Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[vector7]

Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
22/10/2008

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy. Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action. Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030279.html

[vector7]

Report: Hijacked Iranian Ship Contained 'Dirty Bomb' for Israel

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) Web blogs all over the Internet are continuing to buzz about an Iranian ship that was hijacked last August by Somali pirates and which Russian sources warned contained a dirty bomb intended for Israel.

The hijacking passed largely unnoticed in the mainstream media, save a brief mention in the news on August 22 that reported that three vessels – Iranian, Japanese and German – and their 57 crew members were hijacked by pirates in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia. Several pirates died after they forced open part of the cargo.

The waterway connects the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Somalia, host to the longest coastline in Africa (1,880 miles), is an international piracy and terrorist hotspot. Foreign vessels are often seized by pirates in the area, who hold the ships and their crews for ransom.

According to its manifest, the MV Iran Devant had departed Nanjing, China on July 28 and was headed to Rotterdam to deliver 42,500 tons of iron ore and "industrial products" to an unidentified "German client." But the Iranian bulk carrier with 29 crew members, owned and operated by the U.S.-sanctioned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), was apparently transporting cargo considerably more significant than the average contraband.

The 40 pirates, armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) brought the ship to Eyl, a fishing village in northeastern Somalia, according to numerous bloggers. There a larger contingent of pirates took control of the vessel – 50 on board and 50 patrolling on the beach.

Initial attempts to inspect the ship's seven cargo containers failed. The pirates could not break into the holds and the crew swore they did not have access codes to the locks. The captain and engineer of the vessel evaded answering questions about the contents of the holds, despite threats by the pirates to blow up the ship. They first said the containers held crude oil, but then changed the story to say there were "minerals" in the holds.

When at last the pirates succeeded in opening one of the containers, they allegedly discovered packets of what they later reported to be "a powdery fine sandy soil." The pirates who had any exposure to the powder were reportedly struck down by illness and within days began to exhibit strange symptoms, including skin burns and hair loss. Sixteen of them died. Andrew Mwangura, director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, was quoted by the South Africa Sunday Times in a September 28 interview, "There is something very wrong about that ship."

The vessel was released by the pirates on October 10, announced the IRISL public relations office, "after seven weeks of negotiations with Somali pirates." All 29 members of the crew were reported safe. Iran criticized world powers for its indifference toward the lack of security in international waters. IRISL, which is run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, added in its statement that the vessel was sailing towards international waters and it is not clear where the ship has gone since the report.

Russian Intelligence: Ship Was a Dirty Bomb Sent to Israel

U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was "an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.

"The entire cargo of radioactive sand," said the Russian sources, " [was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore."

Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship's crew succeeded in reaching Israel's coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.

'Logically Not Reliable, But Nothing Impossible in the Middle East'

Dr. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), told Israel National News that the entire incident could easily have been a fiction -- or not. "Nothing is impossible in this region," said Kam, an IDF Colonel (res.) and former deputy director of the Research Division in the IDF's Military Intelligence, "but logically [the report] doesn't seem to be very reliable."

The reason, he said, is that such an attack on Israel would cost the Iranians dearly -- and he said they know it.

"First of all, because it could fail, and this would be the worst thing for them. I think that if at all, the timing is very bad for them, while they are trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons, when there is international pressure on them on that issue… It could give Israel the best excuse to attack their nuclear facilities.

"Also, if such an operation is successful, the outcome could be an Israeli strategic attack against the Iranians, which could be very costly for the Islamic Republic. Since the Iranians believe that Israel does have a nuclear arsenal, they have to take into account that Israel would respond by nuclear attack," he pointed out.

"If it is true, this incident could give Israel the best pretext to attack an Iranian nuclear site," said Kam. "Rationally, I tend to think it is no more than a good story."

Israeli government officials could not be reached for comment.

www.israelnationalnews.com

[vector7]

Iran proposal: Preemptive strike against Israeli targets

Wed., October 22, 2008 Tishrei 23, 5769
By Barak Ravid

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030253.html

[vector7]

Diplomats: Nasrallah Ill from Chemical Murder Attempt

23 Tishrei 5769, October 22, '08

(IsraelNN.com) Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah is seriously ill from a chemical attack nearly two weeks ago, according to Iraqi sources quoted by Beirut diplomats. Nasrallah has not been seen in public for more than a week, but his aides have vehemently denied the report, published in the Iranian newspaper Khoursid.

It stated that Iran sent 15 doctors to Lebanon to save his life and that they are prepared to fly him to Iran, if necessary. They estimate that Nasrallah was poisoned by an unidentified chemical substance.

The report may explain rumors 10 days ago that Nasrallah has appointed his heir in case he is assassinated.
For the full story click here.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...sh.aspx/154586

[vector7]

Army official: Aggression to drive Iran beyond its borders

www.chinaview.cn
2008-10-22 21:20:36

TEHRAN, Oct. 22 (Xinhua) -- The deputy chief of Iran's Armed Forces General Headquarters said on Wednesday that any aggression on Iran will drive the country's operation beyond its borders, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

"All Islamic world is considered as Iran's support," Sardar Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr was quoted by Fars as saying.

"The regime like Israel is too weak to attack a strong and powerful country like Iran," he said, referring to recent threats against Iran.

Iran's Army Air Force conducted a large-scale war game last week to confront the potential attacks against the country.

Iran has also claimed that it conducted another high-scale war exercise of its air crafts earlier this summer.

Reiterating the retaliation in case of any aggression, the Iranian president warned earlier this month that Iran would cut off the hands of the aggressor to his country.

The United States and Israel have consistently refused to rule out the possibility of military strikes against Iran over its refusal to halt its disputed nuclear program.

Iran's Armed Forces and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) completed military maneuvers called Payambar-e Azam 3 (Great Prophet 3) in the Gulf in mid July to improve combat readiness and capability.

Iran also successfully test fired new long- and medium-range missiles in the drills held shortly after Israel purportedly conducted an air maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece early June in what was considered as preparation for a war against Iran.

The United States and its allies have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. Iran has denied the U.S. charges and insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Editor: Sun Yunlong
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10235429.htm

[vector7]

Report: Hezbollah chief poisoned; Iranian doctors saved his life
Last update - 16:34 22/10/2008

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

The Iraqi Web site Almalaf on Wednesday quoted diplomatic sources in Beirut as saying Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was poisoned last week and that his life was saved by Iranian doctors who were rushed to Lebanon to treat him.

The sources reportedly told the paper that a particularly poisonous chemical substance was used against the Shi'ite militia's leader. His medical condition was apparently critical for a number of days, until the Iranian doctors arrived and managed to save his life.

The site claimed that the sources believed it was highly likely that the poisoning was an Israeli assassination attempt.

Hezbollah has denied the report. Lebanese parliament member Al-Hajj Hassan, a member of the group, said: "This is a lie and a fabrication. It' true that I haven't seen [Nasrallah] this past week, but he's okay."

The Iranian medical team arrived on Sunday at 11:00 P.M., apparently on a special military flight. Officials considered flying Nasrallah to Iran for further treatment, according to Almalaf.

In September 1997, a Mossad team tried to assassinate Hamas' political chief, Khaled Meshal, by drizzling poison in his ear. The attempt failed, and two of the agents were captured while others found refuge in the Israeli embassy in Amman.

Nasrallah's second-in-command Imad Mughniyah was assassinated in February in a Damascus bomb blast. Hezbollah accused Israel of responsibility for the explosion, although Israel has denied any connection to the act.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030482.html

[vector7]

Nukes: Too Deep to Hit
Mark Hosenball
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 3, 2008

Western intelligence experts believe that Iran's nuclear facilities are so deep underground that it would be difficult for Israel to wipe them out, or even significantly damage them, with a quick airstrike. In order to deal a serious setback to Iran's nuclear program, at least four key sites inside Iran would have to be hit, said one Western official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information. The facilities, however, are located in tunnels fortified by barriers more than 60 feet thick. According to this official and other U.S. experts, Israel does not possess conventional weapons capable of knocking out the facilities. Breaking through the thick shell would require, at minimum, several bunker-buster bombs striking precisely the same spot. "These targets would be very hard to destroy," said former U.N. nuclear expert David Albright. Theoretically, Israel could do a lot more damage with a nuclear strike. But U.S. and other Western experts say there is no reason to believe the Israelis will abandon their policy against shooting first with nukes.

U.S. and allied efforts to keep tabs on Iranian nukes suffered a blow recently because of a "spy vs. spy" mixup in Germany. For more than 10 years, according to two Western counterproliferation officials, the BND (Germany's equivalent of the CIA) employed an Iranian-Canadian informant known by the code name "Sinbad." Sinbad peddled technology to the Iranians, and, in turn, brought the BND high-quality Iranian government documents, including what Germany's Der Spiegel magazine described as pictures of tunnel-digging machinery and briefing papers on nuclear delivery systems. But the espionage operation recently ran aground when German Customs officers, unaware of Sinbad's role as a spy, busted him for illegal missile-technology shipments to Iran. Sinbad had concealed extracurricular schemes from the BND, and the spy agency had no power to stop the investigation. One of the counterproliferation officials said that Sinbad's arrest was a significant setback to espionage efforts against Iran's nuclear program.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165667

[vector7]

Iran opens new naval base at mouth of Persian Gulf

• Move boosts Tehran threat to choke vital oil supply
• Extent of forces at site remains unclear

• ulian Borger, diplomatic editor
• The Guardian,
• Wednesday October 29 2008

Iran yesterday signalled its intention to extend its military presence in the world's most important oil conduit, opening a new naval base at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and adding weight to its threats to choke off oil supplies, if the Islamic Republic came under attack.

The inauguration of the new base at Jask was announced by Iran's naval commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, who said it represented a new line of defence, blocking the entry of the "enemy" into the Persian Gulf and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, the gateway through which 40% of the world's traded oil passes each day.

As international tensions have grown over Iran's nuclear programme and US allegations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's insurgency, the US has reinforced its naval presence, keeping two aircraft carriers and their battle groups in the Gulf for long periods this year, instead of one. The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Theodore Roosevelt carriers are currently on patrol, and being used for sorties over Iraq.

Nato and the EU have announced plans to dispatch more ships to the Gulf of Aden in the coming months. The move is aimed at combating Somali-based pirates and escorting food aid deliveries in the Horn of Africa, but the naval build-up has been viewed with suspicion in Tehran.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has also moved to bolster naval presence in the Gulf, signing a deal with Abu Dhabi to site a new base on the Emirate's coast. There is an ongoing dispute between Iran and Abu Dhabi over possession of three small islands in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's deputy army commander, Brigadier General Abdul-Rahim Moussavi, commenting on the base's inauguration, said it would represent an "impenetrable naval barrier". As speculation has waxed and waned in recent months over the possibility of a US or an Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranian government has threatened a multi-pronged response, including the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian naval doctrine is focused on asymmetric attacks against western navies using swarms of small high-speed fibreglass boats armed with anti-ship missiles under the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC would rely on strength in numbers and surprise, calling it a "presence everywhere and nowhere doctrine".

Iran's regular navy is comparatively small, comprising three frigates, two corvettes, and three "kilo" class submarines. It is currently based at the northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz, at Bandar Abbas. Jason Alderwick, a naval expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Jask would offer some important advantages.

"It is in a better position strategically than Bandar Abbas," Alderwick said. "It has access to the Arabian sea, so there is deep water access straight away. It has a commanding position vis-Ã*-vis access to the straights, being forward, to the east for them. The real question is what forces are going to be based there? At this stage it's unclear what the Iranians are going to station there, for example, if they want to re-site their submarines there. That would be significant."

Lee Willett, the head of maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said the mere announcement of a new base could be an end in itself. "The cynic would say that any time Iranians say something about the Gulf the oil prices go up, and they are oil exporters, so they are going to make some money," Willett said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/29/iran

[vector7]

UAE challenges Iran with US-inspired confidence

Mon Nov 3, 3:24 am ET

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Emboldened by its close ties to the U.S., the United Arab Emirates is taking a more aggressive approach to challenging Iran over a territorial claim to three tiny Persian Gulf islands — even at the risk of antagonizing its powerful neighbor.

The tough talk is part of the oil-rich country's push to be taken more seriously as a major global player.

For three decades, the Emirates contested the islands located in the strategic Strait of Hormuz in a relatively low key manner. But this summer, it switched tactics — turning to tougher diplomacy to drum up support for what it calls the liberation of Arab territory from Iran's illegal occupation.

In particular, it protested the recent opening of two offices by Iran on the largest of the islands, Abu Musa.

"The continuation, since 1971, of Iran's occupation of the three UAE islands ... is an issue of central importance for us," Emirates foreign minister Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed told the United Nations General Assembly in his September address. The comments were the most high-level public remarks by a UAE official on the issue to date.

Abdullah's recent visit to Tehran to improve "bilateral relations" shows the UAE's willingness to talk out problems with mightier Iran. But behind the scenes, the Emirates has pressured groups like the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League to do more to help it win control of the strategically valuable territory.

It also complained to Western diplomats over Tehran's refusal to settle the dispute with an international arbitrator.

Such activism has won the UAE some Western support.

"The international community should help the UAE to make it possible that Iran understands that they are wrong and that they should sit around the table to discuss the issue," Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini was quoted as saying in the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National last week.

The confrontational posture is rare among the conservative Gulf Arab sheikdoms, who normally are cautious about criticizing their massive neighbor.

"They look at Iran as an expansionist, bullying neighbor, but they don't like to say it clearly," said Simon Henderson, the director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Analysts say some of the Emirates' newfound confidence in challenging the majority Shiite Iran is a result of the bond this majority Sunni Muslim nation has with the United States.

"With the support of Gulf nations and perhaps considerable backing of the U.S., the UAE is saying to Tehran 'Back off, behave yourself,'" Henderson said.

The islands' location in the Strait of Hormuz is what makes them appealing. Iran's Revolutionary Guards and U.S. Navy warships patrol the narrow waterway, where 40 percent of the world's oil passes through.

"The islands are strategically perfectly positioned for observations and interdictions of the Strait of Hormuz," said Theodore Karasik, a senior researcher at Dubai's Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis.

They give Iran "further land support to station boats, missiles, radars and troops in the Strait of Hormuz," Karasik said.

Iran maintains that an agreement signed eight years before its 1979 Islamic revolution between the shah and the ruler of one of the UAE's seven emirates, Sharjah, gives Tehran the right to administer Abu Musa and station troops there.

"Any misunderstanding about administrative arrangements on Abu Musa is solvable based on bilateral talks and the 1971 agreement," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, said in August.

But the agreement is vague. It says neither the UAE or Iran "will give up its claim to Abu Musa nor recognize the other's claim."

And there is no agreement on the two smaller islands — Greater and Lesser Tunbs. UAE insists they belonged to the emirate Ras al-Khaimah until Iran captured them by force days before the city-states united and declared independence from Britain in 1971.

But Tehran is unlikely to relinquish control of the islands any time soon because they "have historically been part of Iran," said Iraj Jamshidi, an independent analyst in Tehran.

Iran also has threatened to close off the Hormuz if it is ever attacked.

"At times when Tehran is fearing a maritime attack by the United States from the Gulf waters, Iranian positioning on the islands appears of strategic interest to defend the country and possibly disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz," said Jamal al-Suwaidi, director of Emirates Center For Strategic Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi.

The U.S. Navy insists Iran will not be allowed to execute its threat, but the timing of its decision to build offices on the island is seen by its Arab neighbors as a provocation.

"Iran is pushing the limits to see if it can get away with it and the UAE is hoping it cannot," Henderson said.

news.yahoo.com

[vector7]

German Daily Slams Israel for Spreading Lies over Iran

11/05/08

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- A German newspaper on Monday lashed out at the Zionist lobby in Germany for spreading lies and misinformation over Iran's nuclear program.

The leftist daily Junge Welt accused the German Zionist lobby of being involved in a "psychological warfare against Iran" by launching the so-called 'Stop The Bomb' campaign which is mainly aimed at discrediting Tehran's peaceful civilian nuclear program.

It added the pro-Zionist regime ring-leaders of the shadowy 'Stop The Bomb' campaign tried to stir up fears over the nature of Iran's nuclear program by making "hair-rising lies" like falsely citing the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei as saying Iran could have the nuclear bomb by Christmas.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief has in fact never made such a statement, the junge welt pointed out.

Political observers in Berlin stress that the German Zionist lobby had made similar baseless accusations about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction leading up to the US invasion in spring 2003.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Speculation that Israel could bomb Iran has mounted since a big Israeli air drill in June. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has also always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.

Iran has warned it could close the strategic Strait of Hormoz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.

Strait of Hormoz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.

Intensified threats by Tel Aviv and Washington of military action against Iran contradict a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies which endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear plans and activities.

Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions or launch military attack on Iran seems to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The UN nuclear watchdog has also carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West's allegations.

Following the said reports by the US and international bodies, many world states have called the UN Security Council pressure against Tehran unjustified, demanding that Iran's case be normalized and returned from the UNSC to the IAEA.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.

... Payvand News - 11/05/08 ...

http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1033.html

[vector7]

Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

By Peter Symonds | On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.

The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran� noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.�

Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable� and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion�.

A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News.

The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short, declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.� It rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The report was critical of the Bush administration’s failure to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same—limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia, China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.

To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf. “This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,� it stated.

In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table�, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.� Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.�

Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved� the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.

Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option�. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements� that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.

Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge�, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options�, including “preventative military action�. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.

As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military attack on Iran was a “terrible� choice, but “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice�. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.� While “his first inclination is not to pull the trigger,� Clarke stated, “if circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not hesitate.�

While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the American public is largely unaware of this discussion,� she declared: “What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.�

Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.�

The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia—including the use of military force against Iran.

rinf.com

[vector7]

Iran Underlines Full Control over Persian Gulf

11/07/08

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- A senior Iranian official brushed aside the remarks made by a NATO official that Iran is incapable of blocking the Persian Gulf.

"We hope that neither the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf nor any other waterway would be blocked, but if the enemy attacks Iran and consequently it (the blockade) becomes necessary, the Islamic Republic of Iran can easily close the Strait of Hormuz," Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, a senior official at the General Staff of Iran's Armed Forces told FNA on Wednesday.


The commander of NATO's naval forces had earlier said that Iran's threats to close the strategic Persian Gulf waterway were a "fantasy".

During his visit to Kuwait this week, Vice Admiral Maurizio Gemignani said the international waterway could not be blocked.

About 40 percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

A US attack on the Syrian village of Sukkariyah on Monday, has raised speculation about the likelihood of a US unilateral strike on the Islamic Republic.

Speculation that Israel could also bomb Iran mounted after a big Israeli air drill in June. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has also always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.

Iran has warned it could close the strategic Strait of Hormoz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.

Strait of Hormoz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.

In a Sep. 11 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy says that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces. According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.

Intensified threats by Tel Aviv and Washington of military action against Iran contradict a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies which endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear plans and activities.

Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions or launch military attack on Iran seems to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The UN nuclear watchdog has also carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West's allegations.

Following the said reports by the US and international bodies, many world states have called the UN Security Council pressure against Tehran unjustified, demanding that Iran's case be normalized and returned from the UNSC to the IAEA.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.

http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1061.html

[vector7]

Israel holds out war threat

(RTTNews) - Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak is reported to have told visiting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Friday that his government is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program.

Rice arrived in Israel Thursday ahead of Sunday's meeting in Egypt of international sponsors of the Middle East peace negotiations.

Speaking after his meeting with Rice, Barak said Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table."

Barak told Rice that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons while deceiving world powers through negotiations.

He said his government is grateful to the Bush Administration, including Rice, for its efforts to put forth a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Friday, Rice also met Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After holding talks with other Israeli officials in Jerusalem, she will proceed to the West Bank city of Ramallah to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The White House conceded Thursday that a Middle East peace agreement is unlikely during the tenure of the Bush Administration, which ends just over two months from now.

www.nasdaq.com

[vector7]

Quandt: 'U.S. must accept reality it has helped create'

11/07/08

Ali Hosseini, National Iranian American Council (NIAC)

Washington, D.C. – According to prominent Middle East expert Dr. William Quandt, America needs to "deal with the Middle East as it is, instead of how we wish it would be." Referring to a speech by Mohammad Khatami during his last visit to the U.S., Quandt said that the former Iranian President commenced "by thanking the United States for "doing what we failed to do; remove the Taliban and Saddam from power." In other words, the U.S. "needs to accept the reality we've helped create." Emphasizing dialogue with Tehran, Quandt discussed U.S. policies towards Iran as part of the Elliott School of International Affairs event last week titled "Middle East Challenges Facing the Next Administration."

Dr Quandt began his discussion on Iran by saying that "Americans don't understand how Iran looms as a rising power in the region thanks to the U.S." After seven years, "Bush has reluctantly realized that we need to talk to Iran." The Bush administration is therefore sending U.S. diplomats to Tehran for the first time in three decades, as an initiative that will function as a "gift to the next President," Quandt alleged -- referring to reports that Bush is intending to open an interests section in Tehran. Consequentially, Quandt expressed the firm belief that "neither Bush nor Israel will bomb Iran." The diplomatic alternative is however not due to naivety or pacifism; "attacking Iran would unleash a daunting Iranian response…particularly in Iraq, Iran could do a lot of things…they haven't done", Quandt said.

Unfolding possible ways to restructure U.S. policies towards Iran, Quandt put forward the necessity of "credibly conveying, after 30 years, that we accept the outcome of the Islamic Revolution" as the key tenet of any successful rapprochement with Tehran. In other words, the U.S. needs to publically abandon 'regime change' as an underlying, if not stated, policy towards Iran, according to Quandt. Secondly, Washington needs to "make it clear that we have shared interests," with a special reference to Afghanistan, where Iran played a helpful role prior to the U.S. invasion. In Iraq, finding those shared interests is more difficult, although "Iran and the U.S. mutually want a stable, friendly, unified Iraq," Quandt argued.

For a Shi'a-dominated regime in Iraq, it is inevitable to have good ties with the only other Shi'a-dominated country in the World, said Quandt. This is part of the "new reality we helped create." Contrary to what most Americans fear, close relations between Iraq and Iran is "no disaster, although it makes some people nervous." Arguing that Tehran's strong support for the Maliki-government is a positive rarity, Quandt pointed out that Arab governments remain wary of reaching out to Iraq.

Moving on to the nuclear issue, Quandt argued that while multilateral negotiations have facilitated diplomacy, "bilateral negotiations between Washington and Tehran is required to resolve the conflict." Arguing that Iran has not violated any of its commitments, and is entitled to the full nuclear fuel cycle as a signatory to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Quandt argued that Washington needs to fundamentally review its policies towards Tehran and link the nuclear issue to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this context, Tehran has little to gain from militarizing its nuclear energy program, as it will only trigger "a regional nuclear arms case that will diminish Iran's current comparative advantages inherent in its size and population." Moreover, Tehran will "have to forget about de-nuclearizing Israel." In this formula, Washington should accept Iranian uranium enrichment under strict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision, Quandt argued.

Concluding the session, Quandt expressed his belief in the necessity of secret negotiations, before any major public overtures, similar to Nixon's visit to China. As part of this effort, Washington needs to re-create the negative image of Iran among Americans that the Bush Administration has promoted over the last eight years. The first step in this direction is to abandon the term 'Axis of Evil'; after all, "you can't have an axis if there's only one country left," Quandt jokingly remarked in reference to North Korea's abandonment of nuclear arms.

http://www.payvand.com/news/08/nov/1055.html

[vector7]

'Iran tricking world over N-programme'

7 Nov 2008, 1827 hrs IST,PTI

JERUSALEM: Accusing Iran of "tricking the world" by pretending to negotiate over its nuclear activities, Israel has said it is keeping all options open to foil the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.

Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," defence minister Ehud Barak told visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Following their meeting, the Israeli leader said that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" by means of its negotiations over monitoring its nuclear activities.

The Jewish state has declared Iran's nuclear programme an existential threat and has launched a massive diplomatic campaign to pressurise Tehran to give up.

Barak also congratulated US president-elect Barack Obama on his election victory and praised Rice for her efforts to push ahead the Middle East peace deal.

"I must thank her and the outgoing US administration for the great efforts they exerted in pressing for a resolution of the conflict," he said.

The defence minister said that Rice deserved praise and thanks for her "support for Israel's strategic interests and for the creativity both sides have displayed together under her guidance on various issues".

The US Secretary of Statearrived in Israel yesterday ahead of a ministerial level meeting of the Quartet comprising the UN, the US, EU and Russia,at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

[vector7]

U.S. Sends 'X-Band' Missile-Detecting Radar to Israel to Confront Iranian Threat

Monday, November 10, 2008

The U.S. has installed X-band radar in Israel to provide early warning for missile launches from Iran, sending 120 American technicians and security guards to man the machines.

JERUSALEM, Israel — The U.S. is providing Israel with high-powered X-band radar capable of detecting missile launches up to 1,500 miles away — and sensitive enough to detect small- and medium-range missiles being fired from Iran and Syria.

The radar will grant Israel about 60-70 seconds more warning time when missiles are launched. The system's massive range means targets as far away as southern Russia can be monitored.


Every second of warning counts, as Syrian missiles can hit Israel in just four minutes, and Iranian missiles can reach Israel's borders in just 11 minutes.

Israel will not have direct access to the intelligence the radar collects. American satellites will be used with the radar, and only Americans will have access to the technology and the information.

About 120 American technicians and security guards will be stationed in Israel's southern Negev Desert to oversee the operation, the first time in the country's 60-year history that they've allowed a foreign military presence to be based here.

X-Band Radar System In September the U.S. Senate passed an amendment allocating $89 million for activating and deploying the X-band radar. Iran was quick to attack the funding in an editorial in the Tehran Times.

"If it were proposed that this fraction of the tax revenues should be allocated to reduce the pains in the hearts of one thousand owners of foreclosed properties in the working class neighborhoods of Chicago ... no doubt the same senators who enthusiastically and unanimously voted for the bill would have rejected it outright with no hesitation or mercy," the paper wrote.

According to military experts, the radar was intended to send a message to Iran, and to Israel as well. It shows Iran the U.S. is beefing up its capabilities in the region, and it also is intended to calm Israel and prevent it from rushing into a military strike.

Israeli military analyst Alon Ben-David said this was Bush's last gift to Israel.

"Having a U.S. force deployed permanently in Israel is a gift, but it also binds Israel. Israel will have to take into account the presence of an American force before considering any military action that might generate a response from the other side," he told FOX News. "But on the other hand, this is a very clear signal of the U.S. commitment to the security of Israel."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449704,00.html

[vector7]

Iran says it test-fired new generation of ground-to-ground Sejil missile is of a type using solid fuel, describes it as 'deterrent'

November 12, 2008

IRAN has test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missiles, state television reported on Wednesday.

Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar told the TV station that the missile, named Sejil, is a swift missile produced by the Iranian aerospace industries, which are subject to his office.

Nuclear Tangle

IAEA shows photos alleging Iran nuclear missile work / News agencies
UN nuclear watchdog agency presents evidence indicating Tehran tried to modify Shahab-3 missile cone to fit nuclear payload. Chief US representative to agency says material put forward at meeting appears 'credible,' while Iran slams claim as 'fabrication'

He did not say when the missile was tested, but claimed that it was a "two-stage missile with two engines driven by solid fuel" and "a highly unusual ability". He failed to elaborate on the missile's range.

Such a test could possibly point to the fact that Tehran has managed to develop a surface-to-surface missile on its own using solid fuel, enabling the Islamic Republic to be more prepared for launching than with a missile driven by liquid fuel.

Another advantage is the speed needed to place the launcher and prepare it for launching.

The Iranian defense minister clarified that "the missile test was carried out as part of Iran's deterrence and defense doctrine and strategy."

According to Najjar, "The Sejil missile test was planned a year ago and has nothing to do with the recent developments in the region."

The reports came a day after Iranian media said the elite Revolutionary Guards had tested a new missile, named Samen, near the Iraqi border.

"Iran successfully test-fires new generation of ground-to- ground missiles," state television said in a scrolling headline.

Another Iranian channel, the English-language Press TV, said the Sejil missile was of a type that used combined solid fuel and described it as a "deterrent".

"Launch aimed at clarifying Iran's conventional missile aims," Press TV said in a scrolling headline.

The Press TV newscaster said the missile had two stages and showed the Islamic state's capability to "defend its soil".

Iran's armed forces have staged frequent maneuvers in recent months, coinciding with speculation of possible US or Israeli strikes against the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear ambitions.

The United States and its Western allies suspect Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack on its territory by targeting US interests and Washington's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

Reports don’t always match ability

The Iranians from time to time take pride in technological achievements in the arms industry and military fields, mostly in a bid to convey a warning to Western countries that the Islamic Republic is prepared for any scenario of war un the region, should they decide to attack Iran over its refusal to halt its controversial nuclear program.

Many times, however, the reports on Iranian media do not match the actual capabilities of the discussed weapons.

In July, a senior US officer told CNN that Iranian reports on its missile tests were false. The network quoted him saying that Iran had not conducted trials with long-range missiles, as it had claimed.

The officer said the US believes Iran had fired seven short to medium-range missiles. US intelligence reports stated that one of the missile launches was not successful, and it was fired by the Iranians. The Iranian news agency that generally publishes documentation of drills of this sort has not published any new photos from the large-scale launch that was allegedly held by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The only documentation of the event was published by the Revolutionary Guards' news agency, an irregularity in drills such as this, which are normally covered by nationwide press.

Earlier, a Ynet inquiry revealed that the Revolutionary Guards doctored at least one photo of the missile test conducted in the Persian Gulf and "added" at least one missile launching that never took place.

The photos were sent to the news agencies by the Revolutionary Guards and were published by media outlets worldwide, including Israel. In a videotape of the Iranian missile testing, which was shot from a slightly different angle, three missiles can be seen launched, while a fourth remains on the ground.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...621998,00.html

[vector7]

Major Powers To Meet Thursday On Iran Nuclear Program -Source

BERLIN (AFP)--Diplomats from six major powers trying to convince Iran to abandon sensitive nuclear work will meet Thursday in Paris, a European diplomatic source said.

The meeting of political directors from the foreign ministries of the U.K., China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. will gather to discuss progress in their dealings with Tehran.

The six countries have put forward a package of technological, economic and political incentives if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, which they fear Tehran is pursuing to build a nuclear weapon. Tehran strongly denies the accusation, saying its nuclear program is aimed purely at producing civilian energy.

Tensions arose late last month within the group of six countries when the U.S. slapped sanctions on Russia's main arms firm over the alleged sale of sensitive military technology to Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the U.S. move as " inadmissible" and warned the sanctions would affect talks between world powers on the Iranian nuclear program.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
11-11-080822ET

www.nasdaq.com

[vector7]

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate

White House News

Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.

In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice, stating that the Iran national emergency declared in Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2008.

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 14, 2008.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

www.whitehouse.gov

[vector7]

Iran builds ``solid barrier`` against air raids

Posted: 2008/11/12
From: MNN

``The air force has built up a solid barrier against any kind of strike, using up-to-date equipment as well as unique military tactics,`` Iran`s Air Force chief Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said.

TEHRAN, Nov. 11 (Xinhua) -- A top Iranian commander said on Tuesday that the Islamic republic's air force has built up a "solid barrier" to defend the country's airspace, Iran's English-language satellite channel Press TV reported.

"The air force has built up a solid barrier against any kind of strike, using up-to-date equipment as well as unique military tactics," Iran's Air Force chief Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said.

The Iranian forces would remain vigilant to defend the country's airspace in case of any attack, he added.

Iran has test-fired its Shahab-3 missile that is capable of hitting targets within a range of 2,000 km, vowing that its missile capabilities are "a defensive tool against invasions."

The United States and its allies have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. Iran has denied the U.S. charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

The United States said it focused on diplomacy to try to resolve Iran's nuclear issue, but has insisted it will take "no option off the table."

Some observers believe that it is still possible that the United States and Israel would attack Iranian targets for Tehran's suspicious nuclear programs.

In June, the New York Times reported that U.S. military believed a major military exercise by Israel in early June was a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

Some U.S. officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=611253