Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[falcon]

Rick; Your summary is right to the point, it all about the regime change within GWB needs to get the 75Mil approved to fund these activities soon, this will support the up coming elections.

Plus I believe that going to war with iran is a trap by Iran and Russia, pulling our resources in the worng direction.

[MTStringer]

Rick, I certainly hope your analysis of our approach to Iran is close to the mark, as well as the tone of GWs upcoming Euro trip, as matters stand now my faith in the will of the "international community" to do anything is a bit shaken. As for AN, you know how long I hung around there, just as I'm relatively sure you've read the thread discussing what happened to AN, in particular the part about it being junk science til debunked, which took all the fun out. I personally think that's one part, but another was left out. Whenever the argument wasn't about "junk sciences, it was usually whining about your moderation, or your opinions, or Seans, or RNMANs, or whoever. You may recall, way back, I said I considered myself a liberal. This is what I meant. I don't always agree with you, or Sean, or whoever, but I'll be damned if I'm going to disrupt every thread any of you post in just because of this, and truly I feel I've learned much this way. My version of "liberal" is something more akin to civility, accepting different outlooks and trying to see outside the box I live in. Seems some came there SOLELY to disrupt, and now, as you point out, all the forums you cared about are about shot, and you see where I'm at now. I have no doubt this is just a lull, AN will survive, I'll still lurk there, but there is currently a serious need for housecleaning and shiprighting. For my money, I'm staying here.

[American Patriot]

Well, the previous messages I posted werent all mine. I put a lot of material on this site to help back up my prediction... that we will be going into Iran soon enough.

As far as AN goes... well, I think that 90%^ of the folks that "disrupted" did it to try to piss me off, rather than the other way around.

My opinions are what they are, but they are based on facts, not misinterpertation of data, as most people tend to lean. I have nothing against liberals specifically, unless they are "socialist" liberals. Those folks who are dedicated to the downfall of Capitalism are, in my humble opinion, the enemies of freedom.

They don't want ME to make a profit on ANYTHING. They believe I shouldnt be able to make a profit if I am a corportation (own one, run one whatever) and they believe that my profits ought to go to those "less fortunate". My opinion of that? Up there's . People who are less fortunate don't try in some cases. Yes there are those who need help, and they should get it, but NOT at MY expense or the expense of my company.

Screw that.

Anyway... back to Iran

[Sean Osborne]

Here's what I can report from first hand sources I have been in direct contact with concerning Iran.

Iran already has nuclear weapons - several of them. The have warheads for cruise missiles and theater ballistic. They have tactical warheads.

The Military Option:

The US is under extreme pressure to do something militarily about Iran, and because we're currently idle due to ongoing UNSC efforts, Israel's Defense Forces are under even more pressure to act unilaterally against not only Iranian WMD, but the very likely potential that Iran will pass a nuclear weapon on to Hezbollah.

US military action still appears to be several months into the future, perhaps are far as one year ahead.

The word on the street in Israel is that unileratal Israeli action could occur at any moment.

[MTStringer]

http://ww.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/0...n1483022.shtml


Report: U.S. Ponders Iran Invasion

April 9, 2006

---

Fast Facts Hersh quotes one former senior intelligence official as saying that Mr. Bush views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolph Hitler."

(CBS) Plans for a U.S. attack on Iran over its nuclear ambitions are being explored, according to reports by the Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.

As reporter Seymour Hersh explains in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker, members of the U.S. military, more and more, believe President Bush is leaning toward a "regime change" in Iran as the best way to quell the country's quest for nuclear capabilities.

Hersh quotes one former senior intelligence official as saying that Mr. Bush views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolph Hitler."

For more than 30 years Hersh's reporting on the military has been controversial, but accurate,including exposing the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, reports CBS News correspondent Dave Browde.

The Washington Post reports possible targets for a U.S. attack on Iran include facilities where uranium enrichment plant and a uranium conversion take place, according to current and former officials with the Pentagon and CIA. The Post adds that officials are looking at airstrikes and bombing campaigns, but not a land invasion.

"Surely, the report will spur debate about U.S. military action against Iran, particularly since U.S.-Iran talks regarding Iraq are tentatively scheduled for mid-April and because U.S. military action would be opposed by most world leaders," CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says.

"The U.N. in late March gave Iran one month and asked the international watchdog agency to report back on Iran's compliance on freezing its nuclear program, but according to the Hersh report, the White House has increased its military planning for possible attacks against Iran and has not ruled out using tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapons, in the event negotiations fail," Falk says.

"The unity of the world powers at the United Nations ends with a stern warning, mainly because Russia and China have made no bones about opposing sanctions or harsher action," Falk says, "leaving the Bush administration planning for a coalition of countries to impose sanctions and, according to the Hersh report, military action."

Guys, while I am as concerned about Iran as any, I ask you, who have much more info on the subject than I, are we ready to attempt another regime change? Seems to me we're stretched too thin now, but I am at the mercy of limited info and loathe to judge such a move without asking questions.

BTW, Rick, my idea of "liberal" is aimed more at personal liberties, the idea of preventing someone from realizing a profit in a legitimate venture is, well, unamerican to me. I draw the line when corporations reward executives while the company is going under. I'm sort of an anacronism, I still believe in a handshake deal and ethics in a world of lawsuits and shady deals. Frankly, I'll never get rich but I'm almost happy the accident allowed me to step aside and let others fight over the wealth, sure is a lot less pressure this way.

[Brian Baldwin]

Pound them from the air non-stop day and night. No ground troops. Just bomb them back into the stone ages. Everything from Nuclear and military sites to frozen Yak's tongue stands. Bomb it all and then bomb it again and again. Unconditional surrender would be the only option allowed.

[ExplodedMind]

Rick's take on the new Iran strategy looks prescient to me. I still think there will be no attack before the November elections, and I am doubtful there will be an attack in the next 18 months. Iran is walking a thin line quite well, and I don't expect them to make a major error that gives us an excuse to attack.

The recent claim that Iran was within weeks of a military attack against Western interests seems to have subsided, which is no surprise. We couldn't get that lucky.

EM

[Sean Osborne]

Report: U.S. Ponders Iran Invasion

This is going to be the big push from the Left. That's a guarrantee. They'll be coming out of the woodwork to defend Iran from US attacks on its nuclear infrastructure.

However, that said... this headline is quite telling... Doesn't CBS News know the difference between an "Iran Invasion" and pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure?

Apparently not.

Seymour Hersh is the darling of the Left. His "intel" is less than adequate in many recent examples - and he certainly is no Bill Gertz.

Imminently, retired USMC Lt. General Greg Newbold will be brought to the fore in opposition to the prudent planning going on concerning Iranian nukes. He is one of those "military officials" Hersh is refering to.
LTG Newbold was the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2002. His resignation of his commission was for partisan political reasons. He's been an opponent of this war for the wrong reasons ever since. He'll be the new darling of the Left in no time because his rhetoric is Democrat talking points down to the very last letter.

[Ryan Ruck]

Just bomb them back forward into the stone ages.

There... Fixed it for you.

[American Patriot]

IRAN'S NUKES
AntiMullah ^ | April 09, 2005 | Alan Peters

Iran has recently been announcing that it will show the world something incredible. So far we have seen some missiles, miniature flying boats and missile torpedoes.

It is more than possible and more likely the subject of their "incredible surprise" that Iran could reach proof of concept test stage for its military nuclear program within the time frame forecast; ie: by March or April, 2006.

However, how such a test is undertaken will tell, in reality, the level of credibility of the clerics’ nuclear threat.

If the test were an actual underground explosion, for example, it would highlight the reality that the clerics are attempting to make a statement to domestic and general audiences around the world, not to prove, scientifically, the capability.

Such proof can also be achieved without detonation, by demonstrating the viability of the triggers, and using computer simulation from that point onwards. However, this avenue lacks psychological impact at a political level.

It is possible, if a live weapon were used, that this could be one of the eight or more warheads now in the hands of the Pasdaran Air Force. At least three were acquired from Kazakhstan in December 1991.

By the end of 1991, Iran had all (or virtually all) the components needed to make three operational nuclear weapons: aerial bombs and/or surface-to-surface missile (SSM) warheads. Highly-reliable sources had long ago stated that the weapons were assembled from parts bought in the ex-Soviet Muslim republics.

These weapons became operational as early as February to April 1992. Tehran said it is committed to "providing Syria with a nuclear umbrella before June 1992".

The weapons obtained from Kazakhstan were two nuclear warheads and one aerial nuclear bomb. As well, in April 1992-1993, Iran purchased FOUR more warheads for SCUD-type SSMs which were upgraded in the DPRK.

Since that time, Iran acquired a reported four nuclear weapons from Ukraine, and additional warheads from the DPRK (North Korea). There is also evidence that Iran may have acquired up to six warheads from Ukraine, delivered via Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is understood that the indigenous production focuses around designs which are essentially the same, or similar to, those of Pakistan. An actual detonation of an Iranian weapon would disclose to sensors much about the type of weapon and the origins of the fissionable materials used in its construction.

Having said that, there are very real questions as to the numbers of nuclear weapons which Iran could build domestically in the near-term. To overcome this, Iran has already embarked on a strategy of saturation of Israeli (and other) regional defenses. Including by using Hamas and Hezbollah capability in the region to divert Israel on the ground with local attacks.

It is clear that the major build-up of tactical and theater-strategic ballistic missiles in Hezbollah and Syrian positions is designed to cause Israel to expend its three batteries of Arrow 2 ABM and Patriot PAC-III missiles against an overwhelming array of targets, most of which would be non-nuclear and non-strategic, thus enabling Iran to undertake a second-strike, or follow-on launch, of Shahab-3s with nuclear weapons against a "theoretically" then-defenseless Israel.

Equally, Israel is aware of this and has undertaken steps to determine target priorities and to adopt a launch-through-confirmed-warning counter-attack.

Assuming that an April 2006 date, (apparently moved to May or June) for a supposed surgical US strike against Iranian facilities is believed in Tehran, then clearly the clerics would consider making a move just before that date line. But all of the time frames are extremely speculative.

It also cannot be assumed that all the Iranian deliveries of nuclear weapons would be via ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3. One special danger would be an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) fired by Iran over the USA from a retrofited cargo ship, chartered or leased under false identity and hard to find and to counteract. Even an old rust bucket would do the job. In fact this kind of disguise would serve well.

Ukraine already admitted that it had “lost” 18 supersonic, long-range (3,000km) nuclear-capable X-55/KH-55 Granat [NATO codename AS-15 Kent cruise missiles, without their warheads and that 12 had gone to Iran and six to the PRC.

On January 28, 2005, Ukranian parliamentarian Hryhoriy Omelchenko on January 28, 2005, released an open letter to Pres. Viktor Yushchenko stating that Ukraine had illegally sold the cruise missiles to Iran in 2001. The Iranian Government later said that it had “no documentation” on the deal.

The four to six warheads purchased by Iran in 2001 were for the Kh-55, a missiles which was optimized for attacks on US Navy carriers. Meanwhile, as well, the PRC has already transferred to Iran Russian-origin nuclear and strategic technologies without Moscow's permission.

Significantly, the threat is not just from the Shahab SSMs and X-55s, but also from the myriad shorter-range SCUD-type SSMs and anti-ship cruise missiles. Cruise missiles in fixed batteries (mainly near the Straits of Hormuz) are concealed underground.

The next key date in the Iran saga will possibly be the meeting of the Council of Guardians to review the status of Supreme Ruler Ali Khamenei, set for late April and organize a new election for the position - also reportedly postponed to May or June.

Ailing from terminal cancer with perhaps as little as six months to live, the Supreme Ruler faces a challenge from his former supporter and now declared antagonist, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, whose 12th Imam apocalypse and Armageddon mind sets were too weird even for Khomeini, who forced the cleric and his Hojatieh movement into a clandestine, underground profile.

As the spiritual mentor for President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Mesbah Yazdi has emerged as the power behind the throne and counts on the support of the Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) commanders Ahmadi-Nejad has placed in virtually every executive position of power in his administration. And into the administration of universities and into key positions inside Iranian banks.

Reports indicate that Iran has already successfully modified at least one nose cone, perhaps three, as mentioned above, to deliver a nuclear weapon but appears more likely to set off an underground nuclear test to "impress" the world even more than the regular recent display of weapons so far.

However, with Ahmadi-Nejad and his spiritual advisor Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi at the helm, the Iranian demonstration could speculatively be dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel and then basking in the Islamic fervor and congratulations this would bring them.

They are of the Pol Pot type mentality, not the "saner" old-guard Ayatollahs with whom the world has been dealing - however badly and weakly - which now leads to the "flesh eating bacteria" challenge presented by the neo-Iran administration of Ahmadi-Nejad.

[American Patriot]

Gunning for Iran
Sunday Times ^ | April 9, 2006 | Sarah Baxter

It is seven o’clock in the morning eastern standard time when the news comes through to Americans at their breakfast tables. President George W Bush will shortly be addressing the nation live from the Oval Office. Moments later he is on air, announcing in a sombre drawl that Iran’s nuclear sites have been struck during the night by American bombers.

“You can see the shape of the speech the president will give,” said Richard Perle, a leading American neo-conservative. “He will cite the Iranians’ past pattern of deception, their support for terrorism and the unacceptable menace the nation would present if it had nuclear weapons.

“The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation.”

Sounds far-fetched? Think again. The unthinkable, or what Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, described only a few weeks ago as “inconceivable”, is now being actively planned in the Pentagon.

White House insiders say that Bush and Dick Cheney, his hawkish vice-president, have made up their minds to resolve the Iranian crisis before they leave office in three years’ time.

They say that military intervention — in the form of a massive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities — is being planned and that Bush is prepared to order the raid unless Iran scraps its nuclear programme.

“This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” a senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying in an article by Seymour Hersh, the respected American investigative journalist, in tomorrow’s New Yorker magazine.

The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “It’s not in their nature,” he said.

White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left Al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.

One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners: 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face military consequences.

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.

Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be on hand by 2008, providing Bush with further options.

What is going on at the White House? Is Bush really contemplating a strike against Iran or might his officials simply be talking up the possibility to strengthen their negotiating hand with Iran? If military action were to be launched, what would be the consequences for America, the Middle East and Britain?

UNTIL Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidency on a tide of popular support that caught the West by surprise last June, Iran had been seen by many commentators as being on the mend.

American neo-cons had hoped the invasion of Iraq would set in train a domino effect across the region, with the people of Iran and other oil-rich states rising up to demand western-style freedoms and democracy.

Unfortunately the reverse has been true, in Iran at least. Since taking power, Ahmadinejad has openly embraced a tide of nationalism and anti-Israeli and American sentiment.

The rhetoric has been matched with action. He has restarted Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, placing the country in breach of its international obligations and on a collision course with the West.

Seemingly emboldened by America’s problems in Iraq, last week Ahmadinejad continued his baiting of the West by staging ostentatious war games in the Gulf.

The hardware on display — flashy missiles, torpedoes and rockets — may be no match for US weaponry, but it served as a warning of the disruption that the regime could cause to the global economy by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor through which much of the Middle East’s oil flows.

“The importance of the ‘Great Prophet’ manoeuvre lies in the time and geographical place as well as the arms used,” General Yahya Rahim Safavi, head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, said pointedly.

Revelling in the international spotlight and apparently oblivious to his growing pariah status, Ahmadinejad will this week up the anti by hosting an international conference focused on Palestine and “the Holocaust myth”.

IT IS against this backdrop and in the context of the race to find a diplomatic solution at the United Nations that the White House is briefing on military action against Iran.

Some observers will interpret it as more posturing than reality.

Nevertheless, the US administration is nothing if not tenacious and there was a growing feeling in Washington last week that Bush really has put a military option on the table. While the British and Europeans are still placing faith in diplomacy, the Americans are actively preparing for the worst case scenario, it is said. Furthermore, while it is true that setbacks in Iraq have diminished American enthusiasm for military intervention, it would be a mistake to conclude that the American public, with its horror of the ayatollahs and memory of the 1979 embassy siege in Tehran, would not stomach a strike, Bush officials believe.

“The American people are not looking for new fights but they understand the nature of the Iranian threat very clearly,” said a senior American defence official. “I don’t see anyone out there saying, ‘Oh, we have to be nice to Iran’.”

Senior military planners at the Pentagon met recently to assess such an attack’s chances of success. They told the White House that they had yet to map all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and that several were buried under deep granite mountains. A strike now could set the mullahs’ programme back only a couple of years at most.

Fast-forward to 2008 and the picture changes. By then more intelligence will have been gathered on the location of sites. And, crucially, Big Blu should be ready.

The damage, if not total, say experts, would be considerable. “The Iranians need 100% of their programme to build nuclear bombs,” the American defence analyst John Pike, of globalsecurity.org, pointed out. “We don’t have to destroy 100% of their facilities to deny the ayatollahs a nuclear capability.”

Edward Luttwak, a Pentagon adviser and expert on military strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, is a leading advocate of the theory that Iran’s nuclear installations could be bombed “in a single night”.

Inside the Pentagon, top officials have been citing Luttwak’s views. Air strikes by a handful of B2 bombers, flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, would be enough to demolish the most critical Iranian nuclear sites such as Natanz, Arak and Isfahan.

“You don’t need to solve the problem of Iran, you just need to delay the mullahs for a few years, expose their vainglory and hope that the Iranians, most of whom hate this regime, will get rid of them,” Luttwak said.

It is a tempting prospect for Bush, who is determined to leave his mark on history as a “consequential president”, as Karl Rove, his adviser and guru, once put it. However, there is considerable nervousness among administration officials about the Iranians’ potential reaction.

“We’re in a state of flux about military action,” said a White House insider. “We can bomb the sites, but what then?” Will America hold its nerve if events take a sharp turn for the worse?

IF attacked, there is no doubt that Iran could unleash a wave of terrorism in the West and Israel and destabilise its all-too-fragile Iraqi neighbour. An attack would almost certainly also encourage Iranians to rally behind Ahmadinejad.

Luttwak admits that it would be disastrous if military action were to alienate pro-western Iranians, whom he regards as America’s “once and future allies” in the Middle East. It is a view shared by many neo-conservatives, including Perle, who would prefer to see internal regime change in Iran rather than bombs raining down.

To this end the State Department has been awarded $75m to promote democracy in Iran. “It’s a safe bet the CIA has been given a budget 10 times that size,” observed Pike.

Last week there were reports that British ministers were to hold secret talks with defence chiefs to consider the consequences of a possible American-led attack on Iran.

The report was denied by Downing Street but there can be little doubt that the apparent change in American thinking must now be occupying minds throughout Whitehall.

Until recently it was assumed that any strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be left to the Israelis, who are the most interested party. That, say American defence sources, has changed on the grounds that only the US has the weaponry to perform the job in one night — presenting the world with a fait accompli.

More worrying for Labour perhaps is that under the American plans Britain would be expected to play a supporting role, perhaps by sending surveillance aircraft or ships and submarines to the Gulf or by allowing the Americans to fly from Diego Garcia.

Will Tony Blair still be in Downing Street by 2008 and, if not, would Gordon Brown as prime minister be willing to play ball on yet another military adventure in the Middle East? As public opinion stands, such a move could spell political suicide.

Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, believes Bush is compounding the mistakes he made in the run-up to the war in Iraq. “If you get to the point where you have to use your military, you’ll want everybody on board with you and we haven’t even tried,” he said.

Such considerations have failed to sway Bush and Cheney before. If their approval ratings remain in the doldrums, there may be an upside to a strike on Iran. “Regardless of how bad Bush’s poll numbers are, Americans love a display of firepower,” said Pike.

[American Patriot]

Iran breakthrough may be in sight
Scotsman ^ | Tue 17 Jan 2006 | FRASER NELSON POLITICAL EDITOR

Iran breakthrough may be in sight FRASER NELSON POLITICAL EDITOR

Key points • Russia moves towards US and European stance on Iran; China silent • Iranian ambassador welcomes offer to move nuclear programme to Russia • Atomic agency chief says Iran could acquire nuclear weapon this year

Key quote "If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon" - Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Story in full A POTENTIAL breakthrough in the nuclear stand-off with Iran came last night when the Iranian ambassador in Moscow praised a proposal to move Tehran's uranium enrichment programme to Russia.

As Britain, the United States, Russia, France and China met in London yesterday to discuss how to handle Iran's illegal nuclear development, the country was facing the growing certainty that it would be referred to the UN Security Council.

While China remained resolutely silent on the possibility of sanctions - a move which it has the power to veto - Russia made significant moves towards the western stance on Iran's nuclear programme.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said last night that his position is "very close" to that of the United States and Britain. And it appeared that he could hold the key to a resolution when Iran's ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Ansari, welcomed an offer to move the Iranian uranium enrichment programme to Russia.

Such a move would mean Iran, which is developing a missile which could reach Israel, could not acquire enough material for a bomb.

"As far as Russia's proposal is concerned, we consider it constructive and are carefully studying it. This is a good initiative to resolve the situation. We believe that Iran and Russia should find a way out of this jointly," said Mr Ansari.

Mr Putin emerged from separate talks with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, saying he was treating the situation with caution - but he in no way condoned Iran's decision to break the seals from its uranium enhancement plants a fortnight ago.

"We need to move very carefully in this area. I personally do not allow myself a single careless announcement and do not allow the foreign ministry to make a single uncertain step," he said. "We must work on the Iranian problem very carefully, not allowing abrupt, erroneous steps."

Mr Putin's words were welcomed by diplomats, who feared he was seeking to forge an alliance with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's firebrand president elected five months ago.

While Russia drew European Union condemnation for selling surface-to-air missiles to Iran, it has drawn the line at Mr Ahmadinejad resuming conversion of uranium at the Isfahan facility.

Following the meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council yesterday Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said he would not "rush" into any action and expressed hope that Iran would stop its nuclear research after realising the strength of world opinion.

"There are plenty of examples where a matter is referred to the Security Council and the Security Council takes action and that action is followed without sanction," he said at a conference in London.

He said he was also encouraged by Iran's threat to withhold gas from world markets if such action was taken.

"The fact that Iran is so concerned not to see it referred to the Security Council underlines the strength of the UN," he said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the UN's nuclear watchdog - was last night preparing a draft document saying it can make no more progress amid Iran's intransigence and asks the UN Security Council to take a decision.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, said in a magazine interview that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon later this year.

"If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon," he told Newsweek.

[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.

[Aplomb]

“Regardless of how bad Bush’s poll numbers are, Americans love a display of firepower,” said Pike.

So are we all ready then? Pets included: From: http://conservativeprincess.mu.nu/

[ExplodedMind]

Lots to digest above. Random thoughts...

Despite Putin's talk, I don't trust the Russians to do anything very helpful.

China still has the veto, and the UN is worse than useless (Duh!).

At least an Iranian nuclear test explosion would put an end to all that "peaceful nuclear energy" talk, wouldn't it?

Let's assume for a moment that Iran does have a nuke or two now. If we hit Iran's nuke sites, and don't disable all existing weapons, how do we stop Iran from nuking or using conventional missles on our forces in Iraq? Are Iran's missles accurate enough to take out large numbers of our people? Could they destroy the Green Zone and decapitate the nascent government? Yes, the resulting exchange would be the end of Iran, but it would be horrible to have to kill the mostly pro-American populace in Iran.

So, just how would we answer? There is a plan in place, of course, I just wonder what it is...

Love the dog, Aplomb! Salute that!

EM

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612453/posts

10 April 2006


TEHERAN - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed on Monday he would not back down “one iota” over Iran’s nuclear programme, again rejecting a UN Security Council demand for Teheran to freeze sensitive enrichment work.

“Be certain that the government which serves you will follow the wishes of the people with wisdom and strength, and will not back down one iota,” the hardline president said in a speech carried live on state television.
Ahmadinejad also cryptically promised “very good nuclear news in the coming days”, but did not elaborate.
“Our enemies know they are unable to even slightly hurt our nation and they cannot create the tiniest obstacle on its glorious and progressive way,” he also said in the speech, given in the northeastern city of Mashhad.
“They cannot stop our nation,” he said. “They should know they cannot deprive our nation of its rights by political pressure.”
In separate comments, Iranian army chief of staff General Abdolrahim Mousavi told the ISNA news agency that Iran will fight back against any US action against its interests.
“We will certainly retaliate against any action by the enemy, and we are vigilant over any military aggression,” he said.
“We know America’s nature, and we are keeping enemy movements under surveillance. We are aware of their oppressive actions and goals against the Muslim nations,” he added.
Two US publications reported over the weekend that the White House is studying options for military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, with one even suggesting the use of an atomic weapon had been proposed. The administration of US President George W. Bush, which accuses Teheran of seeking to manufacture a nuclear bomb, has repeatedly said it is keeping all options open even though it supports efforts for a diplomatic solution.

[ExplodedMind]

Can the offer of a "Mother of all Battles" be far away?

EM

[Sean Osborne]

The US most certainly is NOT going to invade Iran. Period. And I have very serious doubts that the US will ever launch preemptive surgical strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. To do so would provide the Ayatollah and his Hojjatieh, Armageddon-loving sock-puppet president exactly what they both want.

I know there is a larger war coming, but it's nexus to slightly to the west and will, at least in its initial phase, involve Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Any US strike will come ONLY if President Bush decides to risk total war as a direct consequence. I do not believe he will so opt. The purely secular and logical reasons for this viewpoint are included below.


I will take this opportunity to present an analysis from the Power and Interest News Report (PINR). PINR is a Chicago-based open-source analysis organization I've been reading for about two years now. Overall, on a scale of 1 -10 I'd give them an 8. In this instance I believe their analysis is a solid 10, a bullsseye, and not just because they agree with my particular view. PINR's analysis is purely secular while mine is, obviously, that of the prophetic, evangelical Christian worldview. I would urge anyone to include a PINR analysis in their research before coming to a conclusion on any of a number of world issues.

Intelligence Brief: Iran and the U.S. Maneuver Carefully Toward Confrontation
Drafted By:
http://www.pinr.com

In the latest edition of the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh argues that the United States is currently in the process of planning an attack on Iran. The purpose of the plan, according to Hersh, is to eliminate Iran's nuclear research program. The Bush administration believes that Iran's nuclear research program is part of a covert Iranian strategy to develop nuclear weapons.

While there is no doubt that the Bush administration has drawn up contingency plans for an attack on Iran, it is unlikely that in the immediate future Washington will execute an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Indeed, after Hersh's article hit the press, the Bush administration was quick to reassure that while the military option remains on the table, it is seeking a "diplomatic" solution to the current dispute. President George W. Bush himself labeled Hersh's claim as "wild speculation."

Although the United States is perfectly capable of launching air strikes on Iran, such a scenario could have a very negative effect on U.S. interests. The negative outcomes that are part of this policy may outweigh the positives. The negative outcomes involved in an attack were outlined by PINR on March 2: "The U.S. military is overburdened by the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, making a realistic ground invasion of Iran improbable. While strategic air strikes are certainly an option, it is unlikely that such strikes would destroy completely Iran's nuclear research program. Furthermore, an actual attack on its facilities would probably hasten Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons, similar to the effect that Israel's 1981 strike on the Osirak reactor in Iraq had on Baghdad." There is also the very real concern that an attack on Iran would cause it to exercise its levers of power in neighboring Iraq, using its power brokers to increase instability.

In addition to the above strategic costs, there are also economic repercussions. The price of oil currently stands at US$68 a barrel, and any instability introduced to the Middle East will raise this price substantially. The economies in oil dependent countries are already suffering from sustained high oil prices, and as the price of oil moves higher it will cause further damage to these economies. Even without an attack, any sanctions placed on Iran that include its energy industry will also cause an escalation of oil prices.

The above drawbacks explain why the current government in Tehran thinks that it can defy the United States and the E.U.-3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom). For Tehran, the U.S. and the E.U.-3 have limited leverage options at their disposal. Tehran does not believe that the United States will initiate air strikes, and thinks that it can buy time and use Washington's current exposed position to accelerate its nuclear research program. Indeed, while Iran may not have an active nuclear weapons program, the further that it proceeds in nuclear research the closer that it comes to having the potential to quickly and efficiently develop a nuclear weapons arsenal.

It is very likely that Tehran sees nuclear weapons as an essential part of its drive for regional power. As PINR Senior Analyst Dr. Michael A. Weinstein examined in an in-depth analysis of Iran's regional strategy, "When the positives and negatives of Iran's strategic situation are weighed, it becomes clear that the complex balance of opportunities and threats provides the opportunity for Iran to try to expand its regional power at considerable risk."

According to Weinstein, "The best-case scenario for Iran is that the U.S. military is forced to withdraw from Iraq, leaving Iran with a dominant sphere of influence over a Shi'a-dominated Iraq or a breakaway Shi'a mini-state in the south, and that Iran is able to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Were this outcome to occur, Iran would be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, displacing the United States." [See: "Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities"]

Iran's current U.N. declared deadline for halting uranium enrichment will come at the end of April. If Iran does not halt uranium enrichment by the deadline, Washington has said that it will attempt to punish Iran more concretely, with measures including sanctions. But placing sanctions on Iran may not have the desired effect since it is far from clear whether Russia or China will approve of any sanctions regime, especially one that targets Iran's energy exports. A sanctions regime without the support of Russia and China would have a limited effect on Iran.

Therefore, the conflict between the U.S., E.U.-3 and Iran continues forward, much as it has for the past three years. The U.S. has a clear policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has a clear policy of preventing the U.S. from halting its robust nuclear research program; Tehran's more murky policy may be to develop and acquire nuclear weapons that will assist it in increasing its regional power. The two countries will continue to spar with each other, both playing a potentially hazardous game where any substantial move by either side could rapidly damage both countries' interests.

Both the U.S. and Iran continue to take little steps toward confrontation. Washington wants to prevent, or at least delay, Iran's move toward controlling the nuclear fuel cycle, and Tehran is testing Washington's limits since it believes that military action against it is unlikely and that the U.S. is in a weak position to confront Iran effectively. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Iran Tests Washington's Limits"]

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49679

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Iran priming Hezbollah for war with U.S., Israel?
Lebanese leader Jumblatt says his country is 'no longer independent'

---

Posted: April 11, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Iran is attempting to draw Lebanon into a conflict with the U.S. and Israel and is priming the Hezbollah militia to assault the Jewish state in the event of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said in an interview.

"Lebanon is being used by the Iranians as a front which could be used if the Americans retaliate against Iran's nuclear facilities. Lebanon is now entangled in a greater axis. It is no longer independent," said Jumblatt, speaking to WND's Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor on Batchelor's national radio program for which Klein serves as a co-host.
Jumblatt is the head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and is largely considered the most prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politician. He said Syria and Iran have formed an alliance against the U.S. and have the past year tightened their collective grip on Lebanon.


"The Syrians feel at ease because of the Iranian connections. [Syria-appointed Lebanese President Amil] Lahoud is much more confident because of the alliance with the Iranians. The borders between Lebanon and Syria are open. Syria is smuggling [into Lebanon] weapons, ammunition and fighters. Hezbollah too is the best to destabilize Lebanon against independence," said Jumblatt.

Syria last April withdrew tens of thousands of troops it maintained in Lebanon, announcing it was ending its nearly 30-year occupation of the country. The withdrawal was considered a result of mounting international pressure following the assassination in February 2005 of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, for which Damascus was widely blamed.
But there has been a steady stream of reports Syrian intelligence agents continue to operate in Lebanon. Syrian and Lebanese intelligence agents have been blamed for a series of bombings and political assassinations that have rocked Lebanon since Hariri's murder.

Jumblatt said he was unsure of the extent of Syria's intelligence network in Lebanon. He called Lebanese President Lahoud a "Syrian agent, just a puppet of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad."

He blasted the international community for "dropping the ball on pressuring Syria" the past few months.

"We heard a lot of talk about pressuring Syria last year, but have not seen much lately," said Jumblatt. "You have to ask for Bashar [Assad] to go then maybe Lahoud might go. ... I don't see it possible to change [Syria's] behavior without changing the regime."
Jumblatt warned together with Syria the Tehran regime has been funneling money and weapons to Hezbollah to use against Israel and American interests in the event of an attack against Iran's nuclear sites.

Hezbollah reportedly maintains between 12,000 and 16,000 conventional short- and long-range missiles pointed at Israel's northern border, including missiles capable of striking the civilian and industrial heartland of the Jewish state. Security officials say Hezbollah has recently been able to obtain antiaircraft missiles.

Israel and United Nations observers have noticed a buildup of Hezbollah militants along the Israeli-Lebanese border the past month. Israeli security officials last month warned Hezbollah was looking to kidnap Israeli civilians and soldiers and escalate violence along the border.

Jumblatt's statements concerning Hezbollah come in the wake of a report in London's Daily Telegraph stating Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are now deployed at Hezbollah posts along the Israeli border and are developing an advanced intelligence-gathering network for spying on the Jewish state.
A senior Israeli Defense Forces commander told the Telegraph that Hezbollah posts fortified by Iran are "now Iran's frontline with Israel. The Iranians are using Hezbollah to spy on us so that they can collect information for future attacks. And there is very little we can do about it."