Iran Suicide Bombers Sign up for Attacks Against the U.S.
Iran Focus ^ | March 29, 2006 | Iran Focus
Tehran, Iran, Mar. 29 – Radical Islamists in Iran’s western province of Lorestan were invited during a ceremony on Wednesday to enlist in garrisons to carry out suicide attacks against the United States.
The People’s Headquarters in Continuation of the Path of the Martyrs in Lorestan, a newly-founded government-backed group, began enlisting “martyrdom-seeking volunteers†to “confront possible threats by America and the West†against Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at iranfocus.com ...
March 29th, 2006, 17:51
American Patriot
Re: Iran Suicide Bombers Sign up for Attacks Against the U.S.
Iran Is at War with Us Someone should tell the U.S. government.
NRO ^ | 03/28/06 | Michael Ledeen
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is dying of cancer. But he is convinced that his legacy will be glorious. He believes that thousands of his Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers effectively control southern Iraq, and that the rest of the country is at his mercy, since we present no challenge to them — even along the Iraq/Iran border, where they operate with impunity. They calmly plan their next major assault without having to worry about American retribution. The mullahs have thousands of intelligence officers all over Iraq, as well as a hard core of Hezbollah terrorists — including the infamous Imadh Mughniyah, arguably the region’s most dangerous killer — and they control the major actors, from Zarqawi to Sadr to the Badr Brigades.
Khamenei and his top cronies believe they have effectively won. They think the U.S. is politically paralyzed, thanks to the relentless attacks of President Bush’s opponents and the five-year long internal debate about Iran policy, and thus there is no chance of an armed attack, even one limited to nuclear sites. They think Israel is similarly paralyzed by Sharon’s sudden departure and the triumph of their surrogate force, Hamas, in the Palestinian elections. They despise the Europeans, and hardly even bother to pretend to negotiate with them any more. They believe they have a strong strategic alliance with the Russians and they think they have the Chinese over a barrel, since the Chinese are so heavily dependent on Iranian oil. Recent statements from Beijing and Moscow regarding the chance of U.N. sanctions will have reinforced the Supreme Leader’s convictions.
Hapless in the Beltway Above all, Khamenei believes he has broken the American will, for which he sees two pieces of evidence. The first is that there seems to be very little American resolve to do anything about punishing Iran for the enormous traffic of weapons, poisons, and terrorists into Iraq from Iran. Khamenei must inclined to believe that the Bush administration has no stomach for confrontation.
We have done nothing to make the mullahs’ lives more difficult, even though there is abundant evidence for Iranian involvement in Iraq, most including their relentless efforts to kill American soldiers. The evidence consists of first-hand information, not intelligence reports. Scores of Iranian intelligence officers have been arrested, and some have confessed. Documentary evidence of intimate Iranian involvement with Iraqi terrorists has been found all over Iraq, notably in Fallujah and Hilla. But the "intelligence" folks at the Pentagon, led by the hapless Secretary Stephen Cambone, seem to have no curiosity, as if they were afraid of following the facts to their logical conclusion: Iran is at war with us.
In early March, to take one recent example, several vehicles crossed from Iranian Kurdistan into Iraqi Kurdistan. The Iraqis stopped them. There was a firefight. The leader of the intruding group was captured and is now in prison, held by one of the Kurdish factions. The Kurds say that the vehicles contained poison gas, which they have in their possession. They say they informed the Turks, who said they did not want to know anything about it (the Turks don’t want anything to do with the Kurds, period, and they shrink from confrontation with the mullahs).
The Kurds holding this man say that he confessed to working for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Apparently they have his confession. They say they are willing to make him available to U.S. military personnel. But the Pentagon, which has all this information, has not pursued the matter. This is just one of many cases in which the Iranians believe they see the Americans running away from confrontation.
The second encouraging sign for Khamenei is the barely concealed delight in Washington, including Secretary Rice’s recent statement at a press conference, that we will soon be negotiating with Iran about Iraq. This mission has been entrusted to Ambassador Khalilzad, who previously worked with the Iranians when he represented us in Kabul. It is a bad decision, and it is very hard to explain. The best one can say is that Khalilzad speaks Farsi, so he will know what they are saying, and it is probably better to have public dealings than the secret contacts this administration has been conducting all along. But those small bright spots do not compensate for the terrible costs the very announcement of negotiations produces for us, for the Iranian people, and for the region as a whole.
Talk Does Not Thwart Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, and we have discussed every imaginable subject with them. We have gained nothing, because there is nothing to be gained by talking with an enemy who thinks he is winning. From Khamenei’s standpoint, the only thing to be negotiated is the terms of the American surrender, and he is certainly not the only Middle Eastern leader to take this view; most of the leaders in the region dread the power of the mullahs — now on the doorstep of nuclear military weapons — and they see the same picture as Khamenei: America does nothing to thwart Iran, and is now publicly willing to talk. In like manner, many Iranians will conclude that Bush is going to make a deal with Khamenei instead of giving them the support they want and need to challenge the regime.
If this administration were true to its announced principles, we would be actively supporting democratic revolution in Iran, but we do not seem to be serious about doing that. Yes, Secretary Rice went to Congress to ask for an extra $75 million to "support democracy" in Iran, but the small print shows that the first $50 million will go to the toothless tigers at the Voice of America and other official American broadcasters, which is to say to State Department employees. The Foreign Service does not often drive revolutionary movements; its business is negotiating with foreign governments, not subverting them. There were whispers that we were supporting trade unions in Iran, which would be very good news, but such efforts should be handled by private-sector organizations, not by the American government per se.
Yet this seems a particularly good moment to rally to the side of the Iranian people, who are known to loathe the regime of Ayatollah Khamenei, and who are showing their will to resist in very dramatic fashion. About ten days ago, seventy-eight regime officials were killed or captured in Baluchistan when a convoy (including the chief of the region’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and the regional governor) was attacked. Some of the captives have been shown on al-Jazeera, pleading for cooperation from the regime, and supporting their captors’ demands that five Baluchi prisoners be freed. The regime has responded by accusing the United States and Britain of masterminding the operation, which is the second such strike in the past six months. In addition to calling for the release of Baluchi prisoners, the insurgents are calling for the toleration of Baluchi Sunnis, the appointment of locals (instead of Persian Shiites) to govern the region, and the use of local radio and television.
Caring about Carnage The situation in Kurdistan is likewise extremely tense. The city of Mahabad is now surrounded by the regime’s military and paramilitary forces, following the eruption of anti-regime demonstrations on the occasion of Persian New Year’s celebrations on March 20. It is impossible to get precise figures — Western journalists don’t seem to be able to cover such events — but dozens of Kurds were arrested and many more were beaten up in the streets.
Worst of all is the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing directed against the Ahwaz Arabs in Khuzestan, where up to three divisions of the army, the Revolutionary Guards, and the infamous thugs of the Basij have been deployed, following the sabotage of a major oil pipeline by anti-regime dissidents. Radio Farda, our official Farsi-language station, quoted a local journalist, Mr. Mojtaba Gehestani, who says that 28,000 Ahwazi Arabs have been jailed in the past ten months, hundreds have been summarily executed, and many corpses have been fished out of the Karoon River, with telltale marks of torture.
Nonetheless, the regime’s interior minister recently announced that there is no "ethnic problem or issue" in Iran today. But he has quite clearly failed to convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that all is well. The president cancelled trips to the region four times in the past few months.
He and his cronies have a lot to worry about, because the Iranian people, in the face of a vicious wave of repression that recalls the worst moments of this dreadful regime, are showing themselves prepared to stand against it, and to move to remove it. Lacking a full picture, we should base our judgment at least in part on the behavior of the mullahs, and their dispatch of so many armed forces to three different regions suggests they are profoundly worried. This is not a good time to throw the mullahs a diplomatic lifeline. We should instead show them and their democratic enemies that the tide of history is running against them.
It’s time to take action against Iran and its half-brother Syria, for the carnage they have unleashed against us and the Iraqis. We know in detail the location of terrorist training camps run by the Iranian and Syrian terror masters; we should strike at them, and at the bases run by Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards as staging points for terrorist sorties into Iraq. No doubt the Iraqi armed forces would be delighted to participate, instead of constantly playing defense in their own half of the battlefield. And there are potent democratic forces among the Syrian people as well, as worthy of our support as the Iranians.
Once the mullahs and their terrorist allies see that we have understood the nature of this war, that we are determined to promote regime change in Tehran and Damascus, and will not give them a pass on their murderous activities in Iraq, then it might make sense to talk to Khamenei’s representatives. We could even expand the agenda from Iraqi matters to the real issue: we could negotiate their departure, and then turn to the organization of national referenda on the form of free governments, and elections to empower the former victims of a murderous and fanatical tyranny that has deluded itself into believing that it is invincible.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
March 29th, 2006, 18:08
American Patriot
Re: Iran Suicide Bombers Sign up for Attacks Against the U.S.
U.S. appeals to Iraq's top cleric to help end political impasse
Knight Ridder ^ | March 28 2006 | Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel
U.S. officials sent a message this week to Iraq's senior religious cleric asking that he help end the impasse over forming a new Iraqi government and strongly implying that the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jafaari, should withdraw his candidacy for re-election, according to American officials.
The unusual decision by the White House to reach out to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggested how eager the Bush administration is to jump-start negotiations that have failed to produce Iraq's first permanent postwar government more than three months after national elections.
But by contacting the revered Shiite Muslim leader, the administration risks further angering Iraqi leaders, who already complain that the United States is interfering too much with the process.
During a news conference Tuesday, Salim al-Maliki, the minister of transportation and a member of the dominant United Iraqi Alliance, said al-Jaafari was still the slate's candidate.
"We do not accept interference by the United States or any other foreign body because it is an internal decision of United Iraqi Alliance," al-Maliki said.
In Washington, two officials confirmed that the United States had passed a message through a third party to the reclusive al-Sistani, Iraq's top cleric and, in some ways, its ultimate political arbiter.
It wasn't known whether al-Jafaari was mentioned by name. But the clear message was that the prime minister's bid to keep his job was creating an impasse and the way to end it was for him to withdraw, one official said.
(Excerpt) Read more at realcities.com ...
March 29th, 2006, 18:22
American Patriot
Re: Iran Suicide Bombers Sign up for Attacks Against the U.S.
Iran puts Revolutionary Guards on alert on Iraq border
Iran Focus ^ | 2006 Mar 29
Tehran, Iran, Mar. 28 – Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces in western and south-western Iran close to the Iraqi border have been put on a heightened state of alert since the middle of this month, a source in the Iranian military told Iran Focus.
The Supreme Command of Iran’s Armed Forces issued the directive to Najaf and Karbala garrisons of the IRGC, which are respectively based in Kermanshah and Khuzestan provinces and are the headquarters of IRGC forces in western and south-western Iran.
The directive took effect from March 14, according to the source, who requested anonymity.
Najaf and Karbala garrisons are the primary Revolutionary Guards headquarters responsible for Iraqi affairs and house much of the IRGC’s elite Qods Force whose stated objective is to spread Iran’s Islamic Revolution to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
Under the rules of Iran’s armed forces, the decision to raise the military alert status along Iraq’s borders must have been approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Khamenei visited areas close to the Iraqi border in Iran’s restive province of Khuzistan last week and delivered a speech in Arabic, slamming the United States and Britain for their occupation of Iraq.
On Sunday, Khamenei told thousands of Islamist militiamen in Tehran that threats of military action against the Islamic republic “could be put into action in some cases, but a nation that retains its greatness, dignity, identity and interests will be able to withstand such attacks without any retreat”.
“The decision [to put the armed forces on alert along the Iraqi border] could be defensive or offensive in nature, but it’s significant because of its timing”, said Ehsan Pourhaydari, a former colonel in Iran’s regular armed forces who now lives in Germany. “It coincides with impending talks between Iran and the U.S. on the situation in Iraq. The ayatollahs must be calculating that the talks will make them more vulnerable, or will provide new opportunities for them in Iraq. Either way, it would make sense for them to put their forces on alert close to the Iraqi border”.
On the home front, Iran’s clerical rulers have been facing unremitting anti-government protests in Tehran and other major cities and violent confrontations in the Arab-dominated south-western province of Khuzestan, the western province of Kurdistan, and the mainly Sunni south-eastern province of Baluchistan.
Najaf and Karbala garrisons are key nerve centres for Iran’s extensive meddling in Iraq. Qods Force officers as well as operatives of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) based in the two garrisons routinely cross the Iran-Iraq border.
March 29th, 2006, 18:30
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I just got some news that was a bit shocking to me. I'm not going to give the details because it involves military movements and some supposition on my part, but knowing what I now know, I just changed this thread's title from what I originally started.
I believe we will see something big happening within about 2-3 months. I believe that we and Britain are about to embark on another massive chat session with Iran. The UN Security Council is apparently on it's last best diplomatic attempt with Iran over the nuclear situation.
If you read the messages I've posted in the past two days, you will note that the country is definitely caught up in some kind of sway toward obtaining nukes at all costs. I think we're about to see some serious ass-kicking coming down the line shortly.
I also just posted a note regarding Saudi obtaining nuclear weapons and long range missiles from Pakistan. At this point, we're looking at what I believe might be the major flashpoint for a nuclear strike on Israel.
The United States WILL NOT sit by and idlly wait for Israel to defend itself I think.
We will jump in with both feet.
As Toby Keith said so eloquently,
Quote:
Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.....
Posted March 27, 2006
I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.
Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.”
The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again.
Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.
I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.
My friends reminded me that I had said the same about Iraq—that I was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution. But this time, it is the administration’s own statements that have convinced me. What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran.
The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim.
If diplomacy fails, the administration might be able to convince leading Democrats to back a resolution for the use of force against Iran. Many Democrats have been trying to burnish a hawkish image and place themselves to the right of the president on this issue. They may find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric, particularly those with presidential ambitions.
The factual debate during the next six months will revolve around the threat assessment. How close is Iran to developing the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs? Is there a secret weapons program? Are there secret underground facilities? What would it mean if small-scale enrichment experiments succeed?
Fortunately, we know more about Iran’s nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information. The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate.
The administration should now declassify the information it used to estimate how long it will be until Iran has the capability to make a bomb. The Washington Post reported last August that this national intelligence estimate says Iran is a decade away. We need to see the basis for this judgment and all, if any, dissenting opinions. The congressional intelligence committees should be conducting their own reviews of the assessments, including open hearings with independent experts and IAEA officials. Influential groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, should conduct their own sessions and studies.
An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran’s nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again.
Joseph Cirincione is director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
March 29th, 2006, 18:38
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Britain rejects military action against Iran
world peace herald ^ | March 28, 2006 | Hannah K. Strange
LONDON -- Military action against Iran is neither appropriate nor conceivable, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted Tuesday.
Speaking in London as he launched a Foreign Office white paper outlining Britain's international strategy for the coming decade, Straw moved to allay fears that the current stand-off over Iran's alleged bid for nuclear weapons technology would lead to "another Iraq."
Despite the failure of the United Nations Security Council to reach any agreement on how to deal with Iran's nuclear programs at last week's meeting, the foreign secretary maintained that there was a "growing international consensus in the face of Iran's intransigence."
Straw acknowledged that it would be "hard-going" to secure the backing of all Security Council members for a resolution against Iran. However, he hoped it would be possible to agree "the next step" when the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- and Germany met in Berlin Thursday, he said.
Countries had "different interests" in Iran, he continued, alluding to Russia's $1 billion contract to build Iran's first atomic reactor at Bushehr and China's heavy reliance on Iranian oil exports for its energy supplies.
Both countries have so far rejected punitive action against the Islamic Republic, fearing that sanctions, economic or otherwise, could harm such interests.
Straw said there were also "anxieties, which we have to acknowledge, as to whether the strategy which the European Three are following with the backing of the United States is going to lead to the possibility of "another Iraq."
"So that's why it takes time."
But, he insisted: "As to the possibility of this being 'another Iraq,' it won't.
"I don't regard military action as appropriate or indeed conceivable."
However, there appears to be a split within the British government over the efficacy of retaining the threat of military force.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Feb. 7 he could not rule out the possibility of taking military action against Iran over its nuclear programs.
During questioning by a committee of senior parliamentarians, Blair said that while military action was "not on the agenda," he could "never say never."
Senior Foreign Office officials also appear keen to preserve the military option. A government memo reported by the Times of London last week suggested that Britain was pressing for a U.N. resolution that would pave the way for sanctions or possible force against Iran should it fail to halt its nuclear program.
The letter detailed a strategy to persuade Russia and China to back a Chapter VII resolution that would require the United Nations to act should Tehran refuse to comply.
Despite the insistence of the foreign secretary just three days earlier that military action was "inconceivable," the letter, written by Foreign Office Political Director John Sawyers on March 16, recommended "more serious measures."
"(The Iranians) will need to know that more serious measures are likely," Sawyers wrote to his U.S., German and French counterparts. "This means putting the Iran dossier on to a Chapter VII basis."
He suggested making a suspension of all uranium enrichment by Tehran "a mandatory requirement of the Security Council, in a resolution we would aim to adopt, I say, early May."
Sawyers, who served as Britain's envoy to Iraq following the 2003 invasion, recommended a dual strategy in order to persuade Russia and China to sign up to the resolution.
"We are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around," he wrote.
"In parallel with agreeing a new proposal, we will also want to bind Russia and China into agreeing to further measures that will be taken by the Security Council should the Iranians fail to engage positively."
In light of such reports, Moscow and Beijing will be wary that British assurances that military action is not on the agenda are simply aimed at persuading them to sign up to a strongly-worded resolution.
The United States has been unwilling to rule out the possibility of using force against Iran. While President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have insisted that they favor the diplomatic route to convince Iran to halt its nuclear programs, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has made clear he regards force as a serious option.
The following day, Bolton reportedly told a committee of British parliamentarians that Iran's nuclear program could be brought to a halt with carefully-targeted military strikes. "We can hit different points along the line," the envoy said, according to committee members present. "You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down."
Tehran has threatened to retaliate should the United States choose to follow a military path against it.
He insisted Iran was being open about its nuclear activities but suggested that could change should it be threatened with military force. "Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," said Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and military strategy expert, told the same conference that Washington did not believe the Security Council would agree on a way forward, and was likely to make a "serious decision" on the military option before the November elections.
Any operation would take less than five days and probably involve Stealth bombers, he said, before adding that his analysis had led him to conclude it would not be successful.
Whether Britain would support such an operation is as yet unclear, where there is little enthusiasm for another military intervention in the Middle East and, following the Iraq debacle, a serious lack of trust in British and U.S. intelligence.
For now, the government appears to be performing a diplomatic balancing act, attempting to dispel fears of a rush to war while simultaneously preparing for it.
March 29th, 2006, 18:38
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Rice: Iran A Menace Beyond Nuclear Issue
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 3-29-2006 | Anne Gearan
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday that Iran was a menace for reasons other than its alleged drive to build a nuclear bomb and that the U.S. and its allies have ``a number of tools'' if Tehran does not change its ways.
``I think there's no doubt that Iran is the single biggest threat from a state that we face,'' Rice told a Senate panel.
She claimed strong international backing for the U.S. position that Iran must not be allowed to continue what she claimed is a covert effort to gain bomb-making expertise and technology.
``We need now to broaden that thinking and that coalition, not just to what Iran is doing on the nuclear side but also what they're doing on terrorism,'' Rice said. ``Those are some of the discussions that I have with these same states.''
She repeated claims that Iran is meddling in Iraq, bankrolling terrorism in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and repressing its people.
``We have a number of tools, I think, at our disposal, including in sharpening the contradiction between the Iranian people and a regime that does not represent them,'' Rice said. The $75 million that has been requested to promote democracy in Iran could be used for that fight, she said.
Options could include other measures at the U.N. Security Council to ``further isolate the Iranian government,'' Rice said.
She did not elaborate. The reference could cover a variety of international punishments that the United States has said it would not seek as a first option. Russia and China, allies of Iran with veto power in the council, have said they oppose penalizing Iran.
The council soon may hand the United States a partial victory after weeks of deadlock. Its permanent members were making progress toward a written rebuke of Iran over its nuclear program; Iran insists the program is intended only to produce electricity.
Late Tuesday, Britain and France, backed by the United States, circulated among council members their latest draft of a proposed statement. The draft makes significant concessions to Russia and China, though diplomats said differences remain.
The council planned to meet Wednesday to discuss the draft.
At the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Rice was not asked about the potential for a U.S. or international military strike against Iran. The Bush administration says that option remains on the table in theory, but it is pursuing only diplomatic solutions now.
The United States has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Washington long accused the clerical government of exporting terrorism. European nations, Russia, China and others have diplomatic, trade and other ties to Iran. Rice suggested that at least some allies will agree to try to isolate Iran if the nuclear standoff continues.
Russia and China allowed Iran's case to move to the Security Council this month, which was seen as a diplomatic success for the United States. Since then, however, those nations opposed draft versions of the written rebuke.
``We've been able to bring the Russians along to a degree but we've had to work harder on that and on the Chinese,'' Rice said.
She suggested that the hardline leader Iran elected last year is his own worst enemy, noting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made fiercely anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli statements.
---
Associated Press reporter Nick Wadhams at the United Nations contributed to this report.
^---
March 29th, 2006, 18:43
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran Hard-Line Regime Cracks Down on Blogs
Yahoo News & AP ^ | March 28, 2006 | LARA SUKHTIAN
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - On his last visit to Iran, Canadian-based blogger Hossein Derakhshan was detained and interrogated, then forced to sign a letter of apology for his blog writings before being allowed to leave the country. Compared to others, Derakhshan is lucky.
*end*
Dozens of Iranian bloggers have faced harassment by the government, been arrested for voicing opposing views, and fled the country in fear of prosecution over the past two years.
In the conservative Islamic Republic, where the government has vast control over newspapers and the airwaves, weblogs are one of the last bastions of free expression, where people can speak openly about everything from sex to the nuclear controversy. But increasingly, they are coming under threat of censorship.
The Iranian blogging community, known as Weblogistan, is relatively new. It sprang to life in 2001 after hard-liners — fighting back against a reformist president — shut down more than 100 newspapers and magazines and detained writers. At the time, Derakhshan posted instructions on the Internet in Farsi on how to set up a weblog.
*end*
Since then, the community has grown dramatically. Although exact figures are not known, experts estimate there are between 70,000 and 100,000 active weblogs in Iran. The vast majority are in Farsi but a few are in English.
Overall, the percentage of Iranians now blogging is "gigantic," said Curt Hopkins, director of an online group called the Committee to Protect Bloggers, who lives in Seattle.
"They are a talking people, very intellectual, social, and have a lot to say. And they are up against a small group (in the government) that are trying to shut everyone up," said Hopkins.
*end*
To bolster its campaign, the Iranian government has one of the most extensive and sophisticated operations to censor and filter Internet content of any country in the world — second only to China, Hopkins said.
It also is one of a growing number of Mideast countries that rely on U.S. commercial software to do the filtering, according to a 2004 study by a group called the OpenNet Initiative. The software that Iran uses blocks both internationally hosted sites in English and local sites in Farsi, the study found.
The filtering process is backed by laws that force individuals who subscribe to Internet service providers to sign a promise not to access non-Islamic sites. The same laws also force the providers to install filtering mechanisms.
The filtering "is systematically getting worse," said Derakhshan, who was detained and questioned during a visit to Iran last spring, just before the election of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But is the government threatened because the tens of thousands of Iranian blogs are all throwing insults at it, or calling for revolution? Not quite.
*end*
The debates on Iranian weblogs are rarely political. The most common issues are cultural, social and sexual. Blogs also are a good place to chat in a society where young men and women cannot openly date. There are blogs that discuss women's issues, and ones that deal with art and photography.
But in Iran, activists say all debates are equally perceived as a threat by the authorities. Bloggers living in Iran understand that better than anyone else.
"I am very careful. Every blogger in Iran who writes in his/her name must be careful. I know the red lines and I never go beyond them," said Parastoo Dokouhaki, 25, who runs one of Iran's most popular blogs. "And these days, the red lines are getting tighter."
Dokouhaki doesn't directly write about politics. She sticks mostly to social issues, but in Iran, that is also a taboo subject.
"I write about the social consequences of government decisions and they don't like it, because they can't control it," said Dokouhaki.
Outright political bloggers have an even tougher time.
Hanif Mazroui was arrested in 1994 and charged with acting against the Islamic system through his writings. He was jailed for 66 days and then acquitted.
"It's normal for authorities to summon and threaten bloggers," said Mazroui. The government continued to harass him and three months ago, he was summoned once again by the authorities and told never to write about the nuclear issue. Soon after his release, he shut down his weblog.
"They kept pressuring me," he said.
Arash Sigarchi, an Iranian journalist and blogger, was arrested and charged with insulting the country's leader, collaborating with the enemy, writing propaganda against the Islamic state and encouraging people to jeopardize national security.
He had been in jail for 60 days when he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. He appealed, and was released on bail. Although his sentence has been reduced to three years, he still faces charges of insulting the leader and writing propaganda.
Another, Mojtaba Saminejad, has been in prison since February 2005. He was first arrested in November 2004 for speaking out against the arrest of three colleagues. According to the Committee to Protect Bloggers, Saminejad's Web site was hacked into by people linked to the Iranian Hezbollah movement.
After his release, he launched his blog at a new address, which led to his second arrest in February 2005. He was sentenced to two years in prison, and then given an extra 10 months for inciting "immorality."
Despite the crackdown, most Iranian bloggers say the government is not interested in eliminating blogging. Instead, they believe authorities want to use blogging to further their own goals.
Farid Pouya, a Belgian-based Iranian blogger, notes the government has just launched a competition for the best four blogs. The subjects: the Islamic revolution and the Quran.
"The government has observed carefully and learned that blogs are important ... and they want to capitalize on that," she said. "They want to lead the movement, they want to control it."
BERLIN (Reuters) - Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday.
"You know very well ... we can enrich uranium anywhere in the country, with a vast country of more than 1 million 600 square kilometers," said Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran," he told a panel discussion on the possible use of military force to destroy what the West fears is Iran's atomic bomb program.
Soltaniyeh said that after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981, then Iraqi-leader Saddam Hussein bombed Iran's Bushehr plant.
The Security Council then passed a resolution condemning the attacks and making it illegal for countries to strike nuclear facilities.
But Soltaniyeh said those U.N. documents were "just pieces of paper" today to the United States and Israel.
Soltaniyeh said Iran was hiding nothing from the world and that all of its nuclear fuel facilities were known to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But he hinted that threats of possible military action against Tehran could change that.
"Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," he said, adding that Iran would never give up its enrichment program.
A retired U.S. Air Force colonel and well-known war gaming expert told the conference the United States was under increasing pressure to use military force to destroy Iran's atomic sites and would make a decision on this option soon.
Iran has completed a 164-machine "cascade" of centrifuges to enrich uranium at its Natanz plant and is expected to begin testing it soon, diplomats in Vienna say. Operating such a cascade would not enable it to fuel any atomic weapons but would enable Iran to master the difficult art of uranium enrichment.
"I think we may be looking at a (U.S.) decision in six to nine months," said Sam Gardiner, a military strategy expert who has taught at the U.S. Army's National War College.
I say before the November elections there will be a serious decision made in the United States," he said.
Gardiner said that while Washington supported European and Russian efforts to use diplomacy to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program, U.S. officials were skeptical about the efficacy of sanctions or other diplomatic weapons.
Washington also believes the U.N. Security Council will fail to agree on a course of action against Tehran, he said.
Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful generation of electricity. However, it hid its uranium enrichment program, which could produce fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons, from U.N. inspectors for nearly two decades.
Gardiner said a U.S. operation aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would take less than a week and would not use any of the forces currently stationed in Iraq.
"This is an operation that would not take more than five evenings to do," he said, adding that it would probably use Stealth bombers to bomb the facilities.
But Gardiner said all his war-gaming and analysis had led him to the conclusion that Ambassador Soltaniyeh was right and the military solution would not destroy Iran's nuclear program as the know-how would remain.
"I don't think U.S. policymakers understand that the military option won't work," he said, adding that continued diplomacy was the only way to resolve the issue.
March 29th, 2006, 20:20
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Five U.N. Members Agree on Iran Statement (Just Breaking)
Yahoo via AP | 3/29/06
UNITED NATIONS - The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed on a statement Wednesday demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.
The 15 members of the council planned to meet later Wednesday to approve the statement. Uranium enrichment is a process that can lead to a nuclear weapon.
Note:
The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (within year of term's end):
Argentina (2006) Greece (2006) Qatar (2007) Congo (Republic of the) (2007) Japan (2006) Slovakia (2007) Denmark (2006) Peru (2007) United Republic of Tanzania (2006) and Ghana (2007)
Also: UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The five U.N. Security Council permanent members reached agreement on Wednesday on how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions after concessions were made to Russia and China, Britain announced.
"Our colleagues in the P-5 (permanent five) have reached an agreement on a text," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters. The five are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
The full 15-member council considers the issue later on Wednesday and could formally approve the statement, hours before ministers of the five powers and Germany meet in Berlin.
March 29th, 2006, 20:25
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Shadowy nuclear trail
The Washington Times ^ | 3-29-06 | Tsotne Bakuria
In 1995, former Iranian president Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani made a little-noticed trip to the neighboring country of Georgia. He spent several hours in Tbilisi, the capital, and then instead of returning to Iran, he made a secret side trip to the breakaway region of Adjara to visit President Aslan Abashidze. The purpose of the detour was not to visit the balmy, palm-treed tourist sea port resort of Batumi on the Black Sea. His purpose was more sinister. The Iranian president was looking for black market sources of chemicals to enrich uranium for building a nuclear bomb. He found a willing partner in the small-time warlord, who promised to help for an undisclosed sum of money. In fact, Mr. Abashidze -- who was later ousted from power in 2004 -- offered his important contacts in Russia, as well as private Adjaran planes to secretly fly the needed components to Iran.
The deal went through.
In 1998 and 2001, Mr. Abashidze in fact sent two airplanes to Tehran to establish business contacts with Iranians. Then he arranged for four Russian scientists to travel to Tehran. The first stop was Batumi. The Russians, armed with fake passports, their wrists handcuffed to expensive leather attache cases filled with materials to aid Iran's uranium enrichment program, were flown to Iran on Mr. Abashidze's orders to help the government build the bomb.
Earlier, in June 1997, two Pakistanis -- introduced to Mr. Abashidze as Nobel prize-winning physicians -- stayed in Batumi for three months under tight security. Their bodyguards were seen on the city streets. The motorcades blared through street lights. They turned out to be employees of A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear program and regarded as a national hero.
Mr. Abashidze gave the Pakistanis his private plane and they flew to Isfahan, in Iran. The plane returned to Batumi loaded down with cardboard boxes full of cash which Mr. Abashidze's bodyguards put in their Hummers and delivered to Mr. Abashidze's residential palace.
When Mikhail Saakashvili took power in Georgia after the Rose Revolution, relations between Georgia and Adjara deteriorated quickly.
Mr. Abashidze was considered a ruthless dictator, and in the words of one prominent American statesman, "a commie stooge."
On a pleasant spring night in May, 2004, groups of protesters stormed the president's residence in Batumi, demanding Mr. Abashidze's resignation. There were many factors that led to his ouster, among them the suspicion that he had raided the Adjara budget and secreted huge amounts of cash -- including personal letters from Iranian officials regarding the uranium deal -- out of the country. When his secretary protested in those last desperate hours, saying there was no time to gather all his correspondence, Mr. Abashidze replied that he only needed the letters written in Farsi. She complied, according to witnesses, and it took more than an hour to gather all the private paperwork.
A plane was sent from Moscow to pick him up. He took his bodyguards, and his son and the incriminating evidence of the Iranian deal. He is now living in Moscow in luxury, (with a fake passport, indeed he is afraid to travel) a billionaire protected by the even more corrupt Moscow Mayor Yuri Lushkov, a close ally, who despises America. Nevertheless, Mr. Abashidze just purchased a home in Vienna for $5 million, where his son -- a well known drug dealer and playboy -- resides.
It's doubtful anyone in the Kremlin -- especially President Vladimir Putin -- knew what Mr. Abashidze was up to. In fact, I knew Mr. Abashidze from 2001 to 2003. There was gossip about his role in securing enriched uranium for Iran, but nothing could be proven at the time. We knew Mr. Abashidze hated Mr. Putin because of his moderate political positions, and that he was a loyal friend to Iran. When Adjaran "musicians" (in reality various scientists and chemists) traveled to Iran to promote Adjarian "culture" (whatever that is), Iranian President Mohammed Khatami attended the performances, which were oddly devoid of any musical instruments. The Iranian president publicly thanked Mr. Abashidze -- and his small fiefdom -- for his help in developing "Iranian science." Which meant only one thing: the bomb.
America and European allies are now forced to accept the fact that Iran got help from outside countries, especially Russia. This fact can only make President Putin sick to his stomach. How can he possibly handle such an international crisis? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush are vowing to undermine Iran's determination, with Mr. Putin's help.
Terrorists come in many forms. So do dictators. Greedy for cash and seemingly invulnerable, Mr. Abashidze saw an opportunity and seized it, with no regard for the consequences.
The mystery of how Iran got the chemicals to enrich the uranium lies with Mr. Abashidze, a little-known figure now protected by his powerful friends in Moscow. He is under investigation for murder and money laundering, but so far international authorities have little hard evidence of his involvement with Iran's nuclear program. He is merely a footnote in the history of terrorism, but if Iran succeeds in building a nuclear bomb, Mr. Abashidze -- in that dark night of the soul -- can claim success if and when Iran decides to detonate a deadly mushroom cloud against its enemies. Innocent people will die. And Mr. Abashidze will sleep on his silk sheets.
And when Mr. Lushkov is finally out of power, Mr. Abashidze (known as "Babu," or grandfather, to his followers) can always flee Moscow and find a safe haven in Iran as the most honorable citizen of the country.
Tsotne Bakuria is a former member of the Georgian Parliament and a visiting scholar at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University.
March 29th, 2006, 20:48
ExplodedMind
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I'm sticking with my prediction of no military action until after the fall election festivities. If the Dems take a majority in either house, there will be no military action taken, period.
What should be done? I think there is too much I don't know about the situation, but my preference would be to decapitate the Iranian government including the Mullah-cracy, from within or without. That's my idea until someone explains why it won't work, or is a bad idea. I'm listening...
EM:cool:
March 29th, 2006, 20:57
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Well, that's a good prediction as well. I just heard from another country (Sean) who says maybe 15 months out.
I guess we ought to start a pool or something.
Fact is, I think it will happen. I am certain that Israelis will make the first preemptive strike when they are ready with or without US support.
However, I'm concerned about the nuke stuff I read on the Saudis. Dunno how accurate that particular article was, but it sounds feasible.
If the Saudi's have nukes, every Arab country out there as ACCESS to them now. Since Pakistan has them, they don't like us, you can bet your ass they will be giving (selling) them to anyone that doesn't like us anyway.
So... scenario.
Israelis get intelligence saying that a nuclear weapon is being developed.
Israelis hit Iran, hard. Several sites, just like they hit Saddam so many years back.
Iran raises holy hell and attacks anyone that gets in their way of getting to Israel.
The US sends forces in the middle. Rockets, missiles and whatever anyone might have handy get thrown around.
We get in a fight whether we like it or not
March 29th, 2006, 21:08
ExplodedMind
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS - The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed on a statement Wednesday demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.
The 15 members of the council planned to meet later Wednesday to approve the statement, the text of which was not immediately disclosed. Uranium enrichment is a process that can lead to a nuclear weapon.
Diplomats said the statement, which is not legally binding will [sorry, transmission break, EM]
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with the demands.
"We are very close today to taking the first major step in the Security Council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year-old clandestine nuclear weapons program," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient."
The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.
U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They want any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.
Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply within 30 days. Jones-Parry told reporters only that "the council will continue its discussion of this issue and will assume its responsibilities" if that happens.
Britain, France and the United States had wanted the council statement out of the way before their foreign ministers, as well as Germany's, meet in Berlin on Thursday to discuss strategy toward Iran.
In Moscow on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated his stance that Moscow would not support the use of force to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.
"As many of our European and Chinese colleagues have stated more than once, any ideas involving the use of force or pressure in resolving the issue are counterproductive and cannot be supported," Lavrov said.
Iran remains defiant. The government released a statement through its embassy in Moscow on Tuesday warning that Security Council intervention would "escalate tensions, entailing negative consequences that would be of benefit to no party.
[end]
Wow, the UN is thinking about maybe taking the action of perhaps telling Iran "no, no, no" (in a non-binding fashion, of course) when it comes to making nukes. I'm thrilled, problem solved! (sarc).
I'll bet you're equally surprised by the official response.:)
March 30th, 2006, 15:17
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iranian pact with Venezuela stokes fears of uranium sales
By Kelly Hearn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 13, 2006
BUENOS AIRES -- A recent deal between Iran and Venezuela provides for the exploitation of Venezuela's strategic minerals, prompting opposition figures to warn that President Hugo Chavez's government could be planning to provide Tehran with uranium for its nuclear program. The deal was part of a package of agreements, most of which were announced during a visit last month to Caracas and Cuba by Iranian parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel. The two countries also established a joint $200 million development fund and signed bilateral deals to build homes and factories, and exploit petroleum.
Public details are vague, but Venezuelan opposition figures and press reports have said the deal on minerals could involve the production and transfer to Iran have said the deal on minerals could involve the production and transfer to Iran of Venezuelan uranium taken from known deposits located in the dense jungle states of Amazonas and Bolivar.
Mr. Chavez last week ridiculed such speculation as being part of an "imperialist plan" propagated by international news media.
"Now they say I am sending uranium to make atomic bombs from here, from the Venezuelan Amazon to send directly to the Persian Gulf," Mr. Chavez said during a meeting at a military club on Tuesday. "This shows they have no limit in their capacity to invent lies."
The speculation comes at a time of rising tension between the world community and Iran, which yesterday declared it had ruled out a proposed compromise under which it would process uranium for a peaceful nuclear program in Russia.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- are to meet this week to discuss a draft statement aimed at increasing the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear plans.
Retired Venezuelan Vice Adm. Jose Rafael Huizi-Clavier said the mining arrangements negotiated last month with Iran are broad and unspecific and could easily include uranium.
Other critics of Mr. Chavez point out that Venezuela recently voted against reporting Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for its uranium-enrichment program and that Mr. Chavez in recent months has attempted to purchase his own civilian-use nuclear technology from Argentina. Adm. Huizi-Clavier, who heads the Venezuela-based Institutional Military Front, a group of ex-military officials opposed to Mr. Chavez, said his group is "alarmed by a confluence of facts." He cited construction work at a small military base and the widening of a military airstrip near the Brazilian border, where uranium deposits are said to exist.
He also noted that Mr. Chavez expelled U.S. missionaries from areas known to have uranium in February. At the time, Mr. Chavez accused New Tribes Mission, a Florida-based group, of working for the CIA and foreign mining interests.
A Florida-based spokesman for the group said none of the missionaries knew anything about uranium-mining activities.
Venezuelan Minister of Science and Technology Yadira Cordova said on Thursday that the airfield belonged to the New Tribes Mission. She also denied uranium was being mined or processed in the area, saying such technologically demanding processes "would be detected easily." In Washington, a State Department official said, "We are aware of reports of possible Iranian exploitation of Venezuelan uranium, but we see no commercial uranium activities in Venezuela."
Adm. Huizi-Clavier said Mr. Chavez was playing a "dangerous game" by backing Iran at the United Nations in defiance of overwhelming world opinion.
Former Venezuelan Defense Minister Raul Salazar said the country's support of Iran's nuclear program was pushing relations with Washington past "the point of no return."
Mr. Chavez's support for Iran's nuclear plan has thus far been purely political, he said, but "that is not to say [uranium transfers to Tehran] couldn't happen in the future."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Washington Post, 2006
March 30th, 2006, 15:36
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
IRAN: LARGE-SCALE MILITARY DRILLS TO START IN THE GULF
AKI ^ | March 30, 2006
IRAN: LARGE-SCALE MILITARY DRILLS TO START IN THE GULF
Tehran, 30 March (AKI) - Iran has announced it will start on Friday a week-long military drill in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The manoeuvre is aimed at preparing the armed forces against threats, Iran's IRNA news agency quoted a senior commander as saying. The military exercises will last until 6 April and will involve 17,000 servicemen, 1,500 vessels and jet fighter planes.
The commander of the navy of Revolutionary Guards Corps, Rear Admiral Mostafa Safari, did not explain what type of threat Iran faced. However, the manoeuvre comes just two days after the UN Security Council called on Iran to suspend all its uranium enrichment activities amid fears in the West that Tehran is seeking to build atomic weapons.
Safari told IRNA that the operation will help the army gain "the necessary and needed readiness to decisively reply to any kind of threat."
Iran has medium-range Shahab-3 missiles with the capability of 2,000 kilometres, capable of hitting Israel and US bases across the Middle East.
"The exercise will cover an area stretching from the northern tip of the Gulf all the way to the port city of Chah-Bahar in the Sea of Oman extending 40 kilometres into the sea," he said.
The drill's spokesman Rear Admiral Mohammed Ebrahim said that the exercises will mainly focus on the strait of Hormouz.
"Some 80 percent of the Gulf's oil is shipped out of this strait over which Iran has dominant and accurate control," he said. "If the enemy wants to make the area insecure, he should be rest assured that he will also suffer from the insecurity, since we know the location of their vessels."
March 30th, 2006, 15:51
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran Gets 30 Days to Clear Nuke Suspicions
AP via Yahoo! ^ | Thursday, March 30, 2006 | EDITH M. LEDERER
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.
After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member Security Council approved a statement Wednesday asking the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
The statement, made available to The Associated Press, takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.
It "notes with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol" — an agreement allowing agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear program.
The statement also calls on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities."
Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran. Before meeting with her counterparts, she was consulting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We are very close today to taking the first major step in the Security Council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year-old clandestine nuclear weapons program," John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in New York. "It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient."
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki condemned "unjustified propaganda" about its peaceful nuclear program. "Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities," Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
But, he added, Iran is willing to continue talks with the IAEA over its nuclear program.
"We are willing to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency," Mottaki told reporters after the conference session. "Our cooperation with the agency will continue."
Security Council members described the statement, while not legally binding, as a first step to pressure Iran to make clear its program is for peaceful purposes. It also calls on Iran to ratify the IAEA's additional protocol, which allows unannounced inspections.
The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
The Europeans initially proposed a much stronger statement but accepted a milder one to secure the support of Russia and China. Western countries agreed to drop language that proliferation "constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.
Russia and China had opposed that language because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.
"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."
The West has refused to rule out sanctions, and U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment. Its moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's board to ask for Security Council involvement.
Beyond giving formal blessings for the council statement — and using it to reflect a show of unity — Rice and the ministers from France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany were not likely to accomplish much at Thursday's meeting formally set to last only 90 minutes.
While the officials were expected to touch on ways to engage Iran diplomatically, major differences persist on that approach.
In a confidential letter earlier this month, Britain argued for including the other permanent Security Council members in talks with Iran. In exchange, they hoped to secure Russian and Chinese support for increasing pressure on Iran through binding council resolutions that could be enforced militarily.
A senior European official said on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the media that Britain's "proposal is not off the table." But a U.S. official, who also requested anonymity for the same reason, said Washington opposed including more countries in the negotiations.
"From the beginning, our position has been that we don't think it's helpful to have other countries joining the EU-3 in the dialogue because it has the potential of diluting the Western position on Iran," he said.
The U.S. official did not, however, rule out direct discussions between the United States and Iran, suggesting they could be a spinoff of the U.S. administration's decision earlier this month to talk to Iran about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties.
The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that "if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.'"
March 30th, 2006, 15:56
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
U.N. Demands Iran Suspend Nuke Enrichment ~~ Iran remained defiant,
Las Vegas Sun ^ | March 29, 2006 at 22:16:37 PST | NICK WADHAMS ASSOCIATED PRESS
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -
The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran.
Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply with the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran.
"Iran is more isolated now than ever," she said in a statement. "The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable."
The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.
U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.
The draft circulated to the council calls upon Iran to "resolve outstanding questions, and underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Still, it removed language that China and Russia opposed.
The text removes language saying that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security. Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.
Russia and China had opposed that language from the start because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.
"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."
--
March 30th, 2006, 16:02
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
World powers to discuss next steps in Iran crisis
re ^ | 3.29.06 | By Louis Charbonneau
BERLIN (Reuters) - Six world powers were gathering in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the next steps in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, with Russia and China looking for assurances that there are no plans to use force against Tehran.
On Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a "presidential statement" calling on Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program, which can produce fuel for atom bombs. It also requests a report in 30 days from the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna on Iran's cooperation with the agency's demands.
The Council statement was the product of weeks of negotiations among the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States. The final text was softened to remove language Moscow and Beijing feared could lead to punitive measures.
The Islamic republic says its only wants civilian nuclear power and does not want atomic bombs as the West believes.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said neither Moscow nor Beijing would support the idea of pressuring Iran and would never tolerate the use of force.
"As many of our European colleagues have said and as our Chinese friends have said many times, any ideas of resolving the matter by compulsion and force are extremely counterproductive and cannot be supported," Lavrov was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Interfax.
FIRST STEP
The foreign ministers of Germany, France, Britain and the United States and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana are attending the 0900 GMT meeting in Berlin.
They hope to assure Lavrov and the Chinese deputy foreign minister that they have a clear strategy and will not allow the Iran crisis to spin out of control.
Several EU diplomats said the Security Council statement was merely a "first step" and that the ministers would focus on next steps, including how much time Iran would have to suspend its enrichment program, which it restarted in January.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the goal of Thursday's meeting was to map out their future strategy.
"The intent is to allow the ministers to look out over the horizon on the Iran issue ... over the medium to long term on how to deal diplomatically with this regime and to get them back into the mainstream of the non-proliferation regime," he said.
Iran's resumption of enrichment -- a process that could produce fuel for atomic power plants or bombs -- prompted the EU in January to break off 2-1/2 years of talks with Iran and to back a U.S. demand to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council.
The "EU3" -- Germany, France and Britain -- have said they were willing to resume talks with Iran but only if Tehran re-suspended all enrichment-related activities.
During her brief visit in Berlin, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will also meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss Iran and other issues before heading to France and Britain.
(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming in Washington, Madeline Chambers in London and Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations)
Aznar: Khamenei said Israel & the US to be completely destroyed
Yossi Verter, Haaretz:
Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.
Aznar, in Israel as the guest of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, related the story to Major General (Res.) Professor Yitzhak Ben-Israel, who later confirmed to Haaretz that the remarks had been made.
Aznar's aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with Khamenei.
"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack."
Professor Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israel Defense Force's Weapon Systems Development Authority, is today No. 31 on Kadima's list of Knesset candidates.
Aznar was to deliver a lecture at the Interdisciplinary Center on Wednesday evening on "Dealing with the challenged of fundamental Islam and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Khamenei still holds the post of Iranian spiritual leader, and considered to be the powerful man in the country.
March 30th, 2006, 17:15
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran: We'll respond to Israeli attack, Iran warns Israel
Ynetnews ^
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman says recent Israeli statements on Iran's nuclear project show Israeli government is frustrated from failure to bring international community to pressure Iran: 'Zionist authorities are well aware that if they make a foolish mistake against Iran, Iran's harsh response will be destructive and determined'
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Riza Asaffi, speaking with journalists in Teheran, said that recent Israeli statements on Iran's nuclear project showed that the Israeli government is frustrated from a failure to bring pressure from the international community to on Iran.
He claimed that a "serious crisis" within the "Zionist authorities" was the main factor behind what he described as Israeli threats. His comments were reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency.
"The Zionist authorities are well aware that if they make a foolish mistake against Iran, Iran's harsh response will be destructive and determined," said the spokesman. "Their approach comes from their anger over the fact that they can't realize their plans," he added.
Earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu told the Voice of Israel national radio network that "Israel must take every necessary step to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran must be prevented from developing this threat to the State of Israel. If, by the elections, the current government works to achieve this, I will give it my full support – and if it does not, I intend on establishing the next government, and then we'll act."
Meretz-Yahad faction head Yossi Beilin said that narrow considerations based on elections will drag Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu to harsh comments that will be perceived as support for military action against Iran. Beilin said Israel must work for diplomatic activity to be led by the United States without endangering Israel in a confrontation with Iran with potentially disastrous consequences.
Also on Sunday the head of Tehran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi was quoted saying by Tehran's official news agency IRNA that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization has been given license to set up another 20 nuclear plants, two of them by March 2006.
Iran's first nuclear plant is being built by Russia for USD 1 billion and is scheduled to begin operating by March 2006.
'Diplomatic pressure won't work'
According to Boroujerdi, the new power plants will be able to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity. However, international and Israeli intelligence sources claim the program may be a front to build an atomic bomb, an allegation Iran's vigorously denies.
Last week Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said “Israel and other countries cannot accept a situation where Iran has nuclear arms.
“The issue is clear to us and we are making all the necessary preparations to handle a situation of this kind,” Sharon told journalists in Tel Aviv.
Israel needs not lead the campaign, yet we are in close contact with countries that are dealing with the issue,” the prime minister said.
Sharon said he agrees with U.S. President George W. Bush that dealing with Iran’s push for nuclear armament is a top priority, adding that he hoped the “large danger will be dealt with” by referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
“Israel is not hopeless and is taking all the necessary measures,” Sharon said.
IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told foreign reporters Sunday he is skeptical that diplomatic pressure will put a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure...encourages them to continue their nuclear project," he said.
"I believe that the political means used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed," Halutz added.
March 30th, 2006, 17:19
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
TEHRAN RISING: Iran’s Challenge to the United States [IRAN]
Asharq Alawsat ^ | 26/09/2005 | By Amir Taheri
Last month Iran’s new President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad presented his government’s “medium and long-term strategy” in the form of a 6000-word documented submitted to the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in Tehran. In it he presented the Islamic Republic as “the core power” in a new Muslim bloc whose chief task is to prevent the United States from imposing its vision on the Middle East. The document presented the Iran-US duel as “a clash of civilization” and predicted that the Islamic Republic will emerge victorious. “Leadership is the indisputable right of the Iranian nation, “the document asserted.
According to Ahmadinejad the world is heading for a “multi-polar system” in which the European Union, China, India, and Latin America, probably led by Venezuela, will stand against the United States’ “hegemonic ambitions”. The Islamic world, too, will emerge as a new “pole” structured around the Islamic Republic of Iran which, thanks to its demographic, military, and ideological strength, is the natural leader of the Muslim world.
Adopting the analysis of Samuel Huntington, the American essayist who invented the term “clash of civilizations” a decade ago, Ahmadinejad described the US as a “sunset” (ofuli) power while the Islamic Republic was a “sunrise” (tolu’ee) power. In the clash between the two the Islamic Republic would win, Ahmadinejad promised.
And earlier this month Ahmadinejad fleshed out his analysis during two speeches at the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York. His message was simple: the Islamic Republic seeks a world leadership role in the name of a radical revolutionary interpretation of Islam.
Ilan Berman Berman whose “Tehran Rising: Iran’s Challenge to the United States” has just been published could not have read Ahamdinejad’s programme when writing his own timely essay. And, yet, it is as if Berman already knew what was going on in the minds of the new ruling elite in Tehran.
The chief merit of Berman’s nook is that he does not beat around the bush. At a time that everyone is obsessed with the issue of Tehran building a nuclear bomb, Berman shows that the real question is the Islamic Republic’s desire for domination in a vast region that includes the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
“Will Iran, armed with nuclear weapons, emerge to dominate the Middle East? Or will the Islamic Republic give way to a more benign, pro-Western political order?” Berman asks.
By posing the problem this way, Berman clearly rejects a third possibility- one cherished by the Clinton administration- to seek a “ grand bargain” with the Islamic Republic under which Iran would be recognized by the United States as the regional “superpower” in exchange for changes in aspects of its behaviour, especially on such issues as Palestine and sponsoring terrorism.
Even in Iraq where the US-led coalition won a quick military victory largely because the Iraqi people decided not to fight for Saddam Hussein, regime change has proved more complicated than many had imagined. This is why Berman devoted less than three per cent of his short book to ways and means of achieving regime change in Tehran. Berman suggests the revival of what he labels “The Reagan Doctrine” which, he says, led to the destruction of the Soviet “Evil Empire”.
In practical terms what Berman suggests amounts to no more than a greater use of public diplomacy and the free flow of information especially through Persian-language radio and television networks funded by Washington. He also wants Washington to use the Iranian expatriate community-including some 2 million of them in the US – as a channel for relaying democratic ideas into Iran itself.
Berman urges the US to find an alternative leadership for Iran, someone like Lech Walesa in the final years of Communism in Poland.
He suggests two candidates. The first is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of he late Muhammad Reza Shah who has called for a referendum to find out what type of government Iranians want for the future. Berman’s other candidate is the Mujahedin Khalq group which has some 4000 armed men and women in a camp in Iraq under the protection of the US-led coalition, and which has been described as a “ terrorist organization” by the State Department in Washington.
Berman suggests that the US conduct a series of polls both inside and outside Iran to find out which dissident group is most likely to win the largest measure of support from the Iranian people. Once that is determined the US and its allies would be able to give political, diplomatic and, presumably, financial support to the alternative Iranian leadership. But even then it is not quite clear how such a leadership will be installed in Tehran. Through elections? Through invasion? Or an internal coup d’etat by anti-mullah elements?
Those with a deeper knowledge of Iran will find Berman’s outline of a scenario for regime change without military action somewhat unconvincing. But the value of this essay lies elsewhere. It is in Berman’s frank admission that President George W Bush’s dream for a democratic Middle East that would be friendly to the United States may well turn into a nightmare if Iran, under its present leadership, succeeds to impose its agenda on the region, starting with Iraq.
And that is not such a far-fetched idea. By all accounts, the Islamic Republic is already busy building an infrastructure for intervention and, when the time comes, domination in Iraq.
There is no guarantee that whoever succeeds President Bush will share his vision or have his guts, some might say his audacity, to take risks that no other American leader has taken since Harry S Truman. The Islamic Republic in Iran has dealt with five American presidents so far. Only one of them, George W Bush, has so far refused to offer the mullahs some version of the “grand bargain” that President Bill Clinton tried to offer the mullahs-only to be snubbed by them.
Even within Bush’s own Republican Party there are quite a few grandees who dream of a “grand bargain” wit the mullahs, among them Senator Chuck Hagel and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.
Thus there is no reason why the Islamic Republic should not try to wait George W Bush out and then go for broke in what Ahamdinejad describes as Iran’s “natural sphere of leadership” that is to say the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin and Central Asia.
Berman’s book makes it impossible for the policymakers in Washington to ignore the Islamic Republic as a nasty toothache that it is bound to fade away. But it is far from clear whether or not the current administration has the time and, yes, the courage to devise a strategy to meet what is one of the biggest challenges the US foreign policy faces at present.
March 30th, 2006, 17:32
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran deflecting international attention to Syria (Iran-Syrian chemical weapons agreement)
Synoeca ^
The UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri released on October 20th has increased the international pressure on Bashir Assad, however, sources within Syria have acknowledged that Iran has began operations to aid Syria's CW(chemical weapons) program. Iran has sought to occupy both the UN and Bush administration with other regional issues instead of allowing the international spotlight to shine on its own nuclear advancements. Recent failures of the European Union and Bush Administration to bring Iran to the the UN Security Council, has only cemented Tehran's plans.
After finally finding common ground on Iran's nuclear ambitions, failed attempts to reach an agreement on a course of action has allowed Iran to escape possible sanctions. To it's credit, Tehran has worked effectively to shift attention from its nuclear efforts both through the Iraq insurgency and Syria, with great success.
Syria-Iranian cooperation
As Syria's regime increases it's paranoia over speculation of a US-led attack to topple it, it has forged ahead with an innovative chemical warfare program in cooperation with Iran hoping to deter the Bush administration from any such plans. The essence of this co-operation, a source within Damascus told Jane's Information Group "is Tehran's contractual commitment, made to Syria a few months ago, to provide Iranian Chemical Weapons technical assistance to facilitate Syria's program".
According to the source, Iran will assist Syria in the planning, establishment and pilot operation of about four or five facilities throughout Syria for the production of precursors for VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent.(1 ) Under the terms of contract, yet to be officially signed, Iran will also supply Syria with reactors, pipes, condensers, heat exchangers (to change the temperature of materials) and storage and feed tanks, as well as chemical detection equipment all of which are necessary to construct the planned facilities within one year.
As Iran's nuclear program has captured the world's attention, its chemical weapons programs has remained in the shadows. Claims made on its CW programs by oppositions groups have not yet materialized, however, past allegations on Tehran's nuclear plans have been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) through inspections and investigations. Iran's CW record was first noted during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War, where it mainly used mustard gas captured from Iraqi positions. In 2004, "Syria imported hundreds of tonnes of sodium sulfide, hydrochloric acid and ethylene glycol-MEG from Iran, which are precursors for the production of mustard blister agents and Sarin nerve gas," the source said. Iranian cooperation with hostile countries is not limited to Syria, in 2004, the Bush Administration sanctioned several Chinese companies under the Iran Non-proliferation Act of 2000 for selling materials that were not specified and had documented sales from China to Iran for 500 tons of chemical precursors.
As the likelihood of a confrontation with Syria in the future grows, Damascus will seek any means necessary to curtail efforts to overthrow it. However, the growing speculation is that Assad's demise will be due to political pressure and economic sanctions over time and not a military effort which leaves Syria with little options in the face of international isolation.
Iran's Iraq agenda
Iran has emerged as a critical factor in Iraq, much to the displeasure of the US. Tehran's intentions in Iraq are both aimed at advancing its regional interests and guarding against Western interference within Iran by formulating a policy of confronting the British military in southern Iraq and the US within the Sunni Triangle.
Recent allegations by the British have implicated Iran's Revolutionary Guard with rioting and bombings in Basra. Officials in Iraq claim that Iran's Qods Force, islamic arm of the Revolutionary Guard, have met with Iraq's Sunni insurgents and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq groups hoping to formulate ties for future attacks on the US and British, to be utilized in case they opt to undermine the regime in Tehran. In contrast, the Iranian government blame the British for inciting ethnic tensions in southern provinces and the US for assisting Kurds in northern Iran.
In spite of Iranian collaboration with Sunni insurgents, Tehran is more likely to utilize its extensive ties and influence within Iraq's Shi'a community. Iran, however, is not restricted to Islamist Shi'a ideology and will formulate alliances with any group seeking to destablize Iraq.
Construction of Syrian facilities by the Iranians is slated to being in 2006 with millions of dollars allocated to its CW project, while desperation sets in for the State Department and European Parliment to salvage good news from the region leads them into aggressive attitudes towards Syria's involvement in the Lebanese ex-Prime Minister's death, thus leaving Iran to freely to pursue nuclear technology. The fact that Iran has shown an aptitude for concealment and delay tactics of its nuclear program should give a rise to suspicion which the US and EU focus on instead of being lead away by Iran's red herrings.
A speech by former top Iranian nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani, which was reprinted in the Iranian journal Rahbord (Strategy).
Rohani laments that, had Iran not pursued its program in secret, the current situation would not be so difficult:
Quote:
One of the members indicated here that all this should have been done in secret. This was the intention; this never was supposed to be in the open. But in any case, the spies exposed it. We did not want to declare all this. Some of you say that if we had said from the start that we wanted to have the fuel cycle, the situation would have been easier. Yes, if we had decided to declare our intention at the beginning, if we had told the IAEA that we intended to build a UCF plant at the same time that we started construction at Esfahan, if we had announced our facilities at Natanz from the start, we would not have any problems now, or our problems would have been far less than they are today. In fact, this is the very reason that our case has become so complicated. They ask: If you truly were after fuel cycle, why did you do it secretly?! This is the root of all problems. If we had done it openly, the problem would have been far simpler. In the beginning, we decided not to go public for a number of reasons. For example, pressure from the West to deny us primary materials, and reasons like that. We wanted to keep it secret for a while. Of course, we all knew at that some point this would become public knowledge. I do not want to get into the history of this issue at this time.
March 30th, 2006, 20:36
ExplodedMind
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
From a post of Rick's above:
"If the enemy wants to make the area insecure [Hormuz], he should be rest assured that he will also suffer from the insecurity, since we know the location of their vessels."
I find the use of the term "enemy" in reference to Iran interesting, and instructive. A slip of the tongue, or intentional?
I'm hardly in a position to evaluate the importance of this development, but I AM interested.
March 31st, 2006, 14:18
Aplomb
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
It looks significant to me, MTStringer. Here's the text on that link:
Quote:
Iran says it has tested radar-dodging missile
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran on Friday successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously, the airforce chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards said.
"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defence forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Gen. Hossein Salami said on state-run television.
Salami said the Iranian-made missile, which he did not name, was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea.
"This missile can simultaneously hit several targets, has near stealth capabilities with a high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," Salami said.
The general said the range of the missile would depend on the weight of its warhead.
"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," he said.
The television screened a brief clip of the launch of the missile.
Iran already has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,250 miles and is capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. The Shahab-3 is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Last year, former defence minister Ali Shamkhani said that Iran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military industries.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
The military maneuvers are scheduled to last a week and will involve 17,000 members of the Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
March 31st, 2006, 19:38
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Well... hello Armaggeddon.
April 1st, 2006, 12:21
MTStringer
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
"Well... hello Armaggeddon."
This from the guy who p****d off half the folk on "that other board"? C'mon, man, let it all hang out!
Seriously, I naturally assumed this to be a paridigm shift, in the region, "How advanced is this compared to our stuff?", in general, is the question I meant to imply. On the one hand, I've always guilessly assumed we would be two steps in front in any such research by potential adversaries, but recent events seem to have revealed some rust and dings, leaving me to wonder. I daresay any one of you could more easily get to speed in the old Explorer plant than I in the world of defense contracting and weapons systems, so I looked here for a shortcut to enlightenment rather than, shudder, research I would still fall short in evaluating, in comparison to ANYTHING from Rick besides "Well..hello Armaggeddon." Sheesh!!! :)
April 1st, 2006, 20:36
MTStringer
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
As usual, I need to clarify my last statement, instead of "the guy who p****d off half the folk on that "other board"", it should have read, "half the folk LEFT at that "other board"", as that joint looks like a ghost town nowadays.
April 7th, 2006, 17:31
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran Has Missiles To Carry Nuclear Warheads
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-7-2006 | Con Coughlin
Iran has missiles to carry nuclear warheads
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 07/04/2006)
Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads.
Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme.
Last week, the United Nations Security Council gave Iran 30 days to freeze its uranium enrichment programme that many experts believe is part of a clandestine attempt to produce nuclear weapons.
Iran denies it is trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.
The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea's Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud.
The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.
"This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development."
The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel.
Apart from modifying the nose cone, Iranian technicians are also trying to make a number of technical adjustments that will enable the missile to travel a greater distance.
Western intelligence officials believe that Iran is receiving assistance from teams of Russian and Chinese experts with experience of developing nuclear weapons. Experts who have studied the latest version of the Shahab have identified modifications to the nose cone.
Instead of the single cone normally attached to this type of missile, the new Shahab has three cones, or a triconic, warhead. A triconic warhead allows the missile to accommodate a nuclear device and this type of warhead is normally found only in nuclear weapons.
According to the new research, the Iranian warhead is designed to carry a spherical nuclear weapon that would be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground, similar to the Hiroshima bomb.
Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
The development of the Shahab-3 is just one element of a wide-ranging missile development programme.
In 2003 the Iranians concluded another secret deal with North Korea to buy the Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has a range of 2,200 miles and would enable Iran to hit targets in mainland Europe.
Earlier this week the Iranians announced that they had successfully test-fired a new missile, the Fajr-3, which has the capability to evade radar systems and carry multiple warheads.
April 7th, 2006, 17:34
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
MT, I didn't "piss off" anyone, except people who refuse to accept rules. Basically, the only people that "hate" me, call me names, they call me names like "Nazi" and anything else they think can get a rise out of me. Some times it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Truth is, Anomalies was doing just fine until a buch of shit heads complained to Olav about me preventing them from "posting important material". Olav and I had an agreement. I took care of the forums, he had everything else. He interfered in the forums and it has cost the site some posters.
The people that left, left because they got their way. They caused me to quit and Olav to want to fire me. They got their wish.
The FACT IS, that Anomalies will survive without those people, who, by the way are coming back in the 1s and 2s these days and mouthing off about everything because no one is moderating any more.
All the forums I cared for are being ruined a little at a time.
We will fix that little problem soon enough though
Rick
April 7th, 2006, 17:36
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iranian Test "Highly-Advanced Flying Boat" and Two Missiles
Following are excerpts from footage of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy test of a flying boat and two missiles. The footage was aired on Channel 1 of Iranian TV. READ MORE
Reporter: For the first time, a highly advanced flying boat was tested successfully, in the waters of the Persian Gulf by the courageous members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Following are some of the features of this highly advanced flying boat: A velocity exceeding 100 knots per hour. Unparalleled maneuvering capability. It can be used efficiently throughout the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Its advanced design makes it undetectable by any naval or aerial radar. It has the ability to soar swiftly over the sea. The most important thing is that this highly advanced flying boat was built entirely in Iran. This boat can launch [missiles] and fire while moving, and has the ability to track the target with extreme precision.
IRGC General Mohammad Rahim Dehghani: This vessel is manufactured by the aircraft industries of the Iranian Defense Ministry, and it has already reached mass production. In this maneuver, we officially incorporated it in the naval combat doctrine of the Revolutionary Guards. A flying vessel, which cannot be tracked by any naval or aerial radar, is the best tool for the Revolutionary Guard Navy's combat capability. Since this vessel is capable of carrying and launching different types of weapons, it can be very effective and can influence our combat capabilities.
Reporter: The main stage of this great maneuver, named after the Prophet of Islam, included today's experiment of two additional advanced missiles: the shoulder-launched missile Misagh 1 and the surface-to-sea missile Kowsar. Misagh 1 is a heat-guided anti-aircraft missile. Its special qualities include its velocity, its tracking ability, and its portability, which allows it to be fired by a single person. Misagh 1 is the number one enemy of combat helicopters.
And now for the Kowsar missile. This surface-to-sea missile is equipped with two very advanced systems for precise fire control and for target tracking. Its most important quality is that no jamming system in the world can prevent this missile from tracking its targets.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iran Raises Tensions with a Show of Strength
Anton La Guardia, Telegraph:
A stealth flying boat, a radar-evading missile with multiple warheads, a rocket-torpedo and an anti-ship missile that cannot be jammed: with every day that passes, Iran announces a development in its military hardware.
The flurry of technological achievements, shown in grainy television footage, coincides with a large naval war-game in the Gulf codenamed "Great Prophet".
The exercises around the Straits of Hormuz, through which two fifths of the world's oil passes, are seen in the West as "sabre-rattling" as Teheran faces concerted international pressure to halt its widely suspected attempt to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Western officials say the Iranians are trying to tell the West - especially America and Israel - that they can strike back against any attempt to bomb their nuclear facilities.
Iran could, for example, try to disrupt the shipping of oil through the Gulf, and threaten Israel with a growing array of missiles.
"The aim is political and rhetorical rather than military," said one British source. "I would not put any money on the Iranians' kit if it came to a contest with the American military." The clerical regime also wants to impress on the Iranian public that it remains powerful despite American attempts to destabilise it.
Moreover, it seeks to stoke national pride by claiming the weapons as home-produced, even though they are mostly based on Russian, Chinese and North Korean technology.
"There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of bravado in what is coming out of Teheran," an Israeli official said. "But there is enough substance in some of the stuff they have been talking about for us to be concerned.
"We know that they have been working on multiple warheads. They are very serious about developing their delivery systems."
Iran announced last Friday that it had successfully test-fired a missile that could avoid detection by radar and deliver multiple warheads to hit several targets.
General Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, hailed the development of the Fajr-3 (Dawn-3) missile as the achievement of "a remarkable goal".
But Ivan Oelrich, vice-president of the Federation of American Scientists, said: "It is conceivable they have a multiple warhead capability but this is not very sophisticated. Though three missiles heading for the same target makes it harder for missile defence, the warheads will not have their own guidance systems and the missiles will carry a lower payload. It would be difficult to target effectively with them."
On Sunday Iran announced another success: the launching of "the world's fastest underwater missile", travelling at about 195 knots, or three times faster than the fastest western torpedo.
General Ali Fadavi, deputy naval commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said the weapon could overcome sonar systems because of its speed and its movement underwater. Weapons experts said it appeared to be a Soviet rocket-powered torpedo known as the Shkval.
However, it cannot track a target and has a range of less than four miles. A former commander of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, said Iran's torpedo announcement was little more than a bluff.
"Shkval has no target designation devices. That is, it is not a self-homing torpedo. Besides, it leaves a trail, which makes it easy to spot and destroy," he said. READ MORE
Undeterred, Iran yesterday announced the launch of a surface-to-sea missile known as the Kowsar. According to Iranian television, it can evade radar and its guidance system cannot be scrambled.
Television also showed footage of a "super-modern flying boat," a strange one-man craft that looks like a cross between a seaplane and a stealth fighter.
State television said that the single-propeller seaplane could launch a missile and "because of the hull's advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can locate it".
The commander of the Revolutionary Guards, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said Iranian forces were able to "confront any extra-territorial invasion".
April 7th, 2006, 17:44
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Islamic Regime withdraws 41 Billion Swiss Francs worth of Gold & foreign exchange from European accounts
Iran Press News: Translation by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi.
The regime-run FARS news agency quoting the Swiss newspaper, Der Bund reported that the Islamic regime has withdrawn 700 tons of it's gold reserves worth 6 billion Swiss Francs as well as 25 billion Swiss Francs in foreign exchange (equal to $30 billion) from financial institutions in the west.
Der Bund added that the Islamic regime transferred 250 tons of it's gold reserves, valued at 5 billion Swiss Francs directly to Tehran but that the foreign exchange was transferred to Asian banks located in the United Arab Emirates, specifically Abu-Dhabi and Dubai.
Approximately 2 months ago, two of Switzerland's biggest financial institutions, U.B.S. and Credit Swiss ceased all financial transactions with the Islamic regime.
April 7th, 2006, 17:49
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iran Says Military Threats Not in US Interests
Reuters:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander said on Wednesday the United States should accept Iran's position as a regional power, adding that sanctions or military threats would not be in U.S. or European interests.
Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander-in-chief of the Guards, was speaking to state television during a week of naval war games in which Iranian forces have announced the successful testing of new weapons, including missiles and torpedoes.
Iran says the war games in the Gulf, which began on Friday, are a show of defensive strength, but analysts say the timing during a nuclear standoff with the West offers a reminder that Iran could threaten a vital world oil shipping route.
"The Americans should accept Iran as a great regional power and they should know that sanctions and military threats are not going to be benefit them, but are going to be against their interests and against the interests of some European countries," Safavi told state television.
The United States and European powers have been leading international calls to rein in Iran's nuclear program, which the West says is a cover to produce atomic weapons -- a charge Iran denies. Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute, but will keep a military option open.
"We regard the presence of America in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf as a threat, and we recommend they do not move toward threatening Iran," Safavi said.
He said the United States should make up for mistakes in Iraq "by getting out of Iraq and handing over the fate of the Iraqi people to the elected government". READ MORE
"Defending Iran's independence is the philosophy of Iran's forces," he added.
Safavi said in January that Iran would retaliate if it came under attack.
During the war games, Iran said it tested the land-to-sea Kowsar missile, which analysts say is designed to sink ships, a sonar-evading underwater missile, a home-grown torpedo and a radar-evading rocket.
Military analysts said Iran has not announced enough details to assess the real capabilities of the new weapons but that some claims may be exaggerated.
Iran, which has a commanding position on the north coast of the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, could still disrupt shipping if threatened, however, they said.
About two-fifths of the world's globally traded oil passes through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.
April 7th, 2006, 17:53
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Rice Defends US Broadcast Plans for Iran
David Gollust, Voice of America:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Tuesday defended plans to step up U.S. broadcasting and democracy-promotion efforts in Iran. The Bush administration is asking Congress for $75 million for the programming amid the diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.
The secretary of state is standing by the supplemental budget request for Iranian outreach in the face of Congressional criticism that the Iranian government will be able to dismiss the program as merely U.S. disinformation.
The administration request was made in mid-February but has yet to be acted on by Congress. It is asking for $75 million, two thirds of it for increased Farsi-language television and radio broadcasting into Iran and the rest for democracy promotion and exchange programs.
At a House Appropriations Committee hearing on the State Department budget, veteran House Democrat David Obey said he had very little faith in prospects for success of the outreach effort. He said it could be characterized as either an information or a regime de-stabilization package but said that in any case it could be easily discredited by the Tehran government. "If we are going to engage in activity like that, why on earth would we be as public about it as we've been. It's simply giving that regime an opportunity to claim that virtually every piece of information which is produced is disinformation from us. I mean, why are we making it easier for them to blame us for interfering in their affairs by being so public about something like this?," he asked.
The secretary, however, said she believed that subtlety in trying to promote reform in Iran is not the proper course, and that the budgetary process requires the administration to be very public about the Iran program. READ MORE
She said U.S. officials have heard from Iranians and frequent visitors to the country that the people of Iran want to hear the United States speak about their plight, and she said the experience of the Cold War era suggests they will not dismiss the U.S. message out of hand. "I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Iranians believe what their government says about that. I remember in the days of Radio Free Europe and Voice of America that the Soviet Union and the Eastern European governments made the same claims about those. And people listened to them in droves anyway and they got the information they needed. And they sustained their hopes of one day being part of a democracy, even though their governments said the same things," he said.
Congressman Obey said he was unsure whether the United States has the tools, short of "doing something extreme" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity.
Secretary Rice, who has been a key player in U.S.-led efforts to move the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council, had no direct response to the remark.
Elsewhere in her testimony, Rice said Iran's backing for the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon is probably the most egregious example of Iranian interference in another country's sovereign affairs.
She said the United States continues to work with France and other international partners for the full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolution 15-59, which secured the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon a year ago, but also demands the disbanding of Lebanese militias.
April 7th, 2006, 17:55
American Patriot
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Reading the tea leaves - Bush's Strategy on Iran
I believe the President has settled on the direction he is going to pursue with Iran. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, it would appear a pattern has begun to emerge in the recent statements by President Bush, Condolezza Rice and others.
What is the new strategy?
Let's begin with President Bush's State of the Union speech. The President warned the Iranian regime that he is willing to significantly ramp up his support for the Iranian people:
"And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:
As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
The President has recently warned Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program and that he has not taken the military option off the table. At the same time, he also made clear his interest in pursuing a "diplomatic solution."
Why A diplomatic solution?
First, military action in Iran would likely be counter productive. Military action would almost certainly have the unintended consequence of killing large numbers of civilians and thus create a "rally around the government" effect. This would provide a tremendous opportunity for the regime to argue that the US government does not really "care about the people" of Iran. Thus alienating the very people we want to support.
Second, it is also unlikely that such military action could permanently stop Iran's nuclear effort. To accomplish this would require an invasion of Iran and therefore a much larger military force than we have available at this time, so we are told.
Third, Europe is unlikely to ever support military action against Iran and the US public would also find it hard to support it unless there was an imminent threat. (Nearly everyone would want irrefutable proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program).
So what options are left?
An effective non military response to the Iranian threat would require the administration find an issue that is universally accepted in order to gain international support. Such international support was essential in the recent popular revolt in the Ukraine.
Such an issue already exists.
I believe the issue the administration intends to focus on is human rights in Iran.
If you follow the news on Iran, the administration has begun focusing on the human rights issue as it relates to Iran. Here are a few examples:
President Bush alluded to it in his inaugural address:
From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. ...
America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Condoleezza Rice:
Iranians "suffer under a regime that has been completely unwilling to deal with their aspirations and that has an appalling human rights record". BBC
Even Senator Brownback, the new chairman of the Helsinki Commission says he plans to highlight Iranian human rights issues with Europe. The NY Sun reports:
The plan by Senator Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is in keeping with the president's commitment to spread freedom throughout the world...
Senator Brownback said he planned to publicize the plight of Iranian dissidents in hearings before the Helsinki Commission, the American body created in 1976 to engage the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe on their treatment of political prisoners and human rights. American envoys would often read the names of political prisoners aloud at commission-related meetings, at first to embarrass their Soviet counterparts. Later this technique proved effective, when in the twilight of the Cold War many political prisoners were released.
"We are going to bring up human rights issues and what is taking place in Iran aggressively," he said.
Europe and the UN have a long history of advocating human rights. Europe has tied increased trade with Iran to improvements in their human rights record. European leaders advocacy for Human Rights in Iran bought them popular political support at home at very little cost.
Europeans are proud of their leaders stand for Human Rights. It was no surprise to Europeans that the Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.
If the US makes Human Rights in Iran a centerpiece of its Iran policy, the EU and the UN will have to support it. Russia and China would find it difficult to oppose it.
President Bush's support for "their issue" will likely be perceived by Europeans generally as a European victory. Popular support could force their leaders to join the US effort.
If Iran refuses to permanently end its uranium enrichment program, as they claim, the EU will have to withdraw its offer of increased trade.
Instead, I would then expect an ever increasing demand of the international community to end all trade (the EU's only real weapon) until the regime guarantees the Iranian people's human rights.
Already British firms such as BP have declared that they will not invest further in Iran. US firms have also taken similar positions and I expect we will see an ever growing number of international firms ending their business relations with the Iranian regime.
Why will this help bring down the regime?
First, the people of Iran will at long last receive the international attention and support they have been pleading for. This support will encourage the people to stand against the regime and various elements in government will be forced to decide whether to support the people of Iran or their unpopular leaders.
Thus the regime will face a serious dilemma.
On the one hand, cracking down on dissent will further alienate the regime and likely result in an end to international investments/trade in Iran.
On the other hand, the regime cannot comply with this without risking encouraging a popular revolt.
Iran's presidential elections are scheduled for June. The hardline elements in Iran have been hoping to further consolidate their power and will not likely be interested in being pressured by the international community on human rights.
If the Iranian regime cracks down on popular dissent this time, the international community will be watching as never before. Crack downs will lead to further doubts by the international business community. As more firms pull away from Iran, investment dollars will dry up.
Iran needs the investment dollars to keep the regime in power. Unemployment is already unbearable. Significant increases in unemployment will only fuel more civil unrest.
It would appear the regime will be in a no win situation.
President Bush is about to travel to Europe. If I am right, we will see a mending of relations and a new unity among the US and the EU.
Time appears to be running out for the Mullahs of Iran. It may prove to be a very hot summer in Iran.