One of the most obvious threats to the global economy this year comes from Iran.
Financial markets believe there is a 29 per cent chance that the US or Israel will launch an air strike on the country this year in an effort to stop its development of nuclear weapons. This could lead to a disruption of Iran’s oil supply which, it is feared, could cause oil prices to surge, plunging western economies into another recession.
However, some recent research suggests this threat might not be so great.
Mohammad Reza Farzanegan at Dresden University of Technology estimates that there is no link – in the sense of a lack of Grainger causality – between Iran’s oil supply and oil prices. “The reduction of Iranian oil supply in the markets may not have a critical impact on current and future international oil prices” he concludes.
Latest figures – for November – show that Iran produces 3.55 million barrels of crude a day. That’s 3.9 per cent of total world supply. But this is less than the 3.95mbd of spare capacity in OPEC alone. It’s possible, then, that any shortfall in Iranian supply would be offset by increased output elsewhere – most obviously Saudi Arabia.
If this is not comfort enough, there’s another thing. Jochen Guntner at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg has found that unexpected falls in oil supply since 1974 have had “no significant impact” upon international stock markets. This corroborates the finding of Lutz Kilian at the University of Michigan for the US market.
One reason for this is that oil supply shocks tend to be short-lived; Dr Guntner estimates that they are on average half-reversed within six months; this is partly because lost production in one country is often made up by increased production elsewhere.
Sadly, this does not mean equity investors can relax about the prospect of increasing tensions with Iran.
For one thing, although its production might not affect oil prices, Saudi output most certainly does. If a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz does restrict Saudi supply, oil prices would rise.
Secondly, it’s not just the supply of oil that matters. There mere possibility of conflict with Iran could increase the precautionary (or speculative!) demand for oil. And Dr Kilian has found that this is bad news for stock markets.
Thirdly, the oil price is not the only channel through which trouble with Iran might affect shares and the economy. The mere anxiety that is caused by global conflict can depress share prices. For example, shares fell sharply immediately after the 9/11 attacks on the US not because those attacks were economically damaging, but because they made people nervous and anxious and so unwilling to hold shares.
The same anxiety might also depress business confidence and hence investment.
However, there are countless other ways in which investors’ appetite for risk and companies’ investment intentions might be depressed this year – some foreseeable, many not. To worry about one high-profile threat to them is to fall prey to the availability heuristic. Our economic fate probably depends more upon the millions of people who are mildly incompetent than it does upon the handful that are criminally insane.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When it comes to the Middle East, the former president never ceases to amaze.
In an interview published in Time, he was asked: "What do you think it means that Iran seems to have its first nuclear fuel rod?"
His complete answer:
Well, of course, the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons. If they are lying, then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons. Israel probably has 300 or so.
There you have it. In 51 words, Carter demonstrates convincingly why he should stay out of the business of Iran analysis. Not that he was much better at it while in the White House.
Remember his famous expression of confidence in the Shah -- "an island of stability" -- when one year later the Iranian leader was ousted and had to flee the country?
And the catastrophic U.S. attempt, under Carter, to free the 52 American hostages taken by the Shah's successors, that failed for the lack of a working helicopter?
And the fact that those hostages languished in Iranian hands for 444 days, only to be released the very first day Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, took office?
Carter did not understand Iran then. Judging by the Time interview, he still doesn't.
First, how could any serious observer begin a response by mentioning that "the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons"?
Of what possible relevance is such a comment, other than to suggest that Carter may actually give it credence?
A regime that has been found to lie about everything else -- its leaders claimed there were no nuclear enrichment facilities, that there were no homosexuals in the country, that its women were the freest in the world, that the Holocaust never took place, and that its 2009 elections were transparent -- is actually given the benefit of the doubt by the former president.
He begins the next sentence with the phrase, "If they are lying."
Again, he himself isn't sure.
Perhaps he thinks, in contradistinction to the International Atomic Energy Agency, UN Security Council, Obama administration, European and Gulf leaders, and Israel, that all the Iranian leaders really want is peaceful nuclear energy, nothing more.
And then comes the clincher. Even if the Iranians by some chance are lying, he said, "then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons."
How could anyone possibly know how many bombs Iran might build, if left unchecked? This year, it might be one or two; next year, ten or twenty; and so on.
Second, at the end of the day, the real issue is not how many bombs Iran would have, but the very fact that it possessed the weapon.
That would change everything in its relations with its neighbors and beyond.
Iran would derive incalculable power and confidence from the mere fact that it crossed the line. Going forward, all other countries would have to factor the nuclear element into their dealings with Tehran -- and, it should be added, with such allies as Syria, and such non-governmental partners as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Third, one of the most ominous changes could well be a new arms race in the region, already the most volatile in the world.
What countries might, in response, move towards nuclear-weapons programs of their own, driven by fear (think Saudi Arabia) or "prestige" (think Turkey)?
Then the risk of catastrophe by design, miscalculation, or accident goes up exponentially.
So, too, does the chance of a further spread of the weapons. Remember A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who ran the Walmart of nuclear-weapons technology?
Impossible to conceive of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seeking nuclear help from his Iranian friends to achieve the same position in Latin America that Iran aspires to in its neighborhood? Not in my book.
Fourth, Carter should go back and read the words of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, who said: "[T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy everything."
For Carter to imply that Israel is safe and secure from Iranian nuclear designs by dint of having more bombs is, well, naïve, all the more when Iran's defining eschatology is added to the picture. If religious fervor should trump rational behavior in Tehran, all bets are off.
And finally, Carter once again displays his misreading of Israel, something he has regrettably made a habit of in recent years and also, incidentally, on vivid display in the same Time interview.
Israel still lives with the shadow of the Holocaust. How could it not?
A leader set forth a plan to establish a 1,000-year Reich and destroy the Jewish people. Few took him seriously. Indeed, there were those at the time -- all titled, confident and credentialed -- who sounded very much like Carter in his assessment of present-day Iran.
They were dead wrong, and the world paid a horrific price for failing to grasp Hitler's intentions earlier.
Of one thing we can be certain: Israel will not place its trust in Carter's reading of Iran. Nor should anyone else.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Region: Israel isn't about to hit Iran: Get used to it!
By BARRY RUBIN 01/29/2012 22:40 Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it.
By REUTERS/Handout
The radio superhero The Shadow had the power to “cloud men’s minds.” But nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews or Israel. For many centuries, bizarre notions have taken over when the thoughts of others turn toward the Jews. Rationality goes out the window. This process is often associated with anti-Semitism but, more broadly, it is a form of total mystification.
This year’s variation on that theme is the idea that Israel is about to attack Iran. Such a claim repeatedly appears in the media. Some have criticized Israel for attacking Iran and turning the Middle East into a cauldron of turmoil (not as if the region needs any help in that department) despite the fact that it hasn’t happened.
On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence for such a thesis. Israel has talked about attacking Iran and, objectively, one can make a case for such an operation. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario – based on actual research and real analysis rather than what the uninformed assemble in their own heads – is this: It isn’t going to happen.
Indeed, the main leak from the government, by an ex-intelligence official who hates Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has been that Israel has already decided not to attack Iran. He says that he worries this might change in the future but there’s no hint that this has happened or will happen. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has publicly denied plans for an imminent attack as have other senior government officials.
Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it. But Israel, like other countries, should be subject to rational analysis.
So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way – indeed, the only way Israel has – to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanctions and diplomatic efforts. If policymakers believe that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its drive toward nuclear weapons is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates their minds.
Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.
Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No. If Israel attacks Iran now does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two. If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in future? No.
On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. It would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable. If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today.
Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. In military operations – especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range – a lot can go wrong.
So given all of these factors why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.
The counter-argument is this: Iran’s regime is irrational and wants to destroy Israel even if the resulting counterattack would kill millions of Iranians and wreck the country. Yet while that analysis should not be totally ruled out, it is far from a certainty. Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons to make itself invulnerable to the costs of its non-nuclear subversion and support for terrorist and revolutionary forces. And a lot of what the Iranian leadership says is demagoguery to build support for itself at home, and to convince the masses to ignore its incompetence and mismanagement.
Yet given the points made above, even the Iran-as-irrational analysis does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.
And, finally, Israel has other options. The alternative is this: As the Iranian regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include:
US early warning stations and antimissile missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israeli long-range planes whose crews have rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously; covert operations, possibly including computer viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; and other measures.
If and when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it unavoidable, not in theory but in practice.
Does this Israeli strategy assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in doing so.
Whether you hope for or fear an Israeli attack on Iran, it isn’t going to happen.
The writer is director of the GLORIA Center, at IDC, and editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
President Obama says the U.S. government has a "very good estimate" of how far along Iran is in its effort toward building a nuclear weapon, but he warned that aspects of the Iranian regime remain a puzzle.
"Do we know all of the dynamics inside of Iran? Absolutely not," Obama said in an interview with NBC's Today show that aired Monday. "Iran itself is a lot more divided now than it was. Knowing who is making decisions at any given time inside of Iran is tough."
In the interview that was taped a day earlier, Obama said he preferred a diplomatic solution, but also made clear that the United States is in lockstep with Israel, which has grown impatient and is reportedly considering a military strike against Iran to stop the purported nuclear program.
Obama, who has had a strained relationship with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says the U.S. and Israel "have closer military and intelligence consultation ... than we ever have had." He wouldn't say if Israel has agreed to forewarn the White House if it ultimately decides to strike against Iran.
The president is still hopeful that the standoff can be solved by diplomatic means, but he said that the U.S. has done extensive planning on a range of options.
"We are prepared to exercise these options should they arise," Obama said.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By ANNE GEARAN and JULIE PACE Associated Press
WASHINGTON February 9, 2012 (AP)
The prospect of conflict with Iran has eclipsed Afghanistan as the key national security issue with head-spinning speed. After years of bad blood and an international impasse over Iran's disputed nuclear program, why does the threat of war seem so suddenly upon us?
The short answer is that Iran has used the years of deadlock over whether it was pursuing a bomb to get within roughly 12 months of being able to build one. Iran claims its nuclear program is not aimed at building a bomb, but it has refused to drop suspect elements of the program.
Time is running short for Iran to back down without a fight. Time is also running short for either the United States or Israel to mount a preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear sites, something that seemed far-fetched until fairly recently. It is still unlikely, and for the U.S. represents the last worst option to stop an Iranian bomb.
The United States has a "very good estimate" of when Iran could produce a weapon, President Barack Obama said this week. He said that while he believes the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program can still be resolved through diplomacy, the U.S. has done extensive planning on a range of options.
"We are prepared to exercise these options should they arise," Obama said during an interview with NBC. He said Israel has not made a decision about whether to launch its own strike.
Diplomacy and economic coercion are the main focus for the U.S. and its allies, and the preferred option. But the increasingly strong warnings from Obama and other leaders reflect a global consensus that Iran is closer than ever to joining the nuclear club.
In November, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a scathing assessment of the Iranian nuclear program, calling it disturbing and possibly dangerous. The IAEA, a U.N. body, said it had "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions" of a program Iran claims is not intended to guild a weapon.
Close U.S. ally Israel is driving much of the burst of international attention now focused on the likelihood of an Iranian bomb and what to do about it.
"When a country that refers to you as a 'cancerous tumor' is inching, however slowly, toward a nuclear weapons capability, it's understandably difficult to relax and keep quiet," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran exert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust. Last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there is a growing global understanding that military action may be necessary.
For Obama, the threat that the United States might use military force must ring true to Iranian leaders while not sounding alarmist to Americans or jittery oil markets. He has been very cautious, which is why his recent, blunter words are notable.
With the clock in mind, the Obama administration is moving much faster than expected to apply the heaviest economic penalties yet on Iran and the oil trade it relies on. This week came a surprise announcement of new sanctions on Iran's central bank, a key to the regime's oil profits.
Previous rounds of penalties have not changed Iran's course, but the U.S. and Europe, which just approved a first-ever oil embargo, argue that they finally have Iran's attention. The new oil-focused sanctions are intended to cut the revenue Iran's rulers can collect from the country's oil business without roiling oil markets.
While Obama has until late June to make a final decision on how to implement even stronger financial sanctions, a person advising the administration on the penalties said an announcement probably would come well ahead of that deadline. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House plan is not final.
Among the factors pushing up a decision: the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike and the desire to avoid disrupting oil markets in the summer, when gasoline prices are usually already higher.
With Republican presidential candidates questioning Obama's toughness on Iran, the White House also has a political interest in appearing to take a proactive approach to enforce the sanctions, rather than simply responding to a congressional deadline, the adviser said.
The threat of military action is also used to strengthen the diplomacy.
Countries like China, a major buyer of Iranian oil, don't like sanctions but go along because opposing them may increase the likelihood of military action that would spike prices for the oil they buy, Sadjadpour said.
White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor would not comment on whether the timetable is being moved up. He rejected the idea that the administration is under the gun.
"We said all options on are on the table. That is not bellicose and that is not new," Vietor said. "What we're trying to do is lead Iran to make a choice."
Israel has less time to act than the U.S. if it chose to mount a strike alone, U.S. and other officials said. Because Israel has less firepower, its leaders assess that a unilateral strike would be most effective before summer. After that, by Israeli estimates, Iran may have been able to move too much of its nuclear operation underground, beyond the range of Israeli missile and bomb attacks.
There is another reason that Israeli warnings are growing louder. Although Israel and the United States generally agree on the technical questions surrounding an Iranian bomb, they disagree about how much time that leaves for diplomacy or a last-ditch military strike.
Israeli officials who favor a strike do not want to wait for Iran to amass enough material to build a bomb, a debatable moment that could be as little as six months away. U.S. officials are concerned that the ability to make a bomb is not enough justification for a strike. They have argued there is 18 months or more of flexibility before Iran would pose an immediate nuclear threat.
Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who recently spent a year advising the Pentagon on Iran options, agrees that the window for an effective strike by either country is closing.
"The game is over" when Iran amasses enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, Kroenig said. "If you wait until they screw together a nuclear bomb, it's too late."
Administration officials are in discussions with several countries, including Japan, South Korea, China and India, to try to get commitments on how much they may be willing to reduce their imports from Iran. Iran exports about 3 percent of the world's oil and increasingly has focused on selling to customers in Asia as Western markets have dried up.
Talks are also under way with Turkey, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Malaysia, all main buyers of Iranian crude.
Any sanctions the U.S. ultimately levies would probably target companies in countries that purchase oil from Iran, not central banks, the person advising the administration said.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Iran bought 200,000 tons of Australian, and possibly US, wheat last week with gold. Commodities traders say Iran is also pitching oil barter deals for grains.
Mature wheat grows in a field near Chinchilla, Australia. Iran is buying wheat with gold and oil, say commodities traders.
REUTERS/Tim Wimborne
Iran bought at least 200,000 tonnes of soft wheat on the world market last week for prompt delivery from private sellers - mostly of Australian origin - but some traders said the United States could possibly account for part of the volume.
New financial sanctions imposed since the beginning of this year to punish Tehran over its nuclear program have ended up playing havoc with Iran's ability to buy imports and receive payment for key food items. RECOMMENDED: Five ways Iranians are like Americans
The sanctions have drastically cut its ability to obtain euro and dollar denominated financing, forcing Tehran to find alternative ways to pay for its imports.
Traders believed the Iranian government had used companies based in Switzerland capable of financing themselves in Asia, and used yen-based contracts to finance the 200,000-tonne deal.
A fall in maize supplies from major exporter Ukraine due to sanction-related payment problems prompted Iranian animal feed makers to turn to wheat, reducing volume for food and compelling the Islamic Republic to turn to the world market.
"The Iranians have just purchased about 200,000 tonnes of wheat from multi-national trading houses," one European trader said. "There is market talk of up to 400,000 tonnes."
In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, U.S. agri-giant Cargill's vice chairman said shipments were still possible with Iran, notably through payments in currencies other than the dollar.
Iranian Trade Secretary Rahul Khullar told reporters on Thursday that one private Iranian buyer was interested in importing "a very large quantity" of wheat from India.
Iran, which may not be self-sufficient in wheat this season due to an expected lower harvest, usually favous Australian, Canadian and even in some years U.S. wheat when it imports due to their high protein levels, as opposed to Argentine, Black Sea or European wheat origins.
GOLD, OIL Iran, which is still in the market to buy additional wheat supplies, is also considering barter deals to feed its 74 million people weeks before a presidential election, they said.
Grain ships are stuck outside Iranian ports and exports of staples to Iran such as maize, sugar, palm oil and rice are being hindered as collecting payment from buyers gets harder.
"Grain deals are being paid for in gold bullion and barter deals involving oil are being offered," one trader said. "Some of the major trading houses are involved," he added.
Traders said details of how barter deals work were still unclear as the problem had developed so quickly.
Iranian buyers have in the past side-stepped sanctions by booking business through third countries, especially Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, traders said. But this option had been suddenly closed as the UAE was not allowing sanction-breaking finance, they said.
"As the shipments of grain are so large, barter or gold payments are the quickest option," another trader said.
One European grains trader also said a project for preferential supplies between Iran and Kazakhstan for 2 million tonnes might be reactivated.
"One of the closest (supply) sources is Kazakhstan because the Iranians have solid links with this country but also because the two governments are centralised and deals can me made between states," Michel Ferret, head of the markets division at French farm office FranceAgriMer, said.
This would make even more sense if Iran went ahead with its threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Gulf oil shipping route, traders also said.
Data from the International Grains Council and the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate that Iran should import around 500,000 tonnes of wheat in the 2011/2012 season up to the end of June but the sanctions and the lower maize supplies could lead to an increase in wheat needs. Iran had said in July it would be self-sufficient in the production of wheat in the course of the year and was capable of exporting two million tonnes of wheat. (Reporting by Valerie Parent and Michael Hogan, writing by Sybille de La Hamaide; Editing by Veronica Brown and Keiron Henderson)
Last edited by American Patriot; February 9th, 2012 at 14:40.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Iran buyer keen on "very large" wheat deal: India official
NEW DELHI | Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:25am EST
(Reuters) - One private Iranian buyer is interested in importing "a very large quantity" of wheat from India, Trade Secretary Rahul Khullar told reporters on Thursday.
Private traders have not sent any wheat cargo to Iran over the past several years, said two New Delhi-based traders with the Indian units of global trading companies.
India and Iran are seeking alternative payment mechanisms to settle their trade after existing conduits have either been scrapped or become vulnerable in the face of the sanctions.
India is considering stepping up exports in a range of goods, including farm products such as wheat and rice, to settle part of its oil dues to Iran.
India is sitting on a huge stockpile of wheat, unable to export much due to lower global prices.
Washington has made tremendous preparations for a military assault on Iran. There is speculation that Washington has called off its two longest running wars—Iraq and Afghanistan—in order to deploy forces against Iran. Two of Washington’s fleets have been assigned to the Persian Gulf along with NATO warships. Missiles have been spread amongst Washington’s Oil Emirate and Middle Eastern puppet states. US troops have been deployed in Israel and Kuwait. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta (US Navy)
Washington has presented Israel a gift from the hard-pressed American taxpayers of an expensive missile defense system, money spent for Israel when millions of unassisted Americans have lost their homes. As no one expects Iran to attack Israel, except in retaliation for an Israeli attack on Iran, the purpose of the missile defense system is to protect Israel from an Iranian response to Israeli aggression against Iran.
Juan Cole has posted on his blog a map showing 44 U.S. military bases surrounding Iran.
In addition to the massive military preparations, there is the propaganda war against Iran that has been ongoing since 1979, when Washington’s puppet, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown by the Iranian revolution. Iran is surrounded, but Washington and Israeli propaganda portray Iran as a threatening aggressor nation. In fact, the aggressors are the Washington and Tel Aviv governments which constantly threaten Iran with military attack.
Neocon warmongers, such as David Goldman, compare the Iranian president to Hitler and declare that only war can stop him.
Washington’s top military officials have created the impression that an act of Israeli aggression against Iran is a done deal. On February 2, the Washington Post reported that Pentagon chief Leon Panetta believes that Israel is likely to attack Iran in two to four months.
Also on February 2, Gareth Porter reported that General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed the Israeli government that the US would not join Israel’s aggression against Iran unless Washington had given prior approval for the attack.
Porter interprets Dempsey’s warning as a strong move by President Obama to deter an attack that would involve Washington in a regional conflagration with Iran. A different way to read Dempsey’s warning is that Obama wants to hold off on attacking Iran until polls show him losing the presidential election. It has generally been the case that the patriotic electorate does not turn out a president who is at war.
On February 5, President Obama canceled Dempsey’s warning to Israel when Obama declared that he was in “lockstep” with the Israeli government. Obama is in lockstep with Israel despite the fact that Obama told NBC that “we don’t see any evidence that they [Iran] have those intentions [attacks on the U.S.] or capabilities.” By being in lockstep with Israel and simultaneously calling for a “diplomatic solution,” Obama appeased both the Israel Lobby and Democratic peace groups, thus upping his vote.
As I wrote previously, this spring is a prime time for attacking Iran, because there is a good chance that Russia will be in turmoil because of its March election. The Russian opposition to Putin is financed by Washington and encouraged by Washington’s statements, especially those of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Whether Putin wins or there is an indecisive result and a run-off election, Washington’s money will put tens of thousands of Russians into the streets, just as Washington’s money created the “Green Revolution” in Iran to protest the presidential elections there.
On February 4, the former left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian, reported a pre-election protest by 120,000 anti-Putin demonstrators marching in Moscow and demanding “fair elections.” In other words, Washington already has its minions declaring that a win by Putin in March can only signify a stolen election. The problem for Obama is that this spring is too early to tell whether his re-election is threatened by a Republican candidate. Going to war prematurely, especially if the result is a stiff rise in oil prices, is not an aid to re-election.
The willingness of peoples around the world to be Washington’s puppets instead of loyal citizens of their own countries is why the West has been able to dominate the world during the modern era. There seems to be an infinite supply of foreign leaders who prefer Washington’s money and favor to loyalty to their own country’s interests.
As Karl Marx said, money turns everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold. All other values are defeated—honor, integrity, truth, justice, loyalty, even blood kin. Nothing remains but filthy lucre. Money certainly turned U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair into a political commodity.
The power of money was brought home to me many years ago. My Ph.D. dissertation chairman found himself in the Nixon administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security affairs. He asked if I would go to Vietnam to administer the aid programs. I was flattered that he thought I had the strength of character to stand up to the corruption that usually defeats the purpose of aid programs, but I declined the assignment.
The conversation was one I will never forget. Warren Nutter was an intelligent person of integrity. He thought, regardless of whether the war was necessary, that we had been led into it by deception. He thought democracy could not live with deception, and he objected to government officials who were not honest with the American people. Nutter’s position was that a democratic government had to rely on persuasion, not on trickery. Otherwise, the outcomes were not democratic.
As Nutter saw it, we were in a war, and we had involved the South Vietnamese. Therefore, we had obligations to them. If we proved to be feckless, the consequence would be to undermine commitments we had made to other countries in our effort to contain the Soviet Empire. The Soviet Union, unlike the “terrorist threat” had the potential of being a real threat. People who have come of age after the collapse of the Soviet Union don’t understand the cold war era.
In the course of the conversation I asked how Washington got so many other governments to do its bidding. He answered, “Money.”
I asked, “You mean foreign aid?”
He said, “No, bags of money. We buy the leaders.”
He didn’t approve of it, but there was nothing he could do about it.
Purchasing the leadership of their enemies or of potential threats was the Roman way. Timothy H. Parsons in his book, The Rule of Empires, describes the Romans as “deft practitioners of soft power.” Rome preferred to rule the conquered and the potentially hostile through “semiautonomous client kings which the Senate euphemistically termed ‘friends of the Roman people.’ Romans helped cooperative monarchs remain in power with direct payments of coins and material goods. Acceptance of these subsidies signified that an ally deferred to imperial authority, and the Romans interpreted any defiance of their will as an overt revolt. They also intervened freely in local succession disputes to replace unsuitable clients.”
This is the way Washington rules. Washington’s way of ruling other countries is why there is no “Egyptian Spring,” but a military dictatorship as a replacement for Washington’s discarded puppet Hosni Mubarak, and why European puppet states are fighting Washington’s wars of hegemony in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.
Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy funds non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. It is through the operations of NGOs that Washington added the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to Washington’s empire, along with the Baltic States, and Eastern European countries.
Because of the hostility of many Russians to their Soviet past, Russia is vulnerable to Washington’s machinations.
As long as the dollar rules, Washington’s power will rule.
As Rome debased its silver denarius into lead, Rome’s power to purchase compliance faded away. If “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke inflates away the purchasing power of the dollar, Washington’s power will melt away also.
They can use that phone but for pubblic relation reason they should look more high-tec.
Well, I know what you mean. I have equipment that was built in the 1980s here (folks in the building don't like the devices because they "Look like they are from 1960" - Not your words, THEIR WORDS!) but, only the shell of the device is from 1989. All the guts are NEW. I've been constantly upgrading this stuff for 15 years now.
In fact, the computer systems are much smaller (they were mainframes when this system started) - now there are three small machines running the guts of the system. We're about to upgrade those again.
But what the "customer" sees is the just shell to the devices which read their badges, unlock doors and set the system's modes. So they think the stuff "is very old" and it's NOT.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The commander of United States naval forces in the Gulf says Iran has built up its naval forces in the region and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks.
Iran has made a series of threats in recent weeks to disrupt shipping in the Gulf or strike US forces in retaliation if its oil trade is shut down by sanctions, or if its disputed nuclear program comes under attack.
At a briefing in Bahrain, Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters the US Navy's Fifth Fleet can prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
He says Iran now has 10 small submarines.
"They have increased the number of submarines... they increased the number of fast attack craft," said Vice Admiral Fox, who heads the fleet.
"Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device. The Iranians have a large mine inventory.
"We have watched with interest their development of long-range rockets and short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles and of course ... the development of their nuclear program."
Military experts say the US Navy's Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf - which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers - is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran's navy.
But ever since Al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer USS Cole in a port in Yemen in 1996, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.
Asked whether the US Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Vice Admiral Fox said: "We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready... What if it happened tonight? We are ready today."
Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East's oil sails.
Asked if he took Iran's threats seriously, Vice Admiral Fox said: "Could they make life extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah, they could close it, but I can't see that we would ever be in that position."
He added that diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the tension.
"So when you hear discussion about all this overheated rhetoric from Iran we really believe that the best way to handle this is with diplomacy... I am absolutely convinced that is the way to go. It is our job to be prepared. We are vigilant."
Contacts between the US Navy and Iranian craft in the Gulf region were routine, Vice Admiral Fox said, referring to cases where his sailors helped Iranian ships that were in distress or threatened by pirates. Reuters Topics:world-politics, iran-islamic-republic-of, united-states
First posted February 13, 2012 11:02:49
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
By Warda Al-Jawahiry
MANAMA | Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:37pm EST
Feb 12 (Reuters) - Iran has built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy can prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region said on Sunday.
Iran has made a series of threats in recent weeks to disrupt shipping in the Gulf or strike U.S. forces in retaliation if its oil trade is shut down by sanctions, or if its disputed nuclear programme comes under attack.
"They have increased the number of submarines ... they increased the number of fast attack craft," Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters. "Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device. The Iranians have a large mine inventory."
"We have watched with interest their development of long range rockets and short, medium and long range ballistic missiles and of course ... the development of their nuclear programme," Fox, who heads the U.S. Fifth Fleet, said at a briefing on the fleet's base in the Gulf state of Bahrain.
Iran now has 10 small submarines, he said.
Military experts say the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf - which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers - is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran's navy.
But ever since al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in a port in Yemen in 1996, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.
Asked whether the U.S. Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Fox said: "We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready... What if it happened tonight? We are ready today."
Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East's oil sails.
Asked if he took Iran's threats seriously, Fox Said: "Could they make like extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah they could close it, but I can't see that we would ever be in that position."
He added that diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the tension.
"So when you hear discussion about all this overheated rhetoric from Iran we really believe that the best way to handle this is with diplomacy... I am absolutely convinced that is the way to go. It is our job to be prepared. We are vigilant."
Contacts between the U.S. Navy and Iranian craft in the Gulf region were routine, Fox said, referring to cases where his sailors helped Iranian ships that were in distress or threatened by pirates.
In addition to commanding the Fifth Fleet, Fox is also the commander of a multinational naval task force charged with ensuring Gulf shipping routes stay open. Although most of its firepower is American, the task force also includes other Western countries and the Gulf Arab states.
The European Union slapped an embargo on Iranian oil last month, which is due to kick in completely by July 1. The United States and EU have both imposed new sanctions on Iran's central bank which make it difficult for countries to pay Tehran for oil and for Iran to pay for the goods it imports. (Editing by Firouz Sedarat and Peter Graff)
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(AP) TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's official news agency reported Thursday that the navy has added two more domestically built light submarines to its fleet.
The move is seen as part of Iran's effort to upgrade its defense capabilities amid escalating tension with the West over its nuclear program. Tehran has threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route, over new U.S. sanctions targeting its critical oil industry.
The report by IRNA quoted Iran's navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari as saying the Ghadir class submarines meet the needs of navy.
In November, Iran said it added three more Ghadir class submarines to its naval fleet. This class of submarine can fire missiles and torpedoes and operate in the Gulf's shallow waters.
Iran is believed to have about 12 light and three Russian-made submarines in its fleet, but it does not disclose the total numbers.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
text size A A A
TEHRAN, Iran February 13, 2012, 08:17 am ET
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — An Iranian news agency says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's former press adviser has been sentenced to six months in jail.
Monday's report by the semiofficial Mehr news agency provided no further details, but Ali Akbar Javanfekr had been previously convicted of insulting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The case appears to be part of an ongoing power struggle between Ahmadinejad's backers and Khamenei loyalists.
Last year, Javanfekr received a separate one-year sentence for writing that the practice of women wearing head-to-toe black coverings was not originally an Iranian practice, but was imported. This was considered offensive by hardline Iranian clerics.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Can the president keep nukes out of the mullahs’ hands, prevent the global economy from imploding, manage the wild card that is Israel—and get reelected?
Well before he moved into the White House, Barack Obama began talking to Israel about Iran’s nuclear program, and even then there was mistrust. He met in 2008 with several leading Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu—before Netanyahu was elected prime minister—and impressed everyone with his determination to stop Iran from going nuclear. Netanyahu liked much of what he heard, according to a source in his inner circle. What troubled him, however, was that Obama didn’t talk specifically about Israel’s security.
Rather, he discussed Iran in the context of a broader non-proliferation policy. “He showed much command of the issues, even though it was months before he got elected,” says the Netanyahu source. “It was clear that he read and internalized things. But when he spoke about Iran and his opposition to the nuclearization of Iran ... the Israeli factor did not play prominently.”
That discomfort has continued through a series of meetings and conversations since both men took office. On Jan. 12 of this year, Obama called Netanyahu to clarify again, in part, the national interest and policies of the United States in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. The message has been conveyed repeatedly, via many channels: the administration is asking for “the time and the space for the sanctions to work,” says a senior administration official. “Not only have we put in place the most robust economic sanctions ever, but we’ve just started to move on the energy sector.” Above all, the White House doesn’t want Israel to start a war—not yet, anyway.
For Obama, grappling with Iran policy is like playing a particularly high-stakes match of three-dimensional chess. The game requires the president to achieve several goals: keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs, prevent the oil-based global economy from tipping into the abyss, and manage the wild card that is Israel. He would also like to get reelected this year.
Achieving one goal can undermine another. Obama’s advisers most concerned about the economy, for instance, have been at odds with allies in Congress most focused on preventing Iran from going nuclear. (It would take much less than an oil crisis to restoke panic about Greece and other feeble European economies.) Israel’s national interests are not always in line with Washington’s. And a messy war—or perceived weakness on Iran—could tip the election for the Republicans in November.
The risks are growing as the game progresses. It’s hard to overstate the impact on Iran of a new round of sanctions that is just beginning. The Iranian currency, the rial, plunged even in anticipation of Obama’s decision to back the sanctions. The United States has ordered a freeze on all Iranian-government assets in the U.S., Britain has cut off relations with Iran’s central bank, and the European Union has announced that it will end existing oil contracts with Iran by July. Iran could lose a quarter or more of its oil revenue, and has no comparable industry to help make up for the loss in hard currency. Prices for basic foods like rice and meat are already soaring.
Meanwhile, mysterious assassins killed yet another Iranian scientist last month—just a day before Obama’s phone call to Netanyahu—and Washington’s top intelligence official warned that Tehran, already feeling under attack, may be spurred to lash out violently inside the United States. Only a few months ago, the U.S. Justice Department unveiled an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington—a possible precursor of things to come.
This nuclear site at Bushehr looks like an open target; a new site near Qum is underground and heavily fortified., Digital Globe-Reuters-Landov It’s hardly surprising, then, that the head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency was recently in Washington for top-level meetings on Iran. According to an American official who was involved, Tamir Pardo wanted to take the pulse of the Obama administration and determine what the consequences would be if Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites over American objections. Pardo raised many questions, according to this source: “What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?” As it is, Israel has stopped sharing a significant amount of information with Washington regarding its own military preparations.
TEHRAN - Access to the Internet's most-used sites and tools is being choked in Iran at a politically charged period, blocking communication channels for local businesses, bank clients, scientists and foreign media.
Internet blackouts have been reported across Iran, with an increase in censorship reported since Feb. 9, when Google services and many non-Iranian websites were blocked for users, according to the Iran Media Program, part of University of ...
Internet blackouts roll through Iran
February 13, 2012 — 9:20am ET | By Molly Bernhart Walker
Tools
Internet blackouts have been reported across Iran, with an increase in censorship reported since Feb. 9, when Google services and many non-Iranian websites were blocked for users, according to the Iran Media Program, part of University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg school for communication.
The program reported Feb. 9 that "Iran has blocked all SSL protocol, and any websites using this protocol are not currently viewable inside Iran." Internet users inside Iran could still access non-Iranian websites, however, by using circumvention tools like VPNs or proxies.
Sign up for our FREE newsletter for more news like this sent to your inbox!
Some analysts suspect the timing of the Internet crackdown is an effort to quell online organizing for potential protests to mark the anniversary of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, on Feb. 11.
In August, Iran's Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Reza Taqipour Anvari, said a national "clean Internet" was under development and would launch in early 2012. The Iranian Internet would be accompanied by a national search engine called "Ya Haq," which translates to "Oh Just One," reported Reporters without Borders.
Iranian officials said the closed Internet will improve the nation's cybersecurity posture. In 2010, the industrial computer systems that support Iran's nuclear program were attacked by the Stuxnet worm.
In June, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government was developing a "shadow Internet" to allow Internet connectivity and open access to the web for individuals in censored Internet environments.
Bombs target Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia; 2 injured
Mustafa Quraishi/AP - Indian security and forensic officials examine a car belonging to the Israel Embassy after an explosion tore through it in New Delhi on Monday. The driver and a diplomat's wife were injured, according to Indian officials.
NEW DELHI — The wife of an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi and her driver were injured Monday when the car they were traveling in was bombed, officials said. A second bomb was defused outside the Israeli Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, about the same time.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately blamed Iran, which has vowed revenge for the recent assassinations of several scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Hezbollah, which receives funding and strong support from Iran, also had promised to avenge the assassination of one of its leaders, Imad Moughniyeh, who was killed in a car bombing in Damascus on Feb. 12, 2008.
Ticking off places where he said recent attacks on Jews and Israelis had been thwarted, including Azerbaijan and Thailand, Netanyahu accused Iran of orchestrating the attempts and called the government in Tehran “the greatest exporter of terror in the world.”
“In all these cases,” Netanyahu said, “the elements behind the attacks were Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah.”
Netanyahu offered no details of the attempts he cited, or specific evidence for his claim. But Israel had put its foreign missions on high alert in recent days, because of the anniversary of Moughniyeh’s death.
Both the New Delhi attack and the discovery of the bomb in Tbilisi happened about the same time Monday — 3:20 p.m. in New Delhi and 1:50 p.m. in Tiblisi (4:50 a.m. in Washington).
New Delhi police commissioner Brajesh Kumar Gupta said the wife of the diplomat “was going to pick up her children at the American embassy school” when a person on a motorcycle approached her vehicle and affixed a magnetic bomb to its rear side.
“A mild explosion soon took place and the car caught fire,” Gupta told reporters at a news conference.
Israeli officials identified the injured woman as the wife of Israel’s defense representative in New Delhi. Gupta said she was conscious and had been hospitalized in stable condition. Her driver, as well as two people in a nearby car, sustained minor injuries, Gupta said.
Joji Philip Thomas, an editor with an Indian publication called the Economic Times, posted on Twitter that he was behind the car when the bomb detonated. Thomas said he saw a female passenger thrown from the vehicle. He posted a photograph of the car in flames, its back blown out.
The area, not far from the Indian prime minister’s residence, was swiftly cordoned off, and Israeli officials could be seen conferring with police.
In Tbilisi, capital of the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a grenade was found attached to the car used by the Israeli ambassador, Yitzhak Gerberg, Real-TV reported. The car belonged to the embassy driver, not the embassy, said Shota Khizanishvili, a spokesman for the Georgian Interior Ministry.
The grenade was discovered after the driver, identified as Roman Khachaturyan, noticed an object attached to the bottom of the car with duct tape, the local news report said. Khachaturyan called police, who summoned explosive experts to detonate it under controlled conditions.
“There was one attempted attack, and one successful, as it were,” Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry, told the Reuters news agency.
Iran has openly threatened retaliation for the recent killings of its nuclear scientists, and has blamed the assassinations on both Israel and the United States. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has categorically denied any United States involvement; Israeli officials have refused to comment.
“We will never disregard punishment for the individuals who committed this crime and the elements behind its scene,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote in a public letter of condolence.
Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said the United States, Britain and the Mossad, Israel’s spy service, “will face the consequences of this action. The Islamic Republic of Iran will give them a biting answer.”
Iran’s government did not respond directly to Netanyahu’s accusation on Monday.
“If Iran would plan something like that we would certainly not announce it,” said Hamid-Reza Tarraghi, a politician close to Iran’s supreme leader.
“We have called for support of the resistance against Israel, so it is possible cores of resistance are formed across the world. But I have no idea who is behind the attack in India.”
Greenberg reported from Jerusalem. Correspondents Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran and Kathy Lally in Moscow contributed to this report.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies predict that Iran will respond if attacked but is unlikely to start a conflict, and they believe that Israel has not taken a decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites, a top U.S. intelligence official said on Thursday.
With those comments, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, answered two key questions surrounding escalating tensions with Iran after the United States increased sanctions over its nuclear program.
Burgess also said that despite the ratcheting up of sanctions on Iran, the country's leaders are unlikely to abandon their suspected nuclear weapons program.
Iran responded to the new sanctions that target its central bank and oil exports by threatening to close a key oil shipping lane. There have also been concerns that Israel might strike Iranian nuclear facilities and escalate tensions further.
The West suspects Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons, while Tehran says it is peaceful.
"Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz at least temporarily, and may launch missiles against United States forces and our allies in the region if it is attacked," Burgess told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"Iran could also attempt to employ terrorist surrogates worldwide. However, the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict," he said. Advertise | AdChoices
Asked bluntly whether intelligence agencies believed Israel had made a decision to attack Iran, Burgess replied: "To the best of our knowledge Israel has not decided to attack Iran."
On the sanctions, Burgess said Iran was nowhere near giving up its nuclear aspirations.
"Iran today has the technical, scientific and industrial capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons. While international pressure against Iran has increased, including through sanctions, we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program," Burgess said.
Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how on Wednesday, including new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster, a move that may hasten a drift towards confrontation with the West over its nuclear program.
U.S. intelligence agencies assess that the Iranian leadership has so far not decided to build a nuclear weapon.
"They are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at the same hearing without providing details.
Clapper said U.S. and Israeli assessments generally are in agreement, and he was going to Israel next week to discuss intelligence sharing with the U.S. ally.
The United States wants sanctions to pressure Iran into serious talks to curb its nuclear program.
While vowing no retreat from its atomic path, Tehran has also told world powers it wants to resume stalled talks quickly with "new initiatives" in hand.
Burgess said Iranian ballistic missiles in development can range across the region and central Europe, and a new space launched vehicle demonstrates progress for a potential intercontinental ballistic missile.
Israel earlier this month warned that Iran had been working on developing a missile capable of striking the United States at a military base hit by an explosion in November that killed 17 Iranian troops.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury on Thursday announced sanctions on Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), which it accused of supporting terrorism, abusing the human rights of Iranian citizens and supporting the Syrian government's crackdown.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Peterle Matteo
Mustafa Quraishi/AP - Indian security and forensic officials examine a car belonging to the Israel Embassy after an explosion tore through it in New Delhi on Monday. The driver and a diplomat's wife were injured, according to Indian officials.
Bookmarks