Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[bigron]

Gulf blockade 'a matter of time'



Published Date: August 12, 2008
By Ahmad Al-Khaled, Staff writer

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NTk0MjM0Nzk=


KUWAIT: The rhetoric between Iran, Gulf states and the international community has heated-up, as August temperatures swell. This is pushing Kuwait and its GCC(Gulf Cooperation Council) counterparts to set in place emergency plans to counteract the effects of a possible regional conflict. Kuwait political analyst Hajaj Bu Khathor stated, "The issue with Iran is not about uranium enrichment, it wants to control the region." He noted that Iran is pushing the nuclear issue as a tool in the process toward attai
ning their greater objective. Bu Khathor explained the issue is not only the responsibility of the GCC but of the international community which would suffer severe global economic downturns if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz.

Bu Khathor says that the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will be a reality which we should deal prior to its occurrence, according to a proactive well-planned out strategy. However, he noted that the government has under-publicized preparations for such a crisis. "The reason for this is that they do not want people to panic.

Khathor compared the lack of open discussions on the state's current emergency planning to its lack of preparation and a downsizing of the problems it had with Iraq prior to the Gulf War. "We do not want to repeat what happened before." he said, referring to the Iraqi invasion when citizens were totally unprepared for the crisis.

It is important to address it calmly and discuss it in a professional way. We need a strategy, alternative strategies and solutions." said Khathor who explained the necessity of having proactive discussions rather than reactive responses.

In the event of Iran imposing a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Kuwait will have to be prepared in the following, mostly logistical, ways explained Bu Khathor. "Firstly, the procurement and distribution of medical supplies." For example, he noted, "If there is a nuclear leak from one of Iran's nuclear reactors we need to have stockpiled iodine.

He said, "Kuwait must have emergency medical teams ready to deal with such situations who are equipped with supplies ready in all areas of Kuwait who are ready to deal with every contingency." Secondly, Kuwait would have to "stockpile food and have alternative routes to import food into Kuwait." stated Khathor.
He noted if regional violence broke-out, it may be difficult to rely on airplanes and alternative land routes would have to be made available. "Kuwait would need to procure more trucks for this purpose." Khathor affirmed that the state's Ministry of Commerce has already begun preparations by increasing the strategic food supply and limiting food exports.

The third and most costly aspect of regional preparations involve securing alternate routes to export oil. Bu Khathor explained one such alternative is the option of choosing sea routes which are closer to the shore, which allows for easier protection of ships. Khathor noted, "This would require oil tankers equipped to travel in shallow water.

During the Tanker War this was done and proved to be very expensive." said Bu Khathor speaking of the Iran-Iraq War of the eighties, reiterating, "It was successful to maintain the flow of Kuwaiti oil-but expensive.

According to Bu Khathor, the final aspect of Kuwait's crisis preparations include educating the public on rescue training and equipping them with an understanding OF the state's plan to protect the territory of Kuwait from the sea, land and air. Included in the state's preparations was the recent $152 million deal to upgrade its patriot missile system, stated Khathor.

Khathor remarked on the strategic nature of the Strait of Hormuz. "Powerful forces have historically attempted to control trade via this point." He pointed to the time when the British pulled out in 1971, leaving a power vacuum, Iran filled-it by invading the UAE islands, which are located in the strait. Khathor said this strategic move was made "so they could control traffic through the Gulf-Iran has had this intention since 1971.

Khathor commented, "The closure of the strait of Hormuz is something that is going to happen and will happen many times... it might happen very soon with this issue but either way, it will repeat again in the future." Regardless of whether one considers Iran a friend or foe, Khathor clarified, "We have to address their point of view and concerns, as well as our concerns and interests, and by doing that we can focus on our commonalities and interests.

[bigron]

Iran warns against 'surprise attack'

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:36:12 GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66379&sectionid=351020104
 
 
Iran's Defense Minister Mohammad-Najjar has warned that its response to a surprise enemy attack would be a greater surprise for the aggressor.

He said Iran has developed an extensive defense force to repel any possible attack, adding the Islamic Republic is currently a major defensive power.

Najjar said the armed forces have mass-produced a range of advanced defensive equipment including a radar-evading warship and an unmanned mid-jet submarine as well as a high-tech naval weapons system capable of targeting any warship within a range of 300 kilometers from its shores.

He added that Iran's newly-developed strategic products have considerably increased the country's naval capabilities.

Najjar comments follow reports about an armada of US naval battle groups heading toward the Persian Gulf with the aim of reinforcing US strike forces in the region.

On Monday, DEBKAfiles, a source close to Israeli intelligence agency, reported that the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima are sailing toward the Persian Gulf accompanied by a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

The deployment is believed to be the largest naval task force assembled by the United States and its allies in the region since the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

The move comes almost a week after Operation Brimstone, which was conducted by the US, British and French naval forces in the Atlantic Ocean. The 12 warships taking part in the war games were apparently, preparing for a possible attack against Iran.

Washington and its allies have threatened to take military action against Iran if it does not give up the right that international law has bestowed on all NPT signatories to enrichment uranium as part of a civilian nuclear program.

Tehran, however, has refused to give into pressure. In response to the threats, Iran has further enhanced its defensive power by conducting several maneuvers and testing new homemade weaponry.

“The maneuvers that have been carried out recently are held one after another to keep our armed forces prepared and strong. Fortunately, these exercises have shown our great defensive capabilities to the world,” concluded the Iranian defense minister.

SF/MJ/DT
 
Related News
 Iran: Consider oil tensions before a strike :
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66089&sectionid=351020104
 
 ISIS study: Iran war, a vain effort :
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66001&sectionid=351020104
 
 Kuwait on alert for war in Persian Gulf? :
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66352&sectionid=351020101
 
 Ahmadinejad: Iran undeterred by threats :
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=66307&sectionid=351020101
 
 

[bigron]

Last update - 13:53 13/08/2008


U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities


By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010938.html

The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.

The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.

As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.

Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.

Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.

Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.

The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.

Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.

The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.

These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.

Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.

Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.

Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.

In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.

Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.

[ConcordeWarrior]

I am not sure if this belongs here but the Haaretz site is kaputt. 

[Optimus]

Iran vows tough response to any move
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66401&sectionid=351020104
Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:24:30 GMT
 
The Iranian Foreign Ministry says Tehran will give a 'maximum response' to the slightest threat against the country's national security.

“Security is a national issue. The people expect our courageous armed forces to take even the slightest threats seriously,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said in a Tuesday press conference.

Qashqavi also said that Iran's neighboring countries pose no threat to security of the region.

“What we are talking about here, are threats from outside the region,” the spokesman explained.

“To all my Arab brothers and sisters in neighboring countries, I must say that our security is your security, and your security is ours,” he noted in Arabic.

Qashqavi's comments come as some news outlets report that an armada of US naval battle groups is heading toward the Persian Gulf with the aim of reinforcing US strike forces in the region.

The reports claimed on Monday that the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima are sailing toward the Persian Gulf accompanied by a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

The deployment is believed to be the largest naval task force assembled by the United States and its allies in the region since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The move comes almost a week after Operation Brimstone, which was conducted by the US, British and French naval forces in the Atlantic Ocean. Apparently, the 12 warships taking part in the war games were preparing for a possible attack against Iran.

[ConcordeWarrior]

Something I just saw on a Zionist news site:

Quote:
Newsmax.com, one of America's (NWO propaganda) leading online news services, is conducting an urgent national online poll about the situtation in Iran.

Don't miss this opportunity to let your voice be heard! Many media outlets and national leaders are interested in your opinion. Hundreds of media outlets have reported on Newsmax's online polls.

Vote Today! Go Here Now!
End quote.

http://news1.newsmax.com/iran/?PROMO_CODE=67A1-1

[ConcordeWarrior]

US warns against Israeli plan to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities
Bush was presented with list of desired military hardware

The US has refused an Israeli request for military hardware to assist with a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, while warning against any such plan, according to a report today.

Israel presented its list of desired military hardware and other backup for the strike during President George Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May, the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, said.

This was turned down with Washington officials insisting Israel give the US prior notice if it plans an attack.

The US is among a group of nations which has sought to engage with Iran over its nuclear activities by offering a package of incentives if Tehran suspends uranium enrichment.

Iran insists it is interested only in civil nuclear power but the US and EU claims it plans to build a nuclear bomb.

Israel, which has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal, has warned Iran repeatedly against developing its own. A major Israeli air force exercise in June was viewed by observers as a veiled warning to Iran that Israel has the capability to attack the country's nuclear facilities.

According to Ha'aretz, Bush held talks with the country's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and defence minister, Ehud Barak, during which they requested "certain specific items of military equipment" as well as diplomatic backing.

The paper - which does not specify the hardware sought – says that the US took this to imply an attack on Iran was imminent and sent a "strong message" to Israel not to do so.

It also demanded prior warning of any attack, and offered in compensation to improve Israel's missile defence systems.

Israel rejected this and warned it "reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary" if diplomatic efforts achieved nothing.

Ha'aretz says Israel had hoped Bush would order an American strike before leaving office but that this was seen as unlikely. The country fears that an Israeli attack "would give Iran international legitimacy for its programme, which it currently lacks" and portray Israel as the aggressor.

Israel believes that Iran will continue to stall, perhaps even temporarily suspending uranium enrichment, "in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace", the paper added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/usa.middleeast

[Geolibertarian]

US warns against Israeli plan to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities

The U.S. obviously didn't send three U.S. warships toward Iran because they want to play patty-cake with them. So why did they warn Israel against attacking Iran -- unless, of course, they're working behind the scenes to orchestrate a false flag "Iranian" attack against either (a) Israel or (b) one of the U.S. warships?

Could that be what this is all about?

[bigron]

Israel: Iran war not okayed by U.S. 


13/08/2008 06:23:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=150426

 
 Israel's defense minister says the regime has not received approval from the U.S. to carry out a strike against Iran's nuclear sites.


"The Americans are not ready to allow us to attack Iran," Ehud Barak told army radio on Wednesday.

"Our position is that no option is to be taken off the table but in the meantime we have to make diplomatic progress," he added.

Israel, which is widely believed to have over 200 ready-to-use atomic warheads, says Iran's nuclear program is a main strategic threat, although the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Tehran's uranium enrichment activities are within the limits of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Barak's comments follow reports about an armada of US naval battle groups heading toward the Persian Gulf with the aim of reinforcing US strike forces in the region.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima are sailing toward the Persian Gulf accompanied by the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and the French nuclear hunter-killer submarine Ametlyste.

The deployment comes almost a week after Operation Brimstone, which was conducted by the US, British and French naval forces in the Atlantic Ocean. Apparently, the 12 warships taking part in the war games were preparing for a possible confrontation with Iran.

Iran has reacted to threats of a military strike by enhancing its defense capabilities, conducting several maneuvers, and testing new homemade weaponry.

Tehran has also pledged to give the 'maximum response' to any threat against the country's security.

On Tuesday, Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar warned that Tehran's response to a surprise enemy attack would turn into a greater surprise for the aggressor.



-- Press TV
 

[Godfather77]

U.S. refuses Israel weapons to attack Iran: report
Wed Aug 13, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLD30375120080813

The United States has turned down Israeli requests for military hardware to help it prepare for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, a frontpage report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper said on Wednesday.

The unsourced report said the Americans had warned Israel against carrying out any such attack and had refused to supply offensive military hardware. Instead they had offered to improve the Jewish state's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

Interviewed on Israeli Army Radio, Defence Minister Ehud Barak did not deny the Haaretz story, but refused to discuss it. "It would not be right to talk about these things," Barak said.

The West accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this and says its nuclear program is only to generate electricity. It has vowed to retaliate against Israel and the United States if attacked.

Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, says a nuclear-armed Iran could threaten its existence.

The Haaretz report, by one of its senior columnists, did not specify what weapons systems Israel had requested. It said Washington had told Israel its aircraft would be denied permission to use Iraqi airspace to reach Iran.

Barak said Iran was a "threat to the whole world order, and there are many actions to be made in the realm of intelligence and preventive measures".

He said the United States "does not see an action against Iran as the right thing to do at the moment", but shared Israel's view that "no option should be removed from the table".

The United States said last week that Iran, by ignoring demands that it halt sensitive nuclear activities, had left the U.N. Security Council no choice but to increase sanctions.

A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declined to comment on the Haaretz report but said a stronger global diplomatic push was required against Iran.

"Israel supports international efforts to place pressure on the regime in Tehran to cease nuclear enrichment. It's time for the international community to send a clear message to the Iranian leadership. Only if diplomacy is exercised seriously, will diplomacy succeed," the spokesman, Mark Regev, said.

Another Israeli official familiar with the issue, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "The American military has made clear it doesn't want Israeli military action at this time".

[bigron]

 

August 14, 2008

Nothing Behind US Allegations Against Iran?

 
by Omid Memarian


UNITED NATIONS - While the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of providing lethal weapons to Shi'ite militias, last week, U.S. officials once again failed to provide solid evidence for this charge, raising questions about the actual level of Iran's meddling in Iraq.

Last Wednesday, Alejandro Daniel Wolff, deputy permanent U.S. representative to the UN, accused Tehran of funneling lethal weapons into Iraq. "During the recent operations in Basra, Sadr City, and Maysan, Iraqi troops uncovered convincing evidence that Iranian lethal aid has continued to flow into Iraq," he said.

Iran called the allegations "absurd" and a "routine practice" on the part of the U.S. "Whereas Iran has proved, time and again, its good intention to help Iraq's stabilization, development, and prosperity through close cooperation with the Iraqi government in different fields – as well as to help Iraqi people overcome their immense difficulties – the U.S. government unwarrantedly insists on its unacceptable behavior in scapegoating others, including Iran, for its own wrong policies in Iraq," Mehdi Danesh Yazdi, Iran's ambassador to the UN, responded in a statement.

Those mistakes include "the continuation of the presence of foreign forces in the country and certain wring policies and practices on the part of foreign forces there," Yazdi explained.

Meanwhile, Iraqi officials who enjoy a close relationship with their Shi'ite neighbor have ignored the U.S. accusations, believing that if anything can make Iraq secure, it is diplomacy and negotiation with regional governments.

Hamid al-Bayati, permanent representative of Iraq to the UN, who did not specifically comment on the U.S. representative's allegations, told IPS that there are "terrorists" who are coming across the borders and Iraq's neighbors could scrutinize these people and put more control on their borders – expanding the circle of countries who are responsible for the current security situation in Iraq.

"There is a mechanism which is agreed between Iraq and these countries, on what these countries can do through the meeting of interior ministers of these countries, through the expanded neighboring countries conferences which took place in Kuwait and anther one that is going to take place in Jordan in fall," Bayati added. "We are going to continue these negotiations through diplomatic channels."

Iraq is viewed by many as a proxy for Iran-U.S. hostilities over the past four years, and Iranian officials have called the U.S. presence in Iraq the main reason for sectarian violence. Iraqis have asked both countries not to use Iraqi soil for their proxy war.

When asked whether an improvement in Iran-U.S. relations could help boost security in Iraq, Bayati told IPS that Iraq facilitated three rounds of meetings between Iran and the U.S. inside Iraq and hoped that a fourth round – which was postponed – would take place. "We hope that any improvement in the relationship between Iran and the U.S. will help the situation in Iraq," he added.

On the Iranian side, U.S. allegations have been questioned for lack of solid evidence. "It is noteworthy that despite these groundless allegations, to date no single credible evidence has ever been presented to substantiate them," Yazdi stated in response to the recent U.S. claims of Iran's destructive role in Iraq. "To the contrary, several high ranking Iraqi officials are on record, stressing Iran's constructive role in the country and rejecting the solid allegation."

"The United States accuses Iran because the two countries have as yet not resolved their outstanding disputes," Dariush Zahedi, a research fellow at the Institute of International Studies in at University of California at Berkeley, told IPS. "The accusation is designed to stem Iran's rising regional influence, which the U.S. itself helped to enhance by overthrowing two of the Islamic republic's most implacable enemies – the Taliban and Saddam [Hussein] regimes."

However, the U.S. claims the activities of Iran's Islamic Republican Quds force contradicts Iran's public stated policy of supporting the Iraqi government. "In addition, during these operations, numerous Jish-al-Mahdi militia fighters and leaders of Jish-al-Mahdi-associated highly trained special groups fled to Iran, where they received sanctuary," said Wolff in a recent UN Security Council meeting.

"As far as the U.S. is concerned, the accusation has the advantage of undermining Iran's image in the eyes of Iraqi Shi'ites by blaming Iran for the nefarious activities of the discredited elements in the Mahdi Army," explained Zahedi about the nature of U.S. claims against Iran.

"The allegations are also designed to provide credence for America's narrative that depicts Iran as a deceitful, untrustworthy, and hypocritical power which, while professing to support the central government in Baghdad, trains, funds, and arms [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki's enemies," he said.

"Iran's role in Iraq is a byproduct of U.S.-Iran relations," Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, told IPS. "When U.S-Iran relations have stalled, Iran's role in Iraq would likely be unconstructive and when U.S.-Iran relations are cooperative, then Iran's role in Iraq might be cooperative. It doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. has to pull out from Iraq."

While U.S. officials accuse Iran of destabilizing Iraq, some analysts say the fact that the sectarian violence in Iraq has diminished – although not extinguished – since the U.S. troop "surge" is partially because of Iran's positive role in supporting Maliki's government, a fact that is ignored by the U.S.

"The security situation has improved, not simply because of the surge, but because of a host of other factors, including the successful completion of ethnic cleansing in key areas and America's success in buying-off former Sunni insurgents," Zahedi told IPS.

Improved "economic conditions, the improving performance of the Iraqi military, the decision on the part of Iran to lend greater support to the Iraqi central government instead of Shi'ite militias, as well as blunders on the part of al-Qaeda and setbacks suffered by Moqtada al-Sadr" are also key factors, according to Zahedi.

Regardless of neighboring countries' involvement, the mistrust between the Kurds and the Arabs on the one hand and the Shi'ites and the Sunnis on the other still runs deep in Iraq and, without the requisite political reconciliation, has the potential of unleashing strong centrifugal forces that can once again transform Iraq into a failed state.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/memarian.php?articleid=13297 

[Optimus]

Last update - 14:39 14/08/2008     
 
Israel source denies U.S. curbing arms sales to deter Iran strike 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011764.html
By Haaretz Service 
 
Tags: Israel, Iran, U.S. 

An Israeli official on Wednesday denied an Haaretz report that the U.S. had rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

The official told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the Israeli-U.S. arms sales negotiations were being held without consideration of Iran and thus had no bearing on the U.S.' decision to withhold arms sales.

"They're two separate things," the official said, referring to the Haaretz report. 
 
The officials also denied that, as compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

"There's ongoing cooperation between us on missile defense, but there's nothing new on that," the official told the JTA.

However, officials did say that talks between the United States and Israel on Iran were ongoing.

"There is a full dialogue with the American administration on how to deal with the Iranian issue, first and foremost through diplomatic and political means, while no option should be taken off the table," an official said.

[Optimus]

Commander Underlines Readiness of Iran's Naval Forces
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8705240732

TEHRAN (FNA)- Commander of Iran's Navy Forces Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said Wednesday that his forces are fully ready to protect the entire Persian Gulf.
 
Sayyari made the remarks while he was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of his visit to a naval base in Sirjan, a city in the southern province of Kerman.

He said Iranian forces will defend the territory of the country as well as the sea borders powerfully.

"We will protect our land and territorial waters with all our might."

He also said the country's naval forces are controlling and closely watching all movements in the region now.

Sayyari's remarks followed recent reports that an armada of US and European naval vessels will be stationed in the Persian Gulf in an unprecedented build-up.

Iran and the US-led West are locked in a standoff over Tehran's progress in the field of civilian nuclear technology. The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran is under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment, saying the demand is politically tainted and illogical.

Iran has so far ruled out halting or limiting its nuclear work in exchange for trade and other incentives.

In response, the Bush administration has said it is thinking of all options, specially including military action, to deter Iran's progress.

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

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

Iran has responded by saying it will strike back at Tel Aviv, as well as US interests and shipping, if it is hit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ISIS study also cautioned that an attack against Iran would backfire by compelling the country to acquire nuclear weaponry.

Military analysts have also stressed that Israel can neither perform a hit-and-run operation against Iran nor get involved in a war with Iran alone and without the help of the US.

Recent reports said that Washington has turned down a request by Tel Aviv for the purchase of aggressive weapons from the US for striking Iran. The same reports said that the US has warned Tel Aviv to refrain from striking Iran since the Iranian response would be directed at not only Israeli, but also American targets.

In preparation for any possible act of aggression against the country, Iran has reportedly begun mass production of a high-tech naval weapons system capable of targeting any warship within a range of 300 kilometers from its shores.

"The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps recently tested a naval weapon which is definitely capable of sending any warship within a distance of 300 km to the bottom of the sea," IRGC Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said on August 4.
 

[bigron]

Nothing Behind US Allegations?

by Omid Memarian
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/14/10990/


UNITED NATIONS - While the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of providing lethal weapons to Shiite militias, last week, U.S. officials once again failed to provide solid evidence for this charge, raising questions about the actual level of Iran’s meddling in Iraq.

Last Wednesday, Alejandro Daniel Wolff, deputy permanent U.S. representative to the U.N., accused Tehran of funnelling lethal weapons into Iraq. “During the recent operations in Basra, Sadr city, and Maysan, Iraqi troops uncovered convincing evidence that Iranian lethal aid has continued to flow into Iraq,” he said.

Iran called the allegations “absurd” and a “routine practice” on the part of the U.S. “Whereas Iran has proved, time and again, its good intention to help Iraq’s stabilisation, development and prosperity through close cooperation with the Iraqi government in different fields — as well as to help Iraqi people overcome their immense difficulties — the U.S. government unwarrantedly insists on its unacceptable behaviour in scape-goating others, including Iran, for its own wrong policies in Iraq,” Mehdi Danesh Yazdi, Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. responded in a statement.

Those mistakes include, “the continuation of the presence of foreign forces in the country and certain wring policies and practices on the part of foreign forces there,” Yazdi explained.

Meanwhile, Iraqi officials who enjoy a close relationship with their Shiite neighbour have ignored the U.S. accusations, believing that if anything can make Iraq secure, it is diplomacy and negotiation with regional governments.

Hamid Al-Bayati, permanent representative of Iraq to the U.N., who did not specifically comment on the U.S. representative’s allegations, told IPS that there are “terrorists” who are coming across the borders and Iraq’s neighbours could scrutinise these people and put more control on their borders — expanding the circle of countries who are responsible for the current security situation in Iraq.

“There is a mechanism which is agreed between Iraq and these countries, on what these countries can do through the meeting of interior ministers of these countries, through the expanded neighbouring countries conferences which took place in Kuwait and anther one that is going to take place in Jordan in fall,” Al-Bayati added. “We are going to continue these negotiations through diplomatic channels.”

Iraq is viewed by many as a proxy for Iran-U.S. hostilities over the past four years, and Iranian officials have called the U.S. presence in Iraq the main reason for sectarian violence. Iraqis have asked both countries not to use Iraqi soil for their proxy war.

When asked whether an improvement in Iran-U.S. relations could help boost security in Iraq, Al-Bayati told IPS that Iraq facilitated three rounds of meetings between Iran and the U.S. inside Iraq and hoped that a fourth round — which was postponed — would take place. “We hope that any improvement in the relationship between Iran and the U.S. will help the situation in Iraq,” he added.

On the Iranian side, U.S. allegations have been questioned for lack of solid evidence. “It is noteworthy that despite these groundless allegations, to date no single credible evidence has ever been presented to substantiate them,” Yazdi stated in response to the recent U.S. claims of Iran’s destructive role in Iraq. “To the contrary, several high ranking Iraqi officials are on record, stressing Iran’s constructive role in the country and rejecting the solid allegation.”

“The United States accuses Iran because the two countries have as yet not resolved their outstanding disputes,” Dariush Zahedi, a research fellow at the Institute of International Studies in at University of California at Berkeley, told IPS. “The accusation is designed to stem Iran’s rising regional influence, which the U.S. itself helped to enhance by overthrowing two of the Islamic republic’s most implacable enemies — the Taliban and Saddam [Hussein] regimes.”

However, the U.S. claims the activities of Iran’s Islamic Republican Quds force contradicts Iran’s public stated policy of supporting the Iraqi government. “In addition, during these operations, numerous Jish-al-Mahdi militia fighters and leaders of Jish-al-Mahdi-associated highly trained special groups fled to Iran where they received sanctuary,” said Wolff in a recent U.N. Security Council meeting.

“As far as the U.S. is concerned, the accusation has the advantage of undermining Iran’s image in the eyes of Iraqi Shiites by blaming Iran for the nefarious activities of the discredited elements in the Mahdi army,” explained Zahedi about the nature of U.S. claims against Iran.

“The allegations are also designed to provide credence for America’s narrative that depicts Iran as a deceitful, untrustworthy and hypocritical power which, while professing to support the central government in Baghdad, trains, funds, and arms [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki’s enemies,” he said.

“Iran’s role in Iraq is a by-product of U.S.-Iran relations,” Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, told IPS. “When U.S-Iran relations have stalled, Iran’s role in Iraq would likely be unconstructive and when U.S.-Iran relations are cooperative, then Iran’s role in Iraq might be cooperative. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the U.S. has to pull out from Iraq.”

While U.S. officials accuse Iran of destabilising Iraq, some analysts say the fact that the sectarian violence in Iraq has diminished — although not extinguished — since the U.S. troops ‘surge’ is partially because of Iran’s positive role in supporting al-Maliki’s government, a fact that is ignored by the U.S.

“The security situation has improved, not simply because of the surge, but because of a host of other factors, including the successful completion of ethnic cleansing in key areas and America’s success in buying-off former Sunni insurgents,” Zahedi told IPS.

Improved “economic conditions, the improving performance of the Iraqi military, the decision on the part of Iran to lend greater support to the Iraqi central government instead of Shiite militias, as well as blunders on the part of al-Qaeda and setbacks suffered by Moqtada al-Sadr,” are also key factors according to Zahedi.

Regardless of neighbouring countries’ involvement, the mistrust between the Kurds and the Arabs on the one hand and the Shiites and the Sunnis on the other still runs deep in Iraq and, without the requisite political reconciliation, has the potential of unleashing strong centrifugal forces that can once again transform Iraq into a failed state.

© 2008 Inter Press Service

[bigron]

Arab world fears an Iran war may be impending

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=5516

August 18, 2008, 1:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

 

DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that the Iranian satellite carrier space launch Sunday, Aug. 17, was prompted by a joint caution to Tehran from Saudi King Abdullah and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

After their meeting Saturday, the spokesman of the presidential palace in Cairo, Suleiman Awwad, said: Iran should not present on a silver platter the “justifications and pretexts for those [US and Israel] who want to drag the region down a dangerous slope.”

This warning was interpreted by the London Arabic daily Al Quds as a warning to Tehran that an attack is impending by the US, some European nations and Israel.

The article recalled the fate of Saddam Hussein “who didn't adequately refute claims over Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.”

Tehran immediately responded to the warning by launching the Safir satellite carrier into orbit, thereby exhibiting a ballistic missile capable of reaching outside the Middle East, as far as Britain and France, should they decide to join an American attack on Iran, as well as US military installations on that continent.

Our military sources report that the war scare in Cairo and Riyadh also infected Kuwait.

Last week, the small oil emirate placed its military on “war alert,” to avoid being caught off-guard by a possible conflict in the region. On Saturday, Kuwait boosted its naval force in the Persian Gulf to ward off a possible Iranian reprisal against its oil installations if attacked.

The scare was fed by the impending arrival of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima in the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US strike forces in the region, as first revealed by DEBKAfile on August 11.

They are to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is patrolling the Arabian Sea opposite Iran, and the USS Peleliu, on beat in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This deployment would be the largest naval task force the US and its allies had massed in the region since the 1991 Gulf War.

A US Pentagon spokesman last week denied that these forces were gathering to impose a partial naval blockade on Iran, but declined to disclose their mission. The denial apparently failed to convince the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait.

[bigron]

Israel retracts war on Iran threats 


21/08/2008 10:37:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=153037


 
 Israel's Interior Minister warns Tel Aviv against attacking Tehran saying such an attack would be a 'megalomaniacal reckless' idea.


"Israel must on no account attack Iran, speak of attacking Iran or even think about it," said Meir Sheetrit, who is contending for Kadima's leadership, Ha'aretz reported Wednesday.

The US and Israel, both possessors of nuclear weapons, accuse Iran of pursuing a covert military nuclear program. Tehran, however, rejects the allegations as baseless.

Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), insists that its nuclear activities are aimed at peaceful purposes.

The allegations continue, while the most recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by the US.

Sheetrit also said that Israel must be prepared to defend itself in case of an attacked by Iran. He was referring to the Islamic Republic's successful test-fire of a number of advanced shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.

His remarks come, while Iranian officials have repeatedly said that Iran is not a threat to other nations.

The Commander of IRGC's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Brigadier General Seyyed Mohammad Hejazi on July 10, described Iran's missile tests as 'a defensive tool against invasions'.

Iranian Air Force Commander General Hossein Salami on July 9 said that Iran's missile systems are operative, and positioned in a defensive array.




-- Press TV
 

[Dan]

who thinks that Iran has been a diversion in order to escalate, beyond the watchful eye of the public, hostilities between the US and Russia?  It seems that now we are doing everything that Russia doesn't want us to do, and visa versa.  Once things escalated with Russia, now Israel is backtracking on their threats?  Doesn't make sense.

Dan

[Biggs]

Blockades: Acts of War

by Stephen Lendman


Global Research, August 18, 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9838


From July 21 - 31, Joint Task Force (mostly US, but also UK, France, Brazil and Italy) "Operation Brimstone" large scale war games were conducted off the US East coast in the North Atlantic. Its purpose may have been to prepare for a naval blockade of Iran. From what's known a naval deployment may be planned, and a blockade may ensue. The situation remains tense and worrisome.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

-- surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

-- measures to isolate an enemy;

-- encirclement and besieging;

-- preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

-- an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy's coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

In 2009, it's believed that the International Criminal Court in the Hague will include blockades against coasts and ports as acts of war.

International law expert Professor Francis Boyle is very outspoken on this topic as well as on others of equal importance. He defines blockades under international and US law as:

-- "belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare."

America approved these Declarations, so they're binding US law as well "as part of general international law and customary international law." Past US presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called blockades acts of war. So has the US Supreme Court.

In Bas v. Tingy (1800), the High Court addressed the constitutionality of fighting an undeclared war. Boyle explained that it ruled that "the seizure of a French vessel (is) an act of hostility or reprisal requiring Congressional approval....The Court held that Congress pursuant to Constitutional war powers had authorized hostilities on the high seas under certain circumstances." The Court cited Talbot v. Seaman (1801) in ruling that "specific legislative authority was required in the seizure...."

In Little v. Barreme (1804), the Court held that "even an order from the President could not justify or excuse an act that violated the laws and customs of warfare. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a captain of a United States warship could be held personally liable in trespass for wrongfully seizing a neutral Danish ship, even though" presidential authority ordered it. Only Congress has that power. "The Court's position seems consistent with a typical trespass case, where defendants are liable even when they have a reasonable, good faith (but mistaken) belief in authority to enter on the plaintiff's land."

Boyle cites "The Prize Cases" (1863) as the most definitive Supreme Court ruling on blockades requiring congressional authorization. The case involved President Lincoln's ordering "a blockade of coastal states that had joined the Confederacy at the outset of the Civil War. The Court....explicitly (ruled) that a blockade is an act of war and is legal only if properly authorized under the Constitution." It stated:

"The power of declaring war is the highest sovereign power, and is limited to the representative of the full sovereignty of the nation. It is limited in the United States to its Congress exclusively; and the authority of the President to be the Commander-in-Chief....to take that the law be faithfully executed, is to be taken in connection with the exclusive power given to Congress to declare war, and does not enable the President to (do it) or to introduce, without Act of Congress, War or any of its legal disabilities or liabilities, on any citizen of the United States."

Article I of the Constitution pertains to powers "vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Section 8 relates to powers "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States...." Two Section 8 clauses relate to this article.

-- clause 14: to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;" and most importantly

-- clause 11: "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning capture on land and water."

The framers believed that no single official, including the President, should ever have sole authority over this most crucial of all constitutional powers because of how easily it can be abused as post-WW II history shows. In 1793, James Madison wrote that the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution....to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Mason said that the President "is not safely to be trusted with" the power to declare war. Nonetheless, Congress only observed its responsibility five times in the nation's history, lastly on December 8, 1941 following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor the previous day.

All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Its Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability." It permits a nation to use force (including blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."

Iran poses no threat to the US, its neighbors, or any other nations, including Israel. Imposing a blockade against it violates the UN Charter and other international and US law. It will constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the "supreme international crime" above all others. It will make the Bush administration, every supportive congressional member, and governments of other participating nations criminally liable.

Two more events further up the stakes. On April 3, in spite of strong public opposition, the Czech Republic agreed to the installation of US "advanced tracking missile defense radar" by 2012. On July 9, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement responded: "We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods."

Then on August 14, Poland defied its own people and most Europeans by agreeing to allow offensive "interceptor missiles" on its soil. Legislatures of both countries must approve it, but that will likely follow. Deployment is reckless and indefensible and will head the world closer to serious confrontation.

For two countries wracked by prior wars, these actions are irresponsible and foolhardy. They further heighten tensions and assure a new Cold War arms race or much worse. Russia's deputy military chief of staff, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, stated: Poland is "exposing itself to a strike, 100%." Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said: "The deployment (aims at) the Russian Federation." Even Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk showed fear by his comment that "We have crossed the Rubicon." Yet he did it anyway. Where this is heading remains to be seen, but the signs are deeply worrisome.

So is the possibility that Washington will blockade or attack Iran before year end. Things won't likely crystallize before Congress reconvenes in September after both parties hold their nominating conventions.

Hopefully a wider Middle East war will be avoided because of what might follow. What Barbara Tuchman recounted in her 1962 book, "The Guns of August," on how WW I war began and its early weeks. Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences. Before it ended, over 20 million died, at least that many more were wounded, and a generation of young men was erased.

Igniting another world conflict should give everyone pause. Especially given the destructive power of today's weapons and the Bush administration's design for "full spectrum dominance" and stated unilateral right to achieve it with first-strike nuclear weapons. Avoiding that possibility is the top priority of every world leader. It's unclear if any are up to the challenge.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

[Suriel]

Blockades: Acts of War
From July 21 - 31, Joint Task Force (mostly US, but also UK, France, Brazil and Italy) "Operation Brimstone" large scale war games were conducted off the US East coast in the North Atlantic. Its purpose may have been to prepare for a naval blockade of Iran. From what's known a naval deployment may be planned, and a blockade may ensue. The situation remains tense and worrisome.

With a name like Operation Brimstone it sounds like they are preparing for more then just a naval blockade.

[Boubear]

With a name like Operation Brimstone it sounds like they are preparing for more then just a naval blockade.

I agree!!

[Typhoon]

  Hell will break out when Israel goes to war with Iran:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm
http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm

[Brocke]

Hell will break out when Israel goes to war with Iran:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm
http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm

Great link, I've never been to that site. Thanks.

[Brocke]

Iran to orbit several satellites by 2010

18/08/2008 18:24 TEHRAN, August 18 (RIA Novosti) - Iran plans to send into orbit several domestic satellites by 2010, the head of the country's aerospace agency said on Monday.

Iranian state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday that an Iranian carrier rocket, Safir, had successfully orbited the country's first domestically built satellite, named Omid (Hope).

"We are currently working on a series of satellites that will be put into orbit within the next two years," Reza Taghipour said.

He said the satellites will aid natural disaster management programs and improve telecommunications.

The space official stressed that all of Iran's missile and space technology has been developed by national specialists, without foreign assistance.

Safir is Iran's first domestically made satellite carrier, capable of putting lightweight satellites into low earth orbit.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080818/116111603.html

[Sasha]

Iran to orbit several satellites by 2010

18/08/2008 18:24 TEHRAN, August 18 (RIA Novosti) - Iran plans to send into orbit several domestic satellites by 2010, the head of the country's aerospace agency said on Monday.

Iranian state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday that an Iranian carrier rocket, Safir, had successfully orbited the country's first domestically built satellite, named Omid (Hope).

"We are currently working on a series of satellites that will be put into orbit within the next two years," Reza Taghipour said.

He said the satellites will aid natural disaster management programs and improve telecommunications.

The space official stressed that all of Iran's missile and space technology has been developed by national specialists, without foreign assistance.

Safir is Iran's first domestically made satellite carrier, capable of putting lightweight satellites into low earth orbit.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080818/116111603.html

That's very interesting considering that's also how ICBMs work - upper atmosphere atmosphere surfers. 

Interesting also that the space official "stressed" that the technology had been, "developed by national specialists, without foreign assistance".  Considering their close military relations with both Russia and China I guess they might be paranoid that everyone will get the right wrong idea.

[thadividedsky]

The Bush administration could use this as an excuse for striking Iran. They could say that Tehran now has the capability to strike Europe and say that is the reason for the missile shield while poking Russia who could effectively put missiles in Venezuela and/or Syria. Didin't the bible say there will be wars and rumors of wars before the end times? It's gettin nerve wracking to say the least.

[Dan]

The Bush administration could use this as an excuse for striking Iran. They could say that Tehran now has the capability to strike Europe and say that is the reason for the missile shield while poking Russia who could effectively put missiles in Venezuela and/or Syria. Didin't the bible say there will be wars and rumors of wars before the end times? It's gettin nerve wracking to say the least.

The way the administration has dealt the cards, it is a war of words right now.  And no one will win except for this administration.  They will win because they have stacked the deck on the side of war.  War with Iran means more oil and more defense contracts, war with Russia means, at best, a new cold war which will cost trillions in defense contracts, and at worst, all out war costing trillions in defense contracts.  Only difference is that option 1 with Russia costs bodies also, which we all know they care nothing about.

Dan

[Brocke]

Iran to send first astronaut into space within 10 years
 
18:15  |  20/ 08/ 2008
 
TEHRAN, August 20 (RIA Novosti) - Iran plans to send its first astronaut into space within the next decade, the head of the Iran Aerospace Organization said on Wednesday.
 
"Iran is currently exploring the possibility of sending a human into outer space. This is one of the country's priorities for the next 10 years," Reza Taghipour said. He said the exact date of the flight would be determined before the end of the year. "In accordance with a program that we have developed, by 2021 Iran is to become the leading space power in the region," he said.
 
Iran said on Monday it plans to send into orbit several domestic satellites by 2010. The Iranian state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday that an Iranian carrier rocket, Safir, had successfully orbited the country's first domestically-built satellite, called Omid (Hope).
 
The satellite will aid natural disaster management programs and improve telecommunications. Taghipour earlier stressed that all of Iran's missile and space technology has been developed by its own specialists, without foreign assistance.
 
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080820/116164664.html

[Brocke]

Iran Aerospace Organization Official Says More Satellites in Two Years

Posted on: Thursday, 21 August 2008, 06:00 CDT

Text of unattributed news report headlined "Head of country's aerospace organization reports production of several more satellites in the next two years" published by Iranian newspaper Keyhan website on 19 August

While describing the details of the successful launch of the Iranian satellite-carrying rocket, and the objectives of the launch, the head of the State Aerospace Organization has said: The satellite launcher had been designed to be placed in the LEO [abbreviation in English in the original, meaning Low Earth Orbit] orbit, and with the successful launch of the satellite, Iran has now entered the small group of countries which enjoy the technical know-how for constructing such a system.

Dr Reza Taqipur, who was speaking in an interview with ISNA [Iranian Students News Agency], then spoke about the designing and manufacturing of other satellites in the next two years. He emphasized: The construction of these satellites is on the agenda, and with their completion, they will be gradually placed in their designated orbits around the Earth.

In that interview, he also said that the number of countries which currently enjoyed the technology necessary for launching satellites and placing them in the orbit did not exceed the number of fingers on one hand. He added: This is while many countries in the world are currently using satellites which they have either bought or hired from others. Therefore, the fact that it has successfully acquired the necessary technology in that area is something which is very important for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He went on to say: It is also important that this success has been achieved at a time when the Western powers are doing their best to deprive Iran from having access to many advanced technologies, merely for political reasons, and without any scientific and technological dimensions [as written]. These restrictions make the Iranian achievement doubly important and valuable. In addition, it must be emphasized that the acquisition of this know-how requires mastering of many other sophisticated and advanced technologies too. In other words, several different scientific and technological disciplines need to be used alongside each other in order to make the implementation of such a major project possible.

In another part of his remarks, the head of the State Aerospace Organization emphasized: If we do not consider India as one of the regional countries, then we must say that we are the first country of the region to launch a satellite into space. Of course, Malaysia has been very active in designing and manufacturing satellites, while Kazakhstan too has been actively involved in launching Russian rockets into space.

Explaining the various stages of the missions of the Safir-e Omid satellite launcher, Taqipur said: In general, satellite launchers usually go through several stages, and parts of the rockets are detached and destroyed at different stages. After arriving at their second stage, that is to say, when they reach the speed of 4,500 meters per second, nothing of the satellite launcher remains, and it is at that stage that the satellite it is carrying will be placed in the orbit.

In conclusion to his remarks, he said: The Omid [meaning Hope] satellite will consist of a series of mini satellites such as Omid 1 and Omid 2, which will be launched into the orbit in the shape of small communication and remote sensing satellites.

Taqipur then explained that the State Aerospace Organization had specific agreements for cooperation in aerospace science with seven universities. He added: Many of these universities have already set up aerospace studies faculties and have produced a number of graduates as well. Furthermore, we have some extensive plans for cooperation with universities in the field of implementation of aerospace projects. Of course, it should be explained that the three institutions of the Amir Kabir Industrial University, the Sharif Industrial University, and the Science and Industry [Elm va San'at] University are currently building some student-designed satellites, and these are a part of the national aerospace plans, which will reach fruition in the coming years.

Originally published by Keyhan website, Tehran, in Persian 19 Aug 08.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1528410/iran_aerospace_organization_official_says_more_satellites_in_two_years/index.html

[bigron]

August 28, 2008

Iran Could Reap Benefits of U.S.-Russian Tensions

by Jim Lobe


Iran could emerge as a big winner, at least in the short term, from the rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Moscow's intervention in Georgia, according to analysts.

Whatever waning chances remained of a U.S. military attack on Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office next January have all but vanished, given the still-uncertain outcome of the Georgia crisis, according to most of these observers.

Similarly, the likelihood that Moscow will cooperate with U.S. and European efforts to impose additional sanctions on Tehran through the U.N. Security Council, where Russia holds a veto, for not complying with the Council's demands to halt its uranium enrichment program has been sharply reduced.

Not only has Washington's confrontation with its old superpower rival displaced Tehran at the top of the administration's and U.S. media foreign policy agenda, but Tehran's geopolitical leverage – both as a potential partner for the West in containing Russia and as a potential ally of Moscow's in warding off western pressure – has also risen sharply as an incidental result of the crisis.

"When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it didn't do so to improve Iran's power position in the region, but that was the result," noted Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University who served on the National Security Council staff of former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. "That wasn't the purpose of the Russian invasion of Georgia either, but it, too, may be the result."

So far, Tehran's response to the Georgia crisis has been measured. Despite calls by some right-wing voices to side with Moscow, according to Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here, the government, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has expressed disapproval of the Russian action, particularly its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.

"The reason is on grounds of principle – if Iran is going to start supporting the secession of territories that are unhappy with the central government, then Iran itself has some similar issues with ethnic dissatisfaction," Farhi, who also teaches at the University of Hawaii, told IPS.

In addition, she said, most of Tehran's foreign policy establishment "don't view Russia as a reliable partner. They understand that Russia may support Iran on the nuclear file depending on its own security or policy interests, but Russia has also been quite clever in using Iran as a bargaining chip in terms of its relationship with the United States."

"The Iranians are being very clever here; they're not likely to rush to Russia's defense unless Russia comes to them and ask for their help, and then they can ask for something in return," Farhi added.

The latter may include anything from the accelerated completion of the long-delayed Bushehr nuclear plant, to providing advanced antiaircraft systems (something that Tehran's ally Syria has already asked Moscow to provide in the wake of Damascus' public support for the Russian intervention), to full membership in the Sino-Russian-sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a defense group that is coincidentally holding its annual summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, this week.

Teheran's leverage is not just confined to its status, along with Turkey's, as the most powerful nation in a strategically critical neighborhood inhabited by relatively weak U.S.-backed buffer states like Georgia. During the Cold War and until the 1979 Revolution, after all, Iran served as Washington's most important bulwark against Soviet influence in the Gulf.

It also derives from its being a major oil and gas producer that could also play a much more important role as a transshipment point for Central Asian and Caspian energy resources bound for Europe, whose growing dependence on Russia for its energy supplies looks more risky than ever. This is particularly so in the wake of Moscow's demonstration that it can easily reach – and disrupt, if it wishes – the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, the only pipeline that transports oil from the Caspian to the West without transiting either Russia or Iran.

"Oil and gas companies now must factor in a new level of uncertainty," according to Jay Stanley at Kent Moors, an expert on energy finance who writes for "Caspian Investor." "...Georgia is now unstable and that increases the risk of transporting hydrocarbons across it."

"If the BTC and Georgia won't be a reliable source of energy, then Iran will absolutely step up to the plate," according to Prof. William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota. "'You want gas? We'll sell you gas' will likely be their position," he added, noting that Switzerland signed a 25-year, 42-billion-dollar gas supply and pipeline deal with Tehran last March over strong U.S. objections. "I think the Swiss are a very good bellwether for the rest of Europe on this."

While Iran has alienated some major European energy companies – most recently France's Total – by demanding tough terms, it might "see the present crisis as an opportunity to go back to European colleagues and say, 'Let's take another look at this,"' said Sick. "It gives them some more leverage by going to the West and saying 'You're shooting yourselves in the foot here. When are you going to come to your senses?"'

That argument naturally becomes more compelling as tensions between Russia and the West continue to escalate and could affect internal Bush cabinet-level deliberations on whether to act on a State Department recommendation to seek Iranian approval for opening an interests section in Tehran. Such a move, at the present juncture, would likely be seen as a major move on geo-strategic chessboard. Despite reports earlier this month that Bush had approved the recommendation, the issue appears to be unresolved.

Still, some experts say Iran's advantage could be short-lived. With a Russian veto over new Iran sanctions all but assured, Washington could decide to drop the U.N. route and try to impose a "coalition-of-the-willing" sanctions regime with its allies, according to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, told IPS he believes that Russia's unilateral resort to military action against Georgia may actually embolden Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the leader of the administration's hawks who travels next week to Georgia and Azerbaijan.

"The question is whether Bush and Cheney will feel empowered to behave in a more belligerent fashion or not," he said.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13374 
 

[Biggs]

this is likely just BS but just in case a Dutch paper - De Telegraaf has said the following -

One of the agents, who under the supervision of the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD managed to infiltrate into the Iranian industry, has recently been recalled, because in the U.S. the decision has been taken to attack Iran within a few weeks with unmanned aircraft.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/1796098/__Aanval_op_Iran_verwacht__.html?p=2,1

English translation -
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Fbinnenland%2F1796098%2F__Aanval_op_Iran_verwacht__.html%3Fp%3D2%2C1&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&sl=nl&tl=en

found at ATS
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread386244/pg1

[Biggs]

Whilst I am ALL for iran and Syria being  given the technolgy to shoot down lots of US or Israeli or Uk planes in the event of an attack, it is also true that it could speed up such an attack and cause Israel to jump the gun and attack before these advanced SAM systems are operational. But once they are in place an attack will be much more costly in the immediate phase - which is a good thing as it makes the loonies think twice and makes the generals and airforce command dislike the idea even more.

Russia threatens to supply Iran with top new missile system as 'cold war' escalates
Russia is deploying the threat to sell a "game changing" air defence system to Iran as a high stakes bargaining chip in its new "cold war" with America, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2651516/Russia-threatens-to-supply-Iran-with-top-new-missile-system-as-cold-war-escalates.html

By Philip Sherwell in New York and William Lowther in Washington
Last Updated: 11:54PM BST 30 Aug 2008

US intelligence fears the Kremlin will supply the sophisticated S-300 system to Tehran if Washington pushes through Nato membership for its pro-Western neighbours Georgia and Ukraine.

The proposed deal is causing huge alarm in the US and Israel as the S-300 can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes up to 75 miles away.

That would make it a "game-changer", greatly improving Iranian defences against any air strike on its nuclear sites, according to Pentagon adviser Dan Goure. "This is a system that scares every Western air force," he said.

Senior US intelligence operatives believe that Russia is planning to use a stand-off over the S-300 to create a foreign policy showdown that would test the mettle of a new US president.

Republican candidate John McCain has taken a strongly anti-Kremlin line on a series of international issues and backed Georgia's desire to join Nato. His Democratic rival Barack Obama has also indicated he supports Nato membership for Georgia.

"The message from Moscow is very clear," said George Friedman, director of Stratfor, a leading US private intelligence agency. "They are saying if you don't stop meddling in our sphere of influence, this is what we are going to do.

"Back Georgia and Ukraine for Nato membership and you'll see the S-300 to Iran. It is a very powerful bargaining chip and a major deterrent to US actions in the region. Moscow is playing very strategically on America's obsession with Iran."

Moscow has been infuriated by the steady encroachment of Nato into the former Soviet bloc and the recent granting of independence to the ex-Serbian province of Kosovo against its wishes.

After American condemnation of Russia's foray into Georgia, Moscow invited Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad, a long-time US foe, to discuss military deals in a deliberate signal of how it could cause trouble for Washington.

A senior US intelligence operative who recently returned from the Middle East said Russia is believed to have struck a tentative deal to sell the S-300 to the Islamic regime. There are reports that Russia has already moved some basic components for the system to its close ally Belarus, ready for possible transfer to Iran.

"Moscow cannot simply threaten to strike the deal," the official told The Sunday Telegraph. "Iran certainly thinks it has a deal. And the Israelis believe that a deal has been reached but that they can still block it."

The outgoing Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is expected to pass that message on to his counterpart Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev when he visits Moscow next month. Israel has already ended military assistance to Georgia in an effort to placate Russia.

Russia has denied previous assertions by senior Iranians that a deal has already been finalised on the S-300.

Dan Goure, a long-time Pentagon adviser, said: "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's operational."

Dr Friedman said that if it became operational, it would effectively rule out Israeli air raids and seriously complicate any US aerial bombardment.

The system would take up to a year to become operational. In the meantime, Israel would come under heavy domestic pressure to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear plants, which the West believes are part of a secret atomic weapons programme but which Tehran claims are for civilian energy.

A senior Iranian military commander warned yesterday that any attack on Iran would start a major conflict. "Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement. "The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice."

[37]

this is likely just BS but just in case a Dutch paper - De Telegraaf has said the following -

One of the agents, who under the supervision of the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD managed to infiltrate into the Iranian industry, has recently been recalled, because in the U.S. the decision has been taken to attack Iran within a few weeks with unmanned aircraft.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/1796098/__Aanval_op_Iran_verwacht__.html?p=2,1

English translation -
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraaf.nl%2Fbinnenland%2F1796098%2F__Aanval_op_Iran_verwacht__.html%3Fp%3D2%2C1&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&sl=nl&tl=en

found at ATS
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread386244/pg1

Tehran has covered the Telegraaf article...

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=176638

  Dutch pull spies on Iran attack fears

-- The Dutch AIVD secret service has had an ultra-secret operation underway in Iran in recent years that was halted in connection with plans for a U.S. attack on Iran.

The respected newspaper De Telegraaf reported Friday the ""ultra-secret operation"" had as its aim infiltration and sabotage of the weapons industry in the Islamic Republic.

""The operation, described as extremely successful, was halted recently in connection with plans for an impending U.S. air attack on Iran. Along with this, targets would also be bombed which were connected with the Dutch espionage action,"" writes the Netherlands' biggest newspaper.

""One of the agents involved, who was able to infiltrate the Iranian industry under the supervision of the AIVD, was recently recalled because the U.S. was thought to be making a decision within weeks to attack Iran with unmanned aircraft.

Among the potential targets were said to be not only nuclear plants, but also military installations that have been brought to light partly by the agency of the AIVD,"" according to the newspaper.

""Information from the AIVD operation has in recent years been shared with the American CIA secret service,"" the paper continued. ""Various supplies could also be sabotaged and stopped. These were parts for missiles and launching equipment.""

The article was written by Joost de Haas, known for his good contacts in the intelligence world. Earlier, he got hold of an AIVD report which suggested that corrupt powers within Dutch police corps supplied weapons to criminals to liquidate other criminals.

[Brocke]

Attack, and it will be world war - Iran

By Hiedeh Farmani in Tehran

August 30, 2008 10:43pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse

A SENIOR military commander warned today that any attack on Iran would start a new world war, as Tehran pressed on with its controversial nuclear drive despite the risk of further UN sanctions.
"Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement carried by the state news agency IRNA.

Iran is under international pressure to halt uranium enrichment, a process which lies at the core of fears about Iran's nuclear program as it can make nuclear fuel as well as the fissile core of an atom bomb.

"The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice," Brig Jazayeri said, citing the unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Georgia.

"It is evident that if such a challenge occurs, the fake and artificial regimes will be eliminated before anything."

Iran does not recognise Israel, which is often described by officials in Tehran as a "fake regime" and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked international outrage saying it should be wiped off the map.

The US and its staunch ally Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear-armed nation, accuse Iran of seeking atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program.

Iran, a leading OPEC member, has vehemently denied the allegations, insisting its only wants to provide electricity for a growing population when its reserves of fossil fuels run out.

The US has never ruled out military action against Iran over its defiance of international demands for an enrichment freeze, but so far is pursuing the diplomatic route.

Iran has repeatedly vowed a crushing response to any attacks and has flexed military muscles in recent years by holding war games and showing off an array of home-grown weaponry including ballistic missiles.

Another top military commander said Iran was prepared to "take the enemies off-guard" and would unveil more weapons in case of an attack.

"Some of the equipment of our armed forces have been announced but there are important things hidden whose effect would be shown on the day (of any attack)," deputy army commander Abdolrahim Mousavi told Fars news agency.

"Offensives are part of the strategy of defence and if a country confines itself to its borders it has set a limit and eliminated part of its capability."

During war games in July which stoked international concern, aides to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that Iran would target US bases and US ships in the Gulf as well as Israel if it was attacked.

Iran also test-fired its Shahab-3 missile which it says puts Israel within range.

In recent months, several Israeli politicians have talked of the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities to avoid any possibility of Tehran acquiring an atomic weapon.

Iran has repeatedly said it has no intention of halting enrichment despite three sets of UN Security Council sanctions and US and EU sanctions on its banking system.

Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is currently operating about 4000 uranium enrichment centrifuges and installing several thousand more.

However, the country's first Russian-built nuclear power plant is yet to come online.

The Islamic republic risks further sanctions for failing to give a clear response to an incentives package offered in June by six world powers in return for a halt to the sensitive work.

World powers offered to start pre-negotiations with Iran during which Tehran would add no more uranium-enriching centrifuges and in return face no further sanctions.

The offer by permanent Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany included trade incentives and help with a civilian nuclear program.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24268892-23109,00.html

[Geolibertarian]

Attack, and it will be world war - Iran

By Hiedeh Farmani in Tehran

August 30, 2008 10:43pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse

A SENIOR military commander warned today that any attack on Iran would start a new world war, as Tehran pressed on with its controversial nuclear drive despite the risk of further UN sanctions.
"Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement carried by the state news agency IRNA.

Iran is under international pressure to halt uranium enrichment, a process which lies at the core of fears about Iran's nuclear program as it can make nuclear fuel as well as the fissile core of an atom bomb.

"The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice," Brig Jazayeri said, citing the unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Georgia.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating: the U.S. does not have the moral high ground on this issue, either generally...

• http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
• http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
• http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443

...or with particular regard to Iran:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F2ou0CqccI

And on top of all that, poor, innocent, defenseless Israel apparently already has nukes!

• http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm

Does the hypocrisy and hubris never end?

[Avers]

Does the hypocrisy and hubris never end?

It gets even better when you consider that Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty), giving it essentialy carte blanche on what they want to do with their arsenal of WMD, including production and all kinds of technological advancements currently forbidden under the NPT.

[Godfather77]

Russia threatens to supply Iran with top new missile system as 'cold war' escalates
31st Aug 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2651516/Russia-threatens-to-supply-Iran-with-top-new-missile-system-as-cold-war-escalates.html

Russia is deploying the threat to sell a "game changing" air defence system to Iran as a high stakes bargaining chip in its new "cold war" with America, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

US intelligence fears the Kremlin will supply the sophisticated S-300 system to Tehran if Washington pushes through Nato membership for its pro-Western neighbours Georgia and Ukraine.  The proposed deal is causing huge alarm in the US and Israel as the S-300 can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes up to 75 miles away.

That would make it a "game-changer", greatly improving Iranian defences against any air strike on its nuclear sites, according to Pentagon adviser Dan Goure. "This is a system that scares every Western air force," he said.

Senior US intelligence operatives believe that Russia is planning to use a stand-off over the S-300 to create a foreign policy showdown that would test the mettle of a new US president.

Republican candidate John McCain has taken a strongly anti-Kremlin line on a series of international issues and backed Georgia's desire to join Nato. His Democratic rival Barack Obama has also indicated he supports Nato membership for Georgia.

"The message from Moscow is very clear," said George Friedman, director of Stratfor, a leading US private intelligence agency. "They are saying if you don't stop meddling in our sphere of influence, this is what we are going to do.

"Back Georgia and Ukraine for Nato membership and you'll see the S-300 to Iran. It is a very powerful bargaining chip and a major deterrent to US actions in the region. Moscow is playing very strategically on America's obsession with Iran."

Moscow has been infuriated by the steady encroachment of Nato into the former Soviet bloc and the recent granting of independence to the ex-Serbian province of Kosovo against its wishes.

After American condemnation of Russia's foray into Georgia, Moscow invited Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad, a long-time US foe, to discuss military deals in a deliberate signal of how it could cause trouble for Washington.

A senior US intelligence operative who recently returned from the Middle East said Russia is believed to have struck a tentative deal to sell the S-300 to the Islamic regime. There are reports that Russia has already moved some basic components for the system to its close ally Belarus, ready for possible transfer to Iran.

"Moscow cannot simply threaten to strike the deal," the official told The Sunday Telegraph. "Iran certainly thinks it has a deal. And the Israelis believe that a deal has been reached but that they can still block it."

The outgoing Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is expected to pass that message on to his counterpart Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev when he visits Moscow next month. Israel has already ended military assistance to Georgia in an effort to placate Russia.

Russia has denied previous assertions by senior Iranians that a deal has already been finalised on the S-300.

Dan Goure, a long-time Pentagon adviser, said: "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's operational."

Dr Friedman said that if it became operational, it would effectively rule out Israeli air raids and seriously complicate any US aerial bombardment.

The system would take up to a year to become operational. In the meantime, Israel would come under heavy domestic pressure to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear plants, which the West believes are part of a secret atomic weapons programme but which Tehran claims are for civilian energy.

A senior Iranian military commander warned yesterday that any attack on Iran would start a major conflict. "Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," deputy chief of staff for defence publicity, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, said in a statement. "The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice."

[slimshady]

I for one hope they do.

[bigron]

French President Warns Iran Risks "Catastrophe" Of Israeli Strike

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080904\ACQDJON200809040432DOWJONESDJONLINE000449.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na


DAMASCUS (AFP)--French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Iran Thursday that its determination to press on with its controversial nuclear drive risked an Israeli strike that would be a "catastrophe."

"Iran is taking a major risk by continuing the process of seeking nuclear technology for military ends," Sarkozy said at a four-way summit in Damascus with the leaders of Syria, Qatar and Turkey.

"Because one day, no matter which Israeli government is in power, one morning we will awake to find Israel has attacked," Sarkozy said on the second day of a landmark visit to Syria.

"It's not a question of whether it is legitimate or intelligent or not...It would be a catastrophe, and we must avoid such a catastrophe."

Iran has consistently denied that its nuclear program is aimed at building an atomic bomb and says it wants only to generate energy for its growing population.

But Tehran risks a fourth round of U.N. sanctions over its failure to abide by international calls to freeze uranium enrichment, a process which makes nuclear fuel but can also be used to build the core of a nuclear weapon.

[bigron]

Congress is about to pour lighter fluid on Iran

By William O. Beeman

September 3, 2008
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/27827654.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr



The U.S. Congress may inadvertently lay the foundations for war against Iran when it reconvenes in Washington this month.
 

Two essentially identical nonbinding resolutions call upon President Bush to "immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities."

The House resolution has more than 200 cosponsors, including Minnesota Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Jim Ramstad. The Senate resolution has more than 30 cosponsors, including both Minnesota senators, Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar.

The methods for increased pressure differ slightly in the two resolutions. The House resolution calls for "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran. The Senate resolution does not call for the inspection of all goods but joins the House resolution in calling for an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran, which lacks the refining capacity to meet its need for gasoline. Achieving either goal would require a naval blockade — a de facto act of war on the part of the United States, though paradoxically both resolutions explicitly exclude authorization for military action.

Other provisions call for an economic embargo of banking operations, with the House resolution adding a prohibition of international movement on the part of Iranian officials.

Both resolutions have begun to cause alarm throughout the United States, and have caused several representatives to withdraw their cosponsorships. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., summed up the concerns in an article for the Huffington Post: "It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that ‘nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran’ that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as ‘a green light’ to use force against Iran."

According to the Jewish Daily Forward, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., offered an apology to a representative from the antiwar group Peace Action, saying, "I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully." He further told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, Mass., that he’s "all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I’m going to call the sponsors and tell them I’m changing my vote."

Both Wexler and Frank are assuming some risk, because they are opposing the powerful American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which had a strong hand in the drafting of both resolutions. Just days before the resolutions were introduced, AIPAC issued a memo outlining what should be done to put more pressure on Iran. The language of the memo mirrors the language of the resolutions. The introduction of the resolutions also conveniently coincided with AIPAC’s annual policy conference during which it had more than 7,000 people on Capitol Hill to lobby. Its top legislative priority was for cosponsorship of the resolutions. AIPAC is careful to avoid direct calls for military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities but makes no secret that it would support such an action by the United States or Israel.

The most unfortunate aspect of the two resolutions is that they contain numerous outright falsehoods, misinformation and alarmist exaggeration about Iran and its nuclear development program. Of the 23 clauses in the Senate resolution, only five present incontrovertible statements of fact. The many legislators who have signed on as cosponsors, having subscribed to this false information, could be attacked by the Bush administration if they oppose a later request for military attack, as happened in the Iraq invasion.

Sadly, these resolutions make it clear that the battle to stop a war with Iran is not over.

William O. Beeman is a professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, and is president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association. He has lived and worked in the Middle East for more than 30 years. His most recent book is "The ‘Great Satan’ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other."
 

© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
 

[Triadtropz]

Congress is a mean bunch of warriors...Is anyone taking the Russians seriously in there alliance with the Iranians?..this wont be a pushover like Iraq...