Prepare Now for the Coming Middle East War

[American Patriot]

Well, they didn't stop traffic in Hormuz, did they?

/chuckles

Now what? Europe won't do anything.

[American Patriot]

In signal to Israel and Iran, Obama delays war exercise

By Gareth Porter | Last updated: Jan 27, 2012 - 9:16:16 AM
WASHINGTON (IPS/GIN) - The postponement of a massive joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise appears to be the culmination of a series of events that has impelled the Barack Obama administration to put more distance between the United States and aggressive Israeli policies toward Iran.


The exercise, called “Austere Challenge ‘12” and originally scheduled for April, was to have been a simulation of a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to identify, track and intercept incoming missiles by integrating sophisticated U.S. radar systems with the Israeli Arrow, Patriot and Iron Dome anti-missile defense systems.
U.S. participation in such an exercise, obviously geared to a scenario involving an Iranian retaliation against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, would have made the United States out to be a partner of Israel in any war that would follow an Israeli attack on Iran.
President Obama and U.S. military leaders apparently decided that the United States could not participate in such an exercise so long as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to give the administration any assurance that he will not attack Iran without prior approval from Washington.
The official explanation from both Israeli and U.S. officials about the delay was that both sides agreed on it. Both Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Mark Regev, spokesman for Netanyahu, suggested that it was delayed to avoid further exacerbation of tensions in the Gulf.
The spokesman for the U.S. European Command, Capt. John Ross, and Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Laura Rozen of Yahoo News Jan. 15 that the two sides had decided on the postponement to the second half of 2012 without offering any specific reason for it.
However, Ms. Rozen reported Jan. 16 that “several current and former American officials” had told her the previous day that the delay had been requested last month by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. One official suggested privately that there is concern that the alleged Barak request could be aimed at keeping Israel’s options open for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the spring.
But it would make little sense for leaders Netanyahu and Barak to commit Israel to war with Iran before the shape of the U.S. presidential election campaign had become clear. And Mr. Barak would want to have knowledge gained from the joint exercise in tracking and intercepting Iranian missiles with the U.S. military before planning such a strike.
Moreover, the Israeli Air Force was still touting the planned maneuvers as recently as Jan. 12 and, according to Israeli media, was taken by surprise by the announcement.
The idea that the Israelis wanted the postponement appears to be a cover story to mask the political blow it represents to the Netanyahu government and to shield President Obama from Republican charges that he is not sufficiently supportive of Israel. Nevertheless, the signal sent by the delay to political leaders Netanyahu and Barak, reportedly the most aggressive advocates of a strike against Iran in Israel’s right-wing government, could hardly be lost on the two leaders.
President Obama may have conveyed the decision to Mr. Netanyahu during what is said to have been a lengthy telephone discussion between the two leaders the night of Jan. 12. Iran policy was one of the subjects Mr. Obama discussed with him, according to the White House press release on the conversation.
The decision to postpone the exercise may have been timed to provide a strong signal to Mr. Netanyahu in advance of a visit to Israel by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. Gen. Dempsey reportedly expressed grave concern at a meeting with Mr. Obama last fall about the possibility that Israel intended to carry out a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without consulting with Washington in advance.
Mr. Obama has been quoted as responding that he had “no say” in Israel’s policy, much to Gen. Dempsey’s dismay.
The coincidence of the announced delay with Mr. Dempsey’s mission thus suggests that the new military chief may inform his Israeli counterpart that any U.S. participation in a joint exercise like “Austere Challenge ‘12” is contingent on Israel ending its implicit threat to launch an attack on Iran at a time of its own choosing.
This apparent rift between the two countries comes in the wake of a series of moves by Israel and its supporters here that appeared aimed at ratcheting up tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
In November and December, U.S. neoconservatives aligned with Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party and what is sometimes called the Israel lobby engineered legislation that forced on the Obama administration a unilateral sanctions law aimed at dramatically reducing Iranian crude oil exports and “collapsing” its economy.
The administration’s reluctant embrace of sanctions against the oil sector and Iran’s Central Bank led in turn to an Iranian threat to retaliate by closing off the Strait of Hormuz. The risk of a naval incident suddenly exploding into actual military conflict suddenly loomed large.
Amid tensions already reaching dangerous heights, Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated in Tehran in a bombing Jan. 11. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor immediately condemned the assassination and vehemently denied any U.S. involvement in that or any other violence inside Iran.
It was the first time the U.S. government had chosen to distance itself so dramatically from actions that mainstream media has generally treated as part of a joint U.S.-Israeli policy.
U.S. officials told Associated Press Jan 14 that Israel was considered responsible for the killing, and the London Times published a detailed account of what it said was an Israeli Mossad operation.
Mossad is believed to have assassinated at most a handful of Iranian nuclear scientists—not enough to slow down the Iranian program. And the timing of those operations has strongly suggested that the main aim has been to increase tensions with the United States and sabotage any possibility for agreement between Iran and the West on Iran’s nuclear program, if not actually provoke retaliation by Iran that could spark a wider conflict.

[vector7]

India defies sanctions, won't cut Iran oil imports

Published January 30, 2012
| Associated Press



MUMBAI, India – India has joined China in saying it will not cut back on oil imports from Iran, despite stiff new U.S. and European sanctions designed to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

"It is not possible for India to take any decision to reduce the import from Iran drastically because, after all, the countries which can provide the requirement of the emerging economy, Iran is an important country amongst them," India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters Sunday in Chicago.

India and China together accounted for 34 percent of Iran's oil exports from January to September of 2011 -- slightly more than Europe, according to International Energy Agency data.

The move is likely to be seen as a political victory in Iran, but it's unclear how Chinese and Indian companies will actually be able to pay for Iranian oil without running afoul of the sanctions, analysts said.

"It's a blow," said David Hartwell, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Jane's, adding that Iran may have discounted prices to keep the Chinese and Indians on their side. "If you have two major countries like India and China saying they will not abide by the sanctions, that's going to keep a vital line open for the Iranians to continue to sidestep the sanctions and get foreign capital."

He said India and China could just be trying to buy time to diversify their oil supplies and may steer away from Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia -- India's largest source of oil imports -- were to ramp up production and offer an attractively priced alternative.

The European Union last week imposed an oil embargo against Iran and froze the assets of its central bank. In December, the U.S. said it would bar financial institutions from the U.S. market if they do business with Iran's central bank.

India and China are ravenous energy consumers and rely heavily on imported oil. Iranian oil accounts for 9 percent of India's oil consumption and 6 percent of China's, according to the latest data from the IEA.

Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, about 3 percent of world supplies. About 500,000 barrels go to Europe and most of the rest goes to China, India, Japan and South Korea.

China has called for negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. South Korea has been non-committal about the sanctions, and Japan is seeking an exemption, saying its Iranian oil imports have steadily declined and probably will continue to do so.

Kyodo News agency reported that senior Japanese and U.S. officials on Thursday will hold their second meeting on the sanctions this month.

"I believe it may not be easy to come to a conclusion on this matter in the upcoming discussions," Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba said.

Western sanctions could make it harder for India to pay for the oil it gets from Iran. Past sanctions have already delayed payments by Indian oil importers, who have had to scramble to find banks willing to handle transactions with Iran.

India's central bank governor D. Subbarao said last week that the current payment mechanism was "working fine," though India was also "exploring other options," which he declined to discuss.

Indian companies now reportedly route payments through Turkey's Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS, after EU pressure forced German-based Europaisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG to stop handling the payments last year.

IHS Jane's energy analyst said Turkey is unlikely to shut down that route immediately, noting that Turkish oil refiner Tupras also uses this payment mechanism.

"But this route remains susceptible to external pressure," she added by email. "India is now discussing rupee based payments and direct trade -- however that has a number of drawbacks for Iran given the trade imbalance and restrictions on use. China isn't publicly discussing options but I imagine other currency payments are also on the cards there."

The U.S. and its allies believe Iran is using oil revenues to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes.

[vector7]

THE LAST DAY

In February 2013 the Republic of Iran launched a combined offensive culminating in the nuclear bombs on Israeli territory and the environment.

This is one of many records that survived from that day that changed the world.

[vector7]

How Iran could Win a War against Israel and the United States in One Hour

By

John Galt

– February 5, 2012Posted in: Breaking News, World News



by John Galt
February 6, 2012 05:00 ET

In less than sixty minutes, the tiny nation of Iran could easily defeat two of the mightiest military powers in the world if they are allowed to engage in a first strike opportunity against both of those nations. This is not some far-fetched idea as U.S. and Israeli military planners are keenly aware of the implications of an Iranian attack which catches both nations off guard. The problem is not one of strategy or ability by either nation. The military units of both nations could easily defeat the Iranians in a nuclear or conventional war. However, Iran is not a conventional nation-state nor is the modern concept applicable to the confrontation which is coming.

IF Iran were to attack, it would be the ultimate one shot “use it or lose it” approach to all strategic, conventional, and non-conventional forces. Syria would not have any notification of the coming attack and the countries which were to be exposed to collateral damage, Iraq and Jordan, would receive only the warning provided by U.S. military forward air controllers with little choice but to stand down or engage a fellow Islamic nation in combat.

Iran’s first strike against Israel would be a combined effort designed to overwhelm the air defense systems of the IAF and create mass confusion. Odds are they would use every available missile launcher, and being conservative, we’ll say that’s 500 inside of Iran with an additional 1,100 plus inside of Lebanon, to fire an overwhelming volley at Israel. In addition, every available fighter aircraft capable of supersonic flight would be launched on a suicide mission trailing the initial missile attack. This initial volley would set the IAF and IDF on their heels along with creating massive panic in the United States defense establishment knowing the retaliatory strike package the tiny nation would launch. The defense systems might intercept 60% of all of the incoming if they were precise and of course, lucky as hell. The impacting conventional and non-conventional warheads would trigger a devastating response which would obliterate the entire nation of Iran however. That strike might be construed as a defeat for the “nation” of Iran but the attack would not end with just the Israel versus Iran aspect of the conflict.

Since the early 1980′s the Islamic Republic of Iran has been infiltrating the United States using a series of faux defectors, college students obtaining access through third party nations, and as highlighted by Fox News own Geraldo Rivera in July of 2002, via Mexico using the coyote network of smugglers. These infiltrators did not come to the United States to learn the historical aspects of American constitutional law nor our theories of engineering, although some did engage in education programs about nuclear physics, civil engineering, and advanced electronic technologies. This group of long time “students” and infiltrators are not here to assist or help our nation.

At the moment the Iranian attack is announced in the West, these sleeper cells will activate with a series of per-determined targets. Imagine the following happening while news reports of Israeli cities being hit:

- An eighty year old woman at a bus stop being beheaded with a machete by a crazy man screaming “God is Great” in Farsi then attacking dozens of other people standing by the area with his blade and a handgun.

- A six year old little girl is standing in front of a store in a shopping mall and is suddenly shot in the back of the head by a man who then shoots dozens of others after the horror of the initial shock wears off and action is taken by authorities against him.

- A man screaming “God is Great” in Farsi uses his car to run a bus load of children off of a large hill causing it to roll over and burst into flames.

- A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest kills the driver and hijacks a gasoline tanker which he drives into a crowded grocery store and detonates.

Crazy talk? No, not really, this is the worst case scenario for U.S. security apparatus. I submit to my readers to consider the following idea. The U.S. has designed a patchwork security system which could handle one, two, maybe even a dozen attacks simultaneously. But if over one thousand were to occur, the best that could be expected before serious casualties and damage were inflicted is at best a forty to fifty percent interception rate. Thus if the Israelis were overwhelmed, the U.S. would be also. That sets the stage for the defeat of both nations, and sadly a period of darkness that will take the world decades to recover from.

Militarily, the nation of Iran would cease to exist. The Iranian people would suffer, at a minimum, a 70% loss rate. The impact would be equally as devastating for the nation of Lebanon which effectively be eradicated from existence along with many cities inside of Syria and much of the Arab world becoming uninhabitable should the Samson Option be triggered, which in this scenario it would. The United States would become a militarized state overnight. Europe would become a basket case. And the Arab street would galvanize behind the eradication of the Israeli state, the removal of the “great Satan” and the largest victory of Islam over the West since the last of the Crusaders. The Islamic world would sing the praise of the sacrifice of the Persian people plus those ancillary nations impacted by the Jewish retaliatory attack.

Meanwhile, there are those who would invoke the Biblical implications of such a conflict.

The United States would immediately be seen as a slumbering, bumbling, club footed nation unable to respond against an unseen enemy other than engaging in Wilsonian tactics of isolating Muslims in prison and at the same time destroying the Constitutional rights of American citizens who had nothing to do with the initial wave of attacks or fears of a secondary action. There are many who call this a delusional nightmare, but there is some historical logic behind this horrific scenario.

First, the Russians and Chinese would see an immediate strategic shift in power placing their nations in total control of the world from a strategic perspective. The Russians would instantly replace OPEC and the Middle Eastern oil cartel as the safest and most secure provider of crude oil in the world which would exceed two hundred dollars per barrel at that point in time. China would seize full control of Far Eastern affairs as the United States would be forced to contract its sphere of influence to the Western Hemisphere and no further at that point in time. The nations of South America would disengage in any meaningful strategic relationships with the U.S. thus driving them to Africa, Asia, and the newly Russian dominated European Union nations.

Second, and more importantly, the re-establishment of the greater Islamic caliphate would be completed almost immediately. The Persians would have zero influence over the creation or rule of the new Pan-Islamic territorial region. However, the consequences of this new geopolitical grouping will not be recognized by the world for at least a year. The now extinct nation of Iran would be honored and recognized for their act of martyrdom in the Islamic world thus giving the Shiites and the radical Islamic movement great credibility in the world, especially in fringe Islamic nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and throughout Central Africa. Saudi Arabia and the associated Gulf states would immediately become subservient to the radicals as there would be no common enemy, aka, Israel, to unify their citizens against. Hence a demand for recognition of the re-established Caliphate would become the demand of the street.

Lastly, the destruction of freedom and economic disruption in the United States guarantees a period of renewed U.S. isolationism versus the globalist policies of the post World War II period. While that might well be viewed as a positive by many inside the American sphere and externally, the resulting darkness that would descend on the nations of the world will be a resumption of the Dark Ages of humanity instead of a new world order as designed by the bankers and politicians who envisioned “their” era of of domination after the establishment of the League of Nations. The nation-state of Iran will be defeated immediately, however the memory of the Islamic martyrs of Persia will be viewed as a victory in the centuries old war of Islam versus the West.

[American Patriot]

Nonsense, the Muslims are our friends, they deserve to practice their religion as they wish. We are bringing this on ourselves.

(God, that just sounds fucking stupid, HOW can people like Ron Paul or Bill Clinton actually AGREE on this and say shit like this?)

[American Patriot]

I'm with Ron Paul in that if we go to war we should do it CONSTITUTIONALLY, no more Goddamned Executive Orders, 'Police Actions', and United Nations Resolutions, etc....Iran isn't the threat to US that Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was, and our President then-by no means a stickler for Constitutionalism-had enough respect to ask for a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. He knew the reasons for war would bear scrutiny...Maybe that's the reason why it hasn't been done since?

Constitutionally, huh? We went to war "Constitutionally" with Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow or another everyone seems to believe that it wasn't done "legally". Hate to say it Michael, but you're listening to the Left too much again.

IF (should be WHEN) we "go to war" with Iran it will be an air campaign.

They have a very large population - 75 million or so, and 20% of them are in the military.

They have mountains to the north protecting them, and a land invasion as proved by the Soviets is a BAD idea.

They have US and Russian aircraft, old, but useful - and roughly 75% of their air force is quite capable. However, WE (the USA) can mitigate those forces in no time flat and we should.

Look, Iran is a lying society. They ARE making a nuke, they ARE going to use it on Israel and sell them or give them to terrorists.

If we DO NOT do something about this, it will be the stupidest thing America ever did... sit on our asses and do NOTHING.

[American Patriot]

The stupidest thing we ever did was get involved in the first place. I don't care about other people's wars, or having American soldiers risking their lives to fight in other people's conflicts. If there is a clear national security threat TO US, NOT ISRAEL OR SAUDI ARABIA, then the President should do his job and ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran, and make the case for war.

Otherwise, let these assholes fight it out amongst themselves...Sure they'd love to have us get involved and do the fighting and the dying, as long as they don't have to.

Michael,

what part of "Afghanistan" aren't you getting here? We "GOT INVOLVED" because the fuckers were training terrorists there, and they are the ones who trained the terrorists who took out the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon and were stopped by Americans on Flight 93.

It was NEVER about Israel, it was about the United States.

Iraq... Gulf War 1, under G. H. W. Bush.... 1991 wasn't about Israel, it was about Kuwait, NATO and a UN-Authorized invasion with a COALITION - NOT the USA alone.

The actual invasion began in 1990, around August (I remember because that's my birthday month) and it was by IRAQ into KUWAIT to take over the country. Saddam was at fault.

Israel wasn't involved in even a cursory manner in either of those two places.

Gulf War Two.... Weapons of Mass Destruction. Let's not forget that regardless of what the fucking Liberals (and Libertarians) say, there WERE WMD there, and that information IS documented ON THIS SITE as well as other places.

The Left can LIE all it likes and say Bush Lied etc, but the facts are the WMD were there, and MOST of them were moved out before, during and even AFTER the War.

That's a fact.

So, Afghanistan was a CLEAR threat to our safety here (WTC). Saddam was a CLEAR threat to Kuwait who ASKED for assistance from us, NATO, the UK, and the UN.

[American Patriot]

By the way, this thread isn't for debating whether we should or shouldn't "be involved" in something.

The very FACT that these fucks are working on nukes, they LIE (according to their OWN religion) to hide what they are doing, they are buying time, and IF they get a nuke, TERRORISTS will have them, again this has NOTHING to do with Israel.

If we do NOTHING we are culpable as the Iranians when a terrorist sets off a nuke in NYC.

U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf





By Warda Al-Jawahiry
MANAMA | Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:42pm EST



(Reuters) - Iran has built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy can prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region said on Sunday.
Iran has made a series of threats in recent weeks to disrupt shipping in the Gulf or strike U.S. forces in retaliation if its oil trade is shut down by sanctions, or if its disputed nuclear program comes under attack.


"They have increased the number of submarines ... they increased the number of fast attack craft," Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters. "Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device. The Iranians have a large mine inventory."


"We have watched with interest their development of long range rockets and short, medium and long range ballistic missiles and of course ... the development of their nuclear program," Fox, who heads the U.S. Fifth Fleet, said at a briefing on the fleet's base in the Gulf state of Bahrain.


Iran now has 10 small submarines, he said.


Military experts say the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf - which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers - is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran's navy.


But ever since al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in a port in Yemen in 1996, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.
Asked whether the U.S. Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Fox said: "We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready... What if it happened tonight? We are ready today."


Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East's oil sails.


Asked if he took Iran's threats seriously, Fox Said: "Could they make like extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah they could close it, but I can't see that we would ever be in that position."


He added that diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the tension.

"So when you hear discussion about all this overheated rhetoric from Iran we really believe that the best way to handle this is with diplomacy... I am absolutely convinced that is the way to go. It is our job to be prepared. We are vigilant."


Contacts between the U.S. Navy and Iranian craft in the Gulf region were routine, Fox said, referring to cases where his sailors helped Iranian ships that were in distress or threatened by pirates.


In addition to commanding the Fifth Fleet, Fox is also the commander of a multinational naval task force charged with ensuring Gulf shipping routes stay open. Although most of its firepower is American, the task force also includes other Western countries and the Gulf Arab states.


The European Union slapped an embargo on Iranian oil last month, which is due to kick in completely by July 1. The United States and EU have both imposed new sanctions on Iran's central bank which make it difficult for countries to pay Tehran for oil and for Iran to pay for the goods it imports.

(Editing by Firouz Sedarat and Peter Graff)

[American Patriot]

Iran is DEFINITELY up to SOMETHING now...

Tor's latest project helps Iran get back online despite new Internet censorship regime

By Jon Brodkin | Published about 2 hours ago
Tor network connections from Iran plummeted amidst a new government censorship program


Last week, the Iranian government apparently started a new censorship program that blocks encrypted Internet traffic. Even Iranians who had taken steps to evade government firewalls were being stymied—and the immediate impact can be seen in usage of the Tor network.
Tor anonymizes Internet activity with client software that routs traffic through the Tor network, a worldwide network of relays and bridges set up by volunteers. Iran is second only to the US in Tor usage, with roughly 50,000 Iranians anonymizing their Internet traffic each day by routing it through the Tor network. Yet between Feb. 8 and Feb. 9, connections dropped from about 50,000 to fewer than 20,000, and plummeted to nearly zero by Friday, Feb. 10.
The dramatic change proved the prediction of Tor project member Jacob Appelbaum distressingly accurate. Last week, as reports of the Iranian crackdown began circulating, he warned, "It's likely that more than ~50,000 - ~60,000 Tor users may drop offline." But Appelbaum and his fellow Tor project members had a plan: a new obfuscated bridge (obfsproxy) that makes encrypted traffic appear to be regular traffic. Obfsproxy was an "ace up our sleeve," as Appelbaum described it, and Tor put it into action over the past few days despite its user interface being a bit rough.
Obfsproxy is already helping some Iranians get back online. The number of Tor connections was back up to roughly 15,000 on Saturday, although it's likely obfsproxy is playing only a small role. Tor's statistics show the use of bridges to connect to the Tor network from Iran have inched up only slightly since last week's dropoff. Statistics for Sunday and Monday haven't come in yet.
"It's not clear if Iran has lessened censorship of SSL traffic or if we're having that much of an impact," Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman told Ars. Regardless of the cause, the dramatic upswing and downswing of Tor connections from Iran provides "a fine graph of what government censorship can do to a country," he said. "We've been working mostly flat out for the past few days to help the people of Iran and it's nice to see that we are having an impact."
On Friday, Appelbaum put out the call to the Tor community to start running obfsproxy bridges. He warned that the software is not easy to set up, that it might be effective for only a few days "at the rate the arms race is progressing," and that people who set up bridges need to either contact the Tor Project or share the bridge addresses directly with users who need them.
Obfsproxy is "still very alpha-quality software," Lewman said. "We're seeing a few thousand connections through obfsproxy relays already. We have roughly 300 obfsproxy relays around the world already, some of them already pushing many megabits per second of traffic. It's definitely picking up as the world awoke over the past 24 hours, to the point where our Web servers alone were handling 500 mbps of download traffic. Our BitTorrent seeds of the software are doing well, too."
Appelbaum promised that an easy-to-use client is in the works, but for now, people setting up bridges or obfsproxy client connections must follow these somewhat complicated instructions.
Tor isn't the only method for staying online in places like Iran. One product called Hotspot Shield uses a VPN to secure Web traffic and bypass firewalls. A Hotspot Shield spokesperson tells Ars "we've observed that the Iran blockades have had no effect on our users."

[vector7]

US admiral says Navy forces are prepared to confront Iran

Published February 12, 2012
| Associated Press


AP Feb. 12, 2012: U.S. Vice Adm. Mark I. Fox, commander, Naval Forces Central Command, commander, U.S. 5th fleet, speaks during press briefing at the U.S. Navy base in Manama, Bahrain.

MANAMA, Bahrain – The top U.S. Navy official in the Gulf said Sunday he takes Iran's military capabilities seriously but insists his forces are prepared to confront any Iranian aggression in the region.

Vice Adm. Mark Fox, commander of the 5th Fleet, told reporters at the naval force's Bahrain headquarters that the Navy has "built a wide range of potential options to give the president" and is "ready today" to confront any hostile action by Tehran.

He did not outline specifically how the Navy might answer an Iranian strike or an effort to shut the entrance to the Persian Gulf, though any response would likely involve the two U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships cruising the waters off Iran.

"We've developed very precise and lethal weapons that are very effective, and we're prepared," Fox said. "We're just ready for any contingency."

Faced with tightening Western sanctions, Iranian officials have stepped up threats to close the Strait of Hormuz if the country's oil exports are blocked. A fifth of the world's oil supply passes through the narrow waterway, which is only about 30 miles (50 kilometers) across at its narrowest point.

Iran and Oman share control of the waterway, but it is considered an international strait, meaning free transit passage is guaranteed under international law.

Iran's army chief, Gen. Ataollah Salehi, early last month warned an American warship not to return to the Gulf shortly after the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and another vessel left. Another carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, entered the Gulf without incident on Jan. 22.

Fox acknowledged that Iran's military is "capable of striking a blow" against American forces in the Gulf, particularly using unconventional means such as small attack boats or mines laid along shipping lanes.

"We're not bulletproof. There are people that can take a swipe at us," Fox said.

But he added that he has reminded officers under his command that they "have a right and an obligation of self defense" if attacked.

The admiral's comments echo those of other Western officials, who say they will respond swiftly to any Iranian attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CBS' "Face the Nation" last month that Iranian forces could block shipping through the strait "for a period of time," but added, "We can defeat that."

In his briefing in the Bahraini capital Manama, Fox voiced support for the tiny island nation that has hosted U.S. Navy vessels for decades.
"They are a long-term partner and a very important piece of our ability to do our mission," he said of the country.

Bahrain has been rocked by protests led by the country's majority Shiites against the country's Sunni monarchy that erupted in force a year ago. Street battles between security forces and protesters still flare up almost daily in the predominantly Shiite villages around the capital.

Fox's command encompasses the bulk of the Middle East, including the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and a large swath of the Indian Ocean along the east African coast. There are about 25,000 sailors under his command.

[vector7]

'Iran must attack Israel by 2014'

By JPOST.COM STAFF 02/09/2012 11:34

Khamenei strategist releases document providing legal, religious justification for annihilation of Jewish people.



By REUTERS Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's strategist provided the legal and religious justification for the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people, in a document published on conservative Farsi website Alef. Reports of the document began to circulate the internet this week.

The document, written by strategy specialist Alireza Forghani, outlined the reasons why, "In the name of Allah, Iran must attack Israel by 2014."
Related:

• Iran: US, Israel vulnerable to counterattack
• Tehran 'ready to impose oil ban' on Europeans

Claiming to only represent the personal opinion of its author, and not the Iranian government, the doctrine was published on a website believed to have close ties with the Ayatollah.

Forghani called the Jewish state a "cancerous tumor for the Middle East" and reminded his readers that "All our troubles are due to Israel!"

"Every Muslim is obliged to equip himself against Israel," he urged, reasoning that if the Muslim world does not attack Israel in the near future, "the opportunity could be lost and it may not be possible to stop them."

The document explained that the war against Israel must be carried out in the name of "defensive jihad" - or the protecting of Islam against aggressors "who want to gain domination over the Muslims and kill them."

It also clarified that although Israel had yet to strike Iran, its occupation of Palestinian lands already justifies an attack as Islam dictates that "the political borders [of the world] cannot divide Muslims and the earth is divided into two parts - Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries."
Forghani pointed out that Israel is the only country in the world with a Jewish majority, using the findings of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics's last consensus for veracity.
He posited that since Israel requires US and western support in order to attack Iran, the latter should take advantage of western "passiveness" to "wipe out Israel."

The document also provides a "concise description of mid- and long-range ballistic missiles that can target territories of this regional cancerous tumor" and destroy Israel in "less than nine minutes."

[American Patriot]

I'm not really talking about these conflicts either, although 'Saddam' as a threat is a direct result of meddling in M.E. affairs-playing him off against the Iranians, which was necessary because they are anti-American, because we supported the Shah, etc...'Blowback' is a bitch.

Again, if Iran is a direct threat to the US, make the case for declaring war, put it before a vote of Congress. If that fails, form a group of volunteers to fight for Iran's enemies, if that's legal.

Well, ok... lol.

I'm glad you straightened that out.

I don't see it as "meddling" when we stop a rogue nation from putting nukes into the hands of terrorists.

Sorry, but if anything we should be there kicking Iran's ass NOW.

[American Patriot]

If that's the case, not saying it isn't, Obama needs to go before Congress and get the authority to declare a state of war between Iran and the United States.

No, he doesn't. Well, "declaration of war" yes, but no he doesn't HAVE to go to Congress.

It's called "The War Powers Act".

For the record Congress has ONLY declared war five times in the history of this country. The War Powers act is under US Code 1541-1548, and is also known as "The War Powers Resolution of 1973".

I will say that if you're unfamiliar with it, you should read it. All of the Liberals who are constantly screaming about how "Bush lied, People Died" haven't read it, and I'm betting money that most Libertarians haven't read it either because a WHOLE lot of both groups go on and on about how it's NOT Constitutional for the President (Bush, or whomever) to do what he did.

Truth is, it's in the US LAW.

Now... if you want it stopped, change the laws.

Until then, the President HAS the Authority to defend this country as commander in chief.

Iran is making a bomb, even if you and others don't BELIEVE they are making a bomb, they are. They are LYING to the media, to the UN, to the USA, to everyone, while they are STILL developing nuclear weapons.

Those nuclear weapons will have a profound effect on the ability of Iran to "project power" - know what that means? WE project power in the form of military, weapons and personnel.

If Iran gets that ability, AND has nukes to back it up - the Middle east will fall quickly to Iran and it will become the next "Nazi Germany" in the Middle East.

Europe will not be far behind - because you know the French won't use nukes and they are nearly taken over by Muslims already.

Look - if the President (Obama or whomever) DOES NOT do something to STOP Iran, then he will be RESPONSIBLE for the ultimate outcome.

When we lose NYC to a nuclear weapon - or some other city, it will be Obama's fault. Not anyone BUT him.

Look here, the President of the United States (I don't care who he is) IS the Commander in Chief of the United States militaries and has a responsibility first and foremost to protect this country from ANY threats from outside.

That includes Iran.

Now, I'm not going to argue with you about this.

I've just laid out the FACTS. If you want to dispute them, that's you're prerogative, however, be aware that I've told you NOTHING BUT the facts in this situation.

This is not "interference" with the ME. This is stopping an evil that will come back to bite us in our ass sooner than later.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[American Patriot]

All I'm saying is this;

1. It didn't have to come to this point at all, with Iran and our M.E. policy in general. Although I know why it did- "Peak Oil'...If we don't secure the Oilfields, Civilization will collapse and the greater part of Mankind will die.

MICHAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez. Stop it. IT DID come to this and would have if we DID NOTHING. There is no such thing as "peak oil" crisis. That is bullshit, made up and you know it as well as I know it.

2. Having got to this point, to avoid a number of problems we need the truth to be laid out to the American public...On the other hand, because of the issue I just identified, that may not be possible.

We got to this point because the Muslims declared war on the West, period. it has nothing to do with OUR behavior and you know what? SO WHAT IF IT DID? Our behavior is still civilized in comparison to those fucking animals.

3. The Elite of the Western World has the choice of permenant occupation and war in the M.E., because of Oil and Israel, or conversion of the World to Islam and It's use as a totalitarian mechanism of control during the 'Peak Oil' crisis.

"Occupation"?

Prove "occupation". We do NOT occupy any country illegally. Where do you come up with this crap? Is this what Ron paul is teaching you people?

if so, you'd better wake the hell up.

[American Patriot]

Fair enough.

You're still wrong. lol

America will NOT go into that "Good Night" quietly. Sorry

[American Patriot]

Thousands of police stations across the country received alerts yesterday to look for internal attacks from Iran - terrorist attacks.

Today, Iran stopped providing oil to several countries in the EU in response to the sanctions.

When the Aircraft Carrier USS Lincoln left the Straits in the last few hours, they were shadowed by several Iranian Aircraft and boats.

These are the things we looked for in the Cold War.... triggers

[American Patriot]

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West






updated 1 hour 32 minutes ago
TEHRAN — Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how on Wednesday, including new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster, a move that may hasten a drift towards confrontation with the West over suspicions it is seeking the means to make atomic bombs.
Tehran was driving home its resolve to pursue a nuclear program its hardline Islamic clerical leaders see as a pillar of power, protection and prestige despite Western sanctions that are inflicting increasing damage on its oil-based economy.
Iran also aimed to show that the tightening sanctions noose has failed to stop it making progress in nuclear technology and to firm its hand in any renewed negotiations with world powers.
"The era of bullying nations has past. The arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a live television broadcast.
"Our nuclear path will continue."
However, Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam television said the government had handed a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressing readiness to "hold new talks over its nuclear program in a constructive way."
An Ashton spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the letter, saying she was evaluating it and would consult with the United States, Russia, China and other partners among the big powers.
Advertise | AdChoices







Iranian officials have long refused to negotiate curbs on its program, saying it aims solely to produce electricity for booming domestic demand in OPEC's No. 2 oil-exporting state.
The most recent talks between world powers and Iran collapsed in January 2011 when they could not agree an agenda.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions are ultimately judged futile in reining in its nuclear activity.
IRAN DENIES BANNING OIL EXPORTS TO EU
Underlining the high stakes and at times nervous confusion arising from the nuclear stand-off, Iran's Oil Ministry denied a state media report that it had cut off oil exports to six European Union states. Brent crude oil prices jumped up $1 a barrel to $118.35 in reaction to the announcement.
"We deny this report ... If such a decision is made, it will be announced by Iran's Supreme National Security Council," a spokesman for the ministry told Reuters.
Iran's English language Press TV said Tehran had halted oil deliveries to France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Netherlands and Spain -- its biggest EU customers -- in retaliation for an EU ban on Iranian crude due to take effect in July.
After the EU's decision on January 23, hard-line Iranian parliamentarians mooted legislation to freeze oil exports to the EU, but no date for a session to take such a step has been set.
"It is not really surprising that we are seeing this chaos as it reflects the fractured political process in Iran," said Nic Brown, head of commodities research at Natixis in London.
"You have the oil ministry responsible for revenues while other parts of the government are trying to make political statements. At the end of the day, they need revenues and they will remain dependent on the Europeans if they cannot place their oil elsewhere. Iran remains absolutely dependent on income from its oil exports," Brown told Reuters.
The Islamic Republic is the world's No. 5 oil exporter, with 2.6 million barrels going abroad daily, and the EU consumes around a fifth of those volumes.
With Western sanctions now spreading to block Iran's oil exports and central bank financing of trade, Tehran has been resorting to barter to import staples like rice, cooking oil and tea, commodities traders say.
Advertise | AdChoices







The most recent talks between world powers and Iran failed in January 2011 because of Tehran's unwillingness to discuss transparent limits on enrichment, as demanded by several U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 2006.

[American Patriot]

World News


Iran says it put fuel rods into reactor


(0) |
|
|


Tweet

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Freedom Square in Tehran, Iran on February 11, 2012. UPI/Maryam Rahmanian

Published: Feb. 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

TEHRAN, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Iran claimed Wednesday it has put its first domestically made nuclear fuel rods into a nuclear reactor.
Tehran said the move was "giant step" in its nuclear program but the country may not be able to convert the rods into fuel, Arutz Sheva reported.
The Israeli broadcaster noted analysts say the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often has made exaggerated claims, such as the development of long-range missiles.
Iran said the 20 percent-enriched uranium rods were inserted into a "research reactor" in Tehran.
"We have started enriching uranium to 20 percent to build nuclear fuel rods since Western countries are reluctant to provide us with assistance," Iranian deputy nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri told the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
Iran had said last month domestically made nuclear fuel rods had been tested successfully.
Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but Western countries have tightened sanctions amid concerns the country is working to develop nuclear weapons.


Topics: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Recommended Stories

• Poll: Iranians mixed on nuke development
• Iran warns against military action
• Iran optimism as IAEA delegation arrives
• Iran to restart nuclear talks
• Ahmadinejad hints Iran ready to talk nukes

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...#ixzz1mTR3Fvtv

[American Patriot]

Iran Claims Advances in Uranium Enrichment; Halts Crude Exports to 6 EU States

Jessica Menton | Feb 15, 2012 12:33pm EST | 2min:05sec
Iran has again raised global tensions to new levels by claiming that it has made advances in its uranium enrichment program. Iranian state-controlled television stated that the country’s nuclear scientists have successfully built "fourth generation" uranium enrichment centrifuges and has also produced its own reactor fuel plates.
The TV authorities noted that the new centrifuges are made of carbon fiber which are "speedier, produce less waste and occupy less space.” As for the fuel plates, Iranian broadcasters stated that they were created for a Teheran research reactor whose fuel stock was running near empty. In addition, state TV said significant progress has been made in 20 percent enrichment at the facility in Natanz, well beyond the enrichment activities which were already taking place there. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to confirm these new developments later on Wednesday.
Ahmadinejad has already asserted that Iran will never halt its uranium enrichment program. James Reynolds, BBC’s correspondent in Iran, wrote: “The key factors in the centrifuge announcement will be exactly how many are produced and how efficient they are. Nuclear experts believe that sanctions will make it hard for Iran to get hold of the kind of materials it needs to make its centrifuges as efficient as possible.”
Reynolds added: “In theory, faster, more efficient centrifuges would shorten the timeline for the production of highly enriched uranium - should Iran choose to take that step.” The state-controlled IRNA news agency also said that Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili dispatched a letter to the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in which he declared: "Iran welcomes the readiness… to return to [nuclear] negotiations in order to take fundamental steps toward further co-operation." The United States and Israel believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons (a charge Iran denies).
The U.S. and EU have already imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iran’s crucial oil industry in order to force Teheran into giving up its atomic energy program. The UN’s nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which issued a damning report last November indicating Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, is scheduled to send delegates to Iran next week to discuss the matter. Separately, Iran said it has halted sending crude oil shipments to six European nations in response to EU sanctions. Press TV said the six states affected are Netherlands, Greece, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy.