Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[American Patriot]

U.S. lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran
Yahoo ^



U.S. lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran


By Richard Cowan 26 minutes ago


A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday pushed legislation to prohibit a U.S. attack on Iran without Congress' permission.


The effort, led by Rep. Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record), a North Carolina Republican who in 2005 joined calls from many Democrats for a phased U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq war, came as lawmakers voiced concerns that the Bush administration might provoke a confrontation with neighboring Iran.


"The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress" authorizes a U.S. attack on Iran, Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


The joint resolution, which would have the force of law if passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush, would waive the congressional authorization only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was "demonstrably" imminent.


So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.


Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he did not trust Iran or its intentions in the Middle East. But he said the resolution on Iran was needed because the Bush administration had "lied so many times" in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.


Backers of the legislation said they hoped Democratic leaders in the House would advance their resolution in coming months, possibly as part of Iraq war funding legislation or other Iraq-related measures.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

[American Patriot]

January 16, 2007

Dead Ball


In our The 800-Pound Guerrilla post I explained why I thought Bush's latest moves against Iranian influence in Iraq were not enough:

The plan, it appears, is to limit our military to attacks against terrorists and their supply lines within Iraq and refrain from attacking the source of those terrorists and supply lines: Iran.

Bush is attempting to cure the symptoms while ignoring the disease. As such, the weapons and terrorists will keep flowing across the border, and the chaos in Iraq, though it may rise and fall, will ultimately continue because Iran needs it to continue. How can we expect our troops to win a war in which we don't allow them to directly attack the enemy?

In World War II, we didn't stop with engaging enemy soldiers at the front lines; nor did we stop at disrupting their supply lines. We took the fight all the way to the weapons factories and the command centers from which the war emanated.

That point, I thought, deserved it's own cartoon, especially since the White House is bending over backwards to "reassure" everyone that we're only engaging Iran within Iraq. For instance, from Newsweek: Tough Talk About Iran: How Far Will It Go?.

In fact, administration officials (anonymous due to diplomatic sensitivities) concede that Bush's Iran language may have been overly aggressive, raising unwarranted fears about military strikes on Tehran. Instead, they say, Bush was trying to warn Iran to keep its operatives out of Iraq, and to reassure Gulf allies—including Saudi Arabia—that the United States would protect them against Iranian aggression.

And from an article last week:

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

And another:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Armed Services Committee that U.S. troops are trying to crack down on the spread of Iranian-supplied explosives into Iraq, and the administration is "making it clear that those who are involved in activities that cost the lives of American soldiers are going to be subject to actions on the part of the United States inside Iraq." [Emphasis added]

We owe it to our troops to minimize the risks they face, and to do that in Iraq, we should let them go into Iran and eliminate the Iranian IEDs, the Iranian weapons, and the Iranian-trained jihadis at the source before more Americans are killed and maimed.


UDPATE -- Jan. 18: FOX News Poll: Most Think Troop Surge is Bush’s Last Chance in Iraq.

A majority of Americans consider President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq his last chance for victory there, according to a new FOX News poll.

Overall, the president's plan receives only minority support, and that comes mainly from his party faithful. A large part of the public's opposition to the plan could be based on the fact that most see it as a continuation of the same strategy, rather than as a real change.


Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from January 16 to January 17. The poll has a 3-point error margin.


By 59 percent to 36 percent, Americans oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, not only because most believe it is unlikely the plan will succeed, but also because few voters see the plan Bush announced last week as a significant change to current policy.

Posted by Forkum at January 16, 2007 05:53 PM

[American Patriot]

Diplomats: Iran May Start Enrichment
AP via WP ^ | Jan. 18, 2007 | George Jahn



VIENNA, Austria -- Iran is ready to start assembling thousands of centrifuges to produce enriched uranium _ a possible pathway to nuclear arms _ after finishing most preliminary work on an underground facility housing such machines, a diplomat and a U.N. official said Thursday.


The two said much, but not all, of the hardware needed for the installation of the centrifuges was now in place at the Natanz facility designated to house Tehran's industrial-scale enrichment program.


Both men _ who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss confidential information _ emphasized that the facility had been ready for some time, and there was no sign that actual work on putting in the centrifuges would begin at any particular date.


The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this, saying its program is only for generating electricity.


The revelations _ based on reports by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency visiting Natanz this week _ appeared to strengthen claims from Tehran that it is moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material.


Low-enriched uranium can be used to generate power, while highly enriched levels serve as the fissile core of nuclear warheads


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

[American Patriot]

I've seen several reports of this so far, mostly from some left wing papers.

I don't believe it for a second though, it's another Magician's Trick. Wave the left hand while hiding the coin in the right.

Rebuke in Iran to Its President on Nuclear Role (Iran To Give Up Nukes?)
New York Times ^ | 19 January 2007 | Michael Slackman




TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.


Just one month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.



In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.



It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”



It was unclear, however, whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran’s public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad’s profile or was signaling a change in policy.



The presidency is a relatively weak position with no official authority over foreign policy, the domain of the supreme leader. But Mr. Ahmadinejad has used his post as a bully pulpit to insert himself into the nuclear debate...

While Iran remains publicly defiant, insisting that it will move ahead with its nuclear ambitions, it is under increasing strain as political and economic pressures grow. And the message that Iran’s most senior officials seem to be sending is that Mr. Ahmadinejad, with his harsh approach and caustic comments, is undermining Iran’s cause and its standing.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

[American Patriot]

US Signals to Gulf Allies that Attack On Iran is Possible This Year

Geostrategy Direct ^ | January 24, 2007 Issue | Bill Gertz-Washington Times Military Reporter




U.S. signals Gulf allies that attack on Iran is possible this year
WASHINGTON — The United States has let its Gulf Arab allies know that an attack on Iran could take place in 2007.


Diplomatic sources said U.S. Central Command and the U.S. intelligence community have conducted discussions with Gulf Cooperation Council states.


"There has not been a U.S. commitment, but the discussions have been interpreted as an expression of intent," a ource said.


So far, the U.S. Navy has sent two strike carrier groups to the Gulf.
The source said the naval build-up would be completed by February as additional PAC-3 systems arrive in GCC states.

[American Patriot]

Tick... Tick... Tick...

March 2007 to May timeframe. Just a hunch

[American Patriot]

Dems seek to bar U.S. attacks on Iran
Associated Press ^ | 2007/1



WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.


The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.


President Bush said last week the U.S. will "seek out and destroy" networks providing that support. While top administration officials have said they have no plans to attack Iran itself, they have declined to rule it out.


This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf — the second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.


Reid m, , ), D-Calif., addressed the National Press Club on Democrats‘ view of the state of the union four days before Bush addresses Congress and the nation.


Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries‘ influence in the conflict.


"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we‘re not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked

[American Patriot]

USS Ronald Reagan To Deploy
NBC ^ | UPDATED: 8:04 am PST January 19, 2007



SAN DIEGO -- The San Diego-based aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan will leave its home port in a few weeks for a mission related to President George W. Bush's plan to send a surge of new troops to Iraq, sources told NBC 7/39.

[American Patriot]

Oh by the way, I posted this HERE, rather than IRAQ because, I don't for a second think it has anything to do with a surge. I think we're going in, and we're going to do it soon.

[Jag]

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/...icleid=2370239

Volume 5, Issue 1 (January 18, 2007)

Iranian Involvement in Afghanistan
By Muhammad Tahir
The Afghan media has published an increasing number of critical reports about Iran's secret contacts with insurgent groups in Afghanistan, specifically those groups fighting against the U.S. presence in the country. On September 5, for instance, the Pashto-language newspaper Weesa referred to unidentified local officials in Nimruz province who claimed that Tehran was financing and providing weaponry to Afghanistan's militant groups. In March 2006, the Afghan official news agency Bakhtar reported on the secret activities of Iranians, including officers belonging to the armed forces, in border towns inside Afghanistan. Bakhtar quoted a high-ranking Afghan border policeman in Herat province, General Mohammad Ayub Safi, saying that "in only the first quarter of this year [2006], more than 10 Iranian officials have been arrested in Herat who were allegedly involved in illegal activities." These developments show that Iran has been increasing its operations in Afghanistan in an effort to gain influence with the contending insurgent factions and to hasten the departure of U.S. troops from the country.

Tehran has a long history of close contact with militant groups in the region, especially with Shiite groups in central Afghanistan. According to Kabul-based analyst Ustad Faizullah Amini, who spoke to The Jamestown Foundation in December, Iran has been against the Talibanization of Afghanistan, but the presence of U.S. troops at its doorsteps has changed the direction of its foreign policy. Now, Tehran is willing to cooperate with different groups to reach the shared goal of defeating the United States in Afghanistan. After the September 11 attacks, an unidentified official source in Tehran said that Iran's new policy in Afghanistan would be to play all available cards in its hand to defeat U.S. efforts there (Asia Times, February 14, 2002). According to Amini, this fear has led Iran to act fast, and cooperate with all anti-American forces in the region regardless of their religion and language. In addition to Amini, many other regional experts argue that the current escalation of violence in some parts of Afghanistan is a direct result of Tehran's new strategy.

Background of Iranian Involvement in Afghanistan

More than a decade ago, while mujahideen leaders were toppling the Moscow-backed Afghan leader Mohammad Najibullah, it was predicted that a strong Sunni fundamentalist regime in Kabul could come into conflict with Shiite Iran. This fear led Tehran to support groups such as the Shiite Hazara parties and the influential Tajik commander Ismail Khan in Herat province. When the Taliban finally gained control of Afghanistan, Iran referred to the development as a Sunni and U.S. plot to isolate Iran. The relationship between Kabul and Tehran took a more serious hit when Taliban forces killed seven Iranian diplomats who were serving in Mazar-e-Sharif in August 1998. This Taliban action led Tehran to announce its open support for all forces that would resist the Taliban and to increase its activities to bring anti-Taliban factions together. The most notable act by Tehran was to allow the influential Pashtun leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to be stationed in Iran.

Tehran gave thousands of Hazara leaders refuge, training and financial support to fight against the Taliban. Yet the involvement of the al-Qaeda network in the September 11 attacks and the impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan led Iran to again re-shape its strategy in the region since it considered the U.S. presence in the region a much greater threat than the unorganized Taliban.

9/11 Changes Iranian Policy toward Afghanistan

Shortly before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Tehran made some swift policy changes in the region, which were evidenced by comments said by the top political and religious leader in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. In his televised speech on September 26, Khamenei said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran will not offer any assistance to America and its alliance in their attacks [on Afghanistan]." He also accused the United States of seeking to establish itself in Central Asia—Afghanistan, Pakistan and the subcontinent—under the pretext of "establishing security."

Many regional experts argue that Tehran does not believe that a stable Afghanistan with a large, long-term U.S. troop presence is in its interests. Tehran worries that if both its neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, are stabilized, Iran will be sandwiched between two pro-U.S. governments. In such a situation, "If Iran has not been attacked, it will definitely be troubled by internal pressures, such as minorities, inspired by the developments in the neighborhood," said Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin, a regional analyst with the Ankara-based think-tank Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies, who was interviewed in December.

The difference between new and past Iranian policies is that now Iran is ready to cooperate and support any group, regardless of their religion and language, who can fight the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, according to Bahmen Karimi's column published recently in the local Afghan paper Arman-e-Milli. The columnist also argues that the escalation in fighting in the bordering provinces with Iran and in the Shiite populated central Afghan provinces is the direct result of the Iranian strategy. For instance, on October 2, 2006, The Guardian published an article stating that "military and diplomatic sources said they had received numerous reports of Iranians meeting tribal elders in Taliban-influenced areas, bringing offers of military or more often financial support for the fight against foreign forces." In addition, Afghan analyst Amini proposes that the armed groups who have been sidelined by the current central regime in Afghanistan create potential forces for any outsider such as Iran to harness and influence. He specifically points out some of the commanders of the former Northern Alliance, as well as Shiite forces in central Afghanistan, who feel ignored by the new administration. One of these is Abdul Rashid Dostum who, according to Aina TV on November 25, 2006, met with Iranian Ambassador to Afghanistan Reza Bahrami on November 24, 2006. The influence of Iran on the charismatic Tajik leader Ismail Khan is already widely known.

Multi-Layered Iranian Policy on Afghanistan

According to reports published in local Afghan newspapers, including Weesa, Iranian involvement is not limited to unofficial cooperation with militant forces, but in fact includes official efforts to influence the Afghan administration. Some regional experts argue that Iran is using the political tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan in its favor, leveraging the fact that Iran is the only route by which Afghanistan can maintain foreign trade. Afghanistan is becoming increasingly dependent on Iran for its transit trade route as a result of the tense Afghan-Pakistan relationship. Through this route, Afghanistan receives key imports such as electronic equipment, cars and spare parts—much of which originates in Japan. Food, clothing and other essential products are also supplied through Iran. This reality limits Washington's options to pressure Tehran since if Iran blocks its border, the Afghan economy could collapse.

In the meantime, the Iranian government is active in the financial sector as well. According to the Iranian official news agency IRNA, the chambers of commerce of the two countries have recently signed a number of documents, which are expected to make Iran a major player in the Afghan economy. Iran has become one of the largest donors in the reconstruction process in Afghanistan. An Iranian Foreign Ministry official puts the total amount of aid to Afghanistan since 2001 at about $600 million.

The Iranian media is also publishing provocative reports against the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, blaming Washington for not delivering what it promised to the Afghan people. The well-known Iranian newspaper Jamhur-e-Islami published an article on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks questioning the legacy and intentions of the United States in Afghanistan: "The Afghan people do not see any improvement in their lives and welfare as it was promised to them. Moreover, they are forced to bow to the presence of foreigners on their land and suffer the shame of occupation. Now the Afghan people know that America's goal in attacking Afghanistan and occupying it was part of the global plan America pursues for domination of the Middle East."

Iran encourages students who have graduated in Iran to be more active in establishing religious schools in Afghanistan and to strengthen Afghan-Iran ties. The education attaché at the Iranian Embassy in Kabul was quoted by Weesa on November 6 saying that "Shiite students who have graduated from Iranian universities are the messengers of Iran in Afghanistan and they should play a more important role." The Iranian official called on the Afghan government to permit Iran to launch cable network offices that operate Iranian educational programs in order to curb U.S. cultural influence in Afghanistan. Iran has recently inaugurated its huge cultural center in Kabul, which works to promote Iranian culture and to spread official propaganda by organizing workshops and literary exchange programs. In opposition to these Iranian efforts, Western countries have done little in Afghanistan, which is a result of the extensive cultural, religious and linguistic differences. Iran has used this void to change the situation in Afghanistan in its own favor.

Conclusion

If the increasing violence—not only on the Afghan-Pak border, but also in the areas bordering Iran and in the central Shiite populated provinces—is taken into account, the view of the aforementioned Afghan analysts seems to carry value. Experts on the region believe that the insurgency in Afghanistan has many directions, one of which is leaning toward Tehran. Insurgent fighters in Afghanistan traditionally opposed to working with Iran may have also changed their policy in light of the mutual short-term interest of removing U.S. and Western influence from the country. Due to the strategic location of Iran and its importance to the Afghan economy, however, the Kabul administration has avoided speaking publicly about Iranian influence in Afghanistan, as they believe, as a result of political tension with Pakistan, Iran is Kabul's last significant open door to the world.

Jag

[Jag]

Iran to Conduct Missile War Games

Jan 21 1:35 AM US/Eastern

Iran to Conduct Missile War Games Jan 21 1:35 AM US/Eastern TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran plans to conduct missile war games during a three-day period beginning Sunday, state-run television reported. The war games will be carried out near Garmsar city, about 60 miles southeast of Tehran, according to the broadcast. "Zalzal and Fajr-5 missiles will be test fired in the war game," the broadcast quoted an unnamed military commander, as saying. Both are considered short-range missiles. The exercise will be the first by Iran since the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on December 23, which banned selling materials and technology that could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs and the freezing of assets of 10 Iranian companies and individuals. Earlier in November Iran test-fired dozens of missiles _ including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel. Iran held three large-scale military exercises last year. In its April exercises, Iran tested what it called an "ultra-horizon" missile, which is fired from helicopters and jets, and the Fajr-3 missile, which can reportedly evade radar and use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously. Jag

[American Patriot]

Marie Colvin and Leila Asgharzadeh, The Times Online reported that Iran's supreme leader is considering a change of policy on the country’s nuclear programme in an effort to defuse growing tension with the West. A few excerpts:

officials close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favour the appointment of a more moderate team for international negotiations on the supervision of its nuclear facilities. ...

Khamenei is said to believe that Washington’s aim is not only to halt Iran’s nuclear program but to overthrow the regime. ...

Under proposals now being debated, an international group made up of the permanent five members of the UN security council, plus Germany or a nuclear power such as India, would oversee and monitor Iran’s nuclear program.

The full text:

IRAN’S supreme leader is considering a change of policy on the country’s nuclear programme in an effort to defuse growing tension with the West, according to senior sources in Tehran. Alarmed by mounting US pressure and United Nations sanctions, officials close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favour the appointment of a more moderate team for international negotiations on the supervision of its nuclear facilities.
The move would be a snub to the bellicose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose threats to destroy Israel have left Iran increasingly isolated and facing a serious economic downturn.
Tehran sources said the impetus for a policy switch was coming from Khamenei, who has ultimate power over Iran’s foreign policy, security and armed forces.
Khamenei is said to believe that Washington’s aim is not only to halt Iran’s nuclear programme but to overthrow the regime.
He also considers the national interest is being undermined by an inexperienced president whose rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory.
Under proposals now being debated, an international group made up of the permanent five members of the UN security council, plus Germany or a nuclear power such as India, would oversee and monitor Iran’s nuclear programme.
Washington may judge this too little, too late. But European negotiators would be expected to regard such a move as a significant step towards reopening talks about the programme. Tehran insists it is for civilian power but the West believes it is aimed at creating nuclear weapons.
Last month the security council imposed sanctions on Iran. It set a 60-day deadline for Tehran to suspend nuclear activity or face further sanctions. Washington’s tough stance and claims that Israel has drawn up plans for a nuclear strike against Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities have alarmed Tehran’s conservative leadership.
Ahmadinejad tried to dismiss such fears on a trip to Central America last week. Referring to a Sunday Times report about preparations for possible Israeli airstrikes with nuclear-tipped “bunker busters”, he said: “I don’t think they would ever dare to attack us, neither them nor their masters. They won’t do such a stupid thing.”
He is due to appear before parliament today to present his annual budget. But the poor showing of his allies in December’s local elections has also emboldened his parliamentary critics.
In a sign that his power is waning, Iranian MPs have criticised Ahmadinejad for his handling of the nuclear negotiations and the country’s mounting economic crisis.
Sa’id Leylaz, a leading economist, said: “The future of the nation has never been this dark, both economically and politically.”
Iranians face rocketing prices for food and housing and sharply increased unemployment, estimated at 30%.
“Ahmadinejad is under extreme pressures from his own supporters to change policies,” said Leylaz. Sources in Tehran say Ahmadinejad could be vulnerable, as Khamenei has clearly signalled his displeasure and has the power to dismiss him.
Khamenei rarely speaks in public, but the Islamic Republic, a newspaper he owns, launched a strong attack on Ahmadinejad’s “personalisation” of the nuclear issue. In an editorial, it stated: “Our advice to the president is to speak about the nuclear issue only during important national occasions, stop provoking aggressive powers like the United States and concentrate more on the daily needs of the people, those who voted for you on your promises.”
Ahmadinejad’s weakness is being exploited by Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a conservative pragmatist and former president who was defeated by him in elections in 2005.
According to the Tehran sources, one of the possible members of a new Iranian negotiating team would be Mohammad Moussavian, a former senior nuclear negotiator and an ally of Rafsanjani.
Last week Moussavian accused Ahmadinejad of misleading the country about the dangers it faced as a result of UN penalties.
Additional reporting: Safa Haeri

[Neue Regel]

Tick... Tick... Tick...

March 2007 to May timeframe. Just a hunch

A question of curiosity, Rick. How do you see it opening up, how does it play out, and especially - where do the ground units come from?

(Disclaimer: I am no military guru, nor pretend to be. I am however professionally a risk analyst and my question is honest. I simply seek an informed opinion outside the left/right media social skew)

Mid-East events from the past 20 year predicating the scenario, it opens with the classic US volley of Navy based missiles and Navy/AF air power softening and taking out hardened targets and defense critical targets. These two branches likely have some capacity for additional operations and could pull this off (especially with 3-4 month lead time), but I have a real hard time seeing where additional ground units could come from without critically sacrificing operations elsewhere. I seriously doubt Iraq will be in a state of security to pull several tens of thousands of troops from in the next 6 months. (Though I believe I saw a Pentagon official saying the "surge" level troops could possibly start being pulled out by late summer.) Afghanistan is better, but fewer troops there. Units rotated back to the States are going to be going under heavy re-equipping/training/downtime for a good 6-12 months easily, per the Pentagon. Across the talk shows/news/radio I hear time and time again Colonels and Generals (Ex and current) stating we are realistically stretched to upper capacity in a functional way. I keep looking for some troop capacity that realistically could be utilized for opening an Iran ground war, and I don't see it without destabilizing impact elsewhere.

Having said all that, yes, I do see Iran as the major threat to the entire region. I just don't see the US militarily in a position to take them on with overwhelming forces. I'd hate to see the US do a couple dozen surgical air strikes and put the ball in Iran's court to see how they react. You cede full control.

Again, just an honest question. I am not militarily in the information loop, and from a civilian information perspective I don't see it as a viable option for the foreseeable year.

[Jag]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

Iran bars 38 U.N. nuclear inspectors
Mon Jan 22, 2007


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.

The IAEA confirmed Iranian word of the ban but said this would not handicap its monitoring of a plant where Iran plans soon to expand from experimental into industrial-scale output of nuclear fuel in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Iran's ISNA news agency said the move was a "first step" in limiting cooperation with the IAEA in line with a demand made by the hardline parliament after the Council agreed the sanctions.


The West accuses Iran of seeking to build atom bombs under the cover of a professed civilian nuclear energy program, while Tehran insists it aims solely to generate electricity.

"Iran has decided not to give entry permission to 38 inspectors from the IAEA and has announced this limitation to the IAEA officially," the head of parliament's Foreign Affairs and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said.

"The nationality of those who were barred is not the main basis for us," he told ISNA, without elaborating. Iranian government officials were not available for comment. They had said earlier Tehran would continue basic cooperation with IAEA inspections and had no intention of quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) over the new sanctions.

Jag

[American Patriot]

Iran tests missiles as tensions rise
AP via Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Jan. 23, 2007 | Ali Akbar Dareini

The move suggests no letup in the dispute with the West. One missile could hit U.S. bases in the gulf.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran conducted missile tests yesterday as its leadership stepped up warnings of a possible military confrontation with the United States.

The drum-beating suggested Iran does not intend to back down in its standoff with the West. It also could be an effort to rally the public behind the government and silence increasingly bold criticism at home of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's antagonism toward the United States.

Iran's leaders have touted the possibility of a U.S. attack since President Bush announced on Jan. 9 the deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the gulf region, a move U.S. officials have said is a show of strength directed at Iran.

Yesterday, the Iranian military began five days of maneuvers near the northern city of Garmsar, about 60 miles southeast of Tehran, state television reported. The military tested its Zalzal-1 and Fajr-5 missiles, the report said.

The Zalzal-1, able to carry a 1,200-pound payload, has a range of 200 miles. That would put Iraq, U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf, and eastern Saudi Arabia in its range. The Fajr-5, with a 1,800-pound payload, has a range of 35 miles.

Neither could reach Israel, but Iran has other missiles that can. It was not known whether the missiles tested were capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The Iranian show of strength came as the aircraft carrier USS Stennis was heading toward the Gulf, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in a beefed-up U.S. military presence. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.

The United States also is deploying Patriot missiles and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf and F-16 fighter planes to the Incirlik base in neighboring Turkey.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was aimed at convincing Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made the United States vulnerable.

Washington and its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the allegation, insisting its nuclear activities are aimed only at producing energy. The United States also has accused Iran of backing extremists who are fueling Iraq's violence.

The U.S. buildup has sparked loud warnings from Iranian officials that the United States will attack.

U.S. officials have long refused to rule out any options in the faceoff with Iran, but say military action would be a last resort.

In the last few days, hard-line Iranian newspapers have threatened suicide attacks against U.S. targets and said missiles fired from Iran would turn Israel into "a scorching hell" if the United States took military action.

One of the papers that carried the threats yesterday is close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting the highest levels are involved in sounding the alarm over the U.S. deployment.

Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran was "ready for anything" in its confrontation with the United States.

Iranian reformers and conservatives, who once were allies of Ahmadinejad, now accuse him of hurting Iran with his virulent anti-U.S. rhetoric, while failing to repair Iran's weakening economy. Rising prices also have fueled anger against the president.

Iran Bars 38 U.N. Nuclear Inspectors

Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a U.N. list from entering the country, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said yesterday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month.

The rejected officialsare on a list of potential inspectors drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities.

"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the IAEA list remained eligible, but did not explain how Iran had decided which inspectors to bar.

Last month,the U.N. Security Council imposed limited trade sanctions on Iran over its refusal to cease uranium enrichment, a process that can produce material for nuclear energy or bombs.

Days later,the Iranian parliament passed a motion that obliged the government to revise its cooperation with the IAEA, but gave it a free hand to determine the steps to be taken.

[American Patriot]

Iran testing missiles, to bar UN monitors
AFP via Gulf Times ^ | Jan. 23, 2007 | Staff

TEHRAN: Iran launched a series of war games yesterday and vowed to block UN nuclear inspectors from entering the country in a fresh show of defiance over its controversial nuclear aims.

EU foreign ministers in Brussels, meanwhile, deplored Tehran’s lack of co-operation over its nuclear programme and vowed to fully implement UN sanctions, including asset freezes, trade stoppages and travel bans.

Short-range missiles were to be tested in the four-day exercise southeast of Tehran, which came as the US military was sending a second warship to Gulf waters amid growing international tension over Iran’s atomic programme.

"Ground forces of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards are completely ready to tackle any kind of foreign threats," said artillery commander Majid Ayeneh.

Among missiles to be tested were the Fajr 5, which military sources have reported has a range of around 75km, and the Zelzal which is said to have a range of between 100 to 400km.

The missile tests were announced just days after Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the armed forces were ready to face any threat to its nuclear installations amid speculation Washington may be planning a military strike.

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Sunday: "We leave all options on the table, but we are seeking a diplomatic solution to these problems."

Burns said mounting international pressure, including UN sanctions, has put the Islamic Republic on the defensive, and pledged that Iran would face a second round of sanctions if it does not suspend nuclear activity in its main nuclear research centre in Natanz by February 21.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters yesterday that Tehran was "continuing building centrifuges (for uranium enrichment) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows about it".

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1737 in December, imposing sanctions on Iran because it has repeatedly refused to fully co-operate with the UN nuclear watchdog or suspend uranium enrichment.

In reprisal for the resolution, the head of parliament’s national security commission, Alaeddin Borujerdi, announced Iran was blocking from the country 38 inspectors from the IAEA.

"This is the first step in implementing the parliament legislation" on limiting co-operation with the IAEA, Borujerdi told the Isna news agency.

Mottaki defended the move as "completely legal" and said that "IAEA member states have the right to oppose the trip of any inspector they wish".

Following talks in Brussels, EU foreign ministers made a political declaration that paves the way for EU legal experts to draw up the necessary legislation for the UN resolution to be implemented.

[American Patriot]

Debate Grows in Iran Over Nuclear Program
NYT ^ | Jan. 23, 2007 | Nazila Fathi



TEHRAN, Jan. 22— Iran is barring 38 inspectors from entering the country in retaliation for a United Nations resolution aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program, a senior Iranian lawmaker said Monday.


The announcement came only days after Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, Iran’s most senior dissident cleric, criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiant stance against the West on the nuclear issue in a speech Friday, calling it provocative. His comments were the first direct public attack on the president’s nuclear policy by such a senior cleric.


The two developments suggest an increasingly open debate within Iran over how forcefully to confront the West over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even as its government continues to defend them.


Two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have already called on the president to stay out of all nuclear matters. Mr. Montazeri’s statement said that Iran has the right to nuclear technology, but questioned the way Mr. Ahmadinejad has confronted the West.


"One has to deal with the enemy with wisdom," he said. "We should not provoke the enemy; otherwise, the country will be faced with problems," he added.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

[American Patriot]

The Iranian War With The Arabs
Strategy Page ^ | 01,23,2007

The Iranian War With The Arabs


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htl.../20070123.aspx
January 23, 2007: Saudia Arabia and Iran are getting ready for war with each other. And it's not over oil or ethnicity, as much as it is over theology.


Saudi Arabia, by dint of its vast oil wealth and role as protector of Islami's holiest places, sees itself as the leader of the Moslem world. Not a leader in the sense of giving orders that-will-be-obeyed. No, leader more in the rich uncle sense. Especially if the uncle was also a rather religious fellow.


The Saud family gained control of most of Arabia back in the 1920s, mainly via a long time relationship with the most conservative religious sect in Arabia, the Wahhabis. Thus equipped, the Saudis could be both mightier, and holier, than any other clan in region. It was a winning combination. But there are some problems when you read the fine print. The most obvious hassle was the Wahhabi desire to resist modern technology, and ideas. So Saudi women can't drive cars, although back in the 1920s they could ride horses and camels. The Sauds got the power, but the Wahhabis got the right to decide how people live. Another bit of fine print has to do with the Shia sect of Islam. There are dozens of sects in Islam, and the largest, besides the mainline Sunnis, are the Shia. Most of the Shia are Iranians, who aren't even Arabs. That's important for Arabs, who consider all non-Arabs as, well, if not sub-human, certainly not the best they could be.


The Iranians look like the hated Europeans (one of the few peoples able to halt the spread of Islam), and often act like Europeans. But the worst thing about Iranians are that they are Shia. According to the Wahhabi clergy, Shia are heretics. The Saud family was always good at countering the nasty habits of the Wahhabi clergy, and has managed to keep the preachers quiet (or at least off the mass media) about those Shia heretics.


At the same time, the Sauds have kept things reasonably friendly with Iran. All that is coming to an end.


For all those decades Saddam Hussein was in power, American suggestions, or attempts, to overthrow the dictator of Iraq were always met with resistance from the Saudis. Most Americans could not understand this, even when the Shia angle was mentioned. It must have been something to do with oil. It actually has little to do with oil. It's all about which form of Islam is more "correct." Since 1979, Iran has been run by conservative clergy, and these guys wanted to rule the world. To the Saudis, only Iraq, and its ruthless leader Saddam Hussein, stood in the way. The 1980-88 war between Iraq and Iran was seen as a desperate fight to contain the Shia menace. It was thus, with much sadness, that Arabs viewed the defeat, and recent demise, of Saddam Hussein. For many Sunnis in the region, Saddam was their champion.


The Sunnis see America as being stupid, or greedy to control Iraqi oil, or both, in their overthrow of Saddam. Because of this U.S. action, the Shia, and thus, Iran, controls Iraq. The Sunni control of Islams holy places is now threatened. This seems certain once Iran gets nuclear weapons. Note that, during the thirty years Israel has had nuclear weapons, there was no great effort in the Arab world to do the same. But now that Iran is going nuclear, there's all this talk of developing (or buying from the Pakistanis) the "Arab bomb." Believe it, because the Arabs do.

[American Patriot]

Mottaki defends Iran's right to ban visit by some IAEA inspectors

Islamic Republic News Agency ^ | Jan. 22, 2007 | Staff



Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Monday that any move possibly taken to disallow certain inspectors to visit Tehran, is legal and within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Organization.
Speaking at a joint press conference with this Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem here on Monday, Mottaki said the IAEA presents its members a long list with the names of its inspectors and recognizes the host country's right to turn down visits by some inspectors.


Mottaki made the remark when asked by a reporter about Iran's decision to decrease cooperation with the IAEA per a Majlis approval, thus banning entry of 38 IAEA inspectors to its territory.


Asked about the nationality of the inspectors, Mottaki said, foreign ministry spokesman would in his weekly press briefing next week release the names of those about whom there were conflicting views.

[American Patriot]

A question of curiosity, Rick. How do you see it opening up, how does it play out, and especially - where do the ground units come from?

I'm more of a strategist than a tactician -- unless I'm the one on the ground and out front, then I can't see the forest for the trees. But, I'll take a stab at this.

Realize I'm usually WRONG haha. Most of the predictions I make do not come true, which is a very good thing because I tend to be somewhat jaded and cynical when I analyze things and I see the worst in every situation. As a "survivalist" I plan for and generally expect the worst but hope for the best.

I think we are building our forces there now with an eye to putting pressure on Iran. Look we did it with Saddam, who defied us twice and said he was going to destroy America. He didn't. And the first time, we walked away without completing the quest... going into Baghdad and taking him down. We should have done it the first time in 1990-1991 and didn't.

So.... basically, we're trying to scare them into submission at this point. The arrogance of the Islamic nations screaming for the destruction of the West is, to me, something that is intent on pissing off the west and forcing us to do something, anything.

I hear leftists hollering about the US being "arrogant", but honestly, we sit back usually and wait and see. This is what Liberals want us to do now. To sit back. If we do, then the saber rattling from IslamoKooks will continue to get louder and louder.

What I see happening is exactly what is going on now. Iran will continue working it's nuclear program until the day comes it tests it's first bomb. And they will wave their right hand, while hiding things with their left. I think the Ayatollah is making nice because he actually DOES fear the US coming in there and decimating Iran, like we did Iraq and he doesn't want to lose his power base, or his life. On the other hand, I believe the head guy secretly wants Iran to continue to work on getting missiles, nukes and eventually to succeed in becoming a preeminent power in the Middle East.

What will we do? IF we have the cojones we will use our firepower to take down their nuclear ambitions. We and Israel will cooperate on this and so will the UK if they know what is good for them as well. We shouldn't HAVE to send in ground troops at all.

In fact, a few well placed bunker bombs, even if they are tactical nukes to take out their nuclear production sites should be plenty. Will it piss them off? Damn right.

Will they invade the US? Hell no. Will there will random terrorists still out there? Yep... The only way to completely eliminate these guys is to take down the whole religion. To completely, utterly destroy Islam.

This goes against everything America stands for, and we'll not do that. We're NOT, contrary to the Left, and Islam stating it, Crusaders. On the other hand, perhaps we ought to throw out that premise and actually destroy Islam, utterly wipe it out.

But is that right? No. It is better to wipe out the crazies and terrorists at the source though, than to allow them to get here to America and kill us a few at a time.

Big ships are going in, armed with enough firepower to obliterate Iran's major cities.

Will we use it? Time will tell, but I think the answer is YES, we're going to use it unless the President of Iran states emphatically "We are giving up designs on nuclear power, we surrender."

Will he do that? No. No way. He will continue to defy the world community, and he will continue to preach the destruction of Israel, and the West. He will die doing so.