regions powered by nuclear power plants - nuclear powered satellites, etc etc.
> 
> So if the rest of the world has an active working knowledge of how to apply nuclear power to everyday life - is it really reasonable for us to assume that Iran "may" get it sometime soonish?  My personal opinion, its a silly argument of inevitability.
> 
> The real question should be - what does the rest of the world do, once they do achieve their goal?  Level it back to the stoneage, and continue doing so anytime they start to make technological progress towards something many of us already take for granted?  Enforce the harshest economic & military sanctions we possibly can?  Keep it permanently occupied with western military forces, to make sure things go as planned?
> 
> None of those things would work.  So again, what should the solution be WHEN (Not if) they achieve the technological ability to produce their own nuclear power, and thus potentially a working nuclear weapon?
> 
> 
> (While I certainly don't support Mr. CantPronounceHisLastName, we have to keep certain things in perspective.  We did overthrow their democratically elected system of government back in the 50's, in order to ensure our own oil security.  And we did accidentally shoot down one of their civilian airliners.  And we did launch a few Tomahawks into Iraq, courtesy of Iranian airspace - without asking permission first.  And the list goes on and on.
> 
> So while I DO NOT SUPPORT him & his sh*t disturbing rhetoric, we do have to understand they have a reasonable right to view us with a paranoid eye too, and take steps they feel are necessary to ensure their own self defense...even if their reasons are misguided.)


Ignoring the obvious ignorant rhetoric on Israeli intents, your diatribe is still full of ill informed statements.

To make the argument of the rest of the world having nuclear knowledge and power for the past 70 years so why shouldn't Iran is to ignore the years of history prior to the '79 Revolution. Iran has had some form of nuclear program since the Eisenhower era program "Atoms for Peace". In fact, their first nuclear power plant which came on line in 2011 had started construction in the mid '70's, with one reactor at 85% completion when the Islamic Revolution took place. They've had a research reactor for many years, that had to shut down after the Revolution due to a lack of HEU fuel when the US cut off exports. Only after Argentina began supplying 20% enriched material were they able to start it up again.

Had the Revolution not taken place when it did, Iran was working towards building quite a few nuclear reactors to make the country energy self-sufficient under The Shah's policies for a future when oil had finally run out. All with the backing of the US and European allies.

No one is trying to keep Iran from developing it's own domestic nuclear energy program. What the US, and the Western governments are trying to stop is development of a nuclear weapon. A country can have a domestic nuclear energy program without proceeding to the development of weaponized technologies. However Iran has shown a propensity for researching and developing technologies solely related to weapons development (triggers, high level enrichment, miniaturization, delivery systems technology). A scary proposition for a country that has demonstrated its desire to become teh dominant regional power, and has been proven to outsource to proxies and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.


----------



## cupper

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.
> 
> Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year.
> 
> Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.



This is just ...  :facepalm: 

Umm... :dunno:

 :not-again:


----------



## Nemo888

Under what conditions can you use a bomb with a yield of 475 thousand tons of TNT that would not be a war crime? I see war as difficult to avoid and sometimes inevitable, but I do not see the need for nuclear weapons. They serve little military purpose. Threatening mutual extinction is not a rational argument. Either no one has them or everyone will eventually. WMD's that reduce the number of humans without destroying the rest of the life and resources on the planet are more rational. Resource scarcity, often spurred by overpopulation, will be what the next wars are about. Going back to biological weapons makes more sense then doubling down on the scorched earth policies of nuclear war. Both are evil, but one is more likely to have two losers. History needs a winner for civilization to continue. Often it didn't matter who the winner was in the long run, just that there was one.

Israel is making things worse with the Palestinians and losing the battle to control the occupied territories. Without American aid they would already have had to deal with the problem. In 2016 there will be as many Palestinians as Israelis. After that date Jews are a minority. So giving them a state of their own needs to be done sooner rather than later. After 2016 Palestinians want integration and will no longer accept a two state solution. Israel's inability to see the obvious consequences of the status quo is irrational.


----------



## George Wallace

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Under what conditions can you use a bomb with a yield of 475 thousand tons of TNT that would not be a war crime? I see war as difficult to avoid and sometimes inevitable, but I do not see the need for nuclear weapons. They serve little military purpose. Threatening mutual extinction is not a rational argument. Either no one has them or everyone will eventually. WMD's that reduce the number of humans without destroying the rest of the life and resources on the planet are more rational. Resource scarcity, often spurred by overpopulation, will be what the next wars are about. Going back to biological weapons makes more sense then doubling down on the scorched earth policies of nuclear war. Both are evil, but one is more likely to have two losers. History needs a winner for civilization to continue. Often it didn't matter who the winner was in the long run, just that there was one.
> 
> Israel is making things worse with the Palestinians and losing the battle to control the occupied territories. Without American aid they would already have had to deal with the problem. In 2016 there will be as many Palestinians as Israelis. After that date Jews are a minority. So giving them a state of their own needs to be done sooner rather than later. After 2016 Palestinians want integration and will no longer accept a two state solution. Israel's inability to see the obvious consequences of the status quo is irrational.



Obviously you are "mad".  Your logic is that of a madman.  Only a madman would suggest and condone biological weapons.  Weapons that would kill indiscriminately in the most horrible of ways, in some cases for years, making areas just as uninhabitable as if you used nuclear weapons.


----------



## Nemo888

Only unusable to humans with no damage to the natural resources. I did not say chemical weapons. More like the things the biopreparat made back in the day that are still sitting in a freezer somewhere.


----------



## George Wallace

You obviously are not knowledgeable on this subject.


----------



## Nemo888

The biopreparat smallpox deployed in Cuba is one the worst kept secrets around. They say it kills in three hours. The pathogens were deployed during the Cold War and tons of them produced. Biological weapons are nuts, but nukes are worse IMO. I would rather have neither. The Russians have extensive capabilities for producing and deploying viral weapons. If we don't consider this we will have no defensive capabilities.


----------



## George Wallace

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The biopreparat smallpox deployed in Cuba is one the worst kept secrets around. They say it kills in three hours. The pathogens were deployed during the Cold War and tons of them produced. Biological weapons are nuts, but nukes are worse IMO. I would rather have neither. The Russians have extensive capabilities for producing and deploying viral weapons. If we don't consider this we will have no defensive capabilities.



As I said, you are not very knowledgeable on this subject, so drop it.


----------



## Nemo888

Seen.


----------



## kevincanada

The Russians having smallpox?  This is not new or secret.  Pretty sure the Americans have it also plus another nation if my memory serves me.  We are talking a decade since I read about it therefore my memory is rough.  They were kept for research purposes.  There is sister pox viruses to the smallpox.  Again if I remember correctly the smallpox virus can be mixed up in a lab by doctors to treat a outbreak of the other pox viruses if it ever happened.  Back before smallpox was eradicated.  People use to immunize themselves to it using cowpox.  Once the immunize system fought off the Cowpox,  Smallpox couldn't hurt you.

Don't take this is 100% correct.  It was a long time ago when I read about it.


----------



## a_majoor

Kevin, the smallpox being referenced here is the stockpile of weaponized biological agents creted by the (then Soviet) institute "Biopreparat".  Its existence was exposed by events such as the Anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk and revalations by defectors such as  Vladimir Pasechnik and Colonel Kanatjan Alibekov. Efforts to have the system opened for international inspection were met by denials and evasions, eventually some facilities were open for international inspection but most of the equipment had been gutted, leaving behind troubling evidence like giant fermentation tanks which were obviously designed for industrial scale production. Observed tests of Soviet ICBM warheads that did not behave like the conventional nuclear warheads led to suspicion these were refrigerated delivery vehicles to allow the dispersion of biological agents.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is there is no clean "end"; the scientists who worked for Biopreparat were dispersed (many going to work for other nations) and no accounting for whatever stockpiles of biological weaponry that were created was ever done. Where this stuff is, how secure it is and what condition it may be today in are all unknown.

Like George said, dispersion of biological weaponry is irrisponsible and totally beyond the pale; bioweapons can contaminate areas for centuries (some British test sites for Anthrax used in the 1950's are off limits until nearly the end of this century due to fears the Anthrax spores remain in the soil) and spread in totally unpredictable ways.


----------



## George Wallace

Suffield is but one example of an area where various agents tested as early as the World Wars, still persist today.


----------



## Nemo888

kevincanada said:
			
		

> The Russians having smallpox?  This is not new or secret.  Pretty sure the Americans have it also plus another nation if my memory serves me.  We are talking a decade since I read about it therefore my memory is rough.  They were kept for research purposes.  There is sister pox viruses to the smallpox.  Again if I remember correctly the smallpox virus can be mixed up in a lab by doctors to treat a outbreak of the other pox viruses if it ever happened.  Back before smallpox was eradicated.  People use to immunize themselves to it using cowpox.  Once the immunize system fought off the Cowpox,  Smallpox couldn't hurt you.
> 
> Don't take this is 100% correct.  It was a long time ago when I read about it.



I may not have been trained by the army in biological warfare but my mom was a world class virologists and mycologist. She made many engineered strains for use in vaccines and her statistical analysis models are still in use today. (and possibly the yeast in your beer if you live near Calgary) Weaponized viruses are immune to known vaccines. Resistance to known vaccines is one of the first things tested. Smallpox was only one of the first in a long line of weaponized organisms. Russian weaponized polio sounds much worse and that may still be in missiles pointed at Florida for all I know. The biopreparat produced(produces?) literally metric tons of organisms. They were sophisticated enough to make vaccines to protect their troops from the weaponized versions. So the long term contamination problem was rectified for the winners at least.

When the Soviet Union fell apart some of the scientists said of the 1972 bioweapons treaty, "We thought you were lying so we never stopped our program."  Since we fired all our bioweapons developers in the 1970's we had almost no knowledge base to defend against these weapons. The Americans paid the Russian experts huge paychecks to get them up to speed.

My point was bioweapons are madness, but nukes are even less rational. No one should have bioweapons or nukes. Defending nukes makes less sense than defending bioweapons. Both target civilians and are a war crime in a convenient delivery system.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm not clear what you are getting at Nemo. Are you saying the Iranians also have a bioweapons program? I have not seen any evidence of that to date.

Are you saying the Iranians should not be developing Nuclear weapons? This sentiment is a bit too late. 

Are you saying they should not use them? Virtually every weapon that actually works has been used in war (bioweapons were pretty popular in the ancient world and into the middle ages, and the native peoples of North and South America were decimated by diseases knowingly and unknowingly spread among the population), and only the winners get to say what is "moral" and what is not. (one can only imagine the sort of world we would be living in if the Axis powers or USSR had won their respective conflicts with the West.)

Your arguments are pretty unclear, to say the least.


----------



## Nemo888

My point is that if bioweapons are "madness" what does that make nukes? Many viral agents kill only humans. Leaving all resources and infrastructure intact minus most of the populace. Your troops can be inoculated against the agents. As can your settlers to the newly depopulated land. Just like how the United States was founded after smallpox eradicated the natives.

Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. Some, like nukes, are not even rational. At best in a major nuclear exchange they give you ability to make the other guy lose too. They serve almost no purpose militarily. Having a club that has them saying others can't is doomed to failure. If we are serious about not nuking each other till everything glows NO ONE should have them.


----------



## GR66

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> My point is that if bioweapons are "madness" what does that make nukes? Many viral agents kill only humans. Leaving all resources and infrastructure intact minus most of the populace. Your troops can be inoculated against the agents. As can your settlers to the newly depopulated land. Just like how the United States was founded after smallpox eradicated the natives.
> 
> Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. Some, like nukes, are not even rational. At best in a major nuclear exchange they give you ability to make the other guy lose too. They serve almost no purpose militarily. Having a club that has them saying others can't is doomed to failure. If we are serious about not nuking each other till everything glows NO ONE should have them.







			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> When the Soviet Union fell apart some of the scientists said of the 1972 bioweapons treaty, "We thought you were lying so we never stopped our program."  Since we fired all our bioweapons developers in the 1970's we had almost no knowledge base to defend against these weapons. The Americans paid the Russian experts huge paychecks to get them up to speed.




I won't argue that the use of any of these weapons isn't madness.  Hell, even the name of the "strategy" MAD admits as much.  The problem is with the second highlighted comment.  Sure it would be nice if Nuclear (and Biological and Chemical) weapons didn't exist, but they do.  Can you trust that everyone that has them will honestly and permanently get rid of them if we all agree?  If one side doesn't and there is no risk of retaliation (i.e. they could actually "win" by using them) does that in fact increase rather than decrease the chance of their actually being used?


----------



## CougarKing

A repost from the China superthread to put this post in context:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As Mr Rosen says, the Chinese film industry is a tool in China's ongoing _soft power_ campaign ~ _charm offensive_, if you like ~ which aims to use popular entertainment to spread China's "message" as, many people agree, Hollywood spread America's message to the world in the 1930s, '40s, '50s and '60s. Some people argue that only jazz music was more influential, all around the world, than were Hollywood films.




Meanwhile, the Iranians are also attempting their own charm offensive/soft power campaign in the Western Hemisphere:





> As reported in the_* 11 August Washington Post*_:
> 
> Iran has been providing all-expenses paid sojourns for detailed instruction in Islam and Iranian culture for hundreds of select Mexican and other Latin American students, all supervised by Moshen Rabbani who is an international fugitive for terrorism charges.
> 
> The program is ostensibly part of *Iran's efforts to expand its influence throughout the Western Hemisphere, including building mosques, cultural centers, and even a Spanish language cable TV network that broadcasts Iranian programming. *
> 
> Apparently the concern level is mixed within the our executive branch as to substantive progress and possible threats posed by Tehran's efforts, but one must conclude that with much of Iran's foreign "benevolence", it has a dark, sinister side with a potential to cultivate more than just sympathy for Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran raises the stakes... 



> *Strike on Syria Would Cause One on Israel, Iran Declares*
> 
> Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies on Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”
> 
> The warnings came against a backdrop of rising momentum among Western governments for a military intervention in the Syria conflict over what the United States, Britain, France and others have called undeniable evidence that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used banned chemical weapons on civilians last week, killing hundreds. Mr. Assad has accused the insurgents who are trying to topple him of using such munitions.
> 
> More at ...
> 
> New York Times


----------



## Kat Stevens

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Iran raises the stakes...



And then Iran is turned into a smoking hole in the ground.


----------



## tomahawk6

Is it possible that we are seeing what was foretold in the Book of Revelations ?


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is it possible that we are seeing what was foretold in the Book of Revelations ?


       :


----------



## Edward Campbell

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is it possible that we are seeing what was foretold in the Book of Revelations ?




Anything and everything can be "foretold" in the Book of Revelations ... I'm scanning it right now to figure out how to explain Hannah Montana to my teen aged niece.


----------



## tomahawk6

The elements are present for another war in the region,with Iran as instigator.It wouldnt be very smart for Iran to strike Israel,as Israel is the only nuclear power in the region.But if they hope to usher in the 13th Imam,who knows ?


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Anything and everything can be "foretold" in the Book of Revelations ... I'm scanning it right now to figure out how to explain Hannah Montana to my teen aged niece.



Just tell her that Hannah was playing zoo keeper....


----------



## Kat Stevens

This should be all anyone needs to know to understand why we need to stay as far away from this shit show as possible.  Funny because it's true...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/?tid=socialss


----------



## CougarKing

Iran's top cleric making more threats, not just at Israel, but directly against the US as well:

CNN link



> *Iranian leader: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria*
> 
> 
> By Greg Botelho and Michael Pearson, CNN
> 
> -- *As the ramifications of a grisly chemical weapons attack loom over a summit of world leaders, some of Syria's staunchest friends blasted what they call the "arrogance" of U.S.-led efforts to strike the war-torn nation and said those who do will pay a steep price.*
> 
> Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday the United States -- which, in addition to being one of his country's chief adversaries, has led the push to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government over chemical weapons -- has no right to make "humanitarian claims (given) their track record" in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> The turmoil in the Middle East, Iran's leader said in remarks reported by state-run Press TV, is a "reaction of the global arrogance" that is rooted Washington. Should the United States and allies strike Syria, he added, it won't be able to "eliminate (the) resistance."
> 
> "We believe that the Americans are committing a folly and mistake in Syria and will, accordingly, take the blow and definitely suffer," said Khamenei.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Seems Iran may get S300 SAMs from Russia the same way Syria did.

From Bloomberg:



> (Bloomberg) *President Vladimir Putin is set to agree to resume Russian missile sales to Iran this week when he meets his counterpart Hassan Rohani for the first time, after heading off a U.S. attack against their common ally Syria. *
> 
> Putin and Rohani, elected in June, will discuss a range of issues at their Sept. 13 meeting in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, including possible deliveries of S-300 surface-to-air defense systems and Russia’s plan to put Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control, according to Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman.
> 
> *Putin has agreed in principle to resume missile sales to Iran and to start work on a second nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the country’s only atomic plant, the Kommersant newspaper reported today, citing an unidentified person close to the Kremlin. Peskov declined the comment on the likelihood of the two leaders reaching a missile agreement at their meeting. *
> 
> “First of all, they will get to know each other,” Peskov said by phone today. “Cooperation in the military sphere and the situation in Syria will be on the agenda.”
> 
> Then-President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 froze Russia’s S-300 contract with Iran to avoid international pressure after the United Nations imposed sanctions against the Islamic republic. Iran has sued Russia for breaching their contract because defensive systems aren’t prohibited by the sanctions.


----------



## cupper

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This should be all anyone needs to know to understand why we need to stay as far away from this shit show as possible.  Funny because it's true...
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/?tid=socialss



I noticed that there is no direct link between the Syrian Rebels and Assad.

It's simple really:

http://youtu.be/SnO9Jyz82Ps

 ;D


----------



## CougarKing

This is has to be the 2nd time I heard about Iranian warships visiting Sudan, if I can recall correctly. 

Defense News link



> KHARTOUM — *Two Iranian warships have entered Sudan’s territorial waters and were heading to dock for “routine” fuelling, a spokesman of Sudanese army said on Wednesday.
> 
> “Two Iranian ships have entered our territorial waters, one of them is a destroyer and the other is a supplies vessel,” Col. Sawarmi Khaled Saad told AFP.*
> 
> He said the vessels are stopping in Sudan for a “routine and regular visit” to get “supplies, food and water”.
> 
> In October, two Iranian navy vessels called at Port Sudan, followed by two more in December, in what Khartoum described as a “normal” port stop.
> 
> *Israel considers the area of the Red Sea and east Sudan as a passage for arms smuggled to Islamist Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip.*
> Khartoum’s links with Iran came under scrutiny after Sudan accused Israel of being behind an Oct. 23 strike against the Yarmouk military factory in the capital, which led to speculation that Iranian weapons were stored or manufactured there.
> 
> *Last month, Saudi authorities denied permission for a plane carrying Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to cross its airspace for the swearing-in of Iran’s new president.*
> 
> Riyadh said Bashir’s flight plan lacked prior approval.


----------



## CougarKing

Iranian missiles in the news again:

Defense News 



> *Iran Parades 30 Missiles With Range of 2,000km*
> 
> TEHRAN — *Iran paraded 30 missiles with a nominal range of 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) Sunday, the first time it had displayed so many with the theoretical capacity to hit Israeli targets.
> 
> Iran displayed 12 Sejil and 18 Ghadr missiles at the annual parade marking the anniversary of the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
> 
> The stated range of both missiles would put not only Israel but also US bases in the Gulf within reach.*
> 
> But in his speech at the parade, President Hassan Rowhani insisted the weaponry on show was for defensive purposes only.
> 
> “In the past 200 years, Iran has never attacked another country,” he said.
> 
> “Today too, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic and its leadership will never launch any aggressive action in the region.
> 
> “But they will always resist aggressors determinedly until victory.”
> 
> The Sejil was first tested in November 2008 and the Ghadr in September of the following year.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of Rouhani's rise to Iran's presidency, we'll see if his announced willingness to work with the US and the international community translates to actual actions:

military.com



> *Iran Offering to Reject Nuclear Weapons*
> 
> Sep 21, 2013
> 
> An Iranian government adviser said Tehran wants a deal with Washington to end economic sanctions in return for assurances Iran will not develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> *Amir Mohebbian, a longtime adviser to Iranian leaders who took part in high-level diplomatic strategy sessions, said the proposed strategy resulted from a letter U.S. President Barack Obama sent to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a few weeks ago*, offering relief from debilitating sanctions if Iran will "cooperate with the international community, keep your commitments and remove ambiguities," The New York Times reported Friday.
> 
> A senior U.S. official the Times did not name said Obama made no promises in the letter.
> 
> Mohebbian and others said Tehran wants to end sanctions as soon as possible so it can re-establish relations with the international banking system. *Some Iranian leaders are concerned hard-line Muslim clerics and military officials might react against Rouhani if the so-called P5-plus-1 process -- diplomatic efforts involving the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany -- fails to lead to a quick resolution of issues surrounding Iran's nuclear program.*
> 
> White House spokesman Josh Earnest, speaking Friday with reporters aboard Air Force One, said the United States welcomed comments such as Mohebbian's "as they do indicate a willingness to act constructively -- to work constructively with the international community. But the fact of the matter is actions are what are going to be determinative here."
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

A good will gesture that came with the new Iranian leadership led by Rouhani?

Canadian Press



> *Toronto man who had been on death row in Iran released from prison, wife says*
> 
> The Canadian Press – 14 hours ago.
> 
> TORONTO - The wife of an Iranian-Canadian who was on death row in Tehran says her husband has been released.
> 
> Antonella Mega's husband,* Hamid Ghassemi-Shall*,  had been in an Iranian prison since he was arrested in 2008 and charged with espionage.
> 
> He was sentenced to death in 2009 and an Iranian court later rejected an appeal.
> 
> Ghassemi-Shall emigrated from Iran after that country's 1979 revolution.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Rifleman62

> Iran Offering to Reject Nuclear Weapons
> 
> Toronto man who had been on death row in Iran released from prison, wife says



Etc, etc, etc

All a ploy to give a weak America (President Obama) an excuse to dither about Iran's nuclear weapons production until it is too late.


----------



## a_majoor

Since Iran seems to be the biggest beneficiary of this, I will post here as opposed to the Syria or Russia thread:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-switches-sides_757159.html?nopager=1



> *Obama Switches Sides*
> 
> In yesterday’s U.N. speech, Obama kissed goodbye to U.S. allies and signed on with Iran, Russia, and Syria.
> 6:05 PM, SEP 25, 2013 • BY LEE SMITH
> 
> Iranian president Hassan Rouhani didn’t have to snub Obama yesterday by choosing not to meet with him on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting. But, as with Vladimir Putin’s victory lap op-ed in the New York Times, Rouhani chose to rub Obama’s face in the dirt because he could. Obama hung a “kick me” sign on his back and Rouhani simply took him up on it.
> 
> As for Rouhani, his speech yesterday revealed rather less about the man than the regime he represents. Forget about the Islamic Republic’s theological foundations, ignore the conviction, held by various regime figures, that the Mahdi is destined to return. Rouhani, like every Iranian president before him and like thousands of other Iranian clerics and regime figures, is one part Polonius, one part Wizard of Oz, a mid-level manager thrilled by the prospect of his own muddled thought becoming reality.
> 
> “Violence,” the Iranian president said yesterday, “has gone beyond the physical realm, and has penetrated the psychological and spiritual realm of human existence." The fact that a world leader stood before his peers to utter this mystical nonsense would be funny—except for the fact that standing behind the great and powerful Rouhani is the very serious head of the regime’s external operations unit, Qassem Suleimani (profiled by Dexter Filkins in this week’s New Yorker) whose violence in the physical realm against Americans and our allies is quite real and may already have convinced the White House that any military action against Iran’s nuclear program will be met with terror operations against Americans around the world, and even here at home.
> 
> As head of the Qods Force, Suleimani stands apart from the rest of this regime, a gang of philosopher-magicians dancing on the head of a pin and looking to push the others off. Indeed, that’s all Iran’s presidential elections are—a version of “Survivor,” where the last man that the Supreme Leader leaves standing becomes president. If the Arabs are too often content with a strongman, the Persians love their court intrigue, with one courtier smiling to another while yet another stabs him ever so gently, ever so cleverly in the back. If the Americans are easily gulled by the charade, hoping that maybe this president will prove to be the pragmatist, the moderate, the savior come to sign a deal, then that’s just a bonus—the game is played primarily in order to entertain an Iranian audience.
> 
> This is who Obama is chasing after, a mystical mannequin in long black robes, and, as Fouad Ajami writes, the American is “decisively outclassed. There is cunning aplenty in Persia, an eye for that exact moment when one’s rival has been trapped.” And indeed Obama has caught himself in his own pincers move. By announcing that his administration’s diplomatic efforts will focus on “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” as well as the peace process, Obama has made Rouhani a partner, with the ability to make an American president dependent on his cooperation look like a fool anytime he wishes, as he did yesterday. Obama effectively told America’s regional allies that he’s got new friends now, no matter how badly they treat him.
> 
> In making the peace process the White House’s other key diplomatic initiative, Obama signaled to Israel, as well as the Arabs, that in the end, the Iran issue isn’t that big a deal—or no more important than a peace process that everyone in the world except for John Kerry thinks is at the present moment absurd. Obama is sick and tired of the Middle East but he won’t take responsibility for his own wounded pride, so he hangs it on the American public. The fact that the Arabs always blame the United States, said Obama, has “a practical impact on the American peoples’ support for our involvement in the region, and allows leaders in the region—and the international community—to avoid addressing difficult problems.”
> 
> There’s no doubt that a war memorial in, say, Baghdad, or Basra, or Beirut, to our fallen dead is long overdue. But a little respect and appreciation from the Arab world is not the main thing that’s missing. What has a practical impact on the American people is the incompetence of the commander in chief. It’s his job to explain to the American public why the Middle East matters, why maintaining and advancing our interests there also means security at home.
> 
> As for the tendency of leaders in the region to skirt tough issues, the unpleasant fact is that Obama is in no position to lecture them on this particular failing. Whoever heard a superpower whine about its allies? American policymakers never deluded themselves that the planes, tanks and other weapons sold to Saudi Arabia meant that Riyadh was capable of taking care of itself. The purchases kept production lines running and were a pledge of U.S. support and investment in the region’s stability. When it came to ensuring open sea-lanes in the world’s most strategically vital body of water in the Persian Gulf, it was up to the United States, not Saudi Arabia, to do it.
> 
> Moreover, it cannot have escaped Obama’s notice that our regional allies have indeed tried to address one rather significant difficult problem on their own—the Syrian civil war. Obama has not only rebuffed their request that we take a leading role among them, he has undermined their efforts.
> 
> The conflict in Syria, said Obama, “is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s not how our allies see it. For them it is zero-sum. An Iranian victory in Syria, regardless of whether Bashar al-Assad survives, further expands Tehran’s reach and puts Qassem Suleimani on the border of Israel, Jordan, and Turkey.
> 
> From their perspective, the White House has changed sides. In agreeing to the Russian initiative to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, Obama legitimized an Arab butcher whose departure he called for two years ago. Obama made Putin as well as Assad partners. Given that the process to find and destroy all of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons will last at least until mid-2014, or Syria’s next presidential election, Obama is ensuring that when the only Syrians unafraid of sticking their head out of the rubble go to the polls, Assad will still be the only name on the ballot.
> 
> If the president of the United States wants to hazard his own prestige on a diplomatic breakthrough with Rouhani that’s one thing. It’s something else when he uses American prestige in order to defend the interests of our adversaries, like Russia, Syria, and the Iranian-led resistance bloc.



Look for a redoubling of efforts by te Gulf Kingdoms and Saudi Arabia to shore up their positions and attempt to block the hated Persians from besting them in the Shiite/Sunni religious wars.


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of the so-called diplomatic breakthrough simultaneously occurring between US SecState Kerry and  his Iranian opposite number this past week, actions by Iranian hackers say otherwise:

Defense News



> *Report: Iranian Hackers Breached US Navy Intranet*
> 
> Sep. 27, 2013 - 06:30PM
> By SAM FELLMAN
> 
> (...)
> 
> *The Wall Street Journal reported that the intrusion by Iranian agents or proxies breached the Navy and Marine Corps Intranet, the world’s largest intranet network and one used on hundreds of thousands of unclassified computers across the force. The cyber-trespassers did not steal any secrets but their presence prompted alarms at the Pentagon about the prowess of the Iranian hackers.*
> 
> The Defense Department declined to confirm the report of a breach, saying only that DoD networks see “daily attempts” by hackers and that these defenses are updated constantly to parry them.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Wide swathes of the Navy’s websites have been down or intermittent for the past week.
> (...)


----------



## Crow_Master

Seems Israel and the Gulf Arab states are unhappy about rapprochement between Iran and the US, what do you think they may try to do to stop it?


----------



## a_majoor

There are many possibilities, since Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and the Saudis and Gulf States see them as both "Persians" and Apostates.

One rather out of left field possibility is the Arab states and Israelis may consider their mutual interests are far greater than their mutual differences, and begin cooperating at a much higher level to contain the threat. This may not be expressed in overt terms like treaties, but rather various schemes where they look the other way or otherwise enable action to be taken against the Iranians. The Israelis have the technological ability to conduct operations throughout the entire spectrum of conflict, although we will mostly become aware of very focused operations like the assasination of nuclear scientists and cyberwar rather than long range air strikes,

One other possibility (and we have seen this at some level in Syria already) is for the Arab states to start encouraging, training and supporting Salafis, members of the Muslim Brotherhoods and other radicals to take up arms against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah or against the Iranians themselves. This also secures the Arab states by exporting potential troublemakers and directing their violent tendencies elsewhere.

What is probably not in question is the Iranians, being very skilled in centuries of court intrigue, will play this Administration like a violin in order to secure _their_ claim to regional hegemony.


----------



## Crow_Master

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There are many possibilities, since Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and the Saudis and Gulf States see them as both "Persians" and Apostates.
> 
> One rather out of left field possibility is the Arab states and Israelis may consider their mutual interests are far greater than their mutual differences, and begin cooperating at a much higher level to contain the threat. this may not be expressed in overt terms like treaties, but rather various schemes where they look the other way or otherwise enable action to be taken against the Iranians. The Israelis have the technological ability to conduct operations throughout the entire spectrum of conflict, although we will mostly become aware of very focused operations like the assasination of nuclear scientists and cyberwar rather than long range air strikes,
> 
> One other possibility (and we have seen this at some level in Syria already) is for the Arab states to start encouraging, training and supporting Salafis, members of the Muslim Brotherhoods and other radicals to take up arms against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah or againstthe Iranians themselves. This also secures the Arab states by exporting potential troublemakers and directing their violent tendencies elsewhere.
> 
> What is probably not in question is the Iranians, being very skilled in centuries of court intrigue, will play this Administration like a violin in order to secure _their_ claim to regional hegemony.



How plausible is an Israeli unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?


----------



## Dissident

This very long article from the New Yorker is fascinating; it answered a lot of questions I had and shed some light on foreign policy decisions which baffled me.

Shared here with the usual caveat:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/30/130930fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

[Article is above the 20000 character limit. Link is free to see for all]


----------



## CougarKing

Having the "know-how' and resources to build carriers are two different things...
  :



*Iran Claims It Can Build Aircraft Carriers, Unmanned Subs*


> Iran’s Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari claimed on Tuesday that Iran has the technological know-how to build aircraft carriers. In an interview with the IRGC-linked, semi-official Fars News Agency, Sayyari said: “Our country enjoys the power and ability to build aircraft carriers.” Sayyari indicated that Iran was not planning on utilizing this capability at present, but it has it if necessary.
> 
> During the same interview, Fars News Agency asked Sayyari if Iran was planning on building unmanned submarines and other unmanned undersea capabilities. “This issue is on our agenda like other issues and cases,” Sayyari told FNA.



source: thediplomat.com


----------



## GAP

Isn't that kinda like a drug addict saying "I can quit anytime!!".....


----------



## GR66

I think it would be a great idea for Iran to build an aircraft carrier.  Spends lots of their money and puts their very limited number of effective aircraft all together in one, big target.


----------



## GAP

Report: Commander of Iranian Cyber War Headquarters assassinated
By JPOST.COM STAFF, YAAKOV LAPPIN 10/02/2013 
Article Link

The commander of Iran's Cyber War Headquarters has been shot dead in a suspected assassination, British daily The Telegraph reported on Wednesday.

Iran has previously accused Israel of carrying out several assassinations of scientists involved in Tehran's nuclear program as well as the head of the country's ballistic missiles program.

The Telegraph quoted Alborz, a website affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as saying that Mojtaba Ahmadi was last seen leaving his home on Saturday and was later found dead with two bullet wounds to the chest.

"I could see two bullet wounds on his body and the extent of his injuries indicated that he had been assassinated from a close range with a pistol,” the website quoted an eyewitness as saying.

The report quoted local police as saying two motorcycle riders had been involved in the alleged assassination.

The Revolutionary Guard stated that it was investigating Ahmadi's death and cautioned against speculating "prematurely about the identity of those responsible for the killing,” The Telegraph reported.

Since 2007, five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran, as well as the Republican Guards Corps's missile program commander.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

Saudi Arabia may become an increasingly dangerous player as they decide the American incoherence in the Middle East endangers Saudi interests (and any move to lift sanctions on Iran, or to allow Iran to evade sanctions will be a true "hot button" for the Kingdom). The Saudis already provide a great deal of money to spread Wahabbism, and are also busy funding at least some of the Syrian rebel forces to block the "Persian" claim to regional hegemony. If they decide they need to go into high gear to support their aims, they certainly have the financial resources fund a lot of things regionally and globally for many years, most of which we won't like:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/04/saudis-snub-the-general-assembly/



> *Saudis Snub the General Assembly*
> 
> We mentioned before how the blunders of the Obama administration’s Middle East policies would alienate our closest allies in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia. The proof is in the pudding: The NYT reports that the Saudis passed on their turn to speak at the UN General Assembly this week:
> They said it was the first time that the Saudis, who are strong American allies, had scrapped that opportunity to state their positions on world affairs, not even submitting a written statement in lieu of a speech.
> 
> Diplomatic officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter, said Saudi Arabia opted not to participate partly because it did not want to publicly criticize the Security Council over what the kingdom had judged to be a weak response to the conflict in Syria and the use of chemical weapons there.
> 
> It’s not just our Syria non-policy that has the Saudis at arm’s length. The newfound cooperation between President Obama and President Rouhani of Iran has put an added strain on the US-Saudi relationship. The Saudis, like the Israelis, are displeased with the prospect of US-Iranian non-proliferation talks. They see them as an Iranian ploy to ease UN sanctions while continuing to press toward getting the bomb. And while the Saudis are a key American ally, they are adept at securing their interests in the region and are not beholden to Washington. If they continue to be dissatisfied with US policy, they might hinder, or at a minimum do nothing to help, other US interests in the Middle East.


----------



## CougarKing

Israel sending a message to Iran:

National Post



> *Israeli military sends message to Iran with video of ‘special long-range flight exercise’*
> 
> JERUSALEM — In an apparent message to Iran, the Israeli military said Thursday it had carried out a “special long-range flight exercise” and posted rare footage of the drill online.
> 
> The military said its squadrons practiced refuelling planes in midair this week and tested the air force’s ability. The accompanying footage shows a tanker plane refuelling a fighter jet midair, a key part of any long-range operation.
> 
> The release of the video comes just days before Western powers are to open new talks with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

> Gulf Navies Seek Solutions to Iran Midget Sub Threat
> 
> 
> quote:
> ABU DHABI — Iranian midget submarines are an imminent threat to maritime security in the Arabian Gulf, and regional naval leaders are looking for immediate options “within reach” to counter the threat.
> 
> That means acquiring anti-submarine weaponry in the short term and new submarines in the longer term, said Rear Adm. Ibrahim al Musharrakh, commander of United Arab Emirates (UAE) naval forces.
> 
> The Iranian Navy and Revolutionary Guard Command have launched three classes of submarines, two of which are small subs, since 2007. The programs, however, have been very secretive and limited information has been released on them by the Iranian naval command.
> 
> *According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1992 to 1996. They are called Tareq-class subs in Iran.*
> 
> Iran reportedly paid US $600 million for each boat, and they are all based at Bandar Abbas in the Strait of Hormuz. Two of the Kilo-class submarines are operational at any one time and are occasionally deployed in the eastern mouth of the strait, the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea.
> 
> However, *the real threat is from the smaller submarines deployed in 2007. According to the NTI, that’s when a wave of deployments began of small Ghadir-class and Nahang-class midget submarines for use in shallow coastal waters.*
> 
> *NTI reports that the number of operating Ghadir-class submarines ranges from 10 to 19. *
> 
> 
> 
> Defense News


----------



## CougarKing

link



> *World powers, Iran in new attempt to reach nuclear deal*
> 
> By Justyna Pawlak and Fredrik Dahl
> 
> GENEVA (Reuters) - World powers resumed efforts to clinch a preliminary deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme at talks in Geneva on Wednesday, with Russia and Britain confident that agreement can be reached.
> 
> *Seeking to end a long standoff and head off the risk of a wider Middle East war, the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany came close to winning concessions from Iran on its nuclear work in return for some sanctions relief at negotiations earlier this month.
> 
> Policymakers from the six have since said that an interim accord on confidence-building steps could finally be within reach, despite warnings from diplomats that differences remain and could still prevent an agreement.*
> 
> British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the remaining differences are narrow and a historic deal is within reach.
> 
> "It is the best chance for a long time to make progress on one of the gravest problems in foreign policy," Hague told a news conference during a visit to Istanbul.
> 
> (...)


----------



## cupper

*Deal Reached To Limit Iran's Nuclear Program*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/23/246954418/reports-deal-reached-to-limit-iran-s-nuclear-program?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook



> Updated at 10 p.m. ET
> 
> Iran and six world powers have reached an agreement in Geneva on curbing Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief.
> 
> Reuters reported: "Iran will get access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange as part of an agreement under which it will curb its nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, a Western diplomat said on Sunday."
> 
> The New York Times said the deal would "halt much of Iran's nuclear program and roll some elements of it back."
> 
> "The freeze would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran's nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes. ...
> 
> "According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.
> 
> "All of Iran's stockpile of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent, a short hop to weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes.
> 
> "No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer more efficient ones, could be installed. Centrifuges that have been installed but which are not currently operating — Iran has more than 8,000 such centrifuges — could not be started up. No new enrichment facilities could be established.
> 
> "The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges."
> In addition to Iran, the deal involved the United States, the U.K., Russia, China, France and Germany.
> 
> The White House said President Obama would deliver a statement Saturday night on the situation.
> 
> We will update this post as details become available.


----------



## cupper

From the NY Times

*Deal Reached With Iran Halts Its Nuclear Program*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp



> GENEVA — The foreign policy chief of the European Union and Iranian officials announced a landmark accord Sunday morning that would temporarily freeze Tehran’s nuclear program and lay the foundation for a more sweeping accord.
> 
> The freeze would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes.
> 
> "We have reached agreement," Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s chief foreign policy official, posted on Twitter on Sunday morning.
> 
> According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.
> 
> All of Iran’s stockpile of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent, a short hop to weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes.
> 
> No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer more efficient ones, could be installed. Centrifuges that have been installed but which are not currently operating — Iran has more than 8,000 such centrifuges — could not be started up. No new enrichment facilities could be established.
> 
> The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.
> 
> Iran’s stockpile of such low-enriched uranium would be allowed to temporarily increase to about eight tons from seven tons currently. But Tehran would be required to shrink this stockpile by the end of the six-month agreement back to seven tons. This would be done by installing equipment to covert some of that stockpile to oxide.
> 
> To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo on a daily basis to check the film from cameras installed there.
> 
> In return for the initial agreement, the United States has agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief, American officials said. This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.
> 
> With lawmakers in Washington vowing to propose tougher sanctions next month if the Iranian program is not halted, and hard-liners in Tehran insisting that Iran never capitulate on its nuclear “rights,” the negotiators were effectively locked in a race against time.
> 
> Expectations were high that a deal was in the offing on Saturday morning, when Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats from five other world powers swept into Geneva to conclude the talks and, they hoped, sign the agreement.
> 
> Going into Saturday’s talks, a major sticking point involved the constraints that would be imposed on a project that Iran is pursuing to produce plutonium, which involves the construction of a heavy water reactor near the town of Arak.
> 
> Mr. Kerry met with his French and Russian counterparts before joining a three-way session with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, and Ms. Ashton, the first of two such sessions on Saturday. Late on Saturday, a spokeswoman for the Russian delegation said the two sides were "very close."
> 
> The wrangling behind closed doors recalled the round in Geneva two weeks earlier, which seemed to be tantalizingly close to a breakthrough only to sputter to an end as France pressed the world powers to toughen their demands, particularly regarding the Arak plant, and Iran balked at the new terms.
> 
> There were also other sticky issues, including Iran’s insistence that it had the right to enrich uranium. At the end of that round of negotiations, the world powers presented a unified proposal, and the Iranians said they needed to consult with the authorities in Tehran before proceeding.
> 
> As to what Iran considers its “right to enrich,” American officials signaled a possible workaround last week, saying they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree, while Tehran continued to enrich.
> 
> The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo.
> 
> The deal would also add at least several weeks, and perhaps more than a month, to the time Iran would need to produce weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device, according to estimates by nuclear experts.
> 
> American officials argued that it would preclude Iran from shortening the time it would need to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a nuclear device even further, and would provide additional warning if Iran sought to “break out” of its commitment to pursue only a peaceful nuclear program.
> 
> A second and even more contentious debate centered on whether an initial deal would, as the Obama administration said, serve as a “first step” toward a comprehensive solution of the nuclear issue, one that would leave Iran with a peaceful nuclear program that could not easily be used for military purposes.
> 
> Two former American national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, recently sent a letter to key American lawmakers endorsing the administration’s approach. “The apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities needs to be tested to insure it cannot rapidly build a nuclear weapon,” they wrote.
> 
> But some experts, including a former official who has worked on the Iranian issue for the White House, said it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, they said, any initial six-month agreement is more likely to be followed by a series of partial agreements that constrain Iran’s nuclear activities but do not definitively solve the nuclear issues.
> 
> “At the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations — ad infinitum,” said Gary Samore, a senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council in President Obama’s first term. Mr. Samore is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit group that advocates tough sanctions against Iran unless it does more to curtail its nuclear program.


----------



## CougarKing

So Riyadh might reach out to Tehran in spite of the recent report that the Saudis might get nukes as a foil to Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Defense News



> *Experts Predict Saudi Arabia Will Reach Out To Iran Soon*
> Nov. 27, 2013 - 10:46AM   |   By AWAD MUSTAFA
> 
> DUBAI — *Saudi Arabia is expected to soon engage in diplomatic overtures with Iran following the nuclear agreement that was struck in Geneva over the weekend, US experts are forecasting.*
> 
> Speaking on their return to Washington from a visit to Saudi Arabia this week, high ranking members of the Atlantic Council said a new sort of relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is set to emerge.
> 
> “There is a new phase on US-Saudi relations,” said Richard LeBaron, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former ambassador to Kuwait. “During our various meetings with officials, business leaders and experts on the Iranian nuclear deal, many have expressed their dismay with the US position and approach to the Middle East.”
> 
> *LeBaron said that after the breakthrough on Sunday, Saudi Arabia is expected “in the next few months” to begin diplomatic engagements with Iran to “test the waters.”*
> 
> (...)


----------



## tomahawk6

I really doubt this will happen.SA and Iran represent two opposing camps.


----------



## a_majoor

Well that didn't take long. Iran is playing the Administration like a banjo, but don't worry, the Americans have "Smart Diplomacy":

http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/



> *Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal*
> Iranian officials say White House fact sheet is ‘invalid’
> 
> BY: Adam Kredo
> November 26, 2013 4:25 pm
> 
> Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.
> 
> Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented
> 
> The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.
> 
> However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.
> 
> “What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
> 
> Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.
> 
> Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.
> 
> “This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.
> 
> “This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
> 
> Iran’s objection to the deal as presented in the fact sheet raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
> 
> The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
> 
> “Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
> 
> The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
> 
> As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
> 
> “The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
> 
> Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
> 
> “This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
> 
> The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
> 
> The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
> 
> Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
> 
> Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
> 
> While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if Strikes Become Necessary*
> 
> WASHINGTON — A hawkish US House Republican says the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if war with the Islamic republic becomes necessary.
> 
> House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., threw down that bold gauntlet Wednesday morning during a C-SPAN interview in which he also suggested Middle East “culture” fosters dishonest negotiators.
> 
> *Asked if war with Iran is inevitable, Hunter replied: “I sure as Hell hope not.”*
> 
> But if push came to shove and US officials deemed strikes necessary, Hunter turned hawkish.
> 
> He said any American strike would be a “massive aerial bombing campaign,” adding that such a mission should not feature any “boots on ground.” Then, Hunter said the US should use its “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian targets.
> 
> A Congressional Research Service states the US posses “a wide variety of systems that could carry nuclear warheads,” including “short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs.”
> 
> “The United States [has] deployed these weapons with its troops in the field, aboard aircraft, on surface ships, on submarines, and in fixed, land-based launchers,” according to CRS. “The United States articulated a complex strategy, and developed detailed operational plans, that would guide the use of these weapons in the event of a conflict.”
> 
> Notably, Shelden Adelson, the top political donor to Republican candidates, also recently called for the US to nuke Iran.
> 
> Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation told Defense News that “the preventative, first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have a devastating impact on US national security and dismember US power and standing in the world.”
> 
> “That a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is even suggesting such a possible course of action is the height of reckless irresponsibility and so far out of bounds it is astonishing,” Reif said. “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would guarantee a mad Iranian dash to acquire nuclear weapons to deter future such US attacks, likely convince other potential US adversaries in the region and around the world to acquire their own nuclear weapons to ward off a potential future US attack.”
> 
> (...)


----------



## GR66

Use nuclear weapons to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Makes sense to me.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I really doubt this will happen.SA and Iran represent two opposing camps.



All depends on how SA wants to "reach out" with. Only 51% of the population is Persians, you have the Balch to the South and the Kurds in the North. I doubt the Hazara would turn against the regime though. SA has the money to support these groups and make life for the Iranians miserable domestically, forcing them to live through what Iran has done to the rest of the region.


----------



## cupper

> Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if Strikes Become Necessary



Hell, why put your troops at risk, use strategic nukes instead. No one needs to be deployed closer than the Dakotas.

And the missileers will finally have a sense of accomplishment for all those long hours staring at the red phone waiting for it to ring.


 :facepalm:


----------



## CougarKing

One of the Iranian _Kilo_ class subs is included in this foreign port visit below:

Defense News



> *Iranian Warships Visit Mumbai Harbor*
> 
> NEW DELHI — Two Iranian warships and a submarine docked in Mumbai harbor Dec. 5 for a three-day goodwill visit, an Indian Navy official said.
> 
> *The warships, including a destroyer, a helicopter-carrying tanker and a Kilo-class submarine, docked in the civil area of the Mumbai harbor and not in the area designated for the Indian Navy. The two Iranian warships and the Russian-built submarine are scheduled to proceed to Sri Lanka Dec. 7.*
> 
> The last time Iranian Navy warships were in India was in 2009, and joint maneuvers were conducted in 2006.
> 
> Indo-Iran defense ties had been halted by the US-led sanctions against Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapon program.
> 
> The Iranian flotilla arrived in India at a time when there is an easing of tension between Iran and world powers.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

To think that Iran has another air force, parallel to the IRIAF, which is part of the Revolutionary Guards and thus called the ICGAF. This is much like the way Hitler's Germany had both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS as two parallel armies, but with the latter more ideologically subservient to the national leader.


Defense News



> *US Military Official: Iran Moves Fighters Off Disputed Island*
> 
> DUBAI — Iran has redeployed a squadron of jet fighters off the strategic disputed island of Abu Musa in the Gulf, a senior US military official said.
> 
> *The official only described the redeployment of 10 SU-25 Frogfoot close air support and ground attack aircraft — including seven flown from Iraq to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War — as “recent,” but did not say if it was due to the interim nuclear deal signed in Geneva on Nov. 24.*
> 
> According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, *the SU-25s present the backbone of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force (IRGCAF),* which controls military operations on the disputed islands.
> 
> Iran originally claimed the strategically located islands of Abu Musa, as well as the Greater and Lesser Tunbs in November 1971, hours ahead of the formation of the United Arab Emirates.
> 
> Iran's seizure of the islands came after Mohammed Reza Pehlavi, the Shah of Iran relinquished claim to Bahrain, in what he had hoped would be a quid pro quo deal. "The islands provide a strategic position for the Iranian forces as they are close to their bases in Bandar Abbas," the US official said.
> 
> (...)


----------



## vonGarvin

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> To think that Iran has another air force, parallel to the IRIAF, which is part of the Revolutionary Guards and thus called the ICGAF. This is much like the way Hitler's Germany had both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS as two parallel armies,* but with the latter more ideologically subservient to the national leader.*


Not entirely true for all of the Waffen SS.

To serve in the Wehrmacht, one had to be German (with some exceptions: see Blue Division, for example).

For the most part, foreigners wishing to fight Bolshevism/get a job/etc had to join the Waffen SS.


----------



## CougarKing

Great. Someone wanted to help Iran improve their chances of getting a real 5th Generation fighter since they showed that fake fighter prototype recently.  :

Imprisonment for 10 years only? Isn't this crime tantamount to treason in the US?



> *Man Arrested for Attempted Transfer of F-35 Data to Iran*
> Jan. 13, 2014 (defensenews.com)
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> *Mozaffar Khazaee was arrested Jan. 9 at Newark International Airport in New Jersey after the first leg of a trip to Tehran. Khazaee, who became a naturalized US citizen in 1991, was charged with “transporting, transmitting and transferring in interstate or foreign commerce goods obtained by theft, conversion, or fraud,” a crime that carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.*
> 
> According to a US government affidavit, federal agents began investigating Khazaee in November, when he attempted to send a shipment from Connecticut to the Iranian city of Hamadan. When agents inspected the shipment, they found “numerous boxes of documents consisting of sensitive technical manuals, specification sheets, and other proprietary material for the F-35. Those documents came from a company that Khazaee had last worked at in August of 2013.
> 
> *Overall, the shipment included thousands of pages of documents, including diagrams and blueprints of the high-tech fighter jet’s engine.* Some of the information was marked as being ITAR- and export-controlled information.


----------



## a_majoor

"Smart Diplomacy"tm update:

http://acdemocracy.org/irans-nuclear-enablers/#sthash.umJcXaHc.vooLF8pq.dpbs



> *Iran’s Nuclear Enablers*
> 
> By Rachel Ehrenfeld
> Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 @ 3:24AM
> 
> The speed at which the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia are advancing Iran’s nuclear ambitions is mind-boggling. Even before the ink dried on the P5+1′s six-month Geneva accord with Iran — aptly described as  ”just an appetizer” by former chief UN nuclear inspector Herman Nackaerts – we hear that talks on the final agreementwill start shortly after the interim agreement begins on January 20.
> 
> This is especially alarming since the Geneva agreement did not demand that Iran stops all of its uranium enrichment programs and nuclear weapons research, in return for the West’s lifting some sanctions. Iran has never allowed U.N. inspection of all its nuclear sites and repeatedly stated it will not allow this now.
> 
> The current agreement doesn’t request, for example, inspection of Parchin military base, which has not been inspected since 2005, “despite calls by Yukiyo Amano, head of IAEA.”
> 
> Moreover, satellite imagery from August, 2013, showing “ongoing construction and testing … [and] major alterations at the site which the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) says were meant to hide possible tests of conventional triggers for a nuclear explosion.” These images followed satellite images from August 2012 “showing cleanup activities [and] … suspicious activities at a building suspected of housing nuclear blast experiments.”
> 
> Back in December, we learned that the IAEA was by no means ready to inspect Iranian sites.  This appeared to be a problem that would take some considerable time to remedy.  But the Obama administration has not dealt either with this potentially deal-breaking fact or with other conditions Iran refuses to implement. It’s been busy congratulating itself on its diplomatic efforts while pressuring Congress to prevent the passage of new additional sanctions that would take effect if Iran fails to comply with any of the accord’s requirements during the next six months.
> 
> Meanwhile Rouhani et al., have announced that the Arak reactor would surely be built in due course (along with myriad new reactors around the country), and that the country would be upgrading the efficiency of its centrifuges no matter what. The Majlis (parliament) has a bill under consideration to enrich uranium to 60 percent purity whenever the negotiations don’t go Teheran’s way. That, as we have witnessed in the past, allows Iran to blackmail the U.S. and other Western nations to more concessions that harm their own national interests.
> 
> Rightly anticipating the end of all sanctions, the Iranians have been meeting steadily with potential European investors over the past two months.  The climate of this is fully expressed in a recent Der Spiegel article on just how busy the head of the German-Iranian Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Tehran has been. It’s not entitled “Chance of a Century” for nothing. Other Europeans agree. They, as did the Iranians, understood last November that the U.S. and UN sanctions regimes ended with the Geneva accord. The U.S. has tried to pretend that it is still seriously enforcing them, but our feckless allies clearly got the assurances that this is just window dressing to help Obama keep Congress in line.
> 
> The Western media mostly downplays the above, most likely because the Obama administration and other Western leaders have so little (if anything at all) to say about them. Story after story, however, regards whether the West is treating Iran with proper respect and well enough for the Geneva Agreement to work out. This began almost immediately after the agreement was inked. Opinion pieces were dominated by accusations against Congress for daring to prepare new sanctions if the agreement failed to work out after six months.  On December 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif warned, “If Congress adopts sanctions … The entire deal is dead. We do not like to negotiate under duress.” Pundits wondered if the Obama administration would be able to talk Congress out of such irresponsible actions while such “sensitive” negotiations were ongoing.  Some media outlets even compared the U.S. Congress to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as irresponsible “conservative” opponents to the deal.
> 
> Iran is clearly in the driver’s seat not only regarding the lifting of sanctions, but seems to be effectively calling the policy shots for the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1.  It’s no accident at all, then, that it was Tehran that first announced the January 20 commencement date for the agreement.
> 
> Accommodating Iran to the fullest extent possible is now the mantra of Western governments.  If you are not convinced of this, take a look at the January 8 issue of the New York Times for the article “U.S. and Iran Face Common Enemies in Mideast Strife.”  Although ostensibly on the simple fact that both the U.S. and Iran are supporting the Maliki government’s struggle against al Qaeda in Iraq’s Anbar Province, the Obama-worshipping NYT carefully explains-just as Khamenei and Rouhani would-that the real danger in the Middle East is Sunni jihadis and their supporters (and, by implication, not poor innocent Iran itself). Is the Times trying out a new explanation for the administration on why Iran should be accommodated? Stay tuned.
> 
> None of this would have happened has Obama insisted to end to uranium enrichment as a condition to lift any of the sanctions.  The question remains whether this was simply a witless act of appeasement that is an integral part of the president’s “multipolar world” and “we should negotiate with our enemies and discipline our friends” fantasies, or a deliberate betrayal of longstanding U.S. policies and our Middle East allies, especially Israel, which Iran says would be the first target of their nuclear weapons. It certainly serves to advance Obama’s quest of U.S. withdrawal from the world.
> 
> To date, the U.S. has given Iran the rope with which to hang the West and its allies. Finalizing any sanction relief agreement with Iran in February, without even an apparent demand to curb the regime’s nuclear weaponization programs, would amount to the U.S. springing the gallows trap on itself and its purported allies.
> 
> - See more at: http://acdemocracy.org/irans-nuclear-enablers/#sthash.umJcXaHc.vooLF8pq.dpuf


----------



## CougarKing

An update regarding the disputed islands described in this earlier post.

Defense News



> *Source: UAE, Iran Reach Accord on Disputed Hormuz Islands*
> Jan. 15, 2014 - 05:30PM   |   By AWAD MUSTAFA
> 
> ABU DHABI — The United Arab Emirates and Iran have reached an agreement on the three disputed islands near the Strait of Hormuz, according to a high level UAE source.
> 
> According to the source, UAE and Iranian officials have engaged in secretive talks with the help of the Omani government over the past six months.
> 
> *“A deal has been reached and finalized on the Greater and Lesser Tunbs,” the source said. “For now, two of the three islands are to return to the UAE while the final agreement for Abu Musa is being ironed out.”*
> 
> “Iran will retain the sea bed rights around the three islands while the UAE will hold sovereignty over the land,” he said. “Oman will grant Iran a strategic location on Ras Musandam mountain, which is a very strategic point overlooking the whole gulf region.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

I didn't realize their Shah-era P3s were still active...



> *Iranian P-3F maritime patrol plane “buzzes” U.S. carrier’s control tower *
> (theaviationist.com)
> Feb 01 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> *We have recently published some images showing an F/A-18E Super Hornet escorting an IRIAF (Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force) P-3F flying quite close to USS Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf.*
> <snipped>
> It’s unclear whether the “flyby” was conducted on the same day the Iranian plane was escorted by the Hornet; still, the new images not only prove close encounters in the region occur but they also clearly show the indiscreet Orion in the “exotic” IRIAF color scheme.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Newt

http://rt.com/news/iran-sue-uk-arms-deal-531/



> Iran is to sue a UK firm over $1 billion of weapons that were purchased more than 30 years ago but never delivered. The deal was discontinued following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and now Iran is calling for compensation.


----------



## CougarKing

The Iranian Navy in the news yet again:

From Reuters via Yahoo News



> *Iran says warships sailing towards U.S.: agency*
> Reuters
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iranian naval officer said a number of warships had been ordered to approach U.S. maritime borders as a response to the stationing of U.S. vessels in the Gulf, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.
> 
> "Iran's military fleet is approaching the United States' maritime borders, and this move has a message," the agency quoted Admiral Afshin Rezayee Haddad as saying.
> 
> *Haddad, described as commander of the Iranian navy's northern fleet, said the vessels had started their voyage towards the Atlantic Ocean via "waters near South Africa", Fars reported.
> 
> Fars said the plan was part of "Iran's response to Washington's beefed up naval presence in the Persian Gulf."*
> 
> The Fars report, which carried no details of the vessels, could not be confirmed independently.
> 
> In Washington, a U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, cast doubt on any claims that the Iranian ships were approaching U.S. maritime borders. But the official added that "ships are free to operate in international waters."
> 
> (...)


----------



## tomahawk6

The Iranians will need to refuel their ships and I don't know if they have even practiced replenishment at sea. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Iranians will need to refuel their ships and I don't know if they have even practiced replenishment at sea. ;D



Good luck to them then........


----------



## CougarKing

More Iranian missile-testing: so much for Iran taking a softer approach with their new "moderate" leader Rouhani. 

Military.com



> *Iran Successfully Test-fires 2 Missiles*
> 
> Associated Press | Feb 11, 2014
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully test-fired two missiles, including a long-range ballistic weapon, the official IRNA news agency reported on Monday.
> 
> The report by IRNA quoted President Hassan Rouhani as congratulating the military.
> 
> The "children of Iran successfully test-fired a new generation" of weapons, he said.
> 
> *The test came a day after a group of lawmakers accused Rouhani of halting a scheduled missile exercise. It was not clear if this was the same test.
> 
> Rouhani's policy of outreach to the West and its centerpiece, a deal on Iran's disputed nuclear program, is opposed by hard-liners who accuse him of giving away too much for too little.*
> 
> Iran has pursued military self-sufficiency since 1992. It produces tanks, jet fighters, submarines and warships, as well as weapons for these systems.
> 
> From time to time it announces technological breakthroughs, most of which cannot be independently verified.
> 
> The report did not say if the missiles were new designs, but the term "new generation" suggests that they were upgrades of existing ones.
> 
> *It said the ballistic missile had radar-evading capabilities, but did not give a name. It said the second missile was called Bina, or "Insightful," and was laser-guided. It said it could be fired from the ground or from aircraft.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

Well, isn't this comforting...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/expert-iran-ships-a-dry-run-for-later-nuclearemp-attack-humiliate-obama/article/2544041



> *Expert: Iran ships a dry run for later nuclear/EMP attack; humiliate Obama*
> BY PAUL BEDARD | FEBRUARY 14, 2014 AT 11:21 AM
> 
> TOPICS: WASHINGTON SECRETS IRAN ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE NUCLEAR WEAPONS GENEVA
> Photo - Iran warships are planning a maneuver off the Atlantic Coast. AP Photo
> Iran warships are planning a maneuver off the Atlantic Coast. AP Photo
> 
> Iran's surprising decision to move warships off the Atlantic coast poses a potential catastrophic threat to America from a nuclear or electromagnetic pulse attack, according to an expert who foresaw Iran's move.
> 
> Peter Pry, an expert on EMP attacks, said the ships are likely a dry run for a future attack, a maneuver meant to lull Washington into complacency while also embarrassing President Obama and his effort to convince Tehran to give up production of a nuclear bomb in return for a lifting of some economic sanctions.
> 
> “Yes, patrols by the Iranian Navy off our coasts could pose threat of a surprise EMP attack,” said Pry, who with others such as former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, has convinced several state legislatures to take moves to harden their electric and energy grids from EMP attack because Washington won't.
> 
> Pry said the ships are probably conducting a test for a future visit from an Iranian freighter that would launch the attack.
> 
> “I think the Iranian Navy patrols off our coasts may be intended to lull us into complacency, to get the U.S. Navy accustomed to an Iranian naval presence in our hemisphere, so eventually they could contribute to 'Zero Hour' and the great day when the Mullahs decide to drop the nuclear hammer on America,” said Pry, who staffed a former congressional EMP commission.
> 
> “I think the Iranian Navy patrols are also intended to humiliate Obama and the United States for the Geneva [nuclear] interim agreement that Tehran interprets, correctly I think, as U.S. surrendering to the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran,” he added.
> 
> Pry, president of EMPACT America, one of the nation's leading authorities on EMP, revealed that Iran recently purchased Russia's Club-K missile launcher, which can be hidden in tractor-trailer-sized cargo boxes.
> 
> “I and my colleagues, including Reza Kahlili, who warned six months ago that these Iranian patrols were coming, think it more likely Iran would make an EMP attack by launching a missile off a freighter, so they could do the deed anonymously, and escape retaliation,” Pry explained.
> 
> “Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a missile off a freighter. Iran has also purchased Russia's Club-K missile system. The Club-K is a complete missile launch system, disguised to look like a shipping container, that could convert any freighter into a missile launch platform. The Club-K, if armed with a nuclear warhead, could be used to execute an EMP attack.”
> 
> Woolsey recently told Secrets that Iran was just months away from finishing production of their first nuclear bomb.
> 
> He also has joined with Pry and others, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, in warning about a nuclear blast in the atmosphere that would knock out electric transformers and facilities in the mid-Atlantic.
> 
> The maker of the Club-K has posted a promotional video, above, showing how a nation could use it.
> 
> Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.


----------



## OldSolduer

I would think the USN will have a say in how things play out in the Atlantic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More domestic propaganda fodder than international threat I suspect.


----------



## CougarKing

The two former adversaries from the Iran-Iraq War rebuilding unofficial ties?

Defense News



> *US Presses Iraq on Reports of Arms Deal with Iran*
> Feb. 24, 2014 - 10:05PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> WASHINGTON — The United States pressed Iraq Monday to explain media reports that it had signed a contract to buy arms from Iran, a move forbidden under a United Nations embargo.
> 
> “We’ve certainly seen those reports. If true, this would raise serious concerns,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
> 
> A deal signed in November in which Iraq would buy $195 million in arms from Iran was reported by Reuters in Baghdad Monday.
> 
> Psaki said that “any transfer of arms from Iran to a third country is in direct violation” of the UN embargo.
> 
> (...)- EDITED


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of the recent diplomatic initiatives with Iran, Tehran's current regime continues to supply weapons to its proxies in Gaza:

Defense News



> *Israel Intercepts 'Iranian Weapons Shipment' to Gaza*
> Mar. 5, 2014 - 04:30PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> JERUSALEM — *Israel said it intercepted a ship Wednesday carrying an Iranian shipment of advanced rockets bound for Palestinian militants, claiming it proved Tehran could not be trusted in international nuclear talks.*
> 
> The announcement came hours after Israel said it struck two Hezbollah fighters as they tried to plant a bomb near the Syrian-Israeli frontier and just over a week after Israel reportedly bombed the Iran-backed group inside Lebanon for the first time since 2006.
> 
> Israel has long accused Iran and Syria of providing military aid to Hezbollah and to Palestinian militant groups, and the military spokesman’s office tweeted that the ship was carrying weapons “capable of striking anywhere in Israel.”
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Reminds me of a similar life-size replica of a US carrier in a Chinese amusement park...  ;D

Yahoo Business Insider



> *Iran Is Building A Shoddy Replica Of A US Navy Aircraft Carrier For Some Reason*
> 
> By Paul Szoldra | Business Insider – 13 hours ago
> 
> Iran is building a non-functioning replica of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier that analysts believe may be for propaganda purposes, The New York Times reports.
> 
> "Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it’s a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier," Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, told the Times. *"We’re not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?"*
> 
> Unlike a typical U.S. carrier, which usually measure about 1,100 feet long, the Iranian version is about two-thirds that size, The Times reports.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## a_majoor

More on the model carrier. My own guess is it is a training aid and mockup to plan attacks on carriers in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, but a scale model for a propaganda film of sinking a US carrier also has some appeal as well:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/201365-why-is-iran-building-a-fake-us-carrier



> *Why is Iran building a fake US carrier?*
> By Jeremy Herb
> 
> Iran is building a fake U.S. aircraft carrier, which some U.S. officials believe could be blown up for propaganda.
> 
> The New York Times reports that the Iranian’s fake carrier was first noticed in a shipyard on the Persian Gulf last summer.
> 
> The ship has the same shape as the Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers. The Nimitz’s No. 68 is painted near the bow and the carrier has mock-up aircraft on the flight deck.
> U.S. officials told the Times that the ship is more like a barge than a warship, as it lacks a nuclear propulsion system and is two-thirds the length of the Navy’s 1,100-foot long carriers.
> 
> “We’re not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?” said Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which operates out of Bahrain.
> 
> One potential reason that Tehran might want to blow up an American carrier would be if the nuclear talks fall apart between Iran and the P5+1 group: the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China.
> 
> The two sides are trying to hammer out a permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program, but a successful negotiation is far from certain.
> 
> Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/201365-why-is-iran-building-a-fake-us-carrier#ixzz2wek4nmPn
> Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


----------



## CougarKing

Here's 2 pictures of the Iran carrier replica/"target" barge, c/o of the National Post newspaper site:


----------



## CougarKing

A growing threat from Iran's 2 naval forces:



> Defense News
> 
> *Iran's 2 Navies Bring Mixture of Threats*
> 
> 
> Mar. 24, 2014 - 01:30PM   |
> 
> By AWAD MUSTAFA
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *“It has built up a powerful mix of capabilities for both regular and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] forces to defend territory, intimidate neighbors, threaten the flow of oil and shipping through the gulf, and attack gulf targets,” he wrote.*
> 
> 
> “It has a dedicated force to train and equip non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas and Shiite extremists in Iraq — potential proxies that give Iran leverage over other states.”
> 
> 
> Matthew Hedges, a military analyst based here with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, added that the Iranian support of non-state actors such as Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen are some of the leading threats in the region.
> 
> 
> “The Iranian Revolutionary Guards [Corps] threaten every state in the region,” he said. “The IRGC possess mini-subs and are a constant menace to not only the UAE Navy, but to all naval trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz as they are particularly hard to trace. There have been numerous unconfirmed reports that Iranian midget subs have been spotted within a number of the regional ports, something which is particularly worrying for the entire [Gulf Cooperation Council] region.”
> 
> 
> *In November, gulf naval commanders stated that the IRGC mini-subs are a major danger in the gulf’s littorals.*
> 
> 
> “Anti-submarine operations are causing a real challenge to our units in the Arabian Gulf waters due to the small subs that are being used in shallow waters, which creates a challenge for sonar systems to detect them,” UAE Navy Chief Rear Adm. Ibrahim Musharrakh told the Gulf Naval Commanders Conference on Nov. 6.
> 
> 
> 
> “Furthermore, the merchant traffic creates clutter and noise that diminishes the capability of submersible devices to spot and helps the mini-subs to operate without being spotted,” he said.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Iranian Navy and Revolutionary Guard Corps have launched three classes of submarines, two of which are small subs, since 2007. The programs, however, have been secretive, and limited information has been released by the Iranian naval command.
> *
> 
> 
> According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a nonprofit nuclear watchdog, three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1992 to 1996. They are called Tareq-class subs in Iran.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Outside analysts respond to the Iranian government's statement that the carrier replica is just a movie prop:

Defense News



> *Analyst: Iran's Carrier Replica Unlikely To Be Movie Prop*
> 
> Mar. 24, 2014 - 05:54PM   |   By JEFF SCHOGOL
> 
> Iranian media reports that Iran is building a replica of a US aircraft carrier for a prop in an upcoming movie strain credibility, a naval analyst told Military Times.
> 
> The New York Times first reported that satellite photographs show the Iranians are building a non-working replica of the USS Nimitz that is two-thirds the size of the actual ship. Iranian newspapers have subsequently reported that the mockup is a prop for an upcoming movie about an Iranian airliner shot down by a US cruiser in 1988, according to The Guardian.
> 
> But the costs of building such a big model of a ship make it hard to believe that it would be used for a movie, said Christopher Harmer, of the Institute for the Study of War.
> 
> *“It only makes sense to build a two-thirds model of a ship for movie if you are making a major commercial success movie,” Harmer told Military Times on Monday.
> *
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

So much for sending their two-ship " armada" to threaten the US...  :

Military.com



> *Iran Calls Off Plan to Send Warships to Atlantic*
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran -- *Iran's semi-official Fars news agency is reporting that the country has temporarily called off a plan to dispatch warships to the Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> The Sunday report quoted Iran's navy chief Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying such changes of naval plans are routine, "considering the situation in the region."*
> 
> Sayyari did not say why Iran changed the plan but said that "when piracy increases in the Gulf of Aden some changes will be applied in the assignments."
> 
> He said another fleet would be sent to the Atlantic Ocean in the future
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

More idle threats?  :

I think it's more likely that a Harpoon/Tomahawk barrage can sink the entire Iranian surface fleet in 50 seconds than the other way round...



> *Iran admiral: US ships are a target in case of war*
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran will target American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf should a war between the two countries ever break out, the naval chief of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Tuesday as the country completes work on a large-scale mock-up of a U.S. carrier.
> 
> The remarks by *Adm. Ali Fadavi, who heads the hard-line Guard's naval forces*, were a marked contrast to moderate President Hassan Rouhani's recent outreach policies toward the West — a reminder of the competing viewpoints that exist at the highest levels within the Islamic Republic.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> "Aircraft carriers are the symbol of America's military might," he said. "The carriers are responsible for supplying America's air power. *So, it's natural that we want to sink the carriers."*
> 
> The Revolutionary Guard's naval forces are separate from the main Iranian navy. They are primarily based in and around the Gulf and include a number of missile boats and fast-attack vessels.
> 
> The commander said the Guard navy has already carried out exercises targeting mock-ups of American warships. *In one case, he said, it took 50 seconds to destroy one of the simulated warships.*
> 
> Tasnim, another semi-official news agency close to the Guard, reported that "an investigation" has found that the Nimitz-class carriers used by the U.S. could be seriously damaged or destroyed if 24 missiles were fired simultaneously.
> 
> From AP via Yahoo News


----------



## CougarKing

Speaking of idle threats...  ;D



> *An Iranian stealth submarine sinks before targeting a mock US carrier in an a naval exercise* (debka.com)
> May 6, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> The sub was launched just a year ago.
> The Iranians drew a tight veil of secrecy over the accident, curtailing the search for the estimated 10 crewmen to avoid drawing the notice of US or other intelligence agencies in the region.
> 
> Chinese and Russian teams secretly enlisted to help search for the sunken mini-submarine, quickly abandoned it saying that none of the crew could have survived. It was up to Iran to decide, they said, whether to continue the search at the risk of exposing its plans for sinking US carriers in a war contingency. So long as the sub stayed on the bottom, its stealth technology would make it hard for Western intelligence to locate it.
> 
> The ill-fated submarine was to have shown its paces by striking a replica of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier Iran had built at the Bandar Abbas naval base.
> 
> The replica was spotted by US satellites. Challenged for an explanation, the Iranians first tried claiming it was to be used in a film documenting the naval forces present in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian Ghadir-class mini-submarine
> Image from: debka.com
Click to expand...


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Speaking of idle threats...  ;D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian Ghadir-class mini-submarine
> Image from: debka.com



As a non-Navy landlubber, to me it looks like a single torpedo tube mounted on deck obstructed by forward hatch and fixed railings.  Seems to me that they would sink themselves if they fired.  Not that I am complaining.


----------



## CougarKing

So much for a "more diplomatic Iran" under Rouhani...  :

Agence-France Presse



> *Exclusive: Iran pursues ballistic missile work, complicating nuclear talks*
> BY LOUIS CHARBONNEAU AND PARISA HAFEZI
> VIENNA Thu May 15, 2014 6:36pm EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - Despite apparently reducing illicit purchases that breach U.N. sanctions, Iran is pursuing development of ballistic missiles, a confidential U.N. report says, posing an acute challenge to six powers negotiating with Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.
> 
> *On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described as "stupid and idiotic" Western expectations for his country to curb its missile development. He decreed mass production of ballistic weapons, striking a defiant tone just before nuclear talks resumed on Wednesday in Vienna.*
> 
> The high-stakes negotiations aim for a deal by a July 20 deadline to end a long stand-off that has raised the risk of a wider Middle East war.
> 
> *Tehran's often repeated view that missiles should not be part of the nuclear talks appears to enjoy the support of Russia, one of the six global powers.*
> 
> But a senior U.S. official made clear this week that Tehran's ballistic capabilities must be addressed in the negotiations since U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iran "among many other things, do say that any missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon must be dealt with."
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As a non-Navy landlubber, to me it looks like a single torpedo tube mounted on deck obstructed by forward hatch and fixed railings.  Seems to me that they would sink themselves if they fired.  Not that I am complaining.




Looks like they bought them from BC


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> Looks like they bought them from BC



Sigh... A pity the old WW1-era HMCS _CC1_ and _CC2_, Canada's first subs, weren't preserved...


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *Uncertainty as US-Iran Nuclear Deal Deadline Approaches*
> Jun. 21, 2014 - 03:45AM   |   By ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> *The long-sought nuclear deal, which would halt progress on Iran’s nuclear weapons program while also building in increased monitoring in exchange for the relaxation of US and EU sanctions, is still being hammered out with a July 20 deadline fast approaching*. Both the Obama administration and the Iranian government have expressed optimism that a deal can be done.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Reuters



> *Exclusive: U.N. experts trace recent seized arms to Iran, violating embargo*
> Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:24pm EDT
> 
> By Louis Charbonneau
> 
> UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. expert panel has concluded that a shipment of rockets and other weapons that was seized by Israel came from Iran and represents a violation of the U.N. arms embargo on Tehran, according to a confidential report obtained by Reuters on Friday.
> 
> 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 that would gradually lift international sanctions on Tehran -- including the arms embargo -- in exchange for curbs on the controversial Iranian nuclear program.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Tehran meddling in Iraq...



> *All Iranian Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes have just deployed to Iraq*
> 
> Jul 01 2014
> 
> On Jul. 1, all the seven operational *Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes operated by the Pasdaran (informal name of the IRGC – the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) have completed their deployment to Imam Ali Airbase where they will join the ex-Russian Air Force Su-25s already delivered to Iraq in the air war against ISIS* (Al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
> 
> The aircraft (three Su-25UBKM and four Su-25KM jets, according to ACIG.org sources) will be operated by four Iraqi pilots and 10 Iranian pilots.
> 
> The aircraft and support to fly them would be part of a military contract (backed by the U.S.) according to which Iran’s IRGC Air Force will receive six Su-30K multirole jets destined to Iraq.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Iran is believed to have joined the air war on ISIS since Jun. 21 when unidentified war planes launched heavy air strikes on the city of Baiji, north of Baghdad which had been invaded by ISIS.
> 
> The Aviationist


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Tehran meddling in Iraq...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The aircraft and support to fly them would be part of a military contract ( *backed by the U.S*.  ) according to which Iran’s IRGC Air Force will receive six Su-30K multirole jets destined to Iraq. ...
Click to expand...


If you're going to point fingers, at least _try_ to include the key players


----------



## a_majoor

Iran will find its resources becoming a bit thin on the ground as ISIS continues to grow. I personally expect to see ISIS beginning to take the fight to Iran proper, as well as into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah (Iran's proxy), with all the various second and third order effects that would bring:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/can-hezbollah-sustain-assad-and-itself



> *Can Hezbollah Sustain Assad and Itself?*
> 
> Rupert Sutton
> 
> As Sunni fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) poured south into Iraq last month, a statement from Asaib Ahl al-Haq, one of the major Iraqi Shia militias battling rebel groups in Syria, announced it was withdrawing fighters to deal with this threat.
> 
> That’s bad news for Bashar al-Assad, whose regime relies heavily on the support of these paramilitary auxiliaries. The loss of these fighters will likely see Damascus seek further support from Hezbollah, leaving the Lebanese group facing a deadly dilemma—as every resource committed to the regional struggle potentially undermines domestic security.
> 
> Drawn to the conflict in Syria as it took a more sectarian turn during 2013, large numbers of Shia militiamen have travelled from Iraq to fight alongside the government. Unlike many of the Sunni foreign fighters, these Shia units are well trained and equipped, and often have experience of both asymmetric and small-unit warfare, something highlighted by Phillip Smyth of the University of Maryland.
> 
> Their skill and experience, not to mention their numbers, have played a significant part in enabling the regime to slowly gain the upper hand in the past year, but now recent estimates by analysts at the Five Dimensions Consultancy, in Dubai, have suggested that the heavy fighting in Iraq could see up to 25,000 returned home.
> 
> The withdrawal of these veteran fighters will leave the Syrian government concerned over the potential decline in security in areas where they have been based. The Daily Star of Beirut has already quoted residents of a Damascus neighborhood where Iraqi militants have been battling rebel units as saying they have already noticed numbers dropping, and this will only be exacerbated as Sunni jihadists push further into Iraq.
> 
> With ISIS growing in strength across the region, and shipping captured matériel back to its units in Syria, the government cannot let its efforts against the rebels slacken now. Parts of Damascus and western Syria are already defended by Hezbollah units, and the government will now hope that a significant part of the shortfall could be made up by a greater commitment from the Lebanese group.
> 
> This appears to be confirmed by a military intelligence source in the country who has recently told Five Dimensions that Hezbollah is believed to have begun a recruitment drive in its South Beirut strongholds. While accurate numbers are difficult to confirm, the source has suggested that the group is seeking a further 3,000 fighters to send to Syria in addition to the 15,000 already deployed there.
> 
> In addition, Hezbollah’s leader has openly stated that the party would do all it could to protect Shiite shrines in Iraq from ISIS, claiming, “We are ready to sacrifice martyrs in Iraq five times more than what we sacrificed in Syria, in order to protect shrines, because they are much more important.” Echoing the rhetoric used to justify intervention in Syria, this signals a continuing commitment to the regional conflict the group is engaged in alongside the governments in Damascus and Tehran.
> 
> However, the extent to which the group can afford to commit more men to the fight across Syria and Iraq without damaging its security in Lebanon should be questioned. In September 2013, as the organization mobilized in response to threatened Western airstrikes on Syria, it was reported that regular fighters in the Bekaa Valley were leaving their posts, and in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, experienced men at security checkpoints had been replaced by teenagers.
> 
> This evidence of decreasing manpower comes at the same time as Iranian funding for the group appears to be on the wane, with both Hezbollah’s military and social service wings forced to cut costs. The group is already facing a financial challenge after pledging to support the families of up to 500 fighters killed in Syria, and the added costs of further recruitment and training will not be easy to absorb.
> 
> This suggests that any increase in the group’s Syrian presence will be detrimental to its strength at home, yet Hezbollah simply cannot afford domestic weakness now. The suicide-bombing that struck south Beirut suburb of Tayyouneh on June 24th has reiterated the threat facing Shia districts in the city, and when taken alongside the premature detonation of a bomber in a West Beirut hotel on June 25th, shows that Sunni militants continue to seek opportunities to carry out attacks.
> 
> As such, Hezbollah’s leadership now faces an unpalatable choice. It has sacrificed too much to abandon a regional struggle it sees as existential, and must continue to stand by President Assad. However, every man dispatched to Damascus is one less to defend the group’s strongholds in Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood, and with it its reputation. Finding the right balance will be exceptionally difficult.
> 
> Rupert Sutton is a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, where he focuses on the risks emanating from sectarian conflict and Islamist militant groups in the Levantine region.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran's Revolutionary Guards/Pasdaran involved in the Iraq fighting against ISIS:

Reuters



> *Iran's elite Guards fighting in Iraq to push back Islamic State*
> ReutersBy By Babak Dehghanpisheh
> 
> By Babak Dehghanpisheh
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - In early July, hundreds of mourners gathered for the funeral of Kamal Shirkhani in Lavasan, a small town northeast of the Iranian capital Tehran. The crowd carried the coffin past posters which showed Shirkhani in the green uniform of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and identified him as a colonel.
> 
> Shirkhani did not die in a battle inside Iran. He was killed nearly a hundred miles away from the Iranian border in a mortar attack by the militants of the Islamic State “while carrying out his mission to defend” a revered Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, according to a report on Basij Press, a news site affiliated with the Basij militia which is overseen by the Revolutionary Guards.
> 
> Shirkhani’s death deep inside Iraq shows that Iran has committed boots on the ground to defend Iraqi territory.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> Senior Iranian officials have denied that any Revolutionary Guard fighters or commanders are inside Iraq. But there’s no doubt that prominent politicians and clerics in Iran have been rattled by the rapid gains of the Islamic State and the threat it poses, not only to the Iraqi government but to Iran itself.
> Iranian president Hassan Rouhani pledged his government’s support to help counter the threat posed by the Islamic State if the Iraqi government requested it.
> 
> (...END OF EXCERPT)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Iran's Revolutionary Guards/Pasdaran involved in the Iraq fighting against ISIS:
> 
> Reuters



Ahh, Dubya's master plan finally starting to bear fruit!!


----------



## CougarKing

Tehran shows off its latest weapons:

Defense News



> *Iran Unveils New Missiles, Drones*
> Aug. 24, 2014 - 09:16PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> TEHRAN, IRAN — Iran on Sunday unveiled two new missiles and two new drones it said have been added to its arsenal, in a ceremony attended by President Hassan Rouhani.
> 
> The Ghadir (Mighty), with a range of 300 kilometers (185 miles), is a ground-to-sea and sea-to-sea missile, the official IRNA news agency said.
> 
> It is in the same family as the Ghader or Qader cruise missile, which has a range of 200 kilometers.
> 
> The other missile unveiled on Sunday, the Nasr-e Basir (Clear Victory), is equipped with a seeker homing head. Its range was not given.
> 
> The new Karar-4 (Striker) drone can track and monitor enemy aircraft, the agency said, while the Mohajer-4 (Migrant) drone is designed to perform photographic and mapping missions.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> In May, Iran said it had succeeded in copying an American RQ-170 Sentinel drone that it forced down and recovered nearly intact in December 2011.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Even if Iran is fighting covertly against ISIS in Iraq, it appears there is no place in Obama's anti-ISIS coalition for them:

Reuters



> *Kerry opposes Iran role in anti-Islamic State coalition*
> BY JASON SZEP
> ANKARA Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:12pm EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday it was "not appropriate" for Iran to join talks on confronting Islamic State militants, as he appeared to play down how fast countries can commit to force or other steps in an emerging coalition.
> 
> Kerry met Turkish leaders to try to secure backing for U.S.-led action against Islamic State militants, but Ankara's reluctance to play a frontline role highlighted the difficulty of building a willing coalition for a complex military campaign in the heart of the Middle East.
> 
> As he tours the region to gather support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi frontier to defeat Islamic State Sunni fighters, Kerry said Shi'ite Iran should have no role in talks on how to go about it.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## a_majoor

Kerry and the administration are being stupid (no surprise there). The United States should do _*nothing at all*_ in the region (except perhaps arming the Kurds) and using their considerable power to keep things contained within the confines of the region. 

Let Iran do the heavy lifting against ISIS and the rest, and let the Sauds, Gulf States and anyone else in the region support ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhoods etc. to their heart's content. After all Iran _and_ the Sauds and Gulf States have state of the art weaponry they can  hand out to proxies like Assad and Hezbollah or ISIS, so let them expend their own blood and treasure on exterminating apostates and attempting to set up regional hegemonies.


----------



## CougarKing

WTH? A UAV with AAMs?  



> *Iran has unveiled a new drone armed with air defense missile suitable for aerial combat*
> 
> [source: armyrecognition.com] - September 28, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## a_majoor

Times of Israel reports a massive blast at an Iranian nuclear facility. Confirmation is warrented, of course, but the reported size of the blast is quite considerable:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-blast-reported-at-suspected-iranian-nuke-facility/#!



> *Massive blast reported at suspected Iranian nuke facility*
> Two reportedly killed in explosion at secretive Parchin site that shatters windows 12 kilometers away
> 
> Read more: Massive blast reported at suspected Iranian nuke facility | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-blast-reported-at-suspected-iranian-nuke-facility/#ixzz3FOtjKykL
> Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — Two people were killed in an explosion at a defense ministry plant east of Tehran for the production of explosives, Iran’s state news agency IRNA reported Monday.
> 
> Read more: Massive blast reported at suspected Iranian nuke facility | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-blast-reported-at-suspected-iranian-nuke-facility/#ixzz3FOtdixf9
> Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
> The Defense Industries Organisation, quoted by IRNA, said the fire broke out at the plant on Sunday night but it gave no further details.
> 
> The BBC, citing a report from the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), reported on Monday that the incident happened in an “explosive materials production unit” at the site south-east of the capital Tehran.
> 
> According to ISNA the blast was so powerful it shattered windows up to 12 kilometers away and the glare from the explosion lit up the night sky.
> 
> Several arms facilities and military bases are located east of the Iranian capital, including Parchin. UN nuclear inspectors have been seeking to visit the site to answer concerns about Iran’s atomic program.
> 
> The base lies at the centre of allegations of past Iranian research into sophisticated explosives that can be used to detonate a nuclear warhead.
> 
> Tehran, which has denied inspectors access to Parchin since 2005, insists its nuclear program is for purely civilian uses. Israel and the West fear Iran is seeking to attain nuclear weapons.
> 
> In August Iran reiterated that it will not allow IAEA inspectors to visit the site.
> 
> Nuclear experts from the IAEA were due to hold talks Tuesday in Tehran to try and resolve outstanding issues regarding Iran’s disputed atomic program.
> 
> The IRNA news agency said the visitors were expected in the capital on Monday night ahead of talks with Iranian officials.
> 
> IAEA inspectors have been given access to a string of declared nuclear sites as part of an interim nuclear deal reached with the major powers last November. Access to Parchin was not agreed under the terms of that accord but the IAEA has been seeking to visit the base as part of its mission to answer all concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, past and present.
> 
> Read more: Massive blast reported at suspected Iranian nuke facility | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-blast-reported-at-suspected-iranian-nuke-facility/#ixzz3FOtSDRov
> Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook


----------



## a_majoor

More on the explosion reported at the Iranian nuclear facility. IF you go to the link you will find the links to the satellite photos being referred to here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/09/update-satellite-photos-appear-to-show-damage-after-explosion-at-suspected-iranian-nuclear-facility/



> *Update: Satellite photos appear to show damage after “explosion” at suspected Iranian nuclear facility*
> POSTED AT 11:21 AM ON OCTOBER 9, 2014 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
> 
> If you read this post on Tuesday, you’ll want to read this one too. Did something happen a few days ago at the Parchin military base, where Iran has been accused of testing components for atomic bombs? Iranian state media reported that there was a fire at an “explosives producing facility” east of Tehran that killed two people; an Iranian dissident group countered that it wasn’t just any facility that had burned, it was an area on the Parchin base. And it wasn’t just a fire that had occurred, it was a gigantic explosion that shattered windows miles away. What’s the truth?
> 
> A site called Israel Defense obtained the most recent commercial satellite photos of Parchin and concluded, yep, something’s up. Quote:
> 
> Satellite images of the Parchin area, to the east of Tehran, prove: the explosion reported by the Iranian media had, indeed, occurred inside the military compound in Parchin, where, according to western intelligence agencies, trials are being conducted on nuclear missile fuzes. Satellite images obtained by Israel Defense and analyzed by specialist Ronen Solomon clearly show damage consistent with an attack against bunkers in a central locality within the military research complex at the Parchin military compound.
> 
> The locality in question is situated at the center of the compound, adjacent to another installation where, according to intelligence sources, the trials being conducted involve controlled detonation of fuzes intended to serve as triggers for nuclear devices. The locality consists of a sizable testing center and what appears to be an area with bunker-shaped structures.
> I don’t want to reproduce the photos here since it’s their scoop, so follow the link and click the image at Israel Defense to see a large before-and-after comparison. There are indeed some buildings missing as well as signs of scorching in another area. There doesn’t seem to be much debris, which you would think would be clearly visible in the footprint of the buildings that have vanished, but there do appear to be large trucks on the scene. Maybe Iran ordered a hurried clean-up between the evening of October 5th, when the fire/explosion happened, and October 7th, when the latest satellite images were taken. Could the rubble from multiple buildings be cleared away that quickly?
> 
> Another western defense shop, the Institute for Science and International Security (a.k.a., er, ISIS), had the same idea as Israel Defense and looked at the latest satellite photos too. Their analysis is in PDF form but I highly recommend having a look, as the photos are not only helpfully marked but they include a wide shot of most of the base so that you can see where the attack site is vis-a-vis other key locations. Takeaway:
> 
> Several signatures that coincide with those expected from an explosion site are visible here. Two buildings that were present in August 2014 are no longer there, while a third building appears to be severely damaged. In total at least six buildings appear damaged or destroyed. Several trucks are present at the site. The shape and size of these trucks is consistent with those of either fire or debris removal trucks. The irregular line and color of the vegetation seems to indicate that some unexpected activity took place (possibly a fire, explosion, scattering of debris etc.). Finally, grey debris is visible at the center of the potential explosion area and is also scattered into the surrouding vegetation.
> 
> However, it is important to highlight that a section of the Parchin military complex was not analyzed by ISIS because it was missing from the most recent satellite imagery purchased from Airbus for unexplained reasons. This site is believed to house many buildings possibly dedicated to munition manufacturing, location where an explosion could potentially take place. Therefore, ISIS will be waiting for additional satellite imagery before reaching a final conclusion on the location of the blast.
> 
> In other words, they think they’ve found evidence of where a fire/explosion happened recently at Parchin, but since the most recent satellite photos don’t show the entire base, they can’t say if other parts of the base might have been damaged too. All of which seems straightforward — until you look at the first photo (Figure 1) in the ISIS PDF. It turns out the damaged site isn’t located in the parts of the base that have drawn the west’s nuclear suspicions. If this was an attack, in other words, why attack this location instead of the munitions areas or the suspected atomic-component testing areas? Two obvious possibilities. One: The attacker had reason to believe from its own intelligence that something important was going on in the targeted area, despite the fact that it hasn’t raised western suspicions before. Or two: There was no attacker and this really was some sort of accidental fire/explosion in a relatively innocuous part of Parchin.
> 
> I’ll leave you with one more thought, in case you’re inclined towards theory two. Judging by the damage, whatever happened doesn’t seem enormous enough to have shattered windows miles away. But if you look at the “after” photo of the damaged area in ISIS’s PDF, you’ll see that buildings damaged by the mystery event aren’t all adjacent to each other. There are some scorched buildings in the upper left corner of the photo, then a bunch of untouched buildings in the center, and then lots of damage on the right. How would a fire or accidental explosion skip over the buildings in the center? Seems like an attack that specifically targeted the damaged buildings is more likely.


----------



## CougarKing

Misplaced optimism by Rouhani?

Reuters



> *Iran's president says nuclear deal with West 'certain'*
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday a nuclear deal with the West was bound to happen and he believed it could be achieved by a November 24 deadline.
> 
> "We have reached consensus on generalities and there are only the fine details to be worked out: whether we would reach an agreement within the next 40 days, if the time will be extended, etc.," the president told his people in a late evening address broadcast live on television.
> 
> "Of course details are important too, but what's important is that the nuclear issue is irreversible. I think a final settlement can be achieved in these remaining 40 days. We will not return to the situation a year ago. The world is tired and wants it to end, resolved through negotiations," he said.
> 
> "A nuclear settlement is certain," he said, vowing to "apply all our efforts in that direction."
> 
> Rouhani, a moderate elected by a landslide 14 months ago partly on promises to end hostilities with the West, cautioned nevertheless that "a 12-year-old dilemma cannot be resolved overnight."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

We'll see what Nov. 24 will bring...and whether the current US administration wasn't careful enough in dealing with Tehran...

Reuters



> *Iran, U.S. say some headway made in 'difficult' nuclear talks*
> Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:28pm EDT
> 
> By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl
> 
> VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran and the United States said they made some progress in high-level nuclear talks but much work remained to clinch a breakthrough deal by a late-November deadline.
> 
> Both sides said they still aimed to meet the self-imposed Nov. 24 date, despite doubts among many experts that they can reach a full agreement to end a decade-old dispute over Tehran's nuclear program with just a few weeks remaining.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry left Vienna early on Thursday after six hours of talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton the previous day, but his officials remained to continue the talks through Thursday.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

It won't be long till Tehran blames Israel...  :boring:

Reuters



> *Iran says foils bid to sabotage nuclear heavy-water tanks: newspaper*
> Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:21am EDT
> 
> ANKARA (Reuters) - Iran has foiled an attempt to sabotage tanks used for transporting heavy water, which is needed to run some nuclear reactors, and blames a "foreign country" for the incident, a senior official was quoted by local media as saying.
> 
> The Islamic Republic is at odds with the West over suspicions it is covertly using its declared civilian atomic energy program to develop a nuclear arms capability. It denies this and has repeatedly accused certain Western states of trying to cripple the program through acts of sabotage.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The implications for Iran with the current lowering of worldwide oil prices:

CNBC



> *Iran a 'time bomb' for oil prices*
> CNBC
> 
> Markets should look for "a significant additional political risk premium on the price of Brent" if nuclear arms talks between Iran and major world powers break down, Nomura has warned.
> 
> *If Iran walks away from the negotiation table over the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology in the country, markets could easily be spooked over the region's stability and that could affect the price of Brent , which has tumbled since June*, Nomura's senior political analyst Alastair Newton said in a note Thursday.
> 
> "Iran could bring politics very much to the fore again in determining the price of Brent crude before year-end," Newton warned.
> 
> Brent crude for December delivery fell below $86 a barrel on Friday to $85.41 as a stronger dollar and over-supply combined to put pressure on the benchmark. The price has slipped more than 9 percent so far in October, its biggest monthly drop since May 2012, and a quarter since June.
> 
> *The deadline for the completion of negotiations between Tehran and the so-called P5+1 group which comprises the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S.) plus Germany is on November 24.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Iran, as well as Russia and several other nations would very much like the price of oil to rise, since the current low prices are cutting off revenue and financial resources and crimping their ability to act. Look for more of this, as well as "lawfare" being raised against the oil sands and US shale oil and "fracking" to restrict competing suppliers on the international market.


----------



## CougarKing

Surprise, surprise. Iran doesn't want normalizing relations with the "Great Satan"...but still want nuclear concessions? The Ayatollahs don't realize "they can't both have their cake and eat it" so to say.

Reuters



> *Iran hardliners want nuclear deal but no ties with Washington*
> Wed Nov 5, 2014 11:58am EST
> 
> By Parisa Hafezi and Mehrdad Balali
> 
> ANKARA/DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran may be ready to reach a nuclear deal with world powers to revive its economy, but is in no rush to go further by restoring relations with the United States, calculating this would imperil its domestic support.
> 
> According to one official, hardline loyalists of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have reached a compromise with supporters of the pragmatic president: Tehran should try to win relief from international sanctions by resolving the nuclear dispute, but not normalize ties with "the Great Satan".
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

S.M.A. 





> The Ayatollahs don't realize "they can't both have their cake and eat it" so to say.



Do you realize who is leading the negotiations representing who's world view and the view of the USA?

I would not be surprised if we woke up one morning in the near future to news of a nuc test in Iran with or without an agreement.


----------



## Rifleman62

To prove my point above:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-secret-letter-to-iran/article/2555867

*Obama's secret letter to Iran*

By Kelly Cohen | November 6, 2014 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei received a secret letter from an unlikely person last month: President Obama.

In the midst of airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Obama reportedly sent Iran’s Supreme Leader a letter in the middle of October, expressing the importance of cooperation in fighting the militants, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Obama also hinted that cooperation on fighting the Islamic State would directly affect looming discussions of a comprehensive agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear power by the Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the sources also told the Wall Street Journal.

In recent days, the White House has said the chances for an agreement with Tehran are only 50-50.

This is the fourth time Obama has written to Khamenei since he took office in 2009, part of a pledge made by Obama to engage Iran’s government more frequently.

The United States’ other Middle East allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were not briefed on the letter.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to comment on what he called “private correspondence” between the president and world leaders, but did not deny the letter’s existence.

“I don’t trust the Iranians, I don’t think we need to bring them into this,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said when asked about the letter.


http://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/223244-mccain-rips-wh-for-playing-footsie-with-iran
*
McCain rips WH for ‘playing footsie’ with Iran*

By Martin Matishak - 11/06/14 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday the Obama administration is not carrying out more airstrikes against Islamic militants inside Syria because it is instead “playing footsie” with Iran.

“There are reports that one of the reasons why we are not attacking [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad is because we are trying to look at some kind of arrangements with the Iranians,” the top Republican the on Senate Armed Services Committee said in an interview with MSNBC, without citing examples.  

“It's, as I say, it's immoral and shameful and somehow we are playing footsie with the Iranians and hope that they will somehow have an effect on ISIS,” said McCain, who is poised to serve as chairman of the committee next year.

The administration is on its heels after a report that the president sent a secret letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei arguing that Washington and Tehran had a shared interest in fighting ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest would neither confirm nor deny the missive had been sent.

"I'm not in a position to discuss private correspondence between the president and any world leader," he said.

*The letter could mark a reversal in White House policy that the U.S. would not make concessions in ongoing nuclear talks with Iran for Tehran’s help in the ISIS fight.
*
McCain said that, “on the nuclear issue, we have already given away the store by allowing them to the right to enrich and not putting in check both the development of warheads and the means to deliver them.”

He called the talks a “misguided effort to somehow accommodate and get better relations with a country that is spreading disorder and unrest throughout the region.”

However, McCain said he would work with other Senate lawmakers to craft a new authorization for the use of military force against ISIS, something the president asked for on Wednesday during a post-election news conference.

“The last authorization specifically mentioned the 9/11 attacks and those responsible for it. So it should be updated. But I want to do it very carefully,” McCain said. “We'll sit down and try and work this out. It is necessary.”

The five-term lawmaker went on to lambaste the administration’s policy toward Yemen.

“Yemen, by the way, that is our enemy. They are not our friend. They are our enemy,” he said. “And we are treating them as somebody that we can continue to do business with.”

He then skewered the White House over its handling of the 2009 “Green Movement” in Iran and said Georgia was “swinging more pro-Russian” after its defense minister was sacked.

As for Syria, McCain said that every time the U.S.-led coalition strikes ISIS fighters, the Assad regime steps up its attacks on rebel forces inside the country.

“So this is a foreign policy that is off the rails,” according to McCain.


----------



## Rifleman62

Can anyone spell Munich? 

Kerry is desperate to get an agreement as well as Obama for his legacy. To hell with anything else.

If you cannot get the agreement, walk away. I cannot imagine the risk to the non Muslim world with Iran having a nec. They don't have to use it themselves. Iran could/will give it to a third party.



> Posted by: Rifleman62
> « on: November 05, 2014, 15:32:20 »
> 
> Insert Quote
> 
> 
> S.M.A.
> Quote
> 
> The Ayatollahs don't realize "they can't both have their cake and eat it" so to say.
> 
> 
> Do you realize who is leading the negotiations representing who's world view and the view of the USA?
> 
> I would not be surprised if we woke up one morning in the near future to news of a nuc test in Iran with or without an agreement.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/deadline-for-iran-nuclear-deal-looms-russia-china-could-join-talks/2014/11/23/a29a8a12-7309-11e4-a5b2-e1217af6b33d_story.html

*U.S. proposes extending talks with Iran as pessimism about nuclear deal grows*

By Carol Morello November 23

 VIENNA — The United States on Sunday proposed extending an interim agreement with Iran in a recognition that talks to settle deep differences over Tehran’s nuclear program were unlikely to succeed before a deadline just one day away.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry formally raised the issue of an extension in an evening meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, according to a senior State Department official. It was their second meeting on Sunday, a day in which Kerry shuttled between talks with European allies and the Iranian negotiating team.

An extension is one of several alternatives under discussion, the official said.

“This does not mean that we are not continuing to discuss the broad range of difficult issues and working to make progress on all the issues that need to be part of a comprehensive agreement,” the official said.

In addition to his meetings with his Iranian counterpart, Kerry held talks with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany and Russia. China’s envoy was expected, as well, rounding out the group of nations negotiating with Iran to limit its nuclear capability in exchange for an easing of international sanctions on the country.

Nevertheless, there was growing acceptance that the remaining differences could not be bridged by midnight Monday. That is when an interim accord, already extended once, expires.

The hang-ups are few in number but wide in substance. One of the most important is how many uranium-enriching centrifuges and stockpiles Iran will be permitted to keep for what it insists are peaceful, civilian purposes. Divisions also remain over the pace at which sanctions would be eased if Iran makes concessions and over how many years the country’s nuclear program would be monitored.

On ABC’s Sunday talk show, “This Week,” President Obama said the interim agreement had successfully rolled back Iran’s nuclear capacity, but he expressed doubt about whether the “significant” gaps could be bridged to achieve a permanent accord.

“I think that our goal has consistently been to shut off a whole bunch of different avenues whereby Iran might get a nuclear weapon and at the same time make sure that the structure of sanctions are rolled back step for step as Iran is doing what it’s supposed to do,” he said. “I think Iran would love to see the sanctions end immediately and then to still have some avenues that might not be completely closed, and we can’t do that.”

A delay carries political complications for Washington and Tehran. It could hamper the Obama administration’s ability to get congressional approval for easing sanctions against Iran, with Republicans poised to gain control of Capitol Hill in January. It also could embolden Iranian hard-liners opposed to any agreement involving the United States.

The sanctions are hurting a broad spectrum of Iranian society, particularly as oil prices fall. But some Iranians remain reluctant to cede ground in the dispute, seeing nuclear reactors as crucial to their future.

A group of Iranian students protested Sunday at the site of a reactor in Tehran, demanding that Iran not cave in and reduce its nuclear capacity. According to the Fars News Agency, the students chanted, “Nuclear energy is our inalienable right.”

Recent analyses in the Iranian news media have portrayed Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional rival, and Israel, often referred to as “the Zionist regime,” as the main roadblocks to a deal.

Kerry has kept both countries apprised of the talks. On Sunday, he went to the Vienna airport to update the Saudi foreign minister aboard his plane, which was sitting on the runway.

In Israel, where skepticism over a long-term deal with Iran is strong, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday that he was pressing a “vigorous” case that Iran not be allowed to become a “nuclear threshold state.”

“No agreement at all would be preferable to a bad agreement that would endanger Israel, the Middle East and all of humanity,” said Netanyahu, whom Kerry telephoned Saturday evening to give an update on the status of the talks.

William Booth in Jerusalem contributed to this report.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/24/diplomat-agreement-being-formed-for-7-month-extension-iran-nuclear-talks/

*Iran nuclear talks to be extended until July*

Associated Press - Published November 24, 2014

VIENNA –  Facing still significant differences between the U.S. and Iran, negotiators gave up on last-minute efforts to get a nuclear deal by the Monday deadline and extended their talks for another seven months.

The move gives both sides breathing space to work out an agreement but may be badly received by domestic sceptics, since it extends more than a decade of diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear prowess.

International negotiators are worried that Iran is using its nuclear development program as a cover for developing nuclear weapons and they have imposed economic sanctions on Tehran. Iran denies the charge, saying it is only interested peaceful nuclear programs like producing power.

After a frenetic six days of diplomacy in Vienna, negotiators agreed Monday to nail down by March 1 what needs to be done by Iran and the six world powers it is negotiating with and by when. A final agreement is meant to follow four months later.

Comments by key players in the talks suggested not much was agreed on in Vienna beyond the decision to keep talking. The next negotiating round was set for early December but the venue is unclear.

The decision appears to benefit Iran. Its nuclear program is left frozen but intact, without any of the cuts sought by the U.S. And while negotiations continue, so will dole-outs of monthly $700 million in frozen funds that began under the temporary nuclear deal agreed on late last year that led to the present talks.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said the sides were giving themselves until March to agree on a text "that sets out in layman's language what we have agreed to do." Experts then will be given another four months to "translate that into precise definitions of what will happen on the ground," he told reporters.

Even the new deadline for a final deal was not immediately clear, with negotiators saying it was July 1, and Hammond fixing it at June 30.

Past talks have often ended on an acrimonious note, with each side blaming the other for lack of a deal. But mindful of hard discussions ahead, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry focused on praise, in an apparent attempt to maintain a relatively cordial atmosphere at the negotiating table.

Kerry, who arrived Thursday and met repeatedly with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif, said Zarif "worked diligently and approached these negotiations in good faith."

"We have made real and substantial progress and we have seen new ideas surface," he told reporters. "Today we are closer to a deal that will make the whole world, especially our allies in Israel and the Gulf, safer."

Hammond and other foreign ministers of the six powers also sought to put a good face on what was achieved. Hammond spoke of "significant progress," while German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said only differences about "technical details" remained.

But the length of the extension suggested that both sides felt plenty of time was needed to overcome the disputes on how much Iran needed to restrict nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons in exchange for relief from sanctions imposed over its nuclear program.

"All the people involved here feel that there really is a chance to find out a way to each other and we are going to take that chance," Steinmeier said about the decision to extend.

But obstacles far from the negotiating table could complicate the process.

Members of the new Republican-controlled U.S. Congress that will be sworn in in January have already threatened to impose additional sanctions on Iran and may well have enough votes to overturn an expected veto of such legislation by President Barack Obama.

New sanctions could very well derail the talks, as Iran has signaled they would be a deal breaker, and Kerry appealed to Congress to "support ... this extension."

In Tehran, hardliners fearful that their country could give away more than it gets under any final deal could increase pressure on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to break off talks. The talks extension, however, appears to have the approval of Khamenei, who is the ultimate arbiter in his country.

Among other issues, the two sides are haggling over how many -- and what kind -- of centrifuges Iran should be allowed to have. The machines can enrich uranium from low, reactor-fuel level, up to grades used to build the core of a nuclear weapon, and their output grows according to how modern they are.

Washington wants deeper and more lasting cuts in the program than Tehran is willing to give.

Suggesting some movement on enrichment differences, Kerry told reporters, "Progress was made on some of the most vexing challenges that we face."

An extension was widely expected as the deadline approached with neither side having the appetite for new confrontation that would renew the threat of military action against Iran by Israel and potentially the U.S. as well as tighten the sanctions regime on Tehran.

Alluding to that alternative, Kerry declared: "We would be fools to walk away."

*YOU ARE A FOOL.*


----------



## CougarKing

Iran taking a more direct role in Iraq against ISIS? Take note that Tehran also reportedly sent 4 Su25 Frogfoots to operate from Iraqi airbases against ISIS.



> *Iranian Phantom jet strikes the Islamic State in Iraq*
> 
> Source: Janes
> 
> IHS Jane's 360]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Footage aired by Al Jazeera shows at least one F-4 Phantom II jet striking the Islamic State in Iraq. Given the location of the incident near Iraq's eastern border, it is most likely that this is an Iranian jet.
> 
> *While the IRIAF is known to have contributed Sukhoi Su-25 'Frogfoot' ground attack aircraft to the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq (ostensibly donated to the Iraqi Air Force, but believed to be crewed by Iranian pilots), this footage is the first visual evidence of direct IRIAF involvement in the conflict.*
> 
> The Al Jazeera footage, which was shot on 30 November, shows the IRIAF F-4 supporting Iraqi forces retaking the town of Sa'adiya in what was purported to be the government's largest operation against the Islamic State since June. Its release comes weeks after IHS Jane's reported growing evidence of Iranian involvement in the war in Iraq.
> 
> Video footage and photographs shown on social media sites have increasingly been showing Iranian military hardware in the hands of Shia militias fighting in Iraq. This hardware includes the 12.7 mm AM-50 anti-materiel rifle, at least one Iranian-made Safir jeep mounted with a 107 mm multiple rocket launcher (MRL), as well as an Iranian 122 mm HM 20 MRL.


----------



## a_majoor

Iran's involvement against IS** and the various sub groups, splinter groups and other forces in the region has been well known for about a year, since the revolt against the Assad Regime picked up steam. ISIS represents both a direct physical threat to Iranian ambitions in the region (knocking out Syria and taking over Iraq would demolish Iran's dreams of regional hegemony) and an ideological/religious threat as well (the Iranians consider ISIS a bunch of Apostates, and ISIS returns the favour).

Iranian supplies have flowed to Assad via an air bridge, Hezbollah fighters have been thrown into the conflict to keep supply lines open to Lebanon and Quds brigade fighters and officers have been actively in the fight as well. The Iranians hate us, ISIS hates us, so _why not_ just sit back and let them fight it out? Keeping an eye out for our few friends in the region (Israel, Jordan, the Kurds and probably the Baloch people) and working to push the battles back into "the ring" if they start to go out of control is really all we should be spending our own blood and treasure on.


----------



## CougarKing

Tehran and Washington watching each other's moves in Iraq:

Defense News



> *US, Iranian Forces Operate In Separate Areas In Iraq, Officials Say*
> Dec. 3, 2014 - 08:26PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> WASHINGTON — Recent Iranian airstrikes against Islamic State jihadists in Iraq took place in an eastern region where US warplanes do not operate, the Pentagon said Wednesday, reflecting an accommodation between the two traditional rivals in their fight against a common enemy.
> 
> *US defense officials said air raids by Iranian F-4 Phantom fighters over the weekend targeting were part of a pattern in which Iranian or American military advisers have carved out separate spheres in Iraq.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED





Reuters



> *Warily, U.S. learns to live with more muscular Iran role in Iraq*
> 
> By Phil Stewart and Warren Strobel
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Iran, which dueled viciously over Iraq during the years of U.S. occupation, suddenly seem to be working in tandem as they confront what both see as a common, even mortal enemy: Islamic State.
> 
> Air strikes by Iran inside Iraq in recent days are only the latest manifestation of an increasingly muscular role by Tehran in Baghdad's war against Sunni militants. During the administration of George W. Bush, such actions would be denounced as meddling.
> 
> Not now.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cryco

So you think that Iran, Turkey and whatever Iraq has left will be enough to reign in the IS* threat? 
Somehow, I see them (except for Iraq) doing the least possible to barely keep IS* at bay and from total dominion of the currently conquered land.
Maybe it's in the news I read, but I have no idea what sense of urgency there is within Iran to contain IS*.


----------



## YZT580

cryco said:
			
		

> So you think that Iran, Turkey and whatever Iraq has left will be enough to reign in the IS* threat?
> Somehow, I see them (except for Iraq) doing the least possible to barely keep IS* at bay and from total dominion of the currently conquered land.
> Maybe it's in the news I read, but I have no idea what sense of urgency there is within Iran to contain IS*.


Picture the Irish troubles on steroids.  The Persians do not believe that ISIS should even use the word Allah.  On the other hand, ISIS would happily slit the throat of any Iranian caught on the ground.  If Iran can stop ISIS in Syria it simply means they won't have to fight them in their own country.  That is the urgency.


----------



## CougarKing

And speaking of Iran's more direct role in Iraq, the notorious General Suleimani is in the news again:



> Business Insider
> 
> *Iran's Military Mastermind Is 'The Leader Of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, And Yemen'*
> Business Insider
> 
> As the US provides air cover for Iranian-backed militias fighting ISIS (aka the Islamic State, ISIL, and/or Daesh) in Iraq, t he longest continuously serving American official in the country has strong opinions about who is in control.
> 
> Ali Khedery, who served as a special assistant to five US ambassadors and a senior adviser to three heads of US Central Command between 2003 and 2009, told The New York Times: “For the Iranians, really, the gloves are off.”
> 
> He highlighted the role of Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Qods Force, the foreign arm of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Qods is  directing sectarian militias in both Iraq and Syria. At the same time, Suleimani is nurturing the guerilla proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis rebel group in Yemen — in other words, he is controlling powerful Shia proxies all across the Middle East.
> 
> *“Suleimani is the leader of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen,” Khedery said. “Iraq is not sovereign. It is led by Suleimani, and his boss, [Iranian Supreme Leader] Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## McG

Suicide drone sounds so much more heinous than cruise missile. 

I wonder if these will be seen flying missions into Iraq any time soon.


> Iran tests suicide drone in massive military exercise
> The Associated Press
> CTV NEWS
> 27 Dec 2014
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's army has deployed a suicide drone for the first time in massive ongoing military drills near the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, the army's chief commander of ground forces, is quoted by Iranian state media Saturday as calling the unmanned aircraft "a mobile bomb." The drone, named Yasir according to one Iranian newspaper, has been designed to plunge into aerial and ground targets, as well as ships.
> 
> The six-day military exercise is being carried out over 850,000 square kilometres in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, Sea of Oman and the eastern part of the Persian Gulf, through which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/iran-tests-suicide-drone-in-massive-military-exercise-1.2163339


----------



## CougarKing

Iraq's Shias becoming too cozy with Iran, even after former PM Maliki relinquished power?

Military.com



> *Iran-Iraq Deal Challenges US Fight Against ISIS Militants*
> 
> Jan 02, 2015 | by Richard Sisk
> 
> 
> *Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement for Iran to train, advise and assist Iraqi forces similar to the deal Washington has with Baghdad in the fight against ISIS.*
> 
> "We assume Iran's increased support for the Iraqi armed forces as a strategic necessity," Iraqi Defense Minister Khalid al-Obeidi said earlier this week after concluding the agreement in Tehran with Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, the state-run Iranian Fars New Agency said.
> 
> (..,SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Wouldn't this apply more to Iraq's Shia population though?

To think that only about 30 years ago there was actually an Iran-Iraq War. 

Business Insider



> *Iran Has Never Been More Influential In Iraq*
> Associated Press
> HAMZA HENDAWI QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> BAGHDAD (AP) — In the eyes of most Iraqis, their country's best ally in the war against the Islamic State group is not the United States and the coalition air campaign against the militants. It's Iran, which is credited with stopping the extremists' march on Baghdad.
> 
> Shiite, non-Arab Iran has effectively taken charge of Iraq's defense against the Sunni radical group, meeting the Iraqi government's need for immediate help on the ground.
> 
> *Two to three Iranian military aircraft a day land at Baghdad airport, bringing in weapons and ammunition. Iran's most potent military force and best known general — the Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force and its commander Gen. Ghasem Soleimani — are organizing Iraqi forces and have become the de facto leaders of Iraqi Shiite militias that are the backbone of the fight. *Iran carried out airstrikes to help push militants from an Iraqi province on its border.
> 
> The result is that Tehran's influence in Iraq, already high since U.S. forces left at the end of 2011, has grown to an unprecedented level.
> 
> Airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition have helped push back the militants in parts of the north, including breaking a siege of a Shiite town. But many Iraqis believe the Americans mainly want to help the Kurds. Airstrikes helped Kurdish forces stop extremists threatening the capital of the Kurdish autonomous zone, Irbil, in August. But even that feat is accorded by many Iraqis to a timely airlift of Iranian arms to the Kurds.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps the combination of economic struggle and a resurgent US administration in 2016 could lead to regime change in Iran. We will have to see if the Congress will move in this direction now and who actually wins the next US election:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2015/01/16/the-citizens-guide-to-regime-change/?print=1



> *The Citizen’s Guide to Regime Change*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On January 16, 2015 @ 3:59 pm In Uncategorized | 5 Comments
> 
> All of a sudden, it’s OK to talk seriously about regime change in Iran and even elsewhere.  It had been a taboo subject since the final years of the G.W. Bush administration, aside from yours truly, a few friends such as Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan, and the Washington Post editors, who remarked in 2011 [1] that “only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program.”  The latest elected official to join the party is newly elected Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas:
> 
> “The goal of our policy must be – regime change in Iran,” Cotton said. “We cannot and will not be safe as long as Islamist despots rule in Iran.
> 
> “The policy of the United States should therefore be to support regime opponents and promote a constitutional government at peace with the United States, Israel and the world,” he added.
> 
> He’s got it just right:  promote regime change in Tehran by supporting the vast political army of Iranian citizens who hate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, including President Hasan Rouhani and other recent idols of the deep-thinking set.
> 
> Those of us who worked with anti-Soviet dissidents throughout the Empire know that non-violent regime change can be achieved.  When Reagan moved into the White House, hardly anyone believed such a thing was possible.  Indeed, lots of politically active men and women–in undoubted good faith–implored us not to “put Gorbachev’s back against a wall” and to “work with him” to achieve detente.  Even today, there is passionate unwillingness to credit Reagan’s policies with the fall of the Empire, even though the winners on the ground, from Lech Walesa and Havel to Natan Sharansky and Vladimir Bukovsky, all testified to the electrifying effect Reagan’s words and actions had on regimes and dissidents alike.
> 
> It was not all that difficult, and certainly not prohibitively expensive.  It didn’t require military action (although the relentless growth of US military power was indubitably important in deterring any Soviet action).  It didn’t involve a vast bureaucracy (I would guess that there were maybe 20-30 high-ranking officials involved, including those very important people at the radios).  Plus those great foreign leaders, like Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.
> 
> The main requirement was the will to bring down that wall.  Once the world saw that, it was really no contest.
> 
> I think that sort of non-violent regime change is possible in Iran — and elsewhere — today.  It’s quite amazing how rapidly the world can be changed for the better once the United States begins to move.  Indeed, we’ve seen that in reverse with this president, haven’t we?  It works both ways.  And the chances for successful regime change in Iran are considerably better than they were in Gorbachev’s Soviet Empire in the ’80s.  The percentage of Iranian citizens ready to demonstrate their opposition to Khamenei et. al. is much higher than Soviet citizens back when, and the Iranian regime is considerably weaker.  The Soviet Union was a superpower, Iran isn’t.  The USSR had nukes and a big army.  Not so the Islamic Republic.
> 
> Nor is Iran the only candidate for regime change.  Venezuela is fully ripe, as the Chavez/Maduro failure becomes more evident and more dramatic every day.  We have actually taken a few steps to demonstrate our unhappiness with the Caracas tyranny (as we have with Iran), but the crucial ingredient is lacking:  the explicit, forceful and repeated denunciation of Maduro and his henchmen by the American president, secretary of state, and other top officials.
> 
> It is discouraging to see that many American pundits and politicos who favor regime change act as if military action is required for success.  Senator McCain is particularly egregious on this front, but even those who call for stronger sanctions (which I favor, not because I think economic misery wrecks the regimes–they wreck themselves–but because tough sanctions send a powerful political message to the Iranian and/or Venezuelan people, who are the lethal weapon in this war) often ignore the crucial political dimension.
> 
> If misery brought down failed oppressive regimes, then North Korea would be a free country today.
> 
> You will say that the Obama administration isn’t going to start denouncing the Iranian or Venezuelan regime, and supporting their domestic opposition.  I agree, but hasten to add that life is full of surprises.  None of us expected Jimmy Carter to order a massive rebuilding of US military power, which undergirded Reagan’s policies.  You never know.  In the Obama case, we don’t need a big defense spending increase; all we need is the will to win.
> 
> Even if Obama is a lost cause, a lot can be done by an aroused Washington opposition, backed by an aroused citizenry.  Not only will this put maximum pressure on the president and his team, it will make it more likely that his successor will be fully committed to the winning strategy…whether or not Iran goes nuclear in the meantime, as Gorbachev’s fall from power amply demonstrates.
> 
> Just listen to Senator Cotton, who has fought our enemies on the battlefields of the Middle East, and understands both the urgency of taking the fight to Tehran and the best way to do it.
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2015/01/16/the-citizens-guide-to-regime-change/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] remarked in 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/more-half-measures-from-obama-administration-on-iran/2011/11/22/gIQADXxLmN_story.html


----------



## CougarKing

Obama against something even many in his own party support?

Business Insider



> *Obama Raises Specter Of War With Iran If Congress Imposes New Sanctions*
> By Colin Campbell | Business Insider – 18 hours ago
> 
> President Barack Obama strongly warned Congress on Friday against leveling additional sanctions against Iran and even suggested they could lead to war.
> 
> "We have shown that we are credibly trying to solve this problem and avert some sort of military showdown. In that context, t here is no good argument for us to — undercut — undermine, the negotiations," Obama said.
> 
> The White House and Iran are currently locked in negotiations for Iran to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for the US and others lifting their sanctions against the Iranian government. These negotiations have been repeatedly extended and frustrated members of Congress said they fear Obama will not strike a tough enough deal. Even Democrats have backed legislation to strengthen the sanctions against Iran.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Israel again spoiling Tehran's plans...

Agence-France-Presse



> *Iran general killed with Hezbollah fighters in Israel raid*
> 
> Beirut (AFP) - An Israeli strike on Syria killed an Iranian general, Tehran confirmed Monday, as thousands of supporters of Lebanon's Hezbollah gathered to bury one of six fighters killed in the same raid.
> 
> The attack on Sunday near Quneitra on the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights enraged Hezbollah's supporters, but analysts said the group would avoid a major escalation with Israel.
> 
> Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards confirmed the death of one of their generals in a statement on their website.
> 
> "*General Mohammad Ali Allahdadi* and a number of fighters and Islamic Resistance (Hezbollah) forces were attacked by the Zionist regime's helicopters," it said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

I believe this is the second IRG general to die in Syria.The other being Hassan Shateri.BG Hamid Taqavi was killed in Iraq by a sniper.


----------



## CougarKing

If Iran's Qaher-313 "stealth fighter" wasn't a hoax, why would they need the F-35 plans for copying? 

Sydney Morning Herald



> *Engineer accused of stealing F-35 fighter secrets for Iran*
> 
> The freight cost was barely $1700. But nestled inside an otherwise bland shipping container sat a cargo of secret blueprints sensitive enough to put to waste billions of Australian taxpayer dollars.
> 
> *American Mozaffar Khazaee is accused of stealing design plans for the Joint Strike Fighter - the F-35A Lightning II, billed as the next generation in stealth air warfare - and seeking to ship them to Iran. *Thousands of pages of engine schematics, technical manuals, diagrams and other as yet undisclosed detail had been secreted away in 44 boxes of documents.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Allegedly the PRC got the same plans.


----------



## Edward Campbell

If America decides has decided to have a public education system that does not reward academic excellence, and only academic excellence, then it will have to import more, and More and MORE scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians from other countries where they are in surplus (right now that's China, India and several Arab countries). Some of those people, quite a few of them, actually, are, for a whole host of reasons, going to sell secrets ... 

It's an easy problem to fix, but it requires a change in attitude.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US leads the world in technical innovation.Its the wannabe's of the world that are unable to do the same so they try to steal the technology.


----------



## a_majoor

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US leads the world in technical innovation.Its the wannabe's of the world that are unable to do the same so they try to steal the technology.



Actually it is quite "easy" to do research and discover really neat stuff (read the Next Big Future website or magazines like Wired, Popular Science or Discover). The difficulty is moving from Research to Development and getting these neat ideas into a form where they can be produced reliably and at a scale where they are actually useful.

While academics are in decline in America, as Edward points out, Americans still have an overwhelming lead in the ability to get things off the laboratory bench and into the production lines and then into the hands of the customers. You can steal plans, or even have the finished product (think of the Russians crawling over the shot down F-117 Nighthawk), but to reverse engineer the product you don't just need to know what its made out of but also _how_ all these parts are made and put together.


----------



## Edward Campbell

America continues to offer a superior business climate for innovators ... that's why, over the past 50 years, hundreds of thousands millions of bright young people from all over the world, especially from Asia, have moved there, started companies, and turned their good ideas into real, useful products. But the pure research, the catalyst for all those good ideas in not - and never has been - exclusively American. (The "mobile communications" revolution, for example, owes more to one, single, university in Israel than to America ... similar examples exist in other areas of science.) 

It was said, that "the business of America is business,"* and that is still its greatest strength, but even its "business" focus is being eroded by the American culture wars which also attack education and enterprise and productivity and, and, and ...  

America remains, by far, the most _productive_ society in history, certainly the best since Britain in the 1820s and '30s, but, like Britain, it can be overtaken by other more dynamic societies if it loses its focus on that which made it great and powerful: it's essential classic, 19th century, English _liberalism_ (the small 'l' matters a lot).

_____
* Actually President Calvin Coolidge said, “the chief business of the American people is business.” (1925)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I believe this is the second IRG general to die in Syria.The other being Hassan Shateri.BG Hamid Taqavi was killed in Iraq by a sniper.



You are right. Another one was General Jabar Drisaw. More info from the Counter-Jihad webpage:



> Brigadier General Allah-Dadi is the latest high-ranking Iranian military casualty in the wars in Syria and Iraq. An Islamic State sniper killed Hamid Taqavi, an IRGC brigadier general who was advising Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Samarra, Iraq in late December 2014. In October 2014, General Jabar Drisawi, a general in Iran’s Basij militia, was killed during fighting near Aleppo, Syria. And in February 2013, Hassan Shateri, a top commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps who is also said to have served on Hezbollah’s advisory council, was killed in an ambush while traveling from Damascus to Beirut.



 Article Link  The article has hyperlinks explaining the circumstances on how each of the above generals died.


----------



## CougarKing

The end of talks with Iran in sight?

Reuters



> *Iran's Khamenei hints ready to accept fair nuclear deal as talks proceed*
> BY MEHRDAD BALALI AND SHADIA NASRALLA
> DUBAI/MUNICH Sun Feb 8, 2015 8:19am EST
> 
> (Reuters) - Iran's paramount leader suggested on Sunday he could back a fair nuclear accord with world powers in which neither side got everything it wanted, boosting Iranian negotiators under fire from hardliners at home opposed to rapprochement with the West.
> 
> "I would go along with any agreement that could be made. Of course, I am not for a bad deal. No agreement is better than an agreement which runs contrary to our nation's interests," clerical Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement issued by his office carried by ISNA news agency.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The Israeli leader going to Washington to address Congress even if Obama won't meet him:

Reuters



> *Netanyahu on collision course with White House over Iran*
> Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:29am EST
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Netanyahu was invited by John Boehner, the Republican speaker, in an initiative cooked up between Boehner and the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, without the White House initially being kept informed.
> 
> *That has upset the U.S. administration for a couple of reasons: first, because of the impression created that Netanyahu is teaming up with the Republicans to rubbish Obama's strategy on Iran and attempt to secure new U.S. sanctions.*
> 
> *Secondly, it tramples on diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign leader days before an election - Netanyahu will speak just two weeks before Israeli parliamentary elections on March 17*, when he will bid for a fourth term. As a result, Obama will not meet him during the visit.
> 
> Relations between the two have always been uncomfortable, but the sense of mutual irritation has deepened in recent months, with Netanyahu increasingly critical of U.S. policy on Iran and the United States pushing back on everything from Israeli settlements to the lack of talks with the Palestinians.
> 
> Gideon Rahat, a professor of politics at Hebrew University, regards the current state of affairs as the worst between Israel and the United States in more than 20 years, since George Bush senior and Yitzhak Shamir were in office.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

The Obama foreign policy and Obama's legacy is predicated on getting a nuclear treaty out of Iran. Several extensions to the negotiations have given Iran more time to develop the bomb.

In Obama's State of the Union speech the Republicans, who, through elections by the people, have a majority in the Congress were upset the President grossed over the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Netanyahu will speak to the Congress and tell it how it is with a nuclear Iran, which the President refuses to do. Remember, Israel only has to lose a war once.

There is also talk that the President wants Iran to be an allied with with USA!

This is from a President who will not allow the use of the word Muslim extremest/terrorists etc as posted elsewhere.


----------



## Rifleman62

Proof. Iran will stall until they have a bomb and the Obama administration will allow that. Crippies, even the UN is saying Iran is stalling.

When they get a nuclear bomb, can they manufacturer a dirty "suitcase" bomb that one of their surrogates will drop off in a US city or will they launch on Israel? Who do they hate most?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0LN1DJ20150219

*Iran still stalling U.N. nuclear inquiry as deal deadline looms: IAEA*

By Shadia Nasralla - VIENNA - Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:12pm EST

(Reuters) - Iran has still not addressed specific issues that could feed suspicions it may have researched an atomic bomb, a U.N. watchdog report showed on Thursday, potentially complicating efforts by six powers to clinch a nuclear deal with Tehran.

Iran and U.S. negotiators will resume talks over Tehran's nuclear programme in Geneva on Friday to narrow remaining gaps aimed at ending a 12-year standoff with the powers, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported.

The confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), obtained by Reuters, said Tehran was continuing to withhold full cooperation in two areas of a long-running IAEA investigation that it had committed to giving by August last year.

"Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures," the IAEA said, referring to allegations of explosives tests and other activity that could be used to develop nuclear bombs.

Western diplomats have viewed such stalling as an indicator of the Islamic Republic's unwillingness to cooperate fully until punitive sanctions are lifted in talks with the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain.

The IAEA document about the U.N. inquiry, which has run parallel to the big power talks, was issued to IAEA member states only weeks before a deadline in late March for a framework agreement between Iran and the powers.

Iran's IAEA envoy said the report attested to Iranian cooperation with the Vienna-based agency to address doubts about its nuclear programme, rejecting "baseless claims" about weapons studies.

"Repeating such baseless claims will not add to the IAEA's credibility," Ambassador Reza Najafi told the Iran's Students News Agency ISNA.

The seven countries have imposed a June 30 deadline on themselves for a final settlement. Iran denies any intention of seeking atomic weapons, saying its nuclear energy programme is aimed at generating electricity only.

The deal sought by the powers would have Iran accept limits to its uranium enrichment capacity and open up to unfettered IAEA inspections to help ensure it could not put its nuclear programme to developing bombs. They also want Iran to resolve all IAEA questions to build trust in its nuclear aspirations.

In return, Iran would see a lifting of international trade and financial sanctions that hobbled its oil-based economy.

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano and Iranian senior nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi will meet in Vienna next week, both sides said. "In his meeting with Amano, Araqchi will discuss ... future cooperation needed between Iran and the IAEA in the framework of a possible final deal," Najafi told ISNA.

A senior diplomat said all issues in the inquiry barring possible military dimensions (PMD) to Iran's nuclear activity were being tackled well, but "with respect to PMD, progress is very slow, if there is any progress at all at this point in time."


----------



## jollyjacktar

They're not keen or SA either.  Or Syria.  A target rich environment for them.


----------



## Force

The usa wants to pressure iran because of its revolution that kicked out usa's Shah, making usa lose its biggest regional vassal. As to iran wanting to make the bomb well... maybe in 200 years? 
http://youtu.be/a2Ve4HrRpvs


----------



## Rifleman62

Force:





> As to iran wanting to make the bomb well... maybe in 200 years?



You are kidding? You believe that?


----------



## Force

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Force:
> 
> You are kidding? You believe that?


Did you watch the video? From where are we getting information to say that iran will have a bomb in 8 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc. 30 years passed and we're still 8 months away from the construction of the first bomb. These claims are worthless and history proves it. Thats the only reason why I have doubts.


----------



## Rifleman62

You are basing your opinion on one YouTube video?


----------



## Jed

Force said:
			
		

> The usa wants to pressure iran because of its revolution that kicked out usa's Shah, making usa lose its biggest regional vassal. As to iran wanting to make the bomb well... maybe in 200 years?
> http://youtu.be/a2Ve4HrRpvs



Force; I was watching your comments with interest and an open mind. After this pearl of wisdom, I will put you on ignore.


----------



## Force

Jed said:
			
		

> Force; I was watching your comments with interest and an open mind. After this pearl of wisdom, I will put you on ignore.


I just stated history facts and asked legitimate questions. 

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms
Source :http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

It is a normal reaction to be hostile towards iran since usa's shah got kicked out.. 
Also The USA backed Saddam Hussein during the 8 year war while he was using chemical weapons on Iranians. No questions should be asked there? All I'm saying is that the USA/Iran conflict is way bigger than the question of nuclear weapons.. It's a question of influence in the middle east. Syria/Yemen/Bahrain/Lebanon/Iraq are all conflicts that USA and Iran have differences on.. And I think that those conflicts hide a clash of interests between USA and Iran. I might be all wrong but that's how i see the middle east : A clash of interests between USA/Iran/Russia. Am I stupid to think like that? Maybe.... 

It is true that iran is hostile towards israel, howerver how can they nuke them? They will wipe out the palestinians that they are protecting at the same time and cause a huge disaster. It is illogical... Unless they are planning to conquer the land regardless of its inhabitants. And anyways if they nuke israel they will get nuked also and Iran will just get wiped out.. So I don't and I can never imagine ANY government starting a nuclear war because it is only madness and suicide. It is in the interests of absolutely no one.


----------



## CougarKing

Instead of S-300s, Iran is considering Antey-2500 SAMs...

Reuters



> *Russia offers Iran latest anti-aircraft missiles: TASS*
> 
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has offered Iran its latest *Antey-2500 missiles*, the head of Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec said on Monday according to media reports, after a deal to supply less powerful S-300 missiles was dropped under Western pressure.
> 
> Sergei Chemezov said *Tehran was now considering the offer,* TASS news agency reported.
> 
> Russia scrapped a contract to supply Iran with S-300 surface-to-air missiles under Western pressure in 2010, and Iran later filed a $4-billion international arbitration suit against Russia in Geneva, but the two countries remain allies.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Iran's revolutionary council is nuttish enough to consider nuking Israel, although I suspect nuking the Saudi's might be preferable. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) however may have different ideas, although they used to be subservient to the Revolutionary Council, it appears they march to their own drum and have taken over large swaths of the economy.  The IRG is now corrupt and interested in making themselves rich, so they will have no interest in a direct war with Israel, but will happily support proxy wars. The Ayatollah's know their position is weak and dependent on the IRG support. The population demographics is young and unhappy, Iran faces internal stress from the Kurds and the Balachs, which will force Iran to always maintain most of it's forces at home.
Events are forcing the IRG and the US to meet a common enemy, a better President would take advantage of that in secret and use it to get concessions behind closed doors. That will not happen. The Iraqi Shias are wedded to Iran, even though they don't fully trust Iran either, the Kurds look for a partner to help them achieve their nationalistic goals and the ISIS crisis will likely be the vehicle to do that. Turkey and Saudi have been playing two sided games and no one trusts them, same with Pakistan. Iran and the west actually share a similar goal in a stable Afghanistan, but Iran is to wedded to having Kabul or Herat beholden to them at any price.
The west needs to support the Kurds and Israelis, they are without doubt the most reliable people in the region, Iran will not rest till it achieves being a nuclear armed power, more to intimidate it's neighbours than the US and to protect itself from the consequences of it's regional meddling. If the west really wanted to put the screws to Iran, stoking the Balchs to revolt would be the best way and that would threaten it's oil reserves. 
Meanwhile Sunni Iraq needs to contained and allowed to wither under ISIS. Letting the Sunni world see what a real caliphate looks like will wean them off that fantasy. Sooner or later the Sunni tribes will stab them in the back and pick a regional strongman to run them, at which point the world can re-engage. Iraq is a failed experiment.       

Oh and Force you are selective, Saddam was backed to the hilt by France, China and the Soviets, all whom he owed massive amounts of money to, which is why they did not want him toppled as Iraq would refuse to pay. The US backed Saddam but not with the weapons he used to attack Iran, those were mainly French, Russian and Chinese.


----------



## CougarKing

For those wondering what ever happened to that Iranian mockup of a US aircraft carrier spotted a year or so ago:

Canadian Press



> *Iran's Revolutionary Guard targets mock US aircraft carrier in war games near mouth of Gulf*
> 
> By Ali Akbar Dareini And Adam Schreck, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – 4 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - With rockets roaring and guns blazing, more than a dozen swarming Iranian speedboats assaulted a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier Wednesday during large-scale naval drills near the strategically vital entrance of the Persian Gulf.
> 
> The nationally televised show of force by the country's elite Revolutionary Guard comes just weeks ahead of a deadline for Iran and world powers to forge a historic deal on the fate of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
> 
> Iranian live-fire war games are not uncommon. But by simulating for the first time an attack on the ultimate symbol of American naval power, hard-liners hoped to send a message that Iran has no intention of backing down to the U.S. — whichever way talks over its contested nuclear program go.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

More on Iran's Hollywood spectacular:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/in-mock-attack-iranian-navy-blasts-away-at-replica-us-aircraft-carrier.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article



> *Iran’s Navy Blasts Away at a Mock U.S. Carrier*
> By THOMAS ERDBRINKFEB. 25, 2015
> 
> TEHRAN — Iran’s navy may pale in comparison to that of the United States, but on Wednesday it inflicted serious damage on an American aircraft carrier — a mock-up of one, to be exact.
> 
> The replica, which seemed to have been built on top of a barge, took some nasty hits, just as a real carrier would in a real war situation, Iranian commanders boasted.
> 
> “A unique power has been created, and we do not like to put it into practice,” Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the highest commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, told the local news media. “But if, God forbid, such a day comes, Iran’s navy will have the complete control over the Sea of Oman, the Hormuz Strait and the Persian Gulf.”
> 
> The simulation, called Great Prophet 9, was the centerpiece of an exercise by the naval branch of the Revolutionary Guards, and it was carried out in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which more than 20 percent of the world’s oil passes.
> 
> State television showed images of missiles striking a “ship” resembling a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, similar to the ones permanently patrolling the blue waters of the Persian Gulf. Enveloped in smoke, the ersatz warship was swarmed by dozens of Iranian speedboats, as a presenter described the types of missiles, torpedoes and rockets blowing holes in its sides.
> 
> Military officials could be heard shouting “praise the lord” each time the replica was hit.
> 
> “That is the Fateh-110 missile hitting its target,” the presenter said, as more smoke belched from the fake aircraft carrier. “God will guide those who fight in line with his wishes,” he added, quoting a line from the Quran.
> 
> Though Iran and the United States are engaged in nuclear talks, Iran has often threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for any attack on its nuclear sites.
> 
> Wednesday’s make-believe attack is part of Iran’s strategy to show military might, despite being engaged in direct talks with its archenemy, the United States.
> 
> The United States’ presence in the Persian Gulf has long vexed Iran’s leaders, who have said there is no reason for the American Navy to project power so far from its borders. In addition, Iranian officers say, its very presence presents a danger to the region.
> 
> “American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else,” the Revolutionary Guards’ navy chief, Adm. Ali Fadavi, said on state television, adding that a direct hit by a missile could set off a large secondary explosion. Last month, Admiral Fadavi said his force was capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.
> 
> The mock carrier bore a striking resemblance to a model that the United States military noticed when it was under construction in a shipyard in the port of Bandar Abbas last year. It quickly became known as the Target Barge. The United States did not seem overly concerned about the exercise or the implied threat to its carriers.
> 
> “We are aware of a recent exercise by Iranian naval forces involving a mock-up of a vessel similar to an aircraft carrier,” said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Defense Department spokeswoman. “We are confident in our naval forces’ ability to defend themselves against any maritime threat.”
> 
> Cmdr. Kevin Stephens, the spokesman for the Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, echoed that confidence, adding in remarks to The Associated Press, “It seems they’ve attempted to destroy the equivalent of a Hollywood movie set.”






----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-iran-deal/2015/02/26/9186c70e-bde1-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

*The fatal flaw in the Iran deal*

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer February 26 at 8:06 PM

A sunset clause?
_
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling._ Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

_Bad enough. Then it got worse:_ News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.

The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.

Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.

There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.

Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.

And no sunset.

That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.


----------



## CougarKing

A growing headache for the diplomats at Foggy Bottom since US-Israeli ties are the worse they have been in years...partially due to the fact that Pres. Obama also won't meet Netanyahu when he arrives.

Reuters



> *U.S.-Israel ties fraying over Netanyahu's planned Iran speech*
> By Matt Spetalnick and Dan Williams
> 
> WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Signs are growing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress against a possible nuclear deal with Iran could damage his country's broad alliance with the United States.
> 
> The right-wing leader's acceptance of a Republican invitation to address the U.S. legislature already brought Netanyahu's long-strained relations with President Barack Obama to a new low due to the overture's partisan nature.
> 
> And while U.S. and Israeli officials insist that key areas of cooperation from counter-terrorism to intelligence to cyber security will remain unaffected, the deepening divide over the Iran talks is shaping up as the worst in decades.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Jed

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A growing headache for the diplomats at Foggy Bottom since US-Israeli ties are the worse they have been in years...partially due to the fact that Pres. Obama also won't meet Netanyahu when he arrives.
> 
> Reuters



edited. If can't say something nice don't bother saying it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's more than enough blame for everyone to share in the current Israel/US dust-up. 

No one should blame Israel for considering a nuclear capable Iran to be an existential threat to Israel ~ it is each nation-state's right and duty to define such threats, and nothing that the US or the UN might say can or should change Israel's 'considered opinion' about what does or does not constitute a threat, existential or otherwise.

It _appears, to me_, anyway, that president Obama is embarked on a "legacy" issue and I, _personally_, don't blame Israel/PM Netanyahu for mistrusting Obama. But, and it's a big BUT, considering the importance of bipartisan US political support for Israel, I think Netanyahu is thrashing about like a bull in a china shop - I get that he doesn't like or trust Obama but he _appears_ to be both using the US Congress as a tool in Israeli partisan politics and inserting himself and Israel into US partisan politics: neither is a good idea.

I think President Obama is _strategically_ wrong about Iran; I think PM Netanyahu is equally _strategically_ wrong about America. I doubt wither will escape unscathed.


----------



## CougarKing

This will surely be an interesting week not only for US-Iran relations, but US-Israeli relations, since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is addressing the US Congress over the Iran issue today (March 3, 2015):

Reuters



> *Iran calls Obama's 10-year nuclear demand 'unacceptable'*
> Tue Mar 3, 2015 8:43am EST
> 
> By Arshad Mohammed
> 
> MONTREUX, Switzerland (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday rejected as "unacceptable" U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years, but said it would continue talks aimed at securing a deal, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported.
> 
> "Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Fars.
> 
> "Obama’s stance ... is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases ... ," he reportedly said, adding that negotiations underway in Switzerland would nonetheless carry on.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Netanyahu lays it all out clearly in front of the US Congress:

Reuters



> *Israel's Netanyahu warns Obama against Iran nuclear deal*
> BY DAN WILLIAMS AND MATT SPETALNICK
> WASHINGTON Tue Mar 3, 2015 1:58pm EST
> 
> (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday against accepting a nuclear deal with Iran that would be a "countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare" by a country that "will always be an enemy of America".
> 
> *"If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons, lots of them,"* the Israeli leader said in a 39-minute speech to the U.S. Congress that offered a point-by-point critique of Obama's Iran diplomacy.
> 
> In an appearance that strained U.S.-Israeli relations and was boycotted by dozens of Obama's fellow Democrats, Netanyahu said Iran's leadership was "as radical as ever," could not be trusted and the deal being worked out with world powers would not block Iran's way to a bomb "but paves its way to a bomb."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> For those wondering what ever happened to that Iranian mockup of a US aircraft carrier spotted a year or so ago:
> 
> Canadian Press



Of course they didn't have to run the gauntlet of escorts and aircraft that protect a carrier, like killer bees protecting their queen.

THAT would be worth watching. ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Yesterday's speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu not only laid out the dangers of a nuclear Iran, but also threw the Democrat party into disarray (which may have been the strategic aim; making it unpaletable for America to give more concessions or ensuring the Senate will vote against any bad treaty).

http://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/234543-fiery-netanyahu-speech-divides-dems



> *Netanyahu speech divides Dems*
> By Mike Lillis - 03/03/15 08:47 PM EST
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday delivered a blistering rebuke of President Obama’s Iran strategy, warning in an address to Congress that the nuclear disarmament talks would “all but guarantee” a march to war.
> 
> The fiery takedown of one of Obama’s top foreign policy priorities split leading Democrats, with some hailing the speech as a thoughtful warning from America’s closest ally in the Middle East and others condemning it as an underhanded attack on the White House.
> 
> More than 50 Democrats boycotted the speech to protest both Netanyahu’s censure of Obama’s policies and Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) decision to invite the prime minister without first consulting the White House or Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill.
> 
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who attended the speech, issued a scathing statement afterward.
> 
> “I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the [negotiating] nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation,” Pelosi said.
> 
> That view wasn’t shared by other top Democrats, who praised Netanyahu’s message as both powerful and necessary amid a time of rising terrorist threats in the Middle East.
> 
> Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said it was “a very strong speech” in defense of Israel’s position.
> 
> Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, called it a “powerful, strong, factual, inspiring” address that “sent a very strong message to the entire world.”
> 
> And Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, said it was “a brilliant speech” that did “a very effective job” warning Congress of the risks surrounding Obama’s Iran negotiations.
> 
> “I was skeptical about the deal going in, I’m just as skeptical after the speech, and I think a significant number of my colleagues are where I am,” Rep. Israel said. “He changed minds. The question is: How many minds did he change?”
> 
> Joined by leaders in a handful of other Western nations, Obama has sought a diplomatic approach to dismantling Iran’s nuclear program in lieu of the tougher sanctions being pushed by Netanyahu and Republicans on Capitol Hill. The deadline for those negotiations is March 24, and Obama has urged Congress to hold off on any new sanctions legislation while administration officials try to finalize a deal.
> 
> In his 40-minute speech Tuesday, Netanyahu hammered that approach, arguing that Iran simply can’t be trusted to negotiate a nuclear deal faithfully. The result of a deal, he warned, would be a nuclear-armed Iran that would escalate tensions and leave the world facing “a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”
> 
> “A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet,” Netanyahu said. “It won’t be a farewell to arms; it will be a farewell to arms control.”
> 
> Netanyahu received thundering applause and multiple standing ovations throughout the speech, and he was given a rock-star reception upon his entry to the chamber, with a crush of lawmakers moving in to shake his hand and wish him well.
> 
> Anticipation for the speech was so high, leadership offices said, that there was no way to accommodate the demand for tickets.
> 
> Obama — who has declined to meet with Netanyahu this month, citing Israel’s coming elections — was less enthusiastic, saying he had read the transcript of the speech and found “nothing new” in it.
> 
> “The prime minister appropriately pointed out that the bond between the United States of America is unbreakable, and on that point I thoroughly agree,” Obama said.
> 
> “But on the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.”
> 
> A long list of liberal Democrats echoed that message on Tuesday, accusing Boehner and Netanyahu of using Congress as a vehicle for staging a high-profile attack on Obama to score political points in the U.S. and Israel alike.
> 
> Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) characterized the speech as “political theater worthy of an Oscar.”
> 
> “I believe the prime minister was successful in probably getting reelected,” Cohen said. “I’m sure this will play well in Israel.”
> 
> Other liberals piled on. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), noting that no pact with Iran has been reached, accused Netanyahu of “smacking down a straw-man deal that doesn’t exist.”
> 
> And Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) accused Netanyahu of undermining the historically strong, bipartisan bond between the United States and Israel.
> 
> “The biggest long-term mistake … the prime minister made was embracing a Boehner-led effort while he snubbed, very directly, the president of the United States,” Welch said.


----------



## Jed

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yesterday's speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu not only laid out the dangers of a nuclear Iran, but also threw the Democrat party into disarray (which may have been the strategic aim; making it unpaletable for America to give more concessions or ensuring the Senate will vote against any bad treaty).
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/234543-fiery-netanyahu-speech-divides-dems



Well good on him if this is the case. The current Administration seems to be stuck on Autopilot and does not seem to be responding to the voice of the people.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran makes its presence felt in Yemen through its agents:

Military Times



> *Iranian special operatives free diplomat held in Yemen*
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Thursday that a team of special operatives has freed an Iranian diplomat abducted more than 19 months ago in Yemen, a rare acknowledgement by Tehran of an intel operation carried out on foreign soil.
> 
> The official IRNA news agency quoted deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian as saying that intelligence officers undertook a "difficult and complicated operation" to secure Nour Ahmad Nikbakht's freedom from the "hands of terrorists."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has died from prostrate cancer.


----------



## 63 Delta

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has died from *prostrate* cancer.



pros·trate
ˈprästrāt/
adjective
1.
lying stretched out on the ground with one's face downward.
synonyms:	prone, lying flat, lying down, stretched out, spread-eagled, sprawling, horizontal, recumbent; rareprocumbent
"the prostrate figure on the ground"

Seems a fitting death  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

He may still be alive,but if reports are true then Iran is just wwaiting for the right time for an announcement.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Speculation-over-successor-after-doctors-reportedly-say-Irans-Khamenei-has-two-years-left-to-live-393007


----------



## Rifleman62

If he dies, I wonder if President Obama will go to his funeral in Iran?

Rumor has it, and the Obama foreign policy/nuclear negotiations seem to point to the speculation that President Obama's wishes to have Iran as a ally in the ME. Attending the funeral would strengthen ties.

If he went to Iran his security over-watch would be tremendous, especially the pre-visit analysis, let alone the visit. 

Imagine if some hotheads, sponsored or otherwise, turned this into another Iran hostage situation!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am actually reaching the point where I am wondering if the Persians might make a more reliable ally, than our (so-called) allies in the region....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If he dies, I wonder if President Obama will go to his funeral in Iran?
> 
> Rumor has it, and the Obama foreign policy/nuclear negotiations seem to point to the speculation that President Obama's wishes to have Iran as a ally in the ME. Attending the funeral would strengthen ties.
> 
> If he went to Iran his security over-watch would be tremendous, especially the pre-visit analysis, let alone the visit.
> 
> Imagine if some hotheads, sponsored or otherwise, turned this into another Iran hostage situation!




There are some thoughtful American commentators asking, rhetorically: "How did we manage to make Saudi Arabia into an ally and Iran into en enemy?"

It's not a bad question. By any fair analysis Iran is much more like America than is any other regional state other than Israel: it is culturally sophisticated and modern, despite the ayatollahs.


----------



## YZT580

with one very small caveat: they have stated publicly that both Israel and the Great Satan must be destroyed


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Opinions change like the weather in Gagetown.


----------



## tomahawk6

The takeover of our embassy in Iran was an act of war by the revolutionaries.Not much has changed.The US is still seen as the big bad wolf and also as a roadblock to Persian domination of the ME.For the time being we are cooperating in the defense of Iraq against ISIS.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Of course it was an act of war by the revolutionaries. But it is probably fair to say that they also saw  the US's CIA backed coup against prime minister Mossadegh and the ensuing extinction of democracy, for the sole purpose of protecting "commercial interest" of the US company (not even the US national interests), and the ensuing bloodier and bloodier regime of the Shah through the SAVAk as a war on them by the US.

In fact, even to this day, a formal recognition of its role in this coup and a heart felt and sincere apology for it by the US would go a very long way towards reconciliation. And it would work because, notwithstanding the official discourse of the religious elites which is imposed on them by their own revolutionary ideology (the same way that Republican must profess nowadays allegiance to the Tea Party ideology or face consequences - which does not mean that the mainstream Republican endorse or even advance these ideas in fact), the large majority of Iranian are reasonably educated, reasonably secular, don't really hold a grudge against the USA, and would like nothing better than re-join the international community.

What could Iran offer the US? First, it is already the most democratic country in the region - while they must satisfy the Mullah, their government is elected and it does try to advance the public good as a consequence. Second, it is NOT funding and supporting the advancement of its state religion outside its territory (not to be confused here with their defence of their co-religionists again the Saudi backed attacks on them). Third, it has an educated and sophisticated population, that is capable of self sustainment as soon as the UN sanctions are lifted. Fourth, it is not trying to invade the whole region [or any part for that matter] (and contrary to some rhetoric, has no intention of attacking or destroying Israel - It never really had a beef with Israel, unlike the Arab nations that surround it and were carved out to create Israel, and Iran has no interest in intervening in or leading Arab affairs (Iranians are not Arabs, but Aryan). The intent to "get the bomb" if pursued, is aimed much more at protecting itself against Pakistan and its form of Islam than against Israel.

A US that would have as its Middle East  allies a trio composed of Israel, Iran and Egypt would be able to extricate itself from Arab affairs and let the Arabs deal with their own internal problems. Without any US involvement in those affairs, the Arab regimes religious "polices" would have a hard time blaming the US and the West for their internal problems and the resulting export of terrorism abroad would be reduced very quickly (listen to all those Islamic terrorists and Islamic westerners going to fight for ISIS talk: They all mention their fight is to get the US and the West out of the Muslim countries (by which they mean Arabia - they never talk about asian countries like Bangladesh or Malaysia).

And that is just my humble opinion.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I too have thought that Iran along with Jordan were about the only countries in the ME that have the possibility of being reliable allies against a common enemy such as ISIS et al.  Our traditional "friends" such as SA are not, in my opinion, friends but undeclared enemies.


----------



## a_majoor

No, Iran is not a friend, and Bibi's speech to the Congress was far more precisent that perhaps even he knew at the time:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-endorses-nuclear-emp-attack-on-united-states/article/2561733#!



> *Iran endorses nuclear EMP attack on United States*
> By Paul Bedard | March 19, 2015 | 11:46 am
> America's electric grid threatened; blackout could kill 9 of 10
> 
> Washington Examiner
> 
> Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country's power system.
> 
> American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran's recent nuclear talks with the administration.
> 
> BY PAUL BEDARD | 03/18/15 11:17 AM
> 
> The issue of a nuclear EMP attack was raised in the final hours of this week's elections in Israel when U.S. authority Peter Vincent Pry penned a column for Arutz Sheva warning of Iran's threat to free nations.
> 
> RELATED: Iran nuclear talks push against deadline
> 
> "Iranian military documents describe such a scenario — including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States," he wrote.
> 
> A knowledgable source said that the textbook discusses an EMP attack on America in 20 different places.
> 
> Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who is leading an effort to protect the U.S. electric grid from an EMP attack, has recently made similar claims based on the document translated by military authorities.
> 
> Once sneered at by critics, recent moves by Iran and North Korea have given credibility to the potential EMP threat from an atmospheric nuclear explosion over the U.S.
> 
> Pry has suggested ways for Iran to deliver a nuclear attack: by ship launched off the East Coast, a missile or via satellite.
> 
> Either way the result could be destruction of all or part of the U.S. electric grid, robbing the public of power, computers, water and communications for potentially a year.
> 
> RELATED: Is Iran playing the U.S. in the nuclear talks?
> 
> Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, said the threat to the grid can also come from solar activity.
> 
> He has been pushing Washington and state governments to take the relatively inexpensive move to protect the electric grid, though his concern is from a nuclear attack by Iran or North Korea.
> 
> "It is increasingly frightening," he said. "We have to get started on this."
> 
> He noted that Iran's top military leader recently announced that he was ready for war with the U.S.
> 
> "We are ready for the decisive battle against the U.S. and the Zionist regime," Iranian Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Hassan Firouzabadi told Iran's Fars News Agency in 2014.
> 
> Below is from Pry's column that discusses an Iran EMP attack:
> 
> 
> Iran armed with nuclear missiles poses an unprecedented threat to global civilization.
> 
> One nuclear warhead detonated at high-altitude over the United States would blackout the national electric grid and other life sustaining critical infrastructures for months or years by means of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A nationwide blackout lasting one year, according to the Congressional EMP Commission, could cause chaos and starvation that leaves 90 percent of Americans dead.
> 
> Iranian military documents describe such a scenario--including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States.
> 
> Thus, Iran with a small number of nuclear missiles can by EMP attack threaten the existence of modernity and be the death knell for Western principles of international law, humanism and freedom. For the first time in history, a failed state like Iran could destroy the most successful societies on Earth and convert an evolving benign world order into world chaos.
> 
> Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of the fact that the both have opposed the west when it suits their interests, does Beijing's clout really hold that much water with the Ayatollah(s) and Hezbollah/IRGC hardliners bent on subjugating the region under a Shia-Muslim dominated order?

Reuters



> *China pushes Iran again to reach nuclear deal with world powers*
> 
> BEIJING (Reuters) - A nuclear deal with Iran represents the trend of the times and is the will of the people, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Iranian counterpart, pushing Iran once again to reach an agreement with major world powers.
> 
> The negotiations between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain face an initial deadline for a basic framework agreement at the end of March, and a June 30 deadline for a final settlement.
> 
> "The Iran nuclear talks have reached the final sprint in the marathon," Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a telephone call, China's foreign ministry said in a statement issued late on Tuesday.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> In spite of the fact that the both have opposed the west when it suits their interests, does Beijing's clout really hold that much water with the Ayatollah and Hezbollah/IRGC hardliners bent on subjugating the region under a Shia-Muslim dominated order?
> 
> Reuters



Depends on what suits China's interests more; sticking the West with an intractable problem or risking severe damage to world trade and the economy (and China's mercantilist trade practices). Given the growing credit bubble, I think they are starting to tend towards keepng the trade lanes open at all costs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has died from prostrate cancer.



Prostate\ prostrate, either\ or...........Insha'Allah


----------



## a_majoor

But, but we have "Smart Diplomacy" on our side.........

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/25/the-day-the-mullahs-smiled/



> *The Day the Mullahs Smiled*
> 
> This is what you call playing hard to get: Iran has decided it’s not ready for a formal “framework” deal, preferring an unwritten “understanding” to be followed, at leisure and allegedly, by an accord in June.
> 
> And why should the mullahs make haste? They’re already getting so much of what they’ve always wanted. As the NYT reported yesterday, Iran’s hardliners aren’t complaining about a nuclear deal because they like the bargain the Administration has basically struck with the regime—Iran attends the talks, while we offer concessions and look the other way as it builds up influence all over the Middle East, from Syria to Iraq to Lebanon to Yemen. As an Iranian political strategist put it: “Deal or no deal, we are at new peaks of our power.”
> 
> The Iranian regime is feeling so smug, in fact, that it’s now talking openly of its designs on another Middle Eastern country: Jordan. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds force, claimed that Iran has control of the Hashemite Kingdom in an interview over the weekend. From Ha’aretz:
> 
> 
> [Soleimani’s] remarks were the first time a senior Iranian official has openly discussed Iranian ambitions in Jordan. […]
> 
> _The Iranian Student News Agency quoted Soleimani as saying that Iran has a presence in Lebanon and Iraq and that both countries are yielding to Iranian interests. He added that Iran has the ability to control Jordan in the same way. Soleimani said the revolutions in the Arab world are slowly taking on a Muslim tone, similar to Iran’s Islamic revolution, and that Tehran should provide aid and guidance to these revolutions._
> 
> This Administration’s outreach to the Iranian regime has allowed the mullahs leeway to destabilize Yemen, restock Iraq’s fighting forces with Tehran-backed militias, strengthen the hand of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and prop up Butcher Assad on his steady if shrunken throne. The threat to Jordan is bound to put the Saudi-led Sunni coalition and Israel on high alert—and the Saudis are already warning that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will follow an Iran deal.
> 
> As we’ve said before, letting the Iran increase its influence in the Middle East was counterproductive for any nuclear deal—the better strategy would have been to rein it in. Now the regime is gloating, stringing us along, and planning ahead, while our allies are furious and worried. This is what a failure of strategy looks like.


----------



## a_majoor

Although the fight is now on, most reporting I have seen is focused on the Saudi aspect, and not so much on the Egyptian forces entering the fray. The various regional powers are now uniting to fight Iranian proxies, how much longer before they begin to take the fight to Iran directly?

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/26/egypt-saudi-invasion-of-yemen-imminent/



> *Egypt-Saudi Invasion of Yemen Imminent*
> 
> Egypt and Saudi Arabia will shortly invade Yemen, the AP reports:
> 
> _Egyptian security and military officials say Saudi Arabia and Egypt will lead a ground operation in Yemen against Shiite rebels and their allies after a campaign of airstrikes to weaken them.
> 
> Three senior officials tell The Associated Press that forces would enter by land from Saudi Arabia and by sea from the Red Sea and Arabian Sea. They said Thursday that other nations will also be involved.
> 
> They would not specify troop numbers or say when the operation would start, only that it would be after airstrikes weaken the rebels and allied forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh._
> 
> The Egyptians’ decision to return to Yemen, which is essentially their Vietnam, is extremely significant. It reflects both enormous fear on the part of the Sunni powers and the strength of the Saudi-led alliance.
> 
> Events in Yemen continue to accelerate much faster than many experts predicted, and the potential for widespread sectarian war between Sunni and Shi’a grows more acute by the day. In some ways this portends even more trouble than ISIS’s fight against Iran’s proxies in Syria and Iraq: that fight is both bloody and strategically important, but ISIS is also an enemy of the Sunni powers (whose rule it wants to overthrow). Now, the Saudis and their allies are clearly prepared to confront Iran’s allies head-on.
> 
> The price of the Obama Administration’s comprehensive failure of strategy in the Middle East may be very high.



In this case, Saudi and the Gulf State's supporting ISIS makes a certain amount of sense, it engages Iran both directly (the Quds force and Iranian air force jets are engaging ISIS on the ground in Iraq), as well as severely impacting Iran's proxies in the region (taking large areas of Syria and forcing Hezbollah to send fighters into western Syria to fight ISIS there). Our best COA is to disengage entirely and allow the Saudi's and their allies to take the fight to Iran; either directly or through _their_ proxies.

This way we get a war where everyone _we_ don't like can lose.


----------



## a_majoor

And "Smart Diplomacy" bears even more posioned fruit. Perhaps Saudi Arabia will lead an avenging army against the Persians, or Israel will do everyone's dirty work for them (with some private "Hight Fives" in the back rooms around the Arab world); either of these COAs are fraught with danger, but the present course by this Administration is madness:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/



> *U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together*
> 
> Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers
> BY: Adam Kredo
> March 26, 2015 2:00 pm
> 
> 
> LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
> 
> U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
> 
> Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.
> 
> Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
> 
> This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.
> 
> “Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.
> 
> With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.
> 
> “Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source.  “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”
> 
> The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.
> 
> This scenario has been criticized by nuclear experts, including David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
> 
> Albright told Congress in November that “a prerequisite for any comprehensive agreement is for the IAEA to know when Iran sought nuclear weapons, how far it got, what types it sought to develop, and how and where it did this work.”
> 
> “The IAEA needs a good baseline of Iran’s military nuclear activities, including the manufacturing of equipment for the program and any weaponization related studies, equipment, and locations,” Albright said.
> 
> One policy expert familiar with the concessions told the Washington Free Beacon that it would be difficult for the administration to justify greater concessions given the centrality of this issue in the broader debate.
> 
> “The Obama administration has gone all-in on the importance of verification,” said the source, who asked for anonymity because the administration has been known to retaliate against critics in the policy community. “But without knowing what the Iranians have it’s impossible for the IAEA to verify that they’ve given it up.”
> 
> A lesser emphasis is also being placed on Iran coming clean about its past efforts to build nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic continues to stall United Nations efforts to determine the extent of its past weapons work, according to the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> By placing disclosure of Iran’s past military efforts on the back burner, the administration could harm the ability of outside inspectors to take full inventory of Iran’s nuclear know-how, according to sources familiar with the situation.
> 
> It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.
> 
> On the diplomatic front, greater concessions are fueling fears among U.S. allies that Iran will emerge from the negations as a stronger regional power.


----------



## CougarKing

An initial deal that will put the US and rest of the west in peril?

Reuters



> *Iran, world powers reach initial deal on reining in Tehran's nuclear programme*
> Reuters
> 
> By Louis Charbonneau and Stephanie Nebehay
> 
> LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Iran and world powers reached a framework agreement on Thursday on curbing Iran's nuclear programme for at least a decade, a step towards a comprehensive accord that could end 12 years of brinkmanship, threats and confrontation.
> 
> *The tentative agreement, after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland, clears the way for talks on the future
> settlement that should allay Western fears that Iran was seeking to build an atomic bomb and in return lift economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.*
> 
> The framework is contingent on reaching an agreement by June 30 and all sanctions on Iran remain in place until a final deal is reached.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Some deal. Iran gets everything while the West gets nothing. Stratfor analyses what is known abvout this:

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20150407205038.aspx



> *Obama's Iran Understanding: The Verifiable Facts*
> 
> by Austin Bay
> April 7, 2015
> President Barack Obama initially touted his "historic understanding" with Iran as a transformational diplomatic step toward Middle East peace. Two days or so later, the White House called the "understanding" a "preliminary deal. "
> 
> Words matter, or at least they should when the "understanding" allegedly affects a theocratic dictatorship's ability to obtain and use nuclear weapons.
> 
> Both words imply a degree of agreement between parties. Regrettably, the Iranian government quickly disputed the Obama administration's claims that Tehran had made significant concessions.
> 
> To say that this obvious Iranian disagreement with Obama bodes ill for the "historic understanding" is an understatement.
> 
> Comparison to the unfortunately historic 1938 Munich Agreement strikes me as wretchedly apt. However, within 36 hours of signing the document that gave Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Germany, Adolf Hitler didn't contradict Neville Chamberlain's claim that Munich guaranteed "peace for our time." But Hitler did contradict him. Less than a year later, Germany attacked Poland, igniting WW2.
> 
> Chamberlain trusted Hitler's word. Among human beings, deals, understandings and even wink-and-nod arrangements involve trust by the parties that they will fulfill their part of the bargain. During the Cold War, the U.S. and its allies demanded that they be able to verify Soviet Union compliance with an agreement or treaty. Ronald Reagan often quoted a Russian proverb, "doveryai, no proveryai," which I'm told translates as "trust, but verify." No doubt Reagan relished the irony of employing it in personal conversations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
> 
> The Soviets at least agreed to comply with nuclear arms reductions goals and, using real, visible ink, signed documents with mutually accepted language. Moreover, Reagan showed the documents to the U.S. Senate, and that chamber got its constitutional yea or nay.
> 
> At the moment, it isn't certain that Iran has agreed to comply with anything other than conducting more talks later this year. Yet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, quote, "This is the best deal we could get."
> 
> Yes, he said that, even though this "best deal" quickly lifts the stiff economic sanctions imposed on Iran. Kerry's best deal looks like payoff.
> 
> To blunt criticism from Democrats as well as Republicans, Obama has claimed that "this deal is not based on trust; it's based on unprecedented verification."
> 
> Really? So, Mr. President, what is the coercive mechanism to enforce nuclear research and weapons development verification? The answer, so far: crickets. The "understanding" definitely fails to address Iranian missiles (nuclear weapon delivery systems).
> 
> Obama's "historic understanding" has the sad woof and warp of so many of his administration's domestic and international policy efforts: glowing, inspirational, dramatic rhetoric disguising episodic, hodge-podge, ill-considered, poorly planned and often hastily organized operations. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" is a domestic example. When Obamacare arrived, many Americans learned they could not keep their preferred doctor. Obama said Americans would eventually love the health care law. A substantial majority despises the legislative monstrosity. Now a foreign policy example: Obama's promise to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations. For Vladimir Putin, Obama's reset was a setup. Putin's Russia is now a neo-Fascist expansionary nuclear power slowing carving and digesting Ukraine. Obama's "red line" threat to punish Syria's Assad regime if it used chemical weapons against civilians, and his failure to do so when the Syrians used nerve gas, is another example.
> 
> Obama has an enormous trust problem; the man does not keep his word. But his obedient, word-mongering national media corps consistently fails to call him on this grand malfeasance.
> 
> So what can be verified regarding Iran? Here is a verifiable fact: Iran already possesses long-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> Here is another verifiable fact: more talks, sometime, somewhere in the future, has been Tehran's modus operandi for two decades. Kerry's "best deal" is an ayatollah three-fer. It gives them money. It gives them more time to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also gives them diplomatic political cover to continue dithering, courtesy of Barack Obama and John Kerry.


----------



## McG

The US makes vague threats toward Iran over continued involvement int he Yemen conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32229316


----------



## a_majoor

How Iran has reacted to the news of the "deal" makes it pretty clear what really happened:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-will-not-sign-any-deal-unless-sanctions-lifted-as-soon-as-it-starts-hassan-rouhani-says



> *Iran will not sign any deal unless sanctions lifted as soon as it starts, Hassan Rouhani says*
> Associated Press | April 9, 2015 9:13 AM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s top leader on Thursday stopped short of giving his endorsement to the framework nuclear deal struck last week between Tehran and world powers, while the country’s president warned separately that Tehran’s approval of a final deal depends on the immediate lifting of all sanctions related to its controversial nuclear program.
> 
> The comments, taken together, could represent simply a tough bargaining stance by the Islamic Republic ahead of the next round of negotiations in the countdown to the final deal expected by June 30. But President Hassan Rouhani’s demand of an immediate and full sanctions relief is likely to complicate efforts to reach a final deal.
> 
> “We will not sign any agreement, unless all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the first day of the implementation of the deal,” Rouhani said during a ceremony marking Iran’s nuclear technology day, which celebrates the country’s nuclear achievements.
> 
> Iran and the six world powers agreed last week in Switzerland on a framework deal, which is meant to curb Iran’s bomb-capable technology while giving Tehran quick access to bank accounts, oil markets and financial assets blocked by international sanctions.
> 
> Related
> Iran dispatches destroyer near Yemen to ‘safeguard naval routes’ as Saudis pound rebels with airstrikes
> Iran nuclear deal may slash oil prices by US$15 a barrel: EIA
> 
> But the framework deal does not include the immediate lifting of punitive sanctions imposed on Iran. Instead, it says the sanctions will be suspended once international monitors verify that Tehran is abiding by the limitations spelled out in the agreement.
> 
> The deal also specifies that if at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions would snap back into place.
> 
> The framework agreement has received endorsement by much of the Iranian establishment, though hard-liners have overwhelmingly opposed it and described the deal as a “defeat” for Iran.
> 
> Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in remarks published on his official website Thursday that he “is neither for nor against” the deal.
> 
> Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, added that there “is no binding” agreement yet. He also said that the punitive “sanctions should be lifted completely, on the very day of deal” – something that has not been agreed on in Switzerland.
> 
> The top leader also cautioned that the six world powers – five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany – are “not to be trusted” and may try “to limit Iran” in further talks.
> 
> A lot remains to be done until the deal is finalized, Khamenei said, adding it may take more than three months.
> 
> “The problems are in the details and (negotiators) should sit down and discuss them one by one,” he said.
> 
> If the deal is successfully finalized, Khamenei added it would show that negotiations are possible on other issues beyond the nuclear program. But the talks in Switzerland “are only about nuclear case,” he said. “We do not have talks with the United States on any other issue, for the time being.”
> 
> Khamenei also urged Iranian negotiators not to accept any “unconventional inspections” of Iran’s nuclear facilities – presumably meaning sudden or unannounced inspections – and stressed that inspections of military facilities would not be permitted.
> 
> “No way, we should not allow them to infiltrate security and defensive installations,” said Khamenei.
> 
> The West has long feared Iran’s nuclear program could allow it to build an atomic bomb and that Tehran has used uranium enrichment – the key aspect point in the negotiations and a possible pathway to nuclear arms – to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation and cancer treatment.
> 
> Rouhani described the framework deal reached in Switzerland as evidence that Iran has “not surrendered to a policy of pressure, sanctions and bullying.”
> 
> “This is our victory,” said Rouhani.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US is moving ships to Yemen to block Iranian weapons shipments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/us-warship-iran-weapons_n_7102168.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## CougarKing

9 Iranian ships trying to run through the USN blockade?

Military.com



> *Carrier Roosevelt Keeps Close Watch on Nine Iranian Ships Off Yemen*
> Apr 21, 2015 | by Bryant Jordan
> 
> The U.S. left open the possibility that nine Iranian cargo ships in international waters off Yemen could be stopped and searched if they attempted to reach port.
> 
> The nine ships being monitored by the Navy "remain in international waters in the Gulf of Aden," said Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren. "They have not declared their intentions or what they're going to do. We're able to keep a close eye on them."
> 
> *Warren declined to answer a "hypothetical" on whether the Navy would stop and board the ships to search for arms if they crossed from international waters into Yemen's territorial waters.*
> 
> The U.S. has charged that Iran has supplied arms and other support for Shia Houthi rebels who have taken the capital, Sanaa, and are now pressing the remnants of government forces in the port city of Aden.
> Warren said the addition of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and its escort, the cruiser Normandy, to the other U.S. ships in the area gave the U.S. numerous options.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

In an ideal world, the Saudis or the Egyptians should be the ones who will actually stop and board the ships, since they have the dogs in the fight.

I wonder if that COA is being actively explored by the interested parties?


----------



## Rifleman62

T6: 





> The US is moving ships to Yemen to block Iranian weapons shipments.



Ah, T6, What are the Carrier Groups orders? On one hand the Obama Administration is supposedly negotiating a Nuc deal with Iran, and on the other hand they are supposedly going to stop, board, and search Iranian flaged ships to ensure arms do not reach the Iranian backed rebels in Yemen. This is the Iran that called the POTUS a liar, countering Pres Obama's Rose Garden announcement on the nec deal, by stating no inspections and absolutely no inspections on Iranian military installations.

What happens if these vessels are escorted by the Iranian Navy, have Revolutionary Guard detachments on them, or are reflaged as Iranian Navy ships?

Unfortunately another Obama "Red Line", and another embarrassment to the USA.

How's this for a mixed message?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/21/sources-us-aircraft-carrier-fighter-jets-shadowing-iranian-convoy-near-yemen/

*Officials giving mixed messages on why US aircraft carrier shadowing Iranian convoy*

Mixed messages on mission of US warship in Yemen waters

An American aircraft carrier and its warplanes are shadowing an Iranian convoy approaching Yemen, as the U.S. beefs up its presence in the region -- but back in Washington, officials can't seem to agree on why. 

Pentagon sources confirmed to Fox News that the USS Theodore Roosevelt is tracking the Iranian convoy, and also launching F/A-18 Hornets to conduct "manned reconnaissance" of the estimated nine Iranian ships. 

Those ships are suspected of carrying weapons to rebel fighters in Yemen. 

*But State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted Tuesday that the U.S. ships were "only" there to "ensure the shipping lanes remain open and safe" -- and "not to do anything in terms of those Iranian ships." 

She blasted "misreporting" that asserted U.S. ships were prepared to intercept Iranian vessels. *

*"That is blatantly untrue -- so this discreet movement of U.S. assets is for a discreet purpose," Harf said.   *

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest also said Tuesday that the ships are in the region primarily to "protect the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce." 

However, Earnest acknowledged the U.S. is very interested in tracking the movements of any potential arms deliveries to Houthi rebels. 

He said "any effort by Iran or anyone else to provide weapons to the Houthis would be a clear violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Earnest said the U.S. and its partners are "serious about the Iranians not providing weapons to the Houthis," and making sure the U.N. arms embargo is taken seriously. 

The Pentagon also acknowledged the convoy is a factor. 

Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the aircraft carrier is there to assure the waterways are open. But, he added, "they have moved to that area in response to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen. Many have asked me whether or not they are there because of the Iranian ship convoy or flotilla that is also in the area. That is certainly one of the factors." 

The mixed messages, though, leave unclear how far the U.S. would go to enforce the embargo. The U.S. Navy generally conducts consensual boardings of ships when needed, including to combat piracy around Africa and the region. So far, however, U.S. naval personnel have not boarded any Iranian vessels since the Yemen conflict began. 

A senior defense official at the Pentagon on Tuesday pushed back on reports that the White House has made a decision about boarding the suspected ships. 

"The White House is not even close to making a decision," the official with close ties to the administration said. 

But the movements nevertheless escalate a standoff in the waters off Yemen, which comes as the U.S. and other world powers are trying to hammer out a diplomatic deal with Iran on its nuclear program. 

Navy officials first confirmed Monday that the USS Theodore Roosevelt -- along with her escort ship, the USS Normandy, a guided-missile cruiser -- had been dispatched to the Arabian Sea to help enforce a blockade of any Iranian weapons shipments to Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

The Iranian convoy consists of a mix of freighters, suspected of carrying those weapons, and warships. 

The convoy is about to cross over from waters off the coast of Oman to those off the coast of Yemen, in the Arabian Sea. The Iranian convoy is steaming toward an unknown port in Yemen. 

The Iranian Navy ships are characterized as "smaller than destroyers," according to a Pentagon official with knowledge of the convoy. Asked what type of weapons the freighters are carrying, one Pentagon official said, "they are bigger than small arms." 

The U.S. Navy has been steadily beefing up its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the southern Arabian Sea amid concerns about the Iranian convoy. There are now nine Navy warships, and three support ships, in the region. 

The deployment comes after a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last week imposed an arms embargo on rebel leaders. The resolution passed in a 14-0 vote with Russia abstaining. 

With the U.S. Navy's only aircraft carrier now out of the northern Persian Gulf, the Navy's contribution to the air campaign against the Islamic State also has been temporarily halted. 

The U.S. Air Force has conducted 70 percent of the airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria to date. A spokesman from the U.S.-led coalition said from its headquarters in Kuwait that, "We have plenty of resources [to strike ISIS], and we are not concerned about a loss of effectiveness." But he admitted, "More is certainly better." 

Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## tomahawk6

Just as important are the orders the Iranian commander has if the USN tries to board his ships.Fight or turn for home ?


----------



## tomahawk6

Looks like the Iranian ships have turned for home.Crisis averted.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/23/fleet-iranian-ships-heading-to-yemen-turns-around-after-being-tracked-by-us/


----------



## Rifleman62

T6:





> Looks like the Iranian ships have turned for home.Crisis averted.



So the Administration says. Since everyone in the Administration, incl the Joint Chiefs of all people, toes the Obama line which means stretching the truth, we will see.

I see the Rear Adm. John Kirby who was the media spokesman for DOD has a new civilian job as head spin-person of the Dept of State. Very unusual.
I wonder what General Petraeus knew that kept him under investigation for two years, now two years probation (Obama is gone in 18 months) plus $100K fine.
On the Sgt Bergdahl case, Admiral Mullen does not remember meeting members of his platoon when visiting Afghanistan who told him of Bergdahl desertion. Unfortunately a fifth member of the platoon has the group photo of them and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This is the same Adm Mullen, retired, who cleared Hillary of any wrong doing WRT the Benghazi incident, without interviewing Hillary.


----------



## Jed

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> T6:
> So the Administration says. Since everyone in the Administration, incl the Joint Chiefs of all people, toes the Obama line which means stretching the truth, we will see.
> 
> I see the Rear Adm. John Kirby who was the media spokesman for DOD has a new civilian job as head spin-person of the Dept of State. Very unusual.
> I wonder what General Petraeus knew that kept him under investigation for two years, now two years probation (Obama is gone in 18 months) plus $100K fine.
> On the Sgt Bergdahl case, Admiral Mullen does not remember meeting members of his platoon when visiting Afghanistan who told him of Bergdahl desertion. Unfortunately a fifth member of the platoon has the group photo of them and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This is the same Adm Mullen, retired, who cleared Hillary of any wrong doing WRT the Benghazi incident, without interviewing Hillary.



Reminds me of a movie line by Jack Nicholson " The truth?  You can't handle the truth."


----------



## tomahawk6

While on active duty US military personnel particularly senior officers are not to venture into political waters.Criticism of civilian leadership is also not allowed.


----------



## Rifleman62

T6: 





> While on active duty US military personnel particularly senior officers are not to venture into political waters.Criticism of civilian leadership is also not allowed.



You don't think this is political waters?

On the Sgt Bergdahl case, Admiral Mullen does not remember meeting members of his platoon when visiting Afghanistan who told him of Bergdahl desertion. Unfortunately a fifth member of the platoon has the group photo of them and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This is the same Adm Mullen, retired, who cleared Hillary of any wrong doing WRT the Benghazi incident, without interviewing Hillary.

Integrity?


----------



## tomahawk6

Desertion is a military matter,however Obama seems to have put the word out to go easy on Bergdahl.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Too bad if he's sticking his fingers where they shouldn't belong.  Bergdahl deserves to get the maximum of whatever could have coming to him.


----------



## CougarKing

As posted in the Pan-Islamic Civil War thread, the _Theodore Roosevelt_ battlegroup is also leaving Yemeni waters.

Military.com



> *Pentagon Cites De-Escalation of Tensions over Iranian Ships*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The prospect of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation over the potential delivery of Iranian weapons to rebels in Yemen has receded, Pentagon officials said Friday.
> 
> U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the nine-ship Iranian convoy had reversed course, heading back in the general direction of Iran. Earlier this week, it had been on a course toward the Yemeni port of Aden.
> 
> "We do not know their future intentions," Warren said, but the ships as of Friday were in the Arabian Sea, proceeding to the northeast off the coast of Oman.
> 
> Warren said the prospect of a confrontation had abated.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran has upped the ante by seizing a US cargo ship with a crew of 34.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32503660


----------



## AliG

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran has upped the ante by seizing a US cargo ship with a crew of 34.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32503660



Apparently not a US ship or crew.



> Initial media reports suggested the vessel was a US cargo ship but US officials denied this and said no Americans were on board.


----------



## Privateer

More from gCaptain:  http://gcaptain.com/maersk-ship-seized-by-iranian-forces-in-strait-of-hormuz/

GCaptain's story reports that the MV Maersk Tigris is flagged in the Marshall Islands.  The article quotes a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Steve Warren, as follows:



> “At approximately 0905 Zulu, April 28, M/V Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo vessel, was approached by several Iranian IRGCN patrol vessels while in Iranian territorial waters transiting inbound in the Strait of Hormuz.
> 
> The master was contacted and directed to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters. He declined and one of the IRGCN craft fired shots across the bridge of the Maersk Tigris. The master complied with the Iranian demand and proceeded into Iranian waters in the vicinity of Larak Island.
> 
> NAVCENT directed a DDG (USS Farragut) to proceed at best speed to the nearest location of Maersk Tigris, and directed aircraft to observe the interaction between the Maersk vessel and the IRGCN craft. NAVCENT is communicating with representatives of the shipping company and we continue to monitor the situation. According to information received from the vessel’s operators, there are no Americans aboard.”


----------



## CougarKing

Privateer said:
			
		

> GCaptain's story reports that the MV Maersk Tigris is flagged in the Marshall Islands.



Isn't the Marshall Islands a US protectorate? Much like the Northern Marianas, etc. So this ship would still fall under US interests then?


----------



## tomahawk6

Yes


----------



## CougarKing

And as such, the US is expanding its response to the Iranian seizure of the _Maersk Tigris_:

Military.com



> *Three US Navy Patrol Craft Join Destroyer to Counter Iran in Straits*
> Apr 29, 2015 | by Richard Sisk
> 
> Three U.S. Navy fast patrol craft joined the destroyer Farragut Wednesday in the Straits of Hormuz to counter Iranian threats to safe passage through the waterway following Iran's moves against a Marshall Islands-flagged container ship.
> 
> Iranian speedboats on Tuesday fired warning shots across the bridge of the MV Maersk Tigris, which was registered in the Marshall Islands. Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard later boarded the ship, claiming it had strayed into Iranian territorial waters.
> 
> The Maersk Tigris and its crew of 24 are anchored between Iran's Larak Island and the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, Pentagon officials said.
> 
> *The destroyer Farragut, which entered the Straits at "best speed" Tuesday following the takeover of the Maersk Tigris, was joined by the Cyclone-class patrol craft Typhoon, Firebolt and Thunderbolt,* said Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The USN to boost its presence in the Persian Gulf: shades of the Iran-Iraq "tanker war" of the 1980s?

Military.com



> US Navy Ships to Accompany US-Flagged Ships in Gulf
> 
> Associated Press | Apr 30, 2015 | by Robert Burns
> 
> WASHINGTON — U.S. Navy ships will begin accompanying U.S. commercial ships during their transit through the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to ensure they encounter no interference from Iran, U.S. defense officials said Thursday.
> 
> The new policy, which has not yet been announced officially, was adopted in response to what Washington views as provocative Iranian behavior. Earlier this week Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps naval vessels reportedly fired warning shots near a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship and have detained it and its crew.
> Iran says it intervened with the Maersk Tigris because the Maersk shipping line owes it money awarded in a lawsuit.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Why isn't the UK Royal Navy doing this, considering I recall they were building a base in the Persian Gulf/Bahrain?

Foreign Policy



> *Is The U.S. Navy Protecting British Ships From Iran?*
> 
> In  response to a request from London, the U.S. Navy has agreed to begin accompanying British-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz in the wake of Iran’s detention of the Maersk Tigris cargo ship last week, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.
> 
> The Maersk Tigris and its crew continue to be held by Iranian authorities over what Tehran says is a decade-old cargo dispute. But an international law scholar argued in Sunday’s Washington Post that there is “simply no basis” under the laws that govern maritime traffic “for arresting a ship for any debts incurred during prior voyages, and certainly not for those incurred by other ships.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile the Saudis' insurance policy- nuclear weapons delivered from Pakistan- are only a plane ride away:

Reuters



> *France, Saudi Arabia: Iran nuclear deal must be verifiable, no threat to region*
> 
> By John Irish
> 
> RIYADH (Reuters) - France and Saudi Arabia believe that any future nuclear accord between Iran and six major powers must be robust, verifiable and no threat to Tehran's neighbors, the two countries said ahead of a summit in Riyadh on Tuesday.
> 
> Saudi Arabia invited French President Francois Hollande, whose country is deemed to have the toughest stance among the six world powers negotiating with Iran, to Riyadh to discuss regional issues with Gulf Arab leaders who fear a rapprochement with Tehran could further inflame the region.
> 
> "France and Saudi Arabia confirmed the necessity to reach a robust, lasting, verifiable, undisputed and binding deal with Iran," Hollande and the new Saudi King Salman said in a statement after meeting on Monday.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

And the Saudis further express their displeasure with Obama's current engagement efforts with Iran:

Reuters



> *King's absence from U.S. summit shows Saudi displeasure over Iran push*
> 
> By William Maclean and Angus McDowall
> 
> DUBAI/RIYADH (Reuters) - The Saudi king's absence from a regional summit to be hosted by President Barack Obama shows how Gulf states, displeased by what they see as U.S. indifference to Iranian meddling in the Arab world, may hesitate to bless any nuclear deal with Tehran.
> 
> Analysts and diplomats in the Middle East described King Salman's decision to skip the meeting at Camp David this week as a snub, despite denials from U.S. officials and some Saudi insiders.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Please note older posts on previous pages about a US carrier group's shadowing an Iranian convoy that forced the latter to turn back.

Reuters



> *Yemen truce starts after shelling, Iran sends cargo ship*
> 
> excerpts:
> 
> CAIRO/ADEN (Reuters) - Saudi-led air strikes hit the rebel-held Yemeni capital Sanaa hours before a five-day humanitarian truce took effect on Tuesday, and *Washington cautioned against "provocative actions" after Iran dispatched a cargo ship to Yemen.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> And as the ceasefire neared, witnesses said the Saudi-led alliance bombed Houthi positions in the southern port of Aden, where local armed groups were still fighting the rebels.
> 
> *The United States said it was tracking Iranian warships accompanying the vessel bound for Hodaida port, and urged Iran instead to use a U.N. distribution hub in Djibouti to provide help to people in the war-damaged Arabian Peninsula country.*
> 
> "We would discourage any provocative actions," said U.S. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke.


----------



## CougarKing

A nuclear deal hasn't been made yet and already Tehran has tried to acquire something...

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Czechs stopped potential nuclear tech purchase by Iran: sources*
> Wed May 13, 2015 5:12pm EDT
> 
> By Louis Charbonneau and Robert Muller
> 
> UNITED NATIONS/PRAGUE (Reuters) - The Czech Republic blocked an attempted purchase by Iran this year of a large shipment of sensitive technology useable for nuclear enrichment after false documentation raised suspicions, U.N. experts and Western sources said.
> 
> The incident could add to Western concerns about whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal being negotiated with world powers under which it would curb sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.
> 
> The negotiators are trying to reach a deal by the end of June after hammering out a preliminary agreement on April 2, with Iran committing to reduce the number of centrifuges it operates and agreeing to other long-term nuclear limitations.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, at the US Congress...

Reuters



> *U.S. House passes Iran nuclear review legislation*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to pass legislation giving Congress the right to review, and possibly reject, an international nuclear agreement with Iran.
> 
> The 400-25 vote sends the legislation to the White House, where administration officials have said President Barack Obama will sign it into law.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Reuters



> *Obama seeks to reassure Gulf allies on Iran, security at summit*
> 
> By Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton
> 
> CAMP DAVID, Md. (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought to reassure Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies on Thursday of Washington's commitment to their security despite deep concern among Arab leaders about U.S. efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Iran.
> 
> Obama, hosting the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council for a rare summit at the Camp David presidential retreat, faced the challenge of allaying Gulf Arab fears that the possible lifting of international sanctions on Tehran would embolden it to further destabilize the region.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

-The Gulf allies probably want any guarantees in writ ing.


----------



## CougarKing

Another incident involving Iranian vessels:

Reuters



> *Iran navy fires shots at tanker as tensions rise in Gulf*
> ReutersBy By Phil Stewart and Jonathan Saul | Reuters – 2 hours 50 minutes ago
> 
> By Phil Stewart and Jonathan Saul
> WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - Iranian naval vessels fired shots at a Singapore-flagged tanker in the Gulf on Thursday, in what appeared to be Iran's latest attempt to settle a legal dispute by force with passing commercial vessels, U.S. officials said.
> 
> The incident unnerved the shipping industry just as President Barack Obama met with Gulf allies to try to allay their concerns that Iran would be empowered by a deal to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the West lifting sanctions.
> 
> U.S. officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said *five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy ships approached the Alpine Eternity oil products tanker* at about noon (0800 GMT), prompting the ship to flee to safety in United Arab Emirates' waters
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Iran takes direct control of the Syrian military. They will certainly fight to the last Syrian IOT keep their supply corridor to Hezbollah open, perhaps another reason for us to look the other way when radicalized people want to go join ISIS. Nothing like a war where everyone we don't like gets to kill each other:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/09/iran-takes-control-in-syria/



> *Iran Takes Control in Syria*
> 
> Before deciding to commit some 20,000 troops to bolster its ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Tehran sent its number one spy, General Qassem Soleimani, to the front to see why the Syrians were getting routed. Reports of his visit, and of the pep talks he gave while reviewing the troops, are beginning to emerge. The Times of London:
> 
> “Why are your heads down?” he was reported to have demanded. “The people of Syria have been paying their taxes to pay your wages for precisely such a day, so that you defend them against a band of evil beasts. Why have you lost your nerve now?”
> 
> Morale has been plummeting among Syrian troops and senior ranks alike amid a series of defeats for the regime. They include routs of isolated government posts where soldiers were posted almost solely to demonstrate the continued sovereignty of Damascus over the entire country.
> 
> Other setbacks appear to have been the result of tactical withdrawals, as in the case of Palmyra, which fell to Isis last month.
> 
> Now that Iranian commanders are on the ground, reports are trickling out of several officers and soldiers serving in the Syrian Army being executed on charges of desertion. Now News has the story:
> 
> The three officers, who were also accompanied by several soldiers, were accused deserting their duty and “betraying the homeland,” the daily reported Sunday.
> 
> According to the report, none of the other Syrian officers or soldiers present at the time were able to prevent the execution as “officers responsible for military operations in the Jourin area are under the command of Iranian officers.”
> 
> A Free Syrian Army (FSA) commander told the paper that “the regime has handed over the operations room to Iranian officers and leadership.”
> 
> Pour encourager les autres.
> 
> Sources told the Times that Tehran’s support for Assad is not ironclad—that they are most concerned about keeping a supply corridor to Hezbollah open—and that if the current assault fails, they could consider abandoning him. There’s no word, however, as to how Iran might keep that corridor open without Assad in place. So all eyes are on what happens next. A full-scale defeat for Iran and its allies in Syria remains, despite all the complications that would follow, our best hope for some kind of regional order in the Middle East.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Obama administration has set the stage for nuclear war between Israel and Iran.I do not doubt that Iran would use nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel.Of course Saudi Arabia isnt comfortable with a nuclear Iran and they have the means to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan.This is truely a scary scenario.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

And your alternative solution would be......?


----------



## tomahawk6

The alternative is to stay the course with sanctions.Otherwise I think a nuclear Iran will be a major proliferator of nuclear weapons.North Korea helps Iran with missiles and in exchange they could get nuclear weapons.The trick is to obtain the technology to build nulear warheads for their missiles.Thats not easy to create on their own.Buying the technology would be easier.Whats to stop Japan from acquiring the technology ? Just time.


----------



## Harrigan

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Obama administration has set the stage for nuclear war between Israel and Iran.*I do not doubt that Iran would use nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel*.Of course Saudi Arabia isnt comfortable with a nuclear Iran and they have the means to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan.This is truely a scary scenario.



I do.  

Exactly why would Iran commit national suicide by attacking Israel with a small number of nuclear weapons when Israel has so many more and would obviously retaliate?  It doesn't make any sense at all.

Harrigan


----------



## George Wallace

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I do.
> 
> Exactly why would Iran commit national suicide by attacking Israel with a small number of nuclear weapons when Israel has so many more and would obviously retaliate?  It doesn't make any sense at all.
> 
> Harrigan



A "FIRST STRIKE" may decimate those numbers.  Who knows what a 'madman' may do?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I do.
> 
> Exactly why would Iran commit national suicide by attacking Israel with a small number of nuclear weapons when Israel has so many more and would obviously retaliate?  It doesn't make any sense at all.
> 
> Harrigan




Quite right: that's how MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked from the 1950s (when John von Nuemann coined the term) until the 1990s, when the USSR collapsed under the gross deadweight of the inherent nonsense that is communism.

MAD worked, for us, and _could_ have worked for the USSR, too, if its leaders, generations of leaders, had even the brains the gods gave to green peppers. (But most real communists are socialists, and nearly all socialists are _statists_, and all _statists_ are fools, so ...)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Iran threatening Israel with extinction is just for public consumption.

The real threat (in the eyes of the Iranians) are the Saudis.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And not to just Iran either as far as I'm concerned.  They're a serious threat to many with their tacit support to many nasty organizations and spreading poison via the Wahhabi outreach setups.


----------



## YZT580

why launch against Israel?  For the same reason that ISIS followers are so willing to die: it will hasten the return of Mohammed and the installation of the final global Caliphate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That probably sells well to a certain segment in the Iranian sphere. I doubt it is a serious endeavour to most of the Iranian leadership, who would prefer hegemony over most the Middle East. 

It is difficult to have hegemony over a smoking, radioactive wasteland....


----------



## tomahawk6

Gentlemen we are dealing with a regime who feels that creating the conditions for the coming of the 12th Imam.At the end of the day they want one relgion in the world and that is their brand of Islam.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That probably sells well to a certain segment in the Iranian sphere. I doubt it is a serious endeavour to most of the Iranian leadership, who would prefer hegemony over most the Middle East.
> 
> It is difficult to have hegemony over a smoking, radioactive wasteland....



The only serious threat to Iranian hegemony of the Middle East is Israel with its military/intelligence services/nukes. Take Israel out and the rest of the Middle East will fall into their laps.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I'll bet that both the Turks and the Saudis would beg to differ.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'll bet that both the Turks and the Saudis would beg to differ.



Exactly.  This a story - a very old story - of the struggle between three Empires: the Ottoman; the Persian; and the Arabian.  Some kind of dynamic tension between the three of them is the best that we can hope for.  More importantly, that tension can only find rest if we, the West, are not there to fuck it up.


----------



## cupper

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The alternative is to stay the course with sanctions.Otherwise I think a nuclear Iran will be a major proliferator of nuclear weapons.North Korea helps Iran with missiles and in exchange they could get nuclear weapons.The trick is to obtain the technology to build nulear warheads for their missiles.Thats not easy to create on their own.Buying the technology would be easier.Whats to stop Japan from acquiring the technology ? Just time.



BUt the problem with that argument is that under the current sanctions Iran has come to within (by some accounts) 2 months from developing a workable device (or at least producing sufficient fissile material for one). 

It's hard to square that circle. 

At least under the proposed agreement the refining / enrichment capability gets rolled back, the highly enriched stockpile is eliminated, the low enrichment level stockpile gets reduced, and inspection mechanisms are put in place before sanctions get lifted.

The only viable alternative to the agreement is a military intervention. 

But at what point do you pull the trigger? And how do you sell that to an American public that seems to be war weary (this latest issue with ISIS has tilted the scales somewhat)? Although I believe the timing issue will be moot, as Israel will most likely use the doctrine of preemption as justification for taking out Iranian facilities before Iran get any closer to membership in the nuclear club.


----------



## Harrigan

cupper said:
			
		

> BUt the problem with that argument is that under the current sanctions Iran has come to within (by some accounts) 2 months from developing a workable device (or at least producing sufficient fissile material for one).
> 
> It's hard to square that circle.
> 
> At least under the proposed agreement the refining / enrichment capability gets rolled back, the highly enriched stockpile is eliminated, the low enrichment level stockpile gets reduced, and inspection mechanisms are put in place before sanctions get lifted.
> 
> The only viable alternative to the agreement is a military intervention.
> 
> But at what point do you pull the trigger? And how do you sell that to an American public that seems to be war weary (this latest issue with ISIS has tilted the scales somewhat)? Although I believe the timing issue will be moot, as* Israel will most likely use the doctrine of preemption as justification for taking out Iranian facilities before Iran get any closer to membership in the nuclear club*.



This is precisely why I don't believe claims that Iran was ever 2 months away from a workable bomb.  In my opinion, the only thing that one can take to the bank in the Middle East is that Israel will strike if a threat is actually imminent, not rhetorically imminent.  

Besides, there will never be only 2 nuclear club members in the Middle East.  It will be 1 (Israel), or it will be 3 (Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia).  If Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, the Saudis will have one the next day - bet on it.  

Iran and Saudi Arabia may jaw about Israel, but their biggest concerns are each other.

MAD works, as perverse a concept as it is.  In fact, I would even suggest that it still works for Russia even after 1989.

Harrigan


----------



## a_majoor

Obama seeking to use this as a "legacy" remindes me of the scene in "The Princess Bride" where Inigo Montoya says: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-disastrous-iran-deal



> *Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal *
> by Richard A. Epstein
> Monday, July 20, 2015
> 
> In his famous 1897 essay, “The Path of the Law,” Oliver Wendell Holmes said that to understand the law, it would be necessary to adopt the perspective of the famous “bad man,” the one “who cares only for the material consequences” of his actions, but “does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions” of natural law. Our bad man just wants “to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact.”
> 
> Today, Holmes’s quintessential bad man is Iran, as it only cares about what happens if it gets caught,—caught, in this case, developing nuclear weapons. With most contracts, people work overtime to avoid that problem by choosing the right business partners. But there is no such luxury in international affairs.
> 
> Last week, Iran and the six world powers—the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany—plus the European Union signed a nuclear deal called the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” Any examination of this deal has to start with the ugly but accurate assumption that Iran will, at every opportunity, act in bad faith.
> 
> The agreement starts off on a grand note: “The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” But it is straight downhill from there.
> 
> The first problem with the deal is that it gives Iran an undeserved respectability that comes simply from being allowed to sign a significant international agreement.
> 
> Worse still, China and Russia should not be understood as adverse to Iran, their present and future ally. They are better understood as a Fifth Column against the West, and Iran’s many other foes, whose role in the negotiations is akin to the role that Vladimir Putin played in the embarrassing negotiations over chemical weapons in Syria that all but destroyed Obama’s credibility in foreign policy. Putin will be happy to take any excess uranium ore off the hands of the Iranians. But at the most opportune time, he might be prepared to return it to Iran if doing so would benefit Russia. The Chinese, for their part, also sense weakness in the United States and the West, as they build up illegal islands in the South China Sea subject to our diplomatic objections that accomplish nothing.
> 
> The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana—the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.
> 
> Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”
> 
> Why then would anyone be surprised that Iran would be willing to make high-sounding promises that it has every intention to quickly break? Does anyone really agree with the President’s rosy view that Iran will reciprocate our respect with its respect? Putting our best foot forward makes sense with ordinary business deals where reputations count. It makes no sense when dealing with a Holmesian bad man who has no need or intention of reciprocating good will with good will.
> 
> In this sort of negotiating environment, reviewing the counterparty’s track record is a must, and Iran’s is far from laudable. Hence the guts of this deal lie not in lofty preambles, but in its gritty details of enforcement and sanctions, two issues which should be non-negotiable—a word that President Obama never invokes to defend our position.
> 
> One issue concerns the sequence in which the various stipulations of the agreement go into play. The black mark against this agreement is that it virtually guarantees immediate removal of the full set of economic sanctions against Iran, which will lead to an infusion of cash, perhaps in excess of $150 billion, into the country, some fraction of which will promptly flow to affiliate groups that cause mayhem around the world. But what does the President say about this substantial negative? Nothing. He just ignores it.
> 
> In his much-ballyhooed interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, he stated: “Don’t judge me on whether this deal transforms Iran, ends Iran’s aggressive behavior toward some of its Arab neighbors or leads to détente between Shiites and Sunnis. Judge me on one thing: Does this deal prevent Iran from breaking out with a nuclear weapon for the next 10 years and is that a better outcome for America, Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?”
> 
> In fact, we should judge President Obama and his treaty harshly on each of these points. By providing Iran with billions of dollars of immediate cash, this agreement will help Iran fund wars and terrorist attacks that could take thousands of lives. To offset this possibility, the President has indicated that he will try to bolster American assistance to the various countries that will be affected by Iranian aggression, but none of our allies can have much confidence in the leadership of a President who has made at best negligible progress in dealing with ISIS. His public vow to never put American ground forces in the Middle East turns out to be the only promise that he is determined to keep—for the benefit of our sworn enemies who have greater freedom of action given his iron clad guarantee. The objection to the President here is not that he has merely failed to curb Iranian mischief. It is that his clumsy deal will massively subsidize it.
> 
> Second, there is no more “snap back” here. Once the sanctions set out explicitly in the agreement are lifted from Iran, they won’t be reinstated any time soon. Gone are the days of anytime, anywhere inspections. In stark contrast, Articles 36 and 37 of the agreement outline a tortuous review process to reinstate any sanctions. First the Joint Commission must act, then the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and then a nonbinding opinion by a three-member Advisory Board must be issued. If the matter is not resolved to mutual satisfaction after this process runs its course, any participant “could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this ICPOA.”
> 
> Section 37 then contains a murky provision under which the UN Security Council might possibly reimpose sanctions in part. But the entire procedure could take months, and at the end of this process Iran is free to walk if it does not like the outcome. Iran would also know that reassembling the original set of sanctions would be extremely difficult. Putting this agreement in place will likely end collective sanctions irreversibly.
> 
> And what do we get in exchange for all of the added risks we assume? The President claims that we have secured the best path possible to slow down the ability of the Iranians to make a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. But why should anyone believe that that will be the result when we are dealing with the quintessential bad man? The only safe way to slow down Iran’s nuclear capabilities is to do what the President claimed was necessary earlier, which is to knock out Iran’s total production of enriched uranium, subject to constant supervision.
> 
> It is all too clear that what Obama has offered today is a far cry from the deal he outlined to the country before these negotiations. It was easy for the President to talk tough to Mitt Romney in the course of their 2012 debates by then claiming it was “straightforward” that Iran has to “give up” its nuclear program in its entirety. As the President once recognized, there are no peaceful ends for which Iran needs a nuclear program. It is awash in oil, and it can satisfy any desire for medical isotopes by buying off-the-shelf products from any of a dozen nations that would be thrilled to supply them for free.
> 
> The agreement dramatically changes Iran’s status as an international aggressor. Elliott Abrams gives us the grim tally. Right off the bat, Iran’s nuclear program has gone from illegal to legal. The new agreement lets Iran keep 6,000 centrifuges and it allows the country to continue to do its own weapons research. It is likely that it can do a lot more outside the agreement as well. In five years the agreement lifts an arms embargo and in eight years all restrictions on ballistic missiles will be lifted.
> 
> It is often said that negotiation involves the process of give and take, by which it is not meant that the United States and its allies give and Iran takes. Unfortunately, that pattern has been observed in this recent deal. Iran had no hesitation in stating in the eleventh hour that various limitations on its sovereignty, e.g. inspections, were “unacceptable.” Today its position is that the sanctions must be lifted immediately. But the Obama administration was extraordinary reluctant to say that any Iranian proposal was unacceptable. The drama in the negotiation was how far the Iranians would push the agreement to their side of the table—which is exactly what to expect from any negotiation that relies exclusively on carrots and disdains all sticks.
> 
> This agreement does not require detailed study to conclude that it is a dead loser. Nonetheless, the United States has put it forward in the United Nations for approval before Congress has spoken, and the President, incorrigible as ever, has announced that he will veto any Congressional legislation that seeks to block the treaty. Many members of his own party do not share the President’s unfailing instinct for self-destruction. They should join the Republicans to reject the treaty by veto-proof majorities in both houses before the President and his team can do any further harm.


----------



## a_majoor

Well this is comforting to know. Obama's legacy is now confirmed: He will be the man remembered for igniting the Mid East nuclear arms race. Once Iran is free of restrictions they will race full tilt to get a nuclear weapons capability, and Saudi arabia won't rest until they have one as well. The Turks, another contender for the role of regional hegemon, may be slower off the mark, but they certainly won't sitr still once they realize the Arabs and Persians have nuclear wweapons or are close to getting them.

An astounding example of "Smart Diplomacy" in action:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-secret-iran-deals-exposed/2015/07/27/26d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html



> *Obama’s secret Iran deals exposed*
> 
> President Obama promised that his nuclear deal with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.
> 
> Worse, Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.
> 
> Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 
> 
> In an interview, Pompeo told me that he and Cotton were meeting with the deputy director of the IAEA and the agency’s two top Iran negotiators just days after the nuclear accord was announced, when they asked how the agency will carry out verification at the Iranian military complex at Parchin. IAEA officials told them, quite casually, that the details were all covered in agreements negotiated between the IAEA and the Iranian government. It was the first they had heard of the side deals.
> 
> Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”
> 
> It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).
> 
> The Iran deal: Who’s for it and who’s not
> 
> Iran and major world powers announced a long-awaited agreement on Tuesday that aims to prevent the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear weapon in return for relief from tough economic sanctions. Here, a look at some of the deal’s major players and critics.
> 
> In other words, Obama is gambling our national security and handing over $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, based on secret agreements negotiated between the IAEA and Iran that no U.S. official has seen.
> 
> “We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo says. “No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”
> 
> In fact, the Obama administration’s failure to transmit these side deals to Congress is a violation of the law. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which Obama signed into law, explicitly states that the president must transmit the nuclear agreement along with “all related materials and annexes.” That clearly covers any side agreements covering the verification of Iran’s compliance.
> 
> Susan Rice told reporters the administration “provided Congress with all of the documents that we drafted or were part of drafting and all documents shared with us by the IAEA.” Sorry, that’s not what the law requires.
> 
> But the administration cannot hand over what it apparently does not have. For Pompeo, that raises even more troubling questions. “Why on earth is the president letting the negotiations [on verification] be negotiated by someone other than us?” he asks. How can it be that the administration would “do a deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, that’s spent its entire existence cheating, and we would sign off on a deal with them whose core provisions are completely unknown to our side? It’s remarkable.”
> 
> What is in the secret side deals? According to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the side deals governing inspections of the Parchin military complex allows Iran to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors. That is like letting Lance Armstrong collect his own blood samples for a doping investigation. “I suspect if we’re able to actually go over [these agreements], you find half a dozen that you would stare at and realize we really didn’t get verification,” Pompeo says.
> 
> Congress should insist on seeing the side deals before it votes on the Iran accord. The only way to stop the agreement is for Congress to override the president’s veto through a resolution of disapproval with a two-thirds vote in both houses. That would require 13 Senate Democrats and 45 House Democrats to vote no — which would have been highly unlikely until the revelation of these secret deals.
> 
> It remains to be seen whether the revelation of the secret side deals will make it impossible for Democrats to vote in favor of the Iran agreement. How, Pompeo asks, can they explain to their constituents that they voted for a nuclear deal with Iran without knowing how it will be verified?
> 
> “My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto,” Pompeo says. “It’s a long climb, but this is important.”
> 
> Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.


----------



## CougarKing

Not really surprising: Khamenei and the other Ayatollahs/clerics are the ones who want this "hudna"- a strategic treaty with enemies which they can break anytime. PM Rouhani and the diplomats Kerry are seeing face to face are merely the public face for the clerics.

Reuters



> *Iran's parliament has no power over nuclear deal, top negotiator says*
> Sat Aug 1, 2015 10:08am EDT
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's parliament does not have authority over the nuclear agreement signed with world powers last month, the Islamic Republic's top nuclear negotiator was quoted as saying on Saturday.
> 
> The comments from Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, are the latest volley in a lengthy battle between Iranian officials supportive of the deal, and hardliners who are skeptical of it.
> 
> The conservative-dominated parliament in June passed a bill imposing strict conditions on any nuclear deal, such as barring international inspectors from Iran's military sites.
> 
> (....SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

One view of what could happen if the Iran deal unravels:

Foreign Policy



> *Israel Could Lose America’s Democrats for a Generation*
> 
> If the nuclear deal collapses, U.S. liberals will never forgive Israel for its starring role in a catastrophic turn of events.
> 
> Israel Could Lose America’s Democrats for a Generation
> 
> Last week, I went to hear Secretary of State John Kerry defend the Iran nuclear deal at the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard Haass, president of the organization, began by asking Kerry to explain what “we have gained by this agreement.” The first thing the secretary said was that he was “very proud” of his “100 percent voting record for Israel” as a senator. The second thing he said was that nobody had worked harder than he had to bring peace to the Middle East. The third thing was, “I consider Bibi” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — “a friend.” What we have gained, Kerry summed up, is “safety and security … for Israel and the region.”
> 
> I found it astonishing that Kerry had answered a question about the most consequential diplomatic agreement the United States has signed over the last four decades as if he were the foreign minister of another country. Wasn’t the “we” in question “the American people”? Of course, Kerry’s political instincts were perfectly accurate. He knows that he and President Barack Obama don’t need to persuade the Democratic left of the deal’s merits and needn’t bother trying to convert Republican conservatives. He needs to reach the people who view American national security as not just inextricable but indistinguishable from Israeli security.
> (...SNIPPED)



Plus more rhetoric from Rouhani:

Reuters



> *Rouhani says nuclear deal a 'third way' for Iranian foreign policy*
> Sun Aug 2, 2015 4:37pm EDT
> 
> By Sam Wilkin and Babak Dehghanpisheh
> 
> DUBAI/BEIRUT (Reuters) - President Hassan Rouhani affirmed his confidence in Iran's nuclear deal with world powers on Sunday, tackling the criticisms of hardliners and highlighting the achievements of his two-year-old presidency.
> 
> With one eye on a likely run for re-election in 2017, Rouhani used a live interview on state TV to tout the deal as a new "third way" for Iranian foreign policy, dismissing hardliners' criticism that he had capitulated to the West.
> 
> "This idea that we have two options before the world, either submit to it or defeat it, is illogical: there is also a third way, of constructive cooperation with the world in a framework of national interests," he said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Good news for Airbus if this pushes through. How do we know Hezbollah won't implant listening devices on these planes?

Reuters



> *Iran plans to buy 80-90 Boeing, Airbus planes a year, post sanctions*
> Sun Aug 2, 2015 4:33am EDT
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran plans to buy as many as 90 planes per year from Boeing BA.N and Airbus AIR.PA to revamp its antiquated fleet once Western sanctions are lifted, its state news agency IRNA quoted a senior aviation official as saying on Sunday.
> 
> "Iran will buy a total of 80-90 planes per year from the two aviation giants in the first phase of renovating its air fleet," said Mohammad Khodakarami, the caretaker director of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, according to IRNA.
> 
> Last month's nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers has raised the prospect of banking and trade sanctions on Iran being lifted, perhaps around the end of this year, which would mean a chance to renew a fleet of commercial aircraft whose average age of 23 years is almost twice the international average.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Not sure whether to believe this or not:

Diplomat



> *Will Iran Order 150 New Fighter Jets From China?*
> Is Tehran going on a military shopping spree in Asia?
> 
> By Franz-Stefan Gady
> August 04, 2015
> 
> China allegedly has agreed to sell 150 J-10 multirole fighter jets to Iran, the Israeli military intelligence website DEBKAfile reported last week.
> 
> “Beijing has agreed to sell Tehran 150 of these sophisticated jets,” the website states, based on information obtained from unnamed intelligence and military sources.
> 
> No public officials from either country have denied or confirmed the weapon deal so far. It is also unclear whether the purchase would include the Chengdu J-10A or the modern J-10B version of the plane.
> 
> However, according to other media reports earlier last month, Beijing is considering selling the J-10B fighter to potential customers in in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Pakistan reportedly already signed a deal for the purchase of 36 J-10A jets in 2009.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cupper

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not sure whether to believe this or not:
> 
> Diplomat



It's not like they will find any willing vendors in the West anymore.


----------



## chanman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not sure whether to believe this or not:
> 
> Diplomat



Was there anything stopping them from buying Russian or Chinese hardware before other than lacking funds?

I figured that if Lockheed wasn't so busy trying to push the F-35, they'd be offering refurbed or new F-16s to Iran to match the ones that Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE already have, and that the Iraqis are in the process of receiving.


----------



## cupper

chanman said:
			
		

> I figured that if Lockheed wasn't so busy trying to push the F-35, they'd be offering refurbed or new F-16s to Iran to match the ones that Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE already have, and that the Iraqis are in the process of receiving.



Really? Have you been paying attention to what has happened in that part of the world since 1979? Not exactly sure that that idea would fly (pardon the pun) to the countries you named, and many others not named.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The one thing I think that will save us from a religious nuclear war is greed. The IRGC is becoming a Junta using the Ayatollahs as a cover. At some point the Junta is going ensure the nutbars can't threaten their earthly delights. The Ayatollahs are going to find themselves in gilded cages with their protectors, now their jailors. Anyone that threatens the Junta hold is going to end up dead, jailed or disappeared. The IRGC will continue to exert pressure on the region through proxies, which is really the main type of warfare for all nuclear powers. I agree that Israel is no real threat to Iran and they know it, but the Saudi's are and always will be.


----------



## CougarKing

Rhetoric over reason? Obama continues to defend the deal with Iran despite Congressional opposition:

Reuters



> *Obama defends Iran nuclear deal as U.S. diplomacy over war*
> Wed Aug 5, 2015 5:53pm EDT
> 
> By Julia Edwards and Doina Chiacu
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama defended the U.S.-led international nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday against a furious lobbying effort by political opponents and Israel and said abandoning the agreement would open up the prospect of war.
> 
> Invoking the Cold War peacemaking initiatives of former U.S. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Obama said if Congress blocked the deal it would accelerate Tehran's path to a bomb and severely damage America's credibility.
> 
> Obama said "alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Chronicle Herald



> *Despite relative merits, Iran nuclear deal may not pass muster*
> FRANK P. HARVEY
> Published August 5, 2015 - 12:57pm
> 
> The U.S. congress has about six weeks to debate and vote on the Iran nuclear deal. Judging by the grilling Secretary of State John Kerry and his team are getting in House and Senate hearings, the deal’s proponents are having a hard time addressing at least four key problems.
> 
> • First, the agreement does not dismantle the country’s nuclear industry or deny Iran the right to enrich uranium; that battle is over.
> 
> 
> The measures are designed instead to disassemble, restrict and confine important parts of the country’s nuclear program to achieve one specific goal: increase the timeline required for Iran to enrich a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium to produce a nuclear bomb, its “breakout capacity.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Here we go again...Obama plays the "blame game" on the last administration yet again.

Foreign Policy



> *To Sell Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Invokes Iraq War Fiasco
> 
> Warning Congress not to derail his agreement, the president compares critics of the Iran nuclear accord to those who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.*
> 
> President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his strongest and most detailed argument to date for his landmark nuclear deal with Iran by likening opponents of the agreement to supporters of the Iraq War — and warning that congressional rejection of the accord could pave the way to a new, bloody, and unpredictable Mideast conflict.
> 
> Speaking to a crowd of students, professors, and diplomats at American University, Obama said the nuclear deal now being reviewed by Congress represented the “most consequential foreign-policy debate” since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and warned lawmakers not to fall for similar arguments that could lead to another disastrous war.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

To think this is the same country the US recently reached a nuclear deal with:  

US Naval Institute



> *Crew of Iranian Frigate Points Weapons at U.S. Navy Helo, Coalition Auxiliary*
> 
> By: Sam LaGrone
> August 5, 2015 2:55 PM • Updated: August 5, 2015 3:22 PM
> 
> The crew of an Iranian frigate briefly trained crew served weapons on a U.S. Navy helicopter and a coalition auxiliary ship during a July 25 incident in the Gulf of Aden, an U.S. Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday.
> Iranian Navy frigate IRS Alvand (F 71) engaged the MH-60R Seahawk and the auxiliary during a training operation with the USS Farragut (DDG-99).
> 
> The Navy did neither disclose the nationality of the auxiliary nor provide details of the type of ship.
> 
> Alvand — a 1960s era Vosper-class frigate built in the U.K. — came within 200 yards of the auxiliary and briefly pointed crew served weapons at both the auxiliary and the Seahawk before breaking away, the official told USNI News.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Sanctions haven't been fully lifted and already ships from countries not allied to Iran are trickling in:

Reuters



> *Container ships make slow return to Iran after nuke deal*
> Thu Aug 6, 2015 9:49am EDT
> By Jonathan Saul
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - The first international container ships began arriving in Iran this week after the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers, yet many ship owners remain wary of resuming business until sanctions are removed - still some months away.
> 
> Iran had depended on foreign ships for much of its imports, but has relied more on land routes and its own commercial fleet, particularly since 2012, as layers of sanctions led to an exodus of Western shipping firms, leading to supply disruptions.
> 
> In one of the first signs of change, the world's third largest container shipping group, France's CMA CGM, said on Monday it would restart services to Iran in early August.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## chanman

cupper said:
			
		

> Really? Have you been paying attention to what has happened in that part of the world since 1979? Not exactly sure that that idea would fly (pardon the pun) to the countries you named, and many others not named.



It would fly well with Lockheed's shareholders and as a 40-year old design, the level of equipment available for the F-16 runs the gamut from '70's day fighter' through to the UAE's newest Block 60s. Now whether Lockheed-Martin or US allies in the ME have more influence over US export restrictions (which may well limit them to selling less advanced models, like what Taiwan got), I've got no idea.

If those neighbouring countries can't stop the sale, then it might still spur them to spend more on upgrading their existing fighters or replacing older planes (like Turkey's F-4Es) with the F-35. Even if Lockheed doesn't make the sale, Dassault and Sukhoi selling Rafales or Flankers would be hardly an improvement.


----------



## CougarKing

As if that fake Ikea store in China wasn't bad enough...we have this:

Yahoo News



> *Iran Haven’t Got McDonald’s But They Do Have Mash Donald’s and Pizza Hat*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo News – Wed, 5 Aug, 2015
> 
> Isolation from the international community has not only prevented Iran from creating his own homegrown versions of the West’s favourite fast food chains.
> 
> Who needs McDonalds when you can visit Mash Donalds, Pizza Hat and ZFC?
> 
> The owners of these copycat restaurants are careful not to use the original names not for copyright reasons but to avoid the wrath of hardliners.
> 
> Hassan, who owns a Mash Donald’s told the New York Times: ‘We are trying to get as close as we can get to the McDonald’s experience
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Obama and Kerry are apparently so deep in self-denial about "peace in our time" that they wouldn't be able to see that Iran is trying to CHEAT on the new deal as we speak:

Reuters



> *Iran rejects accusations about military site as 'lies'*
> Sat Aug 8, 2015 1:06pm EDT
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's foreign minister said on Saturday that accusations about activity at its Parchin military site were "lies" spread by opponents of its landmark nuclear deal with world powers clinched last month.
> 
> *A U.S. think-tank on Friday questioned Tehran's explanation that activity at its Parchin military site visible in satellite imagery was related to road work, and suggested it was a clean-up operation before IAEA inspectors arrive at the site.*
> 
> "We said that the activities in Parchin are related to road construction," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by the IRNA state news agency.
> 
> "They (opponents of the deal) have spread these lies before. Their goal is to damage the agreement," he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cupper

More and more significant endorsements coming forward for the the nuclear deal.

*Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html?hpid=z1



> Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
> 
> Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
> 
> The release came as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. allies were “going to look at us and laugh” if the United States were to abandon the deal and then ask them to back a more aggressive posture against Iran.
> 
> Not only would U.S. global credibility be undermined, Kerry said, but the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency would be threatened.
> 
> “It’s not going to happen overnight,” Kerry said in a public question-and-answer session at the Reuters headquarters in New York . “But I’m telling you, there’s a huge antipathy out there” to U.S. leadership. Pointing to efforts by Russia and China to join forces with rising, non-aligned powers, he said that “there’s a big bloc out there, folks, that isn’t just sitting around waiting for the United States to tell them what to do.”
> 
> Kerry and President Obama, who is vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, are using the August congressional recess to counter claims made by opponents of the deal during a series of recent hearings.
> 
> Those who believe negotiators can go back to the drawing board and improve on what has been agreed are unrealistic, Kerry said.
> 
> “When I hear a senator, a congressman stand up and say ‘We should get a better deal’ — That is not going to happen,” he said. “If everybody thinks ‘Oh, no, we’re just tough . . . we can force people . . . America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough, we can just bring the hammer down and force people to do what we want to do.’
> 
> “Are you kidding me?” Kerry said.
> 
> Instead, he painted a harsh picture of the results of U.S. rejection. Allies would refuse to retain sanctions or impose new ones, or join in possible military action, he said.
> 
> The letter from the retired military officers followed the release this past weekend of a letter to Obama by 29 of the nation’s leading scientists, who called the Iran deal “technically sound, stringent and innovative,” and said it would “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.”
> 
> The letters provide the White House with additional backing as it wages an increasingly uphill fight to protect the agreement from congressional destruction. Lawmakers will decide next month whether to “disapprove” the deal, a vote that currently appears sure to win near universal Republican support and a significant number of Democratic defections.
> 
> The administration’s fight now is to persuade enough Democrats to vote to sustain an Obama veto of the disapproval. Some Democratic lawmakers have already said they favor the deal while others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in line to be the next Democratic leader in the Senate, have voiced opposition. Under a deal negotiated between the White House and Congress, if a disapproval resolution stands, Obama will be barred from waiving U.S. sanctions as part of U.S. responsibility under the agreement.
> 
> Signers of the military letter include retired general and flag officers from every branch of service. They include four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.
> 
> “There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” the letter said. “Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table.”
> 
> “And if the deal is rejected by America,” it said, “the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.”
> 
> Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed.
> 
> “As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a retired general officer and a rabbi for over 40 years, and operating without institutional encumbrances, I have a unique perspective,” Robinson said in an interview.
> 
> He said he decided to speak out to demonstrate that “those of us who love Israel in the United States are not of one mind and one voice on this matter. I thought it was important to represent some of the diversity within the American Jewish community.”
> 
> The Israeli government is adamantly opposed to the agreement, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been in the forefront of a campaign to build public opposition in this country.



PDF of the letter below.


----------



## Rifleman62

You can draft, and approve your own immediate promotion PER and self mark your own exam papers.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site

*AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site*

By GEORGE JAHN - Aug. 19, 2015


VIENNA (AP) — *Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such wor*k, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was *"confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."
*
All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by *allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.
*
Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.
*
The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran.* IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.*

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.*

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.


----------



## cupper

Because the election cycle is only in its early stages, they need something else to fill the airwaves. So far this evening I've seen 5 commercials both pro and con. :facepalm:

*Iran Lobbying Battle Heats Up On The Airwaves*

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/20/433253554/iran-lobbying-battle-heats-up-on-the-airwaves



> A lobbying battle is ratcheting up as members of Congress prepare to vote on President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
> 
> The lobbying followed lawmakers home for the August recess, as advocacy groups run TV ads, telephone congressional offices, use social media and attend legislators' public meetings.
> 
> Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., says she'll support the deal when Republican leaders in Congress bring up a resolution to disapprove it next month.
> 
> Her announcement brings President Obama one vote closer to blocking the resolution. If Congress were to pass the measure, it would still need a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override a presidential veto.
> 
> TV ads both for and against the deal are plentiful with new ones appearing regularly, and almost all of them are meant to scare viewers.
> 
> Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a group with ties to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, released an ad Thursday with what lobbyists call a "validator" — in this case, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
> 
> "Let's not forget that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world," Deptula says in the ad. "The deal will increase the likelihood of terrorists getting ahold of a nuclear weapon."
> 
> Americans United for Change, a liberal group in the coalition supporting the deal, also released a new ad. Over photos of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and former Vice President Dick Cheney — all proponents of the 2003 assault on Iraq — an announcer said: "They're back. The same people that rushed us into war in Iraq want to sink the new agreement that would help stop war with Iran."
> 
> Measured in raw numbers of lobbyists and dollars, this lobbying battle doesn't match the big domestic issues — the Affordable Care Act, for instance, or international trade agreements — where corporations have big stakes.
> 
> That may explain the absence of one regular lobbying activity, as noted by former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.: "The difference in process is you're not holding fundraisers for members. There's not a money connection here. This is an education connection. I mean it's not, you know, we're going to have a fundraiser and please support this."
> 
> But it makes the fight over the Iran deal no less intense.
> 
> "This battle over the Iran agreement rises to that kind of a level because it really is a once-in-a-decade fight between two competing world views," said Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at J Street, a pro-Israel group helping to lead the pro-deal coalition.
> 
> "I think that saturation point has been reached," he said of the ad campaigns. "And that's why the dollar advantage that opponents of this deal have is not materializing into a vote advantage."
> 
> J Street uses validators in its messages, too. According to its current spot, "Israeli security experts say this agreement is the best existing option, the best possible alternative. It must not be rejected."
> 
> The anti-deal coalition counters J Street's validators with veterans.
> 
> Coleman is co-founder of a bipartisan group, the American Security Initiative, that has produced an ad featuring a retired Army staff sergeant. The ad was co-produced with another group, Veterans Against the Deal.
> 
> The sergeant, Robert Bartlett, was wounded in Iraq in 2005, the period when Iran reportedly began supplying explosives to Shiite militia.
> 
> "I was blown up by an Iranian bomb. It cut me in half from the left corner of my temple down through my jaw," he says in the ad, the scars clearly visible. "Total devastation. Every politician who's involved in this will be held accountable."
> 
> Williams, at J Street, said his coalition is being outspent on advertising. Coleman said his groups may have money for lobbying, but they're up against the entire Obama administration.
> 
> "Everything else pales in comparison," Coleman said. "All the relationships that are entwined with a sitting administration, there's no balance there."
> 
> The ranks of undecided lawmakers are starting to dwindle. Coleman said the anti-deal coalition is reaching out even to some of the Democratic lawmakers who have already endorsed the deal.


----------



## cupper

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You can draft, and approve your own immediate promotion PER and self mark your own exam papers.
> 
> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site
> 
> *AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site*



There is some questionable issues with the story:

*The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained*

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin



> On Wednesday afternoon, the Associated Press published an exclusive report on the Iran nuclear program so shocking that many political pundits declared the nuclear deal dead in the water. But the article turned out to be a lot less damning that it looked — and the AP, which scrubbed many of the most damning details, is now itself part of this increasingly bizarre story.
> 
> To get a handle on all this, I spoke to Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Middlebury College's Monterey Institute of International Studies. What follows is a primer on what happened, what the AP story said and how it changed, the nuclear issues involved — a place called Parchin and something known as PMD — and what they mean for the nuclear deal.
> 
> The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.
> 
> The AP ran an alarming headline with a more modest story
> 
> This all started when the Associated Press published a story with an alarming headline: "AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site."
> 
> The headline made it sound like Iran would get to self-inspect, which would indeed be appalling. Readers were given the impression that President Obama had made a catastrophically foolish concession to the Iranians; that our much-touted inspections regime was a big joke. And indeed, a number of prominent political journalists tweeted out the story with exactly this alarmed interpretation.
> 
> "If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely interpreted, appears to largely not be true.
> 
> In fact, the text of the article said something much more modest. It said that in a one-time set of inspections at one military facility known as Parchin, Iranians, rather than nuclear inspectors, would take "environmental samples" (such as soil samples). It said that nuclear inspectors would not be permitted to visit, and that Iran would not provide photos or videos of the site. But still, it was concerning.
> 
> "The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector present."
> 
> The sourcing in the story, though, seemed to water it down a bit more. The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the document said there was a final version that is similar, but conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.
> 
> "The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."
> 
> Oddly, the AP then quietly deleted the most damning details from the story
> 
> Then things got weird: A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
> 
> The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed.
> 
> "The original version of the story, before they edited out all of the interesting details, seemed to modestly advance a story that [AP reporter George Jahn] had published a few weeks ago," Lewis said. "But now we're so far down into the weeds of safeguards, it's really hard to know. The version that was originally published seemed to indicate that the level of access was lower than I would have thought, lower than I would have expected the IAEA to accept. But then those paragraphs disappeared."
> 
> The new version of the AP story was vague and confusingly worded. The actual information on inspections was buried under 700 words of Republicans condemning the deal (based, presumably, on information from the first draft of the story that has since been scrubbed).
> 
> On Thursday morning, shortly before this article went up, the AP reinstated most of the cut sections. (Lewis's quotes here reflect the scrubbed version of the story, though he had seen the original and so was aware of the information in it.)
> 
> The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: "IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site." It's not clear what they mean by "monitor."
> 
> Paul Colford, AP's vice president for media relations, told me via email that the details had been cut to make room for reaction quotes. "As with many AP stories, indeed with wire stories generally, some details are later trimmed to make room for fresh info so that multiple so-called 'writethrus' of a story will move on the AP wire as the hours pass," he wrote.
> 
> When I asked Colford if the AP regretted cutting the news out of its own story, he responded, "It was unfortunate that some assumed (incorrectly) that AP was backing off." I pressed him on whether the cuts had been a mistake. He wrote: "As a former longtime New York newspaperman who's been AP's chief spokesman for eight years now, I would say there's always something to learn from such episodes."
> 
> So what we're ultimately left with is a story that at its most extreme possible interpretation suggests this: According to a draft IAEA agreement, Iran will pass verifiable photos and videos of the Parchin building on to inspectors, perhaps as well as physical samples, rather than letting inspectors physically visit.
> 
> Even that is dubious: Jonathan Alter, the "if true" political reporter, tweeted that the IAEA would indeed be "on the ground" at Parchin, according to the White House. The IAEA has since come out and said the final agreement on Parchin meets all its standards. The IAEA inspector general issued a statement saying he was "disturbed" by the AP story, which "misrepresents the way in which we will undertake this important verification work."
> 
> Still, the question remains: Is this story bad news for the Iran deal? That gets to yet another layer of confusion here. The current version of the story describes a situation that arms control experts have long anticipated, and that is not really as big of a deal as it initially sounded. It all comes down to a single, one-time set of inspections at a single, long-dormant facility.
> 
> Parchin and "PMD," which are at the center of this, briefly explained
> 
> The site in question is a building at an Iranian military facility called Parchin.
> 
> In the early 2000s, Iran conducted specialized explosive tests at a building in Parchin, with the help of a former Soviet nuclear scientist. It is widely believed that these tests were related to developing a nuclear bomb. This work appears to have ceased more than a decade ago (the building is under satellite monitoring), and it seems highly likely that Iran has since scrubbed it.
> 
> Under the nuclear deal, the UN-run International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is supposed to investigate what experts call "possible military dimensions" (PMD) of Iran's past nuclear work. The idea is just that the world should know what happened. That means looking into Parchin; it is meant to give the IAEA an opportunity to try to verify whether or not its suspicions are correct.
> 
> There is also a broader goal of examining PMD, Lewis said, so as to "have a decent understanding of who was involved [in any weaponization work in Iran] and what was the scope; of the administrative arrangements and the scope of any program's activities."
> 
> At Parchin, this was to be a one-time set of inspections. This issue is totally distinct from the 10 to 20 years of continuous inspections at active nuclear sites, which will be conducted by the IAEA and not by Iranians.
> 
> The world pretty much already knows what happened in Parchin. The best-case outcome of inspecting the facility is that we are happily surprised to learn that our suspicions about weaponization work were incorrect. The worst-case, and perhaps more likely, scenario is that inspections end up confirming what we already suspected, but we get a bit more detail on how it went down. To be clear, learning this would not violate or kill the nuclear deal.
> 
> A key point here: The Parchin inspection is not part of the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by the US and other world powers with Iran. Rather, this is something the IAEA negotiates directly with the country it's inspecting, in this case Iran.
> 
> It is still related to the larger nuclear deal. The IAEA has to give the official thumbs-up on the PMD issue — the deadline is this fall — in order for the nuclear deal to go forward. But neither the US nor Obama are involved in this part — that's just not how these negotiations works.
> 
> So why do Parchin and PMD matter? How important are they?
> 
> "There are a number of people, some of whom I do respect, who say that we need to get into this site," Lewis said. "I understand that for some people this has become an issue of principle, since at first the Iranians said no. But I'm just always leery when principle gets involved, because that pretty quickly gets turned into ego."
> 
> Still, Lewis emphasized that the stakes were low. Few people expect a Parchin inspection to find much of value.
> 
> "Work stopped in 2002," Lewis explained, "so Iran has had 13 years to clean that site. And there have been reports of vehicles and washing and renovations to the building, which I think are very uncertain. But I don't expect the IAEA to find much, although maybe they'd get lucky."
> 
> "No one should be willing to blow up this deal over access to this site," he said. "Because we know what they did there, and there's nothing we're going to find out that's going to change our view. But it's become, for lack of a better term, a bit of a pissing contest, so here we are."
> 
> Lest you think Lewis is just saying this to defend the nuclear deal, another arms control expert told me the same exact thing more than a month ago, before any of this came out.
> 
> "This came down to a pissing contest about whether or not we could go walk into Parchin, which is irrelevant," Aaron Stein, an arms control and Middle East scholar, told me last month about the negotiations over PMD and Parchin. "In the deal they're going to give managed access to Parchin, and you know what? We're going to lose on this because they're not going to find anything at Parchin. All of this will come down to nothing."
> 
> Stein also predicted, it now seems accurately, how the IAEA would handle this: "I think what will happen is the IAEA will submit a detailed questionnaire and Iran will respond, and then the agency will review those responses and then draw a conclusion from them."
> 
> The revelations left in the AP story are neither surprising to experts nor that big of a deal
> 
> Still, it's natural to wonder how big of a deal it would be if, as the story suggests, the IAEA will let Iranian take verifiable imagery, possibly as well as samples, to pass on to inspectors. To a layperson, that sounds weird, right? But it turns out not to be.
> 
> Because the stakes are so low for the Parchin inspection, arms control experts have long suspected that the IAEA and Iran would work out a compromise that looks like what's reported in the AP story.
> 
> Arms control experts, as Stein told me last month, have long suspected that Iran would object to direct IAEA inspections of Parchin. No country likes foreign inspectors sniffing around a sensitive military complex, after all. The IAEA, he suggested, would get information through other means — interviews, documents, that sort of thing — and then find some tactful way to punt on the issue without getting direct access.
> 
> This is not new. The IAEA did this in 2007 in Iran, when it investigated a separate PMD issue, on Iran's acquisition of centrifuge technology. The IAEA ultimately issued a statement saying that "Iran's statements are consistent with the information available to the agency."
> 
> "I think they will say something like this about Parchin," Lewis said. "That's how they resolve these issues: 'It's consistent with what we know, the program isn't continuing, and we know what you were doing.'"
> 
> Based on this story, that potentially seems to mean allowing Iranians to collect the imagery, and maybe also the physical samples. For a layperson, this might sound scary and bad. That is not how it looks to the experts.
> 
> "There are precedents for just providing photos and videos," Lewis said. "When the South Africans [in deconstructing their nuclear program under international inspections] disabled their nuclear test shaft, they video-recorded it and sent the IAEA their video."
> 
> "I don't care who takes a swipe sample or who takes a photograph, so long as I know where and when it was taken, with very high confidence," Lewis explained. "And I know that it hasn't been tampered with."
> 
> To a layperson, it would seem like having inspectors physically present is crucial for this. But Lewis pointed out that any inspection can hypothetically be compromised, including one in which inspectors are physically present. The most important issue is whether the IAEA can get the samples it needs, and can verify that those samples are legitimate. (Arms control expert Cheryl Rofer has a good explainer on sampling and how it works here.)
> 
> Having the Iranians take the samples can hypothetically be okay — as long as the IAEA can still meet those conditions.
> 
> "It seems that the IAEA has some kind of plan for this — and I would expect them to have some kind of plan, I don't believe that they would take the Iranians at their word — but that's not included in the story," Lewis said, audibly frustrated.
> 
> "So it sounds really bad. And it's supposed to sound really bad," he went on. "The way that story is written, you have no capacity to assess either the veracity or the wisdom of whatever the IAEA has agreed to."
> 
> The leak certainly looks like a cynical ploy to damage the nuclear deal
> 
> Lewis suspects that the point of the leak was to make the IAEA agreement on Parchin sound as bad as possible, and to generate political attention in Washington, with the hopes that political types who do not actually understand normal verification and inspection procedures — much less the Parchin issue — will start making demands.
> 
> "Normally people don't care about this kind of thing," Lewis said. "Normally, if the IAEA is satisfied, everyone is satisfied. But now [with this story] the IAEA being satisfied is now no longer good enough; people are going to insist that they personally be satisfied."
> 
> This also lines with the overwhelming attention that nuclear deal opponents have placed on Parchin and the PMD issue generally.
> 
> "I think there are some people who really want an Iranian admission of guilt not because it helps to verify the deal, but because they will then use that on the front page of the New York Times to end support for the deal," Lewis said.
> 
> This time, though, it was in the Associated Press. This is certainly not the first time that someone has placed a strategic leak in order to achieve a political objective. But it is disturbing that the AP allowed itself to be used in this way, that it exaggerated the story in a way that have likely misled large numbers of people, and that, having now scrubbed many of the details, it has appended no note or correction explaining the changes. It is not a proud moment for journalism.




*Vox Sentences: From Bombshell to Busted, the sad, strange saga of the AP’s Iran-deal story*

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9185331/ap-iran-inspection-sentences


----------



## CougarKing

And in the wake of the nuclear deal...Iran looks at another diplomatic undertaking next door.

Diplomat



> *Will the Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Really Go Ahead?
> The nuclear deal may be done, but not everyone is confident the project will proceed.*
> 
> By Muhammad Akbar Notezai
> August 21, 2015
> 
> Last month, Iran reached a landmark nuclear agreement with the P5+1. Speculation soon followed that the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline would benefit from the nuclear deal. The Economic Times meanwhile reported that India was “set to push for the proposed $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan,” now that restrictions were likely to ease in the wake of the nuclear deal.
> 
> However, the U.S. State Department said recently that sanctions on the Iran pipeline project still existed. A spokesperson also told reporters that, “We don’t consider Iran open for business yet, and there’s no new sanctions relief beyond the very limited relief under the joint plan of action that’s been in place since January 2014.” He added, “When Iran meets its key nuclear steps and we get to implementation day, then there will be commensurate relief of nuclear-related sanctions.”
> 
> According to one Islamabad-based analyst, who spoke with The Diplomat on condition of anonymity,* Washington’s clarification reflects its opposition to the pipeline project. That is a position backed by recent media reports, which have Russia and China both interested in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, with the U.S. opposed.*
> 
> *Those positions are part of broader regional trends, which have seen the U.S. and India draw closer, and Pakistan turn towards Russia.* For example, when U.S. President Barack Obama visited New Delhi in January 2015, Indian defense analyst Ajai Shukla told Al Jazeera that, “The trip basically means that the post-Cold War situation has been re-ordered and crystallized, and given the emerging rivalry between America and China, the U.S. has decided that India is a crucial swing state that needs to be cultivated as a close security and economic partner, as a representative of U.S. interests in South Asia.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Should we have expected anything more from the current POTUS?

Diplomat



> *Obama’s Disingenuousness on Iran
> For the Obama administration, was the “military option” ever really an option with Iran?*
> 
> By David J. Karl
> August 24, 2015
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Yet the Obama administration’s threat to pick up the cudgel of military action has always an air of unreality.  After all, a commander-in-chief who proudly trumpeted that he had extricated the country from George Bush’s wars in the Greater Middle East was quite unlikely to initiate a third one. * Mr. Obama made clear his determination on this issue in his cautious approach toward the civil wars in Syria and Libya.  The “red line” he communicated numerous times regarding the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons turned out to be extremely equivocal.  And he later acknowledged that the 2011 limited intervention in Libya was a “51-49 decision” because he feared the political narrative of “how a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another.”
> 
> Further evidence of the disconnect between administration rhetoric and actual policy was the emphasis Obama placed on the overriding urgency of his domestic agenda.  During his re-election campaign, he justified the withdrawals from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying that “I think we all recognize we got to do some nation building here at home.”  His regular declarations about how that “the tide of war is receding” – a theme trumpeted in the 2012 Democratic National Platform – also underscored this point.  Indeed, it seems reasonable to suspect that Obama’s tough talk at the time was more about restraining the prospect of Israeli military action than Iranian behavior.
> 
> Now that the Iranian nuclear agreement is complete, Mr. Obama’s lack of sincerity is equally apparent in his insistence that the deal’s rejection would put America on the path toward another major conflict in the Middle East.  In his AU remarks, he framed things this way: “Let’s not mince words.  The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war – maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”  He made the same point via Twitter later in the day, saying “There’s no such thing as a ‘better deal.’  Walking away risks war.”  This argument has also been propagated by prominent supporters of the agreement.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> Bob Corker, the centrist Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has it right when he says*, “Does anybody in America believe that if we turn down this deal, this president is going to engage in war with Iran?  That’s one of those straw men that demeans the debate.”*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Iran cheating on the deal?

Reuters



> *Iran may have built extension at disputed military site: U.N. nuclear watchdog*
> Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:09am
> 
> VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran appears to have built an extension to part of its Parchin military site since May, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a report on Thursday delving into a major part of its inquiry into possible military dimensions to Tehran's past atomic activity.
> 
> A resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Parchin file, which includes a demand for IAEA access to the site, is a symbolically important issue that could help make or break Tehran's July 14 nuclear deal with six world powers.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

As of this posting, the need for one more vote is all that stands in the way of this Iran deal passing the US Senate:  

Reuters



> *Iran nuclear deal backers near votes to protect pact in U.S. Congress*
> Tue Sep 1, 2015 7:01pm EDT
> 
> By Patricia Zengerle
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supporters of the international nuclear agreement with Iran moved within one vote of mustering enough support to protect the deal in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday when two more Democratic senators said they would support the pact.
> 
> Senators Bob Casey and Chris Coons, known as Iran hard-liners, both said they backed the agreement announced on July 14 between the United States, five other world powers and Tehran.
> 
> *Altogether 31 Senate Democrats and two independents who vote with them now support the deal, a potential legacy foreign policy achievement for Democratic President Barack Obama.
> 
> Backers will need 34 votes in the Senate or 146 in the House of Representatives to sustain Obama's veto if a Republican-sponsored resolution of disapproval passes both chambers.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Israel takes practical steps:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-security-of-israel-fifth-nuclear-capable-submarine-cruise-missiles-with-nuclear-warheads-deterrent-against-iran/5473414



> *“The Security of Israel”: Fifth ‘Nuclear-Capable’ Submarine, Cruise Missiles with Nuclear Warheads, “Deterrent against Iran”*
> 
> By RT
> Global Research, September 03, 2015
> RT 30 April 2013
> Region: Middle East & North Africa
> 
> Israel has inaugurated its fifth Dolphin-class submarine, allegedly capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. A German shipyard in Kiel has a contract to build a sixth sub “to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens,” the PM said.
> 
> The submarine has been baptized INS Rahav. Rahav is a demon, a cosmic sea monster, ‘Prince of the Sea’ according to the Talmud. It was also the name of a strange woman from Jericho who hid two Jewish scouts from the King of Jericho in the Book of Joshua, Old Testament.
> 
> After the submarine is fully equipped and passes all tests, it will cost $500 million and will enter service as possibly the most sophisticated and expensive weapon of Israeli Navy. Delivery to client is reportedly expected by the end of 2013.
> 
> The INS Rahav was built in northern Germany at the Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft shipyard in Kiel. She is believed to be one of the most advanced and sophisticated diesel-electric submarines in the world.
> 
> “The INS Rahav is one of the most advanced submarines in the world,” said Israeli Defense Ministry in a statement on Monday, reported Jerusalem Post.
> 
> “It is a versatile platform which can adapt to many and varied missions. The fleet of submarines forms a long arm for the [Israel] Navy, the IDF, and the State of Israel,” the ministry said.
> 
> Israel's new Dolphin-class submarine surfaces in the Mediterrannean Sea near Haifa (Reuters)
> 
> The inauguration ceremony has been attended by an Israeli delegation headed by the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Military Affairs, Major General Udi Shani, the commander of the Israeli Navy, Rear Admiral Ram Rothberg, and a number of Israeli and German officials.
> 
> In June 2012, Der Spiegel reported that Germany is actually strengthening Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The magazine claimed that Dolphin-class submarines are equipped with hydraulic ejection systems that enable the underwater launch of Israeli Popeye Turbo SLCM long-range cruise missiles, believed to have nuclear warheads.
> 
> Israel’s Popeye cruise missile is believed to have a range of up to 1500km and carry a 200kg payload, enough to fit in a nuclear warhead. The first launch of the missile was carried out in 2002 in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Thus the German-built submarines are believed to be the backbone of the Israeli nuclear deterrent against Iran.
> 
> “The submarines are a strong, strategic tool for the IDF. The State of Israel is ready to act anytime, anywhere – on land, sea and air – in order to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens,” Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said according to Associated Press.
> 
> Israel’s coastline in total, including islands, is a mere 273km, and it is no exaggeration to say that there is no other country with so many submarines to protect so short a sea border.
> 
> Vladimir Kremlev for RT
> 
> Germany building up Israel’s ‘deterrence’ submarine fleet
> 
> Germany started to deliver its Type 800 Dolphin-class submarines to Israel after the first Persian Gulf War.
> 
> The first two submarines were donated to Tel Aviv for free while the third came with a 50-per-cent discount, informs International Defense News. Berlin also shared about a third of the costs for the fourth and fifth submarines.
> 
> The fourth, the INS Tannin, opened the new generation of Dolphin II class submarines, capable of remaining submerged for long periods using cutting edge ‘air independent propulsion’ technology, which allows the engines of diesel-electric submarines to run without atmospheric oxygen.
> 
> Israeli Navy submarine "Dolphin" sails along the Mediterranean coast of Tel Aviv (AFP Photo/Gali Tibbon)
> 
> In March 2012 Israel and Germany signed a contract for a sixth and the last Dolphin-II class submarine that will be delivered in several years. Berlin allocated about 135 million euro (US $175.8 million) of the overall 600-million-euro cost of the sub.
> 
> In December 2011 Jerusalem Post reported that Israel invested about $27 million in a comprehensive structural overhaul and upgrade of the Dolphine I submarines at a shipyard in Haifa.
> 
> Israeli Dolphin-class submarines:
> 
> INS Dolphin – commissioned 1999
> INS Leviathan (Whale) – commissioned 2000
> INS Tekumah (Revival) – commissioned 2000
> INS Tannin (Crocodile) – delivered May 3, 2012, to be commissioned in 2013
> INS Rahav (Demon) – delivery expected by the end 2013
> 
> The Germans can be proud to have secured the existence of Israel for many years,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Der Spiegel in June 2012.
> 
> According to Barak, the INS Tannin delivered May 3, 2012, became yet another “force multiplier in terms of the capabilities and strength of Israel’s defense forces.
> 
> Commenting the delivery of INS Tannin, Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz specified that in conditions of growing strategic challenges in the Middle East Israeli’s Navy and its submarine fleet in particular represents a “defensive and fighting arm of deterrence.”
> 
> The “force multiplier” and “fighting arm” remarks of Israeli officials might as well point out that the alleged nuclear missiles in the possession of the state of Israel could be regarded not only as a shield, but as a sword as well.
> 
> Officially, Germany has always maintained that it doesn’t have a slightest idea about Israel’s military nuclear program and possible deployment of nuclear missiles on German-built submarines. However, according to Der Spiegel’s research, several former high-ranking German officials have never doubted Israel was putting nuclear missiles on its subs.
> 
> Israeli Seamen atop a new Dolphin-class submarine lay 69 wreaths in Mediterrannean Sea between Cyprus and Crete (Reuters)
> 
> Former German State Secretary Lothar Ruhl told Der Spiegel last June that he had not only “always assumed that Israel would deploy nuclear weapons on the submarines,” but also discussed the issue with the Israeli military.
> 
> According to documents obtained by the newspaper, the German government was well aware of Israel’s nuclear program as early as in 1961. The latest evidence from German Foreign Ministry archives presented by the magazine last year dates back to 1977 and corresponds to a discussion on the nuclear issue between then-Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.
> 
> British MP and Vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Jeremy Corbyn very much doubts that anyone who is willing to help Israel boost its nuclear capabilities is interested in reducing the risk of a nuclear catastrophe. He doubts that the supplies are even necessary.
> 
> “It’s very hard to see how these submarines that Germany is supplying to Israel can be solely for defensive purposes, because there is no sea-based threat to Israel and Israel needs to get on board with the rest of the region and talk peace and talk about the signature they’ve already given to the Mediterranean weapons of Mass Destruction free zone. The delivery of these submarines is yet one more ratcheting up of the danger”, he told RT.
> 
> Corbyn further believes that the weapons supplies are a badly concealed preamble to a wider European involvement in the world’s hottest crisis zones.
> 
> Germany prides itself as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and on its non-nuclear status… But they’re also paying a very large amount of money to Israel’s defense costs by subsidizing the development and delivery of these submarines, and one just wonders if this isn’t part of a wider European military involvement in North Africa and the Middle East region.
> 
> Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, despite continuing international pressure, claiming it would be against its national security interests. Though Israel is not officially recognized as a nuclear weapons state, it is believed to possess several hundred operational nuclear devices.



Some information about the Dolphin class here: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dolphin


----------



## CougarKing

Tough rhetoric on both sides despite the deal. Meanwhile, US opponents to the Iran deal are rallying to try to stop it from passing in Congress.


Reuters



> *Clinton to vow tough enforcement of Iran nuclear deal*
> Wed Sep 9, 2015 8:11am EDT
> By Alistair Bell
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton will promise on Wednesday to strictly enforce the nuclear deal with Iran and curb the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions if she wins the November 2016 election.
> 
> In a speech to a Washington think tank, the former secretary of state will reiterate her support for the accord but caution that the United States needs to take an approach of distrust and verify toward Iran, a senior Clinton campaign official said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Reuters



> *Khamenei says Iran will not negotiate with U.S. beyond nuclear talks*
> Wed Sep 9, 2015 6:41am EDT
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader has said Tehran will not negotiate with the United States on any issue after the landmark nuclear deal with world powers in July, according to his official website on Wednesday.
> 
> The comments appeared to contradict more moderate president Hassan Rouhani, who said on Tuesday the Islamic Republic was ready to hold talks with the United States on ways to resolve Syria's civil war.
> 
> "We negotiated with the U.S. on the nuclear issue for specific reasons. (The Americans) behaved well in the talks, but we didn't and we won't allow negotiation with the Americans on other issues," Ayatollah Khamenei was quoted as saying.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Plus a primer on the Iranian threat to US airbases in the region:

Diplomat



> *China or Iran: Who Is the Bigger Threat to U.S. Airpower?
> A new comparative analysis sheds light on the threat Tehran’s ballistic missile force poses to U.S. airbases.*
> 
> L1001025
> By Franz-Stefan Gady
> September 08, 2015
> 
> China and Iran’s anti-access/anti-denial capabilities are often lumped together in public statements by senior U.S. defense officials and the American media. That frequently leads to a mischaracterization of Tehran’s A2/AD capabilities — particularly when discussing Iran’s conventional ballistic missile force.
> 
> A new operational analysis by Jacob L. Heim, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, published in the Air & Space Power Journal, offers a comparative perspective of the risk to U.S. air bases from Chinese and Iranian conventional theater ballistic missiles, key weapon systems in both countries’ A2/AD strategies.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, Heim concludes that the U.S. airpower faces a larger threat from China in East Asia than Iran in Southwest Asia. Indeed, he calls Iranian claims that its military has the ability to “obliterate all… (U.S.) bases” in Southwest Asia “bluster and bluff.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

At this rate, perhaps they might not even need to smuggle in the material they need to make nuclear weapons, and thus cheat on the recent deal.

Reuters



> *Iran says finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve*
> Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:55am EDT
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Saturday.
> 
> The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and would sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.
> 
> Any indication Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world powers, which reached a landmark deal with Tehran in July over its program. They had feared the nuclear activities were aimed at acquiring the capability to produce atomic weapons - something denied by Tehran.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

An Iranian weapons shipment to Yemen is intercepted by the Saudis:

Reuters



> *Weapons bound for Yemen seized on Iranian boat: coalition*
> 
> By William Maclean
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi-led coalition forces said on Wednesday they had seized an Iranian fishing boat loaded with weapons on its way to deliver them to Houthi fighters in Yemen.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *A coalition statement said 14 Iranian sailors were detained on the boat, which was carrying 18 anti-armored Concourse shells, 54 anti-tank shells, shell-battery kits, firing guidance systems, launchers and batteries for binoculars.*
> 
> "The Command of the Coalition ... foiled an attempt to smuggle weapons destined to the Houthi militias, on an Iranian fishing boat," the statement said, adding the vessel was seized on Saturday some 150 miles off Salalah in southern Oman.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

Kerry believes anything.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here in an _alArabiya_ report is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments on Iran at the UN in nNw York ... the video doesn't take long, but it's worth a look.


----------



## Rifleman62

Apparently the Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the UN where not in the audience when Prime Minister Netanyahu made his speech.

Shows Israel/Prime Minister Netanyahu/the world how much support Israel has from the US.

Too bad he didn't mentioned PM Harper's support.


----------



## YZT580

effective, and sadly, true!


----------



## CougarKing

More on the coordination between Tehran and Moscow in their campaigns against ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels:

Reuters



> *How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow*
> Tue Oct 6, 2015 1:28pm EDT
> By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - At a meeting in Moscow in July, a top Iranian general unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory - with Russia's help.
> 
> *Major General Qassem Soleimani's* visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new Iranian-Russian alliance in support of Assad.
> 
> As Russian warplanes bomb rebels from above, the arrival of Iranian special forces for ground operations underscores several months of planning between Assad's two most important allies, driven by panic at rapid insurgent gains.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

The Iranians call it the Syrian Project which seeks to convert Syria into a province of Iran.Iraq is already pretty far down that road.Whether we like it or not a war with Iran might be in our future.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/syria-leader-assad-seeks-russian-protection-from-ally-iran-a-1056263.html

Fear of his enemies was the primary reason for Bashar Assad's call for help to Moscow. "But right after that came the fear of his friends," says a Russian official who long worked in his country's embassy in Damascus. The friend he refers to is Iran, the Syrian regime's most important protector. 

"Assad and those around him are afraid of the Iranians," the Russian says. Anger over the arrogance of the Iranians, who treat Syria like a colony, is also part of it, the Russian continues. Most of all, though, the Syrians "mistrust Tehran's goals, for which Assad's position of power may no longer be decisive. That is why the Syrians absolutely want us in the country."


----------



## CougarKing

The Ayatollah's usual firebrand rhetoric will probably make US watchers of Iran think twice about this current deal:

Reuters



> *Iran's supreme leader bans negotiations with the United States*
> Wed Oct 7, 2015 7:37am EDT
> 
> DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on Wednesday banned any further negotiations between Iran and the United States, less than three months after Iran signed a nuclear deal with the West as a result of years of U.S.-led talks.
> 
> *Khamenei has not publicly endorsed the deal reached with world powers in July, which was a political victory for the moderates led by President Hassan Rouhani. Hardliners inside Iran are still trying to put breaks on the agreement.*
> 
> In an address to Revolutionary Guards Navy commanders, Khamenei said talks with the United States brought only disadvantages to Iran.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Yet another reason why the US should re-think its deal on Iran:

Diplomat



> *Iran Test-Fires New Missile Capable of Hitting Israel
> Tehran’s newest missile allegedly can hit targets “with high precision.”*
> 
> By Franz-Stefan Gady
> October 12, 2015
> 
> Iran has recently successfully test-fired a new precision-guided, long-range surface-to-surface missile, Iranian state TV reported on Sunday.
> 
> While details on the precise nature of the test remains murky, Iran’s Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan told Fars New Agency that the new missile, named Emad (Pillar), “is able to strike targets with a high level of precision and completely destroy them… This greatly increases Iran’s strategic deterrence capability.”
> 
> The precise timing of the test is unknown as is the exact induction date of Iran’s newest missile. Dehghan merely mentioned that the new long-range weapon will enter service in the “near future.”
> 
> The defense minister additionally noted that the Emad is “the country’ first long-range missile with navigation and strike controlling capability” and can hit targets “with high precision.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

SMA: 





> Yet another reason why the US should re-think its deal on Iran:
> 
> Diplomat
> 
> Quote
> 
> Iran Test-Fires New Missile Capable of Hitting Israel
> Tehran’s newest missile allegedly can hit targets “with high precision.”



Won't happen until 20 January 2017.


----------



## CougarKing

Only a matter of time before Israel sends an Osirak-style air strike against Iran?

Reuters



> *U.S. confirms Iran tested nuclear-capable ballistic missile*
> Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:48pm EDT
> 
> By Louis Charbonneau
> 
> UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has confirmed that Iran tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, in "clear violation" of a United Nations Security Council ban on ballistic missile tests, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
> 
> "The United States is deeply concerned about Iran's recent ballistic missile launch," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said in a statement.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

What's the power of the next US president in 2016 to counter this if they decide to to do so? If I can recall correctly, only Congress has the power to make treaties, though I'm not sure about the Executive Branch/POTUS's power when it comes to abrogating treaties.

Reuters



> *Iran deal closer to reality as U.S. prepares sanctions waivers*
> Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:14am EDT
> 
> By Louis Charbonneau
> 
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States was set to issue conditional sanctions waivers for Iran on Sunday, though it cautioned *they will not take effect until Tehran has curbed its nuclear program as required under a historic nuclear deal reached in Vienna on July 14.*
> 
> Several senior U.S. officials, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said that despite Washington's move on Sunday, actual implementation of the deal was likely several months away. That means the sanctions relief Tehran is looking forward to is unlikely to come this year.
> 
> They said the timing of nuclear-related sanctions relief will depend on the speed at which Iran takes the steps needed to enable the U.N. nuclear watchdog to confirm Tehran's compliance.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

For those wondering what Iran's last few F14s are up to these days:

Aviationist



> *Watch this video of Iranian F14 escorting a Russian Tu95 bomber during air strike in Syria*
> 
> (...SNIPPED- video at link above)


----------



## CougarKing

Israel, who continues to eye Iran with vigilance, warns the world not to be fooled by the rhetoric of Iran's diplomats and other forms of "soft power" :

Defense News



> *Israeli Defense Minister: Don't Be Fooled by Iran's 'Charm Offensive'*
> By Moshe Ya'alon 5:01 p.m. EST December 13, 2015
> 
> Sixty-seven years have passed since the founding of the State of Israel, 67 years of continuous security and diplomatic challenges stemming from a vehement opposition to our very existence by our neighboring Arab states and their supporting organizations. In the past, the flagbearers of this opposition fueled the conflict with nationalistic pan-Arab ideology (Nasserism, Ba'athism, pan-Arabism). Their use of conventional armed forces to attack Israel was defeated time and again, as the Israel Defense Forces increasingly gained a substantial military advantage based on advanced technology and professional abilities. This, in turn, led the Arabs to focus on achieving non-conventional capabilities — challenging Israel with rockets, missiles, guerilla warfare and terror.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Is this wise, considering how close Iran and Russia are? 

Associated Press



> *Russian diplomat: Russia completes removal of low-enriched uranium from Iran under nuke deal*
> [The Canadian Press]
> George Jahn, The Associated Press
> December 28, 2015
> 
> VIENNA - *Iran has met a key requirement of a nuclear deal with six world powers by allowing Moscow to transfer most of its enriched uranium to Russia, a senior Russian diplomat told The Associated Press Monday.
> *
> The diplomat demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to be identified by name.
> 
> Under the July 14 deal, Iran must ship out all except 300 kilograms (over 660 pounds) of the close to nine tons of low-enriched uranium it has stockpiled. Low-enriched uranium is suited to power generation but can be further enriched to arm nuclear warheads.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Considering you don't need a lot of Uranium to make a fission bomb or trigger, leaving the Iranians with 300+kg of the stuff isn't much of an accomplishment at all.....


----------



## CougarKing

Iran's Revolutionary Guards really want hell to rain on them if they're coming this close...

NBC



> EXCLUSIVE  NEWS  DEC 29 2015, 4:57 PM ET
> U.S. Carrier Harry S. Truman Has Close Call With Iranian Rockets
> by JIM MIKLASZEWSKI and COURTNEY KUBE
> SHARE
> 
> The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman came about 1,500 yards from an Iranian rocket in the Strait of Hormuz last week, two U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
> 
> As the Truman was transiting the strait, which connects the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, Iranian Revolutionary Guards conducted a live-fire exercise right near the U.S. carrier Saturday, officials said.
> 
> A U.S. military official said an Iranian navy fast and short attack craft began conducting a live-fire exercise at the same time the carrier was nearing the end of the strait, firing off several unguided rockets. A French frigate, the U.S. destroyer USS Buckley and other commercial traffic were also in the area.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## YZT580

at 1500 yds Truman would not have had any time to take defensive action.  Blowing the go-fast out of the water would have been after=the=fact.  In that position the Truman is extremely vulnerable.  Kudos to the captain for not taking action which would probably have been justified.


----------



## CougarKing

Echoes of the storming of the US Embassy of Iran in 1979?

RT



> *Saudi Arabia cuts diplomatic ties with Iran over embassy storming*
> Published time: 3 Jan, 2016 20:20
> Edited time: 3 Jan, 2016 21:19
> 
> *Saudi Arabia has cut diplomatic ties with Iran over the storming of its embassy in Tehran on Saturday. The move comes while relations between the regional rivals are plunging over the execution of a top Shiite cleric*.
> 
> Speaking at a press conference on Sunday, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir demanded that the Iranian diplomatic mission and related entities leave the country within 48 hours.
> 
> He said Riyadh would not allow the Islamic Republic to undermine the Sunni kingdom’s security.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The recent drama over the Iranian capture and release of those USN sailors may have more Americans questioning what kind of deal Obama got them into with the Ayatollahs again, which goes into effect today.

Diplomat



> *It's Official: Nuclear-Related Sanctions Are Lifted on Iran, Nuclear Deal Implemented
> 
> With the IAEA certifying Iran’s compliance with technical constraints on its nuclear program, the nuclear deal is implemented.*
> IMG_5979 (2)
> By Ankit Panda
> January 17, 2016
> 
> The Iran deal has officially been implemented.
> 
> Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), certified that Iran had complied with its obligations under last July’s Joint Comprehensive Plan for Action, an international deal in which Iran agrees to limit its nuclear program in exchange for considerable nuclear-related sanctions relief from the United States, European Union, and the United Nations. Amano’s statement triggers the Iran nuclear deal’s so-called “Implementation Day” milestone. “A lot of work has gone into getting us here, and implementation of this agreement will require a similar effort,” Amano said. “For our part, we are ready to get on with the job,” she added.
> 
> “Today marks the moment that the Iran nuclear agreement transitions from promises on paper to measurable progress,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said, speaking in Vienna. “United States’ friends and allies in the Middle East and the entire world are safer, because the threat of nuclear weapons has been reduced,” he added.
> 
> For Iran, the IAEA’s confirmation of it having met its obligations, which included the dismantling of IR-1 centrifuges, shipping over 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium out of the country, and redesigning a heavy-water reactor facility at Arak, means will gain access to over $100 billion of frozen foreign assets, most of which will go toward servicing the country’s existing debts. Iran will allow for the continuous inspection of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA. For the Iranian government, led by President Hassan Rouhani, attaining sanctions relief under the Iran deal fulfills a major campaign promise that helped usher him into power back in 2013. With an Iranian parliamentary election around the corner in late February, the implementation of the Iran deal could prove politically useful for Rouhani and like-minded moderates.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cupper

A timeline of the negotiations for the release of the US persons held by Iran.

*Path To U.S.-Iran Deal, Prisoner Swap Began Years Ago*

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/17/463379696/path-to-u-s-iran-deal-prisoner-swap-began-years-ago



> Iran is open for business again as ten years of punishing international sanctions are lifted.
> 
> President Hassan Rouhani declared the nuclear deal a "golden page" in Iran's history as he presented a new budget to parliament on Sunday. Economists call it the biggest windfall in history, with as much as an estimated $150 billion of Iran's frozen assets being unlocked from banks across the globe.
> 
> "Implementation Day" was declared in Vienna on Saturday. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, certified Iran had fulfilled its obligations under a nuclear agreement with six world powers.
> 
> "This will turn Iran from the most sanctioned state to the country with the most monitored nuclear program in the world," says Ali Vaez, a senior Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group.
> 
> It's the "Big Bang," he says. The agreement opens a way for Iran to transform its economy and reconnect its 80 million people to the global economy. "After more than a decade, the race of sanctions against centrifuges, has finally ended," he says.
> 
> Saturday's prisoner swap
> 
> The new era began with signals that the nuclear deal represents a change in relations between Tehran, the international community, and the United States.
> 
> Especially striking - a prisoner swap that came hours before the main event in Vienna. Five Americans were released, including Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, held for more than a year on charges of spying. The U.S. granted clemency and released seven Iranians accused of violating U.S. sanction laws.
> 
> "This is a major victory for diplomacy, a victory for people who want to talk to Iran," says Mohsen Milani, who heads the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of South Florida.
> 
> Iran's end of the bargain
> 
> While nuclear negotiations are also an example of "talking to Iran," it is an extremely technical agreement between diplomats and experts.
> 
> "Iranians put cement in a nuclear reactor," says Milani, about a crucial step in the nuclear agreement when the core of the Arak heavy water nuclear reactor was removed and disabled.
> 
> "Ordinary Americans and Iranians don't understand what that means," he says.
> 
> In December, Iran shipped out 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium and dismantled more than 12,000 centrifuges, also part of the deal.
> 
> "Iran has undertaken significant steps that many people – and I do mean many – doubted would ever come to pass," Secretary of State John Kerry said in remarks in Vienna.
> 
> But it was the release of five Americans held in Iran that captured American attention and overshadowed the landmark conclusions of the nuclear agreement. This was a tangible example of the new era, coupled with the quick release of captured U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf last week.
> 
> "You are talking about actual people, not centrifuges," says Milani about the emotional reactions. It also demonstrated a change in Iran.
> 
> "For me, it shows there are reasonable forces who don't want to go back to the bad old days," he says.
> 
> Diplomacy and dialogue
> 
> Secret negotiations over Americans held in Iran began more than "14 months ago and accelerated after the conclusion of the nuclear deal," according to senior officials who briefed reporters after the swap was announced on Saturday. As the names reverberated on social media and TV news channels on Saturday, the swap was widely applauded in the U.S. despite charges by Republican presidential hopefuls that it showed the latest American "weakness."
> 
> "In terms of optics, it's more powerful than 'Implementation Day,'" says Milani, in what appears to be a historic shift that has "opened the door of communications," after more than three decades of enmity.
> 
> For the Obama administration, the prisoner swap and Iran's swift compliance with the deal's difficult measures is the triumph of diplomacy and dialogue over confrontation and public threats. Still, the opening to Iran is a gamble that historians will debate for years, citing key moments and motivations that led to successful negotiations.
> 
> The deal took two years of formal negotiations between Iran and six powers, but the Obama administration reportedly reached out much earlier. The Wall Street Journal reported discreet exchanges that go back to 2009.
> 
> President Obama sent another signal the same year. He was the first U.S. president to call the country "The Islamic Republic of Iran" in a Persian New Year's message to the Iranian people.
> 
> Soon after, the U.S. and Iran opened secret back-channel communications facilitated by the tiny Gulf state of Oman.
> 
> "A convergence of factors explains it," says Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Based in the Gulf, he says the Obama administration saw Iran as a potential breakthrough as the aftermath of the Arab Spring convulsed the Arab world.
> 
> "With Iran, there was an opportunity for a deal. Iran looked cohesive, it has institutions," even though Iran's regional policies were often at odds with U.S. goals, he says. "Iran was bad, but it was good at being bad. Iran is a competent actor."
> 
> Rouhani's election sparked change
> 
> When President Hassan Rouhani took office in 2013, the White House called his election "an opportunity" for Tehran to resolve international concerns over its nuclear program. During his campaign, the moderate cleric pledged to open a new chapter with the West. More important for his country's crippled economy, Rouhani promised to reintegrate Iran into the international economic system after decades of isolation. It was a high stakes gamble, linking the success of his presidency to success in complex nuclear talks with world powers.
> 
> Both presidents faced domestic pressure to scuttle the deal. For the Obama administration, the opening to Iran was met with deep suspicion by congressional Republicans. Republican presidential hopefuls pledged to scrap it on the first day in office.
> 
> America's key allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are adamant that Iran is a destabilizing force likely to grow bolder with a huge injection of cash as sanctions are lifted. The objections are likely to grow louder as implementation gets underway, says Hokayem. "Iran remains a very concerning actor, very confrontational. There is a long list of U.S. interests where Iran cannot be a net contributor."
> 
> In a sign of the tumult of the new era, on Sunday, the U.S. Treasury announced new sanctions against 11 entities and individuals involved in procurement on behalf of Iran's ballistic missile program.
> 
> "There will be ups and downs in relations," says Milani. "You cannot change years of animosity and political war between two countries overnight."


----------



## CougarKing

Iranian UAV and sub have US carrier in their crosshairs:

Source: Aviationist



> *Tehran releases footage of Iranian navy submarine allegedly aiming at a U.S. aircraft carrier*
> Jan 29 2016 - 7 Comments
> By David Cenciotti
> The Iranian Navy has spied on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz with drones and subs.
> 
> Iranian Tasmin News media outlet has aired a short video, allegedly filmed by a Ghadir-class submarine during a maritime exercise in the Strait of Hormuz.
> 
> The footage (click here) shows the submarine or a warship (the image above seems to be taken from a certain height from above the sea level…) somehow aiming or at least pointing its sensors at the American warship. According to the reports from the Iranian media, a drone took part in the surveillance operation as well, taking pictures of the American flattop from above.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Wouldn't an "unarmed" drone be a dangerous projectile itself if its operator made it dive straight for the carrier?

Canadian Press



> *Iran flies unarmed military drone over US aircraft carrier*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Nasser Karimi And Jon Gambrell, The Associated Press
> 
> January 29, 2016
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Iran flew a surveillance drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier and published video of the encounter Friday, the latest in a series of edgy naval incidents between the two countries in the Persian Gulf after the recent nuclear deal.
> 
> While the U.S. Navy stressed it knew the drone was unarmed and the flyover didn't interrupt U.S. operations in the war against the Islamic State group, the incident underlined the continued tension over control of waterways crucial to global oil supplies. It follows a rocket test last month by the Islamic Republic near coalition warships and commercial traffic, as well as Iran's brief capture of American sailors who strayed into its territorial waters.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Iran looking not just to buy the Su30, but produce it under license?

National Interest



> *The Middle East's Nightmare: Iran is Buying Russia's Lethal Su-30*
> Dave Majumdar
> 
> February 15, 2016
> Iran looks set to sign a deal to purchase Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker fighters as it upgrades its military forces following the nuclear deal, which cleared the way for sanctions to be lifted on Tehran. Iranian defense minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan is set to visit Moscow on February 16 to discuss the potential fighter buy, as well as to discuss deliveries of the Almaz-Antey S-300 air and missile defense system.
> 
> “Minister Dehgan will also discuss the delivery of Su-30 airplanes because the Defense Ministry believes the Iranian Air Force needs this type of plane. We’ve moved far in these discussions of purchases and I think that during the upcoming visit a contract will be signed,” an Iranian defense ministry source told the Russian state-run media outlet Sputnik.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)





> Presumably Iran would want one of the advanced variants similar to the aircraft operated by India, Malaysia, Algeria and Russia itself. However, it is also possible that Iran could opt for a variant of the more basic Su-30M2, which is also in service with the Russian Air Force. That variant is somewhat less expensive, which might make more sense considering Iran’s economic situation. *Perhaps of note, Iran does not seem content with merely buying the Su-30; Tehran seems intent on license production of the aircraft.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps they could stage a demonstration of Iron Dome against Scuds or other missiles to show its power?

Defense News



> *Experts: Israel Lacks Leverage Against Iranian Missile Tests*
> Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News 12:18 p.m. EDT March 14, 2016
> 
> TEL AVIV — Beyond protests and vacuous statements of concern, Israeli experts concede Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his backers in the Western world lack leverage to penalize Iran for its steadily advancing ballistic missile program.
> 
> That’s because *there’s nothing in the nuclear deal negotiated between world powers and Iran to prevent the types of launches that took place last week*, less than two months after the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) took effect, experts said.
> 
> “There’s nothing in the JCPOA with regard to ballistic missiles because the P5+1 conceded on that point as soon as the negotiations began,” Emily Landau, senior research fellow at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies, said of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, which negotiated the landmark Iranian nuclear deal.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Iron Dome isn't for these kinds of ballistic missiles, but Arrow and Patriot are....


----------



## CougarKing

So Trudeau wants Canada to re-establish relations with these madmen?  

Associated Press



> *Iran says missile program is not negotiable*
> 
> The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> April 10, 2016
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's foreign minister said Sunday the country's missile program is not up for negotiation with the United States.
> 
> The missile program and "defence capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not negotiable," said Mohammad Javad Zarif after meeting with his Estonian counterpart, Marina Kaljurand.
> 
> He added that if Washington was serious about defensive issues in the Middle East, it should stop supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel.
> 
> A Saudi-led coalition has been conducting airstrikes and battling the Iran-backed Shiite rebels in Yemen since March 2015. Iran also supports anti-Israeli militant groups.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Cannon fodder for western tanks? It's merely a mash up of US and Chinese designs. 

Business Insider



> *Iran unveils new tank made from US and Chinese designs from the 60s*
> 
> Earlier this month, *Iran unveiled a new main battle tank, the Tiam, *]that appears to be a mashup of Chinese and US tanks from the1960s, The Diplomat reports.
> 
> *The tank appears to have the main hull and engine of the US' M47M Patton, a variation of the M47 Patton made in the early 1960s, and the turret of China's type 59/69 tank*, first produced in 1958.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Please note the South China Sea parallels in the rest of the full article at the link below:

Forbes



> *Iran Threatens To Close Oil Shipping Lanes, Could Beijing Do Likewise In South China Sea?*
> 
> Tim Daiss ,
> 
> Contributor
> 
> Geopolitical analyst and energy markets journalist based in Asia.
> 
> 
> Iran’s threats also pre-shadows what the future could hold in the South China Sea, also one of the most important oil and natural gas transport choke points in the world
> 
> News from late last week that Iran had threatened to close oil shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. proceeds with further military drills in the area is disturbing enough, but it also provokes questions about actions China could also take in the not too distant future in the South China Sea.
> 
> Oilprice.com reported on the Iran story on Friday, citing remarks made on Iranian television by General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard. “If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry,” Salami said.
> 
> Salami was referring to an early April large-scale military drill “International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX),” which saw 30 nations participate. According to an April 9 Reuters report, the drills kicked off in Bahrain where the U.S Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based, in part as a bulwark against Iran.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Iranian casualties of the war in Syria:

Canadian Press/Associated Press



> *13 members of Iran's elite force killed in Syria*
> [Albert Aji And Nasser Karimi, The Associated Press]
> 
> May 7, 2016
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria - More than a dozen members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards were killed this week during an attack by militants in northern Syria in what shows Tehran's deep involvement in the Syrian civil war.
> 
> Iran has been one of President Bashar Assad's strongest backers and has, along with Lebanon's Iran-backed militant Hezbollah group, sent fighters to battle on the government's side.
> 
> Iran's semi-official Fars news agency quoted Hossein Ali Rezaei, a spokesman for the Revolutionary Guard in the northern province of Mazandaran, as saying that 13 members were killed and 21 were wounded.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Even as this occurs to think Trudeau wants to re-establish Canadian ties with Iran:

Bloomberg



> *US Taxpayers Are Funding Iran's Military Expansion*
> 
> JUNE 9, 2016 6:00 AM EDT
> By
> Eli Lake
> One of the unexpected results of President Barack Obama's new opening to Iran is that U.S. taxpayers are now funding both sides of the Middle East's arms race. The U.S. is deliberately subsidizing defense spending for allies like Egypt and Israel. Now the U.S. is inadvertently paying for some of Iran's military expenditures as well.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

It should read President Obama is funding Iran's military modernization.I would hope that Congress looks at this nonsense instead of what Trump says or doesnt say.


----------



## CougarKing

I'm supposing Bombardier wants a slice of this market as well especially since Trudeau's following Obama's footsteps when it comes to re-establishing links with the radical Iranian regime?

ABC News



> *Iran Aviation Official Says Boeing Sale Involves 100 Planes*
> 
> By nasser karimi and jon gambrell, associated press
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — Jun 19, 2016, 11:43 AM ET
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing Co. is negotiating a deal to sell 100 airplanes to Iran, state-run media reported Sunday, a sale potentially worth billions that would mark the first major entry of an American company into the Islamic Republic after last year's nuclear deal.
> 
> Chicago-based Boeing declined to discuss details of the talks or the figure of 100 planes, attributed to Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organization.
> 
> Regulatory hurdles and U.S. sanctions that remain in place after the nuclear agreement could complicate the deal. Despite efforts by the U.S. State Department to encourage trade to Iran, many American firms remain worried about the legal and political ramifications of any agreements with the country.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here we go _*again*_ ....


> An international Holocaust cartoon exhibition kicked off in the western Iranian city of Hamedan on Friday.
> 
> The expo, which was launched on the occasion of the International Quds Day, features 35 cartoons, Seyed Yunes Ashrafi, a cultural official in the city said.
> 
> He said works by artists from Iran, Venezuela, Morocco, Belgium, Turkey, Indonesia, France and Colombia are on display at the exhibition.
> 
> The works are the selected cartoons of the second International Holocaust cartoon festival, he noted.
> 
> A selection of 150 cartoons from 50 different countries was showcased at the festival back in May.
> 
> Iran’s House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex organized the second edition of the festival.


 :facepalm:


----------



## tomahawk6

Iranian gun boats harrased the USS New Orleans,onboard was GEN Votel the CENTCOM commander.







http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/12/iranian-military-boats-veer-dangerously-close-to-us-warship.html

Boats from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps maneuvered dangerously close to a U.S. military vessel in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, part of a pattern that the top American general in the region—who was on the ship at the time—said risked grave miscalculation.

“What concerns me is our people don’t always have a lot of time to deal with those interactions,” said Gen. Joe Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, as he stood on the bridge of the amphibious ship later in the day. “It’s measured in minutes to really have the opportunity to make the right decision.”


----------



## a_majoor

That "Smart Diplomacy" the Obama administration practices sure has interesting results:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-violates-deal-now/



> *Iran Violates the Deal. Now What?*
> JONATHAN S. TOBIN / JULY 8, 2016
> Iran
> 
> In the months since the Iran nuclear deal went into effect, the Obama administration has acknowledged that the behavior of the Islamist regime hasn’t changed much. The Iranians continue to act as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, test illegal ballistic missiles, threaten their neighbors, and seek regional hegemony while its leaders spewed hate at the West, the United States, and Israel. Indeed, in April, the president admitted that the Iranians were undermining “the spirit” of the pact while insisting that they were nonetheless observing the letter of the agreement. But it turns out his trust in the law-abiding nature of his negotiating partners was misplaced. A new report published by German intelligence that was backed up by a statement in the Bundestag by Chancellor Angela Merkel revealed that the Iranians have violated the letter of the deal via a clandestine effort to obtain “high-level” nuclear technology without permission from the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> The report from the German FBI—the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution spoke of Iran’s support for terrorists inside Germany including Hezbollah and Hamas. But just as alarming was the finding that Iran made at least ninety recent attempts to acquire technology for nuclear arms development. Though it claimed the majority of those attempts were thwarted by German intelligence, the agency said there was no doubt the Islamist regime would continue “its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.”
> 
> The implications of this report cannot be overestimated.
> 
> This means that despite all the happy talk from the United States and its Western allies about compliance with the terms of the nuclear pact, their confidence is unfounded. Instead of merely reaping the enormous benefits that have accrued to it from the ending of sanctions and waiting patiently for the pact to expire in ten years before resuming their push for a weapon, Iran has never stopped working to achieve its nuclear ambition. President Obama made concession after concession and allowed Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure and research programs because he believed the regime wanted to “get right with the world.” But as the Germans have made clear, critics who have said all along that the president’s trust was misplaced were correct.
> 
> The facts published by the Germans can’t be viewed in isolation. That can’t be the only country where Iran is working to cheat its way to a nuclear weapon. Iran’s overseas reach is considerable both in terms of its secret intelligence operatives as well as the vast terror network that it helps orchestrate via its Hezbollah auxiliaries.
> 
> Moreover, if the German FBI knows this, it is highly likely that American intelligence also is aware of these activities. That raises questions about whether U.S. officials in the White House and the State Department that have continued to assure us that the letter of the agreement is being observed have been lying to the American people. The revelations also put President Obama’s comments in recent months about the need to encourage Iran to be more open to the world in a different light.
> 
> What action can the West take to deal with these violations?
> 
> A year ago when the president and Secretary of State John Kerry were selling the virtues of the deal to a dubious Congress and American people, they told us that sanctions would be snapped back in the event of violations. But this is highly unlikely. As deal skeptics predicted, the administration and the West are too heavily invested in the notion of détente with Iran to respond with the sort of alacrity that might impress Tehran. America’s European allies were never enthusiastic about the Iran sanctions in the first place, and the gold rush of Western businesses to Iran has created a vast constituency for continued appeasement.
> 
> Yet that should not deter Congress from taking up the issue of Iranian cheating at its earliest opportunity.
> 
> The first order of business should be to call a halt to the deal the Boeing Company has struck with Iran to sell it commercial aircraft and related goods and services. That agreement was already raising concerns on both sides of the aisle because of the possibility that companies controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the entity that runs Tehran’s terror networks would be involved with Boeing. But, given the evidence of Iranian nuclear espionage, a strong message must be sent, and that should mean Congress putting a stop to the effort to allow Boeing to get into bed with terrorists. In addition to that Congress must also make it clear that it will not allow the administration to further relax sanctions or to let foreign companies use dollars to conduct business with Iran.
> 
> Just as important, this report should signal both Donald Trump—an avowed opponent of the nuclear deal—and Hillary Clinton—who supports it but didn’t take part in the negotiations and isn’t as invested in the myth of Iranian moderation as the president—that U.S. policies toward Iran must change in January. No matter the identity of the next president, President Obama’s successor must begin the work of clawing back the West’s leverage over a rogue regime that cannot be trusted and which presents a clear and present danger to world peace.



What the next American Administration does about this is going to have a great deal of impact on regional stability one way or the other.


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran has named a new chief of staff for the armed forces MG Bagheri.His mission seems to be to consolidate control of the armed services together with the IRG.A more streamlined operation perhaps.

http://ifpnews.com/translation-iran-media-farsi-to-english/2016/07/general-bagheris-appointment-new-chief-irans-armed-forces-sends-important-message/


----------



## a_majoor

CNN, ever loyal water carriers for the Democrats, are playing an episode of Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown where he goes to Iran and visits people and eats the food. The show only makes a few references to the Basji, the government and no references at all to the Iranian government's support of terrorism, nuclear program or propping up of the Syrian regime. Showing one side of the story to downplay other aspects of the Iranian regime.

Kind of ironic when the biggest story *should* be the payment of $400 million dollars in cash to free four American hostages.

Nothing to see here, move right along...


----------



## tomahawk6

Thucydides said:
			
		

> CNN, ever loyal water carriers for the Democrats, are playing an episode of Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown where he goes to Iran and visits people and eats the food. The show only makes a few references to the Basji, the government and no references at all to the Iranian government's support of terrorism, nuclear program or propping up of the Syrian regime. Showing one side of the story to downplay other aspects of the Iranian regime.
> 
> Kind of ironic when the biggest story *should* be the payment of $400 million dollars in cash to free four American hostages.
> 
> Nothing to see here, move right along...



Excellent pints.The regime admitted today that they had executed a nuclear scientist for spying.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-nuclear-scientist-us-spy-mystery-reportedly-executed-093152564.html

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran executed a nuclear scientist who defected to the U.S. in 2009 and later returned to the Islamic Republic under mysterious circumstances a year later, authorities said Sunday, acknowledging for the first time that they had secretly detained, tried and convicted a man authorities once heralded as a hero.

Shahram Amiri vanished in 2009 while on a religious pilgrimage to Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia, only to reappear a year later in a series of online videos filmed in the U.S. He then walked into the Iranian interests section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and demanded to be sent home.

In interviews, Amiri described being kidnapped and held against his will by Saudi and American spies, while U.S. officials said he was to receive millions of dollars for his help in understanding Iran's contested nuclear program. He was hanged the same week as Tehran executed a group of militants, a year after his country agreed to a landmark accord to limit uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.


----------



## CougarKing

Months after the deal, the rift remains between these 2 allies:

Defense News



> *US-Israel Reignite Rift on Iran Nuke Deal*
> Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News 9:04 a.m. EDT August 7, 2016
> 
> TEL AVIV – After an extended truce over opposing positions on the US-led nuclear deal with Iran, the US and Israel rekindled their public rift on the issue, with President Barack Obama suggesting Israel own up to misplaced hysteria while Israel’s Defense Ministry likened the accord to pre-World War II appeasement of Nazi Germany.
> 
> The firestorm provoked banner headlines Sunday in Israeli daily newspapers and hit as Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff, and his head of planning, Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin, were returning after a week of US-based discussions on an historical expansion of bilateral cooperation and US funding to Israel.
> 
> It was sparked by Obama’s Aug. 4 Pentagon press conference, in which he noted that the military and security community of Israel – “the country that was most opposed to the deal” now realizes that “this has been a game changer.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> CNN, ever loyal water carriers for the Democrats, are playing an episode of Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown where he goes to Iran and visits people and eats the food. The show only makes a few references to the Basji, the government and no references at all to the Iranian government's support of terrorism, nuclear program or propping up of the Syrian regime. Showing one side of the story to downplay other aspects of the Iranian regime.


1)  I don't know which CNN feed you get, but there appears to be one or two stories from them on the $ issue -- almost as many as Fox News over the past few days -- or is Google in the Dems' pocket, too?  
2)  I've watched a lot of food shows, and I don't remember seeing a lot of them with politics/human rights mentioned - can you share any you've encountered that CNN could have shown instead?

Not having your "white hot anger" story as the lead all day, every day =/= Democratic sympathies


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Excellent pints.The regime admitted today that they had executed a nuclear scientist for spying.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-nuclear-scientist-us-spy-mystery-reportedly-executed-093152564.html


Live by the sword, indeed - a good reminder for those who say negotiating can solve ALL woes with ALL foes ...


----------



## tomahawk6

Iran is back to threatening the destruction of Israel.Just one minor detail is Israel's nuclear force. >

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-is-ready-to-attack-i_b_11382198.html

The tension between Israel and Iran appears to be heightening. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), recently said: “Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist regime repeats its past mistakes.”

He added: “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever.” Salami warned that if Israel made the “wrong move,” it would come under attack.

A few weeks ago, a senior adviser to the IRGC’s elite Quds Force, Ahmad Karimpour, said Iran could destroy Israel “in less than eight minutes” if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave the order.


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just one minor detail is Israel's nuclear force. >


"Allegedly", anyway ...


----------



## CougarKing

Although this was such a short stint, their strikes last week demonstrated that the Russians were capable of launching strikes from Iran against Syrian rebels:

Canadian Press



> *Iran: Russia has stopped using Iran base for Syria strikes*
> [The Canadian Press]
> 
> August 22, 2016
> 
> Iran: Russia has stopped using Iran base for Syria strikes
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran — Russia has stopped using an Iranian air base for launching airstrikes on Syria for the time being, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said Monday,* just hours after the Iranian defence minister criticized Moscow for having "kind of show-off and ungentlemanly" attitude by publicizing their actions.*
> 
> Moscow, which had used the Shahid Nojeh Air Base to refuel its bombers striking Syria at least three times last week, *confirmed that all Russian warplanes that were based in Iran have returned to Russia.*
> 
> A statement issued by the Russian Defence Ministry said Monday that as long as Iran agreed, Russia could use the Iranian air base again, "depending on the situation" in Syria.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The IRGC at it again, tempting fate with the USN:

Reuters



> *Iran vessels make 'high speed intercept' of U.S. ship - defence official *
> Reuters
> 
> 5 hrs ago
> 
> WASHINGTON, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Four vessels from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "harassed" a U.S. destroyer on Tuesday by carrying out a "high speed intercept" in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. defence official said on Wednesday.
> 
> The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said two of the Iranian vessels came within 300 yards of the USS Nitze in an incident that was "unsafe and unprofessional."
> 
> "The Iranian high rate of closure...created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures by Nitze," the official said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Lumber

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The IRGC at it again, tempting fate with the USN:
> 
> Reuters



Having been there


----------



## jollyjacktar

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The IRGC at it again, tempting fate with the USN:
> 
> Reuters



Shame the USN didn't have an directed EMP weapon they could zap them with.  Let them drift with the tides then.


----------



## CougarKing

A T-90 copy?

National Interest



> *Iran's 'New' Karrar Tank: "One of the Most Advanced Tanks in the World"?*
> The National Interest 15 hours ago
> 
> In March, Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan — Iran’s defense minister — claimed that a new, unseen Iranian tank called the Karrar “is one of the most advanced tanks in the world.” He further suggested that the “tank [is] 100 percent Iranian made and it can even be superior than [the] T-90 in some degrees.” *Then in August, a tank with a close resemblance to the Russian-made T-90MS appeared on Iranian television. *It flew a green, white and red Iranian flag from the turret … while spinning donuts. It’s impossible to draw any conclusions about the new tank based on a grainy split second of video footage. It could be the Karrar — but even that raises more questions. A “Karrar” might be the Iranian name for ...
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More incidents:

Defense News



> *More Naval Incidents Reported in Persian Gulf*
> By: Christopher P. Cavas, August 25, 2016
> WASHINGTON -- Three more close encounters have been reported between US Navy warships and vessels operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy (IRGCN). In one instance, a US warship fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel.
> 
> *And in an incident taking place Aug. 15, Guards vessels launched rockets in exercises a few miles away from two US Navy ships.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)





> *In the first incident, as reported by US defense officials, the US patrol coastal ships Tempest and Squall were patrolling in international waters in the northern Gulf. Three IRGCN vessels approached at high speed and crossed the bow of the Tempest at 600 yards on three separate occasions*. Tempest sounded five short blasts from the ship’s whistle, indicating the maneuvers were unsafe, and attempted to establish radio communications, apparently without success.
> 
> *Later that same day Tempest and Squall were harassed by an Iranian Naser-class patrol boat, of a type known to be operated by the Guards*. That vessel approached Tempest head-on to within 200 yards, said Cmdr. Bill Urban, a spokesman for the US Navy’s Central Command (NAVCENT) in Bahrain.
> 
> 
> (...END EXCERPT)


----------



## CougarKing

Why the maritime arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps won't stop coming:

Washington Post (video report)



> *Why Iran keeps harassing the U.S. Navy*
> The Washington Post
> 
> Duration: 02:04 3 days ago
> 
> Recent incidents between the U.S. Navy and Iran are the latest signs of friction between the two country's near Iran’s coast.


----------



## CougarKing

Probably only a matter of time before a nuke accident happens in the Strait of Hormuz then?

The Hill



> *Iran to build nuclear-powered vessels in response to US "violation"*
> Iran announced Tuesday that it will instruct its scientists to create nuclear-powered marine vessels in response to what it sees as a U.S. "violation" of a nuclear agreement with the nation.
> 
> Following the decision of Congress to extend a portion of U.S. sanctions against the country, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani revealed the orders to build a "nuclear propeller to be used in marine transportation," but would not clarify if the program will be used for producing nuclear-powered submarines, according to Reuters.
> 
> It is also unclear if Iran will enrich its uranium above the maximum level set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in order to properly develop such a technology.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CBH99

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I don't think Israel or Saudi Arabia will let Iran 'formally' destabilize the region any more than it already does, with or without a formal agreement.

In an article I was reading just recently (I think it was on DefenseNews, but I'll source it later) - both Israel & Saudi Arabia seem allied in the sense that they both view Iranian supported groups/extremism as a common enemy.


----------



## a_majoor

Living by the sword means eventually having to face it yourselves:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/20/can-iran-hold-together-long-term/



> *Can Iran Hold Together Long Term?*
> 
> The New York Times offers a telling snapshot of Ahvaz, a majority Arab Iranian city near the Iraqi border, where a growing protest movement has lately been shut down by security forces:
> 
> Days of protests over dust storms, power failures and government mismanagement in one of Iran’s most oil-rich cities subsided on Sunday after security forces declared all demonstrations illegal.
> 
> Residents of Ahvaz, a city with a majority Arab population near the border with Iraq, had been protesting for five days in increasingly large gatherings, shown in cellphone video clips shared on social media.
> 
> The region around Ahvaz is a center of oil production in Iran, and since economic sanctions were lifted, Iran’s government has been hoping for foreign investment in the area to update refineries and power stations and fix deepening ecological problems.
> 
> The cellphone clips show protesters calling for the resignation of the local governor. And as the number of demonstrators grew, the demands started to include a call for top officials from the capital, Tehran, to come to Ahvaz to see the problems for themselves. […]
> 
> Locals said they felt ignored and had had enough. “We feel as if we live in a special zone, where the government only makes money from,” said Mobin Ataee, a local student. “It seems they would prefer people to leave so they can turn this whole area into an oil-business-only region.”
> 
> These protests may not seem like much, and it is important not to over-interpret the significance of one regional movement. As the Arab Spring most recently taught us, the Western press—not to mention the past two U.S. presidents—have long indulged in premature predictions about the transformative impact of democratic movements in the Middle East, while underestimating the ability of autocratic regimes to clamp down on dissent and cling on to their power.
> 
> Still, the Ahvaz story does offer a glimpse of the simmering regional and ethnic tensions that pose long-term problems for the elite in Tehran. The biggest trend in politics for the last 150 years has been the break-up of multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic states into smaller and more homogenous units as people demand more control over their own lives. And Iran is one of the world’s most vulnerable states to this trend, with Azeris, Kurds, Balochs, and many other minority groups under the corrupt, heavy-handed and often not-very-effective rule of the mullahs.
> 
> If it is true that the era of Sykes-Picot is coming to an end in the Middle East and that states like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are going to have their boundaries redrawn, it is hard to see how this process can be stopped at the Iran-Iraq border. The Iranian Kurds want independence, and many of Iran’s Arabs would gladly join with their Shi’a Arab brethren (and fellow tribesmen in many cases) across the boundary. Iran’s own meddling has played a major role in the breakdown of order across the region and the enflamed identity politics now plunging country after country into terrible wars. Can the mullahs play with fire and not be burned?


----------



## MilEME09

Irans rolls out new Karrar tank,







http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/03/12/514033/Iran-Karrrar-Dehqan

looks like a heavily upgraded T-72


----------



## Jed

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Irans rolls out new Karrar tank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/03/12/514033/Iran-Karrrar-Dehqan
> 
> looks like a heavily upgraded T-72



Looks pretty effective.  I wonder if it is nuclear powered?  [


----------



## a_majoor

Iran, like many other aggressive regimes, discovers that war is expensive, and maintaining their attempt to become regional hegemons could cause their economy to spiral further out of control. Low oil prices certainly won't help:

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2017/03/14/why-is-iran-wrecking-its-economy-to-fund-war-in-syria/



> *Why Is Iran Wrecking Its Economy to Fund War in Syria?*
> By David P. Goldman March 14, 2017
> 
> Estimates of Iran’s military expenditure in Syria vary from US$6 billion a year to US$15-US$20 billion a year. That includes US$4 billion of direct costs as well as subsidies for Hezbollah and other Iranian-controlled irregulars.
> 
> Assuming that lower estimates are closer to the truth, the cost of the Syrian war to the Tehran regime is roughly in the same range as the country’s total budget deficit, now running at a US$9.3 billion annual rate. The explanation for Tehran’s lopsided commitment to military spending, I believe, is to be found in Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions and fears.
> 
> The Iranian regime is ready to sacrifice the most urgent needs of its internal economy in favor of its ambitions in Syria. Iran cut development spending to just one-third of the intended level as state income lagged forecasts during the three quarters ending last December, according to the country’s central bank. Iran sold US$29 billion of crude during the period, up from $25 billion the comparable period last year. The government revenues from oil of US$11 billion (655 trillion rials) were just 70% of official forecasts, and tax revenues of US$17.2 billion came in 15% below expectations.
> 
> Chaos in Iran’s financial system prevents the Iranian government from carrying a larger budget deficit. The US$9.3 billion deficit reported by the central bank stands at just over 2% of GDP, under normal circumstances a manageable amount. But that number does not take into account the government’s massive unpaid bills. According to a February 27 report by the International Monetary Fund, the government arrears to the country’s banking system amount to 10.2% of GDP. Iran’s delegate to the IMF, Jafar Mojarrad, wrote to the IMF:
> 
> Public debt-to-GDP ratio, which increased sharply from 12% to 42% in 2015-16, mainly as a result of recognition of government arrears and their securitization, is estimated to decline to 35% in 2016-17 and to 29% next year. However, it could rise again above 40% of GDP after full recognition of remaining government arrears and their securitization and issuance of securities for bank capitalization.
> 
> Iran’s banks have so many bad loans that the government will have to issue additional bonds to recapitalize them, Mojarrad added. Iranian press accounts put toxic assets at 45% of all bank loans.
> 
> Iran’s financial system is a black hole, and the government cannot refinance its arrears, recapitalize its bankrupt banks, and finance a substantial budget deficit at the same time. Its infrastructure requirements are not only urgent, but existential. The country’s much-discussed water crisis threatens to empty whole cities and displace millions of Iranians, particularly the farmers who consume more than nine-tenths of the country's shrinking water supply. Despite what the Tehran Times called “a desperate call for action” by Iranian environmental scientists, the government slashed infrastructure spending by two-thirds during the last fiscal year.
> 
> The Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps evidently has first claim on the public purse. It is also willing to shed blood. Reported dead among Iranian-led forces in Syria include at least 473 Iranians, 583 Afghans, and 135 Pakistanis, as well as 1,268 Shi’a fighters from Iraq. In addition, perhaps 1,700 members of the Hezbollah militia have died. Other estimates are much higher. The IRGC’s foreign legions include volunteers from Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Shi’ites are an oppressed minority often subject to violent repression by the Sunni majority. IRGC-controlled forces include the Fatemiyoun Militia recruited mainly from Shi’ite Hazara refugees from Afghanistan, with reported manpower of perhaps 12,000 to 14,000 fighters, of whom 3,000 to 4,000 are now in Syria. Iranians also command the Zeinabiyoun militia composed of Pakistani Shi’ites, with perhaps 1,500 fighters in Syria.
> 
> This compares to an estimated 28 Russian casualties in Syria. Moscow has a very good bargain with Tehran. Despite the high casualty rate, the IRGC “has more volunteers for the Syrian War than it knows what to do with,” Kristin Dailey reported last year in Foreign Policy.
> 
> Why is Iran willing to shed so much blood and divert so much money away from urgent domestic needs? The fanatical character of the Iranian regime and the fragility of a society with 40% youth unemployment explain part of it. But a deeper motivation for Iran’s profligacy and militancy lies in Iran’s dependence on China and Russia.
> 
> Since 2010, China’s total oil imports have nearly doubled. It has shifted its oil purchases away from Saudi Arabia to Russia, which rose from 5% to 15% of the Chinese total, and to what might be called the Shi’ite bloc: Iran, Iraq, and Oman. Iran’s share has fallen, but the Iran-allied total has risen sharply. Iran’s oil exports to China will rise sharply as Chinese investments come online. Reuters reported earlier this year:
> 
> Chinese firms were expected to lift between 3 million to 4 million barrels more Iranian oil each quarter in 2017 than last year, four sources with knowledge of the matter estimated. That would be about 5% to 7% higher than the 620,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude the country has imported during the first 11 months of 2016, according to the customs data.
> 
> China, meanwhile, provides a quarter of Iran’s imports.
> 
> Iran stands to benefit, moreover, from its geographic position in the midpoint of China’s One Belt, One Road infrastructure drive across Central Asia. China will spend an estimated US$46 billion to create an economic corridor through Pakistan, and Iran is eager to latch on to China’s expansion.
> 
> Both Moscow and Beijing fear the rise of Sunni militancy out of the ruins of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. As Dr. Christina Lin reported in this publication as early as 2015, Russian and Chinese strategists viewed the American approach to regime change in Syria as an effort to destabilize Russia and China. Several thousand Chinese Uyghurs, an ethnically Turkish people in Western China, have joined U.S.-supported Sunni jihadists in Syria. Uyghur members of the Turkistan Islamic Party have acquired anti-tank missiles and probably shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets as well as drones used to record suicide attacks against the Syrian army. At the same time, Saudi-financed Islamists threaten to destabilize Southeast Asia.
> 
> In several visits to Beijing during 2014 and 2015, I spoke to senior Chinese strategists who expressed extreme concern about the dangers of returning Uyghur fighters and the spread of Islamism to China’s periphery in Southeast Asia. A Russian-Chinese axis is emerging in Asia stretching from Thailand to Turkey. As a counterweight to the Sunni jihad, Russia and China have encouraged the militarization of the Shi’ite belt that stretches from Lebanon through Syria and Iran to Afghanistan. Virtually all of China’s Muslims and 90% of Russia’s Muslims are Sunnis. Iran well may be the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, as both the Obama administration and the Trump administration claim, but it is not a sponsor of the specific sort of terrorism that Russia and China fear.
> 
> That helps explain Iran’s seemingly irrational decision to divert desperately needed resources to the Revolutionary Guards. The IRGC is not merely the dominant political and economic force in Iran. It is Iran’s main bargaining chip with its arms suppliers and oil buyers in Moscow and Beijing. China’s economic influence in Asia is a geopolitical Death Star, a magnet for political influence unlike anything we have seen since America’s economic dominance in Europe during the 1950s. Iran and its Shi’ite surrogates in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan. and Pakistan have a nearly inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder to advance Russian and Chinese interests on the ground in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. With Chinese economic support, Iran can sustain its military campaigns far longer than its neglected, bankrupt and dehydrated internal economy might suggest.
> 
> This leaves American policy in a quandary. The Obama administration --  as Lieutenant General Michael Flynn warned in this and numerous other statements -- inadvertently stood godfather to the birth of ISIS by blundering into the milieu of Syrian Sunni rebels. It is discouraging that the Trump administration lost the services of Gen. Flynn less than a month into his tenure at National Security Council.
> 
> More broadly, Sunni radicalism in the region is the result of the George W. Bush administration’s insistence on majority (that is, Shi’ite) rule in Iraq. As Lieutenant General Daniel P. Bolger observed in his superb 2014 book Why We Lost:
> 
> The stark facts on the ground still sat there, oozing pus and bile. With Saddam gone, any voting would install a Shi’ite majority. The Sunni wouldn’t run Iraq again. That, at the bottom, caused the insurgency. Absent the genocide of Sunni Arabs, it would keep it going.
> 
> Ten years ago, America might have persuaded Moscow to throw Iran under the bus in return for some kind of settlement in Ukraine. That train left the station some time ago. At low cost in the form of air support in Syria, and at a profit in the case of the sale of the Russian S-300 air defense system, Russia has a partner in Iran willing to shed large amounts of blood (especially if it is Iraqi, Afghan, or Pakistani) in the service of its interests in Syria. China has an oil-rich neighbor engaged in a war of attrition against Sunni Muslims, and a captive market for its industrial exports. China and Russia have little to fear from an unleashed Iran. In 30 years the rootless, childless generation that now provides unlimited cannon fodder will turn grey, and Iran will have an elderly dependent ratio like Western Europe’s, but with a tenth of the per capita income. Iran faces a democratic implosion like no other in history.
> 
> There has been a good deal of talk in Washington about fostering a bloc of Sunni states to oppose Iranian influence. The trouble is that the only two Sunni states with real armies, Egypt and Turkey, have indicated that they prefer the Assad regime to a Sunni alternative. Turkey shifted towards Russia after the July 2016 coup attempt, which Ankara believes enjoyed American sympathy if not outright support. Egypt is more worried about Sunni jihadists than it is about Iran, and has moved closer to Russia in arms procurement and other areas. America is left with Jordan and the Gulf states, whose military capability is doubtful.
> 
> We are confronted with a war that feeds on itself. The destruction of civil society by war leaves young men with little to do but go to war, until war exhausts the manpower pool. That typically occurs after 30% of the military-age men are dead. I warned in 2010 that the Petraeus surge would culminate in a new Thirty Years' War. Syria’s half-million dead are just a down payment. Four years ago I raised the prospect of a Pax Sinica in the Middle East. Today that seems whimsical. The emergence of ISIS and other Sunni jihad movements in the intervening years has persuaded Beijing to fight Sunni fire with Shi’ite fire.
> 
> The facts on the ground have shifted in favor of China and Russia, and diplomacy ultimately will reflect this shift. The best that can come out of this ugly situation is something like Sykes-Picot restored: a patchwork partition of the Levant and Mesopotamia with the creation of a Sunni state to oppose the non-state actors, kept in uneasy peace with Shi’ite satrapies of Iran by the agreement of Washington, China, and Moscow. That is not a good solution, and certainly not a palatable solution from an American point of view, but it is the resolution suggested by the current state of the chessboard.
> 
> A new Thirty Years’ War will end sooner or later in a new Peace of Westphalia, the 1648 treaty that left Catholics and Protestants in more or less the positions they had occupied before the war began in 1618, minus roughly two-fifths of their respective populations. That the war would lead to stalemate was obvious by its midpoint in 1634, but France and Spain chose to fight on for another 15 devastating years. When peace came it pleased no one. That is the sort of peace we will have one way or another, and we might as well have it sooner rather than later.


----------



## Rifleman62

This happen again two days ago, and has happened with some regularity.

 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/25/navy-destroyer-has-close-encounter-with-iran-vessel-in-persian-gulf.html

Navy destroyer has close encounter with Iran vessel in Persian Gulf - 25 Apr 17

How do the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Colregs) or whatever laws/rules are utilized, function WRT _*two different countries warships*_ in International waters? Is the USN obligated by law to give way, change course when, in this case, a Iranian Revolutionary Guard "fast attack craft" _*deliberately*_ comes too close? In law, what is the separation required? Does it matter if approaching from the stern, head on, port or starboard?

With the Trump Administration, sooner or later, probably sooner, the USN will be given new ROE's for these encounters and it would be helpful to have a understanding what the USN could do. i.e repeatedly warn, not change course and hit the smaller vessel. Or is there a law saying the larger vessel (less maneuverable) must change course?

Remember this humorous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNX4xqlXJE


----------



## Rifleman62

Any of you Navy pers got answers?


----------



## Lumber

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Any of you Navy pers got answers?



Warships are actually exempt form the COLREGS (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea). I know that sounds shocking, because Jr. MARS Officers spend literally 3 years studying, practicing and employing COLREGS. From a practical standpoint, we follow the regulations to a T, and we literally have half of them memorized verbatim. However, form a legal standpoint, we are under no obligation to follow them, but gone would be the command of a CO who blatantly ignored them.

So, in this case, who had the "right of way"? Legally speaking: no one.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The term "right of way" no longer exists, it's the stand on vessel and give way vessel. To many accidents due to people thinking "right of way" was a power from the gods.


----------



## Rifleman62

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> This happen again two days ago, and has happened with some regularity.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/25/navy-destroyer-has-close-encounter-with-iran-vessel-in-persian-gulf.html
> 
> Navy destroyer has close encounter with Iran vessel in Persian Gulf - 25 Apr 17
> 
> With the Trump Administration, sooner or later, probably sooner, the USN will be given new ROE's for these encounters .....



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/25/us-navy-ship-fires-warning-shots-at-iranian-ship-in-persian-gulf.html

*US Navy ship fires warning shots at Iranian ship in Persian Gulf* -  Lucas Tomlinson - July 25, 2017 - Fox News


A U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots at an Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday, U.S. defense officials confirmed to Fox News.

The U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship fired warning shots from its .50-caliber machine gun at an Iranian patrol boat when it came within 150 yards of the ship in the Persian Gulf, according to two U.S. defense officials.

The Iranian ship ignored repeated radio calls from the USS Thunderbolt, which also launched flares to warn the fast approaching Iranian ship, officials said.

The incident happened Tuesday as a formation of U.S. Navy warships was doing an exercise in the Northern Persian Gulf.

It’s the first time since January a U.S. Navy warship has fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel which approached too close.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/25/us-navy-ship-fires-warning-shots-at-iranian-ship-in-persian-gulf.html
> 
> *US Navy ship fires warning shots at Iranian ship in Persian Gulf* ...


CENTCOM's take ...


> *Centcom: U.S. Ship Fires Warning Shots as Iranian Vessel Makes 'Unsafe' Approach*
> From a U.S. Central Command News Release
> 
> WASHINGTON, July 25, 2017 — A U.S. coastal patrol ship participating in a coalition exercise in the Persian Gulf fired warning shots today after warning an Iranian naval vessel that was conducting what U.S. Central Command officials called "an unsafe and unprofessional interaction" in international waters.
> 
> 
> 
> _An Iranian naval vessel makes a close approach to the coastal patrol ship USS Thunderbolt, right,
> in international waters in the Persian Gulf, July 25, 2017. The Thunderbolt crew sounded warnings before firing warning shots. Navy photo_​
> The Iranian vessel approached within 150 yards of the coastal patrol ship USS Thunderbolt and did not respond to repeated attempts to establish radio communications as it approached, Centcom officials said.
> 
> *Warning Flares, Danger Signal*
> 
> The Thunderbolt crew then fired warning flares and sounded the internationally recognized danger signal of five short blasts on the ship's whistle, but the Iranian vessel continued inbound, officials said. As the Iranian vessel proceeded toward the U.S. ship, the crew again sounded five short blasts before firing warning shots in front of the Iranian vessel, they added.
> 
> The Iranian vessel halted its approach after the warning shots were fired, officials said, noting that the Iranian vessel's actions were not in accordance with internationally recognized "rules of the road," nor with internationally recognized maritime customs, thus creating a risk for collision.


----------



## a_majoor

Protests in Iran against the government. The scale and scope of these is growing to match the 2008-9 "Green Revolution", but oddly, this is getting little to no reporting on American news. My top hits were from the Telegraph, BBC and Aljazeera. This article shows the protests spreading to areas like religious dress codes:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2017/12/30/iran-protests-n2428347?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=



> *Iranian Women Defy Islamic Dress Code as Anti-Government Protests Sweep Nation*
> Timothy Meads Timothy Meads |Posted: Dec 30, 2017 10:45 AM  Share (2K)   Tweet
> 
> Protests beginning Thursday sparked by economic unrest in Iran have quickly turned into massive demonstrations, not just against economic policy, but against the Islamist controlled government as a whole. These gatherings are the largest form of anti-government demonstrations in the middle eastern country since 2009. Citizens continued demonstrations Saturday in the cities of Teheran, Kermanshah, as well as nearly 20 other locations chanting against Iran's President Hassan Rouhani as well as the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
> 
> What started as smaller protests against poor economic conditions, allegations of corruption, as well as the Iranian government's involvement in foreign nations has quickly engulfed Iran in the largest showing against the theocratic state in nearly a decade. Labor protests are not abnormal in Iran, but the political and religious nature of these protests have given hope to thousands, if not millions, of people that this dissent shows an opportunity for true reform in the country.
> 
> While it is not certain what the Iranian government's response will be to its citizens, the United States warned the Iranian government that the “world is watching” in a series of statements sent out by the President, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the State Department.
> 
> Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime’s corruption & its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad. Iranian govt should respect their people’s rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching! #IranProtests
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2017
> 
> Reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with the regime’s corruption and its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad. The Iranian government should respect their people’s rights including their right to express themselves. The world is watching
> — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) December 30, 2017
> 
> We are following reports of multiple peaceful protests by Iranian citizens. The United States strongly condemns the arrest of peaceful protesters in #Iran. We urge all nations to publicly support the Iranian people. https://t.co/4spSF6IX1i #Iranprotests pic.twitter.com/jDbEDM0P8F
> — Department of State (@StateDept) December 30, 2017
> 
> Other United States officials showed support for the protesters as well.
> 
> (2/2) I stand with the Iranian people in their demand for prosperity and freedom, and call upon my colleagues in the Congress to join me.
> 
> #utpol #FreeIran
> — Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) December 29, 2017
> Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which established Islamic rule in the once free and prosperous country, women have been historically oppressed. However, brave women are now taking to the streets in defiance of Sharia law. These protests are reminiscent of 1979 when thousands of women publicly condemned the government imposed veiling of women.
> 
> FLASHBACK: Over 100,000 Iranian women march against forced veiling in 1979 #IranProtest pic.twitter.com/NPxrjZiS5Z
> — Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) December 30, 2017
> 
> #IranProtests: Hundreds of thousands across #Iran chant "We don't want Islamic Republic!" & "Clerics shame on you, let go of our country!" Woman in video took off her #Hijab to protest Islamic dress code imposed on Iranian women since 1979. #IStandWithHer pic.twitter.com/CHNwrTsWPA
> — Mark Vallen (@mark_vallen) December 29, 2017
> 
> In a blow to the Ayatollah, Iranian police announced they would not arrest women who refused to abide by Islamic dress code. “Those who do not observe the Islamic dress code will no longer be taken to detention centers, nor will judicial cases be filed against them,” Tehran police chief General Hossein Rahimi said to the press.
> 
> It is unclear how long these protests will occur nor what the outcome will be. TownHall coverage will continue in the following days as more details and events occur.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Two demonstrators have, so far, been shot and killed.  The State is blaming "foreign agents" as the persons responsible for the killings.  With any luck these protests will be successful this time.


----------



## tomahawk6

The protests have not been put down as yet.If they spread further security forces will be spread pretty thin. Meanwhile in Kermanshah:

Telegraph UK reports:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/01/defiant-iran-protesters-steal-revolutionary-guards-trousers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

The Basij militiaman, a paramilitary storm trooper of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, was reportedly swinging an electric shock baton when the crowd of angry protesters closed in around him.

“They got a Basij, hold him!” one man shouted as the demonstrators pulled away the militiaman’s baton and knocked him to the ground in the largely Kurdish city of Kermanshah.

But rather than beat the man to death, the crowd struck a different kind of blow against Iran’s authoritarian regime: they stripped him of his trousers and sent him stumbling and humiliated into the cold night.

“The protesters wanted to show that they are peaceful but that they are not weak and they are not afraid,” tweeted Iranian reporter Raman Ghavami.

Reports are emerging that the whole city of Kermanshah is now protesting the regime, chanting “down with the dictator” and “death to Khamenei!”


----------



## jollyjacktar

I wish the protesters every success in bringing change to the powers that be in that country.  Looks as if they're tired of the beards shit.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I know the Iranians have been involved with all sorts of nasty stuff, but for whatever reason the guy who scares me most in the Middle East is Erdogan.

The way he's moving the chess pieces around is a dangerously familiar pattern....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I know the Iranians have been involved with all sorts of nasty stuff, but for whatever reason the guy who scares me most in the Middle East is Erdogan.
> 
> The way he's moving the chess pieces around is a dangerously familiar pattern....



Agreed.  He's sketchy as fuck.  I was hoping the coup attempt in 2016 was going to remove him from office.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the protests. It is interesting to see the analysis of who is taking to the streets and how this is different from the 2009 Green Revolution:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/2/iran-protests-differ-2009-green-revolution/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdZeU9HVmxOek13TTJZMCIsInQiOiJTR0ZpaVlQZEt3UE5ERkdiQW43bGxseW9qNVk4WjRyb1dkQ1R5cnh6NktQNEw5N2k2Rm9RakloaDh5NDVHS0V6Q0JiVzQ0M3dIck5iM1hRN3VnRTZjMFdhdVpSRFowSEZ0SmJBUzJjOWZ4b0JFVExMZ1pEOTFNWkFkUjZFUTljaCJ9



> *Why the ‘working poor’ uprising in Iran may have the power to topple hardline regime*
> 
> While the abortive Green Revolution eight years ago was driven mainly by the children of wealthy political elites in Tehran in the wake of a questionable election, the spontaneous protests this time around are unfolding across the country and driven ... more >
> By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 2, 2018
> 
> The wave of violent protests churning across Iran differs dramatically from the last major uprising that rocked the country in 2009 and could spiral out of control if the regime moves too quickly toward military-style tactics to crush the unrest.
> 
> While the abortive Green Revolution eight years ago was driven mainly by the children of wealthy political elites in Tehran in the wake of a questionable election, the spontaneous protests this time around are unfolding across the country and driven by what analysts describe as “the working poor” — a segment of the population that has little to lose in the face of a crackdown by the regime.
> 
> Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has tread lightly since the protests began last week, weighed in for the first time Tuesday by claiming the protests were being spurred on by “enemies of Iran.” His remarks came in the wake of harsh comments from President Trump on Twitter on the government’s handling of the popular protests amid reports of hundreds of arrests and 21 deaths caused by the unrest.
> 
> The White House said Tuesday that Mr. Trump was weighing new sanctions on Iran in light of the unrest. Mr. Trump on Twitter said the Iranian nuclear deal President Obama helped negotiate in 2015 was in part to blame for giving Tehran billions of dollars to fund the military and repress dissent at home.
> 
> Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on the Security Council and the U.N. Human Rights Council to hold emergency meetings on the crisis.
> 
> “Nowhere is the urgency of peace, security and freedom being tested more than in Iran,” Mrs. Haley told reporters in New York.
> 
> All sides are now watching to see whether the protests will grow in the coming days — and how far the government of President Hassan Rouhani will go to suppress popular protest. Sources with contacts inside Iran say the toll could climb significantly.
> 
> “The segment of the population that’s out protesting right now is much the same segment that carried out the revolution against the U.S.-backed Shah nearly 40 years ago,” said one of the sources, who spoke Tuesday on the condition of anonymity. “We’re talking about people who weathered the bullets of the Shah. We don’t know how these people are going to react if there’s a violent crackdown.”
> 
> Rahim Guravand, a 34-year-old Tehran construction worker, said the government’s misplaced priorities were at the heart of the crisis.
> “The government should stop spending money on unnecessary things in Syria, Iraq and other places and allocate it for creating jobs here,” he told The Associated Press.
> 
> Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the protests are smaller than the 2009 demonstrations, which featured massive crowds in the Iranian capital. “But the number of cities they’ve popped up in is astounding — especially because these are cities where the regime would have expected to have had support,” he said.
> 
> “This is spreading through the urban poor in cities other than Tehran, people that should be the staunchest supporters of the regime,” Mr. Taleblu said. “The fact that the regime can’t count on that support now is really embarrassing for hard-liners running the government,” he said.
> 
> It took Ayatollah Khamenei nearly a week to issue a public statement on the situation because he’s afraid of sending the wrong message, Mr. Taleblu added.
> 
> Region watches
> 
> President Hassan Rouhani has said demonstrators have a right to protest peacefully, but the 78-year-old supreme leader, who has final say over all state matters, warned Tuesday of an enemy “waiting for an opportunity, for a crack through which it can infiltrate.”
> 
> “Look at the recent days’ incidents,” the supreme leader said. “All those who are at odds with the Islamic republic have utilized various means, including money, weapons, politics and [the] intelligence apparatus, to create problems for the Islamic system, the Islamic republic and the Islamic Revolution.”
> 
> Gulf Arab nations, including Iran’s archrival Saudi Arabia, are watching the protests carefully, and some analysts warned Tuesday that the situation could take a far more serious turn in short order.
> 
> “The fact that these protests shifted so quickly from being an outcry against economic conditions to now a political protest against the regime shows you how desperate things are and how hungry the Iranian people are for change,” said Mr. Taleblu.
> 
> The demonstrations began unexpectedly on Dec. 28 in the conservative city of Mashhad — some 550 miles east of Tehran. Crowds initially were chanting about the weakness of the Iranian economy, plagued by high unemployment, inflation and a widespread feeling that the lifting of economic sanctions following the nuclear deal had not trickled down to ordinary Iranians. A national poll taken in the summer put economic issues far ahead of security and foreign policy as a top priority for voters.
> 
> But the most recent unrest spread rapidly over the weekend to other cities, where some are now calling for Ayatollah Khamenei’s ouster and an overthrow of the ruling regime.
> 
> Where demonstrators called for more personal freedoms and civil rights in 2009, many now are expressing anger at their government’s economic record. Some protesters have chanted against the government’s military interventions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, where Tehran is helping underwrite for proxy militias.
> 
> With rallies raging Tuesday in at least a dozen cities, including Tehran, there were reports that some 450 had been arrested.
> 
> Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian American Council, said the protests are likely to surge if there is a major government crackdown, led by conservative groups that see themselves as guardians of the 1979 revolution that created the Islamic republic.
> 
> “If this goes on a couple more days, at some point the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] will get involved,” he told The Washington Times. “That could create a surge with the protests getting bigger at first, but I believe, ultimately this will be put down by the government.”
> 
> Syria repeat?
> 
> However, one Iranian source who spoke anonymously with The Times said concerns are high inside Iran that an aggressive crackdown could devolve into a Syria-style situation in which outside powers attempt to militarize the protesters.
> 
> “People are worried that if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps comes in and starts brutalizing people like it did in 2009, there will be others in the region that say, ‘Well, we’re willing to provide arms to the protesters,’” said the source. “To some extent, that’s how Syria started — it was peaceful protests, then [Syrian President Bashar] Assad went in with tanks and six months later there’s nothing left of Syria.”
> 
> President Trump said on Twitter Tuesday that “the people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.”
> “The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights,” the president wrote. “The U.S. is watching!”
> 
> Iran’s economy has improved marginally since the nuclear deal in which Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the end of some international sanctions. The nation now sells its oil on the global market and has signed deals to purchase tens of billions of dollars worth of Western aircraft.
> 
> But the economic opportunities have yet to reach the masses. Unemployment remains high, and official inflation has crept up to 10 percent again. It was a recent increase in egg and poultry prices by as much as 40 percent — which the government has blamed on a cull over avian flu fears — that apparently spurred protesters to take to the streets last week.
> 
> Some analysts believe the protests starting in Mashhad as an attempt by hard-line conservatives in the regime seeking to undercut Mr. Rouhani, a relatively moderate cleric who strongly backed the nuclear deal and just won a second four-year term in elections in May. But the apparently leaderless demonstrations, spread in both size and scope of message with help from social media, in particularly a messaging app called Telegram.
> 
> The government has since shut down access to Telegram and the photo-sharing app Instagram, which now join Facebook and Twitter in being banned, the AP reported.
> 
> Mr. Rouhani has claimed the exiled opposition group known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was inciting the violence. According to his website, Mr. Rouhani spoke by telephone with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, and urged France to stop hosting the group, known as the MEK, which fled after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.
> 
> The MEK has close ties to the National Council of Resistance (NCRI) of Iran, which holds an annual rally in France to call for the downfall of Iran’s theocratic government. Tens of thousands attend the rally, which has featured speeches from U.S. political figures, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
> 
> Ali Safavi, an NCRI spokesman in Washington, said Tuesday that the group stands with the protesters taking to the streets in Iran.
> “The slogans that are being chanted are slogans we’ve been advocating for the last 39 years,” he said. “Some might want to say this whole thing is spontaneous, but it clearly isn’t.”


----------



## a_majoor

Strategy Page on the demonstrations:

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20180103223613.aspx



> *The Ayatollahs' Brittle Regime Confronts A New Iranian Revolt*
> by Austin Bay
> January 3, 2018
> 
> The anti-regime protests now jolting Iran send the world two core messages -- one dismal and sobering, the other an explosive cocktail of the deadly and the hopeful. Both core messages provide guidance for open-minded American and free world policy makers.
> 
> It takes a narrow-minded Obama Administration apologist to miss the dismal and sobering message. Here it is, offered with prayers for the abused Iranian citizens who suffer the consequences: Not quite nine years after Tehran's theocrat fascist dictators and their brutal Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps thugs crushed the 2009 Green Movement, Iran remains a domestic political disaster and economic disaster.
> 
> Yes -- domestic political disaster and domestic economic disaster. The political requires emphasis since many initial mainstream media reports addressing the protests downplayed the political oppression component.
> 
> True, the Movement coalesced around a disputed election and no electoral dispute sparked December 2017's first protests. However, public outrage at the mullah regime's endemic corruption, its relentless political injustice and perpetual economic stagnation also energized the June 2009 anti-regime protests.
> 
> Those three factors -- corruption, injustice and economic stagnation-- drive the current protests.
> 
> Sanctions relief provided by the Obama Administration and its so-called nuclear weapons deal didn't jump start the Iranian economy as Iranian president Hassan Rouhani promised they would. Where did the dollars and euros and "trade credits" go? Critics -- and this category includes a substantial swath of the Iranian public -- contend the money went into nuclear and ballistic missile weapons programs and the bank accounts of insider ayatollahs, IRGC officers, secret police officials and assorted Lebanese Hezbollah terrorist proxies waging war in Syria and Yemen.
> 
> Considering the context, 2018's Iranian public outrage rates as double dismal. In the last nine years the Iranian regime has not moderated, as the Obama Administration contended it would. Rather, the mullah regime has fossilized, dishing out the same violent, repressive, rip-off poison it dished nine years ago.
> 
> But here's a difference that's dangerous for the ayatollahs. In 2018 the robed dictators know they are a brittle fossil, ripe for collapse. Why? Well, Donald Trump is the U.S. president, not a Barack Obama-type supplicant who fervently believes a nuclear weapons deal with Iranian militants is the ultimate in peacenik presidential legacies.
> 
> The result of the dismal domestic political and economic morass and the presence of the Trump Administration: Iran's dictators enter 2018 thoroughly shaken.
> 
> Now here's the dangerous and hopeful message: a substantial percentage of the population (likely the majority) despises the mullahs and their thugs and once again has the courage to take to the streets and show it.
> 
> This action is very dangerous because the regime may respond with the Tehran equivalent of a Tiananmen Square (China 1989) bloodbath -- with tens of thousands of Iranian civilians killed by the thugs, and military.
> 
> However, hatred for the regime is hopeful for several reasons. The street protests and citizen demands demonstrate the desire for freedom continues to empower Iranians across the socio-economic spectrum. Confronting the secret police and regime thugs show that Iranians know the corrupt dictatorship is responsible for the political mess and economic disaster.
> 
> Though many media outlets are reluctant to admit it, freedom protestors throughout the world rely on a positive, supporting reaction by the U.S. president, his administration and other free world leaders.
> 
> I've seen several Obama Administration apologists claim President Obama supported the Green Revolution. In truth Obama dithered and his dither is to his eternal discredit. Belatedly, he gave verbal support to Green Revolution demands, after regime thugs and police beat and arrested Iran's vulnerable protestors.
> 
> In contrast, the Trump Administration has quickly backed the protests, and backed them with diplomatic and rhetorical spine.
> 
> Trump's January 1, 2018 tweet captures the revolutionary moment: "Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!"


----------



## a_majoor

More on the slow disintegration of Iran. While we may hope that change will come faster, the regime is entrenched and has ample resources. Unless the Saudis and Israeli's have something up their sleeves, the Iranian revolutionaries are lacking the external support and safe areas needed to successfully prosecute a revolution:

https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/islamic-republic-iran-doomed/



> *Why the Islamic Republic of Iran is Doomed*
> BY MICHAEL LEDEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2018
> 
> I think the Islamic Republic of Iran is doomed, and I think this is pretty much demonstrated by the events of the past few weeks, culminating in the fiasco on Sunday. Successful revolutions require several things, including manifest failure of the regime, widespread contempt from the overwhelming majority of the people, and a palpable inability of the leaders to impose themselves on the country.
> 
> Sunday provided a clear test of the strength of the regime and its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The occasion was the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution that overthrew the shah and imposed a theological dictatorship. Khamenei, President Rouhani and their henchmen were eager to demonstrate that the Iranian people actually supported the regime, and that the widespread anti-regime demonstrations of the past month were the marginal consequences of foreign meddling, not genuine passion. Hence the mullahs called for monster rallies to celebrate the 39 years of Islamic Revolution.
> 
> It didn’t work.
> 
> Turnout was shockingly low, and in fact there were scores of anti-regime demonstrations. Speeches by regime supporters were interrupted, and women brandished hijabs in acts of defiance. A fiasco for the regime.



rest of article is at the link


----------



## Lumber

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/25/middleeast/saudi-arabia-intercepts-missile/index.html

So many questions! 

1. What are the Saudis intercepting these incoming missiles with?

2. Where are Yemeni rebels getting these? 

3. If these are rebels attacks, why is the Yemeni defence ministry claiming that the "operation was successful"? Sounds like complicitness.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Lumber said:
			
		

> https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/25/middleeast/saudi-arabia-intercepts-missile/index.html
> 
> So many questions!
> 
> 1. What are the Saudis intercepting these incoming missiles with?
> 
> 2. Where are Yemeni rebels getting these?
> 
> 3. If these are rebels attacks, why is the Yemeni defence ministry claiming that the "operation was successful"? Sounds like complicitness.



Some answers:

1. Patriots (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot)
2. Likely Iran (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkan-2)
3. According to your link the ministry of defence is controlled by the rebels: 


> according to Yemen's Houthi-controlled Defense Ministry.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Saudis use the Patriot missile.In recent news the Russians helped the regime out with nuclear program.


----------



## a_majoor

While the article itself is somewhat overblown, the events being described are happening. I don't think an open and formal alliance like they predict will ever happen, but certainly there has already been many signs of quiet cooperation between the Sunni Kingdoms and Israel, all centred on the idea of isolating Iran and preventing the rise of a Shiite regional hegemony.

https://tsionizm.com/analysis/2019/02/15/as-the-jewish-state-and-the-guardians-of-islams-holy-places-draw-closer-the-fate-of-the-world-hangs-in-the-balance/

The fly in the ointment is described near the end of the article, where the larger circles of influence are being drawn. How far the various players are willing to be drawn into the game is open to question (at some point, it may just be preferable to cut the losses and walk away), but an overly aggressive move to support one side or the other could trigger a cascade of unfortunate effects. 

An informal Israeli-Sunni alliance will certainly be a game changer, regardless of how it happened, and will make for interesting events in the next few years.


----------



## Good2Golf

A very interesting piece, Thuc, thanks.  The Arab-Persian relationship (aka Sunni v Shiite) has always been an interesting one — most directly embodied via the Iran-Iraq war in the late-80s, and more recently by proxy in both Yemen and Syria.

It will indeed be interesting to see how these talks develop.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar

Looks like I was wrong. I was sure Iran would never give up the evidence and admit fault.

Maybe they realized how much of an asshole it made them look on the world stage. Or maybe they're setting up for another nuclear deal - give them money not to develop world ending bombs kind of thing. 

Personally I think the time for negotiations with Iran is coming to a close and the west needs to have a one way conversation with their government or their military.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> - *give them money *not to develop world ending bombs kind of thing.



For the sake of clarity, Iran was never given any money.  Rather they were permitted to access *their* money that had been denied them as part of the sanctions regime



> Personally I think the time for negotiations with Iran is coming to a close and the west needs to have a one way conversation with their government or their military.



While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I just wonder how that conversation would manifest itself without significant collateral damage to civilians, infrastructure, institutions, and foreign policy norms and values.  :dunno:


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity, Iran was never given any money.  Rather they were permitted to access *their* money that had been denied them as part of the sanctions regime.


There you go, being all facty and stuff - how's the meme narrative going to get amplified _that_ way?


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> There you go, being all facty and stuff - how's the meme narrative going to get amplified _that_ way?


Ya, he does that.  rly:   Probably reads.... and... and _thinks!_

*Maybe* even refrains from posting when he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Madness.   :


/preachy sarcasm


----------



## tomahawk6

Here are images of cash given to Iran by Obama. Accept the fact or be a deniar your choice.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+us+cash+to+iran&id=E8290E83016C96B71CBA8AEBDAB2FB1BC7D18CA9&FORM=IQFRBA

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html


----------



## brihard

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here are images of cash given to Iran by Obama. Accept the fact or be a deniar your choice.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+us+cash+to+iran&id=E8290E83016C96B71CBA8AEBDAB2FB1BC7D18CA9&FORM=IQFRBA
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html



...Yes, as PPCLI Guy said, Iran was given back a portion of money that was legally theirs in the first place and that America has held for nearly 40 years in an interest bearing account. Iran had essentially put a down payment on various foreign military saless (e.g., F-14s) which purchases were scuttled by the Revolution in ‘79. That cash belonged to Iran, they never got what they paid for. America and Iran  voluntarily agreed to a process to mediate, arbitrate, and settle all outstanding claims.The cash transfers were part of a settlement in lieu of what likely would have been a much larger tribunal awarded payment following an arbitrated decision.

So yes, America returned some money to Iran. Yes it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths (including mine). But America is a signatory to a lot of international treaties, conventions, and laws, and some of these bind it to certain tribunal or court processes to resolve disputes. In this case, American specifically, deliberately, and willingly entered into a bilateral agreement with post-Revolution Iran with the exact intent of dealing with exactly this question and others.

If you want to get acquainted with the facts on this one, this is a good read: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/10/03/the-united-states-iran-and-1-7-billion-sorting-out-the-details/


----------



## brihard

Mods- just a thought, maybe time to revive the Iran Megathread for Iran discussions of a more general nature or tangential to specific news items?


----------



## Jarnhamar

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity, Iran was never given any money.  Rather they were permitted to access *their* money that had been denied them as part of the sanctions regime



Absolutely. It's their money so they should be entitled to it and it probably should have never been held from them in the first place. 
I wonder if the US has an ethical leg to stand on withholding that money considering Iran's involvement funding terrorism and threatening the world with their nuclear program. Was it a form of self-preservation? If I owed someone money and they publicly chanted they wanted to kill me I probably wouldn't be in a hurry to give it to them either. 



> While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I just wonder how that conversation would manifest itself without significant collateral damage to civilians, infrastructure, institutions, and foreign policy norms and values.  :dunno:


Unfortunately I think the things you mention would be exactly what needs to be targeted and destroyed to really bring Iran to heel. Not specifically targeting civilians but not really caring if they get in the way. Take out infrastructure and the amenities they need to live to the point where the civilian population realizes the US/West has had enough and doesn't care about the veneer of civility and are going to crush the country. Incite the civilian population to remove and change their government before the US/West does.
There is of course the threat of making 81 million terrorists in Iran but that never happened in Japan or Germany.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I think the things you mention would be exactly what needs to be targeted and destroyed to really bring Iran to heel. Not specifically targeting civilians but not really caring if they get in the way. Take out infrastructure and the amenities they need to live to the point where the civilian population realizes the US/West has had enough and doesn't care about the veneer of civility and are going to crush the country. Incite the civilian population to remove and change their government before the US/West does.
> There is of course the threat of making 81 million terrorists in Iran but that never happened in Japan *or Germany*.



It did the first time. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles crushed Germany economically, led to great resentment in their population, and basically set the stage for the rise of the Third Reich 15 years later.

Sure we could make living in Iran suck so much that they overthrow their government again, but the next one would probably be little improved from our standpoint, and popular sentiment against the US would simply have been hardened.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think there's some pretty big differences with the Versailles Treaty. By all accounts it was handled poorly. Crazy reparations payments, allied occupation (Iraq anyone?), cede overseas colonies. The big crux being Germany had to accept all the blame for the war and make themselves poor paying off other nations.  Everyone wanted some of the pie.

When you look at Japan we dropped the sun on them, twice, killing 130,000 - 230,000 people in second seconds with countless more from radiation and the after math. They're one of our biggest allies and I believe a pretty solid society now.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity, Iran was never given any money.  Rather they were permitted to access *their* money that had been denied them as part of the sanctions regime.



More detail from FactCheck.org (01 Mar 2019): 



> First of all, former President Barack Obama didn’t give “150 billion in cash” to Iran.
> 
> The nuclear agreement included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, so Obama didn’t carry out any part of it on his own. The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program.
> 
> Secondly, $150 billion is a high-end estimate of the total that was freed up after some sanctions were lifted. U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in “usable liquid assets,” according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence.



Link. 

More info from link contained in above article: 



> As part of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Obama agreed in 2015 to suspend or waive some international sanctions, including lifting a freeze on Iranian assets. Sanctions experts told us Trump’s comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of those frozen assets.
> 
> “These assets belonged to Iran but they were frozen in international financial institutions,” explained Nader Habibi, a professor of economics at Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies. “The United States did not give any money to Iran. It simply allowed Iran to transfer its money from other countries to its own banks and domestic institutions. The money became available for Iran to spend.”
> 
> “The U.S. is not holding these assets,” Michael Malloy, professor of law at the University of the Pacific and an expert on economic sanctions, told us over the phone. “They are held by the people who were involved in transactions with Iran. The economic sanctions the U.S. and other countries imposed froze the assets in place. But they are still held by banks and commercial companies and other commercial actors who had them in the first place.”



Link


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here are images of cash given to Iran by Obama. Accept the fact or be a deniar your choice.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+us+cash+to+iran&id=E8290E83016C96B71CBA8AEBDAB2FB1BC7D18CA9&FORM=IQFRBA
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html



The LA Times article quotes the money included liabilities for settlements from the US to Iran over several decades.  Could a part of that finally be the $61.8M settlement the US agreed with Iran in 1996  for the death of the 290 passengers and crew of Iran Air 655?

Regards
G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

The pallets of cash given to Iran was typical of Obama and his policy of appeasement. Why not write a check for whatever amount ? Cash payment as everyone knows leaves no paper trail. Although images of the transfer did leak out. :


----------



## PPCLI Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The pallets of cash given to Iran was typical of Obama and his policy of appeasement. Why not write a check for whatever amount ? Cash payment as everyone knows leaves no paper trail. Although images of the transfer did leak out. :



Did you even read the very article you posted to prove your point?



> Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement late Tuesday that the cash payments were necessary because of the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,” which isolated Iran from the international finance system.


----------



## brihard

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The pallets of cash given to Iran was typical of Obama and his policy of appeasement. Why not write a check for whatever amount ? Cash payment as everyone knows leaves no paper trail. Although images of the transfer did leak out. :



Ample information about what actually happened has already been offered in this thread- some of it literally by yourself in a link you probably stopped reading after the first paragraph.. At this point, remaining uninformed about the events that actually transpired and why is a conscious choice. You are entitled to your own opinion, but no amount of hating Obama’s approach to Iran entitles you to your own set of facts.


----------



## tomahawk6

Me read what I post ? Color me shocked.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm not sure I would "take a Cheque" from a country that had been trying to cripple me financially......to quote a pinball term, "cash on the glass" only.


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I would "take a Cheque" from a country that had been trying to cripple me financially......to quote a pinball term, "cash on the glass" only.



From Iran’s standpoint, probably equal parts a matter of principle (getting their money back) and a matter of necessity. And, in fairness, circa 2015 at least showed some modest potential as a period of detente between the US and Iran. If there was a cool bil and a half for them at the same, so much the better. It was, after all, their money in the first place... And not like the US was going to let them apply the credit against new F-35s instead of the F-14s


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Me read what I post ? Color me shocked.



Well you did flavour it as an anti-Obama thing, when in fact the basis of some of the elements of the payments goes back to Reagan, so they encompass Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and at least Obama, and possibly even Trump.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well you did flavour it as an anti-Obama thing, when in fact the basis of some of the elements of the payments goes back to Reagan, so they encompass Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and at least Obama, and possibly even Trump.


First PPCLI Guy with the facts, and now you with the nuance/shades of grey/complexity -- c'mon, now, get with the meme amplification program!  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran might need some sanctions relief so they can pay the families of those people onboard the aircraft. The US had to do that after the USN had shot down an Iranian airliner.



I'm still kind of curios about the intel that President Trump got in the first place that launched this shit show.


----------



## tomahawk6

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm still kind of curios about the intel that President Trump got in the first place that launched this crap show.



This is now open source. A special operations team had followed the Quds Force convoy to laze the target vehicle. The Iranians suspect that the itinerary was leaked so they are said to be looking for a mole. The leak could also be on the Iraqi side, but my money is on his cell phone being the source because the after action photos I saw was the cell phone had been in use as it looked to be a flip phone. 

the photos were on fox news. The images of the burning bodies were blurred. DEFINITELY NSFW.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-special-operations-forces-soleimani-strike-aftermath-photos


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... A special operations team had followed the Quds Force convoy to laze the target vehicle. The Iranians suspect that the itinerary was leaked so they are said to be looking for a mole ...


... with a bit of help from Israel if you believe NBC News ...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/airport-informants-overhead-drones-how-u-s-killed-soleimani-n1113726


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bold strategy, Cotton (links to IRN media) ...


> Iran's Judiciary Chief Seyed Ebrahim Rayeesi said Iran will file a complaint at international courts against US President Donald Trump for violating all international laws by ordering assassination of IRGC Qods Force Commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.
> 
> "This issue will certainly be pursued at the Human Rights Headquarters in cooperation with the foreign ministry and other bodies and we should make the US president account for his deeds as the prime suspect and he should face complaint," Rayeesi said, addressing the judiciary officials in Tehran on Monday.
> 
> "The complaint will be filed as he stands in power as the US president and after that, and this issue will be pursued and we will not leave him alone and he should be stand at an international tribunal," he added.
> 
> General Soleimani was martyred in a targeted assassination attack by the US drones at Baghdad International Airport early on January 3.
> 
> The airstrike also martyred Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), or Hashad al-Shaabi. The two were martyred in an American airstrike that targeted their vehicle on the road to the airport.
> 
> Five Iranian and five Iraqi militaries were martyred by missiles fired by the US drone at Baghdad International Airport.
> 
> Trump has said that he ordered a precision strike to "terminate" the Iranian commander.
> 
> The attack came amid tensions that started by the US attack on PMF units that killed 28 Iraqi popular forces. A day later, Iraqi people attacked the US embassy in Baghdad ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

> started by the US attack on PMF units that killed 28 Iraqi popular forces. A day later, Iraqi people attacked the US embassy in Baghdad ...



The US attack on the PMF outpost was in retaliation for a PMF rocket attack that killed a US contractor late December I believe.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said Qassem Soleimani was killed as part of a broader strategy of deterring challenges by U.S. foes that also applies to China and Russia, further diluting the assertion that the top Iranian general was struck because he was plotting imminent attacks on U.S. targets.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-pompeo-soleimani/pompeo-says-soleimani-killing-part-of-new-strategy-to-deter-u-s-foes-idUSKBN1ZC2I3


----------



## Retired AF Guy

From the JPost: IRGC commander gunned down as leaving his home.



> Iranian commander gunned down in front of his own home
> 
> Abdolhossein Mojaddami was gunned down by two gunmen on a motorcycle.
> 
> By JERUSALEM POST STAFF   JANUARY 22, 2020 16:17
> 
> Iranian Basij forces commander Abdolhossein Mojaddami was gunned down in front of his own home on Wednesday in the Khuzestan province of Iran, news agency IRNA reported.
> The Basij forces, one of the five forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), are often used to suppress protests and demonstrations in the Islamic Republic.
> He was killed by two men who wore masks and were riding a motorcycle, Iranian media reported.
> Iranian security forces are investigating the matter.
> 
> The killing could possibly signal that the regime is unable to contain widespread discontent among the Iranian public. Mojaddami's murder follows the assassination of IRGC Quds Force commander Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani earlier this month by US special forces.



 Link


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More info on the killing of Basij commander. Apparently he was an associate of recently slain Qassem Soleimani. 



> Masked gunmen assassinate Basij commander in south-west Iran
> 
> January 22, 2020 at 12:29 pm | Published in: Iran, Middle East, News
> 
> Earlier today, masked gunmen assassinated a local commander of the Basij paramilitary security forces in Iran’s southwestern Khuzestan province in front of his house. Abdolhosein Mojaddami was shot dead by two unknown persons who were riding a motorcycle according to the official IRNA news agency.
> 
> Mojaddami, who headed the local Basij force in the town of Darkhoein, was said to be an associate of the recently slain top general Qassem Soleimani. The Basij is a volunteer organisation operating under the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and is used for internal security and other tasks such as clamping down against dissent.
> 
> A senior Basij militia commander was assassinated by unknown parties in the city of Shadegan in Iran's Khuzestan Province. pic.twitter.com/GgKRLVMtsy
> 
> — Evan Kohlmann (@IntelTweet) January 22, 2020
> 
> According to Iranian media, no one has yet claimed responsibility for the assassination nor has a motive been established. There is however speculation that terrorist organisations such as the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA), which has conducted terrorist attacks in the past such as the 2018 attack on a military parade in the same region and whom the Iranian government accuses of receiving foreign support, may be behind the attack.



Link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is now open source. A special operations team had followed the Quds Force convoy to laze the target vehicle. The Iranians suspect that the itinerary was leaked so they are said to be looking for a mole. The leak could also be on the Iraqi side, but my money is on his cell phone being the source because the after action photos I saw was the cell phone had been in use as it looked to be a flip phone.



Start a leak that it was information obtained from a Senior Qud member, hopefully they start to eat their own. the British did this to good effect in the Malay Campaign, with CT's killing each other off to eliminate moles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

South Korea sending Forces to the Straits due to ship being seized by Iran https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...174sfH0kX38T2ZezYvNxPb50J6H2vizXLSMSQxVIJr_Ak


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Start a leak that it was information obtained from a Senior Qud member, hopefully they start to eat their own. the British did this to good effect in the Malay Campaign, with CT's killing each other off to eliminate moles.


A similar approach worked in NI with the various paramilitary organizaitons there. I credit the intelligence agencies for saving lives, during one particular tour, because the bad guys were busy hammering each other


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually this ship was newer than our AOR`s 








						Iran's Largest Navy Ship Sinks After Fire in Gulf of Oman
					

DUBAI, June 2 (Reuters) – Iran’s largest navy ship the Kharg sank on Wednesday after catching fire in the Gulf of Oman, but the crew were safely rescued, Iranian media reported. No...




					gcaptain.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some footage of a drone boat attack on a Saudi frigate, I suspect the angle of the attack was considered to least defended arc with the shortest time for engagement?









						Houthi ‘drone boat’ now believed to have attacked Saudi warship, not suicide bomber
					

The Jan 30 attack on a Saudi frigate in the Red Sea was carried out by a Houthi remote control ‘drone boat,’ and not a suicide bomber as first reports




					sofrep.com


----------



## MilEME09

Iran attacks Israeli ship with explosive drones, Blinken says; US response forthcoming
					

On Sunday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken blamed Iran for a Friday drone attack on the Israeli-owned oil tanker Mercer Street, which resulted in the




					americanmilitarynews.com
				




Iranian Suicide drones believed to be behind latest attack on tanker ships.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Suicide drones against unarmed or lightly armed ships are the way of the future for the foreseeable future, no need for Martyrs or to keep a stock of virgins.


----------



## FJAG

Colin Parkinson said:


> Suicide drones against unarmed or lightly armed ships are the way of the future for the foreseeable future, no need for Martyrs or to keep a stock of virgins.


That said a speedboat carries a significantly greater explosive charge than most terrorist available drones. Although I wouldn't put it past anyone to drone-ify an airplane and in fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done by now.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Drone can be launched from anywhere, speedboat, land, plane or that innocent looking Dhow on the horizon.


----------



## MilEME09

Israel says 'ready to attack Iran; take action now' after Israeli ship attacked
					

Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Thursday that Israel is "ready to attack Iran" and called on other nations to take action with Israel. Gantz




					americanmilitarynews.com
				




Israel is not known for bluffing, you can bet your bacon in less then 10 weeks a strike in Iran will occur. Israel will not let Iran be able to make a nuclear weapon.


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Israel says 'ready to attack Iran; take action now' after Israeli ship attacked
> 
> 
> Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Thursday that Israel is "ready to attack Iran" and called on other nations to take action with Israel. Gantz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanmilitarynews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not known for bluffing, you can bet your bacon in less then 10 weeks a strike in Iran will occur. Israel will not let Iran be able to make a nuclear weapon.


Agreed.  Or something cyber.  But Israel walks the walk when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke capability.  Lucky to have them


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Agreed.  Or something cyber.  But Israel walks the walk when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuke capability.  Lucky to have them


I recall when Israel destroyed a reactor - IIRC - in Iraq. The world was aghast but Israel basically said "EFF YOU" to everyone. Gotta love them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently the new Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas, capsized in the dry dock.









						Naval Post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the
					

Naval Post shared a post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the Naval Library App to find out...




					www.instagram.com


----------



## YZT580

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently the new Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas, capsized in the dry dock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the
> 
> 
> Naval Post shared a post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the Naval Library App to find out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.instagram.com


strange accident.  appears as though they were re-floating her.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently the new Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas, capsized in the dry dock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the
> 
> 
> Naval Post shared a post on Instagram: "Iranian Navy's Moudge Class frigate, Talayieh, which was still under construction in Bandar Abbas,  capsized in the dry dock (Dec.6) One person is reportedly killed in the accident.  #iraniannavy #talayieh  ⚓⚓⚓ Check out the Naval Library App to find out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.instagram.com



Bloody Jonahs, the lot of 'em 

Iran's Newest Warship Has Fallen On Its Side In A Dry Dock (Updated)​
The significance of _Kharg_ to the Iranian Navy had prompted speculation that the ship might have been sabotaged, potentially by Israel. Iran has suffered a string of curious fires, including some at port facilities, as well as explosions at various important sites in the country, such as ones linked to the country's controversial nuclear program, in recent years. Reports at the time indicated that Israel, or agents working on its behalf, carried out at least some of those attacks, possibly in coordination with the United States. Since at least 2019, Israel and Iran have been conducting a shadow war against each other's commercial and military vessels, as well. 










						Iran's Newest Warship Has Fallen On Its Side In A Dry Dock (Updated)
					

An Iranian corvette under construction in Bandar Abbas had a major accident, video and satellite imagery confirm.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mossad stole my slippers!! My guess is corruption and basic failure to plan and to conduct things safely lead to these events and everything is blamed on the Israelis rather than on someone important in the IRG.


----------



## MilEME09

Breaking: Alleged IDF Strike Against Port of Latakia in Syria
					

Breaking news coming out of Syria as the Syrian Arab Army has once again accused Israel of conducting strikes against their port city in Latakia.




					funker530.com
				




Israel is being blamed for a strike in Syria against warehouses storing Iranian munitions.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> Mossad stole my slippers!! My guess is corruption and basic failure to plan and to conduct things safely lead to these events and everything is blamed on the Israelis rather than on someone important in the IRG.


Yes but if you're Israel you do the equivalent of shrugging your shoulders and asking "Who? Me? no not at all"


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:


> Breaking: Alleged IDF Strike Against Port of Latakia in Syria
> 
> 
> Breaking news coming out of Syria as the Syrian Arab Army has once again accused Israel of conducting strikes against their port city in Latakia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funker530.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is being blamed for a strike in Syria against warehouses storing Iranian munitions.


 What is the old saying never attribute to malice which can be explained by stupidity.


----------



## armrdsoul77

Assassin Dolphin Hamas Says It Caught Continues Tradition Of Wild Claims About Israel’s Animal Spies


----------



## MilEME09

Iran has reportedly launched 6 ballistic missile ls at Erbil


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502781851714396167


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Iran has reportedly launched 6 ballistic missile ls at Erbil
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502781851714396167


----------



## GR66

MilEME09 said:


> Iran has reportedly launched 6 ballistic missile ls at Erbil
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502781851714396167


Original picture from the post is supposedly from a past Turkish strike.  Seen a few reports on Twitter but nothing yet on mainstream media.

Edit:  Original reports on Twitter were saying multiple ballistic missile strikes launched from Iran, but Alabariya is reporting that it was Grad missiles which would make it an attack by local forces.


----------



## MilEME09

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502788012576546821


----------



## McG

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502773040429608962Someone think they can exploit Ukraine as a distraction to hit at the US?


----------



## MilEME09

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502844800034217984


----------



## HiTechComms

MilEME09 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502844800034217984


Well shit.. The world going to shit very quickly. 

Historic rhyme..
After every pandemic there is a war is really starting to look like a bloody prophecy about to come true.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502844800034217984



Let's hope the Iranians don't shoot down another UKR airliner:









						Operation Martyr Soleimani - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> Let's hope the Iranians don't shoot down another UKR airliner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Martyr Soleimani - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Well this is the second time Iran has done this, one would hope the US lays the smack down on them to show this  won't be tolerated


----------



## dapaterson

Let's hope the Americans don't shoot down another Iranian airliner.









						Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Well this is the second time Iran has done this, one would hope the US lays the smack down on them to show this  won't be tolerated



Property damage only, maybe tolerated.  But if anyone was killed, could be bad news for another Iranian general.


----------



## Altair

HiTechComms said:


> Well shit.. The world going to shit very quickly.
> 
> Historic rhyme..
> After every pandemic there is a war is really starting to look like a bloody prophecy about to come true.


I like 1918, mixed things up. War then pandemic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not with this Bumbler in Chief I suspect.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

wrong thread


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Realized this list of tactical signs is not correct


----------



## Zipperhead99

While this occurred in Las Vegas, it is related to Iran and bloody bizarre so I had to share it!









						Woman stabs man during sex as revenge for Iranian Gen. Soleimani killing
					

In retaliation for the death of Iranian general Qasem Solemani, a woman allegedly stabbed a man earlier this month while engaging in sexual activity after




					americanmilitarynews.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't stick it in crazy....

As she is charged with burglary as well. I suspect she is coming up with some weird excuse, or was high at the time.


----------



## MilEME09

Looks like high price of everything is fueling anti government protests in Iran.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525583837266432000


----------



## Spencer100

I guess there are mass protests and riots in Iran right now.  



			https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/IranProtests?src=hashtag_click
		


(I hate twitter)

Plus reports of internet outages to information getting out.


----------



## Spencer100

interesting.......some of leadership looking for a plan B.  And bolt hole.



			Iran would be negotiating political asylum with Venezuela in the event of an eventual loss of power, according to the media
		


I don't know how to take this.  If true things are much worse than thought.  or is this just disinformation  to help along the fall of the government.


----------

