Iran News and Discussions

[Sanjay M]

So, because of the waiver, India's going to get roped into any US attack on Iran, right?

If the US starts something there, the Iranians won't just turn the other cheek -- they'll unleash a firestorm of instability across the Middle East. Oil prices would definitely spike. I'm thinking that even Zardari's govt could fall.

In India, the political backlash would mean the fall of the Congress govt. Manmohan and Sonia would be tossed out on their ear and thrown into the dustheap of history, as was done to Narasimha Rao. That's about the only bright side I can see in all of this. Then the BJP can waltz into power and enjoy the fruits of Congress' labours on the nuclear deal. I'd much prefer that, as then at least India can proceed in its development without the ethnically slanted policies of the Congress Party. If we're going to break out of the 3rd World mold, we'd better make a full break with Nehruvianism too.

[renukb]

Unstable neighbourhood is not good for India in the long run. US is not going to help India protect itself from China, not anywhere in the near future, if it comes to that. The US can't even protect Georgia...

[Sanjay M]

I'm not sure how China would get involved in any US-Iran conflict. Likely they would lie low and reap the dividends of the political backlash against Yankee aggression in the Middle East. Since GulfWarOne made the Chinese sit up and take notice of America's "Revolution in Military Affairs" (aka. hi-tech smart bombs, etc), then I'm wondering if the US will be fielding any anti-missile lasers in a conflict with Iran, that might make China's eyes open wide.

Anyhow, it seems like any US strike on Iran would be limited to just that -- a strike. There would be no full war to achieve regime change in Tehran, and so you would see a wounded Iranian tiger striking back again and again across the region, with protracted aftershocks that would reshape the Middle East.

Iraq would be returned into a cauldron of anti-American violence, with Shiite groups at the forefront of an uprising, although AlQaeda might be able to profit.
Mainly, I'm thinking that AlQaeda and Taliban would seek to profit in Pakistan and Afghanistan, seizing the opportunity to topple the Pak govt.

[Prem]

Any talk about Iran Russia Chinese alliance increases the chance of Iranian reformation by Uncle . Iranian need to understand they will be the weakest link in this kind of grouping ,just like Georgia.

[Sanjay M]

Problem is that Uncle is already overstretched. If it doesn't even have troops for Georgia, then it certainly doesn't have troops to surge into Iran. The fact that Iraq and Afghanistan -- and even Pak itself -- are positioned right next to Iran means that Tehran has all the deadly reach it needs. They could effortlessly step up attacks on US forces in all the adjacent areas to keep them reeling and on the defensive.

That Iranian nuclear infrastructure could be destroyed is a given, but it would not be a clean operation, due to the Iranian retaliation and spillover effects. The conflict would continue to rage long after the strike.

[Suppiah]

US strategy in Iran would be very different from Afghan / Iraq. Unlike those two states where the aim was regime change and sustain that change through troops on ground, in Iran it will be destroy and get away. There is no point in regime change in Iran when nearly everyone (other than those that ran away to US) are of same type.

Unkil can do that quite effectively, regardless of commitments in other places.

To answer Renukb question on why hitting Iran benefits India, we have to treat the entire ME as a 'blob' and not as individual nations. Any strength that one of them has can be used against us in a potential do-or-die conflict with TSP. Practically all of them basically say 'Oh! Indiabhai we like you, we like Shah Rukh Khan, yes we know you support Palestine, but unfortunatealy we can't support you because of this Islamic-brotherhood thingy'

Because the next war with TSP if that happens, we will be seeking to destroy it completely so we can live peacefully for a few generations. That is what ABV hinted when he said aar-paar-ki ladai.

TSP will play the Islam card and try and rope in partners. Who can predict who will say YES and join the game? So west of Rajasthan, we have no one else to depend on other than Afghan (for historic reasons) and Israel.

[ranganathan]

Iran problem can be solved by a simple regime change bought about by the youth who are against the mullahs. US will continue its sanctions against iran but I can't see them doing anything other than surgical strikes.

[Sanjay M]

US strategy in Iran would be very different from Afghan / Iraq. Unlike those two states where the aim was regime change and sustain that change through troops on ground, in Iran it will be destroy and get away. There is no point in regime change in Iran when nearly everyone (other than those that ran away to US) are of same type.

No, the Ayatollahs are now the unpopular oppressive establishment, and are thus hated by the masses. Look at the huge pro-US sympathy turnout on the street in Iran, following 9.11

Unkil can do that quite effectively, regardless of commitments in other places.

To answer Renukb question on why hitting Iran benefits India, we have to treat the entire ME as a 'blob' and not as individual nations. Any strength that one of them has can be used against us in a potential do-or-die conflict with TSP. Practically all of them basically say 'Oh! Indiabhai we like you, we like Shah Rukh Khan, yes we know you support Palestine, but unfortunatealy we can't support you because of this Islamic-brotherhood thingy'

Because the next war with TSP if that happens, we will be seeking to destroy it completely so we can live peacefully for a few generations. That is what ABV hinted when he said aar-paar-ki ladai.

TSP will play the Islam card and try and rope in partners. Who can predict who will say YES and join the game? So west of Rajasthan, we have no one else to depend on other than Afghan (for historic reasons) and Israel.

We can't afford to overtly alienate Iran, because of their petro-importance and because of their past help in fighting Taliban. We have no border with Afghanistan, remember?

[Suppiah]

There was a brief period of hope when Khatami was President. But today it is hard to see any hope of Iran cleaning itself up and coming out with a nice regime. Oil price has given the mullah's new lease of life. Iran is plagued by massive emigration of skilled people, whoever knows what is going on and dont agree seem to vote with their feet ala SL, and is likely to remain this way for a long time.

I agree we cant overtly take Iran on (or for that matter any of the other ME barbarians), but if someone is doing the dirty job for us, we can at least stand back and watch and not make too much noise.

[Suppiah]

Too much is said about the so called petrol factor. None of these rogues, be it Chavez, Putin or Saudi Barbarians/Iran can afford to cut off fuel supply, at least to the west. In the case of Putin and Chavez, it is oil exports to the west that feed their anti-western agenda, which is precisely why they dare not cut off supplies (and which is also why they are unlikely to succeed). In the case of ME it is the oil exports that fuel their anti-civilisational agenda. This is not 1970s.

India is of course, more vulnerable to blackmail but selective blockades rarely work especially if not enforced by arms.

[renukb]

I agree we cant overtly take Iran on (or for that matter any of the other ME barbarians), but if someone is doing the dirty job for us, we can at least stand back and watch and not make too much noise.

Why do we have to overtly take on Iran or for that matter the ME barbarians? Iran and most ME nations are a friendly nations to India. Why do you want to create an enemy out of a friend?

Why do you expect others to clean up and fight your wars? Did anyone do the dirty job in Pakistan for the sake of India?

[Suppiah]

I agree we cant overtly take Iran on (or for that matter any of the other ME barbarians), but if someone is doing the dirty job for us, we can at least stand back and watch and not make too much noise.

Why do we have to overtly take on Iran or for that matter the ME barbarians? Iran and most ME nations are a friendly nations to India. Why do you want to create an enemy out of a friend?

Why do you expect others to clean up and fight your wars? Did anyone do the dirty job in Pakistan for the sake of India?

I dont think we are great friends with any of them. Some of them barely conceal their hostility at OIC and other forums. Some of them treat us as labor scum and deny us treatment offered to Pakbarians. Some are ok. (Oman etc)

Yes in normal times everyone is a friend, we trade with them, supply them maids to be abused etc. I am talking about abnormal situations - such as when we need to finally deal with TSP to either destroy it or break it up. At that point in time, you can bet your shirt that none of these states will be on our side, chances are they will be arming, supporting TSP. Which means while we don't have to gird our loins and yearn for a fight with them, we certainly dont want to see them becoming stronger militarily and we dont care if someone comes and bashes them up. We keep the facade of being nice-nice, that's fine.

Any amount of our licking their rear is not going to make a difference when the big moment arrives. They will side with TSP. They will point the gun at our head and say sorry, nothing personal, we like you, but I am doing this for the sake of Islam.

I dont expect the west to fight our wars. But when they bash someone up for their own reasons, and that suits our agenda, that is fine.

[renukb]

Any amount of our licking their rear is not going to make a difference when the big moment arrives. They will side with TSP. They will point the gun at our head and say sorry, nothing personal, we like you, but I am doing this for the sake of Islam.

You could be wrong in asserting so... At most they will remain neutral, but they will not send armies to fight India. We need Gas, they have it. Talk business with them, as long as itr serves our interests. Being their big client can change lots of opinions.

A Bad neighbourhood, blood could spill into our land as well. Maintaining good relation ship with thm, (lip services) and managing good economics where it is mutually beneficial will benefit India and the ME states. We dfon't want US to play a unkle role in our backyards. US might hit and run, leaving the region in chaos and for you to manage it. We don't want that to happen.

[Suppiah]

A Bad neighbourhood, blood could spill into our land as well. Maintaining good relation ship with thm, (lip services) and managing good economics where it is mutually beneficial will benefit India and the ME states. We dfon't want US to play a unkle role in our backyards. US might hit and run, leaving the region in chaos and for you to manage it. We don't want that to happen.

Unkil never seeks our approval for whatever right or wrong he does and is not going to start doing so. So we have not much choice. I agree we keep lip service and buy and sell mutually, let them come here and use our hookers as they usually do, watch bollywood, etc.etc. But always keep in back of our mind it is like rearing a tiger. One day it will smell blood and eat you. Basic instincts. Can't do much. Look how great our relationship with BD is. Should give us enough lessons for a few generations.

[renukb]

One day it will smell blood and eat you. Basic instincts. Can't do much. Look how great our relationship with BD is. Should give us enough lessons for a few generations.

Why do you think India possesses the nuke deterrent?

[renukb]

Gearing Up to Strike Iran
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... 66041E2B99

By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 08, 2008

According to a recent article (in Hebrew) in the Israeli daily Maariv, Israel’s top political and security officials have taken a decision to attack Iran’s nuclear program if nothing else is done to halt it.

Senior journalist Ben Caspit writes that “the debate between those who think everything must be done, including a military operation, to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb and those who think one can live with it, has been decided. If the Iranian regime doesn’t fall during the coming year, if the Americans don’t deliver a military blow and if the sanctions don’t break the Iranian nuclear program, Israel will have to take action. In other words: the preparations for an Israeli military option…are already underway.”

Caspit adds by way of explanation: “In the Tehran-Jerusalem-Washington triangle, things haven’t been going well. Israel is desperate to get American permission for an attack on Iran, but is not obtaining it…. The shortest flight route to Iran passes over Iraq, where the Americans are in control.”

Instead of the needed overflight codes, Caspit claims, the U.S. is offering Israel defensive radar—“‘We’ll help you defend yourselves, but we’ll prevent you from attacking,’ say the Americans.” That description dovetails with recent reports of opposition to a strike on Iran—Israeli or American—particularly by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen. A security source told Caspit that “the Americans have accepted a nuclear Iran and are trying to get us to accept it.” (Another report in the rumor mill has claimed the opposite—that the U.S. is itself preparing for a strike.)

In any case, Israel, according to Caspit, is not at all inclined to countenance a nuclear Iran, and former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh (now head of a new political party) has been especially active trying to get that point across. Caspit says Sneh sent a document to both U.S. presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, in which he stated: “No government in Jerusalem will accept a nuclear Iran. Once it is clear Iran is at the point of nuclearization, an Israeli military action to prevent it will be on the agenda.”

To avoid that, Sneh wrote to McCain and Obama, the time has come for an all-out U.S. effort to get Europe to cooperate in imposing “real” sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. Those sanctions, Sneh believes, would have to be a complete embargo on replacement parts for Iran’s oil and refined-oil industry and a total boycott of the Iranian banking system.

Apparently aware himself of how hard that would be to achieve, Sneh recently went to Switzerland and Austria—countries that, as Caspit notes, “have announced huge investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.”

Caspit quotes Sneh as telling him that “words about a Holocaust of Jews or Israeli security don’t impress those folks.” So instead Sneh told them it was “too bad” about their investments, “because Iddo’s going to set it all on fire”—referring to recently appointed Israeli air force chief Iddo Nehushtan. “‘Investing in Iran in 2008,’ Sneh told the Austrians, ‘is like investing in the Krupp steelworks in 1938, a high-risk investment.’ The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.”

Caspit goes on to mention assessments of the likely military response to an Israeli strike on Iran—not only from Iran itself but also from Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza with their stocks of thousands of missiles. It’s with this in mind, Caspit claims, that Olmert has been holding his talks with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Olmert, according to Caspit, has said in closed forums that “Assad is a smart, sober man…. He’s capable of restraint and doesn’t belong to the world of radical Islam.”

1. Caspit’s status and contacts as an Israeli journalist mean his report shouldn’t be taken lightly. Israel is indeed in political flux, with Olmert possibly facing indictment on corruption charges and his Kadima Party set to hold primaries in less than two weeks that may further lead to general elections. Caspit describes, however, a situation where alarm at Iran’s nuclear progress is predominant, with left-of-center Labor Party figures like Sneh and Defense Minister Ehud Barak among the most alarmed. And as if Israel’s political flux wasn’t enough, its leaders will naturally be watching keenly what happens on November 4 and—if there are still no major events in the security sphere by then—will see the situation as even more stark if the winner is someone who believes everyone is basically nice and just needs to be talked to.

2. Caspit describes the Israeli leaders as, albeit deeply concerned, having a time frame that may not be realistic. Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reports that both the U.S. and Israel now fear that Russia stands to supply the sophisticated S-300 air-defense system to Iran in retaliation for Washington supporting NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. The S-300 is so effective that it’s said to be a “game-changer” that would rule out an Israeli raid and seriously complicate a U.S. attack. The system would take up to a year to become operational but the Israel sense of urgency would only be escalating.

3. It’s striking how loath even some Israelis like Sneh, who have no illusions about the Iranian threat, are to give up on the idea of concerted sanctions against Iran in which the Europeans would participate. In addition to Sneh’s Austrian and Swiss interlocutors, most recently Germany—led by the ostensibly conservative, pro-American Angela Merkel—has granted permission to the SPG engineering firm to build three plants in Iran for liquefying natural gas in a 100-million-euro deal. Even in the close-to-impossible scenario that Europe would at last sign on to severe sanctions, Iran’s friends outside the NATO sphere like Russia, China, and India would help it get past the rough patch.

4. Also striking is Olmert’s ongoing insistence on Assad’s reasonableness and potential benign role even in the aftermath of the Syrian leader’s trip to Moscow where he reportedly requested his own S-300 system as well as offensive weapons capable of affecting the Israeli-Syrian strategic balance. Olmert apparently is also not impressed by Assad’s praise for Russia’s invasion of Georgia and what that says about Assad’s geopolitical alignment. Although not shared by the current Bush administration, the belief in the Assad pere et fils regime’s pliability and openness to be enticed—with the Golan Heights—into the Western camp despite decades of drastic evidence to the contrary appears to be an incurable affliction.

5. Although current Israeli leaders Olmert, Barak, and Livni are aware of how badly Israel’s strategic position is complicated by the Hezbollah threat in Lebanon and the Hamas threat in Gaza, creating the possibility of a four-pronged missile barrage in addition to Syria and Iran, these leaders have not been able to draw the right conclusions or improve the situation. Despite frequent threats to act against Hamas, Barak has remained passive and has now grasped at the straw of a “ceasefire” in which Hamas is feverishly building its forces. It was largely Olmert and Livni’s bungling in the summer 2006 war that further empowered Hezbollah in Lebanon and since then they’ve done nothing to impede that process. Add this to the ongoing U.S. and Israeli impotence toward Syria, and U.S. and Western fecklessness toward Iran, and the situation is indeed acute.

[Suppiah]

One day it will smell blood and eat you. Basic instincts. Can't do much. Look how great our relationship with BD is. Should give us enough lessons for a few generations.

Why do you think India possesses the nuke deterrent?

I think we agree generally that we should be friendly with them and not look out for fights. Let us leave it there. We can't predict how they behave, so assume worst. (After fighting 8 years of war, devastating each other, Iraq sent its planes to Iran for safekeeping when US attacked)

Thanks for understanding..

[renukb]

Peres warns Olmert: Attack on Iran could spark wide-scale war
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1018859.html

President Shimon Peres has warned Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is likely to trigger a wide-scale confrontation, A British newspaper reported Sunday.

Peres is the first senior politician to warn the prime minister against an Israeli attack on Iran, with other politicians threatening an air attack if Tehran does not abandon uranium enrichment in what the West believes is a quest to develop nuclear weapons.

"The military path will not solve the problem," Peres said in an interview with Britain's Sunday Times. "Such an attack can trigger a bigger war."

Peres said he prefers the civilian path, adding that he has voiced this sentiment directly to Olmert. However, he declined to reveal what the prime minister had said in response.

Peres, a firm believer in international cooperation, added that Israel requires the cooperation of more nations in order to stop Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The danger is not a nuclear Iran, Peres continued, but rather nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous leaders like the Iranian president.

"If Switzerland announces tomorrow that it has nuclear weapons, would anyone worry?" said Peres.

"I recently told [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin that the Marxists say that religion is the opium of the masses. I say religion is the opium of leaders like Ahmadinejad," he added.

Peres said a serious attempt to cut the price of oil would help reduce Iran's ambitions to a more realistic level.

"The world has no choice - if nuclear weapons reach the hands of terrorists, it will be impossible to rule the world," he said.

In the interview, Peres also criticized American foreign policy, saying it relied too heavily on military strength in its attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East.

Peres said it would be wiser to use economic strength, saying, "If you suggest elections to the Saudis or to King Abdullah of Jordan they will refuse, as they regard democracy as a new religion and they want to remain Muslims. But if American businessmen offer high-tech companies, they would be most welcome."

[renukb]

Iran launches joint research satellite
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.as ... ueID=31172

TEHRAN: A joint research satellite of China, Iran and Thailand was launched on a Chinese rocket yesterday aimed at boosting co-operation on natural disasters such as earthquakes, an Iranian minister said yesterday.

Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Soleimani said the three countries had worked together on the satellite which he said was equipped with cameras.

Meanwhile, Iran's armed forces will begin three days of war games today involving anti-aircraft defence systems.

The Isna news agency said both Iran's Revolutionary Guards and its regular army would take part in the drills.

[renukb]

I think we agree generally that we should be friendly with them and not look out for fights. Let us leave it there. We can't predict how they behave, so assume worst. (After fighting 8 years of war, devastating each other, Iraq sent its planes to Iran for safekeeping when US attacked)

Thanks for understanding..

While I agree with you in general, the bold part, lets not get paranoid like US, imagining threats from every angle. be prepared for the worst. Our defense preparedness should be at the highest level to counter the best in the world, but we should not be a paranoid state.

[Philip]

Well Iran is rapidly preparing for the worst and wisely is investing heavily into augmenting its sub fleet,not with large Kilos,that it has,but with large numbers of smaller "semi-heavy" subs locally built.These subs which have smaller weapon loads,can carry mines and torpedoes,both of which can cause havoc in the confined waters of the Gulf.Laying a large number of mines is the easiest way for Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz.Dealing with modern mines is going to be a long drawn out task for any armada,who will also be in striking distance of Iranian anti-ship missiles.In addition,all Iran needs to also do is to scuttle a few merchantmen as "block ships" themselves to impede and make transiting the Gulf waters dangerous for world shipping.

It is far better to engage Iran diplomatically and work out a deal with it than threatening to destroy its nuclear plants and installations.Israel is paranoic abouit Iran even possessing just one nuclear weapon.This madness of attacking Iran in pre-emptive strikes,is however very attractive to US neo-cons who want chaos in the Middle East to accelerate Armageddon and "prepare" for the second coming of Jesus Christ!

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68 ... =351020101

Semi-heavy submarines to protect Iran waters
Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:03:08 GMT

Iran's Nahang (Whale) submarine
Iran is upgrading its naval fleet with a new generation of domestically-built submarines in an attempt to defend its territorial waters.

Iran's Chief Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, said Saturday that the semi-heavy Qaa'em submarine is equipped with torpedoes and naval mines.

According to Rear Adm. Sayyari, the smart long-range Qaa'em submarine is also capable of carrying out both 'defensive and offensive operations'.

The announcement of the new addition to the Iranian naval fleet comes shortly after reports that a large armada of US and European warships has been deployed to the Persian Gulf in an unprecedented build-up.

Shortly after the release of the report in August, Iran warned that its naval forces are monitoring all movements in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian commander said Saturday that Iran is the only regional country capable of developing such sophisticated technology, adding that the Islamic Republic is fully prepared to defend its territorial waters with its self-sufficient military.

Washington and its allies demand Tehran halt its uranium enrichment program despite the country being entitlement to the peaceful application of nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel, an ally of the US, has long threatened to launch military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities should the country continue its enrichment activities.

Tehran, however, says it is determined to assert its nuclear rights. It has declared that it will not give in to Western pressures and that diplomacy is the only means acceptable in resolving the nuclear dispute.

CS/AA

[renukb]

Iran, China will boost ties: Ahmadinejad

BEIJING (IRNA) -- Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad on Sunday announced that Tehran-Beijing bilateral relations would further develop in all areas in the future.

The president made the remarks prior to his departure for home.

Talking to IRNA, he referred to the outcome of his China visit as positive and fruitful.

On his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, Ahmadinejad said regional and international developments as well as bilateral cooperation were discussed with President Hu Jintao.

He added that ""good decisions"" were also made in the meeting.

Describing the prospect of Tehran-Beijing economic relations as good, he added that bilateral relations have been satisfactory and will further increase in the future

[renukb]

'Caucasus crisis prelude to war on Iran'

Prominent anti-war activist Michel Chossudovsky says the Caucasus conflict is a prelude to a joint attack by the US and Israel on Iran.

According to Chossudovsky, the Canadian economist, the United States had been actively involved in the planning and logistics of the Georgian military operation in South Ossetia.

In mid-July, Georgian and US troops held a joint military exercise dubbed 'Immediate Response' involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.

Shortly after the military drill, Georgian military forces launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia on August 7. Russia, in response, sent its troops into the region.

The conflict in South Ossetia resulted in some 1500 civilian deaths, and the displacement of 34,000 others, according to both Russian and Western sources.

Chossudovsky, the forensic Global Research author, said Georgia would never act militarily without the assent of Washington.

"The war on Southern Ossetia was not meant to be won," he said, adding that, "It was intended to destabilize the region."

"Let us be under no illusions. This is not a civil war. The attacks are an integral part of the broader Middle East Central Asian war, including US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to Iran," Chossudovsky cautioned.

According to the Debkafiles, in addition to the Israeli military advisers' aid to Georgia to carryout the August 7-8 ground assault, Israel supplied Mikheil Saakashvili's government with Hermes-450 and Skylark unmanned aerial vehicles.

Earlier on Wednesday, Russian Duma Deputy Sergei Markov told Press TV that, "this war in South Ossetia is somehow connected with the aggression of Washington against Iran and the possible bombing of Iran."

"Washington helped Georgia to take control of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, (because) it needs Georgian territory to use for bombing against Iran," he added.

Tel Aviv and Washington accuse Iran of developing nuclear arms, and have threatened to launch air strikes against the country.

However, the UN nuclear watchdog has announced that no evidence had been found to support the US and Israel's allegations against Iran.

[renukb]

China, Russia, India Blocking Iran Attack?

The United States may not have the international support it needs for an act of aggression against the theocratic state.

The United States is in a huge foreign policy muddle in the Middle East. It wants to dominate and control Iran but requires the support of the world community to accomplish its aims. Diplomacy and sanctions require only a low level of support. On the other hand, to launch a military attack or green-light one by Israel, the United States needs far more backing.

This support does not appear to exist, and recent U.S. foreign policy actions are eroding that support even further. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on August 13 that the United States refused to give the go-ahead to Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in talks between Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Could it be that the Bush administration finally knows when it is licked?

Israeli officials acknowledge that it would be difficult to launch such an attack without approval from Russia, China, and India, something that the United States would have to lobby those nations to achieve. The chances at present are extremely slim that any of the three will acquiesce.

U.S. condemnation of Russia's military action to defend the breakaway region of South Ossetia, combined with the determination of the Bush administration to install missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, virtually guarantee that Russia will not do anything to help the United States foment more violence in its neighborhood.

Beijing owns much of the U.S. debt, continues to be one of Tehran's largest trade partners, and is not about to be dictated to by Washington. India has defied the United States by entering into a pipeline deal with Iran. Exhaustive three-year nuclear treaty negotiations between the United States and India are utterly stalled. If the treaty is not presented to Congress in September, it will be dead.

Russia and China have repeatedly said that they see no nuclear weapons danger in Iran. Besides the tension over the pending treaty with the United States, India has little to say, since it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, as Iran is. The skepticism of these nations is yet another reason why support for an Iranian attack is evaporating.

So the Bush administration is hoisted with its own petard. Whatever the more hawkish denizens of Washington want to do to Iran, they are not going to get the international support necessary for their desired action. The most obvious alternative for the United States is to engage with Iran diplomatically. This is particularly difficult for the Bush administration because of its carefully burnished tough-guy approach. When Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns merely appeared at the negotiating table with European Union members and Iran for the first time, the right-wing media reaction was swift and vitriolic. Critics on the right, , including two editorials in one week on the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, accused the Bush administration of "capitulation" to Iran.

Nevertheless international conditions with Russian, China and India may force expansion of this diplomatic approach, regardless of right-wing reaction.

The irony is that talking to Iran could be easy if the Bush administration would just relax. All the Iranians want for real talks to begin is to be treated as equals at the negotiating table, and to start the talks with no pre-conditions. This, too, is what Russia, India, and China want -- not only for Iran, but for themselves as well.

The Bush crowd, however, is determined to patronize and insult everyone. During the current conflict in Georgia, Washington has implied that Russia is "not yet" part of the international community. The Bush administration coerced and threatened India over its nuclear program and the oil pipeline deal with Iran. China has been treated somewhat more gently, but the Chinese, too, chafe at criticisms of their environmental record, politics toward Tibet, and international dealings in the Sudan and elsewhere, which they see as hypocritical and intrusive.

When it comes to Iran, all three countries have signaled that they've had enough of Washington's bullying. If however, the United States decides to treat Iran with mutual respect at the negotiating table, it might discover not only a way out of the impasse in the Middle East but improved relations with other key countries around the world.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

[renukb]

Russia - Iran Military Partnership in Action
http://finchannel.com/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=13

The FINANCIAL -- Leonid Reznikov, Russian Director of Atomstroyeksport company, which is in partnership with Iran in the Bushehr project, is accompanied by his deputy and a delegation of experts for the three-day visit, Alalam reports.

The Russian delegation will begin their negotiations with a team of Iranian experts headed by Ahmad Fayaz Bakhsh, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO).

According to Ria Novosti, the U.S. and Israel were alarmed by media reports, which started circulating as early as 2005, on the possible delivery of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, as these systems could greatly improve Iranian defenses against any air strike on its strategically important sites, including nuclear facilities.

The advanced version of the S-300 missile system, called S-300PMU1 (SA-20 Gargoyle), has a range of over 150 kilometers (over 100 miles) and can intercept ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high altitudes, making the system an effective tool for warding off possible air strikes.

Ria Novosti announces, the issue was again raised in December last year when Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Russia had agreed to deliver to Iran an unspecified number of advanced S-300 air defense complexes under a previously signed contract.

However, Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation said the issue of the delivery of S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran was not a subject of current or past negotiations, Ria Novosti reports.

According to NDTV, the Head of the Russian Nuclear Energy Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko will arrive in Tehran on September 7 for talks with officials of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, the news agency said.

Kiriyenko is also scheduled to go to the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr and inspect the latest developments in the plant there.

Russia finished delivery of 82 tonnes of low-enriched uranium for the plant's light-water reactor in January, and Kiriyenko said in June that nuclear fuel operations would start this year, NDTV reports.

According to Tehran Times, Sergei Kiriyenko, and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Director Gholamreza Aqazadeh recently announced that the Bushehr plant will be operational by the end of the year.

[shyamd]

Russia is considering having bases in the persian gulf and possibility in Iran. Nothing decided. Eastern Azerbaijan is also a possibility

[Sanjay M]

I wonder why the Russians don't put up bases in Venezuela, for that matter?
Given their petro-oriented policies, they should cultivate influence wherever they can consolidate their strongest monopoly.

[renukb]

Checkmate On Iran

September 10, 2008: The UAE (United Arab Emirates) wants to buy $7 billion worth of American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile systems to protect itself against the growing arsenal of Iranian ballistic missiles. The UAE is a confederation of small Arab states at the southern end of the Persian Gulf. With a population of only 5.5 million, and large oil and gas deposits, the emirates have a per-capita income of $43,000. Thus the UAE has a lot to defend, and an increasingly belligerent neighbor just across the Gulf. The UAE controls one side the entrance to the Gulf (the Straits of Hormuz). Iran is on the other end, and both nations dispute ownership of some islands in the middle.

The U.S. has agreed to the sale, even though the U.S. Army just formed the first of four THAD anti-ballistic missile (ABM) batteries earlier this year. This unit will be ready for combat in two years, using the THAAD missile. The other three batteries will be in service within five years. Twenty months ago, there was a successful test of THAAD (a SCUD type target was destroyed in flight) using a crew of soldiers for the first time, and not manufacturer technicians, to operate the system.

Each THAAD battery will have 24 missiles, three launchers and a fire control communications system. This will include an X-Band radar. The gear for each battery will cost $310 million. The 18 foot long THAAD missiles weigh 1,400 pounds. This is about the same size as the Patriot anti-aircraft missile, but twice the weight of the anti-missile version of the Patriot. The range of THAAD is 200 kilometers, max altitude is 150 kilometers, and it is intended for short (like SCUD) or medium range (up to 2,000 kilometer) range ballistic missiles. This is what Iran has a lot of.

THAAD has been in development for two decades. Ultimately, the army would like to buy at least 18 launchers, 1,400 missiles, and 18 radars. The UAE appears to be buying more than that; at least a dozen batteries, which is enough to cover the entire southern end of the Persian Gulf against whatever the Iranians can throw at them. However, it will be at least five years before any of the UAE has any of these THAADs deployed. With an order that size, perhaps the U.S. will throw in some temporary protection via U.S. Navy warships equipped with Aegis anti-missile missiles.

THAAD is a step up from the Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile (which is an anti-aircraft missile adapted to take out incoming missiles). The PAC-3 works, but it has limited (20 kilometers) range. The navy has also modified its Standard anti-aircraft missile system to operate like the PAC-3. This system, the RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a longer range than THAAD (over 500 kilometers) and max altitude of 160 kilometers. missiles. The Standard 3 is based on the failed anti-missile version of the Standard 2, and costs over three million dollars each. The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it.

The UAE has already bought Patriot anti-missile and anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as dozens of new fighter interceptors, and tens of billions of dollars of new gear for their army and navy. The UAE armed forces has 60,000 troops, and they are armed to the teeth.

[renukb]

EXCLUSIVE: Russia urged to halt arms to Iran, Syria: Moscow irked by Tel Aviv's Georgian sales
Nicholas Kralev

Israel's envoy to the United States urged Russia on Tuesday not to sell advanced weapons to Iran and Syria despite Moscow's anger over Israeli military cooperation with Georgia.

Ambassador Sallai Meridor also said that the main reason 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.

Israel has developed close military relations with Georgia, supplying about $300 million in weapons last year, according to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv. It is trying to juggle that support with its campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which Israel regards as its main strategic threat.

Russia, which invaded Georgia last month in response to a Georgian attack on an enclave bordering Russia, has been furious about the aid to Georgia and suggested that Israel cannot expect Moscow to show restraint with Iran and Syria if the relationship continues.

Mr. Meridor said Russian arms sales to Israel's adversaries were far more dangerous.

"Were Russia to continue to supply lethal, sophisticated arms to Syria, this would be destabilizing and dangerous for Israel and for peace in the region," Mr. Meridor told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "We hope that they will not do that."

He referred to the so-called S-125, also known as SA-3 Goa, a low-altitude surface-to-air missile system designed to track and destroy targets such as aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles.

Defense experts suspect that Russia has sold the system to both Iran and Syria and expect more sales in the future.

"We hope that, despite the events in Georgia, the Russians will not supply Iran with arms," Mr. Meridor said. "I hope the Russians know better. ... I don't see why anybody would perceive our relationship with Georgia to be in any way threatening or destabilizing."

...more.........

EXCLUSIVE: Russia urged to halt arms to Iran, Syria: Moscow irked by Tel Aviv's Georgian sales

[renukb]

US think tank urges win-win Iran deal

A member of a powerful US political think tank has suggested a two-way trust-building deal as a solution to the Iranian nuclear dispute.

"A loyalty test can reassure both sides. Nuclear negotiators need to understand that Iranian leaders want to maintain loyalty to the promise they made to the Iranian public to uphold Iran's right to uranium enrichment," Charles D. Ferguson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in an article published in the The Christian Science Monitor.

"Equally important, Iranian leaders must understand that they need to prove their loyalty to the international legal system in order to preserve the peaceful nature of nuclear programs," he added.

Ferguson explained that under such a trust-building agreement, the West would agree to buy Iranian enriched uranium and spent fuel containing plutonium for a competitive price.

This, he said, would create a win-win situation where Iran would profit from its peaceful nuclear program and the West would be sure that Iran has not stockpiled enriched uranium and plutonium.

Iranian officials have been discussing a win-win solution to the nuclear dispute with the West for a long time. They have even drawn up a package of proposals with the aim of paving the way for win-win negotiations with the six world powers.

However, Tehran's package remains unanswered as the US and its allies continue to accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon. Israel and its arch-ally, the US, have even threatened Iran with a strike against its nuclear facilities.

Iran says it sees no reason why it should give up its right as an NPT signatory to enrich uranium for civilian use, especially as it faces a nationwide power shortage problem.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out countless routine and snap inspections of Iran's nuclear sites, has confirmed that the country's enrichment activities do no exceed a level of 3.7 percent -- suitable only for the generation of electricity. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

[Philip]

Sanjay, Putin heard you and has taken your advice in record time! The Russian maritime exercises held a year ago in the Arabian Sea,where long range aircraft and bombers,Bears and Blackjacks took part,launching advanced missiles,was the first sign of a Russian return to the global military arena.It was also no coincidence that they chose the IOR/Arabian Sea for the exercises,given the focus on energy security worldwide.Russia and China have made significant arms supplies to Iran and the Russians might very well sell Iran more advanced SAM systems after the US's support for the failed Georgian misadventure.In the days to come we will definitely see more Russian naval activity in the IOR,also involving naval exercises with India,once our ATV and Akula SSGN arrive,plus a possible permanent Russian presence in the Gulf,with regular visits to Iranian ports for logistic support.

[renukb]

By looking at the news articles that Israel has stopped arms sale to georgia, I think the US back door diplomacy is working hard to prevent arms sale by Russia, to Iran and Syria. Russians will only be foolish to listen to Americans and not make those sales.

[kumarn]

I wonder why the Russians don't put up bases in Venezuela, for that matter?
Given their petro-oriented policies, they should cultivate influence wherever they can consolidate their strongest monopoly.

Monroe doctrine?
The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas.

[svinayak]

I wonder why the Russians don't put up bases in Venezuela, for that matter?
Given their petro-oriented policies, they should cultivate influence wherever they can consolidate their strongest monopoly.

Monroe doctrine?
The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas.

Americans are worried now that the Russians are having naval excercise with Venzuela in Atlantic Ocean

[Sanjay M]

I wonder why the Russians don't put up bases in Venezuela, for that matter?
Given their petro-oriented policies, they should cultivate influence wherever they can consolidate their strongest monopoly.

Haha,

looks like I spoke too soon:

Two Russian bombers land in Venezuela

[Philip]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=69 ... =351020101

Iran 'master of asymmetric naval warfare'
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:15:20 GMT

A US-based think tank says Iran's navy forces are capable of waging a unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.

The report by The Washington Institute for the Near East Policy authored by Fariborz Haghshenas, an expert on the Iranian military, says that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force.

The study sheds light on the historical evolution of Iran's approach to asymmetric warfare, assessing its naval forces and evaluating its plans for a possible war with the US.

The report says Iran, with such a strong navy force, is effectively holding the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study concludes that Iran is capable of taking preemptive action in response to a perceived threat of imminent attack.

In the event of a US attack, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets, the report says.

[ranganathan]

US does not depend on oil from gulf. They will wade in if required.

[renukb]

If Iran and Syria falls to NATO / US, and India sides with the west, then encircling of Russia is almost complete from Finland to Eastern EU to ME to India and US might just manage China to Japan... Afterthat, it will be easy for the west to corner and isolate Russia from every angle. That would mean end of Russia for a long time to go...

U.S. says Iran won't get Russian missile system soon

[Sanjay M]

India's too far south to be of use in encircling Russia, but China is key to encircling Russia. India is only of use in encircling China. US is not of one mind on encircling China, since Atlanticists tend to tilt towards China to give higher priority on encircling Russia.

[renukb]

Europe Can't Rely on Russia for Gas Supply, Turns to Iran - Paper

Text of unattributed report headlined "Europe's efforts to buy Iran's gas: Many high ranking financial and political delegations are on their way to Tehran for talks " published by Iranian news paper Jam-e Jam website on 8 September

It appears that the confrontation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia between the West and Russia is providing a timely economic opportunity for Iran's economic, energy and gas exports. According to our reporter, following the relatively widespread political disagreements which have occurred between the West and Russia over Georgia, and the ensuing consequences, the West is now worried that Russia will take retributive measures in the field of energy and gas exports, an area which is the Achilles' heel of a large number of western European states.

This is particularly pertinent as winter comes close. The end of September is the time of review of the costs and conditions for gas sales to needy customers. Europe's important countries such as France, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Germany and Poland, have, over the past two and a half years, become all too familiar with the short history of Russia's behaviour and this country's inclination to play the powerful oil and gas card. They have tasted its bitter reality and so take the issue of diversifying oil and gas sources much more seriously.

Europe has a number of options to choose from in its quest to diversify its energy sources. Considering the relatively rich supplies of oil and gas they have, Turkmenistan, the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea and the countries in the North African continent are suitable options. However, it can be said that the most important country for Europe when it comes to diversifying its oil and gas sources, one which is its first choice and dependable in all aspects, is Iran. After Russia, Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves in the world, and in this respect it stands head and shoulders above its rivals. Consequently, over the last few days, the European Union has begun noticeable political efforts to establish political and diplomatic contacts with Tehran. It hopes that through two methods of negotiating over new projects for the construction of a pipeline and activating the potentials of previous agreements, it can confront the challenge of a possible shortage of gas supplies caused by Russia, even though this is a long-term prospect. According to diplomatic sources in Tehran, the European Union's main priority is to use the potentials of the previous agreements which, due to political reasons, were put on the back burner such that the agreements were signed but they never reached the implementation stage.

Europe's cold memories of Russia

Over the past year, and until the final weeks of 2007, the inhabitants of Western Europe were concerned about their supply of gas from Russia. They have cold memories in this regard. The most famous of these memories is the speech given by Vladimir Putin, the former Russian president, on 31st December 2005 in which he gave [asked] Ukraine, which is seen as one of the closest allies of the West in the territory of the former Soviet Union, until the 1st January 2006 to either accept the new price announced by this country for gas or face its gas supply being cut off.

In his orders to Medvedev, the current president of Russia, who at that time was the chairman of Gazprom, the price of gas for Ukraine rose from 50 dollars per thousand cubic metres to 230 dollars. Under such conditions, the pro-western president of Ukraine refused to agree to the proposal, so the Russians cut off the supply of gas to this country. As a natural consequence of this, gas supplies for Europe which transited Ukrainian soil were also reduced by 50 per cent, and a large part of Europe in extremely cold temperatures faced either reduced gas supplies or none at all. And this is not the only bad memory the Europeans have of Russian gas [supplies]. In 2006 too, only a few hours after Medvedev's victory, Gazprom called on Ukraine to pay the 1.5 bn dollars it owed it for gas supplies. This created another challenge to the supply of gas to Europe, though it was not as serious as the previous one.

In addition to Ukraine, Russia has also exerted pressure on other countries which transit gas and oil to Western Europe, amongst these are Georgia and Armenia. For example, in the month of Aban 1385 [November 2006], it increased the price of gas exported to Armenia from 110 dollars per 1000 cubic metres to 230 dollars, more than doubling the cost.

The culmination of these events has brought Europe to the conclusion that over-dependence on the supply of energy from Russia will create a serious challenge for this continent, one which has to be resolved, and energy must be obtained from a variety of sources not through reliance on one source alone. The recent military conflict in the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the worry about a delayed reaction from Russia as winter approaches have once again proved the correctness of this view. Therefore the situation is that the diplomats are packing their suitcases and heading off for Tehran.

Delegations on way to Tehran

Our reporter has obtained information that a number of high- ranking political and economic delegations are on their way to Tehran to hold talks on activating previous projects for the export of Iran's gas to Europe. The first and largest of these teams, headed by the European Union energy commissioner, will arrive in Tehran within next two weeks. This trip has two aims, the first is to revive the agreement signed between Iran and Turkey in Tir 86 [July 2007] for the export of Iranian gas to Europe across this country's land, and the second is to hold talks over the planning and inauguration of new pipeline projects with Iran.

Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, Iran's former oil minister, and Hilmi Guller, Turkey's energy minister, signed an agreement on 23 Tir 86 [13 July 2007] according to which Turkey would allow the construction of a pipeline and the transit of Iran's gas to Europe across its land, in exchange for its participation in the development of the South Pars gas field. Up to now, however, this matter has remained at the stage of agreement [as received].

Originally published by Jam-e Jam website, Tehran, in Persian 08 Sep 08.

(c) 2008 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.



Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East