Iran News and Discussions
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
More on Iranian naval assymetric warfare in the Gulf.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/temp ... p?CID=2548
PolicyWatch #1179
Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006
For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Revolutionary Naval Warfare
During the Iran-Iraq War, the armed forces of Iran—particularly the Revolutionary Guards (or Pasdaran)—developed a war-fighting doctrine in accord with the country’s revolutionary ideology. Based on Shiite religious concepts, the doctrine reflects Iran’s Alavi and Ashurai heritage. It draws inspiration from Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammad), who chose to avoid confrontation when challenged by Arab rulers of his time, and waited for twenty-four years before assuming the caliphate, as well as from the devotion of his son Hussein, who faced a superior enemy and died in battle on the plains of Karbala on the tenth day of Muharram in the year 680 (Ashura).
Revolutionary Shiite values such as stoic endurance and devotion to the cause are granted equal, if not superior, status to the traditional military principles of mission accomplishment and the achievement of a military objective. According to this doctrine, the mere act of fighting, exerting maximum effort, and fulfilling one’s religious (and national) duty to the fullest is an end in itself. The result or outcome is of secondary importance. For adherents, martyrdom is a welcome prospect. A readiness to die, however, is not considered a substitute for lethality and effectiveness. On the contrary, the Iranian concept of Alavi/Ashurai warfare relies not just on spiritual commitment, but also on high-tech weaponry and innovative tactics—a combination employed to great effect on the ground in southern Lebanon by Iran’s protege, the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, in its war with Israel this summer.
The most prominent expression of this doctrine was a series of naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988. These took place during the final phases of the Iran-Iraq War, when hopelessly outclassed Iranian forces battled U.S. naval units in the Persian Gulf. Iran incurred heavy losses in the process. The experience taught Iran that large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft. It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric naval warfare.
Naval Swarming Tactics
Swarming tactics are not new; they have been practiced by land armies for thousands of years. Such tactics require light, mobile forces with substantial striking power, capable of rapidly concentrating to attack an enemy from multiple directions and then rapidly dispersing.
Iranian naval swarming tactics focus on surprising and isolating the enemy’s forces and preventing their reinforcement or resupply, thereby shattering the enemy’s morale and will to fight. Iran has practiced both mass and dispersed swarming tactics. The former employs mass formations of hundreds of lightly armed and agile small boats that set off from different bases, then converge from different directions to attack a target or group of targets. The latter uses a small number of highly agile missile or torpedo attack craft that set off on their own, from geographically dispersed and concealed locations, and then converge to attack a single target or set of targets (such as a tanker convoy). The dispersed swarming tactic is much more difficult to detect and repel because the attacker never operates in mass formations.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Pasdaran navy used mass swarming tactics; as a result, its forces proved vulnerable to attack by U.S. naval and air power. Because of this, it is unlikely that such tactics would be used for anything but diversionary attacks in the future. In today’s Iranian naval forces, mass swarming tactics have largely given way to dispersed swarming.
Dispersed swarming tactics are most successful when attackers can elude detection through concealment and mobility, employ stand-off firepower, and use superior situational awareness (intelligence), enabling them to find and engage the enemy first. This accounts for a number of trends in Iranian naval force development in the past two decades. The first is the acquisition and development of small, fast weapons platforms—particularly lightly armed small boats and missile-armed fast-attack craft; extended- and long-range shore- and sea-based antiship missiles; midget and diesel attack submarines (for intelligence gathering, covert mine laying, naval special warfare, and conventional combat operations); low-signature reconnaissance and combat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); and the adaptation of the Shahab-3 medium-range surface-to-surface missile armed with a cluster warhead reportedly carrying 1,400 bomblets, for use against enemy naval bases and carrier battle groups.
Iran has also sought to improve its ability to achieve surprise by employing low-observable technologies (such as radar-absorbent paints), strict communications discipline, stringent emissions control measures, passively or autonomously guided weapons systems (such as the Kowsar series of television-guided antiship missiles), and sophisticated command-and-control arrangements. To support its naval swarm tactics, Iran has encouraged decentralized decisionmaking and initiative, as well as autonomy and self-sufficiency among naval combat elements.
Wartime Operations
In wartime, Iranian naval forces would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz and destroy enemy forces bottled up in the Persian Gulf; therefore speed and surprise would be key. Iranian naval forces would seek to identify and attack the enemy’s centers of gravity as quickly as possible and inflict maximum losses before contact with subordinate units were lost as a result of enemy counterattacks. Geography is Iran’s ally. Because of the proximity of major shipping routes to the country’s largely mountainous 2,000-kilometer coastline, Iranian naval elements can sortie from their bases and attack enemy ships with little advance warning. Meanwhile, shore-based antiship missiles can engage targets almost anywhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. To achieve the latter capability, and to improve the survivability of its shore-based missile force, Iran has devoted significant efforts to extending the range of locally produced variants of a number of Chinese shore-based antiship missiles such as the HY-2 Silkworm and the C-802 (from 50 to 300 kilometers and from 120 to 170 kilometers, respectively). It has also introduced the use of helicopter-borne long-range antiship missiles.
To ensure that it can achieve surprise in the event of a crisis or war, Iran’s naval forces keep U.S. warships in the region under close visual, acoustic, and radar observation. The Iranian navy commander—Rear Adm. Sajad Kouchaki, one of the architects of the country’s naval doctrine—recently claimed that Iranian submarines continually monitor U.S. naval movements, frequently at close range, and have even passed underneath American aircraft carriers and other warships undetected. Iranian UAVs also frequently shadow U.S. carrier battle groups in the area.
Conclusion
Current Iranian naval deployments are aimed at deterring an American attack and—in the event of hostilities—entrapping and destroying U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, at which time U.S. regional bases would be targeted with rocket and missile strikes as well. Iranian naval forces would conduct simultaneous close-in and stand-off attacks, relying on swarming tactics developed and refined during the Iran-Iraq War and highlighted in recent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. The performance of Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, who used similar tactics against much larger and more powerful Israeli ground forces in southern Lebanon last summer, provides some insight into what the U.S. Navy should expect in the event of a confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf.
Fariborz Haghshenass is an expert on the Iranian military.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/temp ... p?CID=2548
PolicyWatch #1179
Iran's Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare
By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006
For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Revolutionary Naval Warfare
During the Iran-Iraq War, the armed forces of Iran—particularly the Revolutionary Guards (or Pasdaran)—developed a war-fighting doctrine in accord with the country’s revolutionary ideology. Based on Shiite religious concepts, the doctrine reflects Iran’s Alavi and Ashurai heritage. It draws inspiration from Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammad), who chose to avoid confrontation when challenged by Arab rulers of his time, and waited for twenty-four years before assuming the caliphate, as well as from the devotion of his son Hussein, who faced a superior enemy and died in battle on the plains of Karbala on the tenth day of Muharram in the year 680 (Ashura).
Revolutionary Shiite values such as stoic endurance and devotion to the cause are granted equal, if not superior, status to the traditional military principles of mission accomplishment and the achievement of a military objective. According to this doctrine, the mere act of fighting, exerting maximum effort, and fulfilling one’s religious (and national) duty to the fullest is an end in itself. The result or outcome is of secondary importance. For adherents, martyrdom is a welcome prospect. A readiness to die, however, is not considered a substitute for lethality and effectiveness. On the contrary, the Iranian concept of Alavi/Ashurai warfare relies not just on spiritual commitment, but also on high-tech weaponry and innovative tactics—a combination employed to great effect on the ground in southern Lebanon by Iran’s protege, the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, in its war with Israel this summer.
The most prominent expression of this doctrine was a series of naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988. These took place during the final phases of the Iran-Iraq War, when hopelessly outclassed Iranian forces battled U.S. naval units in the Persian Gulf. Iran incurred heavy losses in the process. The experience taught Iran that large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft. It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric naval warfare.
Naval Swarming Tactics
Swarming tactics are not new; they have been practiced by land armies for thousands of years. Such tactics require light, mobile forces with substantial striking power, capable of rapidly concentrating to attack an enemy from multiple directions and then rapidly dispersing.
Iranian naval swarming tactics focus on surprising and isolating the enemy’s forces and preventing their reinforcement or resupply, thereby shattering the enemy’s morale and will to fight. Iran has practiced both mass and dispersed swarming tactics. The former employs mass formations of hundreds of lightly armed and agile small boats that set off from different bases, then converge from different directions to attack a target or group of targets. The latter uses a small number of highly agile missile or torpedo attack craft that set off on their own, from geographically dispersed and concealed locations, and then converge to attack a single target or set of targets (such as a tanker convoy). The dispersed swarming tactic is much more difficult to detect and repel because the attacker never operates in mass formations.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Pasdaran navy used mass swarming tactics; as a result, its forces proved vulnerable to attack by U.S. naval and air power. Because of this, it is unlikely that such tactics would be used for anything but diversionary attacks in the future. In today’s Iranian naval forces, mass swarming tactics have largely given way to dispersed swarming.
Dispersed swarming tactics are most successful when attackers can elude detection through concealment and mobility, employ stand-off firepower, and use superior situational awareness (intelligence), enabling them to find and engage the enemy first. This accounts for a number of trends in Iranian naval force development in the past two decades. The first is the acquisition and development of small, fast weapons platforms—particularly lightly armed small boats and missile-armed fast-attack craft; extended- and long-range shore- and sea-based antiship missiles; midget and diesel attack submarines (for intelligence gathering, covert mine laying, naval special warfare, and conventional combat operations); low-signature reconnaissance and combat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); and the adaptation of the Shahab-3 medium-range surface-to-surface missile armed with a cluster warhead reportedly carrying 1,400 bomblets, for use against enemy naval bases and carrier battle groups.
Iran has also sought to improve its ability to achieve surprise by employing low-observable technologies (such as radar-absorbent paints), strict communications discipline, stringent emissions control measures, passively or autonomously guided weapons systems (such as the Kowsar series of television-guided antiship missiles), and sophisticated command-and-control arrangements. To support its naval swarm tactics, Iran has encouraged decentralized decisionmaking and initiative, as well as autonomy and self-sufficiency among naval combat elements.
Wartime Operations
In wartime, Iranian naval forces would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz and destroy enemy forces bottled up in the Persian Gulf; therefore speed and surprise would be key. Iranian naval forces would seek to identify and attack the enemy’s centers of gravity as quickly as possible and inflict maximum losses before contact with subordinate units were lost as a result of enemy counterattacks. Geography is Iran’s ally. Because of the proximity of major shipping routes to the country’s largely mountainous 2,000-kilometer coastline, Iranian naval elements can sortie from their bases and attack enemy ships with little advance warning. Meanwhile, shore-based antiship missiles can engage targets almost anywhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. To achieve the latter capability, and to improve the survivability of its shore-based missile force, Iran has devoted significant efforts to extending the range of locally produced variants of a number of Chinese shore-based antiship missiles such as the HY-2 Silkworm and the C-802 (from 50 to 300 kilometers and from 120 to 170 kilometers, respectively). It has also introduced the use of helicopter-borne long-range antiship missiles.
To ensure that it can achieve surprise in the event of a crisis or war, Iran’s naval forces keep U.S. warships in the region under close visual, acoustic, and radar observation. The Iranian navy commander—Rear Adm. Sajad Kouchaki, one of the architects of the country’s naval doctrine—recently claimed that Iranian submarines continually monitor U.S. naval movements, frequently at close range, and have even passed underneath American aircraft carriers and other warships undetected. Iranian UAVs also frequently shadow U.S. carrier battle groups in the area.
Conclusion
Current Iranian naval deployments are aimed at deterring an American attack and—in the event of hostilities—entrapping and destroying U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, at which time U.S. regional bases would be targeted with rocket and missile strikes as well. Iranian naval forces would conduct simultaneous close-in and stand-off attacks, relying on swarming tactics developed and refined during the Iran-Iraq War and highlighted in recent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. The performance of Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, who used similar tactics against much larger and more powerful Israeli ground forces in southern Lebanon last summer, provides some insight into what the U.S. Navy should expect in the event of a confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf.
Fariborz Haghshenass is an expert on the Iranian military.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Russia says no to war, sanctions on Iran : -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says he will not accept military action or new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
""We should not take any unilateral steps. It is not acceptable to opt for a military scenario,"" President Medvedev said Friday at the Valdai Club, which sees journalists and academics specializing on Russia.
His remarks come as speculation runs high that Israel and the U.S. are drawing up plans to launch a military strike against Iran in a bid to hamper the country's nuclear program.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested last week that should Iran continue with its uranium enrichment program, it could be attacked by Israel.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says a strike on Iran would not be questioned ""We could find one morning that Israel has struck (Iran),"" said the French president, adding that no one would question the legitimacy of such an act of aggression.
The U.S. President George W. Bush and upper echelons in Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Iran with war under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeks nuclear weaponry.
Under the U.S. pressure, the UN Security Council has so far imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, demanding the country to halt its enrichment program.
This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.
The Russian president says Moscow only supports negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program, Reuters reported.
President Medvedev added that the talks between Iran and the West, led by European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana, 'have been quite positive'.
""We should not adopt any additional sanctions now,"" he warned.
Medvedev's remarks followed a Wednesday U.S. Treasury Department announcement that Washington has imposed new unilateral financial sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. envoy to the UN urged members of the Security Council on Thursday to approve the sanctions. Russia's envoy, however, responded that Moscow could decide for itself how to be vigilant about Iranian financial transactions.
A container ship belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines In its latest anti-Iran measure, the Bush administration targeted Iran's main national carrier, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), accusing it of aiding the country's nuclear program.
Iran called the U.S. move counterproductive and similar 'to other baseless U.S. allegations' against Tehran.
Suffering from electricity shortage, Iran has been forced to adopt a rationing program by scheduling power outages - of up to two hours a day - across both urban and rural areas in the country.
In the past decade, Russia has helped Tehran in the construction of a 20,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian city of Bushehr. (Source: Press TV)
Russia's Medvedev: Attack on Iran will endanger entire world
By Adar Primor, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Iran, Mideast
MOSCOW AND SOCHI - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Friday, "We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and military solution to the nuclear crisis," he added.
Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual forum of opinion-makers in Moscow, Medvedev also said, "The world does not need to tighten its sanctions on Iran at this time."
The discussions at Valdai dealt with Russia's international role. In response to a question from Haaretz as to whether the Middle East conference Russia is planning to host in the fall shows involvement similar to that once displayed by the Soviet Union, Medvedev said that Russia is not the heir to the Soviet Union.
Advertisement
"Russia has a completely different value system," he said. "When it proposes a mediation service, its sole intention is to assist in bringing about a peace that both Jews and Arabs will enjoy."
A day before the discussion with Medvedev, the forum's members met with Russia's former president and incumbent prime minister, Vladimir Putin.
Putin said he considers Russia's presence in the Middle East important and that his country intended to use Syrian ports "as it did in the past, but not for defined purposes."
The president's adviser, Oleg Tsatsurin, told Haaretz: "Russia would not take any action that would change the balance of power in the Middle East or harm the excellent relations between Russia and Israel."
""We should not take any unilateral steps. It is not acceptable to opt for a military scenario,"" President Medvedev said Friday at the Valdai Club, which sees journalists and academics specializing on Russia.
His remarks come as speculation runs high that Israel and the U.S. are drawing up plans to launch a military strike against Iran in a bid to hamper the country's nuclear program.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested last week that should Iran continue with its uranium enrichment program, it could be attacked by Israel.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says a strike on Iran would not be questioned ""We could find one morning that Israel has struck (Iran),"" said the French president, adding that no one would question the legitimacy of such an act of aggression.
The U.S. President George W. Bush and upper echelons in Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Iran with war under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeks nuclear weaponry.
Under the U.S. pressure, the UN Security Council has so far imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, demanding the country to halt its enrichment program.
This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.
The Russian president says Moscow only supports negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program, Reuters reported.
President Medvedev added that the talks between Iran and the West, led by European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana, 'have been quite positive'.
""We should not adopt any additional sanctions now,"" he warned.
Medvedev's remarks followed a Wednesday U.S. Treasury Department announcement that Washington has imposed new unilateral financial sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. envoy to the UN urged members of the Security Council on Thursday to approve the sanctions. Russia's envoy, however, responded that Moscow could decide for itself how to be vigilant about Iranian financial transactions.
A container ship belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines In its latest anti-Iran measure, the Bush administration targeted Iran's main national carrier, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), accusing it of aiding the country's nuclear program.
Iran called the U.S. move counterproductive and similar 'to other baseless U.S. allegations' against Tehran.
Suffering from electricity shortage, Iran has been forced to adopt a rationing program by scheduling power outages - of up to two hours a day - across both urban and rural areas in the country.
In the past decade, Russia has helped Tehran in the construction of a 20,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian city of Bushehr. (Source: Press TV)
Russia's Medvedev: Attack on Iran will endanger entire world
By Adar Primor, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Iran, Mideast
MOSCOW AND SOCHI - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Friday, "We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and military solution to the nuclear crisis," he added.
Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual forum of opinion-makers in Moscow, Medvedev also said, "The world does not need to tighten its sanctions on Iran at this time."
The discussions at Valdai dealt with Russia's international role. In response to a question from Haaretz as to whether the Middle East conference Russia is planning to host in the fall shows involvement similar to that once displayed by the Soviet Union, Medvedev said that Russia is not the heir to the Soviet Union.
Advertisement
"Russia has a completely different value system," he said. "When it proposes a mediation service, its sole intention is to assist in bringing about a peace that both Jews and Arabs will enjoy."
A day before the discussion with Medvedev, the forum's members met with Russia's former president and incumbent prime minister, Vladimir Putin.
Putin said he considers Russia's presence in the Middle East important and that his country intended to use Syrian ports "as it did in the past, but not for defined purposes."
The president's adviser, Oleg Tsatsurin, told Haaretz: "Russia would not take any action that would change the balance of power in the Middle East or harm the excellent relations between Russia and Israel."
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Russia: Moscow-Tehran ties don't harm Israel By Adar Primor, Haaretz Correspondent
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared on Friday that ties between Russia and Iran don't pose a threat to Israel, and that Russian decisions in regard to Teheran's leadership are not directed at Israel.
Lavrov's remarks came in response to a question posed by a Haaretz reporter, who asked whether Moscow plans to "play the Iran card" and torpedo Western efforts to impose sanctions on Tehran in efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.
The Russian foreign minister didn't answer the question directly, but did say that Russia's decisions on the issue of Iran are not meant to harm Israel. We have good historic ties with the Iranians. "We send them weapons, but only for defensive purposes ? no weapons that would cause regional instability."
Speaking at the annual Valdai forum which brings world leaders to Moscow to discuss global diplomatic issues, Lavrov added that Russia's stance hasn't changed, and that Iran needs to abide by the guidelines set forth by the United Nations nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency. He added that Russia was receiving positive signals on Iran's compliance with those guidelines.
Lavrov went on to say that Russian representatives have been recently invited to participate in another round of talks on Iran's disputed nuclear program in their capacity as part of the group of six major powers ? the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, Russia, China, U.S. Britain and France, as well as Germany.
Russia is known to support the notion that Iran should not be punished over its nuclear program, and it was clear from Lavrov's remarks that Russia intends to continue supporting the moderate economic sanctions currently in place against Iran.
In regard to the cooperation between Israel and Russia's neighbor Georgia, Lavrov said that the Israeli government froze its weapons shipments to the region two weeks before Georgia attempted to retake the rebel region of South Ossetia, a move that sparked a Russian invasion into Georgia, thus hinting that Israel knew in advance about the attack. The foreign minister expressed his satisfaction, however, over Israel's response, saying that he hoped Israel would not resume arming Georgia.
We saw what the Israeli weapons were ultimately used for, he said, a comment that was viewed by some as a veiled threat aimed at Jerusalem.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared on Friday that ties between Russia and Iran don't pose a threat to Israel, and that Russian decisions in regard to Teheran's leadership are not directed at Israel.
Lavrov's remarks came in response to a question posed by a Haaretz reporter, who asked whether Moscow plans to "play the Iran card" and torpedo Western efforts to impose sanctions on Tehran in efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.
The Russian foreign minister didn't answer the question directly, but did say that Russia's decisions on the issue of Iran are not meant to harm Israel. We have good historic ties with the Iranians. "We send them weapons, but only for defensive purposes ? no weapons that would cause regional instability."
Speaking at the annual Valdai forum which brings world leaders to Moscow to discuss global diplomatic issues, Lavrov added that Russia's stance hasn't changed, and that Iran needs to abide by the guidelines set forth by the United Nations nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency. He added that Russia was receiving positive signals on Iran's compliance with those guidelines.
Lavrov went on to say that Russian representatives have been recently invited to participate in another round of talks on Iran's disputed nuclear program in their capacity as part of the group of six major powers ? the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, Russia, China, U.S. Britain and France, as well as Germany.
Russia is known to support the notion that Iran should not be punished over its nuclear program, and it was clear from Lavrov's remarks that Russia intends to continue supporting the moderate economic sanctions currently in place against Iran.
In regard to the cooperation between Israel and Russia's neighbor Georgia, Lavrov said that the Israeli government froze its weapons shipments to the region two weeks before Georgia attempted to retake the rebel region of South Ossetia, a move that sparked a Russian invasion into Georgia, thus hinting that Israel knew in advance about the attack. The foreign minister expressed his satisfaction, however, over Israel's response, saying that he hoped Israel would not resume arming Georgia.
We saw what the Israeli weapons were ultimately used for, he said, a comment that was viewed by some as a veiled threat aimed at Jerusalem.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Danger from Ira.It appears that Cheney is trying hard to aattck Iran before he and Bush demit office.
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/sep/1155.html
Danger looms for Iran
Stefan Simanowitz argues that if Resolutions 362 and 580 are passed by Congress this week, military conflict with Iran could follow shortly
This week US Congress is set to debate two non-binding resolutions which, if passed, will greatly increase the likelihood of military action against Iran. Resolutions 362 and 580 call on the President to "immediately and dramatically increase economical, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities." They demand "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran and an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran. To achieve such an embargo will require a full naval blockade. Although both resolutions explicitly exclude authorization for military action, it is clear that such a blockade could lead to skirmishs with the Iranian navy. Minor incidents like the one that occurred in the Gulf of Hormuz last January, could in turn trigger a greater military conflagration. The timing of these resolutions has increased speculation that George Bush might authorize military attacks against Iran before the end of his term in office in January or, indeed, before the November elections. Such action would undoubtedly boost to the likelihood of a McCain presidency.
Preparations for a naval blockade are well underway with US massing the largest armada of warships in the Persian Gulf since the 2003. Two aircraft carrier task forces, the Abraham Lincoln and the Peleliu, are already in the Persian Gulf and a third, the Iwo Jima, was dispatched to the Gulf on August 22. The US Theodore Roosevelt and the US Ronald Reagan are reportedly sailing to the Gulf together with French and British warships and carrier groups.
These naval maneuvers in concert with other military, political and strategic measures suggest that military action against Iran is not just a real possibility but an imminent reality. Congress recently authorised an extra $46bn in emergency military funds and most of the 28,500 US 'surge' troops have been deployed in bases and fortified checkpoints along the Iranian frontier. Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been put on the US list of "terrorist organisations" which means that Congress does not even need to be consulted prior to military intervention.
The grounds for military action against Iran have been carefully laid with Iran standing accused of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Despite the reports from 16 intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections finding no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme the accusations do not abate. As with Saddam's alleged WDMs, the onus has been placed on the Iranians to prove that they are innocent of the charges levelled against them since, in the words of Dick Cheney, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
In September 2005, the IAEA board was persuaded by the US to overrule its inspectors and declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The following three years have seen the passing four UN Security Council resolutions against Iran. Although it is likely that Russia and China will veto any attempt at a further resolution authorising military intervention this is unlikely to hinder the US who could launch attacks "in support of" the UN resolutions as was done in 2003.
The UN Resolutions and the steady stream of accusations against Iran in the media have created an impression in the West that the international community is united against Iran, however this is not the case. In July a conference of ministers from 118 nations reaffirmed Iran's right to her nuclear enrichment programme, rejected the any calls for military action and called for all issues to be resolved within the IAEA framework.
Few are under any illusions that a war with Iran would be easy. Iran has three times the population of Iraq and a well-equipped army of over 12 million soliders. Paradoxically it is precisely Iran's strength that makes her more rather than less likely to be targeted. Iran is rapidly becoming a regional superpower and unless checked, the US and her allies fear she will seriously challenge Western influence in the region. No where is this more the case than in Iraq where the overthrow of Saddam Hussein removed one of the bulwarks to Iranian expansionism.
As the sole global superpower, neo-Conservatives in Washington believe that America must seize this moment to secure its position in the Middle East and ensure control of diminishing oil and gas reserves. They argue that it is preferable to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran sooner, whilst coalition forces are in the region, rather than later when Iran has become even stronger. Such an attack, based on the principle of 'anticipatory self defence', would once again demonstrate a total disregard for the precepts of international law and according to a recent Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report "could provoke an extremely violent backlash across the region".
US's massive air power could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear sites and much of her political-military infrastructure. This could be followed by a partial ground war and the encouragement of uprisings by separatist Kurdish and Azeri groups in the north-west. It is likely that the province of Khuzestan would be occupied by the US. This province borders Iraq and is home to 90 percent of Iran's oil. A pretext of providing a buffer against Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq could be used to justify Khuzestan's semi-permanent occupation.
The unpopularity of the Iraq invasion in America has made it very unlikely that a new incumbent, whether McCain or Obama, would want to start his presidency with a war against Iran and therefore the neo-Conservatives are determined to precipitate conflict before the end of the Bush administration.
With just weeks left until the Presidential elections and months before George Bush hands over the keys to the Oval Office, things will have to move quickly. Military forces are poised and politically the path to war has been paved. Resolutions 362 and 580 will be debated by Congress and if passed, an immediate naval blockade will be enforced. The stopping and searching of Iranian ships will inevitably result in an incident between the US navy and the Revolutionary Guard which in turn could be used as a casus belli and trigger military strikes against Iran. Before we know it we could find ourselves in the midst of another brutal, illegal war in the Middle East waged in our name.
About the author: Stefan Simanowitz is a writer and broadcaster. He is Chair of the Westminster Committee on Iran. Neither a campaigning organisation nor an official parliamentary body, the Westminster Committee on Iran aims to provide an independent analysis of the political situation and increase trust and understanding between Tehran and parliamentarians around the world.
...
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/sep/1155.html
Danger looms for Iran
Stefan Simanowitz argues that if Resolutions 362 and 580 are passed by Congress this week, military conflict with Iran could follow shortly
This week US Congress is set to debate two non-binding resolutions which, if passed, will greatly increase the likelihood of military action against Iran. Resolutions 362 and 580 call on the President to "immediately and dramatically increase economical, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities." They demand "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran and an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran. To achieve such an embargo will require a full naval blockade. Although both resolutions explicitly exclude authorization for military action, it is clear that such a blockade could lead to skirmishs with the Iranian navy. Minor incidents like the one that occurred in the Gulf of Hormuz last January, could in turn trigger a greater military conflagration. The timing of these resolutions has increased speculation that George Bush might authorize military attacks against Iran before the end of his term in office in January or, indeed, before the November elections. Such action would undoubtedly boost to the likelihood of a McCain presidency.
Preparations for a naval blockade are well underway with US massing the largest armada of warships in the Persian Gulf since the 2003. Two aircraft carrier task forces, the Abraham Lincoln and the Peleliu, are already in the Persian Gulf and a third, the Iwo Jima, was dispatched to the Gulf on August 22. The US Theodore Roosevelt and the US Ronald Reagan are reportedly sailing to the Gulf together with French and British warships and carrier groups.
These naval maneuvers in concert with other military, political and strategic measures suggest that military action against Iran is not just a real possibility but an imminent reality. Congress recently authorised an extra $46bn in emergency military funds and most of the 28,500 US 'surge' troops have been deployed in bases and fortified checkpoints along the Iranian frontier. Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been put on the US list of "terrorist organisations" which means that Congress does not even need to be consulted prior to military intervention.
The grounds for military action against Iran have been carefully laid with Iran standing accused of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Despite the reports from 16 intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections finding no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme the accusations do not abate. As with Saddam's alleged WDMs, the onus has been placed on the Iranians to prove that they are innocent of the charges levelled against them since, in the words of Dick Cheney, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
In September 2005, the IAEA board was persuaded by the US to overrule its inspectors and declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The following three years have seen the passing four UN Security Council resolutions against Iran. Although it is likely that Russia and China will veto any attempt at a further resolution authorising military intervention this is unlikely to hinder the US who could launch attacks "in support of" the UN resolutions as was done in 2003.
The UN Resolutions and the steady stream of accusations against Iran in the media have created an impression in the West that the international community is united against Iran, however this is not the case. In July a conference of ministers from 118 nations reaffirmed Iran's right to her nuclear enrichment programme, rejected the any calls for military action and called for all issues to be resolved within the IAEA framework.
Few are under any illusions that a war with Iran would be easy. Iran has three times the population of Iraq and a well-equipped army of over 12 million soliders. Paradoxically it is precisely Iran's strength that makes her more rather than less likely to be targeted. Iran is rapidly becoming a regional superpower and unless checked, the US and her allies fear she will seriously challenge Western influence in the region. No where is this more the case than in Iraq where the overthrow of Saddam Hussein removed one of the bulwarks to Iranian expansionism.
As the sole global superpower, neo-Conservatives in Washington believe that America must seize this moment to secure its position in the Middle East and ensure control of diminishing oil and gas reserves. They argue that it is preferable to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran sooner, whilst coalition forces are in the region, rather than later when Iran has become even stronger. Such an attack, based on the principle of 'anticipatory self defence', would once again demonstrate a total disregard for the precepts of international law and according to a recent Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report "could provoke an extremely violent backlash across the region".
US's massive air power could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear sites and much of her political-military infrastructure. This could be followed by a partial ground war and the encouragement of uprisings by separatist Kurdish and Azeri groups in the north-west. It is likely that the province of Khuzestan would be occupied by the US. This province borders Iraq and is home to 90 percent of Iran's oil. A pretext of providing a buffer against Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq could be used to justify Khuzestan's semi-permanent occupation.
The unpopularity of the Iraq invasion in America has made it very unlikely that a new incumbent, whether McCain or Obama, would want to start his presidency with a war against Iran and therefore the neo-Conservatives are determined to precipitate conflict before the end of the Bush administration.
With just weeks left until the Presidential elections and months before George Bush hands over the keys to the Oval Office, things will have to move quickly. Military forces are poised and politically the path to war has been paved. Resolutions 362 and 580 will be debated by Congress and if passed, an immediate naval blockade will be enforced. The stopping and searching of Iranian ships will inevitably result in an incident between the US navy and the Revolutionary Guard which in turn could be used as a casus belli and trigger military strikes against Iran. Before we know it we could find ourselves in the midst of another brutal, illegal war in the Middle East waged in our name.
About the author: Stefan Simanowitz is a writer and broadcaster. He is Chair of the Westminster Committee on Iran. Neither a campaigning organisation nor an official parliamentary body, the Westminster Committee on Iran aims to provide an independent analysis of the political situation and increase trust and understanding between Tehran and parliamentarians around the world.
...
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
U.S. hi-tech bombs for Israel could target Iran
Bush overstates threat posed by a nuclear Iran: Nuclear fear By Ward Wilson September 14, 2008
Strength is often judged by how you carry yourself. Are you cocky and shouting? Or measured and calm? The Bush administration is acting more cocky than calm, not like the leaders of a superpower but like unsure freshmen.
President George W. Bush (and others) argue that Iran is evil (because its leaders support terrorists) and that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it might use them (because they are fanatics, and Islam invites martyrdom). According to the Bush administration, we have to do everything in our power—not excluding a military attack—to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
There are three flaws with this position.
First, nuclear weapons are not that useful. When we had a monopoly on them, it didn't prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe or risking war by cutting off our access to Berlin. They didn't help us win the Korean War or prevent us from losing in Vietnam.
And these failures aren't because we're nice guys and a democracy. Nuclear weapons didn't prevent the Soviets from losing in Afghanistan, either. Nuclear weapons could not prevent the British or Russians from losing their empires.
In the Middle East, nuclear weapons did not prevent Israel from being attacked in 1973. They do not prevent terrorists from attacking Israel day in and day out. The Bush administration fears that a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East. If nuclear weapons confer such enormous power—such as the ability to dominate the Middle East—why haven't they conferred this power on Israel?
Second, leaders rarely self-sacrifice.
Osama bin Laden has never undertaken a suicide bombing. Nor have the heads of any other terrorist organizations that I know of. None of Iran's leaders stepped forward to volunteer for the largely suicidal "human wave" attacks during the Iran-Iraq War.
Whether they believe in Islam, Christianity or some other faith, leaders are mostly focused on getting and maintaining power. They are not eager to demonstrate their holiness by getting killed. Iran's leaders are unlikely to risk an action (such as using nuclear weapons) that might result in their own deaths.
Third, Iran is unlikely to expose its shrines and cities to a catastrophic counterattack.
Iran considers itself the cradle and center of Shiite Islam, one of Islam's two main branches. Many of the holiest Shiite sites are in Iran (at Mashhad, Qom and elsewhere), and about 90 percent of Iranians are Shiite. Keepers of the faith are unlikely to risk doing something (such as using nuclear weapons) that might make people so appalled and angry that they either destroy the country with bombs (conventional or nuclear) or invade, take over and ban the sacred religion.
Iran's leaders support organizations that use terror, it's true. But terrorism is a loser's strategy. People who have real power use that power—they don't kill children and old people with car bombs in markets. It's only those who are powerless, who are unable to win or keep real political influence, who resort to terrorism.
Hannah Arendt, the renowned philosopher who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, made the point that violence is not an extension of political power; it is what you turn to when politics fails. Terrorism is one of the least effective forms of violence. A study based on work done at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs shows that terrorism achieves its goals as little as 7 percent of the time.
Some fear that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon through Iran. But Iranian officials would be highly motivated to prevent that, given that everyone would presume that any bomb that went off in the Middle East came via Tehran—whether it was delivered by a missile or a terrorist—and would respond accordingly.
It makes sense that the Bush administration would be upset about Iran. Its own mistakes have led to a significant increase in Iran's influence and power. By invading Iraq, the United States destroyed Iran's chief military rival, and by installing a Shiite-dominated government there, the Bush administration has increased Iran's real influence in the region.
Threatening a military strike against Iran, however, is a dangerous way of distracting attention from your own mistakes.
The Bush administration is good at inciting fear. But stirring up a false hysteria only gives Iran more prominence than it deserves. Iran is a middling power that sometimes behaves badly. If its leaders do things that are wrong, you take appropriate steps.
Treating a nuclear-armed Iran like the end of the world exaggerates the importance of nuclear weapons and confers on the Iranians just the sort of attention they crave. Let's hope the next administration takes a more measured and mature approach.
Ward Wilson is a scholar living in Trenton, N.J. He writes regularly at www.rethinkingnuclearweapons.org
Bush overstates threat posed by a nuclear Iran: Nuclear fear By Ward Wilson September 14, 2008
Strength is often judged by how you carry yourself. Are you cocky and shouting? Or measured and calm? The Bush administration is acting more cocky than calm, not like the leaders of a superpower but like unsure freshmen.
President George W. Bush (and others) argue that Iran is evil (because its leaders support terrorists) and that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it might use them (because they are fanatics, and Islam invites martyrdom). According to the Bush administration, we have to do everything in our power—not excluding a military attack—to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
There are three flaws with this position.
First, nuclear weapons are not that useful. When we had a monopoly on them, it didn't prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe or risking war by cutting off our access to Berlin. They didn't help us win the Korean War or prevent us from losing in Vietnam.
And these failures aren't because we're nice guys and a democracy. Nuclear weapons didn't prevent the Soviets from losing in Afghanistan, either. Nuclear weapons could not prevent the British or Russians from losing their empires.
In the Middle East, nuclear weapons did not prevent Israel from being attacked in 1973. They do not prevent terrorists from attacking Israel day in and day out. The Bush administration fears that a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East. If nuclear weapons confer such enormous power—such as the ability to dominate the Middle East—why haven't they conferred this power on Israel?
Second, leaders rarely self-sacrifice.
Osama bin Laden has never undertaken a suicide bombing. Nor have the heads of any other terrorist organizations that I know of. None of Iran's leaders stepped forward to volunteer for the largely suicidal "human wave" attacks during the Iran-Iraq War.
Whether they believe in Islam, Christianity or some other faith, leaders are mostly focused on getting and maintaining power. They are not eager to demonstrate their holiness by getting killed. Iran's leaders are unlikely to risk an action (such as using nuclear weapons) that might result in their own deaths.
Third, Iran is unlikely to expose its shrines and cities to a catastrophic counterattack.
Iran considers itself the cradle and center of Shiite Islam, one of Islam's two main branches. Many of the holiest Shiite sites are in Iran (at Mashhad, Qom and elsewhere), and about 90 percent of Iranians are Shiite. Keepers of the faith are unlikely to risk doing something (such as using nuclear weapons) that might make people so appalled and angry that they either destroy the country with bombs (conventional or nuclear) or invade, take over and ban the sacred religion.
Iran's leaders support organizations that use terror, it's true. But terrorism is a loser's strategy. People who have real power use that power—they don't kill children and old people with car bombs in markets. It's only those who are powerless, who are unable to win or keep real political influence, who resort to terrorism.
Hannah Arendt, the renowned philosopher who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, made the point that violence is not an extension of political power; it is what you turn to when politics fails. Terrorism is one of the least effective forms of violence. A study based on work done at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs shows that terrorism achieves its goals as little as 7 percent of the time.
Some fear that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon through Iran. But Iranian officials would be highly motivated to prevent that, given that everyone would presume that any bomb that went off in the Middle East came via Tehran—whether it was delivered by a missile or a terrorist—and would respond accordingly.
It makes sense that the Bush administration would be upset about Iran. Its own mistakes have led to a significant increase in Iran's influence and power. By invading Iraq, the United States destroyed Iran's chief military rival, and by installing a Shiite-dominated government there, the Bush administration has increased Iran's real influence in the region.
Threatening a military strike against Iran, however, is a dangerous way of distracting attention from your own mistakes.
The Bush administration is good at inciting fear. But stirring up a false hysteria only gives Iran more prominence than it deserves. Iran is a middling power that sometimes behaves badly. If its leaders do things that are wrong, you take appropriate steps.
Treating a nuclear-armed Iran like the end of the world exaggerates the importance of nuclear weapons and confers on the Iranians just the sort of attention they crave. Let's hope the next administration takes a more measured and mature approach.
Ward Wilson is a scholar living in Trenton, N.J. He writes regularly at www.rethinkingnuclearweapons.org
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
The War Against Iran That Israel Doesn't Talk About
by Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) According to an Israeli journalist who has published a book abroad, the Jewish State is already engaged in a war with Iran.
For the past two and a half years, says Ronen Bergman, Israel has been fighting a quiet undercover war with the Islamic Republic through computer technology, espionage, selective assassination there, and a little help from our friends.
Military censorship in Israel has prevented the publication of much of his material, according to a review of his book, “The Secret War with Iran,” published Monday in The New York Sun daily newspaper.
But Bergman noted that Iranian work on nuclear technology had been stymied by Israeli operatives long before efforts toward that goal were being reported in the Israeli media.
Moreover, he wrote, a highly-placed Iranian military official defected to the United States in February 2007 and began helping in the war against the Islamic Republic.
Bergman also wrote about the assassination in February 2008 of Imad Mughniyeh, then second-in-command of the Hizbullah terrorist organization.
With international speculation rampant as to the identity of the operatives who carried out the professional hit, Bergman stops just short of laying the blame for the execution at Israel’s doorstep.
Hizbullah still holds the Jewish State responsible, and has vowed revenge. Numerous concrete and immediate terror warnings abound for Israelis abroad at present, particularly due to the holiday season.
Travelers are being warned to take extra precautions and Israelis have been ordered to stay away from the Sinai Peninsula at all costs. Those who have ignored the warnings and have traveled there have been told to leave immediately due to the high risk of being kidnapped by terrorists.
by Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) According to an Israeli journalist who has published a book abroad, the Jewish State is already engaged in a war with Iran.
For the past two and a half years, says Ronen Bergman, Israel has been fighting a quiet undercover war with the Islamic Republic through computer technology, espionage, selective assassination there, and a little help from our friends.
Military censorship in Israel has prevented the publication of much of his material, according to a review of his book, “The Secret War with Iran,” published Monday in The New York Sun daily newspaper.
But Bergman noted that Iranian work on nuclear technology had been stymied by Israeli operatives long before efforts toward that goal were being reported in the Israeli media.
Moreover, he wrote, a highly-placed Iranian military official defected to the United States in February 2007 and began helping in the war against the Islamic Republic.
Bergman also wrote about the assassination in February 2008 of Imad Mughniyeh, then second-in-command of the Hizbullah terrorist organization.
With international speculation rampant as to the identity of the operatives who carried out the professional hit, Bergman stops just short of laying the blame for the execution at Israel’s doorstep.
Hizbullah still holds the Jewish State responsible, and has vowed revenge. Numerous concrete and immediate terror warnings abound for Israelis abroad at present, particularly due to the holiday season.
Travelers are being warned to take extra precautions and Israelis have been ordered to stay away from the Sinai Peninsula at all costs. Those who have ignored the warnings and have traveled there have been told to leave immediately due to the high risk of being kidnapped by terrorists.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Official: Iran "not likely" to have nuclear capabilities by 2010
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 024502.htm
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Assad says ‘Syria will stand with Iran’
Syria says it ‘will stand with Iran’ amid speculations that Damascus may cut ties with Iran as it is engaged in indirect talks with Israel.
“Syria will stand with Iran on all the major strategic issues,” President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Syria’s Channel 10 broadcast on Tuesday.
“Only one situation would distance Syria from Iran, and that is if Tehran sided with Israel, and if America sided with the Arabs,” the Jerusalem Post quoted the Syrian president as saying.
Assad also downplayed the recent indirect talks between Israel and Syria, insisting that the term “negotiations” is just too strong for such talks.
“What’s happening today is not negotiation, but they are called ‘negotiations’ in the media,” the Syrian president told the interviewer.
Assad’s comments come as Israel has recently stepped up efforts to persuade Damascus to cut its ties with Iran.
Recently, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, declared that the main reason that his government began indirect talks with Syria earlier this year was to “bring about a strategic repositioning” in the region by breaking up Damascus’ alliance with Iran.
Syria says it ‘will stand with Iran’ amid speculations that Damascus may cut ties with Iran as it is engaged in indirect talks with Israel.
“Syria will stand with Iran on all the major strategic issues,” President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Syria’s Channel 10 broadcast on Tuesday.
“Only one situation would distance Syria from Iran, and that is if Tehran sided with Israel, and if America sided with the Arabs,” the Jerusalem Post quoted the Syrian president as saying.
Assad also downplayed the recent indirect talks between Israel and Syria, insisting that the term “negotiations” is just too strong for such talks.
“What’s happening today is not negotiation, but they are called ‘negotiations’ in the media,” the Syrian president told the interviewer.
Assad’s comments come as Israel has recently stepped up efforts to persuade Damascus to cut its ties with Iran.
Recently, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, declared that the main reason that his government began indirect talks with Syria earlier this year was to “bring about a strategic repositioning” in the region by breaking up Damascus’ alliance with Iran.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Iran trying to make pals with the US/Israel before Bush begins a naval blockade?
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10246173.html
Naval blockade may lead to war
By Jumana Al Tamimi, Associate Editor
Published: September 19, 2008, 00:18
Dubai: A draft resolution calling for a naval blockade on Iran has been tabled in the US congress, in a move many analysts fear will be, if passed, a prelude to a military confrontation in the Gulf.
Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, have recently made more than one rapprochement gesture towards both the US and Israel to decrease the possibilities of a military conflict in the strategic Gulf region, Iranian analysts said. The possibility of war seems less today than it did a month ago, they added.
Yet, chances of war have not entirely diminished, and daily developments are still taking conflicting directions.
While Americans are busy with Presidential election campaigns, five former Secretaries of State on Tuesday urged the new US administration to open talks with Iran.
On the same day, the Iranian leadership announced that it had put the Revolutionary Guards in charge of defending the country's Gulf waters, in what has appeared a hardening of its stance in the vital oil route.
And once again, tension between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rose on Monday after the International agency announced that Iran is stalling the UN investigation into its nuclear programme and defying international demands to suspend uranium enrichment despite UN Security Council demands.
"If the US wants to implement the (draft) resolution, it would have to go for naval blockade," Tripta Parsi, head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, said.
"And the naval blockade, according to the International Law, is an act of war. So, it is a way to start a war without doing it with missiles and other means the American public are sensitive to," Parsi added in an interview with Gulf News in reference to the tabled draft resolution number 362. So far, it has attracted the co-sponsorship of nearly half of the 430-member House of Representatives.
The draft resolution calls on the President to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran".
The fate of the draft, which was introduced last May, is expected to be decided in the coming few weeks before Congress finishes its legislative session.
Several legislators and some groups, including the Iranian-American Council, are lobbying to block it.
Apart from the house draft resolution, a sister draft resolution number 580 has been proposed in the 100-member Senate and attracted 50 cosponsors.
"Unless the US and Iran negotiate directly," Parsi said, "The two countries are going to gravitate towards a conflict."
Voices on street
Meanwhile, the Iranian public do want their government to talk with the US about specific issues and they are ready to support a deal on nuclear weapons, but not on Uranium enrichment, polls show.
The results of one poll show that, despite the "very negative perceptions that each public has of the other country's leadership, the Iranian and US publics want their governments to talk to each other about certain issues, such as Iraq," said a joint poll by two public opinion centres: Terror Free Tomorrow and WorldpublicOpinon.org.
Altogether 69 per cent of Iranians approve of Iran having talks with the US, while 21 per cent disapprove. A similar majority of Americans, 73 per cent, approve of US talks with Iran and 22 per cent disapprove.
The same poll shows that Iranians were willing to make concessions to the US on several issues in return for normal relations with the US.
These concessions would include an end to Iranian support for armed groups inside Iraq and recognising both Israel and Palestine as independent states in return for the normalisation of relations with the US.
Another poll, also released recently, concluded that Iranians are ready to support a deal committing the Iranian government to the renouncement of the development of nuclear weapons and allowing full inspections. Iranians don't perceive their position as a contradiction, noted experts.
Iranians, analysts explained, feel that by not allowing them to develop a nuclear programme according to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), they have been discriminated against, as with all the Muslim nations, while Israel was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
The Indian and Pakistani cases are also other examples given to explain the Iranian public opinion.
The US initially voiced strong opposition to the two Asian countries' nuclear abilities, but gradually came to accept them. Today, Washington has a special nuclear agreement with India, they added.
The Iranians believe the "US should basically come to accept them as a major regional power with a capacity to develop a nuclear weapons programme, (but) not an actuality (nuclear weapons)," Steven Kull, Director of WorldpublicOpnion, told Gulf News.
Simultaneously, Iranians are making gestures towards the Americans and Israelis.
Tehran, Iranian analysts believe, is attempting to change the negative atmosphere in the region created by the crisis over its nuclear program. "For the first time in three decades," said the prominent Iranian analyst Seed Laylaz, "President Ahmadinejad announced recently that if the US wants to open a consulate in Iran, it would be fine."
Fighting talk
Opening a US interest section in Tehran is an option under discussion among American politicians, noted experts. Moreover, Iran's Vice-President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, who is also a close aide to Ahmadinejad, said Iranians are "friends with Israelis".
But his remarks were seen as overstepping the mark.
They have sparked fury among conservatives in Iran, and more than 200 MPs urged the president to take action against his aide.
Iran's gestures have apparently had some success in reducing the tension. The most obvious sign is the fall in oil prices from unprecedented levels a few months back, analysts believe.
Currently, a barrel of oil is trading around $90 (Dh330), well below the level $147.50 (Dh542) recorded on July 11.
However, Iranian analysts believe that the Israeli government wants to make Ahmadinejad "as weak as possible".
They consider recent threats of kidnapping him as merely for "local consumption during elections time in Israel".
Ahmadinejad has threaten to "wipe out" Israel, a statement that has united many Western leaders against him.
"The situation is not worse than before," Laylaz said. "But the war possibilities (at present) seem less than before."
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10246173.html
Naval blockade may lead to war
By Jumana Al Tamimi, Associate Editor
Published: September 19, 2008, 00:18
Dubai: A draft resolution calling for a naval blockade on Iran has been tabled in the US congress, in a move many analysts fear will be, if passed, a prelude to a military confrontation in the Gulf.
Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, have recently made more than one rapprochement gesture towards both the US and Israel to decrease the possibilities of a military conflict in the strategic Gulf region, Iranian analysts said. The possibility of war seems less today than it did a month ago, they added.
Yet, chances of war have not entirely diminished, and daily developments are still taking conflicting directions.
While Americans are busy with Presidential election campaigns, five former Secretaries of State on Tuesday urged the new US administration to open talks with Iran.
On the same day, the Iranian leadership announced that it had put the Revolutionary Guards in charge of defending the country's Gulf waters, in what has appeared a hardening of its stance in the vital oil route.
And once again, tension between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rose on Monday after the International agency announced that Iran is stalling the UN investigation into its nuclear programme and defying international demands to suspend uranium enrichment despite UN Security Council demands.
"If the US wants to implement the (draft) resolution, it would have to go for naval blockade," Tripta Parsi, head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, said.
"And the naval blockade, according to the International Law, is an act of war. So, it is a way to start a war without doing it with missiles and other means the American public are sensitive to," Parsi added in an interview with Gulf News in reference to the tabled draft resolution number 362. So far, it has attracted the co-sponsorship of nearly half of the 430-member House of Representatives.
The draft resolution calls on the President to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran".
The fate of the draft, which was introduced last May, is expected to be decided in the coming few weeks before Congress finishes its legislative session.
Several legislators and some groups, including the Iranian-American Council, are lobbying to block it.
Apart from the house draft resolution, a sister draft resolution number 580 has been proposed in the 100-member Senate and attracted 50 cosponsors.
"Unless the US and Iran negotiate directly," Parsi said, "The two countries are going to gravitate towards a conflict."
Voices on street
Meanwhile, the Iranian public do want their government to talk with the US about specific issues and they are ready to support a deal on nuclear weapons, but not on Uranium enrichment, polls show.
The results of one poll show that, despite the "very negative perceptions that each public has of the other country's leadership, the Iranian and US publics want their governments to talk to each other about certain issues, such as Iraq," said a joint poll by two public opinion centres: Terror Free Tomorrow and WorldpublicOpinon.org.
Altogether 69 per cent of Iranians approve of Iran having talks with the US, while 21 per cent disapprove. A similar majority of Americans, 73 per cent, approve of US talks with Iran and 22 per cent disapprove.
The same poll shows that Iranians were willing to make concessions to the US on several issues in return for normal relations with the US.
These concessions would include an end to Iranian support for armed groups inside Iraq and recognising both Israel and Palestine as independent states in return for the normalisation of relations with the US.
Another poll, also released recently, concluded that Iranians are ready to support a deal committing the Iranian government to the renouncement of the development of nuclear weapons and allowing full inspections. Iranians don't perceive their position as a contradiction, noted experts.
Iranians, analysts explained, feel that by not allowing them to develop a nuclear programme according to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), they have been discriminated against, as with all the Muslim nations, while Israel was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
The Indian and Pakistani cases are also other examples given to explain the Iranian public opinion.
The US initially voiced strong opposition to the two Asian countries' nuclear abilities, but gradually came to accept them. Today, Washington has a special nuclear agreement with India, they added.
The Iranians believe the "US should basically come to accept them as a major regional power with a capacity to develop a nuclear weapons programme, (but) not an actuality (nuclear weapons)," Steven Kull, Director of WorldpublicOpnion, told Gulf News.
Simultaneously, Iranians are making gestures towards the Americans and Israelis.
Tehran, Iranian analysts believe, is attempting to change the negative atmosphere in the region created by the crisis over its nuclear program. "For the first time in three decades," said the prominent Iranian analyst Seed Laylaz, "President Ahmadinejad announced recently that if the US wants to open a consulate in Iran, it would be fine."
Fighting talk
Opening a US interest section in Tehran is an option under discussion among American politicians, noted experts. Moreover, Iran's Vice-President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, who is also a close aide to Ahmadinejad, said Iranians are "friends with Israelis".
But his remarks were seen as overstepping the mark.
They have sparked fury among conservatives in Iran, and more than 200 MPs urged the president to take action against his aide.
Iran's gestures have apparently had some success in reducing the tension. The most obvious sign is the fall in oil prices from unprecedented levels a few months back, analysts believe.
Currently, a barrel of oil is trading around $90 (Dh330), well below the level $147.50 (Dh542) recorded on July 11.
However, Iranian analysts believe that the Israeli government wants to make Ahmadinejad "as weak as possible".
They consider recent threats of kidnapping him as merely for "local consumption during elections time in Israel".
Ahmadinejad has threaten to "wipe out" Israel, a statement that has united many Western leaders against him.
"The situation is not worse than before," Laylaz said. "But the war possibilities (at present) seem less than before."
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Iranian President: Israel Won't Survive
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425326,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425326,00.html
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Perkovich: If Iran Stone-Walls, Stop Trying to Negotiate
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17319/pe ... Dinterview
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17319/pe ... Dinterview
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
President George W Bush 'turned down Israeli request to bomb Iran' ,
wisely it appears for the reasons below.Earlier reports indicated that Condy Rice and Dick Cheney had conflicting views on an attack against Iran and Rice prevailed.However.the latest approval for a naval blockade is pending and if aproved,anything vcan still happen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html
President George W Bush this year refused an Israeli request for his blessing to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Last Updated: 11:16PM BST 25 Sep 2008
Ehud Olmert discussed the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with George Bush Photo: REUTERS
Israel's then prime minister Ehud Olmert reportedly spoke to Mr Bush about the possibility of a strike on Iran during the American leader's visit to the Jewish state in May.
The president was said to be worried about Iran's possible retaliation - which could include terrorist attacks by militant groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel, as well as moves to cut off the supply of Gulf oil.
He was also concerned that Israel did not have the capability to carry out the attack. Last month, the US agreed to sell Israel bunker busting bombs that could penetrate deep underground facilities, such as the Natanz enrichment plant south of Tehran.
The revelations, sourced to European diplomats, were reported in the Guardian newspaper.
Western diplomats in New York have tried to thrash out a further set of bilateral sanctions against Iran after Russia and China launched a boycott of talks on a new UN resolution.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, used a series of meetings with his Western counterparts, including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to signal that Moscow had gone cold on international efforts to reign in the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
Mr Lavrov lashed out at the US and its allies as he linked the Russian decision to steps taken to punish Moscow's invasion of Georgia by cutting Kremlin officials out of G8 talks.
"You can't have it both ways, punishing Russia by cancelling meetings we share and at the same time expecting Russian cooperation on issues important to you,'' he said.
Earlier Guardian report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... estinians1
wisely it appears for the reasons below.Earlier reports indicated that Condy Rice and Dick Cheney had conflicting views on an attack against Iran and Rice prevailed.However.the latest approval for a naval blockade is pending and if aproved,anything vcan still happen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html
President George W Bush this year refused an Israeli request for his blessing to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Last Updated: 11:16PM BST 25 Sep 2008
Ehud Olmert discussed the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with George Bush Photo: REUTERS
Israel's then prime minister Ehud Olmert reportedly spoke to Mr Bush about the possibility of a strike on Iran during the American leader's visit to the Jewish state in May.
The president was said to be worried about Iran's possible retaliation - which could include terrorist attacks by militant groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel, as well as moves to cut off the supply of Gulf oil.
He was also concerned that Israel did not have the capability to carry out the attack. Last month, the US agreed to sell Israel bunker busting bombs that could penetrate deep underground facilities, such as the Natanz enrichment plant south of Tehran.
The revelations, sourced to European diplomats, were reported in the Guardian newspaper.
Western diplomats in New York have tried to thrash out a further set of bilateral sanctions against Iran after Russia and China launched a boycott of talks on a new UN resolution.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, used a series of meetings with his Western counterparts, including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to signal that Moscow had gone cold on international efforts to reign in the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
Mr Lavrov lashed out at the US and its allies as he linked the Russian decision to steps taken to punish Moscow's invasion of Georgia by cutting Kremlin officials out of G8 talks.
"You can't have it both ways, punishing Russia by cancelling meetings we share and at the same time expecting Russian cooperation on issues important to you,'' he said.
Earlier Guardian report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... estinians1
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Iran on way to atomic bomb capability: ElBaradei
Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:07am EDT
MUNICH (Reuters) - Iran is on its way to mastering technology that would enable it to build atomic bombs, if it so chose, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei said in remarks published on Friday.
Iran says its uranium-enrichment program is only for civilian purposes -- electricity generation -- but is under IAEA investigation and U.N. sanctions over past undeclared activity and failure to prove its intentions are wholly peaceful.
ElBaradei said having nuclear arms unfortunately still symbolized prestige and power, tempting nations with security worries to at least develop the potential for a bomb through the "dual use" enrichment process.
Beyond seven confirmed nuclear weapons powers, there is a wide range of countries with access to components -- fissile material or the equipment to produce it -- that could give them an atomic bomb "in a matter of months or a year," he said.
Asked by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily if Iran was also on its way to "virtual" nuclear-weapons power status, he said: "That is correct." But he added Tehran could not "break out" to a bomb as long IAEA monitors remained at its nuclear sites.
Iran has pledged to maintain regular IAEA inspections, but these are limited to a few declared facilities.
NUCLEAR "COOKBOOK"
"They have the cookbook ... (But) right now they don't yet have the ingredients -- enough nuclear material to make a bomb overnight," ElBaradei said. He did not spell out how long Iran might need to reach that threshold, if indeed that was its goal. Some Western analysts say this could come within two years.
"The hope is that as long as (such countries) remain in the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) with IAEA inspectors keeping watch, the likelihood is slim (they) would risk international isolation if they quit the treaty," ElBaradei said.
There has been talk in the United States and Israel, Iran's arch-enemies, of last resort military action against Iranian nuclear sites although each remains formally committed to a diplomatic solution.
ElBaradei said the military option would be disastrous. The Iranian issue could not be resolved unless Washington dropped its refusal to negotiate with Tehran directly and without preconditions.
"The Iranian issue at its heart is really a question of security...The nuclear (part) is a symptom of an underlying sense of insecurity or a desire to be recognized as a major, regional power," ElBaradei told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
"Europe is not really in the front seat (here). It is the U.S. who is in the front seat. The earlier that you have a direct negotiation between the U.S. and Iran, the earlier the prospect that we will have a solution," he said.
A settlement would have to address security issues across the region including the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and "the elephant in the room" -- Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, said ElBaradei.
"A military solution ... will give (Iran's) regime the full (domestic) support, the full justification to go for a crash course to develop nuclear weapons. The know-how is there, you cannot take it out of their minds.
"They will simply, in my view, go underground. The region is already in an unsustainable situation and adding an attack will simply create a ball of fire which will ricochet everywhere, in every part of the world," he said.
(Reporting by Mark Heinrich, Editing by Ralph Boulton)
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Thats Sunni angst speaking. With TSP kind of corralled they are now worried about Shia Iran. There is an elaborate dance going on between Iran and the others. I firmly believe Iran has got something workable from PRC under the cover of AQK network. The dance is to hit them before the unveil it. And Iran wants to dealy unveiling till necessary.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
US-Russian deal lets Iran’s nuclear bomb program off the hook
DEBKAfile Special Report
September 27, 2008, 10:39 AM (GMT+02:00)
Iran perfects nuclear-capable ballistic missiles
Iran perfects nuclear-capable ballistic missiles
Friday, Sept. 26, 2008 was the day the policy pursued by Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Shimon Peres, of reliance on the international community to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb, sank without a trace. The international community declined to adopt fresh economic sanctions to rein in an increasingly defiant Tehran.
A deal between the US and Russia in New York sealed a very brief non-sanctions draft reaffirming previous council decisions for the five permanent Security Council members and Germany to table. It also called for Iran’s compliance.
This ignored the reality of Iran openly flouting all three previous sanctions resolutions: Tehran continues to enrich uranium, reprocess plutonium, build nuclear-capable missiles and stonewall on International Atomic Energy Agency’s questions and inspections.
Even the usually forgiving IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei changed his tune and admitted Thursday that Iran was on its way to “mastering technology that would enable it to build atomic bombs.”
Yet no comment has come from Israel, either from the Kadima-nominee for prime minister Tzipi Livni or defense minister, Labor’s Ehud Barak, although ElBaradei was clearly preparing the ground to raise his hands and admit failure in stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The world would have to swallow the pill.
This acceptance was reflected in the West’s backing down on a fourth round of sanctions. Iran, free of fear of retribution, may go forward with its first underground nuclear test some time next year, flaunting the inability of its arch-foes, America and Israel, to prevent it attaining the status of first Islamic nuclear power.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could therefore afford to be cockier than ever when he addressed the UN General Assembly in Nazi-style anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli and anti-American language. Tehran would ignore any council demand imposed by “arrogant powers” to curb its nuclear program, he declared. The issue was closed.
The Iranian leader can afford to crow. This week he won solid backing from Iran’s ultimate power, supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on the nation to give him their support.
This cleared the way for Ahmadinejad’s re-election as president next year and enable him to continue to shepherd the national nuclear weapons program through to completion.
He certainly picked up the gap in perception of the program between Israel and the world powers. While Israeli spokesman still refer to a future threat which there is still time to stop, most world leaders appear reconciled to its presence.
The collapse of Israel’s foreign policy on this issue came at an unfortunate juncture:
1. The pandemonium in the US-led financial world has removed the Iranian threat from international consciousness.
2. Moscow, Iran and Syria are cementing their partnership, giving Tehran’s nuclear aspirations a strong diplomatic umbrella.
Moscow is pursuing cold war tactics in two new spheres: the Middle East, from its center of gravity in Tehran, and Latin America, resting on Venezuela’s anti-American posture and friendly relations with Iran.
Israel’s foreign policy, lame and defensive at the best of times since Livni took over, appears as oblivious as ever to the disastrous developments pressing down on the Jewish state.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Kissinger: Open direct Iran talks
Published: Sept. 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says the United States should begin direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program.
Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported.
The opinion of the former secretary of state for Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford differs sharply with that of the current GOP administration, which has maintained a strict policy of not negotiating directly with governments deemed to sponsor international terrorism. The Bush administration has demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear program as a precondition for any direct talks.
The other former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright, James Baker III, Warren Christopher and Colin Powell, were asked to identify the biggest challenges the next president will face. They answered the fight against terrorism, restoring America's reputation abroad, r-building U.S. economic power and global climate change, ABC reported.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Israel's Olmert to visit Russia next week
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will travel to Moscow next week for talks about Iran's nuclear programme and other issues, a government official said on Sunday.
Olmert, who stepped down on September 21 but remains at the helm of a transitional government, will start his two-day trip on October 6, the source said.
Olmert and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will discuss Iran and other issues, the official said.
Israel considers Iran to be its greatest threat because of Tehran's accelerating nuclear programme.
Both Israel and the United States accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran has insisted its atomic programme is entirely peaceful.
Media reports on Sunday said the United States recently deployed an anti-missile radar system in Israel mainly aimed at warning of incoming Iranian ballistic missiles.
Israeli officials have also expressed concern at reports that Russia was willing to sell weapons to Syria, a long-time foe of the Jewish state.
During a telephone conversation last month, Olmert told Medvedev it would be a waste for Syria to spend billions of dollars on buying weapons that Israel would eventually destroy, Israeli media reported.
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will travel to Moscow next week for talks about Iran's nuclear programme and other issues, a government official said on Sunday.
Olmert, who stepped down on September 21 but remains at the helm of a transitional government, will start his two-day trip on October 6, the source said.
Olmert and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will discuss Iran and other issues, the official said.
Israel considers Iran to be its greatest threat because of Tehran's accelerating nuclear programme.
Both Israel and the United States accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran has insisted its atomic programme is entirely peaceful.
Media reports on Sunday said the United States recently deployed an anti-missile radar system in Israel mainly aimed at warning of incoming Iranian ballistic missiles.
Israeli officials have also expressed concern at reports that Russia was willing to sell weapons to Syria, a long-time foe of the Jewish state.
During a telephone conversation last month, Olmert told Medvedev it would be a waste for Syria to spend billions of dollars on buying weapons that Israel would eventually destroy, Israeli media reported.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
With Iran sticking to its guns,the sovereign right to develop nuclear enrichment technology for civilian purposes only,a stalemate has arisen over the issue as Russia is unwilling to allow sanctions against Iran in view of the chill that has developed between east and west post Georgia.Israel's worries continue and to assuage the Israeli insecurity,the US is supplying it with an advanced long range radar system.However,if the US could plan to install an ABM system in Poland,ostensibly to detere Iranian missiles,which Russia rejects saying that it is clearly aimed at Russia,the US could similarly install either in Jordan or even in western Iraq,under US control, a similar ABM system,which would be additional protection/deterrent against any perceived Iranian missile adventurism.This system would be an outer layer to those missile systems that Israel has based within its own territory like the Arrow,which would eb the inner defence.I am not sure if this idea has been thought of at all.
The Iranian president was interviewed by Larry King over the weekend.It was an illuminating interview and tough hard questions were put to the Iranian leader,who claimed that making nuclear weapons was not in Iranian or global interest,but called for a Palestinian referendum to determine their future.He carefully steered around the question of "Israel's destruction",hinting that it was the policies of "Zionism" that needed to change.However,a study of Ahmedinejad's political career casts several questions as to his true motives,as the driving force behind him appears to be his religious order that awaits the "return of the Mahdi".More on him/this in a later post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... nians.iran
Israel supplied with long-range radar, but US to get missile warning first• Installing system signals protection and support
• American personnel in charge of desert airbaseIan Black, Middle East editor The Guardian, Monday September 29 2008
Article history
A missile in front of a poster of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a military exhibition in Tehran, Iran. Photograph: Hasan Sarbakhshian/AP
The US has supplied Israel with a powerful long-range radar system that would provide an extra early warning in case of an Iranian missile attack, it was confirmed yesterday.
Israeli officials said the equipment was flown in last week along with 120 American staff and has been set up at an air force base in the southern Negev desert.
It is believed to be the first time American personnel have been stationed in Israel since the 1991 Gulf war, when Patriot anti-missile batteries were deployed - to little effect - against Iraq's Scud missiles. In spite of the close strategic relationship between the two countries, Israel has traditionally preferred to staff its own defences and not depend on foreigners.
Ephraim Kam, an analyst at Tel Aviv University's institute for national security studies, called the radar system an "important addition" to Israel's defences and told AP he believed the US was sending a message that "they are against any attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities at this time but cannot leave us without protection".
Last week the Guardian quoted senior European diplomatic sources as saying that George Bush told Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, in mid-May that he opposed an Israeli attack on Iran, and said his opinion was unlikely to change for the duration of his presidency. The agreement to supply the new system to Israel was reportedly finalised in July.
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper suggested the deployment could be seen in two ways: as a means of preventing Israel from taking independent action against Iran; and to strengthen Israel's defence against missiles if Israel and/or the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities.
One key feature of the system is that information from early-warning satellites - which greatly increases the radar's ability to pinpoint launches - would remain in US hands. The satellite ground station would be in Europe and transmit data to Israel.
That dependency, reportedly of concern to Israeli officials, may boost Washington's power to veto unilateral Israeli action. The area of deployment on the Nevatim base is reportedly off-limits to non-US personnel.
Commenting on the development, a Pentagon source said: "We want to put Iran on notice that we're bolstering our capabilities throughout the region, and especially in Israel. But just as important, we're telling the Israelis, 'Calm down. Behave. We're doing all we can to stand by you and strengthen defences'."
The high-powered X-Band system, manufactured by Raytheon Company, would allow Israel's Arrow II ballistic shield to engage an Iranian Shehab-3 missile about halfway through its 11-minute flight to Israel, six times sooner than Israel's existing Green Pine radar can.
The X-Band can track an object the size of a baseball from 2,900 miles away.
Iran makes no secret of its long-range ballistic missiles or its uranium enrichment programme though it routinely denies any plans to develop nuclear weapons. Israel has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal as well as aircraft, missiles and even submarines that could hit Iranian targets.
News of the deployment was broken by Defense News, a US magazine, and confirmed by Israeli officials. US and German sources said 12 American aircraft delivered the system and personnel last Sunday. In parallel, Israel and the US are said to be concerned about the planned delivery of S-300 Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, which would improve Tehran's defences against any strike against its nuclear installations.
The X-Band, also-called "phased-array" system, has been deployed for the past two years in Japan against possible missile attacks from North Korea. There are plans to install one in the Czech Republic.
News of the radar's arrival broke hours after the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution again ordering Iran to halt nuclear enrichment work but imposing none of the new sanctions Washington and its allies wanted. The resolution, dismissed by Iran as "unconstructive", called on Tehran to "comply fully" with previous resolutions but also affirmed the UN's commitment to a negotiated solution.
The Iranian president was interviewed by Larry King over the weekend.It was an illuminating interview and tough hard questions were put to the Iranian leader,who claimed that making nuclear weapons was not in Iranian or global interest,but called for a Palestinian referendum to determine their future.He carefully steered around the question of "Israel's destruction",hinting that it was the policies of "Zionism" that needed to change.However,a study of Ahmedinejad's political career casts several questions as to his true motives,as the driving force behind him appears to be his religious order that awaits the "return of the Mahdi".More on him/this in a later post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... nians.iran
Israel supplied with long-range radar, but US to get missile warning first• Installing system signals protection and support
• American personnel in charge of desert airbaseIan Black, Middle East editor The Guardian, Monday September 29 2008
Article history
A missile in front of a poster of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a military exhibition in Tehran, Iran. Photograph: Hasan Sarbakhshian/AP
The US has supplied Israel with a powerful long-range radar system that would provide an extra early warning in case of an Iranian missile attack, it was confirmed yesterday.
Israeli officials said the equipment was flown in last week along with 120 American staff and has been set up at an air force base in the southern Negev desert.
It is believed to be the first time American personnel have been stationed in Israel since the 1991 Gulf war, when Patriot anti-missile batteries were deployed - to little effect - against Iraq's Scud missiles. In spite of the close strategic relationship between the two countries, Israel has traditionally preferred to staff its own defences and not depend on foreigners.
Ephraim Kam, an analyst at Tel Aviv University's institute for national security studies, called the radar system an "important addition" to Israel's defences and told AP he believed the US was sending a message that "they are against any attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities at this time but cannot leave us without protection".
Last week the Guardian quoted senior European diplomatic sources as saying that George Bush told Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, in mid-May that he opposed an Israeli attack on Iran, and said his opinion was unlikely to change for the duration of his presidency. The agreement to supply the new system to Israel was reportedly finalised in July.
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper suggested the deployment could be seen in two ways: as a means of preventing Israel from taking independent action against Iran; and to strengthen Israel's defence against missiles if Israel and/or the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities.
One key feature of the system is that information from early-warning satellites - which greatly increases the radar's ability to pinpoint launches - would remain in US hands. The satellite ground station would be in Europe and transmit data to Israel.
That dependency, reportedly of concern to Israeli officials, may boost Washington's power to veto unilateral Israeli action. The area of deployment on the Nevatim base is reportedly off-limits to non-US personnel.
Commenting on the development, a Pentagon source said: "We want to put Iran on notice that we're bolstering our capabilities throughout the region, and especially in Israel. But just as important, we're telling the Israelis, 'Calm down. Behave. We're doing all we can to stand by you and strengthen defences'."
The high-powered X-Band system, manufactured by Raytheon Company, would allow Israel's Arrow II ballistic shield to engage an Iranian Shehab-3 missile about halfway through its 11-minute flight to Israel, six times sooner than Israel's existing Green Pine radar can.
The X-Band can track an object the size of a baseball from 2,900 miles away.
Iran makes no secret of its long-range ballistic missiles or its uranium enrichment programme though it routinely denies any plans to develop nuclear weapons. Israel has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal as well as aircraft, missiles and even submarines that could hit Iranian targets.
News of the deployment was broken by Defense News, a US magazine, and confirmed by Israeli officials. US and German sources said 12 American aircraft delivered the system and personnel last Sunday. In parallel, Israel and the US are said to be concerned about the planned delivery of S-300 Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, which would improve Tehran's defences against any strike against its nuclear installations.
The X-Band, also-called "phased-array" system, has been deployed for the past two years in Japan against possible missile attacks from North Korea. There are plans to install one in the Czech Republic.
News of the radar's arrival broke hours after the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution again ordering Iran to halt nuclear enrichment work but imposing none of the new sanctions Washington and its allies wanted. The resolution, dismissed by Iran as "unconstructive", called on Tehran to "comply fully" with previous resolutions but also affirmed the UN's commitment to a negotiated solution.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
More details of the "X-Band" radar,superior to Israel's Green Pine.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... _missiles_
Washington/Tel Aviv - The United States has transferred to Israel a high-powered radar system that will improve Israel's reaction time to a possible Iranian missile strike, the Defense News magazine reported over the weekend.
Quoting US and German sources, the magazine said that more than one dozen aircraft transferred the X-band radar system and some 120 supporting personnel and equipment to Israel on September 21.
The high-powered, high-frequency system is designed to detect and track ballistic missiles soon after launch and can track an object the size of a baseball from 4,700 kilometres away.
According to the Jerusalem Post daily, the system will allow Israel's Arrow missile to engage an Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile about halfway through what would be an 11-minute flight from Iran, or six times sooner than Israel's 'Green Pine' radar can.
The decision to deploy the radar in Israel was finalized during a recent visit to the US by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak.
An Israeli military spokeswoman refused to comment directly on the report, and said only that Israel has for years enjoyed strategic cooperation with the US Army, and this is expressed through various means and channels as a matter of routine.
Israel regards Iran as its main existential threat, given Tehran's nuclear ambitions and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad's statements that the Jewish state should be erased from the map.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... _missiles_
Washington/Tel Aviv - The United States has transferred to Israel a high-powered radar system that will improve Israel's reaction time to a possible Iranian missile strike, the Defense News magazine reported over the weekend.
Quoting US and German sources, the magazine said that more than one dozen aircraft transferred the X-band radar system and some 120 supporting personnel and equipment to Israel on September 21.
The high-powered, high-frequency system is designed to detect and track ballistic missiles soon after launch and can track an object the size of a baseball from 4,700 kilometres away.
According to the Jerusalem Post daily, the system will allow Israel's Arrow missile to engage an Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile about halfway through what would be an 11-minute flight from Iran, or six times sooner than Israel's 'Green Pine' radar can.
The decision to deploy the radar in Israel was finalized during a recent visit to the US by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak.
An Israeli military spokeswoman refused to comment directly on the report, and said only that Israel has for years enjoyed strategic cooperation with the US Army, and this is expressed through various means and channels as a matter of routine.
Israel regards Iran as its main existential threat, given Tehran's nuclear ambitions and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad's statements that the Jewish state should be erased from the map.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
From upi.com
Iran's satellite booster likely to have ICBM capability
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last week in New York that his Islamic Republic is planning yet another "satellite launch" using a new, unnamed booster rocket.
According to the Iranian Web site Payvand.com, Ahmadinejad boasted that the new space vehicle will have 16 motors and will boost a satellite 420 miles into space.
The forthcoming launch will be the third one this year, after an "experimental" -- and apparently unsuccessful -- launch on Aug. 17. According to Iranian sources, the missile was the Safir-e-Omid-1 -- "Ambassador of Hope" -- satellite launcher that did not carry a real satellite.
Then, the Iranian media provided a brief report on the launch and one television channel broadcast a clip of the nighttime launch. There were no official statements similar to those that accompanied previous launches. According to Western intelligence sources, Safir-1 may be a spinoff of Shahab-3, a well-known Iranian intermediate-range ballistic missile.
On Feb. 5, on the 29th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, Ahmadinejad ordered the launch of a ballistic rocket Kavoshgar-1 -- Explorer-1 -- described as a "space-launch vehicle." The single-stage rocket was launched from a new and secret space center in northern Iran that was inaugurated that day.
Ahmadinejad did the countdown, and the officials present shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- God is Great. The Iranian authorities claim the launch of the rocket was a test for a future launch of the first Iranian-built satellite, the Omid -- "Hope." Iran's news agency reported the launch of the satellite would take place by March 2009, when the next Iranian year will end.
Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced in February that the Omid satellite might be launched by May or June, but this was not to be. Iran's first satellite, the Sinah-1, was built and launched in Russia in October 2005.
Iran vehemently maintains that the test launches for the satellite program are of a purely civilian nature. However, experts voice two concerns regarding the Iranian missile program.
First is that the Explorer-1 is a space-launch vehicle version of a new ballistic missile that was tested last November, with an estimated range of 1,200 miles. It is probable that this new missile is none other than the Shahab 4, which is likely based on technology transfer by Russia. This is the single-stage Soviet SS-4 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which was deployed in Cuba during the Missile Crisis of 1962. Coincidentally, it also used to have a space-launch version.
Secondly, this may be the initial testing of a new ballistic missile that may be of a combined Russian and North Korean pedigree. There were previous reports that Iran was developing a new ballistic missile with a range of 2,400 to 3,600 miles, which would keep Europe in its sights.
According to Jane's Defense Weekly, such missiles would be capable of serving as space-launch vehicles and may be identified as either the Shahab 5 or Shahab 6. The British Daily Telegraph reported that former high-ranking members of the Russian military facilitated a multimillion-dollar 2003 missile technology transfer agreement between Iran and North Korea.
According to the newspaper, Russia has exported to Iran "production facilities, diagrams and operating instruction so the missile can be built in Iran, as well as liquid propellant (to fuel the rockets). Russian specialists have also been sent to Iran to help development of its Shahab 5 missile project."
Transporter erector launcher technology developed by the North Koreans for their latest Taepo-dong 2 ballistic missile was being sent to Iran. The Telegraph mentioned that the new ballistic missile that Iran was developing with the North Koreans and Russians has a range of 2,100 miles and a payload of 1.2 tons. Such a range would enable the missile to reach large portions of Europe, including Berlin, Rome, Paris and all of Central Europe. The payload would enable the missile to carry a nuclear warhead. This missile could have a space-launch capability as well.
Finally, the new space rocket might be linked to the 2,400-mile range ballistic missile Iran is developing, because it has been suggested that the rocket engine of the Shahab 4 could be that of the Soviet SS-5 intermediate-range ballistic missile. The SS-5 had a maximum range of 2,700 miles and was also a single-stage missile fueled by liquid propellant. It also had a space-launch version.
At this point, it looks like Iran is developing two space launch vehicles -- one an enhanced IRBM, and the other a nascent ICBM.
Iran's satellite booster likely to have ICBM capability
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last week in New York that his Islamic Republic is planning yet another "satellite launch" using a new, unnamed booster rocket.
According to the Iranian Web site Payvand.com, Ahmadinejad boasted that the new space vehicle will have 16 motors and will boost a satellite 420 miles into space.
The forthcoming launch will be the third one this year, after an "experimental" -- and apparently unsuccessful -- launch on Aug. 17. According to Iranian sources, the missile was the Safir-e-Omid-1 -- "Ambassador of Hope" -- satellite launcher that did not carry a real satellite.
Then, the Iranian media provided a brief report on the launch and one television channel broadcast a clip of the nighttime launch. There were no official statements similar to those that accompanied previous launches. According to Western intelligence sources, Safir-1 may be a spinoff of Shahab-3, a well-known Iranian intermediate-range ballistic missile.
On Feb. 5, on the 29th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, Ahmadinejad ordered the launch of a ballistic rocket Kavoshgar-1 -- Explorer-1 -- described as a "space-launch vehicle." The single-stage rocket was launched from a new and secret space center in northern Iran that was inaugurated that day.
Ahmadinejad did the countdown, and the officials present shouted "Allahu Akbar" -- God is Great. The Iranian authorities claim the launch of the rocket was a test for a future launch of the first Iranian-built satellite, the Omid -- "Hope." Iran's news agency reported the launch of the satellite would take place by March 2009, when the next Iranian year will end.
Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced in February that the Omid satellite might be launched by May or June, but this was not to be. Iran's first satellite, the Sinah-1, was built and launched in Russia in October 2005.
Iran vehemently maintains that the test launches for the satellite program are of a purely civilian nature. However, experts voice two concerns regarding the Iranian missile program.
First is that the Explorer-1 is a space-launch vehicle version of a new ballistic missile that was tested last November, with an estimated range of 1,200 miles. It is probable that this new missile is none other than the Shahab 4, which is likely based on technology transfer by Russia. This is the single-stage Soviet SS-4 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which was deployed in Cuba during the Missile Crisis of 1962. Coincidentally, it also used to have a space-launch version.
Secondly, this may be the initial testing of a new ballistic missile that may be of a combined Russian and North Korean pedigree. There were previous reports that Iran was developing a new ballistic missile with a range of 2,400 to 3,600 miles, which would keep Europe in its sights.
According to Jane's Defense Weekly, such missiles would be capable of serving as space-launch vehicles and may be identified as either the Shahab 5 or Shahab 6. The British Daily Telegraph reported that former high-ranking members of the Russian military facilitated a multimillion-dollar 2003 missile technology transfer agreement between Iran and North Korea.
According to the newspaper, Russia has exported to Iran "production facilities, diagrams and operating instruction so the missile can be built in Iran, as well as liquid propellant (to fuel the rockets). Russian specialists have also been sent to Iran to help development of its Shahab 5 missile project."
Transporter erector launcher technology developed by the North Koreans for their latest Taepo-dong 2 ballistic missile was being sent to Iran. The Telegraph mentioned that the new ballistic missile that Iran was developing with the North Koreans and Russians has a range of 2,100 miles and a payload of 1.2 tons. Such a range would enable the missile to reach large portions of Europe, including Berlin, Rome, Paris and all of Central Europe. The payload would enable the missile to carry a nuclear warhead. This missile could have a space-launch capability as well.
Finally, the new space rocket might be linked to the 2,400-mile range ballistic missile Iran is developing, because it has been suggested that the rocket engine of the Shahab 4 could be that of the Soviet SS-5 intermediate-range ballistic missile. The SS-5 had a maximum range of 2,700 miles and was also a single-stage missile fueled by liquid propellant. It also had a space-launch version.
At this point, it looks like Iran is developing two space launch vehicles -- one an enhanced IRBM, and the other a nascent ICBM.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Looks like mule is half out of the barn
David kay on Iran
Look at his prescriptions. My worry is about MMS statements about Iran.
David kay on Iran
Look at his prescriptions. My worry is about MMS statements about Iran.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Israeli PM to ask Russia to halt Iran missile sale
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1026312.html
The military establishment is becoming increasingly concerned over talks between Russia and Iran about the sale of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Tehran. The deployment of these missiles would pose a major obstacle to any Israel Air Force operation against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who flies to Moscow tomorrow, is expected to focus on the issue during his visit, stressing to the Russian leadership Israel's opposition to any missile deal with Iran. Advertisement
The S-300 is considered one of the most advanced antiaircraft missile systems in the world. Its launchers are portable and can be readied for use within a few minutes. The missiles are capable of hitting aircraft flying at a maximum altitude of nearly 30 kilometers, and have a range of about 150 km. The system's radar can detect dozens of different targets simultaneously, and engage several.
A senior Jerusalem official noted that Iran and Russia have held meetings on the issue in recent weeks. "Contacts between our countries are continuing and we do not see any reason to suspend them," Anatoly Isaikin, general director of Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, said at an arms fair in South Africa about two weeks ago.
In recent meetings within Israel's military and foreign policy establishment, speakers have reiterated the need to stop - or at least delay - the deal. Senior military officials have approached Olmert to impress upon him the importance of dealing with the issue at the highest levels of government.
The missile deal is one of the reasons behind Olmert's decision to go to Moscow despite his resignation. One senior Jerusalem official said the visit is "focused on the security issue" and noted that Olmert will raise the topic of the missiles in his three scheduled working meetings, with President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The source noted that Olmert intends to emphasize that the missile sale would "upset the military-strategic balance in the Middle East," and to warn Moscow of the danger of the missile system being transfered to Iranian military ally Syria. That would bring the Russian-made missiles into the range of Israel Air Force aircraft flying in Israeli airspace, including over the Negev.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1026312.html
The military establishment is becoming increasingly concerned over talks between Russia and Iran about the sale of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Tehran. The deployment of these missiles would pose a major obstacle to any Israel Air Force operation against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who flies to Moscow tomorrow, is expected to focus on the issue during his visit, stressing to the Russian leadership Israel's opposition to any missile deal with Iran. Advertisement
The S-300 is considered one of the most advanced antiaircraft missile systems in the world. Its launchers are portable and can be readied for use within a few minutes. The missiles are capable of hitting aircraft flying at a maximum altitude of nearly 30 kilometers, and have a range of about 150 km. The system's radar can detect dozens of different targets simultaneously, and engage several.
A senior Jerusalem official noted that Iran and Russia have held meetings on the issue in recent weeks. "Contacts between our countries are continuing and we do not see any reason to suspend them," Anatoly Isaikin, general director of Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, said at an arms fair in South Africa about two weeks ago.
In recent meetings within Israel's military and foreign policy establishment, speakers have reiterated the need to stop - or at least delay - the deal. Senior military officials have approached Olmert to impress upon him the importance of dealing with the issue at the highest levels of government.
The missile deal is one of the reasons behind Olmert's decision to go to Moscow despite his resignation. One senior Jerusalem official said the visit is "focused on the security issue" and noted that Olmert will raise the topic of the missiles in his three scheduled working meetings, with President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The source noted that Olmert intends to emphasize that the missile sale would "upset the military-strategic balance in the Middle East," and to warn Moscow of the danger of the missile system being transfered to Iranian military ally Syria. That would bring the Russian-made missiles into the range of Israel Air Force aircraft flying in Israeli airspace, including over the Negev.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Any Israeli attack will be seen as US attack: Iran
New York, Oct 6 (PTI) Symbolising Israel as a signature mark of the United States in the middle east, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said that any offensive action by Tel Aviv would be seen as an attack by Washington.
Iran does not believe that Israelis or Americans will attack its nuclear facilities but any attack by Tel Aviv would be considered an attack by Washington, Mottaki said.
"In the Middle East, (no one) makes a distinction between the US and Israel," the minister told Newsweek in an interview.
Asked why his country is calling for wiping out Israel from the map of the earth, Mottaki said Tehran does not recognise Israel.
Reiterating to continue its uranium enrichment programme, he said "What we are doing is completely legal," emphasising that negotiations are the only way to arrive at mutually acceptable solution to the issue.
Mottaki, however, welcomed the Bush administration's decision to send its Under Secretary William Burns to attend recent talks between Tehran and European Union on nuclear issue saying as "the first realistic step" by Washington.
"We welcomed the participation by Mr Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the realistic approach taken by the US right now vis--vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts," he added.
Previously, Mottaki said the US administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks.
Burns' "presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play. An effort has started and if it is to succeed in resolving the nuclear issue, we have to take it to the next step," he added. PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.ns ... enDocument
New York, Oct 6 (PTI) Symbolising Israel as a signature mark of the United States in the middle east, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said that any offensive action by Tel Aviv would be seen as an attack by Washington.
Iran does not believe that Israelis or Americans will attack its nuclear facilities but any attack by Tel Aviv would be considered an attack by Washington, Mottaki said.
"In the Middle East, (no one) makes a distinction between the US and Israel," the minister told Newsweek in an interview.
Asked why his country is calling for wiping out Israel from the map of the earth, Mottaki said Tehran does not recognise Israel.
Reiterating to continue its uranium enrichment programme, he said "What we are doing is completely legal," emphasising that negotiations are the only way to arrive at mutually acceptable solution to the issue.
Mottaki, however, welcomed the Bush administration's decision to send its Under Secretary William Burns to attend recent talks between Tehran and European Union on nuclear issue saying as "the first realistic step" by Washington.
"We welcomed the participation by Mr Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the realistic approach taken by the US right now vis--vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts," he added.
Previously, Mottaki said the US administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks.
Burns' "presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play. An effort has started and if it is to succeed in resolving the nuclear issue, we have to take it to the next step," he added. PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.ns ... enDocument
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Ex-CIA Agent: War With Iran May be Coming
By: Tim Collie Article Font Size
No matter who is elected president in November, former CIA officer Robert Baer has no doubt about what will be topping his agenda: Iran.
“Everything is coming to a head in the Middle East,” Baer tells Newsmax. “The days of messing around with Iran are over. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for 30 years, and now we’re at the end of the road.”
The former CIA covert operative asserts that the Islamic nation of 70 million people is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.”
He warns that Iran is probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
That’s the message of Baer’s new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”
Baer came to national prominence after he left the agency in 1997 and wrote the New York Times bestseller “See No Evil,” detailing almost two decades of intrigue he saw firsthand while working for the agency. “See No Evil” and another Baer bestseller, “Sleeping with the Devil,” were the basis for the Oscar-winning film “Syriana.”
In previous books Baer had detailed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now he has his finger clearly pointed at the Iranians.
With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.
Like it or not, Baer argues in “The Devil We Know,” Iran is now a superpower with perhaps even more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. And the threat it poses has been ignored for far too long.
The next president will face three stark choices very soon, Baer says.
He can either stagger toward an eventual war with the Muslim nation or try to negotiate with a new Persian empire, much as previous administrations have done with hostile powers like the Soviet Union, Libya or North Korea.
Or the president can continue to “kick the can,” let Israel handle Iran, and reap the consequences.
“The Israelis are going to tell this to the next administration: ‘You guys have to do something or we got to do it.’ I hear that over and over again from the Israelis,” Baer says.
“And that’s exactly what we don’t want to do: push the Israelis into a corner,’’ he adds. “Because they’ve got guts. We either have to have the b***s to take on Iran and knock them down a peg, or we have to have the guts to have a serious sit-down.”
A combination of analysis and recent reporting from Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, the book lays out Baer’s argument that Iran should be seen not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union or China. Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.
Baer has friends and sources in every corner of the Mideast: from Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon to Sunni sheiks in Iraq. He knows the languages, the cultures and the history of the Middle East quite well.
Iran aspires to be the center of not only Shia Islam but also all Islam, with the goal of eventually taking over the holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saudi Arabia, Baer says. That process is already pretty far along.
In Lebanon, it has created a state within a state led by the powerful Hezbollah, created by Iranian agents in the 1980s. It has made key alliances with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has top allies in the Iraqi government, and is pressuring Saudi Arabia to share control of its holy places.
He says these are the natural tendencies of a nation with imperial ambitions -- something that Iranian leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have been quite open about in interviews.
Iran has evolved “from a terrorist state to a calculating Machiavellian power,” Baer says. Despite its religious, messianic, end-of-days rhetoric, its motives are clear-headed and logical once its history is understood.
Simply put, the Iranians are not crazy.
“They are not homicidal maniacs like the Sunni terrorists or Osama Bin Laden,’’ Baer says. “There’s no other way to look at bin Laden: he’s a nihilist. The Iranians have a mission, a goal. You may not meet their terms. You may end up in war with them, but just possibly you might be able to strike a deal with them.”
Says Baer: “I think they want stable markets in oil. I think they want to open up trade. I think they want a big say in Iraq. I think they want to stop the oppression of the Shia in Saudi Arabia. I think they want implementation of (United Nations Security Council) Resolution 242,” which calls for the Israelis to pull back from the West Bank and other territories seized in the Six Day War of 1967.
Baer doesn’t take Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his messianic, Holocaust-denying rhetoric seriously. He points out that, under the Iranian system, the president is largely a figurehead with little power. The real power rests with the country’s supreme leader and a small core of religious leaders in the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts.
“He’s like the queen of England,” Baer says. “That’s how much power he has. In the Iranian system, he’s like a crazy congressman on the left or the right -- nobody pays much attention to him.”
“You have to go on actions, not words,” he adds. “The guy’s nuts. He’s bipolar. He doesn’t have it together. He’s like the Manchurian candidate, and since he doesn’t have his finger on the trigger, I don’t really care much.”
Baer is not saying that U.S. differences with the new Iranian superpower are resolvable. Nor is he saying the U.S. must not push back against Iran in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
War may be inevitable. But by engaging Iran, there’s a better chance that such a war will be at a time of America’s choosing, not Iran’s, Baer believes. He wants a tough negotiator, someone like former Secretary of State James Baker, to be tasked with talking to Iran.
“If we have to get in a war let’s make sure it’s intentional, not accidental, one that we can control,” Baer says. “But if we have to get into a war with Iran, let’s at least try to determine what the hell is going on in Tehran.”
[Editor’s Note: Get Robert Bayer’s book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower” — Go here now.]
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran_w ... 37519.html
By: Tim Collie Article Font Size
No matter who is elected president in November, former CIA officer Robert Baer has no doubt about what will be topping his agenda: Iran.
“Everything is coming to a head in the Middle East,” Baer tells Newsmax. “The days of messing around with Iran are over. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for 30 years, and now we’re at the end of the road.”
The former CIA covert operative asserts that the Islamic nation of 70 million people is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.”
He warns that Iran is probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
That’s the message of Baer’s new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”
Baer came to national prominence after he left the agency in 1997 and wrote the New York Times bestseller “See No Evil,” detailing almost two decades of intrigue he saw firsthand while working for the agency. “See No Evil” and another Baer bestseller, “Sleeping with the Devil,” were the basis for the Oscar-winning film “Syriana.”
In previous books Baer had detailed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now he has his finger clearly pointed at the Iranians.
With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.
Like it or not, Baer argues in “The Devil We Know,” Iran is now a superpower with perhaps even more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. And the threat it poses has been ignored for far too long.
The next president will face three stark choices very soon, Baer says.
He can either stagger toward an eventual war with the Muslim nation or try to negotiate with a new Persian empire, much as previous administrations have done with hostile powers like the Soviet Union, Libya or North Korea.
Or the president can continue to “kick the can,” let Israel handle Iran, and reap the consequences.
“The Israelis are going to tell this to the next administration: ‘You guys have to do something or we got to do it.’ I hear that over and over again from the Israelis,” Baer says.
“And that’s exactly what we don’t want to do: push the Israelis into a corner,’’ he adds. “Because they’ve got guts. We either have to have the b***s to take on Iran and knock them down a peg, or we have to have the guts to have a serious sit-down.”
A combination of analysis and recent reporting from Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, the book lays out Baer’s argument that Iran should be seen not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union or China. Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.
Baer has friends and sources in every corner of the Mideast: from Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon to Sunni sheiks in Iraq. He knows the languages, the cultures and the history of the Middle East quite well.
Iran aspires to be the center of not only Shia Islam but also all Islam, with the goal of eventually taking over the holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saudi Arabia, Baer says. That process is already pretty far along.
In Lebanon, it has created a state within a state led by the powerful Hezbollah, created by Iranian agents in the 1980s. It has made key alliances with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has top allies in the Iraqi government, and is pressuring Saudi Arabia to share control of its holy places.
He says these are the natural tendencies of a nation with imperial ambitions -- something that Iranian leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have been quite open about in interviews.
Iran has evolved “from a terrorist state to a calculating Machiavellian power,” Baer says. Despite its religious, messianic, end-of-days rhetoric, its motives are clear-headed and logical once its history is understood.
Simply put, the Iranians are not crazy.
“They are not homicidal maniacs like the Sunni terrorists or Osama Bin Laden,’’ Baer says. “There’s no other way to look at bin Laden: he’s a nihilist. The Iranians have a mission, a goal. You may not meet their terms. You may end up in war with them, but just possibly you might be able to strike a deal with them.”
Says Baer: “I think they want stable markets in oil. I think they want to open up trade. I think they want a big say in Iraq. I think they want to stop the oppression of the Shia in Saudi Arabia. I think they want implementation of (United Nations Security Council) Resolution 242,” which calls for the Israelis to pull back from the West Bank and other territories seized in the Six Day War of 1967.
Baer doesn’t take Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his messianic, Holocaust-denying rhetoric seriously. He points out that, under the Iranian system, the president is largely a figurehead with little power. The real power rests with the country’s supreme leader and a small core of religious leaders in the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts.
“He’s like the queen of England,” Baer says. “That’s how much power he has. In the Iranian system, he’s like a crazy congressman on the left or the right -- nobody pays much attention to him.”
“You have to go on actions, not words,” he adds. “The guy’s nuts. He’s bipolar. He doesn’t have it together. He’s like the Manchurian candidate, and since he doesn’t have his finger on the trigger, I don’t really care much.”
Baer is not saying that U.S. differences with the new Iranian superpower are resolvable. Nor is he saying the U.S. must not push back against Iran in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
War may be inevitable. But by engaging Iran, there’s a better chance that such a war will be at a time of America’s choosing, not Iran’s, Baer believes. He wants a tough negotiator, someone like former Secretary of State James Baker, to be tasked with talking to Iran.
“If we have to get in a war let’s make sure it’s intentional, not accidental, one that we can control,” Baer says. “But if we have to get into a war with Iran, let’s at least try to determine what the hell is going on in Tehran.”
[Editor’s Note: Get Robert Bayer’s book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower” — Go here now.]
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran_w ... 37519.html
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Analysis: How to stop Iran from making a bomb
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull
According to the latest IAEA report, Iran has added new uranium enrichment gas-centrifuge machines to the existing ones and is further enlarging its enrichment capacity.
It has also stepped up both the rate of uranium enrichment and the development of more advanced types of gas centrifuges that in turn would increase the rate of enrichment further.
If all goes well for Teheran, it would be able to amass a sufficient quantity of low-enriched uranium to enable it to further enrich it and, by the turn of the decade, produce enough military-grade uranium to produce a nuclear device.
Iran has defied all calls by the IAEA, the UN Security Council and many countries to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Iran's envoy to the IAEA has stated, "We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the Additional Protocol."
Without the application of the Additional Protocol, the IAEA cannot be expected to achieve much in confirming the "peaceful nature" of Iran's nuclear program, or to uncover the details of Iran's military nuclear program. It can only be concluded that the talks with Iran and all but the most superficial inspection activities have reached a dead end.
It is now up to the Security Council to decide how to proceed. Facing it are three choices: strong enough economic and diplomatic sanctions to force Iran into serious negotiations, military action or accepting a nuclear Iran.
Proposals for sanctions have centered around a threefold program: a) to prohibit sale of any goods to Iran with the exception of food and medical supplies; b) to restrict Iranians' foreign travel by having UN member states refuse to issue entry visas to Iranians except for humanitarian or health reasons or for negotiating purposes; c) to start - with the appointment of a subcommittee or other agreed negotiators - serious ongoing negotiations with Teheran on the complete cessation of its nuclear-fuel activities in Iran, while also dealing with vital security issues, including abandonment of Iranian assistance to terrorist organizations and the establishment of normal relations with all nations. In return, Iran would receive security guarantees.
This program must be viewed as a complete package. There is very little chance that Iran will cease its nuclear-development agenda and start serious negotiations unless strongly and effectively pressured. Without strong, painful sanctions Iran will continue playing for time. Iran must be made to consider the cost-benefit relationship of its actions.
Once Iran realizes that it has a lot to gain by cooperating and a lot to lose by doing otherwise, the talks would have a chance of succeeding.
Should the Security Council find itself unable to agree on such a program, this option should be taken up by others such as the European Union, which, together with like-minded countries, could enforce the above restrictions while negotiating with Iran on these topics.
This might have less effect than Security Council action but still could be quite effective.
If the Security Council or major political blocs do not quickly agree on the strong sanctions-negotiations route, the possibility of a military action will become more realistic.
And if that doesn't happen, there will be no way to avoid the least desirable option - a nuclear-armed Iran.
Reprinted with permission of INSS - Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull
According to the latest IAEA report, Iran has added new uranium enrichment gas-centrifuge machines to the existing ones and is further enlarging its enrichment capacity.
It has also stepped up both the rate of uranium enrichment and the development of more advanced types of gas centrifuges that in turn would increase the rate of enrichment further.
If all goes well for Teheran, it would be able to amass a sufficient quantity of low-enriched uranium to enable it to further enrich it and, by the turn of the decade, produce enough military-grade uranium to produce a nuclear device.
Iran has defied all calls by the IAEA, the UN Security Council and many countries to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Iran's envoy to the IAEA has stated, "We continue cooperating with the IAEA but they should not expect us to apply the Additional Protocol."
Without the application of the Additional Protocol, the IAEA cannot be expected to achieve much in confirming the "peaceful nature" of Iran's nuclear program, or to uncover the details of Iran's military nuclear program. It can only be concluded that the talks with Iran and all but the most superficial inspection activities have reached a dead end.
It is now up to the Security Council to decide how to proceed. Facing it are three choices: strong enough economic and diplomatic sanctions to force Iran into serious negotiations, military action or accepting a nuclear Iran.
Proposals for sanctions have centered around a threefold program: a) to prohibit sale of any goods to Iran with the exception of food and medical supplies; b) to restrict Iranians' foreign travel by having UN member states refuse to issue entry visas to Iranians except for humanitarian or health reasons or for negotiating purposes; c) to start - with the appointment of a subcommittee or other agreed negotiators - serious ongoing negotiations with Teheran on the complete cessation of its nuclear-fuel activities in Iran, while also dealing with vital security issues, including abandonment of Iranian assistance to terrorist organizations and the establishment of normal relations with all nations. In return, Iran would receive security guarantees.
This program must be viewed as a complete package. There is very little chance that Iran will cease its nuclear-development agenda and start serious negotiations unless strongly and effectively pressured. Without strong, painful sanctions Iran will continue playing for time. Iran must be made to consider the cost-benefit relationship of its actions.
Once Iran realizes that it has a lot to gain by cooperating and a lot to lose by doing otherwise, the talks would have a chance of succeeding.
Should the Security Council find itself unable to agree on such a program, this option should be taken up by others such as the European Union, which, together with like-minded countries, could enforce the above restrictions while negotiating with Iran on these topics.
This might have less effect than Security Council action but still could be quite effective.
If the Security Council or major political blocs do not quickly agree on the strong sanctions-negotiations route, the possibility of a military action will become more realistic.
And if that doesn't happen, there will be no way to avoid the least desirable option - a nuclear-armed Iran.
Reprinted with permission of INSS - Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
India skips crucial meet on IPI pipeline
Monday, Oct 06, 2008
India has missed yet another meeting on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline last weekend as officials from Iran and Pakistan met in Teheran to discuss the revised project cost and a new pricing formula. The cost of the pipeline is now projected at $9 billion, around $1.5 billion more than the earlier estimate. Also, the cost of gas for India may increase by 40 per cent if the new pricing formula quoted by Iran is accepted.There seems to be no urgency from India. Like last year, India has not joined Iran and Pakistan at the secretary-level meeting that took place on Saturday in Teheran,” said an Iranian official, who did not want to be identified.
“Everyone is running out of time,” he added.
However, Indian officials said they would first have to settle the issue of transportation tariff and transit fees to ensure security of the pipeline with Pakistan before they restarted talks with Iran. Indian and Pakistani officials met in April this year to settle the issue but could not reach an agreement.
http://www.youroilandgasnews.com/news_i ... wsID=12025
Monday, Oct 06, 2008
India has missed yet another meeting on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline last weekend as officials from Iran and Pakistan met in Teheran to discuss the revised project cost and a new pricing formula. The cost of the pipeline is now projected at $9 billion, around $1.5 billion more than the earlier estimate. Also, the cost of gas for India may increase by 40 per cent if the new pricing formula quoted by Iran is accepted.There seems to be no urgency from India. Like last year, India has not joined Iran and Pakistan at the secretary-level meeting that took place on Saturday in Teheran,” said an Iranian official, who did not want to be identified.
“Everyone is running out of time,” he added.
However, Indian officials said they would first have to settle the issue of transportation tariff and transit fees to ensure security of the pipeline with Pakistan before they restarted talks with Iran. Indian and Pakistani officials met in April this year to settle the issue but could not reach an agreement.
http://www.youroilandgasnews.com/news_i ... wsID=12025
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
From UPI.com
Russia, China boost Iran's ICBM program
By ARIEL COHEN Published: Oct. 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- Attempts to thwart Iran's missile ambitions are hampered by the fact that Tehran is being backed by Russia and China. These powers are actually partners in the Iranian ballistic missile and space programs, which they view as both geopolitically desirable -- to dilute U.S. influence -- and lucrative.
It is likely that Iran's Explorer-1 rocket is the result of the country's advanced ballistic missile program.
The greater the range and payload capacity, the more capable is a missile to serve as a civilian SLV (satellite launch vehicle). Thus, the launching of the Iranian rocket could mark a threshold in Tehran's development of longer-range ballistic missiles.
And it is highly unlikely that, without plans to deploy nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles, the Islamic Republic of Iran would be developing civilian space launch capability when commercial space launch services are readily and cheaply available from French Guyana to Russia to India and China.
It is expected that the Shahab 4 and Shahab 5 would have, in addition to inertial navigation systems, advanced navigation technology, possibly sold by Russia, which could be competing with China in the lucrative Iranian ballistic missile market.
Russia, China boost Iran's ICBM program
By ARIEL COHEN Published: Oct. 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- Attempts to thwart Iran's missile ambitions are hampered by the fact that Tehran is being backed by Russia and China. These powers are actually partners in the Iranian ballistic missile and space programs, which they view as both geopolitically desirable -- to dilute U.S. influence -- and lucrative.
It is likely that Iran's Explorer-1 rocket is the result of the country's advanced ballistic missile program.
The greater the range and payload capacity, the more capable is a missile to serve as a civilian SLV (satellite launch vehicle). Thus, the launching of the Iranian rocket could mark a threshold in Tehran's development of longer-range ballistic missiles.
And it is highly unlikely that, without plans to deploy nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles, the Islamic Republic of Iran would be developing civilian space launch capability when commercial space launch services are readily and cheaply available from French Guyana to Russia to India and China.
It is expected that the Shahab 4 and Shahab 5 would have, in addition to inertial navigation systems, advanced navigation technology, possibly sold by Russia, which could be competing with China in the lucrative Iranian ballistic missile market.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Bush's final Iran blunder? By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ07Ak02.html
US cool to Israeli strike on Iran: By Peter Hirschberg
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ07Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ07Ak02.html
US cool to Israeli strike on Iran: By Peter Hirschberg
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ07Ak01.html
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=7 ... =351020104
US aircraft violates Iran air space
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:26:17 GMT
A US warplane has been forced to land in Iran after violating the Islamic Republic's air space, Iranian air force officials say.
SBB/DT
US aircraft violates Iran air space
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:26:17 GMT
A US warplane has been forced to land in Iran after violating the Islamic Republic's air space, Iranian air force officials say.
SBB/DT
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7657066.stm
Iran 'forces down foreign plane'
A foreign aircraft has been forced to land in Iran after violating Iranian airspace, Iranian news agencies say.
The semi-official Fars said the plane was a US Falcon, while state TV said it belonged to a European aid agency.
Both reports said those on board were released a day later, without saying when the event happened.
The Pentagon denied any of its aircraft had been involved in such an incident, saying all were accounted for and that none had landed in Iran.
The Fars report said the aircraft entered Iranian airspace from Turkey, flying at low altitude to avoid radar.
It said the plane was intercepted by Iranian fighter jets and forced to land at an undisclosed airport.
It said its occupants were released a day later after it became clear they had entered the country unintentionally.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=7 ... =351020104
US aircraft violates Iran air space
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:26:17 GMT
A US Falcon warplane has been forced to land in an Iranian airport after violating the Islamic Republic's air space, officials say.
SBB/DT
Iran 'forces down foreign plane'
A foreign aircraft has been forced to land in Iran after violating Iranian airspace, Iranian news agencies say.
The semi-official Fars said the plane was a US Falcon, while state TV said it belonged to a European aid agency.
Both reports said those on board were released a day later, without saying when the event happened.
The Pentagon denied any of its aircraft had been involved in such an incident, saying all were accounted for and that none had landed in Iran.
The Fars report said the aircraft entered Iranian airspace from Turkey, flying at low altitude to avoid radar.
It said the plane was intercepted by Iranian fighter jets and forced to land at an undisclosed airport.
It said its occupants were released a day later after it became clear they had entered the country unintentionally.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=7 ... =351020104
US aircraft violates Iran air space
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:26:17 GMT
A US Falcon warplane has been forced to land in an Iranian airport after violating the Islamic Republic's air space, officials say.
SBB/DT
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Russia willing to boost cooperation with Iran on energy sector
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=179390
Russia is willing to promote its cooperation with Iran in energy sector, particularly gas, said head of Russia’s State Duma committee on energy, transport and communication, Valery Yazov, on Sunday evening.
He made the remarks prior to leave Moscow for Tehran where he is to attend a regional meeting on energy.
Yazov is also expected to hold separate meetings with senior Iranian officials on major bilateral, regional and international developments.
Speaking to IRNA at the airport, he reiterated Moscow’s stand on supporting Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. “Russia supports Tehran's right to develop peaceful nuclear program,” Yazov said.
Condemning “certain states” for making efforts to tarnish Iran-Russia relations, Yazov said “Moscow is completely aware of those efforts.”
He added that Iran and Russia possessed 40 percent of world’s gas resources and that is why the U.S. is felt concerned about progress of Tehran-Moscow relations and cooperation.
“There is no limit or obstacle on the way of strengthening Tehran-Moscow cooperation,” added the Russian MP.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=179390
Russia is willing to promote its cooperation with Iran in energy sector, particularly gas, said head of Russia’s State Duma committee on energy, transport and communication, Valery Yazov, on Sunday evening.
He made the remarks prior to leave Moscow for Tehran where he is to attend a regional meeting on energy.
Yazov is also expected to hold separate meetings with senior Iranian officials on major bilateral, regional and international developments.
Speaking to IRNA at the airport, he reiterated Moscow’s stand on supporting Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. “Russia supports Tehran's right to develop peaceful nuclear program,” Yazov said.
Condemning “certain states” for making efforts to tarnish Iran-Russia relations, Yazov said “Moscow is completely aware of those efforts.”
He added that Iran and Russia possessed 40 percent of world’s gas resources and that is why the U.S. is felt concerned about progress of Tehran-Moscow relations and cooperation.
“There is no limit or obstacle on the way of strengthening Tehran-Moscow cooperation,” added the Russian MP.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Israel fears Russia sending advanced arms to Iran
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/512784
REUTERS
MOSCOW–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert flew to Moscow today planning to persuade Russia not to sell advanced missiles and weapons technology to Iran and Syria.
Addressing his cabinet on the eve of the two-day trip, Olmert said he would discuss issues of "special, immediate concern" including the supply of weapons to "irresponsible elements."
"There are security issues on the agenda of course," he later told reporters travelling with him, adding that these included Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear program.
He said he understood Russia was also interested in discussing how Israeli peace negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria could move forward.
Olmert, interim prime minister until a new government is formed after his recent resignation due to last month's corruption scandal, meets Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later today and President Dmitry Medvedev tomorrow.
Asked about his chances of getting Medvedev to drop weapons sales to Iran and Syria, Olmert said he would wait and see. "I would prefer to let reality speak more than declarations on these matters," Olmert said.
Israeli defence sources, revising earlier statements that a deal between Moscow and Tehran was imminent, said yesterday the two sides were still negotiating a possible Iranian purchase of Russia's advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.
The S-300 would help Iran fend off any Israeli or U.S. air strike against its nuclear facilities. Some analysts believe an Iranian purchase of the system could accelerate the countdown to an attack to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Russia has denied intending to sell Iran the S-300, which can track 100 targets and fire on planes 120 km (75 miles) away. The system is known in the West as the SA-20.
'DEFENCE COOPERATION'
Hours before Olmert's arrival, the Russian arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, said it had no information on Russian plans to deliver the arms system to either Iran or Syria, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.
"We do not have any such information," Interfax quoted the Rosobornexport spokesperson as saying.
Asked whether Iran had bought the missiles, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hassan Qashqavi gave a vague response in comments translated by Iran's English-language Press TV.
"Iran's defensive might is based on our indigenous capabilities, and whatever action helps with expanding and strengthening our military and defensive might, we'll look into that," Qashqavi said.
"We have good defence cooperation with the Russians. One example would be anti-aircraft systems. We have had good cooperation and we continue to cooperate with them," he said.
Iran says its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at generating electricity. Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has called Iran's nuclear program a threat to the existence of the Jewish state.
Israel is also concerned about reports that Russia plans to supply advanced missiles to Syria. Russia has said any arms sales to Damascus would be solely for defensive purposes.
Addressing Washington's goal of achieving a limited peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Olmert said it was still possible before U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
"In my opinion it is possible. I would say it mostly depends on the readiness of the Palestinians," he said.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has objected to any deal that does not address the issues at the core of the conflict – the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/512784
REUTERS
MOSCOW–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert flew to Moscow today planning to persuade Russia not to sell advanced missiles and weapons technology to Iran and Syria.
Addressing his cabinet on the eve of the two-day trip, Olmert said he would discuss issues of "special, immediate concern" including the supply of weapons to "irresponsible elements."
"There are security issues on the agenda of course," he later told reporters travelling with him, adding that these included Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear program.
He said he understood Russia was also interested in discussing how Israeli peace negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria could move forward.
Olmert, interim prime minister until a new government is formed after his recent resignation due to last month's corruption scandal, meets Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later today and President Dmitry Medvedev tomorrow.
Asked about his chances of getting Medvedev to drop weapons sales to Iran and Syria, Olmert said he would wait and see. "I would prefer to let reality speak more than declarations on these matters," Olmert said.
Israeli defence sources, revising earlier statements that a deal between Moscow and Tehran was imminent, said yesterday the two sides were still negotiating a possible Iranian purchase of Russia's advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.
The S-300 would help Iran fend off any Israeli or U.S. air strike against its nuclear facilities. Some analysts believe an Iranian purchase of the system could accelerate the countdown to an attack to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Russia has denied intending to sell Iran the S-300, which can track 100 targets and fire on planes 120 km (75 miles) away. The system is known in the West as the SA-20.
'DEFENCE COOPERATION'
Hours before Olmert's arrival, the Russian arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, said it had no information on Russian plans to deliver the arms system to either Iran or Syria, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.
"We do not have any such information," Interfax quoted the Rosobornexport spokesperson as saying.
Asked whether Iran had bought the missiles, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hassan Qashqavi gave a vague response in comments translated by Iran's English-language Press TV.
"Iran's defensive might is based on our indigenous capabilities, and whatever action helps with expanding and strengthening our military and defensive might, we'll look into that," Qashqavi said.
"We have good defence cooperation with the Russians. One example would be anti-aircraft systems. We have had good cooperation and we continue to cooperate with them," he said.
Iran says its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at generating electricity. Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has called Iran's nuclear program a threat to the existence of the Jewish state.
Israel is also concerned about reports that Russia plans to supply advanced missiles to Syria. Russia has said any arms sales to Damascus would be solely for defensive purposes.
Addressing Washington's goal of achieving a limited peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Olmert said it was still possible before U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
"In my opinion it is possible. I would say it mostly depends on the readiness of the Palestinians," he said.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has objected to any deal that does not address the issues at the core of the conflict – the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Probably should be posted in the Humour forum
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday blamed a lack of attention to religion and God for the crisis in global financial markets.
"Their economy is collapsing... the reason for their defeat is that they have abandoned faith in God and piety," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech in the northeastern city of Bojnurd.
The repercussions of the credit crunch are "evidence that God's promise is being delivered, that tyrants and corrupt (people) should go and be replaced by the pious and believers," he said.
The president is a devotee of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam, who Shiites believe disappeared more than 1,000 years ago and who will return one day to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Keep an eye out for the people's mujahedin (Iranian opposition movement), it was recently removed from list of terror groups banned in the UK and the vice president of European parliament is working on removing them from list of banned org's in europe aswell. The people's mujahedin have got some friends in the Iran policy committee in the US too and has been banned there since 1997.
They have 4000 fighters currently stationed in a base in Ashraf, Iraq., protected by US soldiers, probably used by US for covert ops. The Iranians are actually negotiating with Washington about these fighters in Iraq. The US is going to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi govt.
They have 4000 fighters currently stationed in a base in Ashraf, Iraq., protected by US soldiers, probably used by US for covert ops. The Iranians are actually negotiating with Washington about these fighters in Iraq. The US is going to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi govt.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Russia may be backing away from Iran sale
Russia appears to be backing away from a proposed sale of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised the sale of the S-300s in meetings in Moscow this week with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Israel fears the missiles, which have a range of 150 kilimoters, will diminish its air superiority in the region and inhibit its ability to preemptively attack Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.
Asked Thursday about the Russian response to Olmert's request, Andrei Nesterenko, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "We have declared more than once at the very highest political level that we do not intend to supply those types of armaments to countries located in regions that are, to put it mildly, uneasy. This is not in the interests of our country's policy or the interests of preserving stability in one region or another of the world."
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110728.html
Russia appears to be backing away from a proposed sale of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised the sale of the S-300s in meetings in Moscow this week with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Israel fears the missiles, which have a range of 150 kilimoters, will diminish its air superiority in the region and inhibit its ability to preemptively attack Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.
Asked Thursday about the Russian response to Olmert's request, Andrei Nesterenko, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "We have declared more than once at the very highest political level that we do not intend to supply those types of armaments to countries located in regions that are, to put it mildly, uneasy. This is not in the interests of our country's policy or the interests of preserving stability in one region or another of the world."
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110728.html