Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614567/posts

April 12, 2006, 5:46 PM (GMT+02:00)
The day after the announcement of Iranian success in producing uranium enrichment, Tehran’s most adept diplomat, Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani, arrived in the Syrian capital Wednesday for four days of talks. After publicly declaring Iran’s nuclear aims were “purely peaceful”, Rafsanjani embarked on secret talks with Syrian leaders on ways of working together to raise war tensions in Iraq and the Lebanese-Israeli border.
They describe Tehran’s motives as being to try and put the Americans on the spot of having to appeal to its clerical leaders for a key to a political solution and calm in Iraq. Israel is to be taught a lesson by being shown forcefully who controls Hizballah’s terrorist campaign and apprised of Tehran’s deepening grip on the Palestinians. Iran seeks to drive home its ability to open yet another front against Israel. These demonstrations come in the wake of Iran’s failure to achieve the desired propaganda and deterrent effect sought by its large-scale military maneuvers earlier this month and the daily unveiling of purported new weaponry. Yet another clandestinely procured piece of hardware is promised for next week. A senior military source told us that Iran’s “striptease” - far from deterring the Americans has made them an intelligence gift of data on Iran’s arsenal and its weaknesses. The exhibits displayed thus far appear to be still in stages of development and nowhere near operational.

[American Patriot]

Associated Press
Update 15: US Commited to Diplomatic Solution on Iran
By KATHERINE SHRADER , 04.11.2006, 02:31 AM

Administration officials say they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. But they won't rule out military action as an option, even as they try to tamp down talk about military planning.

"I know here in Washington prevention means force," President Bush said Monday.

"It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy," the president added, calling recent newspaper and magazine reports about U.S. military planning on Iran "just wild speculation."

Current and former government officials involved in war-planning discussions over the past five years say the United States has drafted a menu of options. One official said the attention on Iran has increased markedly in recent months.

All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

The planning is similar to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has been captured in books including Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack." Similar blueprints also have been done - but never used - on any number of adversaries, including North Korea.

The plans are aimed particularly at facilities scattered across Iran known or suspected of being tied to the nuclear program. Within those sites, there could be hundreds of individual targets. The options include:

_ Special operations aimed at sabotaging various sites or to clear a safe pathway into the country for an air attack. One of the officials said such missions, often to populated areas, would be dangerous in such a closed country as Iran and most likely couldn't be accomplished without leaving fingerprints.

Almost any option would require a force of at least several dozen just to go after a single target. The officials said air superiority would also be necessary to protect the teams while they do their work. That would require fast-moving, stealthy jet fighters, gun ships and other overhead defense systems.

Any plan that requires a sizeable ground attack is understood to be the least likely because of the operations' high risk and the current demands on an already stretched U.S. force.

_ Air- and sea-based strikes that would use a variety of munitions including earth-penetrating bombs that would target underground bunkers. In some cases, several bombs would need to be fired at the same target to reach the most fortified facilities - a security strategy the Iranians adopted based on lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

The Air Force's angular F-117A stealth fighter, which can hold two 2,000-pound, laser-guided bombs, would be key to this, officials said.

_ Some combination of the above.

The Iranian regime insists it wants only to produce uranium for peaceful civilian purposes, such as electricity generation. Yet Iran operated a covert nuclear program for two decades, and the U.S. and a number of its allies believe the regime's aim is a nuclear weapon.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress in February that Iran is as much as a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon. But some estimates put that as low as three years.

Even the best laid plans to go after the nuclear program may be flawed in execution.

Two officials with extensive military experience said airstrikes would be a key option. But they said the Air Force often overstates the accuracy of precision strikes, as would be needed in Iran.

War planners have to figure out how to handle Iran's expected retaliation. The country could order terrorist attacks through Hezbollah. Iran also could try to cripple the world economy by putting a stranglehold on the oil that moves through the Strait of Hormuz - a narrow, strategically important waterway running to Iran's south.

Perhaps the best known site linked to the nuclear program is the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, located about 160 miles south of Tehran.

David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, describes the site as a complex in a 75 foot-deep hole, covered by layers of materials. It's unclear whether that includes concrete.

The site is designed to someday hold a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, but Albright said the Iranians have shown signs that they're having problems with the technology - a key hurdle.

One outstanding question for the International Atomic Energy Agency is whether there is a hidden, undeclared nuclear program. Albright said inspectors have found a number of inconsistencies in Iranian documents and a laptop associated with such a program. He believes there has to be a parallel program.

The question is: "Does it have much?" Albright said. "There is no evidence."

As tensions increase, some say the talk of war planning could make the diplomatic dialogue with Iran more difficult. "It makes negotiations much harder because Iran is left with the view that, no matter what we negotiate, the U.S. is going to attack," Albright said.

Meanwhile, Iran could easily create backup nuclear sites. A gas centrifuge facility, for instance, could be moved to a warehouse in an industrial area, making it very difficult to find.

There are disputes now about the quality of the intelligence on Iran.

Some officials say it has improved, thanks to soil samples, overhead reconnaissance, old-fashioned spying, information from the IAEA and other intelligence. But not everyone is sold.

Embarrassed by the flawed oversight in the run-up to Iraq, members of Congress are pressing the Bush administration for details on Iran. A spokesman for Negroponte declined to comment on specific issues regarding Tehran.

California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she and other lawmakers were shown the nuclear case that the United States has been presenting to international organizations.

"I don't buy it. I think it's thin," she said.

Based on lessons learned from Iraq, Harman said she would like to know how many sources U.S. intelligence officials have, how confident they are of their information and whether there are any dissenting views.



Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[American Patriot]

Senior intelligence officials alternatively say Tehran will have a nuclear weapon within a decade, or within several years.

So everyone is advocating we put our heads in the sand again, like we did with North Korea? Sure... let's just wait and see.... liberals

[American Patriot]

High likelihood of US military action against Iran: expert

The World Today - Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 12:19:40
Reporter: Eleanor Hall

ELEANOR HALL: A security consultant to the United States Defence Department and a former adviser to President Clinton on nuclear arms reduction says today's announcement by Iran is deeply worrying.

Dr Michael Nacht, who is now Dean of Public Policy at University of California, predicts that there is a high likelihood that there will be a military confrontation between Iran and the United States before the end of President George W. Bush's term.

But speaking to me earlier today, Dr Nacht said the choices for the international community are limited and that doing nothing in response to Iran's latest challenge is not an option.

MICHAEL NACHT: There of course are different judgements about how quickly they can actually fabricate and then deploy a nuclear weapon. Some say as short a time as a year or two. Others say it's going to take years. But there's no doubt that they have the capability and they're moving in the right direction from their perspective.

ELEANOR HALL: Well President Ahmadinejad actually scoffed that the United Nations Security Council knows it can't do anything. How should the international community respond then? I mean are sanctions a realistic option?

MICHAEL NACHT: I actually don't think they're very realistic, because in economic terms, the European Union and many other countries trade extensively with Iran, they're very dependent on Iranian oil. There are just too many economic interests that Iranians have as leverage that would produce a set of sanctions of the kind that the Americans want.

And I, you know… with respect to a UN approved sanction that the Security Council has to approve, I would be very surprised if either Russia or China supported any effort at sanctioning Iran.

ELEANOR HALL: So what message does that send?

MICHAEL NACHT: The message is that the path their on is going to pay off, that they can have their cake and eat. They can basically develop a nuclear energy program.

They can, in addition, in my view, work on a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and they can also maintain bilateral and multilateral economic and political relations with many countries in the world.

And in doing all that, they strengthen the hand of the regime internally and they reduce, you know, their own internal opposition.

ELEANOR HALL: So as someone who's watched this for a long time. How worried are you about that?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well I think this is very serious. I think this is a very serious issue and could easily develop into the next and probably final threat of really concrete military action by the United States.

ELEANOR HALL: Well of course this does come in the same week that the Bush administration's plans for nuclear strikes possibly on Iran's facilities have been revealed.

The President is now playing down that option, but does today's announcement by Iran make this much more likely?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well, you know, frankly my own view throughout the Bush years has been he doesn't joke around.

The language that he's using and the language that Condoleezza Rice is using about the Iranian threat suggests to me that they are gearing up and developing the options for military action.

ELEANOR HALL: So what would be the consequences of a military confrontation between Iran and the United States?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well, I mean, you know, what we see… if Iraq is any indicator, they're highly unpredictable. What we expect to happen may not happen.

And I do think the United States has the physical capacity to destroy most, but not necessarily all, of the Iranian nuclear capability.

The reason I think it's unlikely we can get it all is because they're highly dispersed, they're deeply buried underground.

You know, the Iranians are doing all the things they're supposed to do to protect their assets, and the thought is that they would mount terrorist actions in the United States, in Europe, more against Israel. I mean they of course already back Hamas and Hezbollah. But exactly how much of that they would do is hard to say.

ELEANOR HALL: You've mentioned Iraq and the difficulty there. I mean, how would you compare the two – the prospect of going to war against Iraq and the prospect of going to war against a much bigger country Iran?

MICHAEL NACHT: Right. I mean they are different in many respects. I'd be very surprised if there was any American or any other land-based operation in Iran. I think this would be done strictly from the air using combat aircraft and missiles.

ELEANOR HALL: So if you were advising the Bush administration at the moment, what would you be suggesting they do in response to this statement?

MICHAEL NACHT: I probably would try a multiple strategy. I would not give up on the multilateral diplomatic IAEA UN sanctions strategy, which is largely what they are doing. I would pursue that. I'm not very optimistic it would work, but I would pursue that.

I probably at some point would engage in direct diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians. I'd at least try. I don't think you have a lot to lose. I think that's been a mistake of the Bush administration – not to negotiate directly with the Iranians or frankly with the North Koreans.

And then I would have a military option, but you'd have to really make the case to the American people and to the international community about the justification for this. And frankly right now, of course, President Bush is in a very weakened position.

ELEANOR HALL: But do you think you could make a case for military action against Iran?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well I think they'd have to be able to come forward again… See, I think they should try these other things so then if they fail, frankly, it gives them a little bit more credibility.

There'll be no… they really need to try all the non-military options first.

ELEANOR HALL: But you don't shy away from a military option at the end? You think that you have to keep that there on the table.

MICHAEL NACHT: Absolutely.

I think that diplomacy in these kinds of situation is only as effective… I mean, the carrot is only as effective as the threat of the use of the stick.

ELEANOR HALL: But you're saying that even with the threat that military action could unleash more terrorism, that is a better option than allowing Iran to continue.

MICHAEL NACHT: Yes. It could have very… there's no doubt that it could have very adverse consequences if we act militarily. I think you'd have to go in with your eyes wide open.

But the precedent of Iran going down this path, the precedent for others, the impact further even on North Korea, the impact on a possible – which has been discussed – a possible Saudi-Pakistani-Sunni nuclear program and nuclear alliance to combat the Iranian Shia nuclear program.

This is all very bad news and I do think, though perhaps I'm misreading the situation, I do think that Bush will act one way or the other. It will be resolved in some… let's say it'll be transformed by the end of his tenure.

ELEANOR HALL: And how confident are you that that resolution will be a successful one from the United States point of view?

MICHAEL NACHT: Frankly, I think there are problems no matter what we do, from doing nothing to trying diplomacy and failing, to even acting militarily.

There'll be a lot of adverse consequences no matter what we do.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Dr Michael Nacht, a security analyst and former adviser on nuclear arms issues to President Clinton. He was speaking to me from Berkeley earlier today.

[American Patriot]

Rumsfeld Dismisses Reports of Military Plan on Iran
By Catherine Maddux
Washington
11 April 2006


U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday reiterated the Bush administration's policy of using diplomacy, not force, to get Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but he refused to comment on the announcement by Iran's president that Iran has successfully enriched uranium.

Donald Rumsfeld (r) with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace
Donald Rumsfeld (r) with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace
Secretary Rumsfeld made it clear to reporters he had nothing to say about Tuesday's announcement by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran has enriched uranium to a level used in nuclear power plants. "I'd rather wait and see what our experts say about it. I've not seen the statement, I've not had a chance to analyze anything that they've said and nor have I had a chance to talk to the people who have the responsibility in the United States government for making judgments and assessments with respect to things like that," he said.

Iran insists its nuclear intentions are peaceful and its program is only for making electricity.

As for published media reports saying the Pentagon has been working on contingency plans for possible military strikes to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, Secretary Rumsfeld said he had nothing to add to comments already made by President Bush. "I think the president handled it properly. The United States of America is on a diplomatic track. That is the president's decision, that is where our European allies are. There is obviously concern about Iran. It's a country that supports terrorists. It's a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction. So, obviously the president has indicated his concern about the country. But it is simply not useful to get into fantasy land," he said.

While President Bush has repeatedly said the United States prefers to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, administration officials also say that no options have been ruled out, including military measures.

On Iraq, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, commented on recently published articles about the responsibility of senior military officers to speak out honestly about their opinions regarding the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

General Pace, who was standing alongside Rumsfeld, strongly denied that U.S. military officials were prohibited from giving their opinions, for or against, the idea of invading Iraq. "We had then and we have now every opportunity to speak our minds. And if we do not, shame on us because the opportunity is there. It is elicited from us and we are expected to. And the plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers, and blessed by the senior military leadership," he said.

Secretary Rumsfeld said recent criticism by former high level Pentagon officials was normal and to be expected. He also strongly denied that a sharply critical article written by retired Marine Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, who resigned in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, was having any effect on the secretary's ability to carry out his job.

[Brian Baldwin]

Great to know everyone is just as clueless as always around D.C. I wonder what would happen if someone there actually stuck their neck out and made a rational and absolute decision?

[Sean Osborne]

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4#

Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear
program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S.
State Department official said. Iran stated it will move to "industrial
scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant.

"Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.

[Sean Osborne]

The following speaks for itself.


Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."
The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.
After new reports of intensified planning for Iran began to circulate over the weekend, the President dismissed the news as "wild speculation."
On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland."
Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."
I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.
World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility.
Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran?
Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.
These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina, and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Center for Army Analysis at Fort Belvoir (thanks readers for correcting me), a monumental effort has been underway to "build" an Iran country baseline for war planning.
Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations, together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near term and "out year" scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change.
The core TIRANNT effort itself began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data sets needed for theater level (large scale) scenario analysis in support of updated war plans. Successive iterations of TIRANTT efforts have updated "blue," (United States), "green," (coalition), and "threat" databases with post-Iraq war information.
The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review.
Parallel with the TIRANNT and TIRANNT-CA analysis, Army and CENTCOM planners have also been undertaking the "TOY study." TOY stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, and posits a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. The results are compared to the same engagements when fought by newly reorganized Army brigade combat teams who fight independent of a strict divisional hierarchy. The product gauges not only the impact of military "transformation" efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war.
Under a separate "BMD-I study," for ballistic missile defense - Iran, the Army Concepts Analysis Agency has modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapon systems to determine the number of missiles expected to "leak through" a coalition missile defense in the 2005 (current) time frame. The BMD-I study has not only looked at U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile performance and optimum placement to protect U.S. and coalition forces, but also the results of combined air, cyber warfare and missile defense operations to disable Iranian command and control capabilities and missiles on the ground before Iran can fire them.
In July 2004, U.S. and British Army planners also met at Fort Belvoir to play the Hotspur 2004 war game, a 2015 timeframe Caspian Sea scenario examining deployment of forces, movement to "contact" with the enemy, and "decisive" operations. A U.K. medium weight brigade operated subordinate to U.S. forces and the game included an assessment of lessons learned in U.S.-British interoperability during similar operations in southern Iraq.
The extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training and force development in the Army. The current 2005 "high resolution" version model provides analysts with the ability to manipulate thousands of entities using tens of thousands of combat orders to simulate all aspects of major combat operations. The scenario not only has variable "physical battlespace" including urban terrain, but an adaptive enemy, allowing analysis of not just standard military operations but also complex counter-insurgency activity.
In February 2005, after a similar flurry of news reporting on U.S. military options for Iran, the Deputy Commander of CENTCOM Lt. Gen. Lance Smith was asked at a Pentagon briefing if the Tampa based command was in any kind of heightened state of planning when it comes to Iran.
"We plan everything," Smith responded. "We have a requirement on a regular basis to update plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if -- you know, if our region is active. But I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at, you know, 8:00 at night, saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran.'"
Throughout mid-2002, when a similar public debate about an Iraq war plan swirled in the news, Secretary Rumsfeld, Myers, and then CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks insisted that there were no "war plans," that they hadn't been asked to prepare a war plan, that no decisions had been made, that no war plan sat on the President's desk.
It would take a doctoral dissertation to wade through the chronology of statements and actions to sort out the specifics of the truth, but here is the reality: Iraq war planning consumed the government inner circle all through this period and the government made a knee jerk decision -- never really thoughtfully reviewed -- not to speak about it. "We don't discuss war plans," the mantra goes. And it is dead wrong.
Maybe history will show that the Bush administration was so hell bent on war in 2002-2003, nothing that Saddam Hussein could have done would have prevented it. Still the world went through the motions of U.N. inspections and the Security Council and the U.S. Congress made decisions based upon the allusion that war could still be averted, that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before the decision to go to war was made.
We now also know that the Iraqis themselves didn't quite believe that the United States was serious about regime change and that it would go all the way. Perhaps though, had the United States candidly stated its intentions rather than spending so much time denying reality, Baghdad would have gotten the message and war would have been averted, perhaps in another time and place.
It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.
I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn't Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can't just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes of "winning" because war is messy.
As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.
But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.
But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12316619/

Ahmadinejad says ‘Zionist regime’ a threat to Islamic countries

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET April 14, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm."
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad told a conference for supporting the Palestinians that opened in the Iranian capital on Friday, days after declaring his country had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium.
But the tone of Ahmadinejad's speech was slightly more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year, when Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

"The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," Ahmadinejad said on Friday.
In February, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had said Ahmadinejad's October comments had been misunderstood and that he had been speaking about the Israeli "regime" not the country. Mottaki had said a country could not be removed from the map.
His October remarks drew widespread condemnation.
Some analysts had said Ahmadinejad might use slightly more moderate language at Friday's conference after announcing Iran had successfully enriched uranium, a step condemned by world powers and which has ratcheted up pressure on the country.
The West believes it is part of Iranian efforts to develop nuclear bombs, a charge Iran denies.

[Sean Osborne]

This is as clear as i have seen it that iran intends to launch a premeptive war against the US and Israel.

So... what the are we waiting for?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=6293

Aznar: Khamenei said in 2001 Iran aimed to 'set Israel alight'

Wed. 15 Mar 2006

Haaretz By Yossi Verter, Haaretz Correspondent Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda. Aznar, in Israel as the guest of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, related the story to Major General (Res.) Professor Yitzhak Ben-Israel, who later confirmed to Haaretz that the remarks had been made. Aznar's aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with Khamenei. "He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack." Professor Ben-Israel, the former head of the Israel Defense Force's Weapon Systems Development Authority, is today No. 31 on Kadima's list of Knesset candidates. Aznar was to deliver a lecture at the Interdisciplinary Center on Wednesday evening on "Dealing with the challenged of fundamental Islam and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Khamenei still holds the post of Iranian spiritual leader, and considered to be the powerful man in the country.

[Brian Baldwin]

This is as clear as i have seen it that iran intends to launch a premeptive war against the US and Israel.

So... what the are we waiting for?

Their statements over the last several weeks alone constitute a declaration of war. I have no clue why we sit and wait for them to attack us with WMD when they have made it abundantly clear what their intent is.

[Brian Baldwin]

Too funny.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49762

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got an anonymous text message suggesting he didn't wash enough, he did not take it lying down.

He fired the president of the phone company, had four people arrested, took other legal action and accused those involve of conspiring with the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad, according to the Iranian opposition website Rooz Online. The website says Ahmadinejad, known throughout the world as a hard-liner who has threatened Israel with destruction and questioned the Holocaust, is the target of many barbs among the populace in his country.


But the mullah regime doesn't show much of a sense of humor. Of particular concern are jokes comparing Iran's nuclear ambitions with sex. Several people have reportedly received court summonses for sending nuclear-related jokes, according to the website. Tehran has taken a tough stance against opposition on the Internet. Many of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic.

[falcon]

THE FRIGHTENING TRUTH OF WHY IRAN WANTS A BOMB
by Amir Taheri
Telegraph
April 16, 2006

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-ÃÂ*-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."


http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19454

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619857/posts

Russia's military will not intervene on one side or the other should the current Iran crisis lead to an armed conflict, the chief of the Russian general staff said.
"You are asking which side Russia will take. Of course Russia will not, at least I as head of the general staff, suggest the use of force on one side or the other. Just as was the case in Afghanistan," General Yury Baluevsky told reporters, referring to the 2001 US-led intervention to oust the Taliban.
The general, who heads the Russian armed forces, stressed that he did not think a military scenario was likely in relation to Iran and said that diplomacy was "the proper course". "In my view a military solution to the Iranian problem would be a political and military mistake," Baluevsky said.

[falcon]

Attacking Iran should be phase ONE of the process; Day one hit Iran, Day two hit Syria, Day three Iran again.


Ahmadinejad recruits Hezbollah terror chief

'When the Iranians decide to hit the West in its soft belly, Imad will be the 1 to act'
Posted: April 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

When Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to Damascus in January, he took a special guest with him on the flight from Tehran – one of the world's most wanted terrorists.

Intelligence experts have told the London Times Ahmadinejad has recruited Imad Mugniyah, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah's overseas operations, to oversee retaliation against Western targets if the U.S. orders a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mugniyah, now in his forties, is on the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" list for past terrorist actions, including the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985 where one of the passengers, Robert Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered. Mugniyah is also believed to be the last person to see William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, alive after he was kidnapped, mutilated and murdered by Hezbollah in 1984.

Mugniyah and the Iranian president met with leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Damascus in what has been called a "terror summit" because of the number of groups that have carried out attacks on Israel and Israelis over the years.

Ahmadinejad earlier "threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."

Mugniyah has avoided capture for 20 years, living in Iran and, reportedly, having changed his face and his fingerprints. He is said to have met with Osama bin Laden.

The Iranians "have complete command and control of Hezbollah," said Henry Crumpton, head of counter-terrorism at the state department. "Imad Mugniyah works for Tehran. And you can't talk about Hezbollah and not think about Iran. They really are part and parcel of the same problem."

An Israeli defense source told the Times Mugniyah meets regularly with Mohseni Ezhei, Iran's new defense minister appointed by Ahmadinejad.

"We know that Mohseni Ezhei holds routine meetings with Mugniyah, who is today Iran's head of overseas operations," he said. "Since we know from previous Iranian terror attacks that it takes about a year to plan a substantial one, we should not be surprised if operations against western targets are already in high gear and Mugniyah is certainly playing a major role."

"When and if the Iranians decide to hit the West in its soft belly, Imad will be the one to act," a Western intelligence source said.

Iran sent officers to southern Lebanon last month are in command of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel's cities. It is believed they've been given control of Hezbollah's missiles to attack Israel if Iran's nuclear sites are hit. U.S. officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Mugniyah is in charge of these operations.

Robert Baer, a former CIA agent tasked with pursuing the terrorist in the 1980s said Mugniyah "is the most dangerous terrorist we have ever faced. Mugniyah is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we have ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else. He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments by telephone – he is never predictable. He is the master terrorist, the grail we have been after since 1983."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49866

[Sean Osborne]

Where have I heard this before?

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ah, yes, now I recall...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover041806.htm

Credible voices such as the Northeast Intelligence Network are predicting there is "the very high probability that within the next few days Iran will fully accept and adopt all aspects of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and will announce yet another unilateral suspension of the current enrichment processes."

"This is a brilliant chess move and one entirely expected by some observers." (Northeast Intelligence Network, April 17, 2006).

And the source:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/si...hp?storyid=237

Amir Taheri and I are often on the same page; we also listen to the same whispers.

[falcon]

This is just one demonstration that was hit by the truncheon-wielding policemen. Iran focus news agency. Here is that link so you can read the other articles, to many to post.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/


Iran opposition TV airs footage of women’s demo in Tehran
Sat. 11 Mar 2006
Iran Focus
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=6205

London, Mar. 11 – An Iranian opposition satellite channel aired on Saturday footage of a demonstration in Tehran by hundreds of women celebrating International Women’s Day, and a brutal raid by Iran’s security forces to break up the rally.

The rally took place on Wednesday afternoon in Tehran’s Laleh Park. Numerous women were beaten up by truncheon-wielding policemen and dozens were arrested as they resisted attempts by security agents to disperse the demonstrators.

The television, Simaye Azadi -- “Vision of Freedom� in Persian – said the film was taken by women activists in Tehran.

Click here to view the film

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/Videos/women-demo-iran.wm

[American Patriot]

A Daily Survey of What the International Online Media Are Saying
North Korea in the Eyes of Iran
As the U.S. tries to unite a divided international community around its its strategy over North Korea, Iran finds itself in an unusual position in the nuclear proliferation diplomacy wars -- as spectator.

It's probably no surprise that North Korea's July 4 missile test made front page news in the Islamic republic.

Though the biggest missile failed, Pyonyang's salvo impressed the Iranian online media as a demonstration of the limits of U.S. power. Pro-government and anti-government news sites alike see North Korea's provocation as a plus for the Iranian government, which is in the midst of preparing a response to the Bush administration's offer to negotiate over the establishment of international controls of Iran's nuclear program.

The Iran News in Tehran wonders if North Korea was imitating Iran by taking a "resolute" stand.

"The thinking in Pyongyang may be that Iran got a better deal on its nuclear proram from the West by standing resolute and the North should try its luck by forcing the U.S., South Korea, Japan, Russia and China to give Pyongyang more incentives," say the editors.

The news site, which made news recently for its open criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's economic policies, says the United Nations has a limited appetite for punitive actions against North Korea.

"It remains doubtful the Security Council could reach a consensus on sanctions (let alone military action) against Pyongyang anytime soon. The fact is that diplomacy remains the only game in town."

Defying the United States, they conclude, may "actually help the six-party talks and eventually bring the reclusive Pyongyang leadership back to the table."

Bush policy toward North Korea, said the conservative Mehr News, "has only given rise to an intensification of animosity and talk of an arms race in Northeast Asia, encouraging Japan to make moves to revise its pacifist constitution, to the alarm of its neighbors, who still have bitter memories of World War II."

Professor Kim Yeon-Chul of Korea University's Asiatic Research Centre told the Tehran news and culture site that "North Korea's nuclear and missile capability has been ever growing under the Bush administration. This raises questions about the moralistic approach in diplomacy by Washington."

"Extremism begets extremism," says Mehr News. "This is not an acceptable policy for dealing with regional and international issues.

The Iran News, another pro-government site, took care last week to distinguish Iran from North Korea and with the suggestion that U.S. efforts to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council are unwarranted.

"Iran is neither Iraq under Saddam Hussein nor North Korea under Kim Il Song and Kim Jung Il. Iran is a very important geo-political, geo-strategic and geo-economic power regionally and internationally. Iranians do not deserve the humiliation associated with referral to the UN Security Council and being branded as a pariah within the international community."

But an editorial in E'temad, one of the few reformist publications still allowed to publish, implied the strategies of Pyonyang and Tehran are not all that different.

North Korea is diverting attention from its internal difficulties to "foreign enemies," said the editors.

The government has "has obstructed protests and the peaceful transition [of power]" while seeking to "rally the people behind them and instill pride in them."

The North Koreans, they say, seek to identify "foreign contention and stone-throwing by the West" as "the causes of the country's internal problems."

That sounds like what many Iranian dissidents say about the Tehran government: that it uses the nuclear issue to distract attention from its failure to deliver economic growth.

Not surprisingly, E'temad-e Melli's solution for the North Korean crisis closely mirrors the solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse favored by many Iranian reformists.

"Interaction with the West and reaching some guarantees in return for a two-sided deal will not only lift the heavy burden of unnecessary expenses from the shoulders of the government, but will also put bread on the people's tables," the editors said.

By Jefferson Morley | July 11, 2006; 8:42 AM ET | Category: Asia

[American Patriot]

Iran stands by nuclear program
Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 13 July 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will not abandon its right to nuclear technology.

His country's nuclear dispute with the West has been referred back to the United Nations Security Council.

The five permanent Security Council members - the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China - plus Germany had backed a nuclear package aimed at ending the stand-off.

But they have asked the Security Council to intervene after Iran failed to reply by their deadline.

"Our answer to the P5+1 package is clear," state television quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

"The Iranian nation abides by international laws and regulations but will not abandon its obvious right to obtain nuclear technology."

The package offers Iran economic and diplomatic incentives if it suspends uranium enrichment, a process the West believes Iran is using to develop an atomic bomb.

Iran has refused to halt the work, saying it has the right to carry it out.

It insists its aims are purely for civilian purposes.

Mr Ahmadinejad says Iran is ready for talks and has repeated that the country will give its final answer to the package by August 22, despite mounting pressure for a quicker response.

"You should know that if the Iranian nation reaches a conclusion that this package is not in its interest, it will review its policies," he was quoted as saying, but television did not specify which policies would be reviewed.

In the past, Iran has threatened to reconsider its adherence to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Europeans will be responsible for any event in the region and they will be harmed first," Mr Ahmadinejad said without giving details.

[falcon]

This should be a good time for us to build support for the regime change in Iran. Make it a 2 front war; one front from Israel and the second front within Iran. This will push there forces to the limit, one would think. Well just some thoughts.