Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[American Patriot]

World powers to discuss next steps in Iran crisis
re ^ | 3.29.06 | By Louis Charbonneau

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060330/...ear_iran_dc_13

BERLIN (Reuters) - Six world powers were gathering in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the next steps in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, with Russia and China looking for assurances that there are no plans to use force against Tehran.

On Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a "presidential statement" calling on Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program, which can produce fuel for atom bombs. It also requests a report in 30 days from the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna on Iran's cooperation with the agency's demands.

The Council statement was the product of weeks of negotiations among the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States. The final text was softened to remove language Moscow and Beijing feared could lead to punitive measures.

The Islamic republic says its only wants civilian nuclear power and does not want atomic bombs as the West believes.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said neither Moscow nor Beijing would support the idea of pressuring Iran and would never tolerate the use of force.

"As many of our European colleagues have said and as our Chinese friends have said many times, any ideas of resolving the matter by compulsion and force are extremely counterproductive and cannot be supported," Lavrov was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Interfax.

FIRST STEP

The foreign ministers of Germany, France, Britain and the United States and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana are attending the 0900 GMT meeting in Berlin.

They hope to assure Lavrov and the Chinese deputy foreign minister that they have a clear strategy and will not allow the Iran crisis to spin out of control.

Several EU diplomats said the Security Council statement was merely a "first step" and that the ministers would focus on next steps, including how much time Iran would have to suspend its enrichment program, which it restarted in January.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the goal of Thursday's meeting was to map out their future strategy.

"The intent is to allow the ministers to look out over the horizon on the Iran issue ... over the medium to long term on how to deal diplomatically with this regime and to get them back into the mainstream of the non-proliferation regime," he said.

Iran's resumption of enrichment -- a process that could produce fuel for atomic power plants or bombs -- prompted the EU in January to break off 2-1/2 years of talks with Iran and to back a U.S. demand to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council.

The "EU3" -- Germany, France and Britain -- have said they were willing to resume talks with Iran but only if Tehran re-suspended all enrichment-related activities.

During her brief visit in Berlin, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will also meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss Iran and other issues before heading to France and Britain.

(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming in Washington, Madeline Chambers in London and Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations)

[American Patriot]

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...-us-to-be.html
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/694562.html

Tuesday 26 March 2006

Aznar: Khamenei said Israel & the US to be completely destroyed

Yossi Verter, Haaretz:

Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.

Aznar, in Israel as the guest of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, related the story to Major General (Res.) Professor Yitzhak Ben-Israel, who later confirmed to Haaretz that the remarks had been made.

Aznar's aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with Khamenei.

"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack."

Professor Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israel Defense Force's Weapon Systems Development Authority, is today No. 31 on Kadima's list of Knesset candidates.

Aznar was to deliver a lecture at the Interdisciplinary Center on Wednesday evening on "Dealing with the challenged of fundamental Islam and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Khamenei still holds the post of Iranian spiritual leader, and considered to be the powerful man in the country.

[American Patriot]

Iran: We'll respond to Israeli attack, Iran warns Israel
Ynetnews ^

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman says recent Israeli statements on Iran's nuclear project show Israeli government is frustrated from failure to bring international community to pressure Iran: 'Zionist authorities are well aware that if they make a foolish mistake against Iran, Iran's harsh response will be destructive and determined'

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Riza Asaffi, speaking with journalists in Teheran, said that recent Israeli statements on Iran's nuclear project showed that the Israeli government is frustrated from a failure to bring pressure from the international community to on Iran.

He claimed that a "serious crisis" within the "Zionist authorities" was the main factor behind what he described as Israeli threats. His comments were reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"The Zionist authorities are well aware that if they make a foolish mistake against Iran, Iran's harsh response will be destructive and determined," said the spokesman. "Their approach comes from their anger over the fact that they can't realize their plans," he added.

Earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu told the Voice of Israel national radio network that "Israel must take every necessary step to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran must be prevented from developing this threat to the State of Israel. If, by the elections, the current government works to achieve this, I will give it my full support – and if it does not, I intend on establishing the next government, and then we'll act."

Meretz-Yahad faction head Yossi Beilin said that narrow considerations based on elections will drag Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu to harsh comments that will be perceived as support for military action against Iran. Beilin said Israel must work for diplomatic activity to be led by the United States without endangering Israel in a confrontation with Iran with potentially disastrous consequences.

Also on Sunday the head of Tehran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi was quoted saying by Tehran's official news agency IRNA that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization has been given license to set up another 20 nuclear plants, two of them by March 2006.

Iran's first nuclear plant is being built by Russia for USD 1 billion and is scheduled to begin operating by March 2006.

'Diplomatic pressure won't work'

According to Boroujerdi, the new power plants will be able to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity. However, international and Israeli intelligence sources claim the program may be a front to build an atomic bomb, an allegation Iran's vigorously denies.

Last week Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said “Israel and other countries cannot accept a situation where Iran has nuclear arms.

“The issue is clear to us and we are making all the necessary preparations to handle a situation of this kind,” Sharon told journalists in Tel Aviv.

Israel needs not lead the campaign, yet we are in close contact with countries that are dealing with the issue,” the prime minister said.

Sharon said he agrees with U.S. President George W. Bush that dealing with Iran’s push for nuclear armament is a top priority, adding that he hoped the “large danger will be dealt with” by referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

“Israel is not hopeless and is taking all the necessary measures,” Sharon said.

IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told foreign reporters Sunday he is skeptical that diplomatic pressure will put a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure...encourages them to continue their nuclear project," he said.

"I believe that the political means used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed," Halutz added.

[American Patriot]

TEHRAN RISING: Iran’s Challenge to the United States [IRAN]
Asharq Alawsat ^ | 26/09/2005 | By Amir Taheri

Last month Iran’s new President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad presented his government’s “medium and long-term strategy” in the form of a 6000-word documented submitted to the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in Tehran. In it he presented the Islamic Republic as “the core power” in a new Muslim bloc whose chief task is to prevent the United States from imposing its vision on the Middle East. The document presented the Iran-US duel as “a clash of civilization” and predicted that the Islamic Republic will emerge victorious. “Leadership is the indisputable right of the Iranian nation, “the document asserted.

According to Ahmadinejad the world is heading for a “multi-polar system” in which the European Union, China, India, and Latin America, probably led by Venezuela, will stand against the United States’ “hegemonic ambitions”. The Islamic world, too, will emerge as a new “pole” structured around the Islamic Republic of Iran which, thanks to its demographic, military, and ideological strength, is the natural leader of the Muslim world.

Adopting the analysis of Samuel Huntington, the American essayist who invented the term “clash of civilizations” a decade ago, Ahmadinejad described the US as a “sunset” (ofuli) power while the Islamic Republic was a “sunrise” (tolu’ee) power. In the clash between the two the Islamic Republic would win, Ahmadinejad promised.

And earlier this month Ahmadinejad fleshed out his analysis during two speeches at the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York. His message was simple: the Islamic Republic seeks a world leadership role in the name of a radical revolutionary interpretation of Islam.

Ilan Berman Berman whose “Tehran Rising: Iran’s Challenge to the United States” has just been published could not have read Ahamdinejad’s programme when writing his own timely essay. And, yet, it is as if Berman already knew what was going on in the minds of the new ruling elite in Tehran.

The chief merit of Berman’s nook is that he does not beat around the bush. At a time that everyone is obsessed with the issue of Tehran building a nuclear bomb, Berman shows that the real question is the Islamic Republic’s desire for domination in a vast region that includes the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

“Will Iran, armed with nuclear weapons, emerge to dominate the Middle East? Or will the Islamic Republic give way to a more benign, pro-Western political order?” Berman asks.

By posing the problem this way, Berman clearly rejects a third possibility- one cherished by the Clinton administration- to seek a “ grand bargain” with the Islamic Republic under which Iran would be recognized by the United States as the regional “superpower” in exchange for changes in aspects of its behaviour, especially on such issues as Palestine and sponsoring terrorism.

Berman, who teaches at the National Defence University in Washington DC, sees the Iran-US duel as a win-lose situation, at least long as Iran is ruled by a totalitarian Islamist elite. Rejecting Cold War ideas such as détente and peaceful coexistence, Berman believes that the present balance of power in the Middle East cannot be sustained for any appreciable length of time. Either Iran succeeds to chase the Americans out of the Middle East or the US, with or without allies, adopts a policy of regime change vis-ÃÂ*-vis Tehran.

Regime change, however, is easier said than done.

Even in Iraq where the US-led coalition won a quick military victory largely because the Iraqi people decided not to fight for Saddam Hussein, regime change has proved more complicated than many had imagined. This is why Berman devoted less than three per cent of his short book to ways and means of achieving regime change in Tehran. Berman suggests the revival of what he labels “The Reagan Doctrine” which, he says, led to the destruction of the Soviet “Evil Empire”.

In practical terms what Berman suggests amounts to no more than a greater use of public diplomacy and the free flow of information especially through Persian-language radio and television networks funded by Washington. He also wants Washington to use the Iranian expatriate community-including some 2 million of them in the US – as a channel for relaying democratic ideas into Iran itself.

Berman urges the US to find an alternative leadership for Iran, someone like Lech Walesa in the final years of Communism in Poland.

He suggests two candidates. The first is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of he late Muhammad Reza Shah who has called for a referendum to find out what type of government Iranians want for the future. Berman’s other candidate is the Mujahedin Khalq group which has some 4000 armed men and women in a camp in Iraq under the protection of the US-led coalition, and which has been described as a “ terrorist organization” by the State Department in Washington.

Berman suggests that the US conduct a series of polls both inside and outside Iran to find out which dissident group is most likely to win the largest measure of support from the Iranian people. Once that is determined the US and its allies would be able to give political, diplomatic and, presumably, financial support to the alternative Iranian leadership. But even then it is not quite clear how such a leadership will be installed in Tehran. Through elections? Through invasion? Or an internal coup d’etat by anti-mullah elements?

Those with a deeper knowledge of Iran will find Berman’s outline of a scenario for regime change without military action somewhat unconvincing. But the value of this essay lies elsewhere. It is in Berman’s frank admission that President George W Bush’s dream for a democratic Middle East that would be friendly to the United States may well turn into a nightmare if Iran, under its present leadership, succeeds to impose its agenda on the region, starting with Iraq.

And that is not such a far-fetched idea. By all accounts, the Islamic Republic is already busy building an infrastructure for intervention and, when the time comes, domination in Iraq.

There is no guarantee that whoever succeeds President Bush will share his vision or have his guts, some might say his audacity, to take risks that no other American leader has taken since Harry S Truman. The Islamic Republic in Iran has dealt with five American presidents so far. Only one of them, George W Bush, has so far refused to offer the mullahs some version of the “grand bargain” that President Bill Clinton tried to offer the mullahs-only to be snubbed by them.

Even within Bush’s own Republican Party there are quite a few grandees who dream of a “grand bargain” wit the mullahs, among them Senator Chuck Hagel and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.

Thus there is no reason why the Islamic Republic should not try to wait George W Bush out and then go for broke in what Ahamdinejad describes as Iran’s “natural sphere of leadership” that is to say the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin and Central Asia.

Berman’s book makes it impossible for the policymakers in Washington to ignore the Islamic Republic as a nasty toothache that it is bound to fade away. But it is far from clear whether or not the current administration has the time and, yes, the courage to devise a strategy to meet what is one of the biggest challenges the US foreign policy faces at present.

[American Patriot]

Iran deflecting international attention to Syria (Iran-Syrian chemical weapons agreement)
Synoeca ^

The UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri released on October 20th has increased the international pressure on Bashir Assad, however, sources within Syria have acknowledged that Iran has began operations to aid Syria's CW(chemical weapons) program. Iran has sought to occupy both the UN and Bush administration with other regional issues instead of allowing the international spotlight to shine on its own nuclear advancements. Recent failures of the European Union and Bush Administration to bring Iran to the the UN Security Council, has only cemented Tehran's plans.

After finally finding common ground on Iran's nuclear ambitions, failed attempts to reach an agreement on a course of action has allowed Iran to escape possible sanctions. To it's credit, Tehran has worked effectively to shift attention from its nuclear efforts both through the Iraq insurgency and Syria, with great success.

Syria-Iranian cooperation

As Syria's regime increases it's paranoia over speculation of a US-led attack to topple it, it has forged ahead with an innovative chemical warfare program in cooperation with Iran hoping to deter the Bush administration from any such plans. The essence of this co-operation, a source within Damascus told Jane's Information Group "is Tehran's contractual commitment, made to Syria a few months ago, to provide Iranian Chemical Weapons technical assistance to facilitate Syria's program".

According to the source, Iran will assist Syria in the planning, establishment and pilot operation of about four or five facilities throughout Syria for the production of precursors for VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent.(1 ) Under the terms of contract, yet to be officially signed, Iran will also supply Syria with reactors, pipes, condensers, heat exchangers (to change the temperature of materials) and storage and feed tanks, as well as chemical detection equipment all of which are necessary to construct the planned facilities within one year.

As Iran's nuclear program has captured the world's attention, its chemical weapons programs has remained in the shadows. Claims made on its CW programs by oppositions groups have not yet materialized, however, past allegations on Tehran's nuclear plans have been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) through inspections and investigations. Iran's CW record was first noted during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War, where it mainly used mustard gas captured from Iraqi positions. In 2004, "Syria imported hundreds of tonnes of sodium sulfide, hydrochloric acid and ethylene glycol-MEG from Iran, which are precursors for the production of mustard blister agents and Sarin nerve gas," the source said. Iranian cooperation with hostile countries is not limited to Syria, in 2004, the Bush Administration sanctioned several Chinese companies under the Iran Non-proliferation Act of 2000 for selling materials that were not specified and had documented sales from China to Iran for 500 tons of chemical precursors.

As the likelihood of a confrontation with Syria in the future grows, Damascus will seek any means necessary to curtail efforts to overthrow it. However, the growing speculation is that Assad's demise will be due to political pressure and economic sanctions over time and not a military effort which leaves Syria with little options in the face of international isolation.

Iran's Iraq agenda

Iran has emerged as a critical factor in Iraq, much to the displeasure of the US. Tehran's intentions in Iraq are both aimed at advancing its regional interests and guarding against Western interference within Iran by formulating a policy of confronting the British military in southern Iraq and the US within the Sunni Triangle.

Recent allegations by the British have implicated Iran's Revolutionary Guard with rioting and bombings in Basra. Officials in Iraq claim that Iran's Qods Force, islamic arm of the Revolutionary Guard, have met with Iraq's Sunni insurgents and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq groups hoping to formulate ties for future attacks on the US and British, to be utilized in case they opt to undermine the regime in Tehran. In contrast, the Iranian government blame the British for inciting ethnic tensions in southern provinces and the US for assisting Kurds in northern Iran.

In spite of Iranian collaboration with Sunni insurgents, Tehran is more likely to utilize its extensive ties and influence within Iraq's Shi'a community. Iran, however, is not restricted to Islamist Shi'a ideology and will formulate alliances with any group seeking to destablize Iraq.

Construction of Syrian facilities by the Iranians is slated to being in 2006 with millions of dollars allocated to its CW project, while desperation sets in for the State Department and European Parliment to salvage good news from the region leads them into aggressive attitudes towards Syria's involvement in the Lebanese ex-Prime Minister's death, thus leaving Iran to freely to pursue nuclear technology. The fact that Iran has shown an aptitude for concealment and delay tactics of its nuclear program should give a rise to suspicion which the US and EU focus on instead of being lead away by Iran's red herrings.

[American Patriot]

Iran and the Bomb - How Close?

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/945/i...an-to-the-bomb
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/948/i...e-capabilities
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/952/i...strike-options

Above, three part series.

A speech by former top Iranian nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani, which was reprinted in the Iranian journal Rahbord (Strategy).

Rohani laments that, had Iran not pursued its program in secret, the current situation would not be so difficult:

One of the members indicated here that all this should have been done in secret. This was the intention; this never was supposed to be in the open. But in any case, the spies exposed it. We did not want to declare all this. Some of you say that if we had said from the start that we wanted to have the fuel cycle, the situation would have been easier. Yes, if we had decided to declare our intention at the beginning, if we had told the IAEA that we intended to build a UCF plant at the same time that we started construction at Esfahan, if we had announced our facilities at Natanz from the start, we would not have any problems now, or our problems would have been far less than they are today. In fact, this is the very reason that our case has become so complicated. They ask: If you truly were after fuel cycle, why did you do it secretly?! This is the root of all problems. If we had done it openly, the problem would have been far simpler. In the beginning, we decided not to go public for a number of reasons. For example, pressure from the West to deny us primary materials, and reasons like that. We wanted to keep it secret for a while. Of course, we all knew at that some point this would become public knowledge. I do not want to get into the history of this issue at this time.

[ExplodedMind]

From a post of Rick's above:

"If the enemy wants to make the area insecure [Hormuz], he should be rest assured that he will also suffer from the insecurity, since we know the location of their vessels."

I find the use of the term "enemy" in reference to Iran interesting, and instructive. A slip of the tongue, or intentional?

EM

[MTStringer]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...tm?POE=NEWISVA

I'm hardly in a position to evaluate the importance of this development, but I AM interested.

[Aplomb]

It looks significant to me, MTStringer. Here's the text on that link:

Iran says it has tested radar-dodging missile

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran on Friday successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously, the airforce chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards said.

"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defence forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Gen. Hossein Salami said on state-run television.

Salami said the Iranian-made missile, which he did not name, was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea.

"This missile can simultaneously hit several targets, has near stealth capabilities with a high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," Salami said.

The general said the range of the missile would depend on the weight of its warhead.

"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," he said.
The television screened a brief clip of the launch of the missile.

Iran already has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,250 miles and is capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. The Shahab-3 is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Last year, former defence minister Ali Shamkhani said that Iran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military industries.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.

The military maneuvers are scheduled to last a week and will involve 17,000 members of the Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

[American Patriot]

Well... hello Armaggeddon.

[MTStringer]

"Well... hello Armaggeddon."
This from the guy who p****d off half the folk on "that other board"? C'mon, man, let it all hang out!
Seriously, I naturally assumed this to be a paridigm shift, in the region, "How advanced is this compared to our stuff?", in general, is the question I meant to imply. On the one hand, I've always guilessly assumed we would be two steps in front in any such research by potential adversaries, but recent events seem to have revealed some rust and dings, leaving me to wonder. I daresay any one of you could more easily get to speed in the old Explorer plant than I in the world of defense contracting and weapons systems, so I looked here for a shortcut to enlightenment rather than, shudder, research I would still fall short in evaluating, in comparison to ANYTHING from Rick besides "Well..hello Armaggeddon." Sheesh!!!

[MTStringer]

As usual, I need to clarify my last statement, instead of "the guy who p****d off half the folk on that "other board"", it should have read, "half the folk LEFT at that "other board"", as that joint looks like a ghost town nowadays.

[American Patriot]

Iran Has Missiles To Carry Nuclear Warheads
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-7-2006 | Con Coughlin

Iran has missiles to carry nuclear warheads

By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 07/04/2006)

Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads.

Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme.


An Iranian Shahab-3 missile on parade in Teheran

Last week, the United Nations Security Council gave Iran 30 days to freeze its uranium enrichment programme that many experts believe is part of a clandestine attempt to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran denies it is trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.

The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea's Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud.

The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons.

"This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development."

The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel.

Apart from modifying the nose cone, Iranian technicians are also trying to make a number of technical adjustments that will enable the missile to travel a greater distance.

Western intelligence officials believe that Iran is receiving assistance from teams of Russian and Chinese experts with experience of developing nuclear weapons. Experts who have studied the latest version of the Shahab have identified modifications to the nose cone.

Instead of the single cone normally attached to this type of missile, the new Shahab has three cones, or a triconic, warhead. A triconic warhead allows the missile to accommodate a nuclear device and this type of warhead is normally found only in nuclear weapons.

According to the new research, the Iranian warhead is designed to carry a spherical nuclear weapon that would be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground, similar to the Hiroshima bomb.

Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

The development of the Shahab-3 is just one element of a wide-ranging missile development programme.

In 2003 the Iranians concluded another secret deal with North Korea to buy the Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has a range of 2,200 miles and would enable Iran to hit targets in mainland Europe.

Earlier this week the Iranians announced that they had successfully test-fired a new missile, the Fajr-3, which has the capability to evade radar systems and carry multiple warheads.

[American Patriot]

MT, I didn't "piss off" anyone, except people who refuse to accept rules. Basically, the only people that "hate" me, call me names, they call me names like "Nazi" and anything else they think can get a rise out of me. Some times it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Truth is, Anomalies was doing just fine until a buch of shit heads complained to Olav about me preventing them from "posting important material". Olav and I had an agreement. I took care of the forums, he had everything else. He interfered in the forums and it has cost the site some posters.

The people that left, left because they got their way. They caused me to quit and Olav to want to fire me. They got their wish.

The FACT IS, that Anomalies will survive without those people, who, by the way are coming back in the 1s and 2s these days and mouthing off about everything because no one is moderating any more.

All the forums I cared for are being ruined a little at a time.

We will fix that little problem soon enough though

Rick

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iranian Test "Highly-Advanced Flying Boat" and Two Missiles

MemriTV:http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...ed-flying.html

Following are excerpts from footage of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy test of a flying boat and two missiles. The footage was aired on Channel 1 of Iranian TV. READ MORE

Reporter: For the first time, a highly advanced flying boat was tested successfully, in the waters of the Persian Gulf by the courageous members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Following are some of the features of this highly advanced flying boat: A velocity exceeding 100 knots per hour. Unparalleled maneuvering capability. It can be used efficiently throughout the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Its advanced design makes it undetectable by any naval or aerial radar. It has the ability to soar swiftly over the sea. The most important thing is that this highly advanced flying boat was built entirely in Iran. This boat can launch [missiles] and fire while moving, and has the ability to track the target with extreme precision.

IRGC General Mohammad Rahim Dehghani: This vessel is manufactured by the aircraft industries of the Iranian Defense Ministry, and it has already reached mass production. In this maneuver, we officially incorporated it in the naval combat doctrine of the Revolutionary Guards. A flying vessel, which cannot be tracked by any naval or aerial radar, is the best tool for the Revolutionary Guard Navy's combat capability. Since this vessel is capable of carrying and launching different types of weapons, it can be very effective and can influence our combat capabilities.

Reporter: The main stage of this great maneuver, named after the Prophet of Islam, included today's experiment of two additional advanced missiles: the shoulder-launched missile Misagh 1 and the surface-to-sea missile Kowsar. Misagh 1 is a heat-guided anti-aircraft missile. Its special qualities include its velocity, its tracking ability, and its portability, which allows it to be fired by a single person. Misagh 1 is the number one enemy of combat helicopters.

And now for the Kowsar missile. This surface-to-sea missile is equipped with two very advanced systems for precise fire control and for target tracking. Its most important quality is that no jamming system in the world can prevent this missile from tracking its targets.

Here's a link to video: http://switch5.castup.net/cuplayer.a...mv%26ak%3Dnull

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iran Raises Tensions with a Show of Strength

Anton La Guardia, Telegraph:

A stealth flying boat, a radar-evading missile with multiple warheads, a rocket-torpedo and an anti-ship missile that cannot be jammed: with every day that passes, Iran announces a development in its military hardware.

The flurry of technological achievements, shown in grainy television footage, coincides with a large naval war-game in the Gulf codenamed "Great Prophet".

The exercises around the Straits of Hormuz, through which two fifths of the world's oil passes, are seen in the West as "sabre-rattling" as Teheran faces concerted international pressure to halt its widely suspected attempt to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Western officials say the Iranians are trying to tell the West - especially America and Israel - that they can strike back against any attempt to bomb their nuclear facilities.

Iran could, for example, try to disrupt the shipping of oil through the Gulf, and threaten Israel with a growing array of missiles.

"The aim is political and rhetorical rather than military," said one British source. "I would not put any money on the Iranians' kit if it came to a contest with the American military." The clerical regime also wants to impress on the Iranian public that it remains powerful despite American attempts to destabilise it.

Moreover, it seeks to stoke national pride by claiming the weapons as home-produced, even though they are mostly based on Russian, Chinese and North Korean technology.

"There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of bravado in what is coming out of Teheran," an Israeli official said. "But there is enough substance in some of the stuff they have been talking about for us to be concerned.

"We know that they have been working on multiple warheads. They are very serious about developing their delivery systems."

Iran announced last Friday that it had successfully test-fired a missile that could avoid detection by radar and deliver multiple warheads to hit several targets.

General Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, hailed the development of the Fajr-3 (Dawn-3) missile as the achievement of "a remarkable goal".

But Ivan Oelrich, vice-president of the Federation of American Scientists, said: "It is conceivable they have a multiple warhead capability but this is not very sophisticated. Though three missiles heading for the same target makes it harder for missile defence, the warheads will not have their own guidance systems and the missiles will carry a lower payload. It would be difficult to target effectively with them."

On Sunday Iran announced another success: the launching of "the world's fastest underwater missile", travelling at about 195 knots, or three times faster than the fastest western torpedo.

General Ali Fadavi, deputy naval commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said the weapon could overcome sonar systems because of its speed and its movement underwater. Weapons experts said it appeared to be a Soviet rocket-powered torpedo known as the Shkval.

However, it cannot track a target and has a range of less than four miles. A former commander of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, said Iran's torpedo announcement was little more than a bluff.

"Shkval has no target designation devices. That is, it is not a self-homing torpedo. Besides, it leaves a trail, which makes it easy to spot and destroy," he said. READ MORE

Undeterred, Iran yesterday announced the launch of a surface-to-sea missile known as the Kowsar. According to Iranian television, it can evade radar and its guidance system cannot be scrambled.

Television also showed footage of a "super-modern flying boat," a strange one-man craft that looks like a cross between a seaplane and a stealth fighter.

State television said that the single-propeller seaplane could launch a missile and "because of the hull's advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can locate it".

The commander of the Revolutionary Guards, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said Iranian forces were able to "confront any extra-territorial invasion".

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Islamic Regime withdraws 41 Billion Swiss Francs worth of Gold & foreign exchange from European accounts

Iran Press News: Translation by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi.

The regime-run FARS news agency quoting the Swiss newspaper, Der Bund reported that the Islamic regime has withdrawn 700 tons of it's gold reserves worth 6 billion Swiss Francs as well as 25 billion Swiss Francs in foreign exchange (equal to $30 billion) from financial institutions in the west.

Der Bund added that the Islamic regime transferred 250 tons of it's gold reserves, valued at 5 billion Swiss Francs directly to Tehran but that the foreign exchange was transferred to Asian banks located in the United Arab Emirates, specifically Abu-Dhabi and Dubai.

Approximately 2 months ago, two of Switzerland's biggest financial institutions, U.B.S. and Credit Swiss ceased all financial transactions with the Islamic regime.

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Iran Says Military Threats Not in US Interests

Reuters:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander said on Wednesday the United States should accept Iran's position as a regional power, adding that sanctions or military threats would not be in U.S. or European interests.

Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander-in-chief of the Guards, was speaking to state television during a week of naval war games in which Iranian forces have announced the successful testing of new weapons, including missiles and torpedoes.

Iran says the war games in the Gulf, which began on Friday, are a show of defensive strength, but analysts say the timing during a nuclear standoff with the West offers a reminder that Iran could threaten a vital world oil shipping route.

"The Americans should accept Iran as a great regional power and they should know that sanctions and military threats are not going to be benefit them, but are going to be against their interests and against the interests of some European countries," Safavi told state television.

The United States and European powers have been leading international calls to rein in Iran's nuclear program, which the West says is a cover to produce atomic weapons -- a charge Iran denies. Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute, but will keep a military option open.

"We regard the presence of America in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf as a threat, and we recommend they do not move toward threatening Iran," Safavi said.

He said the United States should make up for mistakes in Iraq "by getting out of Iraq and handing over the fate of the Iraqi people to the elected government". READ MORE

"Defending Iran's independence is the philosophy of Iran's forces," he added.

Safavi said in January that Iran would retaliate if it came under attack.

During the war games, Iran said it tested the land-to-sea Kowsar missile, which analysts say is designed to sink ships, a sonar-evading underwater missile, a home-grown torpedo and a radar-evading rocket.

Military analysts said Iran has not announced enough details to assess the real capabilities of the new weapons but that some claims may be exaggerated.

Iran, which has a commanding position on the north coast of the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, could still disrupt shipping if threatened, however, they said.

About two-fifths of the world's globally traded oil passes through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.

[American Patriot]

Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Rice Defends US Broadcast Plans for Iran

David Gollust, Voice of America:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Tuesday defended plans to step up U.S. broadcasting and democracy-promotion efforts in Iran. The Bush administration is asking Congress for $75 million for the programming amid the diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.

The secretary of state is standing by the supplemental budget request for Iranian outreach in the face of Congressional criticism that the Iranian government will be able to dismiss the program as merely U.S. disinformation.

The administration request was made in mid-February but has yet to be acted on by Congress. It is asking for $75 million, two thirds of it for increased Farsi-language television and radio broadcasting into Iran and the rest for democracy promotion and exchange programs.

At a House Appropriations Committee hearing on the State Department budget, veteran House Democrat David Obey said he had very little faith in prospects for success of the outreach effort. He said it could be characterized as either an information or a regime de-stabilization package but said that in any case it could be easily discredited by the Tehran government. "If we are going to engage in activity like that, why on earth would we be as public about it as we've been. It's simply giving that regime an opportunity to claim that virtually every piece of information which is produced is disinformation from us. I mean, why are we making it easier for them to blame us for interfering in their affairs by being so public about something like this?," he asked.

The secretary, however, said she believed that subtlety in trying to promote reform in Iran is not the proper course, and that the budgetary process requires the administration to be very public about the Iran program. READ MORE

She said U.S. officials have heard from Iranians and frequent visitors to the country that the people of Iran want to hear the United States speak about their plight, and she said the experience of the Cold War era suggests they will not dismiss the U.S. message out of hand. "I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Iranians believe what their government says about that. I remember in the days of Radio Free Europe and Voice of America that the Soviet Union and the Eastern European governments made the same claims about those. And people listened to them in droves anyway and they got the information they needed. And they sustained their hopes of one day being part of a democracy, even though their governments said the same things," he said.

Congressman Obey said he was unsure whether the United States has the tools, short of "doing something extreme" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity.

Secretary Rice, who has been a key player in U.S.-led efforts to move the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council, had no direct response to the remark.

Elsewhere in her testimony, Rice said Iran's backing for the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon is probably the most egregious example of Iranian interference in another country's sovereign affairs.

She said the United States continues to work with France and other international partners for the full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolution 15-59, which secured the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon a year ago, but also demands the disbanding of Lebanese militias.

[American Patriot]

Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Reading the tea leaves - Bush's Strategy on Iran

I believe the President has settled on the direction he is going to pursue with Iran. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, it would appear a pattern has begun to emerge in the recent statements by President Bush, Condolezza Rice and others.

What is the new strategy?

Let's begin with President Bush's State of the Union speech. The President warned the Iranian regime that he is willing to significantly ramp up his support for the Iranian people:

"And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:

As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

The President has recently warned Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program and that he has not taken the military option off the table. At the same time, he also made clear his interest in pursuing a "diplomatic solution."

Why A diplomatic solution?

First, military action in Iran would likely be counter productive. Military action would almost certainly have the unintended consequence of killing large numbers of civilians and thus create a "rally around the government" effect. This would provide a tremendous opportunity for the regime to argue that the US government does not really "care about the people" of Iran. Thus alienating the very people we want to support.

Second, it is also unlikely that such military action could permanently stop Iran's nuclear effort. To accomplish this would require an invasion of Iran and therefore a much larger military force than we have available at this time, so we are told.

Third, Europe is unlikely to ever support military action against Iran and the US public would also find it hard to support it unless there was an imminent threat. (Nearly everyone would want irrefutable proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program).

So what options are left?

An effective non military response to the Iranian threat would require the administration find an issue that is universally accepted in order to gain international support. Such international support was essential in the recent popular revolt in the Ukraine.

Such an issue already exists.

I believe the issue the administration intends to focus on is human rights in Iran.

If you follow the news on Iran, the administration has begun focusing on the human rights issue as it relates to Iran. Here are a few examples:

President Bush alluded to it in his inaugural address:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. ...

America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Condoleezza Rice:

Iranians "suffer under a regime that has been completely unwilling to deal with their aspirations and that has an appalling human rights record". BBC

Even Senator Brownback, the new chairman of the Helsinki Commission says he plans to highlight Iranian human rights issues with Europe. The NY Sun reports:

The plan by Senator Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is in keeping with the president's commitment to spread freedom throughout the world...

Senator Brownback said he planned to publicize the plight of Iranian dissidents in hearings before the Helsinki Commission, the American body created in 1976 to engage the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe on their treatment of political prisoners and human rights. American envoys would often read the names of political prisoners aloud at commission-related meetings, at first to embarrass their Soviet counterparts. Later this technique proved effective, when in the twilight of the Cold War many political prisoners were released.

"We are going to bring up human rights issues and what is taking place in Iran aggressively," he said.

Europe and the UN have a long history of advocating human rights. Europe has tied increased trade with Iran to improvements in their human rights record. European leaders advocacy for Human Rights in Iran bought them popular political support at home at very little cost.

Europeans are proud of their leaders stand for Human Rights. It was no surprise to Europeans that the Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.

If the US makes Human Rights in Iran a centerpiece of its Iran policy, the EU and the UN will have to support it. Russia and China would find it difficult to oppose it.

President Bush's support for "their issue" will likely be perceived by Europeans generally as a European victory. Popular support could force their leaders to join the US effort.

If Iran refuses to permanently end its uranium enrichment program, as they claim, the EU will have to withdraw its offer of increased trade.

Instead, I would then expect an ever increasing demand of the international community to end all trade (the EU's only real weapon) until the regime guarantees the Iranian people's human rights.

Already British firms such as BP have declared that they will not invest further in Iran. US firms have also taken similar positions and I expect we will see an ever growing number of international firms ending their business relations with the Iranian regime.

Why will this help bring down the regime?

First, the people of Iran will at long last receive the international attention and support they have been pleading for. This support will encourage the people to stand against the regime and various elements in government will be forced to decide whether to support the people of Iran or their unpopular leaders.

Thus the regime will face a serious dilemma.

On the one hand, cracking down on dissent will further alienate the regime and likely result in an end to international investments/trade in Iran.

On the other hand, the regime cannot comply with this without risking encouraging a popular revolt.

Iran's presidential elections are scheduled for June. The hardline elements in Iran have been hoping to further consolidate their power and will not likely be interested in being pressured by the international community on human rights.

If the Iranian regime cracks down on popular dissent this time, the international community will be watching as never before. Crack downs will lead to further doubts by the international business community. As more firms pull away from Iran, investment dollars will dry up.

Iran needs the investment dollars to keep the regime in power. Unemployment is already unbearable. Significant increases in unemployment will only fuel more civil unrest.

It would appear the regime will be in a no win situation.

President Bush is about to travel to Europe. If I am right, we will see a mending of relations and a new unity among the US and the EU.

Time appears to be running out for the Mullahs of Iran. It may prove to be a very hot summer in Iran.