Iran News and Discussions

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Apr 2010 20:56

So you are saying that according to Israel, war with Iran is inevitable so it is better to do it before they get nukes?

Even if they do suppress air defences via EW, I'm not sure it is realistic to go make attacks on 3-4 different sites spread all across the country in one mission. Thus, I think if an airstrike is going to happen, it cannot be a unilateral effort.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 02 Apr 2010 01:12

It will most certainly be multi-lateral and citing illegal weapons development after being a signatory to NPT. Led by NATO + Israel and with tacit backing from Russia and other West Asian nations who would be deeply Vary of a "Sunni Islamic Bomb"

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 02 Apr 2010 07:11

somnath wrote: Our 1998 tests merely formalised our "unannounced" status..We had not signed the NPT (and hence had remained blacklisted for 30 years from nuke trade), hence our testing did not contravene any international law..

you do realise that 'international law' is a bunch of bunk, right? Its not like US cares about international law when it invaded Iraq for its resources. So called international law is made by the ones with nukes - an irony not lost on those without it.

somnath wrote: From a selfish perspective, we dont want another nuclear weapons power, not in our neighbourhood in any case..Therefore, preveting Iran from getting nukes is a desirable policy objective..

Them having nukes does not affect India directly. Perhaps an indirect problem in the present scenario at best. I would not say selfishness necessarily equals not letting anyone have the bomb. After all, US spread the bomb around and so did China for strategic objectives.

I can see at least one benefit if their new-found nuclear capability enables them to be an independant supplier of oil - as in independant of foreign control.

If there weren't so many hot headed nut cases in that country, they might actually have a case to make given their history of losing many lives to foreign backed powers.

If I was running their country, nukes would be a top priority. Nothing says security like a nuke and the means to deliver it.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 02 Apr 2010 07:40

Neshant, I agree completely. India has betrayed the Iranians needlessly on the nuclear issue. It doesn't make a damn bit of incremental difference should Iran acquire the bomb, from our point of view, when the Pakis and Chinese already have it. No wonder the Iranians are leery of engaging with us in Afghanistan, and looking for other options instead. The MMS/twittering Tharoor/Jairam Ramesh types who had monopolized our foreign policy to do Washington's bidding, have cost us our most important ally against the Taliban (and the Pakis have swiftly attempted to fill the gap, via the handover of Jundullah terrorist Rigi as an overture). Now that the US is set to leave Afghanistan to the TSPA and it's Talib proxies, MMS and SM Krishna have gone crawling back to Teheran to restart the cooperation of the '90s... and the Iranians have spat in their faces. Well played as usual.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Apr 2010 09:08

Carl_T wrote:So you are saying that according to Israel, war with Iran is inevitable so it is better to do it before they get nukes?

Even if they do suppress air defences via EW, I'm not sure it is realistic to go make attacks on 3-4 different sites spread all across the country in one mission. Thus, I think if an airstrike is going to happen, it cannot be a unilateral effort.

Carl,

The Israeli perspective is shaped by the Holocaust. Hardly anyone, Jews included, took Hitler's rhetoric in the 1930s seriously until it was too late, and Jewish people were nearly wiped out.

When Israelis say 'Never Again', that is what they mean; treating hostile leaders rhetoric as if they were serious. So when Nasser said he was going to drive Israel in to the sea (typical Arab exaggeration), they acted. The Islamic Republic's rhetoric about Israel has always been very stark, even before Ahmadinejad.

A unilateral Israeli strike would be very logistically challenging, but they have several options for an opening round - many SEAD missions might well be carried out by cruise missiles launched from platforms in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. They also have ballistic missiles....so the IDF's ability to launch a campaign composed of several close waves of attacks should not be discounted.

Unilateral action is the Israelis *last* option - they will not take it lightly, and only after they lose hope in all other alternatives.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Apr 2010 09:19

Appreciate the info. I don't doubt Israel takes Ahmadinejad seriously, but I am skeptical of how successful a strike will be.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Apr 2010 09:55

Carl_T wrote:Appreciate the info. I don't doubt Israel takes Ahmadinejad seriously, but I am skeptical of how successful a strike will be.

This Iran thingy will fizzle out slowly but surely. Make take a few years though. And here is the reason why. This clown Ahmadinejad, while he correctly points out US/Israel's diabolical, imperialist policies there, he simply does not have the muscle to make it stick.

Having said that, I'd like to contrast USA & Iran Vs USA & TSP:

1) The elites in both Iran & TSP have a western-oriented TFTA attitude. With the difference that there is an Islamist section of Iran that is proud of its persian civilization and want to carve out a position in the world for themselves using their oil wealth. This is the Ahmadinejad part of Iran.

2) The TFTA in TSP including most of TSPA/ISI ask how high when the west asks them to jump, but have a neurotic obsession to be a pain in India's ass. A posture that suits USA more than just fine. Those bloody caste-obsessed, smelly, ugly, Hindu SDREs need to be caged.

3) The non-Islamist TFTA in Iran also ask how high when the west asks them to jump. But more importantly, they consider themselves part of the west and could care 2 hoots about Israeli barbarism against Palestinians, nukes etc. And wallah see how this Iranian TFTA position suits USA just fine. The Islamists on the other hand cock a snook at USA & Israel.

4) USA thus propos up the TSP TFTA because as I said their posture suits USA just fine.

5) USA is hell bent on decimating the Ahmadinejad type Islamists in Iran because as I argue above, the non-Isalmist Iranian TFTA who will assume power eventually will bend down before the west.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Apr 2010 10:46

Most ordinary Iranians really do not closely identify with the Palestinians, or with the Arabs in general.

However, whether it was the Shah or the Mullahs, they do recognise that Iran must engage with Arab public opinion at *some* level in order to gain/maintain Iranian influence across the region. That means showing some kind of solidarity with Pan-Arab causes, which tend to revolve around Israel-Palestine.

That is why the Shah despite strategic cooperation with Israel did things like fly wounded Arab troops for treatment in Iran during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. No matter what government is in power in Iran, pro-American or anti-American, it can not afford to be indifferent to Arab opinion.

However Khomeini committed the Islamic Republic to a fundamentally anti-Semitic ideological position when he wrote may of his key publications back in the early 1960s, before Gaza and West Bank were even occupied. It was not Israel, or even Zionism that was condemned, it was "the Jews" who were singled out (Christians as a whole BTW do not receive this same kind of religious condemnation). This is *not* an ideological position that the majority of Iranians share, but is something the really hardline elements of the regime, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Basijis, Hezbollahis, etc still hold on too dearly. It is an attitude that even pragmatic Iranian conservatives/Islamists (Rafsanjani, Larijani, Qalibaf, etc) regard as foolish and self-destructive.

Carl, define success

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Apr 2010 18:22

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php? ... 2010-04-01

Even as his own party's PM tries to add to smoke and mirror, Turkeys President and AKP leader 'lets cat out of bag'

According to her, Gül said he has no doubts that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. “This is an Iranian aspiration dating back to the previous regime, [to] the days of the Shah,” Gül is reported as saying. As for the current regime in Iran, the Turkish president apparently believes its final aspiration is also “to have a nuclear weapon in the end.”

Look like the only course to pursue for Israel is 'Delanda Iranium'

This is the original article from FORBES

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/turkey ... ett_2.html

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Apr 2010 07:05

Johann wrote:Carl, define success

By success, I'm referring to a post-strike outcome that will seriously disable the Iranian program without much loss of civilian and military life to Israel. It is hard to believe such a scenario will result. I believe the strike itself will be costly to Israel, I think they will lose men and equipment if they try to hit 3-4 sites deep in Iran, and I think Iran (and Hezbollah's) potential retaliation will also be costly.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Apr 2010 07:32

CRamS wrote:
This Iran thingy will fizzle out slowly but surely. Make take a few years though. And here is the reason why. This clown Ahmadinejad, while he correctly points out US/Israel's diabolical, imperialist policies there, he simply does not have the muscle to make it stick.

I think so too for at least this year, reasons being:

Assumption: Strike cannot be a unilateral raid by Israel on Iranian nuclear sites.

- There will be no UNSC resolution against Israel and strike has to be multilateral IMO. I think coming up with a coalition effort will be quite difficult as it will have to be a primarily Arab and US effort led by Israel. I don't know how that would work. While Turkey doesn't want Iran to have nukes, military action against neighbors goes against the "good neighbour" policy they've been pursuing under AKP.

- The White House seems to hold Israeli actions in Jerusalem to be a prerequisite to any agreements with Arab nations. Until that agreement comes to fruition, consensus-building is a dream.

- Obama's interests are primarily domestic. In November we have the House and 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election and winning this has to be his biggest target. Therefore the next 6 months must be focused on developing plans for the economy.

I think we will have to wait till next year for something, if anything to happen. By then, if Iran has enriched enough uranium. Oh well...

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 04 Apr 2010 08:23

I cannnot understand why the Iranians want to play to the Arab street. Neither the Arab rulers nor the Arab street will ever reconcile with the Iranians. The Sunni-Shia divide is far too great and bitter for that. The average Iranian outside of Iran is smart, liberal and cosmopolitan. It is difficult to understand how hatred for the Shah could have brainwashed such a people and driven them into the arms of Khomeini and the mullahs, a decision they regret today.

Johann any views on why the Iranians both under the Shah and the mullah's continue to play to the Arab street?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Apr 2010 22:27

L Dev

- In the Shah' time it was a question of being the regional balancer. He liked being in a position where both the Arabs and the Israelis needed and wanted a cooperative relationship with him, and he succeeded in creating those conditions - probably the Shah's greatest foreign policy success. The more favours he gave the Arabs, the better the terms the Israelis had to offer, and vice versa. Even Saddam Hussein who routinely attacked (literally, not just metaphorically) other Arab leaders for any hint of compromise with Israel decided it was better to work with the Shah, even as Iran sold oil to Israel and allowed Israeli intelligence to operate out of its borders.

- In the Islamic Republic era it is about making US-allied American Arab governments (Egypt, Jordan, Gulf states, etc) look bad in front of their own people. The Islamic Republic sees the competition for regional influence as a zero-sum game, with the Palestinian cause as the strongest ideological lever against all of its rivals, both regional and extra-regional.

- It is also an opportunity to build powerful clients within the Arab world - Syria, Hamas, Hezballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, FIS in Algeria, Sudan, etc.

The Islamic Republic's positive relationship with Muslim Brotherhood movements is a hugely important bridge to the Sunni Arab world - they're in power in Sudan and Gaza today, but who knows, perhaps Egypt and Jordan and the West Bank one day. The mainstream Muslim-Brotherhood has a kind of non-denominational, generically Sunni Islamism that does not have the anti-Shia rhetoric of either traditional Sunni Orthodoxy or the Salafis.

BTW, the Shah did work with Arab Shia as well - SAVAK was instrumental in maintaining Iranian influence over the Lebanese Shia from the 1950s onwards, although the Shah's mismanagement of *all* of his relationships after the oil boom of 1974 led to those being taken over by the politically active elements of the Iranian ulema.

- lastly support to the Arabs on Palestine burnishes the Iran's reputation and influence with Muslims all over the world.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Apr 2010 22:46

Carl_T wrote:
Johann wrote:Carl, define success
By success, I'm referring to a post-strike outcome that will seriously disable the Iranian program without much loss of civilian and military life to Israel. It is hard to believe such a scenario will result. I believe the strike itself will be costly to Israel, I think they will lose men and equipment if they try to hit 3-4 sites deep in Iran, and I think Iran (and Hezbollah's) potential retaliation will also be costly.

I think we have to separate the Israeli government's threshhold (costs vs. benefits) for actually ordering a strike versus the actual effects they would hope to inflict on the nuclear programme.

The Israelis have consistantly said since the early 1990s that
a) They can not accept a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran
b) unilateral military action is the least preferred option to prevent that outcome

I don't think anything has fundamentally changed in the Israeli position since then.

If an Israeli PM and his cabinet decide to order overt military action, it is unlikely that they will have any illusions about destroying the Iranian programme. At the same the impression I've gotten from everything I've seen and and heard is that they wont settle for anything less than a 5-year delay. Anything less than that would not be worth the costs and risks.

The history of Israeli public's response to wars and crises is that they will accept tremendous losses in killed and wounded IF vital strategic aims are achieved. They'll honour their dead, care for their wounded and celebrate their heroes.

What Israel will pay a ridiculously high price for is PoWs - every man captured becomes a national agony. The worst possible thing that could happen is if the Iranians captured aircrew or operators on the ground.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Apr 2010 06:42

http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/05/stories ... 580100.htm

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will attend a global meeting in Washington convened by U.S. President Barack Obama next week aimed at strengthening national measures on protecting nuclear material and combating their trafficking.

The initiative, while adhering to multilateral instruments and norms, would help in the expanded use of civil nuclear energy, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told newspersons here on Sunday.

The two-day summit beginning on April 12 would not be country-specific but would be aimed at eliminating clandestine proliferation and trafficking in nuclear weapons and material.

Asked why Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were not invited and if the issue was raised during the two preparatory conferences,

Ms. Rao said discussions were held in the “global context.” She described Iran as a responsible country in the region with which India had substantive relations.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 05 Apr 2010 07:13

New Delhi, April 3 : Denying any US pressure on its ties with Iran, India has decided to nominate its ambassador to participate in a meet on nuclear disarmament in Tehran and stressed that it has not shut its door on the pipeline project.

In November last year, India had backed an international resolution for the third time against Iran over its nuclear programme, but qualified it by saying it was opposed to "a renewed punitive approach or sanctions" and stressed the need for "keeping doors open for dialogue".

http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-83041.html

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 12 Apr 2010 20:16

Ahmadinejad wants millions to quit Tehran over quake fears

TEHRAN (AFP) – At least five million Tehran residents need to relocate elsewhere because Iran's capital sits on several fault lines and is threatened by earthquakes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday.
"We cannot order people to evacuate the city... but provisions have to be made. At least five million should leave Tehran so it is less crowded and more manageable in case of an incident," Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.
Ahmadinejad said the government could offer "land, loans at four percent interest and substantial subsidies" in the provinces to encourage Tehran residents to leave the sprawling capital.
Tehran province has nearly 14 million inhabitants, eight million of whom live in the city which straddles several fault lines. Experts warn that a strong quake in Tehran could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Ahmadinejad said that 67 percent of Iran's 74-million-strong population lives in urban areas.
"We cannot predict when an earthquake will happen. But if anything happens to Tehran province's 13.8 million residents how can we manage that?" he asked.
Iran is prone to frequent quakes, many of which have been devastating.
The worst in recent times hit the southern city of Bam in December 2003, killing 31,000 people -- about a quarter of the population -- and destroying its ancient mud-built citadel.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Apr 2010 21:13

China unmoved on Iran sanctions

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Apr 2010 08:35

Generals Assess Iran’s Nuclear Powers

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world ... 5nuke.html

Two of the nation’s top military officials said Wednesday that Iran could produce bomb-grade fuel for at least one nuclear weapon within a year, but would most likely need two to five years to manufacture a workable atomic bomb.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Apr 2010 09:38

Inside the U.N.'s Iran sanctions debate

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... ons_debate

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Apr 2010 12:23

Rather than wasting time & energy trying to remove nukes from others, it would be a lot easier if all countries with nukes agreed to a time table for eliminating their nukes.

That is going to happen eventually anyway so it may as well happen now.

Failing that, there will only be a proliferation of more states with nukes in the decades ahead.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Apr 2010 17:39

Iranian press article reporting among other energy related issues about India sourcing electricity from Iran via an HVDC transmission line running through the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Iran, India reach electricity deal

Seems like this scheme reported in the Mint on February 02, 2010 has been resurrected:

Future looks dark for NTPC-Iran 6,000MW project

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 Apr 2010 06:42

India invites Iran to resume IPI talks
Tehran Times Economic Desk.

TEHRAN – India has invited Iran to continue the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline talks, the National Iranian Oil Company deputy director said.

SHANA news agency quoted Hojjatollah Ghanimifard as saying that the meeting will also provide the grounds for establishment of a joint economic commission.

He went on to note that the Russian and Chinese companies are keen to participate in the IPI pipeline project.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Apr 2010 07:10

Gates Says U.S. Lacks Strategy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world ... 8iran.html

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Apr 2010 17:45

Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi claims extra marital sex causes earth quakes, and he does not mean that in any metaphorical sense

:

Sex fuels earthquakes, says Iran cleric

AAP April 18, 2010, 2:32 am …………………..

"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes," Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran.

"Calamities are the result of people's deeds," he was quoted as saying by reformist Aftab-e Yazd newspaper. "We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers." ..........................

The West Australian

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2010 07:06

Mullen: Strikes would delay Iran, his "last option"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... ption.html

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a U.S. strike would "go a long way to delaying" Iran's nuclear program, but would be his "last option."

"Military options would go a long way to delaying" Iran's nuclear program, Mullen told reporters after a Columbia University conference, Reuters reported.

"That's not my call, that's going to be the president's call," Mullen continued. "But from my perspective ... the last option is to strike right now."

Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability "has unintended consequences" including that "other countries in the region will then seek .... nuclear weapons as well," Mullen said. "That spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome."

"I worry, on the other hand, about striking Iran," he continued. "I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences of that."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2010 07:07

Gates Pushes Back on Report of Memo About Iran Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world ... 9iran.html

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 20 Apr 2010 22:18

Iran-Pakistan gas deal puts pressure on India

On 16 March, the governments of Iran and Pakistan finally decided to proceed with the construction of a pipeline to export Iranian gas to South Asia. Known as the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) or peace pipeline, the scheme has been under discussion since the 1990s and was originally intended to supply both Pakistan and India

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Apr 2010 08:53

More hype about Iran?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... about_iran

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Apr 2010 07:13

As Iran's bid to join rights body fails, U.S. claims victory

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... ms_victory

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Apr 2010 03:37

Pakistani centrifuges launched Iran's nuclear program 24 years ago

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 26 Apr 2010 23:45

prad wrote: American involvement is a given considering the issue of Straits of Hormuz and how Iran can mine the damn region with impunity and destroy the "recovery" around the world.

but it is highly likely that US is already planning for this. US will try to avoid it at all costs but will be prepared for it. short-term oil shock might be a very real possibility. but beyond that, if American and Israeli strike becomes a reality, then the strikes will include major industrial centers, to cripple the Iranian economy.

The Iranians in the 1980s launched an all out war on international tanker traffic, and they lost in every sense. They never won a single naval engagement with the US, and the price of oil actually *fell* during this period. That is because Saudi Arabia could and (after 1981) did single handedly compensate for the loss in production from both Iran and Iraq.

While Iranian military capabilities have improved, I don't believe the overall military balance has shifted.

The real change that has taken place that favours the Iranians is the decrease in the surge capacity of global oil production. Oil production is struggling to keep up with the growth in demand, and that means the Iranians have to do far less to oil distribution via Hormuz (and/or Iraq) in order to inflict serious worldwide economic pain.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Apr 2010 09:01

Obama's Iran policy is all bark and no bite

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... nd_no_bite

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 27 Apr 2010 17:23

Johann wrote:The real change that has taken place that favours the Iranians is the decrease in the surge capacity of global oil production. Oil production is struggling to keep up with the growth in demand, and that means the Iranians have to do far less to oil distribution via Hormuz (and/or Iraq) in order to inflict serious worldwide economic pain.

Not to mention their ability to disrupt any production in Iraq and ability to tie down KSA in Yemen.

If they use their imagination, they can also disrupt oil production in Nigeria and other disturbed areas for maximum effect.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 May 2010 11:21

Iran’s Green Movement and the grey strategy of patience

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... f_patience

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 May 2010 11:27

Iranian economy’s biggest vulnerability: Iran

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... ility_iran

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 02 May 2010 14:49

Iran Wargame in the gulf of Hormuz

Video shows missiles targetting and destroying an oil tanker

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2010 07:03

U.S. apprehensive of Ahmadinejad's role during NPT deliberations

http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/03/stories ... 861400.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2010 07:04

Iranian navy plane approached within 300 feet of the U.S.S. Eisenhower, military officials tell CNN.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... talks.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2010 07:05

As Ahmadinejad heads to NY, Clinton says Iran will try to divert conference

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... _York.html