Iran News and Discussions

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 16 May 2012 16:53

iran sanctions

Wonder how iran is coping with all these. It must be rather difficult over there. Also notice french action, they themselves are not doing anything (or very less) but want others to the job

. Also with the new guy in paris, things may change??

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 May 2012 20:12

MKB has been going to town with this, and it is being picked up by anti-Indian Islamists. However, the reaction in the Iranian media is mild. After all its only a 11% reduction.

India dumps Iran, squeezes Obama

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 18 May 2012 15:32

Q to guru's
1) When shah was around (i.e. prior to islamic revolution) he was a close ally(chela) of US in west asia. How was US-Saudi relations then? Untill nasser was there, saudi weren't the topdog of arab world as well. Anti-israel emotions were running high in arab street then. Shah was trying to be No.1 power in west asia. In such a scenario was the US-Saudi relations as close as now. Since arab-persian rivalry was there then as it is now(saddam always boasted that he was the last defence available to arab world against iranians).
Also post nasser(1970 iirc) to pre 79(pre islamic revolution), during this period what were the dynamics of US-Saudi relations?

2) Now if US manage to place a friendly regime in iran(similar to shah), how would US-Saudi relations emerge? How would west play out this new round of Iranian-Arab rivalry then?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 May 2012 15:37

Did you know shah provider military support to put down Dhofar rebellion in Oman.

At one point the Iranian air force was providing air cover to entire KSA as KSA didn't have an AF.

But after 50,60's KSA swiftly built up defence. They know that Persia will be back to fight the Arabs one day again. They have been battling since the dawn of mankind.

But across the spectrum of strategists, they see Iran as FSU in 1981 where no one really believes in Islam and they hav huge internal problems and a divide.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 18 May 2012 15:59

^^^ Ok, There may have been instances when shah did help out saudi/oman. But as you said, sooner or later fight would break out. My Q was since iran has a hostile regime towards west now, west has no issues propping/building arab(saudi) against iran. But if a friendly regime were to come in iran in near future, how would west play that out? Hence i asked how was US-Arab(saudi, iraq etc) relation especially during 70-79 (post nasser) period(especially wrt persian-arab rivalry). As that period might be the closest to the scenario which i asked (i mean a friendly regime in iran and top arab country).

Added later: i think during nasser's period, nasser was more concerned about israel rather than iran. Post nasser, iraq under saddam tried for the top arab post. Here since iraq-iran were sitting next to each other, also since both saddam and shah were trying to be no.1 in west asia, arab-persian rivalry again came in the forefront. Since iran was in US camp then, saddam moved towards soviets. Anyways post islamic revolution, saddam had support of both US, Soviets. So in a way west had less of issue as to whom to support in arab-iraninan rivlary. But if now if iran was to have west friendly regime, how would west handle this round of rivalry(mainly iran-saudi) is to be seen.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 May 2012 16:09

A lot more cooperation as All nations would technically be under US security architecture.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 18 May 2012 16:23

^^^ So if persian-arabs unite(somehow i think thousand's of years of rivalry should come out in forefront again after few years/decade), would it result in more stronger push towards israel or west truly create a utopia in west asia i.e. arab-persian-yahudi all together say bhai bhai.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 May 2012 16:46

Israel will begin cooperating with Iran in a bigger way. Have you seen the silk route proposal and link to Israel?

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 18 May 2012 17:05

^^^ so it will be a utopia where arab-iran-israel will all say bhai bhai. Thanks.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 May 2012 18:19

Thats the hope... But as always there is no guarantee.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 18 May 2012 19:15

Point #1 : The Anglo Saxon world is intensely threatened by the idea of a new silk route - because it will end the dominance of sea trade and with it, the sea dominance that the AS world has had since the 17/18 century will be gone.

Point #2 : There is another thing they fear as much - and that is an Arab-Persian rapproachement.

Point # 3 & 4 : If peace breaks out in the middle east, it will reduce the ability of the investment banks / international financiers to manipulate oil prices. Not to mention sell arms to all parties.

-----------
Shyamd ji,
The scenario you have outlined above will hit US/UK in the above mentioned 4 points. No way are they going to let that happen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2012 22:45

shyamd, Suppose the unthinkable happens and Iran gets hit. By whom is immaterial. So what will be the fallout. We should understand all scenarios and not only the optimistic ones.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 19 May 2012 02:31

Iran urges India to cherish friendship

The telephone call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday becomes a defining moment. New Delhi chose to keep it under wraps.

Obviously, Tehran views with disquiet the recent hurried visit by the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to New Delhi. Tehran is acutely aware of the propensity of the policymakers in New Delhi to leverage India’s ties with Iran to extract concessions form Washington within the framework of the US-India strategic partnership.

Alarm bells must be ringing, because the US-India Strategic Dialogue is taking place in Washington shortly and a US special envoy has descended on the Indian capital with a focused mission to erode India’s energy ties with Iran.

Ahmedinejed’s phone call came on the eve of the announcement of the Indian decision to reduce oil imports from Iran, which has been widely perceived as a sign of the Indian leadership succumbing to the US pressure to fall in line with its containment strategy toward Iran.

According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, Ahmedinejad stressed to Manmohan Singh that Tehran sets no limits to the broadening of the Iran-India relationship. He called it a “brotherly” relationship, a warm description that Tehran reserves as a mark of special affinity. However, Manmohan Singh, curiously enough, insisted that the bilateral relationship would be “on the basis of national interests.”

The Indian establishment almost instinctively resorts to the epithet “national interests” when it is hard-pressed to explain the raison d’etre of any policy shift. The government’s decision to cut back on oil imports from Iran is, arguably, one such poignant moment. No government would like to acknowledge that it is buckling under pressure from a foreign power and in this case, the Indian public opinion comprehends the importance of the relationship with Iran.

Besides, the ruling Congress party is sensitive to the Muslim opinion, which can swing election results in over a hundred parliamentary constituencies, which, of course, can prove lethal, as elections are due in 2014 – rumors are swirling that there could be a mid-term poll – and Congress party has a fight on its hands to retain hold on power.

The Indian Muslim takes a dim view of the US’ global policies. The Indian pundit may look at Iran as a Shi’ite country, but for the Indian Muslim, Iran signifies strategic defiance of the US. No matter the lavish funding of the Muslim ulema in India by the Gulf Arab monarchies – and the nexus between the ulema and political parties – average Indian Muslim opinion equates Tehran as the voice of justice, honor and resistance.

This is the crux of the Congress-led government’s predicament. It is not very different from the predicament of the Gulf monarchies on the Arab street where Iran’s shadow remains potent, despite their sustained campaign to orchestrate a Sunni-Shi’ite schism in the Muslim Middle East. The IRNA report is here.

I refuse to buy this argument that Indian muslims attach so much sympathy to Iran for two basic reasons: -

1. Indian muslims care for what is good for India and not for what is good for Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. Most Indian muslims are Sunnis, even though the sectarian tensions haven't spilled over from Paki stan, I'd still guess that if there are any sympathies, they are for the Kingdom.

I take a dim view of India succumbing to US pressure but IMO this is the right thing. We can get oil from Iraq since its back as a supplier, plus we need to balance the risks of betting too much on Iran. I actually agree with ramana sir, an invasion of Iran will negate all our defiance since we won't be able to or can't intervene militarily to pick winners or losers.

We should reduce just as much to get the waiver and trade with Iran in areas that are not sanctioned.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 May 2012 03:52

abhischekcc wrote:Point #1 : The Anglo Saxon world is intensely threatened by the idea of a new silk route - because it will end the dominance of sea trade and with it, the sea dominance that the AS world has had since the 17/18 century will be gone.

Point #2 : There is another thing they fear as much - and that is an Arab-Persian rapproachement.

Point # 3 & 4 : If peace breaks out in the middle east, it will reduce the ability of the investment banks / international financiers to manipulate oil prices. Not to mention sell arms to all parties.

-----------
Shyamd ji,
The scenario you have outlined above will hit US/UK in the above mentioned 4 points. No way are they going to let that happen.

Abhischekcc ji, my response:

Point 1: Not at all - US is the one that is shoving this down peoples throats believe it or not. TAPI is one of them and it is a good thing if you think about it but GoI knows its not going to be a reality yet until TSP sorts itself out.. The idea is that trade should grow between all parties, more prosperity etc which ultimately creates prosperity/opportunities for US business.. Dont forget that the world is interdependent. AFG will get stabilised as oil pipelines will go through Afgh to PRC and AFG will earn transit fees. Same with TAPI.

Point 2: Not really - they had good relations under the Shah and the SEATO arrangement gave all sides good security and their strategists want that back. Today Kuwait and GCC is tired of offering development offers to Iran - nations have 2 choices - cooperation or conflict.

Point 3: Again not really, read Elliot wave theory if you can. They always find any piece of news to alter the market price. But KSA can exert some level of control - they release excess stocks and dump oil in the market - brings the price down for oil. Oil price was high because GCC exerted pressure on Obama and signalled that they were unhappy to administration. High oil prices are bad for elections and during election year.

Point 4: Not really. No party will let go of defence until comprehensive security is achieve, so both sides will still have the fear of each other and only when they feel fully secure will they reduce defence spending in a significant way. A bit like EU.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 May 2012 04:20

ramana wrote:shyamd, Suppose the unthinkable happens and Iran gets hit. By whom is immaterial. So what will be the fallout. We should understand all scenarios and not only the optimistic ones.

Hamas + Iran units stationed in Sinai will respond. Hezbollah will fire rockets from Lebanon. Syria would have been a threat but no longer.

Bahrain - massive protests outside US embassy in Manama - simultaneous disruption of critical National infra. Similar scenes in Kuwait. SCIRI, Jaish al mahdi will try and do something in Kuwait. UAe - Minimal. Oman - minimal effect - but there is a fear that armed groups will infiltrate via coast.

Iranians will launch attacks at tankers - possible scenario/block the straits. India and Oman have an agreement on security and freedom of the Hormuz for oil. So IN may be called in - for evacuation of 6 million people and secure oil supplies. UAE will launch attack to recover the straits. Qatar wants the rest of the gas field and had asked the US for it already.

Iraq - militia will target the little US presence. Same scenes in Afghanistan. If Iran start attacking the GCC. TSP and Turkey are required to invade. Turkey is doubtful due to Russia and will act in concert with NATO. TSP could pussy out saying shia sunni problem may become too serious. UAEAF can use base in Balochistan/RYK for air strikes.

US/UAE AF/KSA AF can't touch Bushehr but will have to demolish the Ir Navy with sending limited troops. USN Subs are under threat because Iranian SF could use people to place magnetic bum on USN (Lockheed is conducting research to resolve such issues).

Iranians have covert cells in major GCC ciites and could unleash some 26/11 type stuff.

I mean a whole host of stuff could happen and Iranians will have plenty of strategies up their sleaves. But what is clear in the minds of all the leaders is that any foreign attack against Iran will mean the people will unite under the govt in nationalistic sentiment. No one wants to give life to a dying regime!

Hope this helps.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2012 04:31

What about Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina, Riyadh etc? Will Egypt be drawn in?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 May 2012 04:41

Egypt will be a pillar in the support of KSA. Their position is currently unclear. Military is building relations with Tehran. They will be neutral at worst as they are sunni. Best case scenario for Egypt would be helping KSA militarily as they have planned all these years - to the extent they deploy soldiers on the streets of KSA in the event of any unrest/ messing around by TSP/US etc. US could push them to pressure Iran in the Sinai but I think their capabilities are quite limited there.

Not sure what you are referring to wrt Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem.

I mean all this depends on how Iran reacts to the strike. If I was them, I would want a limited conflict to get the people behind the mullah govt. Then hit the party that conducted the attack to salvage their pride (this is key for the Iranian thinker/strategist).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2012 05:16

I think Egypt will cry off citing internal turmoil. They will stand aside and see what happens.

If Iran gets hit they will go after KSA for ideological reasons.

Cairo will stand aside to bring back Fatimid type situation.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 19 May 2012 06:06

Roperia wrote:I refuse to buy this argument that Indian muslims attach so much sympathy to Iran for two basic reasons: -

1. Indian muslims care for what is good for India and not for what is good for Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. Most Indian muslims are Sunnis, even though the sectarian tensions haven't spilled over from Paki stan, I'd still guess that if there are any sympathies, they are for the Kingdom.

I take a dim view of India succumbing to US pressure but IMO this is the right thing. We can get oil from Iraq since its back as a supplier, plus we need to balance the risks of betting too much on Iran. I actually agree with ramana sir, an invasion of Iran will negate all our defiance since we won't be able to or can't intervene militarily to pick winners or losers.

We should reduce just as much to get the waiver and trade with Iran in areas that are not sanctioned.

Shia Muslims are a large minority among India's Muslims. - Per this wiki. you will see number of other references as well if you look.
You have some notion of "balancing" when you talk down the official stand with incorrect facts and then go on to day "India succumbing" and add that it is a "right" thing.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 19 May 2012 18:11

shyamd wrote:
ramana wrote:shyamd, Suppose the unthinkable happens and Iran gets hit. By whom is immaterial. So what will be the fallout. We should understand all scenarios and not only the optimistic ones.
Hamas + Iran units stationed in Sinai will respond. Hezbollah will fire rockets from Lebanon. Syria would have been a threat but no longer.

Bahrain - massive protests outside US embassy in Manama - simultaneous disruption of critical National infra. Similar scenes in Kuwait. SCIRI, Jaish al mahdi will try and do something in Kuwait. UAe - Minimal. Oman - minimal effect - but there is a fear that armed groups will infiltrate via coast.

Iranians will launch attacks at tankers - possible scenario/block the straits. India and Oman have an agreement on security and freedom of the Hormuz for oil. So IN may be called in - for evacuation of 6 million people and secure oil supplies. UAE will launch attack to recover the straits. Qatar wants the rest of the gas field and had asked the US for it already.

Iraq - militia will target the little US presence. Same scenes in Afghanistan. If Iran start attacking the GCC. TSP and Turkey are required to invade. Turkey is doubtful due to Russia and will act in concert with NATO. TSP could pussy out saying shia sunni problem may become too serious. UAEAF can use base in Balochistan/RYK for air strikes.

US/UAE AF/KSA AF can't touch Bushehr but will have to demolish the Ir Navy with sending limited troops. USN Subs are under threat because Iranian SF could use people to place magnetic bum on USN (Lockheed is conducting research to resolve such issues).

Iranians have covert cells in major GCC ciites and could unleash some 26/11 type stuff.

I mean a whole host of stuff could happen and Iranians will have plenty of strategies up their sleaves. But what is clear in the minds of all the leaders is that any foreign attack against Iran will mean the people will unite under the govt in nationalistic sentiment. No one wants to give life to a dying regime!

Hope this helps.

Pls let us know, without west stepping in directly can saudi & co really defeat iran. Yes, saudi and others have bought latest guns & planes which west have sold them. But even saddam with weaponry available from west, soviets could not defeat iran. Finally had to settle for a stalemate(though i am aware that untill 79 iran had purchased lot of arms from west and these were used in the war. Also even during war, secretly some arms were delivered to iran from west).

Also if the regime in iran is not put down forcefully from outside, it may survive using brute force within iran similar to what saddam did post gulf war I. Chances of any persian spring removing the regime is less(either before the war or after).

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 May 2012 18:23

Thats why we need Pakis Sunni- Shia conflict is suppressed by Media as it would break the INC votebank in India

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 20 May 2012 04:08

Satya_anveshi wrote:
Roperia wrote: Most Indian muslims are Sunnis, even though the sectarian tensions haven't spilled over from Paki stan, I'd still guess that if there are any sympathies, they are for the Kingdom.

...
Shia Muslims are a large minority (1) among India's Muslims. - Per this wiki. you will see number of other references as well if you look.
You have some notion of "balancing" when you talk down the official stand with incorrect facts (2) and then go on to day "India succumbing" and add that it is a "right" thing (3).

Satya sir,

(1) Shia's being a major minority doesn't prove my point wrong that most Indian muslims are Sunnis. Muslim population of India

(2) Please see #1.

(3) I may well be too simplistic when I say succumbing but

Does India want to buy more of cheap Iranian oil?
Yes.

Did Indian FM declare in Chicago that India can't reduce its oil imports because its in India's national interest to buy oil from Iran?
Yes.

Did India reduce its oil imports from Iran?
Yes, substantially. Imports year-on-year are down by 11% while our total oil import has increased during the same period.

When I look at the above picture and see Indian and US officials saying that reduction is only because of "financial and commercial considerations", I conclude that India has found that its in its best interests to not increase but rather decrease its oil dependence on Iran. The only reason for such a decision seems to be of sanctions placed by US.

I may well be wrong if India has decided to join the sanctions regime by arriving at the conclusion that sanctions are the best way to stop Iran from pursuing a N programme. The chances of such a realization are bleak given sanctions never worked in our case.

I think this was the right thing to do in these circumstances.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 May 2012 04:16

Gunjur wrote: Pls let us know, without west stepping in directly can saudi & co really defeat iran. Yes, saudi and others have bought latest guns & planes which west have sold them. But even saddam with weaponry available from west, soviets could not defeat iran. Finally had to settle for a stalemate(though i am aware that untill 79 iran had purchased lot of arms from west and these were used in the war. Also even during war, secretly some arms were delivered to iran from west

Have you seen the size of the saudi, Emirati AF? Emirati AF can take on Iran alone. Only weak area is actually Kuwait as Iranians could fight a land battle and quantitatively iran has an advantage - qualitatively Kuwait has the advantage. How exactly will Iran win with little or no air support? GCC can always repulse aggressors on their own but they dont possess the capability to "invade" Iran. At best take over the 3 islands - which would be a likely objective in a war.

Other nations will always step into a war in the Gulf because of its strategic nature - it impacts all countries. So West will be involved without a doubt.

Also if the regime in iran is not put down forcefully from outside, it may survive using brute force within iran similar to what saddam did post gulf war I. Chances of any persian spring removing the regime is less(either before the war or after).

Wait and see

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 May 2012 05:43

Sir,

Just few posts above you called for an invasion of Iran by at least 20-30 countries, including people asking help from SDRE India.

If Emirates can take Iran alone then why all this tamasha? Why not Emirates take Iran, KSA take USA, GCC take Europe, Pakistan take India, Egypt take on China and Afghanistan already defeated Russia naaa?

Why can't people take Bushehr when they have complete air dominance?

Sometimes I shudder at this propaganda...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 May 2012 18:16

Lol! Your reply is a keeper. Any one with comprehension can read what the question was put to me and the reply that was given. And do point out where I am as you put it "calling for an invasion". Anyway, anyone reading my reply can clearly see what I said in the last para which actually answers your question.

Lol and you call me putting out propaganda.. Well let's let the reader make up their own minds.

And may be instead of using such insulting words such as '24 ct BS' 'propaganda' and other assorted words and pose a question in a manner that is used where you are interested in genuine debate then maybe I would reply. But it's clear you are just trying to twist things that people say. This is hardly the way people debate. I guess other people can judge your class and decency by this.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 20 May 2012 20:18

GCC do possess a formidable AF...the orbat itself proves this...

http://csis.org/files/publication/09081 ... rPower.pdf

But considering the strategic capability of the Iranians...which include the quantity and the Shia doctrine of Martyrism will be enough to defend Iran.....Its striking to see that even though Israelis possess the strongest AF in the region they are quite a bind to go after Iranians..offcourse Geography plays a role...but considering the recent downing of the US built Reaper drone by the Iranians by using "Non Kinetic Method".... they are not sitting duck either whether it was supplied by the Russians is another issue though.....

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 May 2012 20:32

shyamd wrote: And may be instead of using such insulting words such as '24 ct BS' 'propaganda' and other assorted words and pose a question in a manner that is used where you are interested in genuine debate then maybe I would reply. But it's clear you are just trying to twist things that people say. This is hardly the way people debate. I guess other people can judge your class and decency by this.

Sir,

Just because you write great poetry about a pig, it will not make the pig any better.

I wonder how the strategy, strength, power equations of GCC change with the question one asks. For example few posts above you mentioned that the GCC is building the coalition of colonizers to invade Syria and eloquently explained how/why/what role India is expected to play. And to another question you observed that emirates alone can handle Iran. Then for another query you say trade is the best way to resolve conflict. Then you proclaim that Syria and Iran are bad bad and must be taken out by GCC. Your sources tell you how much they love India and they want India to clean their mess. Indian emigrants in GCC nations are portrayed as rich and successful ambassadors, while they are denied cultural, social and political suppression (yah we know it is the bad bad agents that force them to live in inhumane conditions, deny their religious, social and political rights) and so on...

Did you ever ask if GCC funding and arming the minority anti-establishment militias in Syria and Iran is right, why is it wrong for Iran or Syria or even India to do the same? After all India can fund, arm and support the majority Indian immigrants in certain regions and establish democratic and secular enclaves in West Asia, right? Then they should have a right (first right if you ask MMS) on the natural resources, right?

Like I said before, we belong to the opposite sides of the debate. Don't take things personal if you want honest feedback. Your strategy is BS to me and vice versa.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 May 2012 22:37

Cmon all those top line planes flown by the legitimate and illegitimate princes
don't forget the mercenary fizzle ya ones too
How could they not wipe out iran easily??

Oh and the red line ...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 May 2012 23:22

RamaY wrote: Sir,

Just because you write great poetry about a pig, it will not make the pig any better.

Like wise you haven't really provided anything to the debate.

I wonder how the strategy, strength, power equations of GCC change with the question one asks. For example few posts above you mentioned that the GCC is building the coalition of colonizers to invade Syria and eloquently explained how/why/what role India is expected to play. And to another question you observed that emirates alone can handle Iran. Then for another query you say trade is the best way to resolve conflict. Then you proclaim that Syria and Iran are bad bad and must be taken out by GCC. Your sources tell you how much they love India and they want India to clean their mess. Indian emigrants in GCC nations are portrayed as rich and successful ambassadors, while they are denied cultural, social and political suppression (yah we know it is the bad bad agents that force them to live in inhumane conditions, deny their religious, social and political rights) and so on...

Oh Gawwddd.. where do I start with this. First of all, I was asked by Ramana to say what COULD happen if a strike on the nuclear program took place. So I told him what COULD Happen period.

As for the rest of the paragraph - you conviniently cherry pick things out of context. Do quote so that we can all see what I actually said and please post what the question was.

As for the rest of the comments - this is just pure trolling. There are plenty of people who live in the Gulf who visit this forum - why dont you ask them what they think of their lives and do ask them what they are doing there despite as you put it rest of the indians are abused/denied political rights/social/religious rights (lets just ignore the fact that temples exist in some states and indians (professionals) have received local nationality)

Did you ever ask if GCC funding and arming the minority anti-establishment militias in Syria and Iran is right, why is it wrong for Iran or Syria or even India to do the same? After all India can fund, arm and support the majority Indian immigrants in certain regions and establish democratic and secular enclaves in West Asia, right? Then they should have a right (first right if you ask MMS) on the natural resources, right?

Lol! You hit the nail on the head - they are shit scared of India because of what you just said, we already outnumber the local population!

Like I said before, we belong to the opposite sides of the debate. Don't take things personal if you want honest feedback. Your strategy is BS to me and vice versa.

Thats fine buddy but if you have something to say - don't quote out of context and use words such as 24 Ct BS and other such words. If you have a point to make, please make it in the right way. If you don't agree or don't like what I say please feel free to ignore my posts.

Thanks

satya · Post by **satya** » 20 May 2012 23:29

Talked with someone somewhere & that's his short reply on what if Iran get hit ( doesn't matter who ) Ramanajee thanks for asking The Question:

There are at least 1000 princes/chieftains/brokers/generals/mullahs/blackhats/jihadis/etc who see this as their big chance & they don't want to miss it & actively pushing for it sometimes for actual confrontation other time mere for preparation but smelling opportunity nonetheless . And no one in ruling circles from ME ready to give more than 50% guarantee that one of these if not all won't make a move that will alter the desired outcome . Forget how Iran will react militarily that's not even a pawn's move ( public consumption : redland vs blueland thing ) but real moves are with these 1000 + pawns how & when they will react . Another thing none of these 1000 + are under influence of Iran but simply see this as their opportunity to gain .

For those who read regularly Nightwatch brief iirc in it was mentioned about a very junior level officer of Mali Army trained in US staging the coup & bringing in chain events starting with Turareg rebels dividing not only Mali for a start but can change/challenge the boundaries of nations left by Colonial powers .

Consider the above scenario for Middle East : 1000 is bare minimum number of such individuals who can potentially alter the course in Middle East in ways no one can predict accurately nor its consequences controlled . So if anything that's stopping those itching for action its this as per my understanding .

As for armed confrontation that's not an issue in real calculations , its for media to be fed among masses.TWIW

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 May 2012 00:15

Russia says West still considering military action on Iran

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov speaks during a news briefing in the main building of Foreign Ministry in Moscow, December 15, 2008. REUTERS/Denis Sinyakov

By Gleb Bryanski

MOSCOW | Sun May 20, 2012 2:24pm EDT

(Reuters) - Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Sunday that military action against Iran over its nuclear program was being considered in some Western countries.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was speaking to reporters on a plane on his way back from the G8 summit in Camp David, where the G8 leaders signaled their readiness to tap into emergency oil stockpiles quickly this summer if tougher new sanctions on Iran threatened to strain supplies.

"It is one of many various signals coming from various sources that the military option is considered as realistic and possible," he said. "We are receiving signals, both through public and intelligence channels, that this option is now being reviewed in some capitals as more applicable in this situation".

"We are very worried about this. We do not want the region and the world to fall into...new divisions and bitter political arguments," he said.

Western countries suspect Iran's nuclear program is aimed at making a nuclear bomb, a charge Tehran denies.

A European Union embargo of Iranian crude takes effect in July and tough new U.S. sanctions come into force in late June. Iran's oil exports have fallen by more than a fifth this year.

Russia has adamantly urged Western nations not to attack Iran to neutralize its nuclear program, saying that threats would only encourage Tehran to develop such weapons.

Ryabkov dismissed suggestions that Russia, the world's biggest oil exporter, sought to keep tensions around Iran on the boil in order to benefit from higher global oil prices.

"It would be a simplification and possibly even a deliberate distortion of Moscow's position to believe that based on some wild, egoistic intentions, we want oil to cost $200 per barrel," Ryabkov said.

He said Russia wanted to keep oil prices stable at a level acceptable to consumers and suppliers. He said that any gains from the oil price spike would be short-lived.

A meeting between Iran and six world powers - Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany - is scheduled to take place in Baghdad on May 23.

Ryabkov said Russia had drafted a set of proposals for the Baghdad talks, saying negotiations needed to produce evidence of progress to the international community.

Proposals included suggested steps for Iran to restore international confidence as well as incentives on cooperation, said Ryabkov, adding that any followup round of talks should take place within weeks in order to maintain the momentum.

"Practical results are needed that can be shown to the international community as evidence that we are moving forward," Ryabkov said.

TENSIONS OVER SYRIA

Much like with Iran, Moscow has long urged Western powers not to intervene in Syria over bloodshed in which the United Nations says more than 9,000 people have been killed.

At a G8 summit in France in May 2011, Russia successfully managed to water down a statement on Syria removing calls for action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Ryabkov said that this time part of the G8 statement which concerns Syria, which called for a "political transition leading to a democratic plural political system", fully satisfied Russia.

"Anything that will be a product of the process of national reconciliation and dialogue will satisfy the Russian side. We are nobody's advocates in this process," he said.

Ryabkov said Assad's departure from power in a scenario similar to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been granted immunity from prosecution, was discussed at the G8 summit, but Russia opposed the idea.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 May 2012 02:12

Satya and Shaymd, Watch out for the pawns or rather piranhas. I agree its the numerous piranhas that are the problem. The US trained soldier staging a coup in Mali is like the fluttering of wings of the butterfly. A similar event will change the modern Middle East which is also a colonial construct.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 21 May 2012 11:08

shyamd wrote:How exactly will Iran win with little or no air support? GCC can always repulse aggressors on their own but they dont possess the capability to "invade" Iran. At best take over the 3 islands - which would be a likely objective in a war.

So both camps i.e. iran , suadi&co do not/cannot do a offensive campaign hence have beefed their defensive capabilities. But iran has beefed up in a non-convetional manner while saudi in conventional manner. This is somewhat similar to indo-pak situation where pak cannot do a conventional offensive campaign while even a minor/local offensive campaign from india might quickly spiral down to a nuclear exchange.

The tipping point where action is inevitable is iran going nuclear. Anyways in this case as west/israel would act, saudi&co need not do heavy lifting

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 21 May 2012 18:41

this shows a visit to a missile silo built by the Iranians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnjbcc__aKk

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2012 04:31

N-deal in the offing?

Iran and UN close to deal on nuclear programme as world powers meet for Baghdad talks
Iran could be allowed to continue with its nuclear programme if it agrees to stop enriching uranium to a critical level from which it could quickly produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran and UN close to deal on nuclear programme as world powers meet for Baghdad talksAn Iraqi policeman mans a checkpoint during a heavy sandstorm in Baghdad today. World powers will meet in the city tomorrow Photo: AFP/GETTY
Damien McElroy

By Damien McElroy, in Istanbul

22 May 2012

Western powers are ready drop demands for a complete halt to all Iran’s nuclear work, provided the regime pledges to halt uranium enrichment to the crucial 20 per cent threshold, The Daily Telegraph understands.

The proposal would be a key element of a compromise deal, to be discussed by leading world powers in Baghdad on Wednesday, that could also see Iran open up its secret military facilities to United Nations inspectors.

In return, sanctions against Tehran would be eased, with some even suspended should the Islamic regime successfully prove that its intentions are peaceful.

Last night, a deal to resolve the impasse was said to be close. Yukia Amano, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said he expected an agreement to be signed “quite soon” that would allow inspectors greater access to the key scientists, documents and suspicious facilities.

Tehran’s nuclear ambitions have been subject to widespread suspicions that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, with Israel fearing it would be the target of an Iranian strike. It has threatened a pre-emptive military strike in response.
Related Articles

UN nuclear chief expects deal with Iran soon
22 May 2012

Iran raises hope of nuclear talks breakthrough
21 May 2012

Iran hangs 14 for drug trafficking
21 May 2012

Ahmadinejad should 'open nightclubs’, says Iran MP
20 May 2012

US admits it has military plan to attack Iran
17 May 2012

Baroness Ashton, the EU’s chief foreign affairs representative, will on Wednesday lead representatives from six world powers - the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany - in crucial negotiations that could prove a turning point on the issue.

The so-called “P5+1” grouping are due to meet Iranian representative, Saeed Jalili, in Baghdad.

Diplomats now expect the talks to yield an Iranian offer to suspend part of its nuclear programme in return for negotiations on dismantling the UN sanctions regime that includes the prospect of a US and European-driven oil embargo. This could include an offer to limit uranium enrichment to 3.5 per cent.

The hopes of a breakthrough follow two days of preliminary talks between Mr Amano and Mr Jalili in the Iranian capital.

Speaking as he returned yesterday, Mr Amano said: “The decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement ... At this stage, I can say it will be signed quite soon.

“We understood each other’s position better.”

The Iranian regime quickly made clear however, that any concessions must be immediately reciprocated - probably with an agreement “turn down the volume” on sanctions.

“It is of crucial importance that our cooperation will entail reciprocal steps, that is, our nation’s trust should be built in the trend of talks and cooperation,” Mr Jalili said.

The West’s main concern is Iran’s production of uranium enriched to 20 per cent, which is far higher than needed for regular energy-producing reactors. The US and its allies fear the higher-enriched uranium could be quickly boosted to warhead-grade material.

One Western official told The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday night: “The meaningful issue must be the 20 per cent enriched material - then some sort of pause on sanctions is not a difficult thing.

“The key thing is what is good enough and what prevents a third party strike on Iran.”

As part of any agreement, Mr Amano is focused on getting Iran to let UN experts into high-profile Iranian sites, including the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran.

Israel however, warned yesterday of the dangers of Iranian tactics.

“Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfill that goal,” Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, said. “Against this malicious intention, leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness. They should not make any concessions to Iran.”

Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has publicly denied she has eased the US stance in pursuit of President Barack Obama’s policy of talks with Iran.

It was Mrs Clinton’s husband, Bill, as president who first imposed restrictions on Iran over its nuclear programme banning companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran in 1995.

The net has closed ever tighter with four rounds of UN sanctions between 1996 and 2010 and a raft of bilateral restrictions, including moves by the EU and US to impose a semi-global oil embargo by the end of June. As Opec’s second largest producer, Iran’s oil industry has been pitching into chaos by the embargo.

While fixated on the removal of sanctions, Iranian officials maintain the country has a legal right to nuclear technology. One diplomat close to the talks said that the ultimate success of the diplomacy would hinge on conceding this point to Iran so it can portray the negotiations as a victory at home.

“It’s a myth the West doesn’t accept their nuclear entitlement but it has be framed in a way that allows them to claim victory on this as a sweetener to real concessions,” the diplomat said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2012 09:55

If a deal is reached then its really good , the last thing we need is a war in Gulf and consequent impact on our economy specially and world economy at large.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 May 2012 02:01

No deal, they skirted all main issues. Jalili discussed Drug smuggling, piracy, democracy in Bahrain... aah more Chai biskoot in Moscow.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 25 May 2012 06:58

Have you guys noticed there has been absolutely no news on military strikes, aerial bombardment etc., for weeks now? Me thinks this is precisely the time they will most likely do it. All this 'we are negotiating' may be a ploy to keep Iran's reflexes away from the sharp edge.

Austin-bhai, the FIRST thing we need is a war that destroys Iran or at least its troublemaking capacity for the next few decades. It is one of the two legs global jehadi terrorism stands on. The other leg, Saudi barbaria and is paid poodles can then be taken on more easily.

Few decades is enough because by then the oil era would be over and these guys can go back to living in tents and eating dried camel blood.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 May 2012 08:54

Suppiah wrote:Austin-bhai, the FIRST thing we need is a war that destroys Iran or at least its troublemaking capacity for the next few decades. It is one of the two legs global jehadi terrorism stands on. The other leg, Saudi barbaria and is paid poodles can then be taken on more easily.

War is never a good thing neither for the country or for its people ....if any thing else war can cause more chaos and can do more harm to the country and world in the long run ..... look at Iraq and Libya as example war has ruined its people and generations plus its economy and social fabric , war does not help any one except the MIC.

Its just the MIC of those countries that have itchy hands and legs are edging for war.

For all you know Iran will just go for the bomb post attack or terrorism may become worse after such strike.

The best option is to negotiate a deal peacefully and through talks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2012 01:55

UN finds evidence of 27 per cent uranium enrichment in Iran
Iran has enriched uranium closer to the level required to arm nuclear missiles, according to evidence discovered at an underground facility by the UN’s atomic agency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html

Xcpt:

Iran has enriched uranium closer to the level required to arm nuclear missiles, according to evidence discovered at an underground facility by the UN’s atomic agency.
The concessions offered by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief who is representing the international powers in the talks, are unlikely to satisfy the Iranians, who have always maintained their nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes Photo: Reuters
Alex Spillius

By Alex Spillius, Diplomatic Correspondent
25 May 2012

In its latest report on Iran’s nuclear activity, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it had found traces of uranium enriched up to 27 per cent at the Fordow enrichment plant near Qom.

That is substantially below the 90 per cent level needed to make the fissile core of nuclear weapons. But it is above Iran’s highest-known enrichment grade of 20 per cent, the level from which uranium can quickly turned into weapons-grade material.

Diplomats shown the report, which was distributed among the agency’s 35 member states today, said it was possible the centrifuges may have initially “over-enriched” at the start of their output. The IAEA said Iran had claimed the higher-grade enrichment may have happened “for technical reasons beyond the operator’s control”.

However, the finding will intensify concerns that Iran is merely using the current round of international talks to play for time while it pursues its nuclear ambitions.

The IAEA’s report also confirmed that Iran had added a further 350 centrifuges - capable of churning out 20 percent uranium - this year at the Fordow facility, in addition to 700 installed earlier.
Related Articles

Iran nuclear talks break-up without deal on nuclear stockpile
24 May 2012

Hague: Iran must takes 'urgent' steps before sanctions are lifted
24 May 2012

Can Israel end Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
24 May 2012

Iran navy saves US cargo ship from pirates
24 May 2012

The disclosures came the day after the conclusion of the first direct talks between Iran and the international community in years and will undermine confidence that a breakthrough can be reached when negotiations resume in Moscow on June 17-18.

The main bone of contention was – and will remain – whether or not the Islamic republic meets demands to stop 20 per cent enrichment and hand over its stockpile of uranium of that grade.

In exchange, Tehran expects some of the tough sanctions it is under to be relaxed. Convinced Tehran is moving towards building a nuclear bomb, the US and EU have targeted Iran’s oil exports and effectively barred the country from international banking networks. The EU is due to ban all Iranian fuel imports on July 1, shutting the door on almost one fifth of Iran’s market.

But the concessions offered by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief who is representing the international powers in the talks, are unlikely to satisfy the Iranians, who have always maintained their nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

She reportedly offered measures such as supplying fuel for producing medical isotopes, technical assistance, easing restrictions on aircraft parts.

Analysts said that Iran and the world powers cannot afford to leave Moscow without clear progress, after what Trita Parsi, author of a recent book about US diplomacy towards Iran called the “calculated failure” of the Baghdad meeting.

Iran started enriching to 20 per cent last year, saying it needed the material to fuel a research reactor and for medical purposes, though it already has far more than it requires for either function.

Fordow is carved into a mountain, raising concerns that it would be impervious to attack from Israel or the United States, which have not ruled out using force as a last option if diplomacy fails to curb Iran’s nuclear ambition.