Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[randge]

With two nations poised for a possible war with no direct means of diplomatic communication, there may be more to this incident that meets the eye.

What I'm suggesting here is pure speculation, of course.

A force down and inspection of an aircraft might give cover for the exchange of most vital information before the onset of hostile acts, intended or accidental.

(Could this be the Kaiser's last telegram to the Tsar?)

[37]

With two nations poised for a possible war with no direct means of diplomatic communication, there may be more to this incident that meets the eye.

What I'm suggesting here is pure speculation, of course.

A force down and inspection of an aircraft might give cover for the exchange of most vital information before the onset of hostile acts, intended or accidental.

(Could this be the Kaiser's last telegram to the Tsar?)

Very interesting.  I had not thought of that. 

Could mean our military wanted to state it's position in regards to the last months of this administration.

Or, maybe they wanted to tell the Iranians not to get bold when there is unrest in the US.

I never thought twice about that story, for some reason.

Good post.  I like the Kaiser/Tsar reference.

[Col3_11n12]

Or maybe it's all a false flag operation where they force down the plane just long enough for some press shots.   

[randge]

Or maybe it's "generals" warning Iran not to give in to provocations.

There is lots of anecdotal chatter to the effect that elements in the Pentagon are dead set against an Iranian campaign in Bush's war.

[Col3_11n12]

In the Pentagon, I would be happy just to make all the visiting Israelis have to sign in at the front desk and go through all the same security checks every other foreign guest has to.

[bigron]

Joel Brinkley: Evidence grows that Israel is preparing to attack Iran

By Joel Brinkley - McClatchy-Tribune News Service
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, October 10, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1302631.html


Month after month, the nation's attention seems to ping-pong back and forth between the world's two egregious nuclear malefactors, North Korea and Iran.

For the last few weeks, all eyes have been on North Korea, as the nation's idiosyncratic leadership began reopening a plant that manufactures weapons-grade plutonium. Christopher Hill, an assistant secretary of state, met, to no effect, with North Korea's leaders in Pyongyang last week -- a visit that would have been inconceivable while hawks still dominated the Bush administration.

But, as anyone might guess, the problems in Iran did not suddenly freeze while everyone looked east. In fact several recent developments leave the strong suggestion that Israel is preparing to attack Iran -- with significant help from the United States.

You may remember that Israel carried out a major military exercise involving more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighter jets over the Eastern Mediterranean last June. At the time, American officials said the exercise appeared to be a rehearsal for a bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. And Shaul Mofaz, an Iranian-born former army chief of staff and defense minister, warned that "if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack" -- just as Israel bombed a suspected nuclear site in Syria last year.

The likelihood of an American attack has diminished. American commanders "think it would complicate the situation in Iraq and the region," John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador, told me. He favors an attack but says "the Bush administration was much more inclined to do it a few years ago." Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, at State and Defense -- relative moderates within the Bush administration -- now dominate discussion of issues like this.

Would Washington support an Israeli attack? Recently, the administration has given clear signals that it would not. But then, why did the Pentagon announce last month that it planned to sell Israel 1,000 new GBU-39 bunker-busting bombs? They are small weapons that can be dropped from the wings of the fighter jets in Israel's air force.

Each can penetrate 6 feet of reinforced concrete. If several aircraft hit the same target the total penetration could be much deeper.

Why does Israel need those bombs? Israeli military analysts have been saying they are for attacking underground weapons depots in Gaza or southern Lebanon. Perhaps.

But then, why about the same time did the Pentagon agree to sell Israel sophisticated upgrades for the country's Patriot anti-missile missiles -- and send more than 100 technicians to install them? If Israel attacked, Iran has warned that it would fire volleys of ballistic missiles in response.

And there's more: Just last week came the news that the United States has deployed an advanced early-warning radar system in Israel for detecting incoming missiles. It is so sophisticated that, for now, U.S. Army crews will be stationed there to operate it.

Bolton and others advised against "reading all of that into this," as he put it. The United States continually sells military equipment to Israel. Most years the United States gives Israel about $2 billion in military aid, and it must be spent on American arms.

What is more, Abbas Milani, an expert on Iran at Stanford University, told me that the Iranian press of late has been saying "the time is past" when the United States might attack. And while there is some concern about Israel, the Iranian papers correctly note that the country is locked in negotiations to form a new government that aren't likely to be settled for several weeks. Israel would not attack before a new government forms.

At the same time, though, Israelis certainly saw Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian president, telling the United Nations last month that "the Zionist regime is on a definite slide toward collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of this cesspool." Still, all of this may be a hall of mirrors. The United States may be arming Israel purely for defensive reasons. Israel's military exercises and blustery threats may simply be the state's way of warning Iran. On the other hand, the Bush administration's statements cautioning Israel may simply be an attempt to prevent Iran from blaming Washington if Israel does attack.

In any case, Bolton said, "Israel's decision will not be based on what the Pentagon wants." And if Israel does attack, Iran will consider Washington responsible, no matter what the administration has said.

"So if the U.S. is going to be blamed anyway," Bolton offered, "we ought to go ahead and assist them."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Col3_11n12]

I hope Iran continues to look to Russia for help, and they get it.

[skyfind]

October 12, 2008
Israel doesn't have much time to attack Iran
By Edward Bernard Glick

It was in  October 2005 that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, first said that the "Zionist regime" must "be wiped off the face of the Earth." And it was in April 2006 that he called Israel a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live."

In the years that have since passed, the man who favors a second Holocaust and denies the occurrence of the first one has repeated these genocidal statements almost daily. These are also the years in which Iran's nuclear weapons program has proceeded exponentially. It is a program that endangers the very existence of the Jewish state.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and President Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Michael Karpin, the author of "The Bomb in the Basement," calls Israel's nuclear arsenal the "absolute deterrent." But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.

One often hears the argument that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can't Israel live with an Iranian bomb? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what's needed and what works. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran's nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and its command and control centers because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the postmodernist "war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century" crowd in academia and elsewhere.

But much of the criticism will be phony. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group say to me: "Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?"

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn't say so in class, he answered: "We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed."

At the news conference at which he announced Israel's destruction of the Iraqi reactor, the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ‘'despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal." He added that "Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region."

Does Israel's present prime minister have the guts to emulate Menachem Begin, and to emulate him right now? Does the Israel Defense Force have the skill to do to Iran today what it did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? Is Israel willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if it concludes that conventional weapons won't do the job? And does Israel realize that if Democratic Sen. Barak Obama wins the American presidency next month, it may never have the chance to take out its mortal foe?

There are uncertainties. But one thing is certain, however: Neither Israel's friends, nor my former Saudi students, nor Israel's other foes will ever publicly thank it for taking out the Mad Mullahs of Teheran.

Edward Bernard Glick is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University and the author of "Between Israel and Death."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/israel_doesnt_have_much_time_t.html

[skyfind]

October 12, 2008
Warning signs of an Israeli strike on Iran
David Owen

Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack.

In the past 40 years there have been few occasions when I have been more concerned about a specific conflict escalating to involve, economically, the whole world. We are watching a disinformation exercise involving a number of intelligence services. Reality is becoming ever harder to disentangle.

Last month a story in The Guardian claimed that on May 14 Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, in a meeting with Bush, had asked for a green light to attack Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. We were told that Bush refused. He believed Iran would see the United States as being behind any such assault and Americans would come under renewed attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shipping in the Gulf would be vulnerable. We were told that the source of the story was a European head of government and “his” officials – as if to exclude Angela Merkel and Germany. It is, however, improbable that Israel abandoned its option to take unilateral action.

Three weeks later the Israeli military conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean to demonstrate to the United States as well as Iran that it could attack. More recently there have been a number of stories raising concern about what is happening in Iran. One said Iran’s first nuclear electricity generating plant would go critical in December and thereafter any air attack would become impossible since it would trigger a nuclear explosion. Then we were told that a US radar system had been deployed in Israel with US personnel to strengthen Israel’s defence against Iranian airstrikes. There was also an interview with Olmert where he dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel should attack Iran. He appeared to be trying to disrupt the Israeli coalition negotiations.

Finally, on Friday, The New York Times revealed that in February an IAEA inspector had talked of experiments in Iran that were “not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon”. Iran denied the claim.

Before the Israeli negotiations got under way, Ehud Barak, the Labour leader, spoke first to Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud opposition party, rather than to Tzipi Livni, the newly elected leader of Kadima. This indicated that Barak was interested in an all-party coalition, presumably believing that a Palestinian settlement is not yet achievable and that Israel needs maximum unity to deal with a world transfixed by the economic crisis and resigned to Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state.

If Israel were to attack Iran, one Iranian response would be to block the Strait of Hormuz. On September 16 Iran said its Revolutionary Guards would defend the Gulf waters. In the narrow strait just one oil tanker sunk would halt shipping for months. Insurance cover would be refused and owners would fear the risks of sailing even if the US navy cleared mines.

The Revolutionary Guards are committed to a war against Israel and prepared, in the process, to take on the rest of the world. They have good equipment and operate from the land, sea and air. They will be suicide soldiers, seamen and airmen. If Iran is attacked, Russia and China will supply it with arms.

The circumstances surrounding Georgia’s decision to attack South Ossetia are worth remembering. The Georgian president was advised by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, not to attack but there were powerful voices in Washington that, by a nod and a wink, were encouraging action, so the Georgian government felt confident in going ahead.

Following an Israeli attack and Iranian countermeasures, the American military would be bound to follow Bush’s orders. The president-designate or, if before the election, the two candidates, would be wary of criticising him. It is imperative that voices are raised in America and Europe to warn Israel off unilateral action against Iran. The experience of Georgia has given an amber, if not a green, light to Israel and only Bush can switch that to red.

Bush’s legacy would be best served by taking dramatic diplomatic action to prevent a war with Iran. He should publicly warn Israel that the United States will use its air power to prevent it bombing Iran, while announcing that he is sending Rice to Tehran to start negotiating a grand bargain whereby all sanctions would be lifted if Iran forgoes the nuclear weapons option. He could indicate that the negotiations would not continue indefinitely, but they would give his successor, as president, time to consider all the options, military and economic. It would also allow time for Israel either to negotiate a coalition to last until 2010 or to hold elections. It would replace the present multilateral negotiations, which are stalled with Russia and China unwilling to move on strong economic sanctions. Above all, it would be a last act of real statesmanship from Bush who is otherwise destined to end his term a miserable failure.

David Owen was foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4926251.ece

[skyfind]

Could Iran, Hizbullah And The Israeli Arab Sector Be In Cohorts, Israeli Security Forces On High Alert
10/10/08

Security forces on the northern border with Lebanon are on high alert as Hizbullah appears to be stepping up its preparations to launch a wide scale attack against Israel to avenge the death of its top commander Imad Mughniyah. The Syrian troop build up along the Lebanese border is also a cause of concern to the Israeli security establishment as well as the US Administration, who have already warned Damascus to refrain from interfering in Lebanon.
 
Meanwhile in Israel police and security forces are also on high alert and prepared to quell any disturbances that may erupt in Israel Arab areas in response to the rioting in Acre over Yom Kippur.
 
The Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported that Iran appointed Mughniyeh’s successor and new Hizbullah military commander identifying him as Riza Zahdi, otherwise known as Hassan Mahdawi who served in the Eighties in the Iranian Embassy in Beirut. The daily reported that Iran has become more involved in assisting Hizbullah since the Second Lebanon War, providing it with funds as well as weapons. Zahdi will be in charge of coordinating weapons smuggling from Syria to Lebanon as well as overseeing the construction of military posts in southern Lebanon.
 
The current situation is further proof of the double game played by Damascus, on one hand Syrian President Bashar Assad has expressed wishes to engage in peace talks with Israel and on the other hand he continues to support terror permitting weapons, explosives and other commodities to be transferred across the Syrian border to Hizbullah.

Hizbullah itself has rebuilt and refurbished its combat infrastructure in southern Lebanon , where the majority of villages have vast underground bunkers built underneath existing buildings. With the help of Iran and Syria, Hizbullah has also re stocked its arsenal and has tens of thousands of long and short range missiles in its possession.

One might ask if the current bout of violence in Acre is also part of a greater Arab plan to cause unrest inside Israel in order to divert the security establishment’s attention and facilitate an attack by Hizbullah.

Iran's consolidation of its control over Hizbullah is viewed as an attempt to gain the ability to fully direct its military forces in the event of a conflict in the Middle East. If Iran is attacked by the US or Israel, it may now be in the position to order Hizbullah to retaliate on its behalf.
 
The same may go for the Israeli Arab sector, in the event of a war in the region the recent days of violence could turn into large scale attacks on the Israeli Jewish population, a situation that Israel Police and Israeli security forces may find hard to contain. The possibility is quite real, especially taking into account the renewal of violence in Acre on Friday and calls by the Islamic Jihad for all Palestinians to take to the streets as a mark of solidarity with the Israeli Arabs living in Acre and the entire country.

http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-30559-israelnews-could-iran-hizbullah-and-israeli-arab-sector-be-cohorts-israeli-secu

[Triadtropz]

welcome sky..your a real pro war newbie huh...blood, death, and destruction, arent all they are cut out to be...Peace..

[eddy64]

i dont think there will be a war with iran, not with the economy the way it is. any such war would wreck it completely.

[Triadtropz]

i dont think there will be a war with iran, not with the economy the way it is. any such war would wreck it completely.

I agree eddy...you want 10 dollar gas and people getting bombed..I dont think it's gonna happen unless the Israelis start it..

[eddy64]

the usa seems pretty desperate to get the sofa agreed even tho most iraq's dont want it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081013/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqiranmilitary

WASHINGTON8 (AFP) - General Ray Odierno, who commands US forces in Iraq, has accused Iran of trying to bribe Iraqi lawmakers in the hope of undermining an agreement that would allow US troops to remain in Iraq after the end of this year, The Washington Post reported Monday.

 
Odierno said Iran was working publicly and covertly to undermine the status-of-forces agreement that the US and Iraq are about to conclude and that must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament, the paper said.

"Clearly, this is one they're having a 'full court press' on to try to ensure there's never any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq," it quoted him as saying, using a basketball expression.

"We know that there are many relationships with people here for many years going back to when Saddam was in charge, and I think they're utilizing those contacts to attempt to influence the outcome of the potential vote in the council of representatives," the general continued.

Odierno said, however, he had no definitive proof of the bribes, but added that "there are many intelligence reports" that suggest Iranians are "coming in to pay off people to vote against it," The Post reported.

The status-of-forces agreement is designed to replace a UN resolution that sanctions the presence of US troops in Iraq. This resolution expires at the end of the year.

[bigron]

October 15, 2008

Understanding the US-Iran Crisis

by Phyllis Bennis

Editor's note: The following is adapted fromUnderstanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer.

With George W. Bush's administration in its last year in office, the danger of a U.S. military attack on Iran still looms as a dangerous possibility. Widespread official government, military, and analytical sources, including the collective assessment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, have debunked the various pretexts being asserted to justify such an attack. But the continuing, ideologically driven extremism in the White House means that the danger of a reckless, unilateral military attack remains, and such an attack could happen despite the consequences.

This book is designed to address some of those fears, answer some of those questions, and propose some ideas to prevent those looming disaster.

Is Iran a threat to the United States?

The Bush administration has claimed, almost since coming into office, that Iran is a "threat" to the U.S. Even U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and that it is very unclear whether Iran even wants to build such a weapon. Iran has never threatened the United States. (And unlike many countries in its neighborhood, Iran has not invaded another country in over a century.)

In 2007, according to the CIA, Iran spent about $5.1 billion on its military – about 2.5 percent of its GDP. The U.S., on the other hand, spent $626 billion on the military that same year, amounting to 4.5 percent of its GDP of $13.7 trillion. More relevant, perhaps, the U.S. spent almost half of the total of global arms spending – about 46 percent. So Iran does not represent a strategic military threat to the United States or to Americans.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political opposition to Israel has never been in doubt, but still his statements were distorted. Outrage erupted across the U.S. and Europe in October 2005 following the claim that Ahmadinejad had threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." But as it turned out, Ahmadinejad had not said those words at all. "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map, because no such idiom exists," Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Cole went on to note that since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century, I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

In April 2006 Bush repeated "we've agreed on the goal, and that is the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon." The significance of that language lay in the uncontested reality that Iran already had, indeed has had for many years, "the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon." Not only because much of that knowledge is available on the Internet, but because the basic technology needed to enrich uranium for nuclear power is the same as that required for nuclear weapons. Of course it is easier to carry out the 3-5 percent enrichment needed for nuclear power than the 90-plus percent enrichment necessary to produce weapons-grade uranium. But the technology is the same. Once you have the knowledge to build and run the centrifuges to enrich uranium, you just need time and money and practice to enrich enough for a bomb. You also do need missile technology, but like many countries around the world, Iran already had that, too. Bush's bar for bombing Iran could hardly get any lower.

Does Iran have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program?

No. Iran does not and has never had a nuclear weapon – and no one, not even the Bush administration, claims it has. Despite claims by the Bush administration and others, there is also no evidence Iran has a military program to build nuclear weapons. And even the Bush administration's own intelligence agencies acknowledged in the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that the weapons program they claim once existed had been ended by 2003.

What about Iran's support for terrorism?

Since the 1979 over throw of the U.S.-backed shah of Iran, the accusation of Iran being a "state supporter of terrorism" has been a hallmark of U.S. policy. The State Department's 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism states that "Iran remains a threat to regional stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East because of its continued support for violent groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and its efforts to undercut the democratic process in Lebanon, where it seeks to build Iran's and Hezbollah's influence to the detriment of other Lebanese communities." There is no evidence and little detail provided, beyond the broad claim that Iran is providing "extensive funding, training, and weapons" to those groups. The report does not acknowledge that both the most important "Palestinian group with leadership in Syria," Hamas, and Hezbollah in Lebanon are important political parties that have been democratically elected to majority and near-majority positions in their respective parliaments. Both, while certainly maintaining military wings, also provide important networks of social services, from clinics and hospitals to schools, daycare centers, food assistance, and financial aid to the impoverished, disempowered, and (in the case of Hamas in Gaza) imprisoned populations of Lebanese and Palestinians. Some of the actions carried out by the military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah have in fact targeted civilians in violation of international law, and thus might qualify as "terrorist" actions. But the majority of their actions have been aimed at illegal Israeli military occupations: of south Lebanon in the case of Hezbollah, and of Gaza and the West Bank in the case of Hamas. The notion that Iran's support for these elected organizations, if it exists, somehow puts Iran at the top of the list of states supporting terrorism, let alone gives the U.S. the right to attack, has no legitimacy.

The State Department report goes on to condemn Iran for remaining "unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaeda (AQ) members it has detained, and has refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial." Given more than six years of the Bush administration's own "unwillingness to bring to justice senior al-Qaeda members it detained in 2003" and even earlier in Guantánamo, and the U.S.' "refusal to identify publicly these senior members in its custody" and its continued resistance to "numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaeda detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial," the hypocrisy of claiming this as evidence of support for terrorism is astonishing.

What false claims has the Bush administration made about Iran?

On the nuclear weapons issue, it is false to claim that Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty by enriching uranium for its nuclear power plants. The NPT (Article IV) allows every country that signs on as a non-nuclear weapons state, including Iran, the inalienable right "to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination." Further, the treaty actually encourages its signatories to spread the development of nuclear power, and states explicitly that all its signatories "have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy" (emphasis added). So much for Iran breaking the law through knowledge. The NPT's enforcement agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has consistently reported that it has no evidence of Iran diverting nuclear materials or programs to military purposes. While the IAEA has been concerned about insufficient transparency in some of Iran's reports, that does not constitute a violation of the NPT. (Iran has rejected the Security Council's demand that it halt all nuclear enrichment activities; those resolutions themselves stand in contradiction to the guaranteed right to produce nuclear power that is central to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

It is false to claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. There is no question that Iranians – businesspeople, diplomats, aid workers, others – are operating in Iraq; they share a long border and a longer history. But there has been no direct evidence – only assertions – presented to back up the claim that the Iranian government has provided Iraqi militias with "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) or any other weapons.

Another set of false claims concern President Ahmadinejad. Certainly much of his rhetoric, clearly designed to bolster his populist domestic base, has been inflammatory and offensive – particularly his questioning of the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. (He has also become well known for his remark at Columbia University denying that there are homosexuals in Iran – although this appeared to be a one-off reference, not part of his ordinary discourse, it is still horrifyingly homophobic, as well as preposterous.) But instead of criticizing the real outrages, U.S. political and media figures have made exaggerated and false claims to rebut and created straw men to knock down.

What could Iran do in response to a U.S. military strike?

A wide range of possibilities would be open to Iran. While U.S. officials might call a military attack "only a surgical strike," Iran would certainly call it an act of war – which would indeed be an accurate term. Iran could send troops across its borders to attack U.S. troops in Iraq or shoot missiles into occupied Baghdad's U.S.-controlled Green Zone. Iranian troops could invade and occupy southern Iraq. Iran could attack U.S. troop concentrations in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, or elsewhere in the region, or go after U.S. ships in Bahrain, home of the Navy's Fifth Fleet. It could attack Israel. It could retaliate against U.S. or allied oil tankers in nearby shipping lanes, and even sink a tanker. It could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of the world's oil passes. The impact on the world economic system would be swift and devastating.

In conventional terms, Iran's military is no match for the U.S. Iran has faced years of military sanctions, and its military strategy is focused primarily on training troops to defend the homeland against invasion and foreign military occupation.

Where does oil fit into the U.S. policy toward Iran?

Oil has always been central to U.S. relations with Iran, despite the U.S. ban on purchasing Iranian oil since 1979. For a global power such as the U.S., the issue is not so much direct access to Iran's oil – the U.S. doesn't need to import that much Iranian or indeed Middle Eastern oil in general for its own use. Far more important is maintaining control of Iran's and other countries' oil supplies: the ability to determine price and to guarantee access to oil to favored friends and deny it to competitors.

The crusade to gain control of strategic resources, especially oil, remains a hallmark of the so-called global war on terror, the Bush administration's banner covering its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks on Somalia, and expansion of military bases across the Middle East.

Do U.S. sanctions against Iran work? What are the costs?

Sanctions and isolation of Iran were Washington's strategy throughout the 1990s. Although the U.S. sanctions against Iran were not nearly as extreme as those the U.S. imposed on Iraq in the name of the United Nations, the Iranian people still have paid a steep price. Much of Iran's infrastructure – particularly its oil infrastructure and civilian airlines – was created during the shah's regime, so most spare parts required are of U.S. make and thus unavailable under the sanctions. In June 2005, a report prepared for the International Civil Air Aviation Organization "warmed that U.S. sanctions against Iran were placing civilian lives in danger by denying Iranian aviation necessary spare parts and aircraft repair." Six months later, a U.S.-made military transport plane crashed, killing 108 people.

When imposed by the biggest economy in the world, "unilateral" sanctions invariably take a multilateral toll, since other countries and financial institutions are eager to stay on Washington's good side. Even so-called smart sanctions, designed only to target those tied directly to Iran's nuclear industry, end up affecting large numbers of people. Designating Iran's entire Revolutionary Guard Crops as a "terrorist entity," as the Bush administration did in late 2007, imposes sanctions on tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranians whose family members have ties to that huge bureaucracy within Iran's official military.

Oil sanctions diminish Iran's ability to rebuild and improve its seriously eroded oil-refining capacity, thus reducing the amount of gasoline and other oil-based products available for domestic use. And, ironically, the sanctions themselves cause more Iranians to believe that their country needs nuclear power, despite its massive oil reserves, because of the sanctions-drive shortages of refined oil-based fuels.

What could – and should – U.S. relations with Iran look like?

Any serious effort to minimize tensions and normalize relations between the United States and Iran must recognize that negotiations and diplomacy, not sanctions, military threats, or military attacks, must be the basis of the U.S. posture toward Iran. The United States should also recognize that the United Nations, through the International Atomic Energy Agency (not the Security Council), should be the central actor in orchestrating international negotiations with Iran. The United States should agree to be bound by international legal prohibitions as well as the global consensus against any military strike against Iran.

Any negotiations between the United States and Iran must recognize what Iran actually wants: a security guarantee (guaranteeing no invasion, no attack on nuclear facilities, and no efforts at "regime change"), recognition of Iran's role as an indigenous regional power, and reaffirmation of Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Once those rights are internationally affirmed, it will be up to Iran itself to determine whether and with whom they will negotiate on how those rights are to be implemented.

The consequences of the United States having severed all diplomatic ties with Iran since 1979 should be recognized, and Washington should move urgently to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Tehran.

What can we, the people, do to prevent a U.S. war on Iran?

We must increase the political cost for any politician or policy-maker even considering or threatening the use of a military strike against Iran.

Active mobilization against an attack on Iran is crucial. Certainly such mobilization will be challenging, but we must confront and overcome the skepticism about the value of antiwar protest that has been created by years of Washington's rejection of the demands of the even larger and longer-standing movement opposing the Iraq war.

The strong majority agreement across the United States, and the near unanimity in the rest of the world, that the Iraq war has been a disaster for Iraq, for the U.S., for the region, and for the world means that there is even less support for launching another, equally or even more disastrous war in Iran. There is still time. We have a powerful movement experienced in mobilizing, and we have seven years of success in changing public opinion. We can do it again. We must.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/bennis.php?articleid=13591 
 

[skyfind]

 Posted on Wed, Oct. 15, 2008

Why Israel will hit Iran soon

By HOWARD LURIE
MAJOR EVENTS like the slumping economy and the war in Iraq are always likely to have an effect on the upcoming presidential election.

But the fact that we're having an election is highly likely to have a major effect on one very specific international event:

I suspect that Israel will launch an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities not later than one week before the U.S. presidential election.

It will probably happen with U.S. assistance or, at least, acquiescence. It's unlikely that the U.S. will object. Assistance and cooperation by the United States would greatly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome.

I'm led to my conclusion by a number of facts that are probably not in dispute: Israel has good reason to fear a nuclear-armed Iran, and is unlikely to let it happen. Israel has previously attacked nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria. There is no reason to believe that it will not do so in Iran. The only question is when such an attack is likely to occur.

Our approaching election will probably affect Israel's decision.

There are essentially only three time periods to consider: (1) after the new president takes office, (2) after the U.S. election but before the new president is inaugurated, and (3) before the election.

Given his views on the Iraq war, it's highly unlikely that Israel could count upon U.S. assistance if Barack Obama wins the election and is in office at the time of an attack. John McCain is far more likely to cooperate with Israel in an attack if he's president. But Israel won't know who'll occupy the White House until after the election. So waiting carries a strong risk for Israel.

Even if Obama wins, George Bush will still be president until Jan. 20. However, if Obama wins, Israel and Bush run the risk of serious public disapproval if an attack occurs before Obama moves into the Oval Office. A disapproving Obama would be in a position to make Israel pay a very heavy price for its action.

Of course, McCain could win, but that appears increasingly unlikely. Thus, again, Israel runs a risk if it waits until after Nov. 4.

Acting before the voting presents Israel with its best opportunity. President Bush is probably inclined to provide U.S. assistance. He has spoken out against a nuclear Iran. As a lame duck, he also has nothing to lose politically by assisting Israel.

Before the election, neither Obama nor McCain is likely to condemn Israel, at least too harshly, for fear of alienating the Jewish vote, which could be crucial in several states.

Iran, of course, is likely to retaliate against Israel if attacked. But Iranian retaliation is less likely if it's clear that the U.S. will come to Israel's defense.

Regardless of his views on Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, neither candidate is likely to be willing, before the election, to express strong opposition to U.S. efforts to defend Israel against Iranian retaliation.

INDEED, IT'S inevitable, if Israel is attacked before the election, that the candidates will have to respond about defending Israel against Iranian retaliation.

It would be difficult for the candidates to equivocate on this. It is also appears unlikely that either would refuse to support coming to Israel's defense.

Thus, whatever effect an Israeli attack will have on the election, it seems clear to me that the approaching election itself will have a major effect on Israel's decision to attack. *

Howard Lurie of King of Prussia was an instructor at the Army Intelligence School in the early years of the Vietnam war
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20081015_Why_Israel_will_hit_Iran_soon.html


PD:
funny  :
     

Tehran Times: US taxpayers suffer from deployment of radar to Israel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3608963,00.html

they will never suffer, the people will always pay all what they do   

[skyfind]

Iran said to show it could attack Israel (-me, the title is like propaganda, like, "Iran is terrorist") 

TABRIZ, Iran, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- Iranian military exercises near Iran's border with Turkey are intended to show Iran could attack Israel, a government TV channel reported Thursday.

The exercises near Tabriz -- with U.S. F-4, F-5 and F-14 jet fighters, along with Russian Sukhoi and Iranian Saegheh, or Thunderbolt, fighters -- include upgraded jets that "can fly to Israel and back without needing to refuel," Iran's English-language Press TV reported.

With more than 100 warplanes participating, the exercises seek to demonstrate Iran's "military offensive capabilities in the wake of escalating war threats against the Islamic Republic," Press TV said.

The Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile characterized the war games as intending to simulate an attack on Israel. In June, more than 100 Israeli fighter-bombers conducted air maneuvers over the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, midway between Israel and Iran.

DEBKAfile said Tehran's latest drill was a response to "speculation rife in the West that Israel may use the window between the U.S. election and the swearing-in of the new president in January for an attack on Iran's nuclear installations."

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report last month that Iran had improved its ability to produce enriched uranium but had not diverted any nuclear material for weapons purposes.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes like generating electricity.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/16/Iran_said_to_show_it_could_attack_Israel/UPI-77051224172261/

[skyfind]

Not news but nice info 

Vigilant Shield
and
Jokers Gone Wild

— A Hot-Cold-Silent War False Flag Alert —

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer
Maj. William B. Fox
Dr. James H. Fetzer
Capt. Eric H. May
SFC Donald R. Buswell

October 9, 2008

Lt.Col. Guy Razer

In prior alerts, we felt it our public duty to identify strategic-scale disaster response exercises. These military style operations have an inherent potential to be covertly hijacked and turned into false flag operations. The 9-11-01 World Trade Center attacks and the 7-7-05 London subway bombings employed concurrent major exercises that “went live”!
Operation Vigilant Shield, running from Nov 12-18, 2008, is much too big to ignore, as it will link multiple concurrent exercises including USSTRATCOM Global Lightning 09, Bulwark Defender 09, Canada Command Determined Dragon, California National Guard Vigilant Guard, and State of California Golden Guardian. Unfortunately, according to USNORTHCOM, specific information about Vigilant Shield scenarios will not be available for weeks, permitting less time to analyze the situation.
Once an urban area has been designated an exercise target, that designation increases its odds of actually experiencing a future false flag attack. It takes considerable resources to corrupt an area, and false flag insiders like to get a return on investment. Since Houston, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, and Phoenix have already been “prepared” in prior exercises, they remain especially vulnerable. In addition, Vigilant Shield will probably add new areas in northern California to the potential target list.

Jokers Gone Wild

Maj. William Fox

The recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout underscores America’s walk along an abyss at every level. Bush cabal neo-cons are committing ever more reckless acts as they see their time of formalized power drawing to a close. We have all heard and seen the continuous drumbeat of Iran-related war rhetoric, the evidence of U.S. involvement in the Aug 8, 2008 Georgian attack on South Ossetia, the cross border air strikes that infuriate Pakistanis, and the trampling of American civil liberties in preparation for a possible martial law clamp down. The situation has now become so unstable, and the pressures so great, that many leaders around the world think it is more a matter of when rather than if the U.S. will launch another aggressive war some time either before or after the 4 November presidential election. Iran, Pakistan, and Syria remain on the potential hit list.
The following are some indicators of unpredictable trouble ahead, or “jokers gone wild.”

Strategic Moves and Perceptions

    * On 11 Sep 08, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev described the “unnecessary and unprovoked” U.S.-backed invasion of South Ossetia as “Russia’s 9/11." 1 Russian leadership is also angered by the U.S. use of gunboat diplomacy in the Black Sea. 2

    * Regarding Israel’s leadership changes, former Naval Intelligence officer Wayne Madsen stated on his 2 Aug 2008 talk show, “She (Tzipi Livni) is going to try to show her credentials on security, because Benjamin Netanyahu is now favored in the polls to be the next Prime Minister. He will attack Iran. He has made no bones about it.”3

    * Sec of State Rice’s promotion of the US/India nuclear deal could be considered a dual purpose maneuver to both antagonize and frame Pakistan as the party responsible for a false flag catastrophe in a U.S. city.4

    * The Netherland’s biggest newspaper, De Telegraaf, reported on 29 August that AVID, Holland's military intelligence service, has pulled back from covert operations inside Iran because it believes an American-led attack is imminent within weeks. 5

    * Russian Duma Deputy Sergey Markov stated that an attack on Iran could take place to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. 6Conversely, former UN Ambassador John Bolton predicted that an attack on Iran will likely come after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in. 7 This would enable the Bush cabal to provide false flag “training wheels” for an incoming president before he assumes official power.

Operations as Prelude to Larger Wars

Capt. Eric H. May

    * Covert bombing operations can intimidate leaders and move the masses. The recent steady drumbeat of likely CIA-Mossad operations include the 9-17-2008 bombing of the American embassy in Yemen, the 9-20-2008 bombing of the Islamabad Marriott (narrowly missed killing Pakistan’s Prime Minister), the 9-27-2008 bombing in Syria (possibly killing a top Syrian intelligence official), and the 10-3-2008 car bomb in South Ossetia (possibly killing a very senior Russian officer).

    * The Russians are currently conducting “Stability 2008,” a month-long exercise taking place through most of October. This is the largest exercise since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It features a nuclear war scenario between Russia/Belarus and America/NATO. 8 Russia has also deployed a significant naval force to the Caribbean in a show of support for Venezuela.9

First Ever Active Duty Army Tasking On US Soil

    * “U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?” by Chuck Baldwin describes how the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division is now under the direct command of USNORTHCOM. 10 The Bush assault on the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 has cleared the way for a militarized “search and destroy” mentality to replace the more restrained and traditional “to protect and to serve” orientation of local police.

    * On 18 Sept, the 1st Brigade Combat Team completed “Vibrant Response,” an exercise simulating a 10 KT nuclear weapon detonated in America’s heartland. USNORTHCOM told the Iconoclast this unit simply lends WMD-related expertise to local police. In reality their mission involves quelling civil unrest as well as responding to catastrophic man-made or natural disasters.

    * Adding to martial law-related fears, presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney recently discussed evidence that the military suppressed knowledge of 5,000 “extra-judicial killings “ (murders) during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. 11

    * Worse yet, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California discussed the threat of martial law made to Congressmen during the recent bailout bill debate: “Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and another couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That is what I call fearmongering…"12

    * Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, told talk show host Alex Jones on 3 Oct that the bailout bill gives economic martial law power to the Treasury. 13

    * The 8 Oct Wayne Madsen Report stated: “WMR has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest…WMR has learned from knowledgeable sources within the US financial community that an alarming confidential and limited distribution document is circulating among senior members of Congress and their senior staff members…it reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwriting from China, Japan, and Russia, all of which are propping up the United States government financially, and the United States unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world.”14

Other Social, Military,
and Economic Wild Cards


Dr. James Fetzer

Fortunately we see evidence of high level U.S. military resistance to neo-con schemes. Former Central Command chief Admiral William Fallon was fired for his opposition to war with Iran earlier this year. 15 A revolt and push-back by Air Force personnel last summer may have prevented VP Cheney from executing a nuclear sneak attack. 16
Ironically, Russian monitoring of and reaction to US neo-con operations might also deter an attack on Iran or some other country. This may also help defend the American people against criminal war leadership.
The $700 billion taxpayer bailout of mortgage lending errors has all the earmarks of an “economic 9/11” inside job. It entails deliberate massive economic destruction that benefits only a privileged few at the expense of most Americans. It also involves deceit so extreme as to constitute a “silent war” against the general citizenry.
The central bankers who promulgated the mortgage bubble and bailout have been cut from the same cloth as the Bush Administration neo-cons. Just like the neo-cons who have waged wars in the Middle East to achieve short-term benefits for select Big Oil and Israeli interests, their counterparts on Wall Street have scored short-term profits by manipulating the financial system. In the last few decades, their greed has helped America eat its own seed corn by off-shoring over 75% of America’s industrial base.
Their controlled demolition of basic industry—the most productive part of the economy—has also destroyed much of the American middle class, the standard of living, and the value of the dollar. America has now become the greatest debtor nation in the world, highly indebted to foreigners such as the Japanese and Chinese. As foreigners increasingly balk at buying America’s burgeoning debt, the central bank must resort to higher rates of inflation to paper over shortfalls. Meanwhile, foreigners holding American debt become stronger relative to America. They are becoming the new wild cards in the determination of America’s destiny.
For more details on America’s distressed economic fundamentals, please see the Grandfather Economic Report.17 Ironically, false flag events were initially designed by neo-cons as a diversion to avoid taking blame for policies that have created economic havoc. If America experiences an economic implosion like the former Soviet Union, it will either no longer be able to afford to wage war, or its leaders will push for war as the only option for survival. This then will either dry up incentives to stage false flag attacks, or amplify their necessity.

Actions

SFC Don Buswell

A less painful route to restore a sane, stable, and productive America involves maintaining a free Internet at all costs. The free Internet not only provides Americans their best means to diagnose their problems, but also their most effective way to stop false flag terror. For more information about threats to a free Internet, please see The Rev Ted Pike Archive.18
In view of all of the aforementioned considerations, we believe that a “Red Alert” for the 12-18 Nov 2008 Vigilant Shield time frame, combined with a “High Alert” for the entire period from now until the official end of the Bush presidency on 20 Jan 2009, is fully justified. We remain concerned that Bush and Cheney will resort to extraordinary measures to insure their continuation in power. They may even use a false flag attack to suspend the Constitution while claiming that only they are capable of coping with a major crisis. Every one of us is obligated to resist by every means possible any efforts in this direction.




* * * * * * * * *

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer is a retired U.S. Air Force Command fighter pilot. Dr. James H. Fetzer and Major William B. Fox are former U.S. Marine Corps officers. Captain Eric H. May and Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell are former members of Army intelligence. For more articles about false flag terror, refer to the archives of Capt. May, Maj. Fox, and Dr. Fetzer at www.americafirstbooks.com.

Footnote URLs:
1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/russia.georgia.
2 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4734894.ece
3 http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2008/09/next_steps_for_livni_and_the_c.html
4 http://www.military.com/news/article/rice-nuke-deal-key-to-usindia-
future.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS
5 http://infowars.net/articles/august2008/290808Iran.htm
6 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.news-media/browse_thread/thread/07053d4c2a0f9140
7 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27
-before-new-US-president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html
8 http://www.myantiwar.org/view/163440.html
9 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4887728.ece
10 http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081001.html
11 http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9805
12 http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed
_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_ carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/
13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs&feature=related
14 http://www.heyokamagazine.com/heyoka.16.waynemadsen.htm
15 http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12503
16 http://www.rense.com/general78/kene.htm
17 http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
18 http://tinyurl.com/44xyoo.

-- edit:
source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Vigilant-Shield-and-Jokers-by-William-Fox-081014-566.html

[Biggs]

great post Skyfind, people want to read stuff like this

however, this thread is not really for false flag alerts and such the like, something like this would be better in General Discussion with its own thread

Iran news only here please (false flag pretexts to war are more for GD area or other places)

many thanks
Biggs

[ConcordeWarrior]

Good find, yes.

My idea is that it will be Obama The Zionist and his gnomes, Zbig and Co. who will start the war against Iran along with their pal Israel and all chances are they will do the same with Pakistan. Then India and Russia will get in, Sarkozionist and the E.U. will support Israel and I don't need to tell you the rest.

It's coming...

[skyfind]

great post Skyfind, people want to read stuff like this

however, this thread is not really for false flag alerts and such the like, something like this would be better in General Discussion with its own thread

Iran news only here please (false flag pretexts to war are more for GD area or other places)

many thanks
Biggs

ok, sorry about that , i thought that i would be better to put it in here because talks about the last events that have happened

[Biggs]

ok, sorry about that , i thought that i would be better to put it in here because talks about the last events that have happened

no problem 

[skyfind]

Iran: We are ready for all enemy scenarios
Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:01:35 GMT

The Iranian Army has devised contingency plans to defend the country in the event of an attack, says a senior Iranian commander.

The commander of the Iranian Army's Ground Forces, Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan, said Saturday that the Ground Forces have substantially upgraded their tactical deterrence capabilities in the past decades and is well capable of defending the country's territorial integrity.

"Iran has enhanced its defense capabilities over the past three decades and is ready to repel any attack against the country," said Brig. Gen. Pourdastan.

While the UN nuclear watchdog, in its Sep 15 report on Iran, declared that it could not find any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country, Israel and its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weaponry.

A recent article published by the Guardian recently revealed that Israel 'seriously considered' striking Iran's nuclear facilities in spring.

According to the article, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's plea for a green light to target Iran's power plants was turned down by US President George W. Bush in a May 14 meeting.

On July 13, The Sunday Times quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying that the Bush administration had given the 'amber light' to an Israeli plan to attack Iran by means of long-range bombing sorties.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," said the official on condition of anonymity.

On Oct. 12, The Times reported that there is the likelihood of Israel bypassing US warnings and unilaterally striking Iranian nuclear facilities in the same manner Georgia attacked South Ossetia.

"The experience of Georgia has given an amber, if not a green light to Israel (to attack Iran) and only Bush can switch that to red," The Times asserted.

SBB/HGH/AA

source
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72575&sectionid=351020101
--

This remember me, Bush never said to Georgia´s president attack South Ossetia, but in the back they support them with military training and weapons. Once Georgia attacked, no one said "Bush gave them green light", it is the same with Israel, USA will not say "attack Iran" (in the media, in public), but in the last weeks USA have give to Israel high radars system, and more.

[skyfind]

Iran enters next stage of aerial drill

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:18:20 GMT


Iranian fighter aircraft

The Iranian air force has launched the second stage of a large scale aerial maneuver to test its fighters' gunnery and bombing tactics.

"F-14, F-4, F-5, Sukhoi-24, and Saegheh fighters displayed their offensive capabilities in tactical operations, which involved shooting at preset targets," spokesman for the maneuver, air force pilot, Brigadier Hossein Chitforoush said on Saturday morning.

"Gunnery competitions between air force fighters and air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles are conducted on a yearly basis with the aim of raising the quality of our young pilots' flight capabilities and testing smart bombs made by our domestic experts," he added.

Domestically-manufactured drones, photo reconnaissance aircraft, and electronic surveillance planes were also tested during the first stage of the exercise, which was carried out throughout the country on Thursday and Friday.

Interceptor aircraft and bombers of the Islamic Republic Air Force also participated in the first two days of the aerial drill.

The Iranian maneuver, one of many conducted in the past few months, comes amid growing speculations about a possible Israeli attack against the country.

In mid-July, Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz repeated pervious threats against Iran and said Israel must be ready to take military action against the country over its nuclear program.

"All options are on the table. If there won't be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it's clear what our decision has to be," he said.

Tel Aviv claims Tehran's nuclear program poses a threat to its security. This is while Iran's activities have been inspected more than any other program by the UN nuclear watchdog and nothing has been found to justify Israeli concerns.

Unlike Tehran, Tel Aviv is Middle East's sole nuclear warhead holder and one in only four regimes in the world not to have signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In June, over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s took part in an aerial maneuver over the Eastern Mediterranean. According to Pentagon officials, the exercise was a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since then, the US Defense Department has been installing a powerful radar system for Israel in the Negev Desert, although the US administration has apparently not given its approval for a strike against Iran.

The Pentagon has also agreed to equip the regime with the Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39), 'bunker-buster' bombs, which has been developed to penetrate fortified facilities located deep underground - such as Iran's nuclear facilities.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military has also begun its own measures to prepare for an attack on Iran.

Already equipped with the Arrow and Patriot missile systems, Tel Aviv has now started developing the Iron Dome and Magic Wand systems to respectively shoot down short-range and longer-range rockets.

Meanwhile, it has not abandoned political efforts to impede Iran's defensive capabilities.

Early in October, the then Israeli premier Ehud Olmert embarked on an unsuccessful trip to Russia hoping to dissuade Moscow from entering into a deal to sell Iran the S-300 missile defense system, which could create serious difficulties for Tel Aviv in event of an attack against Iran.

MJ/DT

source:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72503&sectionid=351020104

edit-PD: I put the image so the thread would be better to read, and not only "a lot of words", visual images helps too 

[bigron]

October 20, 2008

Attack on Iran Off the Table?


by Ray McGovern


On Sept. 23, the neoconservative chiefs of the Washington Post's editorial page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close friend, that "a military strike by the United States or Israel [on Iran is not] likely in the coming months." One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as they complained that efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program has "slipped down Washington's list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb."

We are spared, this go-round, from "mushroom clouds." But racing to a bomb? Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the nuclear weapons-related part of Iran's nuclear program was halted in mid-2003. And never mind that Thomas Fingar, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell's deputy for national estimates, reiterated that judgment as recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post's own Walter Pincus reported on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons work. Hey, the editorial fellows know best.


The good news is that the bottom line of the Sept. 23 editorial marks one of those rare occasions when the Post's opinion editors have managed to reach a correct conclusion on the Middle East. It is true that the likelihood of an Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has receded in recent months. The more interesting questions are (1) why? And (2) under what circumstances might such an attack become likely again?

The Post attributes the stepping back by Israel and the U.S. to "the financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan." These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most important ones. Not surprisingly, the Post and other charter members of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer not to address.

Russia and Deterrence

More important than the bear market is the Russian bear that, after a 17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with Russia's growing strength and assertiveness. The catalyst was the fiasco in Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neocons in Washington and their doppelgänger, the extreme Right in Israel.

You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his American- and Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.

It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Saakashvili against baiting the Russian bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention to such things that State is regularly undercut/overruled by White House functionaries like arch-neocon Elliott F. Abrams (F. for Fiasco). His encomia include those earned for his key role in other major fiascoes like the one that brought about the unconscionable situation today in Gaza. (Would that the president's father had let Abrams sit in jail, rather than pardoning him after he was convicted for perjuring himself in testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra fiasco.)

In any event, it is almost certainly true that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia. For centuries the Russians have been concerned – call it paranoid – over threats coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history – or, by analogy, those familiar with American history and the Monroe Doctrine, for example.

Even neocon Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain and former lobbyist for Georgia's Saakashvili, would have known that. And this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia's reaction was totally predictable, and it enabled McCain to "stand up to Russia" with very strong rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing danger of a resurgent Russia.

Russia's leaders are likely to have seen in Saakashvili's provocation, in the attempt to get NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in the deployment of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in hasty U.S. recognition of an independent Kosovo indignities that Russia should no longer tolerate.

I can visualize Russian generals telling Putin:

Enough! Look at the weakened Americans. They have destroyed what's left of their Army and Marine Corps, spreading them out and demoralizing them in two unwinnable wars. We know how bad it is with just one unwinnable war. It has not been that long since Afghanistan. But, Vladimir Vladimirovich, before we indulge ourselves with schadenfreude, consider what such actions betoken – total recklessness of a kind we have seen only rarely in Washington.

Who can assure us that "the crazies" – the Cheney-Abrams-Bush cabal – will not encourage the Israelis to precipitate the kind of armed provocation vis-à-vis Iran that would "justify" America's springing to the defense of its "ally" to bomb and missile-attack Iran? You are aware of the importance of the Israel lobby, and how American politicians vie with one another to prove themselves the most passionately in love with Israel.

Periodic attempts by Congress to require President Bush to seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Iran have failed miserably. So his hands are free for another "preemptive war" before he leaves office. After all, Bush has publicly promised the Israelis he will deal with the "Iranian threat" before then. Besides, our political analysts suggest that Bush and Cheney might think that wider war would help the Republicans in the November election

No big bear likes to have its nose tweaked. But the Russian reaction to Georgia was not merely one of pique. It became a well-planned strategic move to disabuse Israel and the United States of the notion that Russia would sit still for an attack on Iran, a very important country in Russia's general neighborhood. After Georgia, the Russians were bent on sweeping such plans "off the table," so to speak, and seem to have succeeded.

The signs of new Russian assertiveness are in the public domain, although the FCM has not given them much prominence. What is more telling is the effect on Israel and the United States. Since early August there has been a sharp decline in the formulaic rhetoric against Iran's "path toward nuclear weapons," especially among U.S. policymakers and in American media following the conflict in Georgia and the expiration of the latest "ultimatum" served on Iran to stop its nuclear program.

The change in official Israeli statements was the most pronounced. After a consistently hawkish stance toward Iran, Israel's president, Shimon Peres told London's Sunday Times in early September:

"There are two ways [to deal with Iran's nuclear threat]; a military and a civilian way. I don't believe in the military option – any kind of military option … an attack can trigger a bigger war."

And then came the bombshell from Ehud Olmert in his valedictory interview appearing in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Sept. 29. Olmert argued that Israel had lost its "sense of proportion" in believing it could deal with Iran militarily.

Not Russia Alone

It is a curious twist, but to their great credit, senior military officers Adm. William Fallon, who quit rather than let himself be on the receiving end of an order to attack Iran, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fought and continue to fight a rearguard action against the dreams and plans of "the crazies" in the White House to attack Iran. Fallon famously declared that the U.S. military was not going to "do Iran on my watch" as commander of Centcom.

In addition to his outspoken opposition to opening a "third front" in the area of Iraq and Afghanistan, Mullen has done much behind the scenes to talk sense into the Israelis. From the Israeli press we know that Mullen went so far as to warn his Israeli counterparts not to even think about another incident like the one on June 8, 1967, when Israeli jets and torpedo boats deliberately did their utmost to sink the intelligence collector USS Liberty off the Sinai coast.

A gutsy move. The Israelis know that Mullen knows that that attack was deliberate – not some sort of unfortunate mistake. Mullen could have raised no more neuralgic an issue in taking a shot across any Israeli bow that might be thinking of a provocation of some sort in the Persian Gulf.

Hats off to the new admirals… who outshine predecessor admirals who bowed to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson to portray the Israeli air and torpedo strikes on the USS Liberty, which took the lives of 34 U.S. sailors and wounded more than 170 others, as a mistake in the fog of war – despite unimpeachable evidence it was deliberate.

Hats off, too, to the grassroots movements that succeeded in quashing resolutions in both houses of Congress calling for the equivalent of a blockade of Iran. Several members actually withdrew their earlier sponsorship of the resolution in the wake of public pressure. Many of them came to realize that facilitating a new war might make them vulnerable to charges of poor judgment – the kind of charges that sabotaged Sen. Hillary Clinton, who, ironically, thought she had done the politically smart thing in voting to give the president authority to attack Iraq.

Not Completely Out of the Woods

There remain as many "crazies" among the Israeli leadership as there are here in Washington – crazies who continue to believe that Iran must be attacked while the going is good. And it will never be as good as it is with Bush and Cheney in the White House. If the Randy Scheunemanns of this world are capable of goading the likes of Saakashvili into irresponsible action, they can try to do the same with a wink and a nod to the crazies in Tel Aviv.

The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seems to be in serious jeopardy provides still more incentive for recklessness. If, as all seem to agree, a terrorist event of some kind might give the edge to McCain, many could argue that the same result could be achieved by a wider war including Iran, requiring the senior, seasoned leadership of one who has "worn the uniform."

And there is still more incentive for Bush and Cheney to look with favor on an attack on Iran… very personal incentive. It is a safe bet that if John McCain loses, Bush and Cheney and others will be plagued by various legal actions against them for the war crimes for which they are clearly responsible. Such would also be possible under a President McCain or Palin – but much less likely.

But attacking Iran would be crazy, you say. Not for nothing have many of the folks around Bush and Cheney been referred to as "the crazies" since the early Eighties. Some are still there; and they do things.

In April 2006, one of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues, in a conversation with Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, asked the general if he thought the U.S. or the U.S.-cum-Israel would attack Iran. Zinni shook his head vigorously, saying, "That would be crazy." Then he stopped and quickly added that we are dealing with "the crazies."

This article first appeared on ConsortiumNews.com.
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=13611 

[bigron]

Iran promises no mercy against aggressor  .

20/10/2008 05:05:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=173827
 
 Any decision to attack Iran would be an 'irreversible error' unforgivable until the fall of the enemy, says a senior Iranian commander.


(MEHR) Iranian armed forces.


"Mistake can be rectified but the launch of an invasion against Iran would be an irreversible error that we will respond to until their collapse," said top Iranian Army commander, Major General Ataollah Salehi.

"Being a bully with powerful equipment and many offshoots does not signify superiority. The greatest weakness of the enemy is its large size and powerful appearance," he added in his interview with Iran's official military journal.

His remarks come as Israel is intensifying war preparations and lobbying world powers for anti-Iran sanctions as well as the receipt of aggressive weapons.

According to a late September report by The Guardian, Tel Aviv had long been dead serious about launching airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities but failed to receive the green light from President George W. Bush in May.

Pentagon officials revealed in mid June, however, that Israeli warplanes had taken to the skies in the first week of June in what was later cited to be a 'dress rehearsal' for an attack on Iran.

The Israeli Air Force employed over a hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, tactical bombers in the maneuver held 900 miles west of Israel off the southern Mediterranean island of Crete, roughly covering the distance from Israeli airfields to an Iranian uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

The US then revealed that it would equip Israel with advanced weapons, including a powerful missile radar system.

In September, the US Defense Department also agreed to equip Tel Aviv with the Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39), a form of 'bunker-buster' bomb, designed to penetrate fortified constructions deep underground - such as Iran's nuclear facilities.

Tel Aviv and its staunch ally, the US, have also vocally threatened to attack Iran, claiming that Tehran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to Israel.

While the UN nuclear watchdog has found no evidence in support of the nuclear allegations against Tehran, Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory Iran continues to cooperate with world powers to clarify the nature of its nuclear program.

"Enemy threats considering their military power are serious, but we also possess military power," declared the Iranian commander regarding recent threats.




-- Press TV

 

[bigron]

ElBaradei:  Iran is nowhere near nukes


Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:10:11 GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=72738&sectionid=351020104


UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei disputes Western claims about Iran, saying the country is far from developing nuclear weapons.

In response to fears that Iran aims to develop an atomic bomb, ElBaradei said the country does not have the needed nuclear material to build one.

"They as I just recently mentioned still don't even have the nuclear material, the low-enriched uranium, to develop one nuclear weapon," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief said in a Monday address at London City Hall.

Elbaradei's remarks come as the US, Israel and their European allies allege that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeks nuclear weaponry.

The latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear activities, however, read, "The agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

The September report also confirmed that the agency had conducted 'seventeen unannounced inspections' at the country's nuclear plants, where Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level 'less than 5 percent'.

The rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

The report added that the IAEA had not discovered any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in Iran, confirming that all nuclear material in the country 'remain under agency (IAEA) containment and surveillance'.

Iran says it is entitled to civilian nuclear technology and its nuclear activities are solely directed at generating electricity for its growing population.

Elbaradei stated that 'as long as Iran is under the safeguard, it cannot develop nuclear weapons'. "But even if they decide to walk out tomorrow from the non-proliferation treaty - and you go into a lot of scenarios - it is not that we are going to see Iran tomorrow having nuclear weapons."

Despite the IAEA assertions about the non-deviation of Iran's nuclear activities, Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, has threatened to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Earlier in September, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said, "We could find one morning that Israel has struck (Iran)," adding that no one would question the legitimacy of such an act of aggression.

CS/HGH

[bigron]

 Iran calls for strategic partnership with Russia

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\10\20\story_20-10-2008_pg4_12

 * Russian deputy FM says Moscow supports Tehran’s nuclear programme

* Says sanctions against Iran would be ‘counterproductive’



TEHRAN: Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili has called for a “balanced strategic partnership” between Tehran and Moscow.

Such a strategic partnership would be a “two-way street”, but to realize this requires “firm determination” by the two sides, Jalili told the visiting Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and his delegation here on Saturday. Jalili said that the “two great countries of Iran and Russia” have the potential to achieve this goal.

Ryabkov praised Iran’s constructive positions toward regional and international issues.

The Russian deputy foreign minister said Moscow believes that its relations with Iran are deep-rooted and no country can damage them.

He also stated that Moscow supports Tehran’s principled nuclear position. “Russia will support Iran’s rational approach in the nuclear issue,” Ryabkov noted. He called Jalili’s letter to the EU foreign policy chief very important, saying, “The content of the letter showed that Iran’s approach to the nuclear issue is rational and constructive.”

In his letter to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on October 6, Jalili accused the six major powers of “unreasonable behavior” in regard to Tehran’s nuclear program.

Solana represents the 5+1 group (five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) in nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Iran sanctions: The UN Security Council has slapped three rounds of sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that unilateral sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive”. Russia is of the view that the “politics of adopting unilateral and anti-Iranian sanctions espoused by some countries is counterproductive,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has a right to enrich uranium to make nuclear fuel. In a separate meeting with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, Ryabkov said dialogue is the only way to settle differences over Iran’s nuclear program. Russia has vowed that it will complete the Bushehr nuclear plant in 2009. Hosseini said the Bushehr plant is a symbol of cooperation between the two countries. The Russian deputy foreign minister said Moscow will keep its promise to complete the project at the agreed time. mna

[bigron]

Israel laying its yellow brick road to Iran war

Israel seems adamant about prodding Americans into a cul-de-sac, despite the vivid picture Iran has painted of the chaos that would follow military action against its nuclear infrastructure.

20 Ekim 2008 Pazartesi 22:24
http://www.haber27.com/news_detail.php?id=14307



 On September 25, The Guardian claimed that Tel Aviv had long been dead serious about obliterating Iranian nuclear facilities but received the cold shoulder by President George W. Bush in May.

According to the report, Bush told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a one-on-one meeting on May 14 that he would not agree with plans to launch air strikes against Iran as long as he is in the White House.

The British daily cited senior European diplomats - working for a European head of government - who were let in on the highly-sensitive conversations between Bush and Olmert.

The sources claimed that President Bush was concerned that an Iranian retaliation would include a wave of attacks on US forces stationed in the Middle East.

Although the report does not seem to be a harbinger of doom for the oil-rich Persian Gulf, various developments suggest that a nasty surprise may have been planned all along.


Israeli F-15s and a refueling plane taking part in the maneuver

Olmert was supposedly turned down in early May. And yet Israel conducted a 'dress rehearsal' for an attack on Iran in the first week of June. The issue of the maneuvers was not leaked until mid June.

The prodigious aerial maneuver was held 900 miles west of Israel off the southern Mediterranean island of Crete, roughly covering the distance from Israeli airfields to an Iranian uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

According to Pentagon sources, the Israeli Air Force employed over a hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, tactical bombers, refueling planes, and rescue helicopters to enact an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

A major dilemma for Israeli hawks has been the 'game changer' - the sophisticated anti-aircraft S-300 defense system capable of simultaneously tracking 100 targets and targeting planes 75 miles (120 km) away.


Iran has already deployed at least one-hundred S-200 launchers, designed to defend large areas from attacks by bombers or other strategic aircraft.
 
Speculation that Iran may soon be equipped with the surface-to-air system has provoked deep-seated fear among Israeli warmongers.

"This is a system that scares every Western air force," says long-time Pentagon advisor Dan Goure.

"If Tehran obtained the S-300, it would be a game-changer in military thinking for tackling Iran. That could be a catalyst for Israeli air attacks before it is operational," he adds.

Should the S-300 system become operational in Iran, it would effectively rule out Israeli air raids and seriously complicate any US aerial bombings, says George Friedman - the director of leading US private intelligence agency Stratfor.

It seems, however, that Israel sought a remedy in the June exercise as it was carried out in cooperation with Greece, a country that has already deployed the S-300 system.

The Greek media reported that the system was 'turned off' during the operation. While it would not be a waste of money to bet against claims made by the various media outlets that failed to lift the lid on the maneuver for days, it is also possible to say that Israel may have used the expertise of the Greeks to prepare against the powerful system.


Russian S-300 missiles

In mid-July, an unnamed senior Israeli military official cranked up the volume of Tel Aviv war drums, confirming that Israel had begun preparations for an S-300 'counter-measure'.

"The sooner the Iranians get the new system, the more time we will have to inspect the deployments and tactical doctrines. There's a learning curve," the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Another development that steals the limelight from the recent report by The Guardian and raises questions about its authenticity is the US sale of 1,000 highly advanced bunker-buster bombs to Israel.

The US agreed to the sale after an early August visit to Washington by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who demanded that the Israeli Air Force be equipped with a large number of Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) smart bombs.

During his visit, he also sought permission to use Iraqi air space and requested that the US allow Boeing 767 refueling planes to join the Israeli air fleet.

According to Israeli media, the White House refused to comply with the request over fears that such a measure would be seen as a green light for an aerial strike on Iran.

Nevertheless it took only a month for the Bush administration to capitulate to the Israeli demands.

The US confirmation of the sale came just days before The Guardian revealed that President Bush was anxious about Israel's ability to destroy the Iranian uranium enrichment program.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), responsible for managing the transfer of military equipments at the US Defense Department, said on September 16 that the Pentagon would provide Israel with 1,000 of its much smaller GBU-39s.

Considering the nearly 900-mile distance between Israeli airfields and Natanz in central Iran, Israel has one shot at retarding Tehran's nuclear capabilities.


A GBU-39 bunker buster penetrating reinforced concrete

With only 50lb (23kg) of high explosives, the satellite-guided GBU-39s have been developed to penetrate fortified facilities located deep underground - such as Iran's nuclear complex in Natanz.

The smart bombs immensely relieve the anxiety of the Bush administration as they enable jet fighters to carry a higher number of bombs instead of a single one-ton bomb.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that the Natanz enrichment facility has been built 8 meters-deep into the ground and is protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick.

GBU-39s are capable of penetrating 6 feet (at least 1.8 meters) of reinforced concrete. The maximum range penetration for simple concrete is far greater.

In addition to the GBU-39s, Israel has at least 100 GBU-28s in its possession, capable of penetrating over 100 feet (30 meters) of dirt or 20 feet (6 meters) of solid concrete.

A September 4 warning by longtime Israel-ally and outspoken French president Nicolas Sarkozy has also come as a shock. He said that Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment would eventually lead to an Israel-waged war on the country.


The French president (R) warned that the world could wake up one morning and find that Israel has attacked Iran.

"We could find one morning that Israel has struck (Iran)," Sarkozy said, adding that no one would question the legitimacy of such an act of aggression.

Neo-conservatives and far-right think tanks in Washington are the most unlikely people to be surprised by such an attack. They have long persuaded the White House to employ the Bush Doctrine to launch airstrikes against Tehran.

In a recent op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, four prominent neoconservative heavyweights - Richard Holbrooke, R. James Woolsey, Dennis B. Ross and Mark D. Wallace - disregarded the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to highlight their own reasons why "Everyone needs to worry about Iran".

"Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability," claims the article.

"We believe that Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is one of the most urgent issues facing America today, because even the most conservative estimates tell us that they could have nuclear weapons soon," it continues.

"A nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region that includes Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, and pose a direct threat to America's national security."

The article comes as a mockery considering that the US has justified the worst atrocities known to man by the mere claim that its national security has been threatened.

For a Washington divorced from reality, talk of national security means one thing - interests. Iraq was not an existential threat to America or the Middle East; however, a obsessed Washington thought otherwise.

Iran poses no threat to America and has made no effort to develop nuclear weaponry. And yet Washington supports terrorist groups such as the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to destabilize the country, claiming that Tehran is the one threatening world stability.

One must ask why countries like America have been able to bend the truth in their favor.

It is no secret that when nuke-owner Israel suffers retaliatory attacks after it starts a war with a larger power, the US will jump ship to rescue the smaller force - a noble gesture considering that there is no military alliance whatsoever between Washington and Tel Aviv.

But one thing is clear! Iran is not Afghanistan, a country torn by decades of civil war, or Iraq, an isolated country under the reign of a dictator.

The Iranian military has been abundantly clear about how it would respond if it were attacked by either Israel or the US.


Various types of Iranian Shahab and Zelzal missiles mounted on mobile launchers

In early July, Iran test-fired its upgraded Shahab-3 missile equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead and capable of hitting targets within a 2,000-kilometer range - which easily puts Israel in its missile reach.

In preparation for Iranian retaliatory attacks against Israel, the White House has further complicated the situation by setting up a powerful missile defense radar in the southern Israeli Negev desert to 'enhance and extend' Tel Aviv's missile deterrence capabilities.

The radar is designed to track ballistic missile warheads through space and provide ground-based missiles with the targeting data needed to intercept them.

Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the radar 'is one of the most powerful systems available to track medium to long-range missiles'.

A war-obsessed Pentagon has also developed a scheme that would automatically send Americans into battle; it has deployed nearly 120 US military personnel to an air force base to operate the AN/TPY2 radar.

Any retaliation against Israel would thus mean an attack on US soldiers, forcing reluctant Americans into another war.

Over the last two years, several high-ranking Israeli officials have publicly claimed that they would be left with no choice but to take action against Iran the way they know best if the so-called diplomatic efforts fail.

Although Iran continues to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency to prove that its nuclear program is of a peaceful nature, the latest Washington defeat in its confrontation with Moscow over Georgia may encourage independent action on the part of Israel.

Tel Aviv may currently be in a deep political crisis, but the departure of lame-duck Olmert from power and Kadima, Israel's ruling part, may pave the way for incoming Prime Minister Tzipi Livni to unite the Zionists and pull the trigger on Iran.

 
A war on Tehran could also benefit the unpopular US president; Bush could drive the country into turmoil before leaving office for his Democratic successor, Senator Barack Obama.

Or, he could simply create an exigent situation that only his Republican Party is known to be able to handle, thus leaving the Oval Office to his bellicose and maverick friend, Senator John McCain

[bigron]

Financial meltdown prevents Iran war 

22/10/2008 10:14:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=174518
                     

Global financial crisis has made it highly unlikely for the U.S. or Israel to take a military action against Iran to halt its nuclear program.

Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who runs war games for government agencies, says that a set of recent developments including the financial meltdown has overhauled the Washington's agenda.

He noted that the Russian-Georgian conflict and the U.S. military operations on the Pakistan-Afghanistan are also among the factors that have changed the American agenda.

"The consensus among American decision-makers is that bombing Iran is not the path to pursue right now. I see players being more and more cautious about the consequences to fragile economies of an oil spike," Gardiner said, Reuters reported.

Mark Stoker, a defense economist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London also says that any military action on Iran is unlikely.

"It stands to reason that it (an offensive against Iran) would be expensive, and they (U.S. forces) are already doing a lot," Stoker said.

Diplomats and analyst warn that any attack on Iran would risk triggering a greater crisis should Tehran halt its oil exports.

Some analysts had earlier predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November 4 U.S. election but before President Bush's successor takes office.

"We have made it clear that an offensive option against Iran is not something we want contemplated at this time," said a US diplomat who has had extensive dealings with Israel.

Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says it has never sought a nuclear weapon, stressing that weapons of mass destruction have no place in its defensive doctrine.


-- Press TV

 

[Triadtropz]

So the US and Israel are dictating war, and deciding it's financially unwise?..lol..I bet Iran starts it..

[Optimus]

Iran says it will attack Israel if U.S. strikes
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110851.html
Published: 10/23/2008


Iran will target Israel if there is a U.S. attack on the Islamic state’s nuclear facilities, a senior Iranian official said.

Dr. Seyed Safavi, an adviser to supreme leader Ali Khamenei, revealed the change in policy to foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London, according to a report Wednesday in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

The policy had stipulated an attack both on Israel and American interests in the region and globally in response to an American or Israeli attack.

Safavi also said that Tehran officials are proposing a pre-emptive strike on Israel that would incorporate actions by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The proposal, Safavi told the diplomats, was in response to threats made by Israeli officials, notably Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Mofaz said Israel would be forced to strike Iran's nuclear reactor if the country's uranium enrichment program is not curbed. The proposed pre-emptive strike on Israel has not yet become official policy.

As part of a campaign to persuade Iran to cease objectionable nuclear activity, the United Nations Security Council passed a dual-track resolution last month providing incentives to Iran to stop its uranium enrichment and enacting sanctions if the Islamic Republic refuses.

[zafada]

Well, they're doing good with tech so they're getting up there.  I'd say it's plausible.

I wish them the best.  I just wish our people would stop taking orders like bitches.

[zafada]

I don't think he said this because he's afraid of us....as in the u.s.  I think he truly listens to the majority.

[scoffer]

You don't think that he might be a little concerned that the US will align him with terrorists, claim he has WMD and that he wants to use them to bomb Isreal, and attack in order to seed the government with american corporate oil interests?

Goodness what was I thinking, we have never done that before.

[donnay]

Yes definitely a good catch. 

Israel will continue to say Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped off the map--which he did not say.  I believe Israel is going to get nuked and Iran will be retaliated upon.  But that is not until they need it because the focus is now on Pakistan.

The globalists are going after the oil, Iran is definitely not out of the clear, IMHO.

[bigron]

Barzani says we will never allow any action against Iran from Iraq

Aswat al-Iraq

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m48180&hd=&size=1&l=e

October 23, 2008

BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: President of Iraq’s Kurdistan region Massoud Barzani in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran on Wednesday said, "We will never allow any action to take place against Iran from Iraq territory."

Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Barzani as referring to the good relations between the two countries and said Iran has always been with Iraqi people.

In another part of his remarks, Barzani underlined that Kurds leaders want a unified Iraq.

Mottaki, by referring to the religious, historical commonalities and good potentials between the two countries, called for developing ties in all fields.

Establishment of high commission for joint cooperation between the two countries under the joint presidency of Iraqi prime minister and Iran’s first vice-president and holding several meetings and taking important economic, social and security decisions is an indication of serious intention in expansion of relations.

"Signing several Memoranda of Understanding in different sections of transportation, roads, trade, energy, information technology and sanitation affairs in all districts of Iraq including Kurdistan and creating a new passing border post for trade exchange are among potentials of the two countries," Mottaki said.

He declared the trade exchange volume 3 billion dollars and added the two countries have the capacity to increase the level.





 

[HYDROGENPAL]

3 billion dollars
 >:(so thats where our bail out money is going.

[skyfind]

Iran expands naval bases amid threats 

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:39:31 GMT 


Iran is set to expand its naval headquarters amid Western threats.

Iran says the country's military is set to expand its defensive fronts in the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman and the Indian Ocean.

The announcement by Iran's Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdolrahim Moussavi came after the country's Armed Forces inaugurated a new naval base in the strategic port of Jask on Monday.

Describing the port of Jask as the main entrance to Iranian waters, Brig. Gen. Moussavi said the new naval base would act as a protective barrier against enemy infiltration.

The Iranian commander added that the country's Armed Forces have set up an 'impenetrable naval barrier' in the eastern parts of the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.

Moussavi also stressed the need for the expansion of Iran's military bases, arguing that, "In the past, our military had to brace itself for countering regional enemies. This is while today we are faced with extra-regional threats."

The Iranian commander's remarks come as Washington and Tel Aviv have threatened to launch military strikes on Iran, accusing the country of making efforts to build nuclear bombs.

Iran says its nuclear program is directed at the civilian applications of the technology, including the production of electricity to meet the demands of its growing population.

Tehran has warned that in the event of war, it would not hesitate in taking the necessary measures to protect its sovereignty - including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz - which connects the oil-rich region to high seas, supplying as much as 40 percent of the world's sea-transited crude oil.

CS/HGH

source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=73449&sectionid=351020101

[bigron]

New Iranian naval base can block Strait of Hormuz, confront Israeli subs


DEBKAfile Special Report
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5681
October 28, 2008, 12:23 PM (GMT+02:00)



Iran’s naval chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari


Iran’s naval chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state radio Tuesday, Oct,.28, that the base could be used to block the entry of any “enemy” into the Persian Gulf. Iran has warned it would close the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s oil passes, if the US attacked its nuclear installations.

The new base is in the port town of Jask on Iran’s southeastern coast opposite the point where the Gulf of Oman flows into the strait.

DEBKAfile’s military sources note the additional advantages of its location for Tehran are quick access to the Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Horn of Africa and support for three objectives:

1. A naval presence opposite the Gulfs of Oman and Aden, where Israeli maintains Dolphin submarines. For Tehran their presence is part of Israel’s belligerent posture opposite Iran.

2. Intensified military involvement in Sudan on the Red Sea.

3. As a counterweight for the US, NATO and Russian naval might building up off the pirate-ridden Somali coast. From Tehran, this build-up looks like a potential threat to its maritime supply lanes and oil export routes.