Bharat Rakshak

explosion on Wednesday killed Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a top official at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Iranian officials said.He is the third man identified as a nuclear scientist to be killed in Iran in a mysterious explosion in the past two years. A fourth survived an assassination attempt.In each case, someone placed a bomb under the scientist's car.Iranian officials, on state-run media, blame Israel and the United States."I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday."We believe there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community and be a productive member of it," she said.While Israel generally refuses to comment on accusations and speculation , Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, said on his Facebook page Wednesday, "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear."Mickey Segal, a former director of the Iranian department in the Israel Defense Forces' Intelligence Branch, told Israel Army Radio that Wednesday's attack was part of broader pressure being brought to bear on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime. "Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period. Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the Iranian regime is facing," Segal said.With no one claiming responsibility, the killings remain shrouded in mystery. Iran experts contacted by CNN could only speculate.
"The most likely contender among people who are following this is that the Israelis are doing it, possibly in cooperation with the Iranian mujahedin," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the book "A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran."There's almost no downside for Israel," he said. The killings "take out nuclear assets and embarrass Iran" by showing that the regime can't prevent such attacks, Parsi said. And "if Iran retaliates with a violent act, then Israel can point to it as a reason to take military action against the regime."Michael Rubin, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that Israeli involvement is the most "plausible" scenario. And Mark Hibbs, senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, also said the way the attacks took place "would be consistent" with the possibility of Israel acting with cooperation inside Iran.

A 50-year old Iranian blogger, Mohammad Reza Pour Shajari (aka Siamak Mehr), has been charged with “insulting the Prophet of Islam” and “enmity with God” or “waging war against God”, charges that could carry the death penalty in Iran. His trial on December 21, 2011 lasted only 15 minutes. His daughter, Mitra Pour Sharjari, told Deutsche Welle's Farsi service that her father told the judge he would not defend himself, because neither his lawyer, nor jury members, nor the media were there. He said, “One day, like Gaddafi, you will hide in a hole.” The judge replied that it makes no difference since, “Now we are here, and you, and people like you, will pay the price.”Siamak Mehr was arrested in September 2010. In his blog, Iran Land's Report, he would criticize the Islamic Republic and Islam with strong words.In his last post on September 8, 2010 he said he considered Shi'ite clerics a mafia group who had wasted away Iran's national resources since [the Islamic Revolution in] 1979.

Carl wrote:Gosh the sailor-rescues are like a psy-ops freeding frenzy for the US -

US Military Rescues Iranian Sailors, Again

For the second time in as many weeks, the U.S. military has rescued distressed Iranian sailors, despite the extremely high tensions between the two nations.

According to the Navy's account, at about 3 a.m. local time an American Coast Guard patrol boat in the north Persian Gulf was hailed by flares and flashlights from an Iranian cargo ship whose engine room was flooding. Six Iranians were rescued from the ship, fed halal meals in accordance with Islamic law, and later taken to shore.

"Saving lives is the last thing you expect to do at [3 a.m.] while patrolling in the Northern Arabian Gulf, but being in the Coast Guard, that's what we are trained to do," Boatswain Mate 2nd Class Emily Poole said in a statement by the Navy, using an alternate designation for the Persian Gulf.

Last week, the U.S. Navy rescued more than a dozen Iranian sailors who had been held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea for weeks.

Wasn't there a recent report in Indian media also, with a pic of an IN chopper rescuing Iranian military men in camouflage?

Japan, Iran's second biggest oil customer, will reduce its imports, says finance minister Jun Azumi

Japan will take "concrete steps" to reduce its oil dependency on Iran, its finance minister has announced.

WASHINGTON—Iran agreed to host a high-level team of United Nation's nuclear inspectors later this month, Western diplomats said, a surprise development that could help to curb building tensions with the West.
The diplomats on Thursday said Iran had tentatively agreed to receive a delegation from the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency headed by the agency's chief weapons inspector, Herman Nackaerts. The diplomats, who are based in Vienna, said the visit was tentatively set for Jan. 28.Unclear, said the diplomats, was whether Tehran would let the inspectors visit key nuclear sites and interview the Iranian official the U.S. and

NEW DELHI India will keep doing business with Teheran and sees no reason to seek a waiver that would protect buyers of Iranian oil from a fresh round of US sanctions, a senior Indian cabinet minister said on Thursday.

“Why should we seek waiver from the US? We have done business with Iran earlier and will continue to do business,” the minister, who has knowledge of the matter, said on condition of anonymity.

The minister said government officials would visit Iran next week and find ways to pay for oil without contravening US financial measures designed to hinder the trade.

The comments partly echo industry sources who said on Wednesday that New Delhi may not seek a waiver from the latest US sanctions.

India, which imports about 12 per cent of its oil needs, or 350,000-400,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Iran, has been struggling to pay for it owing to sanctions on dealings with Iran, government officials have said previously.

India currently pays for Iran crude through Turkey’s Halkbank, a mechanism government officials have said may be cut off by the latest round of sanctions.

Halkbank has already refused to open an account for state-run Bharat Petroleum Corp for oil from Iran.

The US law, however, allows waivers to firms in countries that significantly reduce dealings with Iran, or at any time when it is either in the US national interest or necessary for energy market stability.

An Indian delegation will visit Teheran from January 16-21 to explore alternative routes of payment to ensure supplies without breaching sanctions, government officials said on Wednesday.

“I believe our officials are quite capable ... There are capable people (in the finance ministry and the central bank) going (to Iran),” the Indian minister said.

“This a technical issue but I am confident they will find a solution and a payment mechanism option soon.”

Earlier, an Indian oil ministry official denied comments from industry sources saying the government had asked refiners to reduce Iranian oil imports, adding the existing mechanism through Turkey was working but that India was also looking for alternative supplies.

He didn’t explain why India was looking for alternative supplies.

Indian refiners have gradually started raising supplies from other sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the UAE.

shyamd wrote:I wonder who put out the rumour that india was cutting purchase of IRanian oil?

United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products, as it sought to impress on Beijing and Tehran its resolve to increase economic pressure over Iran's nuclear program.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also imposed sanctions on Singapore's Kuo Oil Pte Ltd and FAL Oil Company Ltd, an independent energy trader based in the United Arab Emirates, the State Department said in a notice.

The sanction bar all three companies from receiving U.S. export licenses, U.S. Export Import Bank financing or loans over $10 million from U.S. financial institutions, the department said, stressing that the sanctions apply only to the companies and not to their governments or countries.

But the move will send a signal to Beijing and its state-run oil giants such as China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corp (Sinopec Corp) and China National Offshore Oil Corp., they said.

These companies have invested billions of dollars in the U.S. energy sector, and are much more exposed to the impact of potential sanctions.

Derek Scissors, an expert in the Chinese economy at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said the action against Zhenrong would send a message to other Chinese state oil majors.

"We don't want to be taking action against Sinopec, CNPC and CNOOC. They are huge, and politically powerful," he said.

"But Zhenrong is close enough to them, and won't really do that much harm beyond sending the signal."

A series of CIA memos describe how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.

shyamd wrote:Accept and renege - Iranian tactic. They had deals with Venezuela {Brazil} and Turkeytoo. Accepted and renege. So its time to take Iran to taliban shariah court soon for flogging.

Special Correspondent
Share · print · T+

A multi-disciplinary ministerial team will leave for Iran on January 16 to work out the modalities for a ‘payment plan' to ensure smooth supplies of crude oil from Tehran, the second biggest exporter of oil to India, in view of impeding U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Senior officials associated with the development said the government was working on various fronts to ensure that things did not get out of control. Apart from monitoring the situation constantly by National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, a move is afoot in the government to get the U.S. administration on board on the issue of crude oil supplies from Iran.

“We are one among the biggest importers of crude oil from Iran. Japan is the biggest importer followed by South Korea. All are close U.S. allies and there is a feeling that any sanctions to block supplies will badly hit their people and the economy. Therefore, a channel needs to be opened with the U.S. to either ensure payment for the oil through some source or to ensure that crude oil imports are exempted from sanctions,'' a senior official remarked. The task of the team will be to work out a payment arrangement with Tehran in view of the Turkish bank having expressed its unwillingness to carry on with the transactions in future, probably under U.S. and European Union pressure. “We could also be negotiating with Iran for payment through rupee mode but the Reserve Bank of India has some reservations on the issue and we are trying our best to work around things,'' a senior Petroleum Ministry official said .

The official said that looking for alternative sources to meet the energy requirements was a long-term plan and the present situation demanded a solution that would not aggravate the already hotted up oil market.

Under the proposal being prepared, National Iranian Oil Company will open a rupee account with Indian banks and can use the money to purchase non-strategic items like railway imports and buying commodities. It cannot, however, use the money to invest in India or buy shares or companies. A list of what Iran can do with the money and what it cannot is being prepared.

India had in February last year started making euro payments through an Iranian bank based in Germany. But under U.S. pressure, Germany soon stopped accepting money from India for onward transfer to Hamburg-based EIH Bank, sending India to the doorstep of Turkey.

Mr. Menon has already held a round of meeting with officials in the ministries of finance, petroleum and external affairs and the RBI after indications from Turkey's state-run Halkbank that it would have to stop settling payments on behalf of Indian companies. A meeting before the Indian team leaves for Iran has been scheduled in the oil ministry later this week.

TRENDS:Iran tension

As sparks fly dangerously close to the powder keg of US-Iranian relations, speculation is rife and rumors are spreading like wildfire. Will there be a war? Who wants it? And what will happen to this very lucrative region?

Google the words “Iran”, “USA” and “war” and you get over 140 million hits. Many believe the possibility of a military conflict between the two is not even a question of “if”, but a question of “when”. And there is definitely enough evidence around to lend support to these beliefs.

Let’s break it down. Will there be a war? According to Israeli military analysts quoted by Global Research, an independent research and media organization, that possibility is “dangerously close”. But let us say analysts, especially military ones, are of the boy-scout-always-be-prepared disposition by nature. What other evidence is there?

Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible. Logic tells us to follow the money – and in this case, the cases of weapons shipped out by the US. So where are they headed to?

In October 2010, the US negotiated a $67 billion deal with Saudi Arabia to supply the latter with bunker-buster bombs, F-15 fighter jets, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, Patriot-2 missiles and warships. It is, in simple terms, the largest bilateral weapons deal in US history.

One month later, in November, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the United States will provide the United Arab Emirates with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up US effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.”

Washington also plans to supply Stinger and other missiles to Oman. Kuwait is in for $900 million worth of Patriot missiles. And a $53-billion arms deal with Bahrain is still on the agenda – delayed only because of pressure from international lawmakers and human rights groups.

So the United States is increasing military ties with its allies, one might claim. And it is true, but all those allies are conveniently located in the Persian Gulf…right next to Iran.

It is not just weapons, either. Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman all have US military bases on their territory. This month, an additional 15,000 American troops were dispatched to the US base in Kuwait.

With the US most likely asking NATO in for a piece of the action, alliance members like Turkey are perfectly positioned to lend a helping hand. Besides being conveniently close geographically, Ankara has also been holding on to a lot of US nuclear weapons, including a large number of B61 bombs.

But all this does, effectively, is to highlight the military capabilities of the US in the region. Categorically stating all this is being done by the Department of Defense as part of a preparation for war with Iran would be irresponsible – until the Pentagon men say so themselves.

Oh wait…they have been. For years.

In late 2005, then CIA director Porter Goss, who was visiting Ankara, requested that the Turkish prime minister "provide political and logistical support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."

In 2006, the Israeli prime minister green-lit a military strike against Iran. Various staged war games always focused on the possibility of military conflict with Iran. And all these years later, Secretary of State Clinton’s former advisor on Iran still says Obama is more than willing to launch a pre-emptive strike.

Michel Chossudovsky, economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, says there have been specific, detailed military plans for war with Iran since 2003.

"These war plans go back to the 1990s or even before that. If you look at active war plans, you can say May 2003, when the Department of Defense came up with the strategic concept plan CON8022, dubbed “Global Strike”. The framework of attacking Iran and the scenarios and the war plans have been going on for the last eight years. We have so much evidence of covert operations, of scenarios, of drone attacks, of regime change scenarios. And it’s not only the United States that are preparing. The Iranians have been preparing for this war for years. They have the S-300 missile defense system, very extensive ground forces – enough to overrun the remaining US forces in Iraq. Our estimates are that Iran can mobilize 1 million troops overnight."

Preparations, strong allies in the region, huge defense budget for 2012 – all the signs point to the Americans getting ready for a potential war. But when – and how – does it start?

According to the editor-in-chief of Russia’s National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, anything can trigger the triggers. “If the US pushes through more sanctions and Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz in return, that could easily be enough. Basically, Washington will use any convenient reason that appears legitimate cause for the international community to attack.”

And with the upcoming US-Israeli war games in the Strait of Hormuz, analysts like Chossudovsky say a convenient reason will be very easy to come by. “The strait is very narrow. There’s not a lot of space before Iran’s territorial waters begin. And they would have to respond to a violation of its territorial waters.” He goes on to speculate that, faced with such a violation, Iran would have no choice but to send an ultimatum to the Fifth Fleet commanders there, which will be ignored for some reason. Then, according to international law, a second ultimatum. If that is ignored, Iran has no choice but to act – leaving America in its preferred position of reacting.

History does support this notion of provocation being a favored US military tactic. Richard Sanders of the Coalition Against the Arms Trade looked at US war history in detail and came out with a rather disturbing conclusion: starting from the Mexican-American War in 1846, pretext incidents have been used every time; incidents that were later disproved, or re-interpreted by historians, journalists and political committees; incidents that have become a military trademark for one of the world’s youngest, but war-hungriest nations.

Sanders’ statement is echoed by many – including www.infowars.com associate editor Patrick Henningsen. Examples he highlights are historical facts that show just how manipulative the US Department of Defense can be. “This is how the US was able to fake their way into the Vietnam War, via the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Likewise, Israel's slaughter of the USS Liberty naval crew in 1967 was designed as a false flag event, but luckily Russia intervened at the last minute before Israel could sink the American ship.”

It would not be the first time the US has tried to push Iran’s buttons. As revealed by a senior British officer a few years ago, there were times in Iraq when the US military commanders ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory. “If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," the unnamed officer said.

Unfortunately, “all hell breaking loose” is a scenario that is still not off the table. Iran, while not having many allies willing to go to bat for it in the region, can still put up a fight.

Iran plays a critical role in the Persian Gulf and with its strategic geography not only dominates the Northern Gulf but the shipping lines both inside and outside the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s leadership adheres to a "no first strike doctrine” and thus Iran has launched no wars of choice in modern history. The Iranian constitution bans the establishment of any foreign military bases in the country, even for peaceful purposes.

Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran also divided its armed forces into regular and revolutionary components. The Iran’s Revolutionary Guards is separated from the regular army and has its own Navy, Aerospace and Ground Forces, as well as Special Forces.

And past experiences have also shown that for the American Armed Forces, a war with Iran, a country that is larger in population than the four countries recently invaded by the US put together, will not be a walk in the park. The Pentagon’s own war games in 2002 showed that in the event of an armed conflict, the United States would be overwhelmed by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

As speculated by researcher and sociologist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against US naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the US are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of US naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where US vessels are constricted.”

Allies-wise, Iran is more or less on its own. Syria, its closest ally, is too caught up in the almost year-long violence that has been shaking the country, Armenia is a possible one and Lebanon’s Hezbollah could shift their allegiance either way. The Shanghai Cooperation Council is a regional organization that has a few powerful friends, namely China and Russia, but whether they would want to get involved in an all-out military conflict is doubtful.

A statement made by Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, said that “a military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.”

This was seconded in a recent comment by Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who said that an attack on Iran will be regarded as a direct threat to Russia.

“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” stressed Rogozin on January 13 at the Russian mission to NATO.

As for China, it is showing Tehran some support by refusing to fold under US pressure and halt oil imports from Iran. But it has never been one to show its hand before it had to, so the extent of China’s potential involvement in the conflict is also open to debate.

Some analysts, like Patrick Henningsen, believe that should other countries get drawn into the conflict, it could signify the beginning of a new, economical Cold War-era. Henningsen says that “We have the ideal set of conditions for a New Cold War to emerge in the early 21st century – one where the Western Axis powers of the US, Europe, Israel and GCC countries sit on one side, and with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, China, and perhaps Russia sitting on the opposite side. This New Cold War will be more about sub-regional dominance in terms of economics – natural gas, mineral and trade relationships, as well as petroleum – than it will about the political ideologies that seemed to dominate the previous 20th-century Cold War.”

As sparks fly and tensions reach critical points, experts and analysts argue over who will start the war, why they will start the war, how the war will develop, whether it will spill out into World War III and what will happen in the end. Opinions are varied, detailed and range from the simplistic and obvious to the complex and conspiratorial.

And the only one thing they all agree on? That it is not a matter of if the war between the United States and Iran will happen. It is a matter of when.

­Katerina Azarova, RT

India has not faced any problems in paying for crude oil it buys from Iran, but needs to be prepared for all eventualities, Oil Minister S Jaipal Reddy said today.

"We continue to be optimistic. Iran continues to be positive. However we have to be prepared for all eventualities," Reddy told reporters here.

An official said Turkey's Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS, the bank through which India routes payments in euros to Iran for about 370,000 barrels per day of crude oil supplies, has so far not declined to be an intermediary.

"All that they (Turkey) have said is that they would not like to open new accounts but will continue to service existing accounts (through which payments are routed to Iran)," the official said, adding that not a single payment has defaulted since India began using the Turkey conduct in July last year.

US President Barack Obama on December 31 signed into law measures that deny access to the US financial system to any foreign bank that conducts business with the central bank of Iran.

The European Union will discuss imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, including a ban on crude imports, in response to the country's nuclear programme when the bloc's foreign ministers meet at the end of January.

The official said India will continue to buy crude oil from Iran, but would like to replace a part of the supplies with other sources like Saudi Arabia.

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, at 142,000 bpd, and other refiners are yet to renew their term import contracts with Iran for the year beginning April.

Essar Oil is looking at replacing 10 per cent of the 110,000 bpd of oil it buys from Iran with other Gulf sources.

Yesterday, Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai had stated that New Delhi would not seek a waiver from US sanctions to protect its oil trade with Iran.

The US allows waivers for firms in countries that significantly reduce dealings with Iran or when it is either in the US national interest or necessary for energy market stability. Japan, South Korea and Turkey have all said they could seek waivers.

An Indian delegation comprising officials from the RBI, Oil Ministry, Finance Ministry and refiners is currently in Tehran to discuss alternative modes and routes of payments.

Indian refiners began using Halkbank to pay Iran in July last year after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) scrapped a long-standing mechanism of payment through central banks.

New Delhi fears Turkey may come under pressure to halt the conduit after the US imposed a fresh round of sanctions against Iran, with the European Union slated to announce tough measures of its own in this regard at the end of the month.

Refiners have already begun talks with alternative suppliers to slowly replace some quantity of the 370,000 barrels a day of oil they buy from Iran.

MRPL, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil at 142,000 bpd, has not yet contracted any supplies for the year beginning April.

India is Iran's second-largest crude buyer, taking about 13.5 per cent of Iran's 2.6 million bpd of exports. New Delhi currently pays the world's fourth-largest oil producer about USD 1 billion every month through Turkey.

Sources said the possibility of paying Iran in rupees or through the yen would be discussed at the meeting in Tehran.

Routing payments through Russia was discussed during the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Moscow last month. However, Russia has so far not agreed to route payments for India due to the "complexities" involved.

United States expectations that a harsh sanctions regime might cripple Iran may prove a chimera. Though few in the US have noticed, Tehran is not as "isolated" as Washington wishes: it has the majority of the South on its side - not forgetting that China, India, Japan and South Korea buy 62% of Iran's oil exports. Follow the money and Tehran's move to torpedo the petrodollar is perhaps a key reason for the crisis in the Persian Gulf. - Pepe Escobar

Iranian subs laying in wait for US Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf
Robert Tilford
, Charlotte City Buzz Examiner
January 18, 2012
Iranian submarines can ambush US Aircraft carriers by laying silent on the sea bed floor and striking with little or no notice.

A source inside the Pentagon, who wished to remain anonymous said this is a “huge concern” for the Navy. “The Navy will never discuss this publically because it pertains to national security”, the official said.

One senior Iranian military commander underlined that the Iranian Navy's subsurface vessels enjoy a high capability to confront enemies' threats, and stated that Iran's submarines are able to “ambush and hit enemy vessels especially US Aircraft carriers from the seabed throughout the Persian Gulf”, according to FARS News Agency reports.

On Wednesday, Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army's Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri said that "Iran has the best electronic diesel submarines of the world", adding that enemies, the US in particular, are "most focused on Iran's astonishing subsurface capabilities."
Advertisement

Amiri underlined that significance of submarines are not just indebted to their arms and equipment, "rather the tactical issues are very important", given the geographical specifications of the waters surrounding the county.

GREATEST THREAT TO US NAVY SHIPS

"For example," he stated, "if an ordinary submarines can sit in the Persian Gulf's bed it would be the worst threat to the enemy."

"That is one of the US concerns since Iranian submarines are noiseless and can easily evade detection as they are equipped with the sonar-evading technology" and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, he added.

"When the submarine sits on the seabed it can easily target and hit an aircraft carrier traversing in the nearby regions," Amiri reiterated.

This was confirmed by high ranking Russian military officials in Moscow by email communication. Russian official have repeatedly warn the United States against launching a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. "The US is war mongering again", said one Russian diplomat, who wished not to be named in this report. "They seem hell bent on going to war agains with yet another nation. Our foreign intelligence services say they can't afford it", he said.

$16 TRILLION IN DEBT

This is in reference to the fact the US is $16 trillion dollars in debt. The national debt is a very serious issue the Obama administration is simply ignoring as a national security threat to the United States. "The Administration and Congress are stupid to think we can afford to go to war again anywhere in the world. We have generational debt right now which they have not addressed in any meaningul way, beside passing legislation to raise the debt limit of the country. This is beyond irresponsible" says Vincent Roamer of Charlotte, a economics major at the University of North Carolina.

IRANIAN SUBMARINE FORCE

Iran's submarine force currently consists of three Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines (Tareq 901, Noor 902, Yunes 903), one 500-ton Nahang and four 120-ton Yono-class (also referred to as Qadir or Ghadir-class) midget submarines.

The Iranian Navy plays a critical strategic role in Iran's national security architecture due to Tehran's reliance on the Persian Gulf for trade and security.

The Iranian naval forces also operates in the Gulf of Oman, the Caspian Sea and, possibly, the Indian Ocean.

"It is not know how many mini submarines the Iranian have available to them…This is one aspect the US intelligence community is completely in the dark on", said one CIA official who wished not to be identified in this report.

STRAIT OF HORMUZ

The Persian Gulf separates the Iranian landmass from the Arabian Peninsula and is connected to the Gulf of Oman through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically located waterways in the world.[ The Strait is about 120 miles long, 60 miles wide at the eastern, and 24 miles wide at the western end, with a complex system of narrow shipping lanes (about 2 miles) separated into outbound and inbound traffic.

A considerable proportion of the world's oil exports pass through this waterway and its critical role is amplified by the limited capacity of alternative energy routes. "It is water ways controlled by the Iranians, because it lays off their coast", said Quinne Finster of Charlotte, a political and international affairs expert.

Currently, two main overland routes connect Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea: the East-West Pipeline (Petroline) and the Abqaiq-Yanbu natural gas pipeline.
......
Later, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey acknowledged that Iran is able to close the Strait of Hormuz, but refused to talk about the US inability to react to such a situation. In the press confefrence you can see the General was nervous and unsure of what to say. "His body language suggests the topic was uncomfortable for him...", says Walter White of Charlotte, a criminal profiler who used to work law enforcement in Arizona.

"They've invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormoz," Dempsey said in an interview aired on the CBS "Face the Nation" program.

In November, the Iranian Navy increased the fleet of its submarines after it received three more Ghadir-class submarines.

Speaking to reporters in a press conference at the time, Iranian Army's Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said that all parts of the submarines have been designed and manufactured by Iranian experts.

Iranian commanders had earlier said that Ghadir-class submarines boosted the Navy's capability in defending the country's territorial waters.

The submarine has been designed and manufactured according to the geographical and climate conditions and specifications of Iranian waters, according to military experts. "Iran has very advanced subs which are Russian made and specifically adapted to meet defense capabilities..", says Nathan Brown a retired merchant marine.

The Iranian military officials said that the submarine can easily evade detection as it is equipped with the latest Russian and Chinese made sonar-evading technology and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously.

Robert Tilford

Charlotte, N.C.

ran to release Fateh, Besat submarines of own production
18 January 2012,

Azerbaijan, Baku, Jan. 18 / Trend S.Isayev, T. Jafarov/

Iran will release two new submairines of own production, Deputy of Iran's Army commander on research issues Farkhad Amiri said, Fars reported.

Amiri noted that the "Fateh" submarine will be put into operation in the beginning of new Iranian Year (starts on March 21). He also added that its planned to install 12 Sonar on the Fateh submarine.

Sonar is a technique that uses sound propagation (usually underwater, as in submarine navigation) to navigate, communicate with or detect other vessels. Two types of technology share the name "sonar": passive sonar is essentially listening for the sound made by vessels; active sonar is emitting pulses of sounds and listening for echoes.

"Its planned to have both passive and active sonar on Fateh submarine," Amiri noted. "Sonar will help the submarine to detect and take active measures against enemy divers and other threats."

Amiri added that after the Fateh submarine is released, Iran plans to start making a 1,200 ton Besat submarine.

He said that the new Besat submarine will be made using new technology.

Sonar may be used as a means of acoustic location and of measurement of the echo characteristics of "targets" in the water. Acoustic location in air was used before the introduction of radar. Sonar may also be used in air for robot navigation, and SODAR (an upward looking in-air sonar) is used for atmospheric investigations.

Iran will equip four submarines (Fateh, Gadir, Tariq and a 1,200 ton Besat submarine) with underwater to surface missile launching systems for land targeting, Amiri said.

Amiri added that another addition that Iranian own made submarines will have fuel-cells.

Editor's Note: Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the new book A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

By Trita Parsi - Special to CNN

U.S.-Israeli relations are in a crisis over Iran. It has been in the making for quite some time – arguably since the early 1990s – and edging closer to climax by the minute. The personal chemistry between the leaders is abysmal – Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy recently discussed how they can’t stand Benjamin Netanyahu – and disagreements abound on the Arab uprisings, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on how to deal with Iran.

Publicly, the two sides claim to share a common objective with Iran, though they may assess risks differently. In reality, the divisions are much deeper. Israel is firmly committed to the zero-enrichment objective espoused by the George W. Bush administration, i.e. that the only acceptable way to prevent Iranian bomb is by preventing it from having nuclear technology, period. “Enrichment in Iran is certainly unacceptable,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told me in October 2010.

The Obama administration has left this issue vague, neither rejecting nor accepting this red line. Israel fears that in a final agreement, the Obama White House would accept enrichment in Iran, a fear fueled by the administration’s attempt to exchange Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for a research reactor in Tehran earlier in 2009. Both France and Israel argued that the deal would legitimize Iranian enrichment. In Israel’s view, Obama has made America’s red lines flexible and unreliable.

And between bombing Iran and an Iranian bomb, Israel prefers the former. But it is not confident Obama shares that preference.

When the two states cannot agree on an objective, tensions over tactics and strategies are to be expected. Nowhere has the disagreements been more stark than on the idea of talking to Iran. Obama entered the White House on a promise to pursue diplomacy with Washington’s foes. While this shift away from Bush’s outlook was welcomed in some quarters, it was met with great dismay in Israel – precisely due to the fear that in a negotiation, Washington would betray Israel’s security interests.

“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue . . . is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said in an interview with Israeli Radio only twenty-four hours after congratulating President-elect Obama on his historic election victory. Asked specifically if she supported discussions between the U.S. and Iran, she left no room for interpretation: “The answer is no,” she declared.

From the very outset, the Netanyahu government sought to steer Washington’s policy away from diplomacy.

On May 18, 2009, Netanyahu came to Washington for a visit that both sides hoped would dispel fears of a crisis, but neither side was in a compromising mood. Netanyahu did not have the appetite for either American diplomacy with Iran or American pressure against Israeli settlements. Going up against the American president, however, would be a dangerous gambit. Obama was immensely popular at the time and enjoyed the political latitude American presidents usually experience only during their first year in office. Clashing with Obama under these circumstances could be very damaging. Still, that was the path Netanyahu chose.

In the weeks prior to his visit to Washington, he intensified the Israeli campaign to weaken Obama’s ability to move forward with diplomacy. The strategy centered on four key areas: securing a tight deadline for diplomacy; tightening sanctions before any diplomacy began; securing American commitment to zero-enrichment; and keeping the military option on the table.

Read: Without renewed diplomacy, war with Iran lies around the corner.

The Israelis argued that diplomacy should not be given more than twelve weeks, otherwise the Iranians could play for time and use the talks to expand their program. Moreover, the only acceptable outcome of talks would be for Iran to completely capitulate and give up its enrichment program. Both requirements would set the bar so high for diplomacy that failure was guaranteed. Privately, the Israelis did not conceal their desire for diplomacy to be pursued solely to demonstrate its failure and boost the efforts to pursue other, more confrontational options. The Political-Military Chief of the Israeli Ministry of Defense Amos Gilad told Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher that engagement is a good idea - "as long as you understand that it will not work."

Netanyahu’s approach did not lack critics back home in Israel. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz warned about the increasing distance between the two countries’ leadership and policies. “While the Americans are actively seeking a way to start a dialogue, Israel is preaching confrontation and the toppling of the government in Tehran,” the daily said in an editorial. “The new government should give Obama’s diplomatic initiative a chance.”

Obama prevailed in the first round. Netanyahu was shocked to find even some of his closest Congressional allies reluctant to challenge Obama’s Iran policy. Even the powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) efforts to pass sanctions through Congress prior to the talks fell short, prompting Andrew Glass of the Politico to write that AIPAC faced some “challenging times.” AIPAC’s failure resulted from the “rough consensus that had formed in Congress to give the Obama administration time and space” to pursue diplomacy, a senior Senate staffer told me. “Supporting Obama meant not supporting sanctions.”

In the end, all of Israel’s pressure against the diplomacy it so feared was for naught. The Iranians, it turned out, would do far more damage to diplomacy than Israel ever could. The massive human rights abuses following Iran’s fraudulent presidential elections significantly reduced Obama’s already compromised space for diplomacy. “After the elections, skepticism in Congress against our strategy turned to outright hostility,” a senior Obama official told me.

By the time diplomacy finally could take place in October 2009, pressure was enormous for instantaneous success. The Obama administration had neither space nor political capital to spend on prolonged talks. The Israeli demand for tight deadlines had de facto been adopted.

Diplomacy rarely yields immediate results, and the talks between the Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran October 2009 were no different. The proposal to swap Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for the Tehran Research Reactor ultimately did not win approval in Tehran, mainly due to infighting within Iran’s political elite. The deal fell “victim to internal Iranian politics,” then-Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom David Miliband told me.

Read: Assassinations to scuttle talks.

The damage to Obama’s gamble on diplomacy was so severe that advantage had now turned to Netanyahu in his next clash with the American president. But the game had shifted; it was no longer about diplomacy, but about sanctions. Would Obama have the time and space to secure sanctions at the U.N. or would Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities first? The Obama administration feared that Israel would start a war that inevitably the U.S. would get dragged into – against its own wishes.

The White House simply could not afford any Israeli adventurism with Iran. To drive the point home, Obama sent an army of high-level officials to Israel with the aim of pressing the Israelis to give Obama the time he needed to get a strong Security Council resolution. Between January and March 2010, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, Undersecretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, CIA director Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jack Lew, and Vice President Joseph Biden were all dispatched to Israel.

Mullen took the unusual step of convening a press conference to send a clear message to the Israeli public: an Israeli strike against Iran would “be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike,” he said.

To make matters worse, in the midst of the jockeying over Iran, a major crisis erupted between Israel and the U.S. over a different issue mid-May 2010. Frustrated with the stalemate in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Biden traveled to Israel to resume negotiations. But on the day that the vice president arrived, the Netanyahu government announced that another 1,600 apartments would be built in a settlement in Arab East Jerusalem.

The Israeli move infuriated the White House, which viewed it as a provocation and an insult. Such a blatant show of defiance by Israel against the U.S. served only to further weaken Washington’s position in the region, the administration believed. Biden himself was infuriated and had an angry exchange with Netanyahu, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace,” he said, linking negative sentiments in the region against the U.S. to Israeli policies.

This enraged the Israelis, who categorically rejected any suggestion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fueled anti-American terrorism. Netanyahu’s brother-in-law Hagai Ben-Artzi even went so far as to accuse Obama on Israeli radio of being an anti-Semite. “When there is an anti-Semitic president in the United States, it is a test for us and we have to say: we will not concede,” he said. “We are a nation dating back 4,000 years, and you in a year or two will be long forgotten. Who will remember you? But Jerusalem will dwell on forever.”

The drama escalated further a week later during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. The visit coincided with AIPAC’s annual policy conference. In just three days AIPAC coordinated a letter signed by a whopping 326 members of Congress and sent to Secretary Clinton, asserting that “it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.” And a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers spoke aggressively against the administration and in favor of the Israeli position at the conference itself. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a close Obama ally, added to the anti-Obama chorus at the conference.

At the same time, only a few blocks away at the White House, Obama and Netanyahu were staring each other down. Obama had presented Netanyahu with a list of thirteen demands designed to end the feud. But Netanyahu would not yield, prompting Obama to abruptly rise from his seat and declare: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”

Obama did leave the Israeli leader with an opening, though, telling him that he would still be available if Netanyahu were to change his mind. Netanyahu and his aides stayed in the Roosevelt Room in the White House for about an hour to prepare a response to Obama’s demands. But no resolution was found. The tensions with Israel and the debate inside the White House got so heated that leaks suggesting dual loyalty among some senior Obama administration officials emerged.

Fast-forward till today, and the crisis is even more acute. The Obama White House has pursued a strategy of maximizing pressure on Iran both through sanctions and by creating a credible military threat. The belief is that Iran only yields under such levels of pressure. The danger, however, is that Obama cannot control the Iranian reactions – and the risk of Tehran misreading Washington’s moves. After all, Obama is not seeking war, he is only signaling his readiness to go to war if Tehran doesn’t capitulate. Nor does Obama have the ability – or the political strength – to control Israel. All that is needed is a single spark and a major war can be triggered.

Whether Israel was behind the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran last week or not, much indicates that the Obama administration fears that the intent was to spiral things out of control by goading Iranian retaliation. This might explain the unprecedented step by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to – in person – quickly condemn the act and categorically deny any American involvement.

Clinton’s swift move might have saved the U.S. and the region from war for now, but it shows how risky the Obama administration’s Iran policy at this stage and its susceptibility to manipulation by hardliners in Israel, Iran – Washington.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

Austin wrote:Interview with Iran Amb to India.

‘We Were Not Happy With India’s Stance At The IAEA’

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation ... a-1.408429

American Jew suggests Israel should assassinate Obama, so that pro-war president come to power.

Varoon Shekhar wrote:There's no need for Indian spokesmen in diplomatic circles to be long winded. All they have to say is that India is hardly cheering on the Iranian nuclear programme, but that it is ludicrous for Indians to get all excited about Iran's efforts to produce a bomb, when there is another Islamist state next door to India, that actually has the bomb, and most of all, has inflicted much more terror on India, than Iran has on the US, or even on Israel in absolute terms. Is it so difficult for Indians to be even that reasonably direct? Maybe they are saying it off the record, or not publicly, but we're just not hearing about it.

William Hague: Iran must comes to its senses on nuclear programme
Foreign Secretary William Hague urged Iran today to "come to its senses" and resume negotiations on its nuclear programme after Britain, America and France sent six warships through the highly sensitive waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has asked India to pay for oil partly in yen as the two nations seek an agreement on how to maintain trade amid tightening global sanctions, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.
At talks in Tehran last week, India proposed to pay its second-biggest oil supplier in rupees through a bank account in the South Asian nation, said the people, declining to be identified because the information is confidential. Iranian officials sought partial payment in yen because they’re concerned that they may not get sufficient value from the rupee, which isn’t fully convertible, according to the people.
The nations have struggled to preserve $9.5 billion in annual crude trade after the Reserve Bank of India dismantled a mechanism used to settle payments in euros and dollars in December 2010. Transactions are currently routed through Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS (HALKB), based in Ankara, which has told Indian refiners it may no longer be able to act as an intermediary, four people with knowledge of the matter said Jan. 10. India is exploring how it could pay Iran in yen, although a plan hasn’t been decided, the people said.
Japan asked the U.S. administration for an exemption from a law that would punish banks doing business with Iran and won a U.S. pledge to implement the measure “cautiously,” Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba said Jan. 20. The Persian Gulf nation is studying the option of opening an account in an Indian bank, which can be used by refiners to deposit payments in rupees and fund its own imports from the South Asian country, they said.
India’s central bank needs to give its approval for Iran to open a local account, the people said. The Reserve Bank of India is considering options to solve the payments issue over Iranian oil, Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty said on Jan. 20.